Rittenhouse Case Is Being Used To Remove The Right To Self-Defense From Regular Americans

submitted by [deleted] from youtube.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

Provocation (R pointing his AR-semi at protestors, per the drone footage)

timestamp/picture or it didn't happen. binger is not an objective observer.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

I didn't make this up. It's part of the trial, here, and available in various other locations online, along with other videos.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

The drone footage shown in court on Tuesday showed Rosenbaum, 36, following Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse suddenly turned and fired his rifle.

So they weren't 'responsing' to Kyle, they were chasing him. Brandishing a weapon is a crime. Trained legal gun owners don't go waving it around like jackasses. Like the bicep guy did. "pointing his AR-semi at protestors" never happened, aside from the very end with bicep guy, where kyle is clearly cornered.

So we're back to self defense and your 'responding' argument is empty.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

If the 'responding' argument were empty, there would not be 6 significant, appropriate charges against R. Naturally, there are laws against provoking violence and killing people without good reason. There are a number of ways he provoked the responses (one of which was pointing his gun) that caused the deaths and wounding of others. As noted in the link I mentioned above:

The drone footage shown in court on Tuesday showed Rosenbaum, 36, following Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse suddenly turned and fired his rifle. Rosenbaum was shown to fall as Rittenhouse ran around a car....

Kelley said Rosenbaum was shot four times: in the groin, hand and thigh as he faced Rittenhouse and then in the back. Prosecutor James Kraus called that the “kill shot”.

This is not self-defense, and it provoked others to respond to R, who was clearly a danger to those around him.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

If the 'responding' argument were empty, there would not be 6 significant, appropriate charges against R.

Appeal to authority, or something. Face it, Rosenbaum was a rabid dog and has all of the blood on his hands. They should have kept him in the psych ward.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'll admit i know nothing about Rosenbaum, while also pointing out that absolutely nothing about him is relevant to the trial. I am not appealing to authority at all. I am appealing to all those who don't want people with guns to start shooting at random people just because the gun snowflakes are scared of us, or you, or anyone. This has nothing to do with authority. It's why we have laws against the homicides and reckless endangerment and age restructions for guns. Without those basic laws there would be anarchy, as it would be legal to gun down people the way Rittenhouse did. If you support his actions, you support the right for someone to murder you if they don't like the way you are walking toward them.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'll admit i know nothing about Rosenbaum, while also pointing out that absolutely nothing about him is relevant to the trial.

Thank you. I accept your resignation.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

ha ha

[–]Zapped 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You "forgot" to mention that Rosembaum had verbally taunting and trying to provoke him, plus cornered and attacked him with an object while gunshot rang out from his direction. I find it odd that you start and stop blame with Rittenhouse for legally carrying a firearm. You say that he was walking around pointing at people unprovoked and that is the sole point of blame in this situation. Post video proof of that and I will support you in your argument that that is strongly irresponsible and dangerous.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are saying it's ok to riot, destroy property, and attack people, but it's not ok to non-lethally defend property and then lethally defend yourself if you are physically attacked with the intent to maim or kill.