None of those cases were “self defense”. They were cases of cowardly racist assholes carrying weapons and looking for an excuse to shoot someone. Go fuck yourself.

Let's start with Rittenhouse. Why are you relieving Rosenbaum of any & all culpability? When Rosenbaum attacked Kyle, he was running to extinguish a car fire. A fact that ADA Binger acknowledged. Are you prepared to explain why the self-defense statute shouldn't have applied to Rittenhouse?

Rittenhouse crossed state lines as a minor with no Wisconsin hunters safety so he was not allowed to carry. He also entered a known conflict area so he lost his ability to claim self defense the minute he showed up armed and looking to escalate, he was not hired to provide security.

The self-defense statute only cares whether the person claiming self-defense after a use of deadly force reasonably believed that the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. It is a narrow enquiry. State lines and known conflicts are not really relevant.

"looking to escalate" Ironically, you just described Joseph Rosenbaum. Not Rittenhouse.

Looking To Escalate 🚫 Kyle walked around Kenosha for 7+ hrs w/o incident. There was no evidence presented during the trial to corroborate your claim. Otherwise, PROVE IT. That crucial piece of evidence eluded the prosecution despite 100's of potential witnesses & tons of video evidence.

Entering a known conflict area does not negate your right to self defense. Otherwise, PROVE IT. According to your logic, everyone in Kenosha that night forfeited their right to self defense. That's absurd. WI is an open carry state & Kyle was amongst 100's of people who were similarly armed.

Open carry for a CCA or in the case of a rifle if were born after 1973… wisconsin hunters safety is required… I live here have my CCA . Open carry you still have to have basic firearms safety from this state. He was from Illinois. Once he pointed a gun in the direction of a crowd self defense is off

That might be the intent of the exception to s.948.60 but the way it is worded, it does not actually mandate that the person under 18 be in possession of a hunter’s safety certificate for the exception to apply, and that is what was argued. Technicality? Maybe, but one that has not been corrected.

You're also wrong on the self defense statute. Even if Kyle was convicted of the gun charge, it was a misdemeanor & wouldn't negate his right to self defense. Kyle never pointed his firearm at anyone before his unprovoked attacks & he only neutralized those who attacked him first.

Even though you’re correct. I agree with the prosecutor on this. It went his way that time. Another judge in another county… not so sure. Also,you’re allowed to protect yourself in this state, but you’re not allowed to protect property.So if someone is stealing your car, you call but you cant shoot

It was not unlawful to protect property. It was not unlawful to be armed whilst protecting property. It is only unlawful to use deadly force to protect property. That crucial distinction between shooting to protect property and shooting to defend himself formed a prominent part of the trial.

So those people with semi autos “ protecting property “ technically all they are allowed to do is observe and call authorities… unless they’re personally under threat of great bodily harm.

Agreed. I never claimed that they could use deadly force. Rittenhouse didn't shoot anyone over property. He defended himself against unprovoked attacks. In the end, the prosecution agreed & conceded. Although the statute is convoluted, the exception in 3(c), if read carefully, makes it legal.

The whole premise of him going there was to protect a dealership with his buddy. But the other guy( the skateboard guy) was wrong. And the other dude who pulled out his pistol and got shot in the arm was also wrong as clearly Rittenhouse was fleeing. I made the assumption he pointed at crowd first

A basic firearms safety course is not required to open carry a long-barreled rifle in WI. 16-17 yo are not required to have adult supervision or a hunting requirement to open carry either. This was already litigated, covered & explained during the trial.

Explain why there was an effort AFTER the trial to add an exception (3d). State democrats wanted to add "hunting only" to include all minors. This was a direct response to the Rittenhouse trial. That measure failed & today, the law remains as originally written.

The last portion in which you have highlighted, to my understanding is the current law.

t.co/m4bmGmnt8R

Here's an article on the attempt to add the exception that ultimately failed to pass. www.cbs58.com/news/democra...

The current exception in WI SS 948.60(3c) allowed Rittenhouse to be legally armed. The push to add an exception (3d) failed. That would've included ALL minors to the "hunting only" requirement.

Kyle wasn't hunting. The certificate wasn't required. Per WI state law, 16-17 yo are legally permitted to open carry. The legality of the rifle was already litigated, covered & explained during the trial. The prosecution agreed & conceded.