15
   

Kyle Rittenhouse question

 
 
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2021 05:14 pm
I had a question listening to the coverage of the trial and maybe the Legal Eagles here can help answer it. If someone commits a crime and flees, can they claim self-defense if they subsequently kill someone chasing them? Say someone kills a bank guard during a robbery and is pursued by bystanders. If they kill said bystanders trying to escape, is that additional murder or just self-defense? What if the people pursuing are police officers who are clearly armed? This is an honest question. I heard in the coverage the first killing is questionable but the second one sounds like self-defense. It seems to me if you are fleeing from committing a crime, all subsequent actions are also crimes.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 15 • Views: 5,817 • Replies: 230

 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2021 05:21 pm
@engineer,
How is the first killing at all questionable? Rittenhouse was clearly fleeing, and Rosenbaum the attacker was advancing on him screaming threats.

I think this is wishful thinking.

0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2021 05:44 pm
@engineer,
There is no evidence that Rittenhouse intended to kill anyone.

Painting him as a a patriotic defender is ridiculous. Painting him as a bloodthirsty killer is equally ridiculous.

He was a pathetic clueless kid with a gun, and the people who attacked him are idiots. Attacking someone who has an assault rifle with a skate isn't heroic. It is fantastically dumb.

There is no way this was murder. Everyone involved was acting idiotically and predictably people got killed.


0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  0  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2021 05:57 pm
https://i.imgur.com/5vkc8EW.png
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2021 07:06 pm
engineer wrote:
If someone commits a crime and flees, can they claim self-defense if they subsequently kill someone chasing them? Say someone kills a bank guard during a robbery and is pursued by bystanders. If they kill said bystanders trying to escape, is that additional murder or just self-defense? What if the people pursuing are police officers who are clearly armed? This is an honest question.

My take:

If you understand that the pursuers are only trying to apprehend you, then you have no right to fire in self defense.

If you have a reasonable belief that the pursuers mean to murder you, then you have the right to fire in self defense, although if you kill a police officer under such circumstances you will end up needing to convince a jury that the police officer was actually trying to murder you.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2021 07:54 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
I'm not really asking about whether you think he is guilty or innocent, more to the question of can the first shooting be murder but the subsequent one be self defense. That is what was reported and I thought once you commit murder (if it is so found) that all subsequent actions would be considered criminal as well.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2021 08:13 pm
@engineer,
The implication is that after this point it's open season on the kid and that anyone is free to attack him?

I don't think that makes sense. Police aren't allowed to shoot a suspect unless she presents an immediate danger... You are never given free reign to assult someone.
0 Replies
 
gingercookiegal
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2021 10:45 pm
@engineer,
He wasn't fleeing from committing a crime. Everything that happened was caught on tape. he killed those boys in self defense. That child molester told him that he was going to kill him and then grabbed his gun. That other criminal tried to murder him. Kyle Rittenhouse is innocent and it's ridiculous that this even went to trial. Joe Biden and the media have called him a white supremacist and the media has bald faced lied about him. Just like they did about that boy from Kentucky with the MAGA hat. This is why nobody trusts the media. Can someone explain to me how a white boy shooting 3 other white boys makes him a white supremacist? Kyle Rittenhouse should be allowed to sue every news channel that lied about him as well as sue the Biden administration for defamation. I got banned off from facebook just because I wrote the words "Kyle Rittenhouse is a American hero". That's all I wrote and I got banned. Becuase the social media companies are all communists. I wish I could cook this poor boy some good food. Made me tear up when I saw him crying. A teenage boy doesn't deserve to have his life ruined because it helps the rich democrats, that's evil. And if you look around on social media, you will see all these people lying about this even though the facts have been proven. None of these people will admit that they were wrong and that Kyle is innocent.
0 Replies
 
gingercookiegal
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2021 11:08 pm
The democrat prosecutor also violated the constitution by trying to use kyle's right to remain silent against him. I've never seen a bigger scumbag lawyer and I've seen a lot! The man was harrasing a teenager on stand, badgering the witness and asking him dumb questions like why he was running away from a fire. These people are trying to make it so that if a communist points a gun at you, you are just supossed to let them murder you without fighting back. That's what happened in Missouri with that couple defending thier home against rioters
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2021 11:36 pm
@engineer,
I find it difficult to follow the trial. The statements are always changing, and I wish I could offer an opinion but it seems so scrambled right now.
0 Replies
 
neptuneblue
 
  2  
Reply Sat 13 Nov, 2021 12:56 am
@engineer,
This "kid" may or may not be found guilty of murder, but you'd have to admit, he is monumentally screwed. There's no going back after the knowledge of killing two people and wounding a third. To me, the failings of his parents, schools, friends and society has allowed this happen.

He'll need severe psychiatric help the rest of his life. He shouldn't ever be trusted to make his own decisions ever again and be placed under Conservatorship. Since he is only 18, he should be confined to an institution at least for five years, to allow his brain to process his actions and rehabilitate his thought patterns.

Sad, no matter how the verdict goes.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 13 Nov, 2021 01:11 am
@neptuneblue,
neptuneblue wrote:
This "kid" may or may not be found guilty of murder, but you'd have to admit, he is monumentally screwed.

Only if he is unjustly convicted. Hopefully that will not happen.


neptuneblue wrote:
He'll need severe psychiatric help the rest of his life.

I'm fine with this being provided so long as it is voluntary.

Progressives should be forced to pay all the costs.


neptuneblue wrote:
He shouldn't ever be trusted to make his own decisions ever again and be placed under Conservatorship. Since he is only 18, he should be confined to an institution at least for five years, to allow his brain to process his actions and rehabilitate his thought patterns.

Nonsense.

Why do progressives always want to violate people's civil liberties?
neptuneblue
 
  2  
Reply Sat 13 Nov, 2021 01:21 am
@oralloy,
He killed two people and wounded a third.

That ain't normal.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 13 Nov, 2021 01:26 am
@neptuneblue,
It is perfectly normal for anyone who defends themselves from a progressive lynch mob.
neptuneblue
 
  2  
Reply Sat 13 Nov, 2021 01:30 am
@oralloy,
You are ignoring the psychological impact of killing another human.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 13 Nov, 2021 01:38 am
@neptuneblue,
I am fine with providing him with treatment if he wants. And I'm fine with making progressives pay all the bills for his treatment.

What you proposed would revictimize him all over again.
neptuneblue
 
  2  
Reply Sat 13 Nov, 2021 01:48 am
@oralloy,
If you're willing to call him a victim, that's all the more reason he needs professional psychiatric rehabilitation.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 13 Nov, 2021 01:58 am
@neptuneblue,
Voluntary, fine.

Your proposal to forcibly institutionalize him is a form of abuse that would revictimize him.
neptuneblue
 
  2  
Reply Sat 13 Nov, 2021 02:01 am
@oralloy,
He killed two people and wounded a third. He will never walk away from that. To not recognize that is failing him all over again.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 13 Nov, 2021 02:16 am
@neptuneblue,
neptuneblue wrote:
He killed two people and wounded a third. He will never walk away from that. To not recognize that is failing him all over again.

Where did you get the idea that I don't recognize that? I merely reject the idea of revictimizing him all over again.

Let's put it this way: Do you think that all rape victims should be automatically committed to mental institutions and never be trusted to make their own decisions again?

Or do you think that such a policy would revictimize rape victims all over again?
 

Related Topics

Martin/Zimmerman Case: Jury Selection - Discussion by gungasnake
The Slender Man Murder Case - Discussion by tsarstepan
Three cheers for the FBI. - Discussion by izzythepush
Chicago now a war zone - Discussion by gungasnake
Solving bank robberies the hard way... - Discussion by gungasnake
Flouri-DUH vs Shellie Zimmerman - Discussion by gungasnake
Stealing pop and skittles - Discussion by gungasnake
DB Cooper may be in FBI's sights - Discussion by edgarblythe
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Kyle Rittenhouse question
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/29/2022 at 04:54:55