• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Rittenhouse trial to start soon, Judge is laying out rules.

Page 25 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
ivwshane said:
Does someone grabbing a gun away from someone automatically mean the person with the gun has the right to shoot them? So basically a person with a gun is always right? Is that the takeaway you were after?
Click to expand...

It pretty much does, yes. If a person decides to attempt to disarm someone that will provide justification to use the gun in self defence. Add in death threats and the armed person being chased and it’s a pretty good case.
 
Just saw an attorney on Fox News (shock) that actually felt like I do about the case, I couldn’t believe the host didn’t try to cut him off or argue with him. Of course it’s Sunday morning and not prime time.
 
ivwshane said:
Funny, we are thinking the same thing about you.

Using your fucked up logic only people with guns can defend themselves. Everyone else? Well I guess the dead aren’t really entitled to anything.
Click to expand...

My “fucked up logic” is what the law dictates and not what you might wish it to be. KR wasn’t committing armed robbery, or any other violence until Rosenbaum threatened him, chased him, and attempted to disarm him. Rosenbaum unfortunately chose to introduce violence into the situation.
 
rommelrommel said:
My “fucked up logic” is what the law dictates and not what you might wish it to be. KR wasn’t committing armed robbery, or any other violence until Rosenbaum threatened him, chased him, and attempted to disarm him. Rosenbaum unfortunately chose to introduce violence into the situation.
Click to expand...
What about after Kyle committed what people at the time could easily construe as a violent act?
 
Grosskreutz pointing a pistol at Rittenhouse is an imminent threat, but Rittenhouse pointing an AR-15 at Grosskreutz and others is not an imminent threat.

Am I understanding this correctly?

Funny how the usual respect and praise given to those who rush in to interfere with or stop the active shooter doesn't apply here, no? Just imagine how different the tune would be were Kyle black, or connected to antifa instead of the Proud Boys.
 
Last edited:
dank69 said:
Strange how you guys are okay with extra judicial execution of liberals for literally any petty crime but default to innocent until proven guilty in a court of law for conservatives no matter how severe the charges.
Click to expand...
What does any of this have to do with liberals and conservatives?
 
cytg111 said:
Everything left of center vs. Trumpism ... better? - and then there's "conservatives" that refuse to acknowledge the cluster fuck they're standing in 🙂.
Click to expand...
No it's not better. I made my comments based on what I've read or seen and my limited non-lawyer understanding, not what some political group believes.
 
ivwshane said:
Did he maybe that’s to specifically kill KR? Is there evidence of this?

So what you are saying is that if someone says something threatening to you in a prior interaction, you have every right to kill that person if they approach you?

That’s interesting. What law gives one that right? Is there some sort of time frame where all this must occur? Like an hour? A day? Several months or years ago?

Like if someone threatened to kill children and immigrants several years ago, do immigrants or children now have the right to kill that person if they are approached by said person (of course assuming they were aware of such threats)?
Click to expand...
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No
4.The right to defend yourself when you believe your life is in immediate danger.
5. Answered
6.No, unless it's a believable threat and they are in actual danger.
7. No made up bullshit applies.
 
kage69 said:
Grosskreutz pointing a pistol at Rittenhouse is an imminent threat, but Rittenhouse pointing an AR-15 at Grosskreutz and others is not an imminent threat.

Am I understanding this correctly?

Funny how the usual respect and praise given to those who rush in to interfere with or stop the active shooter doesn't apply here, no? Just imagine how different the tune would be were Kyle black, or connected to antifa instead of the Proud Boys.
Click to expand...

Or had gross just pulled the trigger. All of a sudden illegal firearms are bad again.
 
ivwshane said:
Someone with a gun can also create an easily reasonable belief of bodily harm for someone not with a gun.

I mean if we take a poll of what people fear most, do you think the majority would fear someone with a gun or someone who made threats to someone with a gun?
Click to expand...
This is a trial by law, it's not a poll. How hard can it be for you lefties?
 
dank69 said:
Strange how you guys are okay with extra judicial execution of liberals for literally any petty crime but default to innocent until proven guilty in a court of law for conservatives no matter how severe the charges.
Click to expand...
Strange how you and other lefties in here want to lynch Rittenhouse and you're just pissed you can't get a hand on the rope.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top