The second and third shoots were clearly justifiable. How was the child molester still an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury after he threw the incendiary device?
Yeah. No harm no foul, right?
Measure the kid's actions against this element of WI law:
"The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself."
The kid and his lawyer will have to address the threat that this specific person presented at the time he was shot. To the best of my knowledge WI law doesn't allow retaliation.
Paul, it would appear your legal expertise is wasted here and would be far better put to use over on DU.
Slaves get what they need. Free men get what they want.
It could have been just the video clip being slowed down, but it appeared the the kid covered the no more bicep idiot with his muzzle, but held off lighting him up when the idiot hesitated and backed away from the kid...
Idiot, recalibrated, then dove forward at the kid with his G43? in hand. Then the kid hit the go button.
Excellent shoot/ no shoot awareness from the kid, if that was going through his mind.
😎
Curiosity Killed the Cat & The Prairie Dog “Molon Labe”
The second and third shoots were clearly justifiable. How was the child molester still an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury after he threw the incendiary device?
We don't know because we weren't there.
I ask, because it is going to be a key legal question.
There's going to be a lot of "key legal questions."
Despite popular opinion in 2020, not everything has to be on video to become evidence.
The second and third shoots were clearly justifiable. How was the child molester still an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury after he threw the incendiary device?
We don't know because we weren't there.
I ask, because it is going to be a key legal question.
There's going to be a lot of "key legal questions."
Despite popular opinion in 2020, not everything has to be on video to become evidence.
I understand that.
Stop digging then. This was a good shoot(s) on every level. The only downside is there was only on KIA instead of three or three dozen
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
Here is stabilized video that starts just after the brick throw. The kid literally ran as far as he could.
And yeah, I’ll take a kid running from a felon in the dark in that situation as a client all day. That was pure self defense. Further, I’ll bet you dollars to donuts said felon was hopped up on drugs as that his behavior was off the charts. There is even a tweet I’ve seen from a media source that said something to the effect that they knew that guy was going to get into his trouble as that his anger level was way more than the rest of the crowd.
The second and third shoots were clearly justifiable. How was the child molester still an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury after he threw the incendiary device?
Yeah. No harm no foul, right?
Measure the kid's actions against this element of WI law:
"The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself."
The kid and his lawyer will have to address the threat that this specific person presented at the time he was shot. To the best of my knowledge WI law doesn't allow retaliation.
Paul, it would appear your legal expertise is wasted here and would be far better put to use over on DU.
It doesn't take much legal expertise to understand that the question I asked will be an important part of the kid's defense. Lots of folks here are giving him a pass on that shoot, yet haven't been able to come close to answering the question.
The second and third shoots were clearly justifiable. How was the child molester still an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury after he threw the incendiary device?
Seriously
A guy is chasing you, probably yelling I'll kill you ( or shoot me nig ga). Then the guy throws either a brick or MTC at you, you are running away from him in fear of your life, most likely. You stop and turn to stand your ground and guy is still running at you.
You don't think shorty is a threat to kid? How does kid know shorty doesn't have a knife or handgun? Do you just stand there and wait for shorty to escalate and poke a hole in you before you can defend yourself?
You apparently haven't been in a fight other than with your cat, or you would realize things can go south fast. A guy chasing you is always a threat until he stops chasing you, and walks away. Let your guard down,and you might not see tomorrow.
I see lots of stupid folks on twitter posts, what handle do you go by?
The funniest I just read from the above posting link: It's all Trumps fault that he allowed the Corona to get here from China and the UK! Fug gin brain dead folks who hopefully can't figure out how to vote.
The kid's legal team with have to do much better than the above spew to establish specifically how the molester was an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. Try again.
The second and third shoots were clearly justifiable. How was the child molester still an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury after he threw the incendiary device?
We don't know because we weren't there.
I ask, because it is going to be a key legal question.
There's going to be a lot of "key legal questions."
Despite popular opinion in 2020, not everything has to be on video to become evidence.
We had the funny feeling this guy was going to get into trouble after watching his behavior in this clip. His anger was way above the crowds level pic.twitter.com/JO8K1GGMXU National Security News National Security News (@Natsecuritynews) August 27, 2020
It doesn't take much legal expertise to understand that the question I asked will be an important part of the kid's defense. Lots of folks here are giving him a pass on that shoot, yet haven't been able to come close to answering the question.
I answered your question in clear language. Did you read it?
Here is stabilized video that starts just after the brick throw. The kid literally ran as far as he could.
And yeah, I’ll take a kid running from a felon in the dark in that situation as a client all day. That was pure self defense. Further, I’ll bet you dollars to donuts said felon was hopped up on drugs as that his behavior was off the charts. There is even a tweet I’ve seen from a media source that said something to the effect that they knew that guy was going to get into his trouble as that his anger level was way more than the rest of the crowd.
It doesn't take much legal expertise to understand that the question I asked will be an important part of the kid's defense. Lots of folks here are giving him a pass on that shoot, yet haven't been able to come close to answering the question.
I saw clearly in one video that after chasing Rittenhouse down the street, then throwing the makeshift weapon at him, Rosenbaum continued to charge Rittenhouse as he was backed up against a car. Rosenbaum ran at him full speed, with his head down, and appeared to scream, "F u c k you!" right before Rittenhouse fired what sounds like 4 shots, striking Rosenbaum in the side of the head with one shot. THAT ended the altercation. It wasn't over when Rosenbaum threw whatever he threw.
It doesn't take much legal expertise to understand that the question I asked will be an important part of the kid's defense. Lots of folks here are giving him a pass on that shoot, yet haven't been able to come close to answering the question.
I answered your question in clear language. Did you read it?
Yep. The video posted just above shoes a single man small in stature closing the distance on a retreating person (if I am seeing the grainy video correctly)
Where this gets interesting to me is the "mob" aspect. I'd like to read some case law on how the "mob" aspect is factored into the perceived threat. At the time of the use of self defense, There was only one member of the mob in close proximity.
It doesn't take much legal expertise to understand that the question I asked will be an important part of the kid's defense. Lots of folks here are giving him a pass on that shoot, yet haven't been able to come close to answering the question.
I saw clearly in one video that after chasing Rittenhouse down the street, then throwing the makeshift weapon at him, Rosenbaum continued to charge Rittenhouse as he was backed up against a car. Rosenbaum ran at him full speed, with his head down, and appeared to scream, "F u c k you!" right before Rittenhouse fired what sounds like 4 shots, striking Rosenbaum in the side of the head with one shot. THAT ended the altercation. It wasn't over when Rosenbaum threw whatever he threw.
I've already explained that to him, but he must have me on ignore.
Where this gets interesting to me is the "mob" aspect. I'd like to read some case law on how the "mob" aspect is factored into the perceived threat. At the time of the use of self defense, There was only one member of the mob in close proximity.
The mob/riot makes up the context within which the events took place. The attacker was a member/participant of said mob/riot.
Where this gets interesting to me is the "mob" aspect. I'd like to read some case law on how the "mob" aspect is factored into the perceived threat. At the time of the use of self defense, There was only one member of the mob in close proximity.
The mob/riot makes up the context within which the events took place. The attacker was a member of said mob/riot.
Are you aware of any case law involving a mob where the person defended himself by shooting an individual mob member?
