• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Rittenhouse, the proof is in the pudding....

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Two People, Murderer?
Someone attempting to shoot someone who got shot instead, is called the unfortunate attemted murderer killed by a victim.
Did you see the full video?
Did you see how he was twice attacked by someone attempting to shoot him?
How another man attacked him with a scateboard?
He did not shoot anyone else, eccept his assailents!

Not like BLM and ANTIFA activist, Reinoehl who killed Aaron J. Danielson, from Patriot Prayer in cold blood, when he was unarmed.
Remember how the leftist media tried to make Reinoehl out as non BLM?
Well, from where I am standing, the USA have huge problems with BLM and Antifa. They are terrorists, killers, and the Dem leaders never hesetated to use them to create chaos, and with your leftist media, tried to blame the Conservatists.

Anyhow, the evidence from the state witnesses already shows that Rittenhouse should be given a medal for his bravery and military skils.
Let's assume for argument's sake that Rittenhouse really did think that he was justified in shooting the first person.

Even when someone shoots in self-defense, he would be a fool to think that he wouldn't be disarmed, detained, and questioned by the police until they were satisfied that the shooting really was in self-defense. Shooting someone in self-defense doesn't give you the right to shoot your way out.

OTOH, put yourself in Grosskreutz's shoes: you know that Rittenhouse has just killed two people and has the means to kill again. It would have been entirely justified for Grosskreutz to shoot Rittenhouse.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Nope, the fact are, He killed people who wanted to kill him!
Huge difference!
And he didn't want to kill the people he killed?

The gun fetishists like to say that the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Well, if someone who has just killed two people and is still brandishing their gun isn't a situation that calls for a "good guy with a gun," what would be?
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Do the circumstances of the killing not matter?
Legally, they make a huge difference.

Consider....
Woman Shoots, Critically Wounds Intruder In Kensington, Philadelphia Police Say
It's clear that self defense justifies shooting.
With Rittenhouse, that's to be determined...among other things...
- His illegally possessing that rifle.
- His irresponsibility carrying it among demonstrators.

I said in my first post on this thread on that the court will decide. Seems a lot of people here have already decided.

The circumstances don't matter to the fact people have been killed, families have lost loved ones.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
And he didn't want to kill the people he killed?

The gun fetishists like to say that the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Well, if someone who has just killed two people and is still brandishing their gun isn't a situation that calls for a "good guy with a gun," what would be?

These are subjective opinions.
Obviously when there is a footage, which is incredibly clear and high quality, well...it is not possible to interpret the facts.

If they hadnt chased him, he would have never fallen down. And he would have never shot at them.
And they would be still alive.

As for the penal law, only the condicio sine qua non matters
 
Top