Kyle Rittenhouse Trial (Jacob Blake Protest Shooting)



5D3AAC39-60CE-4E3E-9FCC-F4D600960DC2.gif
 
Bow to Royalty said:
I agree with your first point. I've said it a bunch of times in here. But nobody has come out saying dude had a reason. A witness has said Rosenbaum just pushed up on him, and the kid ran away. So I'm going off that for now. But if he didn't have a valid reason to be chasing/attacking him...self defense?

Your back is more than your spine. You can be engaged with someone and turn to get shot somewhere besides the front of you. Could also have just hit him as he was dropping and caught him in the back. I dunno.
Click to expand...

To me the whole back narrative is beside the point. It's perfectly possible that the dude got shot and spun around hit again and that's why he caught the shot in the back. Looking at the video, I think it's clear that dude kept shooting even after he was no longer in danger. That's the part that I think would draw his claim to self defense in question. Once the primary pursuer is laying on the ground leaking and everybody else was running away, why was he still shooting?
 
The Lonious Monk said:
To me the whole back narrative is beside the point. It's perfectly possible that the dude got shot and spun around hit again and that's why he caught the shot in the back. Looking at the video, I think it's clear that dude kept shooting even after he was no longer in danger. That's the part that I think would draw his claim to self defense in question. Once the primary pursuer is laying on the ground leaking and everybody else was running away, why was he still shooting?
Click to expand...

So you think shooting him initially was self-defense, but he continued his shooting too long? Just to clarify, you're talking about those 4 quick shots? Because I don't think the 3 that followed were at the guy he killed.

That's a judgement call that I can see people falling on either side of. Fair stance to take. I can see people saying he could have stopped, and people saying that was less than 2 seconds (if we're talking about the 4 quick shots that dropped him) of someone in an extreme situation, and they're not expected to react that fast. To me if I go from shooting you to done shooting in like 1.5 seconds in a self defense situation, I didn't take a bunch of extra shots.
 
Bow to Royalty said:
@The Lonious Monk I can post the other 2 people he shot (that people don't call self defense) if you want to discuss those too.
Click to expand...

I don't really need to see. I think when it comes to the actual shooting, it's reasonable for people to fall on either side. I look at this almost like a George Zimmerman case though. Did Zimmerman think Trayvon was going to do serious damage to him? Maybe he did. Maybe he was getting that ass whooped, but does that mean he was innocent in killing Trayvon? In my opinion, no, because none of that would have ever happened if he hadn't taken it upon himself to try and intimidate a kid just minding his own business.

The same is the case here. Rittenhouse grabbed a gun, went to another state, got in altercations with people at the protests (video evidence), tried to intimidate protesters (witness accounts), and ended up shooting and killing people after they had gotten tired of his shit and turned on him. Maybe he really did fear for his life when he shot, but he's not innocent. He never would have been in danger if he hadn't provoked the protesters. And the question with him is the same with Zimmerman. If he didn't have any desire to kill people, why did he grab a gun and do his best to provoke a response out of those people?
 
People are idiot's man America can't afford a civil war at this point in history. Especially, if they want to remain a top country
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top