Panzer wrote:I mean, just in this case, the first guy Rittenhouse actually shot was a mentally unstable, violent predator who had threatened to kill him in a prior encounter. That alone should be a clue that the prosecution here did not have a case.
Wow, you really have
opinions on civil rights, don't you.
Okay, so according to you, if you shoot someone in what you believe to be self defence, you think that "the person I shot had a prior conviction" or "the person I shot has prior history of mental instability" is a factor
in your defence? Regardless of whether or not you know about that history? Regardless of whether or not these historic incidents resemble those you found yourself in?
I mean, congrats, welcome to literally every time a black person gets shot on spurious grounds by law enforcement, I guess.
Rittenhouse was under direct attack. There was literally a dude right in front of him, attacking him with a skateboard which would already justify Rittenhouse defending himself with the tools he had at hand, no, you need to go one step further and claim that his attacker's personal and criminal history (which,
again, Rittenhouse could not have known) justifies the shooting.
You had already made your case. Now you're just over-egging the pudding, and in the process, you have inadvertently made the statement that shooting an ex-con or a person with mental health issues should be easier to justify legally regardless of circumstance. Is that really the point you want to be making?
By "mental issues", I assume you knew I was referring to his suicide attempt and untreated bipolar disorder. Oh, by the way, he also had a history of violently attacking women. Rittenhouse would not have known of Rosenbaum's propensity for violence but the prosecution sure should have. Is it more likely that the "heavily armed" kid attacked a violent crazy person or that a violent crazy person attacked a kid?
That's the wrong question, my dude. The question to answer for a self-defence defence is "did the person defending themselves have reason to believe their life was in danger", not "did the victim have a criminal history". Rittenhouse believed himself to be in danger. Video evidence shows that that belief was justifiable. That's it. Done. The victim's history
doesn't and
shouldn't factor into it
unless that history is directly relevant (like, for example, in cases of domestic abuse, where a documented history of abuse would and should count in the evaluation).
I don't have to reach back any further than the night of his death to show that Rosenbaum was a turpitudinous individual.
And? Look, all I'm saying is that this after-the-fact rationalization you're doing is completely unnecessary. You've already won the argument. Well, Rittenhouse did, anyway.
Since he's dead, we can't speak to him personally, but we can infer from his prior conduct that he had a propensity for violence toward people weaker than himself, a history of mental illness, and a history of predatory behavior toward minors.
Rosenbaum could accurately be described as a pyromaniacal, violent, unmedicated, mentally ill, and abusive pedophile. Well, golly, gee. That was mean of me to characterize him thusly. Quick! Sue me for defamation. Oh wait! There's an absolute defense to that.
Not so much accurately as hyperbolically, but sure. Now, the questions I want you to answer are, in a self-defence case, when should the history of the person that got killed matter? Every time or just when it's strictly relevant to both parties?
Self-defence is a defense that relies on establishing the state of mind of the person defending themselves more than anything else. Their personal history, and their personal history with the person that attacked them absolutely matter - But when it comes to things like Rosenbaum's criminal or health history, arguing for these facts to be included in the evaluation when Rittenhouse had no way of knowing them strikes me as weird and silly. As I said earlier, there's already a strong case to be made based on the immediate circumstances of the attack, so why bring in all this extra bs?
Is it too late to make a joke about how Rosenbaum died trying to do something he enjoyed? That is, to inappropriately touch a minor. I mean, in Europe you probably can't because I'm sure that's as illegal as teaching your dog to make a Nazi salute, but, I'm not in Europe, so, there's that.
.... what is it with americans and believing Europe is a no-free-speech-ever zone?
Imaginos1892 wrote:Here’s a better question: Why has Galge Grosskreutz never been charged with illegal possession of a gun?
That crime truly would be an open-and-shut case. Grosskreutz is a convicted violent felon, shown on video with a gun. Possession of a gun by a felon violates those ‘reasonable gun control’ laws at both the federal and state level.
I've taken the liberty of bolding a part of your statement there. Can you guess why?
Yes, you probably can! I highlighted it both because it's what your entire rant hinges on and also because it's wrong.
There's a bunch of dismissed and expunged stuff in his
criminal history, he got a probation for a misdemeanor conviction for "intoxicated use of a firearm" in 2015, there's a couple other minor (non-violent) stuff in there. He was charged with a felony, but never convicted; thus, he wasn't a felon, thus he was violating relevant firearms laws only in so far as he was carrying a weapon in a concealed way without having a valid concealed-carry license (he did have an expired one).
So, Imaginos, given that I could find that out with literally a minute of googling... why can't you? Why can't the people you took that talking point from do so?