[austinallison]

100% self defense case. Why did they charge him with 1st degree murder? Because they know it will be tossed out easily and they were hoping to satiate the BLM and Antifa losers. Rittenhouse was seen in other videos offering assistance to injured BLM and Antifa losers. He didn't go there looking to hurt anybody, but he was armed to defend himself from a violent mob of losers who have been known to violently attack people who stand in their way.

But let's look at the losers who dug their own grave:

Anthony Huber:

-Domestic Abuse, Battery
-Domestic Abuse, Strangulation/Suffocation
-Domestic Abuse, Use of Weapon
-Felony Reckless Engangerment
-Tried to bash someone with a skateboard and got shot

Joseph Rosenbaum

-Registered sex offender for sex crime with a MINOR
-Tried to assault person and got shot

Gaige Grosskreutz:

-Member of PPM
-Intoxicated and armed with a gun charges
-Chased after innocent person with a hand gun and got shot in the arm

Anyone who thinks this is anything but self defense is depraved and has no moral compass.

[SimoneFlen']

Originally Posted by austinallison ↗

Anyone who thinks this is anything but self defense is depraved and has no moral compass.

Initially, everyone could only go on by what they had seen. Now we're getting more details, reports + videos, we can piece the whole thing together correctly.

[Dr Thrumpkinz]

Originally Posted by Killgaad ↗

LOL, 'Babel babble'... guilty as-charged.

No, no, I wasn't saying you babble.
We were talking about European Union shenanigans, then you called Steve a "Nimrod".
The EU headquarters in Brussels was designed based upon the drawings of the unfinished Tower Of Babel in the book of Genesis, and in that story it is said that the Tower was being built by King Nimrod--high enough to fight God, or some such thing.
You see?

[Twisted_Claim23]

He demonstrated intent when he chose to go to that state with his rifle - breaking the age limit for owning a deadly weapon along the way - and demonstration of intent puts people behind bars.

He's gonna be eaten alive when he puts on that orange jumpsuit.

[Hellmouth]

So yeah he was defending himself in the moment. We agree on that. The law is specific though. There's nothing that will justify an armed 17 year old taking a stand for property that isn't his. Especially when the situation isn't life threatening to the people within the buildings at risk. If he was legit licensed armed security hired to be there and of the age required to obtain such a job legally then it'd be cut and dry. If he lived there or owned the property he was defending then it would be a little more gray these days but still obviously a defense case. To travel out of state armed and get involved where he didn't need to, nor have any legal justification or obligation to be there is a crime. Best bet they'll let him plea for a reduced sentence but he's not gonna get off. Ever heard the term justice is blind? It's a bitch, we all agree police need reform in some ways. Total abolition of the police will simply create thousands of stories like this. You're looking at community policing in action. A bunch of mis informed people and kids clashing over ideals on the street leaving a trail of bodies. It's a shit idea and the chief of police really did put it into the right context. Don't go out and look for trouble or you will probably find it. If there's a curfew just stay in and let the fire burn itself out. If it's your property or life at risk then do something about it, but don't expect reasonable actions to be taken by drunken or high rioters, and definitely not by a child with a rifle. This isn't Iwo Jima, this is Wisconsin.

[Dr Thrumpkinz]

Originally Posted by austinallison ↗

Anyone who thinks this is anything but self defense is depraved and has no moral compass.

Originally Posted by Simone ↗

Initially, everyone could only go on by what they had seen. Now we're getting more details, reports + videos, we can piece the whole thing together correctly.

Yes but how can it be self defense when the child's Hershey's Kiss-like body is what he was defending? This is not as open and shut as we may all think. Someone who looks like he does had no business defending himself.
He should have been tattered up like a beachball in a cage full of angry Parrots the day he was born. Or at the very least, whatever day it was he took that photo of himself impersonating a lesbian policewoman.

[Dr Thrumpkinz]

Originally Posted by Twisted_Claim23 ↗

He demonstrated intent when he chose to go to that state with his rifle - breaking the age limit for owning a deadly weapon along the way - and demonstration of intent puts people behind bars.

He's gonna be eaten alive when he puts on that orange jumpsuit.

Alucard.

[Pawloskit]

Originally Posted by Hellmouth ↗

So yeah he was defending himself in the moment. We agree on that. The law is specific though. There's nothing that will justify an armed 17 year old taking a stand for property that isn't his. Especially when the situation isn't life threatening to the people within the buildings at risk. If he was legit licensed armed security hired to be there and of the age required to obtain such a job legally then it'd be cut and dry. If he lived there or owned the property he was defending then it would be a little more gray these days but still obviously a defense case. To travel out of state armed and get involved where he didn't need to, nor have any legal justification or obligation to be there is a crime. Best bet they'll let him plea for a reduced sentence but he's not gonna get off. Ever heard the term justice is blind? It's a bitch, we all agree police need reform in some ways. Total abolition of the police will simply create thousands of stories like this. You're looking at community policing in action. A bunch of mis informed people and kids clashing over ideals on the street leaving a trail of bodies. It's a shit idea and the chief of police really did put it into the right context. Don't go out and look for trouble or you will probably find it. If there's a curfew just stay in and let the fire burn itself out. If it's your property or life at risk then do something about it, but don't expect reasonable actions to be taken by drunken or high rioters, and definitely not by a child with a rifle. This isn't Iwo Jima, this is Wisconsin.

Finally an intelligent comment. My opinion, he is a 17 year old child, he definitely should not have been there in the first place. This is real life, not a video game. With the information I’ve read it seems more of self defense. If I put myself in his shoes, at 17, I would have been scared for my life being chased down by adults. I, at 17, also would not have driven across state lines with an AR-15 and put myself in the middle of unrest. It’s definitely a gray situation. None of those people should have put themselves into that situation. Loss of life is unfortunate.

[Stevieaitch]

Go Kyle

[chris]

This was not self defense, at least not in any type of legal definition.