Illinois teen arrested in fatal shooting at Kenosha protest, police say

It's not since this was the que of the kid who supports a violent far right wing gang, to turn around and aim his gun towards where he thought the gunshots were coming from.

George Zimmerman shows it's perfectly legit to chase down an innocent person and end up killing the person who you were hunting down.
The chase doesn't matter. The thing that matters is assault. And the kid assaulted first and so there is no claim he was defending himself.

 

And that's when Kyle Rittenhouse saw the hostile attacker who had been chasing him come charging directly at him in a manner that made it perfectly reasonable and legal to defend himself. The gunshots did not, in any way, negate Kyle Rittenhouse's legal right to defend himself against a charging attacker.

The eyewitness that YOU NAMED contradicts that claim. He testified, under oath, that Kyle Rittenhouse was aiming his weapon low and at the ground, and he only brought the weapon up to engage as his attacker(a convicted child rapist) was lunging at him.

George Zimmerman shows that it's perfectly legit to defend yourself against an unarmed person who is attacking you.

Hint: NOT GUILTY

 

I sourced something else and what he said under oath.

George Zimmerman fundamentally showed that it's perfectly fine to chase somebody down, and so that little violent far right wing gang supporter has zero rights to aim a gun on "George Zimmerman" and start an assault.

And the likes of you brought up who chased who for almost 80 pages as if it matters, while it does not.

 

Yeah, you sourced the guy who contradicted the false claim you made above. I know.

George Zimmerman fundamentally showed that it's perfectly fine to defend yourself against an unarmed person who is attacking you.

See: The State of Florida Vs. George Zimmerman

Verdict: NOT GUILTY

 

It's the same guy. He said something else under oath.
You're just ignoring it since it doesn't fit your agenda. Rather pathetic.
It's not as if anybody would value a vid on yootoob higher than what has been said under oath in court.

You wrote "If, as you claim, aiming a gun at a person is illegal assault".... and I proved this. A lawyer did this at a BLM rally, and admitted to be guilty in court.
You brought up George Zimmerman, who prove chasing down somebody still gives you the right to defend yourself against a (deadly) assault.

 

How come George Zimmerman's self defense claim wasn't nullified by the fact that he assaulted Trayvon Martin by aiming a gun at him? Isn't that how that works? It seems like that might not be the way it works.

See: The State of Florida Vs. George Zimmerman

Verdict: NOT GUILTY

 

Because, as the story goes, Martin was smashing the head of Zimmerman against the pavement on repeat before Zimmerman pulled his gun and shot Martin. THAT was used to prove it was self defense. That little violent far right wing gang supporter got no such defense going.

 

its been pointed out several times that you can legally point a gun at someone in self defense, so it does not matter if he pointed a gun at someone chasing him, it does not matter if someone else shot at him first, and it does not matter if he first pointed at the ground or pointed directly at him like you are saying. It does not matter. A violent rioter that was trying to burn down (and blow up) a gas station was chasing him. He has ever right to point his gun at him, and if that same person does not change his mind and run away but instead continues with his assault.. you can shoot him in self defense. Every point you are trying to make here is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is a very violent person was chasing him and he used his gun to save himself

 

wow wow wow...
You're assuming that the guy gunned down was a violent rioter trying to burn down a gas station, and present that as fact. There is no such fact.
What is a fact, is that kid is a supporter of a violent far right wing white nationalistic gang.

You claim that ones you get chased that the other party has a right to assault (pointing a weapon is assault).
Trayvon Martin assaulted George Zimmerman when he was chased down. Trayvon had no such rights, and George rightfully killed Trayvon after chasing him around.
We all know that case, or should be aware of it.

 

yes the guy (pedophile) that got shot was a violent rioter who lit a dumpster on fire and they where going to try and push it into the gas station, one of Kyles friends put out the fire with a fire extinguisher and the guy lost his **** screaming for someone to "shoot me Nig*^%" and trying to fight them. He was later trying to start another fire and Kyle was the one who put it out and then he went crazy again and started chasing Kyle, then Kyle got shot at, turned around and they guy lunged for him and then he pointed his gun and shot him. There is a video of the events, I suggest you watch it

And i'm not making any claims about George Zimmerman, I'm pointing out WI Law. and everything you have pointed to is irrelevant in WI law

 

Nope. They were going towards that gas station. But it's not as if anybody came forward stating that they agreed that this was a plan that they were going to do. So far it just a dumpster being lit and pushed around. And you know... that does not make the people who do that "violent rioters".

using the N-word and yelling around... does not make somebody a "violent rioter". You're just desperately dragging all kinds of nonsense in that does not matter at all.

That is indeed what matters. Kyle thought he got shot at, and so turned around right on the que when he heard a gunshot and aimed his weapon. The thing is: the idiot wasn't shot at one bit, and he aimed his weapon at a person not related but just the closest person he saw. Aiming your weapon like that, is assaulting... which gives others the right to defend themselves. Do recall that even when a lawyer in his closed of community saw a BLM rally march right in front of him, and so him being scared... is still a lawyer assaulting people. He got convicted over it, and he pleaded even to be guilty of it.

His name got mentioned, not by me.. and you're responding to this. We all know Zimmerman chased down a kid, and that did not give that kid ANY rights to assault Zimmerman. In fact, the person who did the chasing was giving the FULL RIGHTS to defend himself from being assaulted. This is the same thing.

 

NO it doesn't, you just made that up.

 

well you can make a strong argument that they are terrorists I suppose. But either definition works when it comes to defending yourself against them. This was not a peaceful protest, over 100 buildings where damaged and 40 burned to the ground..

https://abc7chicago.com/kenosha-shooting-protest-looting-fires/6402998/

you thinking that is nonsense just shows you do not understand how the law works.
For self defense you need to reasonably believe that threatening, pointing a gun, or using force is necessary to prevent death or bodily harm. So how the pedo was acting right before he got shot absolutely does matter. He was trying to fight a group of well armed individuals and acting like a lunatic. So any reasonable person would perceive him as a threat.

this is irrelevant because you can feel threatened by more then one person at the same time. And the Pedo started the chase, he started the conflict so at the very beginning when Kyle started running from him he was perceived as a threat, otherwise why would he run? The gunfire was just what turned it from running to fighting, but just because there was another threat does not mean that the original threat you are running from is no longer a threat.

Laws are different from state to state, and in Zimmerman case he was talking to the police and stated to run after him and the dispatcher told him to stop.. so he did. It was Martin who then went after Zimmerman so not sure what point your trying to make here, and eye witnesses confirmed Zimmermans side of the story which is why he was found not guilty. But it really doesnt have much to do with the case here for Kyle

 

This is one of the funnier posts I've read today, "yeah, well, they committed arson, but that doesn't make them "violent rioters".

My friend, pedo and his pals were a textbook example of violent rioters.

 

No. That was a general comment about the forum. Chauvin was guilty.

 

Although only partially so. The judge imposed an unjustly long sentence, considering the situation.

It's not fair to just write people off and throw them under the bus just because their actions were not completely perfect and they're partially guilty.

 

It's almost as funny as the assertions that the guy who shot a pedo was a racist, yet the pedo who was yelling "shoot me ni&&a" and he somehow wasn't a racist. If I didn't read it I wouldn't have believed it.

 

The protest lasted days and was attended by 10,000's, but probably 100,000's of people. It wasn't a gathering of terrorists. And just because some buildings were damaged doesn't mean anybody pushing a dumpster lid on fire has the intention to blow up a gas station. As for who are terrorists. Proud Boys are considered to be a terrorist organization in Canada. You can just as easy make an argument that Kyle is a supporter of terrorism.

He was chasing somebody, and what George Zimmerman showed is that you perfectly well may chase down a young individual and when that individual starts assaulting you, than he is in the wrong. And in this case, the far right wing white nationalist gangmember assaulted first, by aiming his gun.

Uh no. Zimmerman went after Martin. And as a result Martin assaulted Zimmerman, which he wasn't allowed to do. Zimmerman had the right to protect himself against that, and not Martin.
Who assaulted who first, is the thing that matters. And that far right wing white nationalist gangmember assaulted first, by aiming his gun.

 

A heck of a lot on this forum thought not, and still think not. They support "the blue" no matter what. Kyle is also one of them support the blue types, and they stick together.

 

yes but we are talking about the people who where actively trying to burn down a gas station and got stopped 2 times. so your point your trying to make is pointless.

again according to witnesses Zimmerman gave up chasing him once the dispatcher told him to stop chasing him, so this is completely different then what happened to Kyle, for this to be the same situation like you are trying to make it out, the pedophile would have to start chasing Kyle and then stop and walk away and then Kyle would have to go after him and initiate a fight. yes in that situation then the pedophile could argue self defense. Thats not want happened though, the pedophile attacked Kyle and chased him down BEFORE the gun was pointed at him. The conflict was initiated by the pedophile, and news flash you can not claim self defense while you are involved in a felony crime, so if you rob a bank and the security guard pulls a gun on you, you can't shoot him and claim self defense, the pedophile was in the act of trying to commit arson.. thats a felony crime and you can not claim self defense if you try and attack the person who stopped you from committing arson.

You need to stop and think about what your arguing here, you are arguing that a pedophile should have the right to attack a minor who stopped him from committing arson, thats a strange hill to die on here man..

 

That simply is not true.

There is no such witness. The only witness that there was, was a guy who saw Martin punching Zimmerman while on top of him. Do note... Zimmerman was in his car when he called the cops following Martin, and he told the cops he was running after Martin ran away. Zimmerman was asked, "Did you confront the guy you shot?" and he said yes. The lie detector like setting confirms this is true.

So we got Zimmerman chasing a kid. The kid had no right to self defense for being scared for just having a guy running after him.

 

there is video evidence so not sure what your arguing here.

well we have what Zimmerman said and what the dispatcher said, and then we have an eye witness that collaborated what Zimmerman said actually happened. So again in trial it was believed that Zimmerman started chasing him and then STOPPED chasing him. So what point are you trying to make here? Zimmermans case is irrelevant to the Rittenhouse case, the laws are different and the events are not the same.

You are trying to make the claim that Rousenbaum was acting in self defense, According to WI law he can NOT claim self defense because he was in the act of arson a felony crime, so your point is dead in the water and you trying to point to some no relatable case in another state is pointless

 

There is a vid of people pushing a dumpster lid on fire etc. Nothing suggests that the idea of it all was to burn down a gas station.
You're just making it up in order to justify Rosenbaum got murdered. That's just really low.

We got Zimmerman confirming that HE confronted Martin. And we all know Zimmerman chased down Martin as well.
That's exactly what Rosenbaum did.

It is so. Since it was Kyle who assaulted Rosenbaum, like Martin assaulted Zimmerman after the chasing.

No such fact. While the fact is, that the kid wasn't allowed to have that gun.

 

If he had not had the gun is it likely that he is the one who would have died.

 

LOL so you think that there is no proof that the target was a gas station somehow makes it ok? lol It doesnt matter what building they where going to burn down, ARSON is a felony crime, it does not have to be a gas station. In fact the fact they lit the dumpster on fire is a class I felony. Your pedophile self defense case is dead in the water.

and lol at 40 building burned to the ground and you saying they where not committing arson..

yes you can confront someone you think is in the act of committing a crime. The Zimmerman case has no bearing on the Rittenhouse case

Rosenbaum committed felony arson and then attacked the person that stopped the felony arson.. he can not legally claim self defense

thats a misdemeanor and does not stop you from acting in self defense..