lol If it’s evolution, then some humans have reverted to caveman mentality. That would be the lethal weapon carrying gun nuts. If it’s a deity creating in his image, he is a horrible and murderous god.
1 Like
Let’s say that is true. Huber saw Rittenhouse shoot and kill a guy. The guy never touched Rittenhouse. Huber will never be tried but his reasoning would have been very similar to Rittenhouse, he felt he was capable of defending his town, of watching out for dangerous people with guns, and subduing them.
Police are not trained to act like either one of these guys. Dealing with an urban riot requires special training, and identifying yourself as someone who can legally use deadly force is an important part of that.
The same people who are saying, “if they thought Rittenhouse had done something illegal, they should have called the police”, are not saying Rittenhouse should have called for help while he was being chased. They are saying the police weren’t doing their job, therefore Rittenhouse was needed. But Kyle acted exactly how I would expect an untrained kid to act. I agree, the police aren’t doing their job, but I’m not going to fix that by walking into riots with an AR.
1 Like
The true matter is the fact that M. Rittenhouse was legally allowed to bear a very lethal weapon. In any European country he would have been arrested as soon as he showed himself, even by policemen sympathetic to his ideas.
1 Like
Sorry I’m late to the party - I didn’t read through all of the previous 83 posts
What I’m thinking - Rittenhouse went up there for a little excitement and a chance to show off his big gun and got in over his head.
His whole explanation is just a CYA .
If it was self defense, and “He would have been killed” like so many are crying, why is it (if I’m not mistaken) the only people that died that night were shot by him?
It also seems the prosecution was a little aggressive in it’s charges. - I don’t know all the nuances of the definitions of the various degrees of murder - but maybe if they would have gone for something a little lower, it would have been a more solid case.
Another thing I’ve seen in cases (I don’t know how it went here) is where the judge lays down such specific instructions that it’s almost a forgone conclusion to what the jury must find,
Other developing “Self Defense” stories to watch:
Marc Wilson
What, machine gunning three unarmed people, two to death, is less than murder?
In Britain, such a person would be shot on sight by the appropriately deployed police.
He was charged with 1st degree murder. I don’t think he set out that night with the intent to kill someone.
But he should still pay a penalty for the murder - for being irresponsible - for being stupid.
This is the crux of the matter and where you are wrong.
In that state a 17 year old is prohibited from carrying an semiautomatic assault rifle. He could have a shotgun or a long gun but not a semi-automatic.
Therefore he was in illegal possession of a weapon which he subsequently used to kill and wound three people.
As far as I know when someone is in engaged in an illegal activity and causes the death of a person while in the illegal act, it is automatically considered murder and gets you 20 - life.
Britain could never produce something like the constitution nor a kid like Rittenhouse. You’re too stodgy and inflexible.
Yes, but Huber was wrong about his abilities and Rittenhouse was not.
That made no sense. Abilities doesn’t give on the right to murder.
1 Like
You misunderstand. Huber had the right to try to stop Rittenhouse and Rittenhouse had the right to defend himself against someone attempting to take his rifle. KR was just better at it.
So KR, a murderer, is your hero because he was better at keeping his gun.
Does a bank robber who kills the guard because the guard tried to stop him, get to claim it was self-defense? What kind of warped justice do you have?
Huber had the right to make a citizen’s arrest on Rittenhouse . Rittenhouse was committing a crime by carrying an illegal gun. Then he killed a man in the act of committing a crime. That is murder.
Then this whole affaire is pure madness and prejudice.
Yes indeed and a misdirected focus by the prosecution. It is the possession of an illegal gun that determines ultimate responsibility.
All subsequent events are the fruit of a poisonous tree (to turn a phrase).
If I steal a car and I run over a pedestrian who is illegally crossing a street and surprised me, I am still guilty of voluntary manslaughter, if not murder.
Thank God. . . . . .
1 Like
Britain also ended the practice of Slavery before the U.S. did. Seems to me, GB does better on some things than the U.S., except lately, she seems to be doing better on more things than the U.S. though.
Ah. We banned the Atlantic slave trade. And enforced it. But kept slavery for another 30 years until slave revolts made it impossible. Not abolitionists. Nearly in time to force heroin addiction on to China. Phew! That was a close run thing. We only had India to suck dry for nearly a decade!
Yes, but you still beat the U.S. concerning slavery and you beat us to socialized medicine too, which some in the U.S. like to insist “that’s Communism”. 
Even so, while your health care system has its problems, from what I understand it is far better than ours. BTW, y’all have great tea too. If I were forced to leave the U.S. for any reason, the U.K. is one of my top choices, along with Canada, and Australia, even though they all have their problems too. Actually, the top reason would be because I wouldn’t have to learn a new language and the culture isn’t too much different. Yes, I know enough Spanish to get by, but not enough and the culture is totally different.
1 Like
Yes oneguy, I know you believe might makes right. I don’t. You don’t have to explain what two people fighting is.
1 Like