Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

[Res Ipsa]

If Rittenhouse reasonably believed G Washington an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

Not before Rittenhouse decided to point his rifle at Grosskreutz.

If I provoke you in a way that is likely to lead you to respond with deadly force and you try to respond with deadly force, then I have to retreat rather than respond with deadly force. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statut ... 939/iii/48

I am confused because you told me, " Simply being the first person to point the gun, in and of itself, does not affect the privilege to defend with deadly force. "

Sorry, I didn’t mean to confuse you. It’s because pointing a gun at someone isn’t necessarily provocation. Suppose we both are holding rifles that are pointing toward the ground. Out of the blue, I start screaming at you that I’m going to kill and start walking toward you. That would be provocation. If you point your at me and shoot, you would be the first of us to point the gun at the other, but you did it in self defense, so you weren’t provoking. On the other hand, if I see you start to go for your gun, I cannot use my gun to defend myself because I provoked you to use your gun in self defense. I have to break off the conflict.

[doubtingthomas]

Sorry, I didn’t mean to confuse you. It’s because pointing a gun at someone isn’t necessarily provocation. Suppose we both are holding rifles that are pointing toward the ground. Out of the blue, I start screaming at you that I’m going to kill and start walking toward you. That would be provocation.

I understand, but I don't see how that applies to Rittenhouse. Grosskreutz simply had his hands up and never verbally threatened Rittenhouse. I don't think Rittenhouse had a good excuse to point his rifle at Grosskreutz.

[Binger]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[doubtingthomas]

That has nothing to do with the facts and everything to do with you not thinking, as you say.

Are you disputing the fact that Grosskreutz had his hands up (and was not moving) just before Rittenhouse pointed his rifle? Grosskreutz had the right to have a gun, just like Rittenhouse. And are you going to deny that Rittenhouse was following Rosenbaum? The defense had a double standard there.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

What damned alternate universe is DT existing in, and how in the “F” did we get shunted into it? It’s honestly one of the most impressive trolls I’ve witnessed on this board. You could literally recreate Malcolm McDowell’s eyes wide open scene from A Clockwork Orange and force DT to watch all the video we posted on this thread, and he’d scream, “I don’t see it! I don’t where Huber hit him with the skateboard! And I don’t see the gun in Grosskreutz’s hand! Where is it?! And what laws says Rittenhouse can cross state lines with an illegal weapon and actively shoot people!?!”

- Doc

[doubtingthomas]

What damned alternate universe is DT existing in, and how in the “F” did we get shunted into it?

You act like an old close minded troll who doesn't carefully read what is being said. And why did you create a sockpuppet Binger?

And I don’t see the gun in Grosskreutz’s hand! Where is it?!

And I don't see Grosskreutz with his hands up and not moving?! And Rittenhouse didn't have a rifle in his hands?

Troll!

[doubtingthomas]

.

[doubtingthomas]

I do believe someone claimed in this thread that DT was not a troll, LOL!

Why not try answering my questions before making personal attacks?

That has nothing to do with the facts and everything to do with you not thinking, as you say.

Are you disputing the fact that Grosskreutz had his hands up (and was not moving) just before Rittenhouse pointed his rifle? Grosskreutz had the right to have a gun, just like Rittenhouse. And are you going to deny that Rittenhouse was following Rosenbaum? The defense had a double standard there.

[Res Ipsa]

Sorry, I didn’t mean to confuse you. It’s because pointing a gun at someone isn’t necessarily provocation. Suppose we both are holding rifles that are pointing toward the ground. Out of the blue, I start screaming at you that I’m going to kill and start walking toward you. That would be provocation.

I understand, but I don't see how that applies to Rittenhouse. Grosskreutz simply had his hands up and never verbally threatened Rittenhouse. I don't think Rittenhouse had a good excuse to point his rifle at Grosskreutz.

If I recall, we started with talking about whether the jury got it right or got it wrong. If that's the question, it doesn't matter what you think you see from the footage. You have to see through Rittenhouse's eyes and take into account his actual situation, including what he had experience leading up to his encounter with G. If you haven't read R's testimony, you aren't in any position to second guess the jury.

On the other hand, if all you are saying is that, given all the information you have today that R did not have at the time, this is what you think really happened, then that's fine. I'm not going to argue about that.

[Gadianton]

I understand, but I don't see how that applies to Rittenhouse. Grosskreutz simply had his hands up and never verbally threatened Rittenhouse. I don't think Rittenhouse had a good excuse to point his rifle at Grosskreutz.

*shrug*. GG had produced a visible gun. While I think there are better ways K could have responded, was pointing the gun inappropriate beyond all reasonable doubt? GG could have blown K away and we'd be having this conversation about him instead.

As soon as guns are drawn, the stakes are way up, independent of where they're pointing.

I mean, the real tragedy here is the fact that open carry exists.