Comments by "nexus1g" (@nexus1g) on "Rittenhouse Trial: KEY Gun Charge DISMISSED" video.

  1. You open carry a rifle so you don't have to use it. It deters hostile people from attacking you even if they have a much larger force. If you're protecting property they want to destroy, they're going to want to attack you. Others in Kenosha and other similar riots have been killed or grievously injured while doing just that while not armed. 5:40 There were already multiple rioters (sorry, no one's buying the "mostly peaceful but fiery protest" bullshit) with weapons there. The obvious is Grosskreutz (felon in possession of a concealed handgun without a license). 5:54 It wasn't a loophole. The law clearly allows minors to open carry unless they're carrying an SBR/SBS. Even if you think 948.60(3)(c) is just poorly written, there still exists 948.60(3)(b) which states, "This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty." He is part of the militia as defined in USC Title 10, Sec. 246, which includes all males from 17 to 45. To argue that it is not within his line of duty to protect life, liberty, and property during open rebellion is highly questionable reasoning. 14:13 The prosecution was saying that he shot more than was necessary to stop the threat. This was a strong argument against that. The number of shots and time to take those shots matters. 14:52 What Huber and Grosskreutz thought doesn't matter. What matters is the objective facts. Also, even if it weren't, who was Rittenhouse actively shooting prior to being attacked and even after being attacked? Literally no one until he felt he was in serious jeopardy. He gets hit in the back of the head, he continues to run. He falls. A man in a jersey approaches him and gets within a couple of feet of Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse raises his rifle to bear on jersey man, jersey man raises his hands and backs off. Rittenhouse does not shoot. They clearly should have seen that he was not shooting people who were not attacking him, and they were working on incomplete information. 15:06 You can only defend yourself if you are not the aggressor. Simple exercise of a right is not an aggression. 15:57 Ana's suddenly worried about accuracy. 18:00 His dad lives in Kenosha. He spends a good amount of his time living in Kenosha. He also works in Kenosha. We all have a duty "when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind..." (John Locke, Second Treatise of Government.) Even if I give you that he just wanted to go kill left-wingers, he wouldn't have killed any left-wingers if they didn't attack him first. 18:28 Were your things being destroyed? Your livelihood? Your property? Protesting is one thing, go look at the aftermath of Kenosha. 18:40 You have a right to appeal to natural law. The state and those who side with the state have a duty to maintain the civil authority. If you want change, stop burning and destroying. If you really care about all of this you're so preteniously going on about, then preach against the methods used that lead to this kind of confrontation. Define "need." 19:13 Then espouse peace. And, uh, you brought your guns. Your guys suck ass. Rittenhouse definitely was an operator. 19:43 Sir, lawlessness is what is being caused by these open rebellions. The right-wingers in this case are promoting the civil authority. And, no, they are not taking the law into their own hands. They are performing their duties as part of the unorganized militia of the United States to maintain the civil authority during rebellion. 21:22 There won't be a problem if there are more protests in the future. There will be a problem is there is more open rebellion in the future.
    6
  2. 4
  3. 3
  4. 2
  5.  @treytassin7257  You have a gross misunderstanding of what a vigilante is. A vigilante is someone who takes the law into their own hands after the fact not during the fact. During the fact, every person in the United States retains the right to stop transgressions. It does not matter what position they put themselves into or the legality of the chain of events that got them to that point. For instance, if a prostitute's John attempts to kill her, she doesn't get convicted of murder because she was partaking in an illegal activity at the time she shot and killed him with a stolen gun to stop him. She still has a valid claim to self defense. So, no, character has nothing to do with a self-defense claim. Quite frankly, you're showing a lot of inability to think critically and beyond your bias here. "He had no business being there." That's arguable since he is considered part of the unorganized militia per Title 10, Sec. 246 of the USC, as I mentioned in my OP. To argue that a member of the militia protecting life, liberty, property, and helping to maintain civil authority a rebellion/riot is highly questionable reasoning. "He wanted to shoot looters." He could have posted on social media that he couldn't wait to shoot looters. While a jury may give such a post a lot of weight, legally, it doesn't matter to a self-defense claim. If he only shot those that a calm and reasonable person believed was about cause great bodily harm or death, then the self-defense claim stands per the law.
    2
  6. 2
  7. 2
  8. 2
  9. 2
  10. 2
  11. 2
  12. 2
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1