Comments by "nexus1g" (@nexus1g) on "‘Self defense is something juries struggle with’: Legal analyst on Rittenhouse trial" video.

I have a feeling this title is about conditioning people for the inevitable acquittal, so it seeds the idea that he's still guilty and the jury just got it wrong. Yay! More rioting because "justice wasn't served!"
2
@TimTams_64 1. He was being chased by Rosenbaum and the others. 2. What does it matter if it's a military weapon or not? I mean, it's not, but more importantly, it doesn't matter. 3. He probably had the most legal right to be there with a military weapon of those involved since he is, and was at the time, part of the militia per USC Title 10 Sec 246.
1
@RHINOSAUR 1. He's part of the militia per Title 10 Sec 246 of the USC. In seeking to prevent damage to innocent people from open rebellion, he was carrying out his civic duty. 2. The argument is that the gun did not cross state lines, and even if it did, see Argument 1. 3. See Argument 1. As Psaki said, federal law overrides state law. 4. Neither castle doctrine nor stand your ground laws apply here because Rittenhouse attempted to flee from Rosenbaum until Rosenbaum reached him and grabbed him. This would, if there were such a law on Wisconsin books, even reasonably satisfy a duty to flee law on the books. 5. None of that matters. Self defense is moment to moment. On legal technicality, it doesn't matter if Kyle posted that he was chomping at the bit to shoot every rioter out there. What matters is whether or not a reasonable person would believe that they were about to receive grievous bodily injury at the time the defendant shot. The first question is was Rosenbaum using force to stop a violent incident incited by Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse was running from Rosenbaum, so I don't see how that could be the case. If it's determined that Rosenbaum was shot in self defense, that means that Grosskreutz nor Huber were within legal authority to use violence to stop or disarm Rittenhouse. Since they were not lawful in inciting that violence against Rittenhouse, the claim of self defense stands here as well.
1
@TimTams_64 Rosenbaum was the first person that Rittenhouse shot. Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse, he threw an object at Rittenhouse, he caught up with Rittenhouse, then Rosenbaum grabbed him/his gun. Any reasonable person that would believe that such a person would be about to, at the very least, cause grievous bodily injury at that point. That means that he was justified in shooting Rosenbaum in self defense. That means that the others who were attacking him were not justified in their aggression, and the use of deadly force on Huber and Grosskreutz was warranted.
1
@TimTams_64 "Yes because he was carrying a weapon and aiming at people" There is zero evidence of him pointing the weapon at anyone before Rosenbaum attacked him. "what part of this are you not getting?" I'm starting to get the idea that you're not arguing in good faith, because either 1. you're a low-life troll or 2. you have no idea of the facts surrounding the case.
1
Even then, US Code Title 10 Sec 246 could be used as a defense against that since he was responding to an instance of rebellion.
1
@davidlanger3295 He killed someone who chased him, threw something at him, caught up with him and grabbed him/his gun. Anyone in their right mind would believe they were about to receive lethal or grievous bodily harm at that point. That makes his shooting of Rosenbaum valid self defense. That means no one was justified in stopping him (This is similar to Ahmaud Arbery having not committed a crime, so the two in the truck were not authorized in stopping him or pointing weapons at him). That means that the subsequent attacks after he fell, including having a pistol drawn on him, being kicked in the head, and being hit with a skateboard were themselves valid reasons for self defense as well. He had even shown significant trigger discipline, bringing the rifle to bear on someone running up to attack him, but not shooting when that individual peeled off from his attack. There's absolutely no way that an impartial jury would find Rittenhouse guilty of any of the charges.
1