Posted on 10/09/2021 1:47:54 PM PDT by RandFan
A use of force expert testified that Kyle Rittenhouse’s decision to shoot three rioters was justified at a pre-trial hearing on Tuesday. “A citizen in that position, given those indicators, would it be reasonable for them to believe they were about to be assaulted?” said use of force expert John Black. “I would argue yes.”
Black spent hours analyzing the shootings and the events leading up to them. Rittenhouse is facing multiple charges, including homicide, for shooting Kenosha rioters Joseph Rosenbaum, Anthony Huber and Gaige Grosskreutz on Aug. 25, 2020. Rosenbaum and Huber were killed while Grosskreutz was wounded after being shot in the hand.
Black testified that video shows Rosenbaum — a convicted pedophile — chased Rittenhouse and reached for the teenager’s gun. Rosenbaum can be seen chasing Rittenhouse and yelling “shoot me ni**a” as the teenager tries to run away. Another video shows a rioter firing a handgun into the air as a crowd chases Rittenhouse, proving that Rittenhouse did not fire the first shot.
The expert testified that based on the video footage, Rittenhouse had reason to believe Rosenbaum intended to grab his weapon and use it on him, justifying Rittenhouse’s decision to shoot. “Now the firearm is a potential weapon for both parties,” Black said. “Now we have a potential wrestling match.”
Black also testified on the other two shootings. Regarding the shooting of Anthony Huber, the expert again concluded that Rittenhouse’s decision to shoot was reasonable.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalfile.com ...
Doesn’t matter, they will hang him. If they dont the Feds will come to the rescue with Double Jeopardy.
As a wise person said a few minutes ago on a Texas high school shooting thread.....
Kyle’s case was even more justified for use of a firearm.
Exactly. One way or another, they intend to make an example of him. Can’t have people defending themselves.
DUH!
Sorry Kyle. You are a white male. Your job was to let the democrat foot soldiers murder you.
Hi.
I didn’t see in the article where it stated how Rittenhouse got to the ground.
Maybe I missed it.
5.56mm
Had he not been carrying it, everyone there at the time would have ignored him.
I’ll bet that the prosecution will have their own use-of-force experts that say Rittenhouse wasn’t justified. It’ll depend on who the jury believes.
That is completely immaterial. The issue is whether or not Kyle acted in Self Defense. If there is any shred of justice left in this socialist country, He better be found innocent.
We now have the Chauvin trial for reference.
Kyle will not receive justice.
There is a Communist revolution taking place.
Self-defence therefore as it is justly called the primary law of nature, for it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away be the law of society.
Blackstone, Commentary on English Law, Book III, Chapter 1.
Most CC courses recommend against openly carrying a firearm because it makes you a target.
This was not concealed carry. He was standing guard outside a business to deter looting and burning at a friends car lot IIRC which is why they chose rifles.
“ Most CC courses recommend against openly carrying a firearm because it makes you a target.”
Why do cops do it?
L
“Most CC courses recommend against openly carrying a firearm because it makes you a target.”
So being targeted by criminals because of something you’re carrying makes violent assaults legal?
L
They’ll get him on a hate crime for the n word.
It was the guy that got shot who was saying that.
Wasn’t he carrying an AR?
Yep. I misread it. Good call.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.