As regards the rifle, yea as per strict definition it wasn't an assault rifle, as per practical use, same same. "Nor would a civilian semi-auto even stand up to the fire rate of a select-fire assault rifle." - That'll be down to manufacturer I presume. As for "preferences", no need for the inverted commas, I've made no bullshit comments about my experience, I've never used a rifle in anger the only thing I can tell you is that an order wouldn't decide how it'd use a weapon if the rubber met the road. The Andy McNab thing was something I remembered, that some lads liked full auto with an MP5 and some semi, that's all.

Police doing jack, well that's on them. Not for some idiot to decide to administer his own version of the law. People decided to help each other out? He went twenty miles to insert himself in a problem.

My Para comparison was intentionally emotive. Soldiers are supposed to kill people it's sorta the job. Hearts and Minds are great but at the end of the day they are a force distributor. IMHO thinking it's OK for a kid to head out with his rifle to keep the peace is the same as sending PARAs in to do the same. When you have a hammer everything looks like a nail. And when that hammer is a rifle people get killed.

What has his face got to with anything.

He should be judged on facts not appearances.

Good post. There’s a lot of waffle about irrelevant topics above. Limerick/Jews/Commies. Lol wtf?

I said yesterday that the initial engagement is hugely important as it shows intent. The fact he tried to flee is positive. But I didn’t realise he travelled 20 miles to seek out that situation. Not positive. It’s possibly this could be put down to Walter Mitty syndrome rather than malicious acts. But’s not a defence either.

Grizzly, I agree complete that it doesn’t meet the technical definition of assault rifle. But I fail to see why that is relevant? he’s not charged with possession of an assault rifle afaik. Feels like pointless semantics.

It was a consumer model semi-auto rifle, that he was illegally in possession of. That’s all that matters.

As regards the rifle, yea as per strict definition it wasn't an assault rifle, as per practical use, same same. "Nor would a civilian semi-auto even stand up to the fire rate of a select-fire assault rifle." - That'll be down to manufacturer I presume. As for "preferences", no need for the inverted commas, I've made no bullshit comments about my experience, I've never used a rifle in anger the only thing I can tell you is that an order wouldn't decide how it'd use a weapon if the rubber met the road. The Andy McNab thing was something I remembered, that some lads liked full auto with an MP5 and some semi, that's all.

So you see no need for full-auto capability at all, because pulling the trigger faster will sort out all the problems in semi? Ask the Brits how well that idea worked out for them in the Falklands in many cases where they were facing down Argentineans armed with select-fire FNs ,and why many of them picked up Argie FALs for use rather than their SLRs There are good reasons military rifles have select-fire and you would be pretty poorly armed on a modern battlefield without a full auto these days.

No it's not down to the manufacturer in its entirety.It's down as to how they make the gun. Take a look at an M4 and Ar receiver side by side. Apart from the different fire control mechanisms, the M4 receiver is a lot stronger in critical areas,like the buffer tube threading to be able to support the constant pounding on the fire control group from FA[At least it was on the Colt versions] Different manufacturers use and change their designs specifically so that it is pretty difficult,if not downright impossible to easily convert their civvie version to select fire by swopping out FA parts,or converting it with normal household tools. There is a reason you don't see certain brands of cheap AR lowers being used in FA conversions, or even polymer lowers yet. They just can't take the hammering.

As for Mr Mc Nab and his experiances and commentary... He makes living writing stories and paper doesn't refuse ink.So I'd take anything he says with a pound of salt.

Police doing jack, well that's on them. Not for some idiot to decide to administer his own version of the law. People decided to help each other out? He went twenty miles to insert himself in a problem.

So you ring the police that your house and property is being assaulted by a rabble, and the dispatcher tells you "You are on your own...We are under siege here at multiple precincts...Do you have a gun? If so use it...!" And hangs up That is an actual response to a 911 call in the Minnesota riots last year. So what are you going to do?

So? The Koreans in the LA riots had their people and relatives come up to help them from San Diego...120 miles away...Or even from San Fransicso 200 +miles away... Were they wrong too and out administrating "their version of the law"? Administrating his own version of the law??? Yeah,he deliberately went out there to shoot people, and took medical supplies with him, had an odd load for a shooting spree as a vigilante... What was he supposed to do with one scumbag trying to batter him with a skateboard and another felon aiming a 9mm pistol at him, and another trying to grab his rifle?🙄

The way this trial is going now, it's developing into a farce,and the State attorneys know it. The witnesses they are bringing up are just adding more and more to the case of the defence of self-defence

You say don’t bring a knife skateboard to a gunfight. An apt adage. But a crappy defense. Gun fighting is illegal. Rittenhouse needs to prove he was acting legallly. Proving the others were breaking the law is not sufficient.

So is assault with a deadly weapon irrespective if it is an illegally carried Glock by a convicted felon or a skateboard by an Antifa thug.Did he attack those two paragons of humanity,or did they attack him? While he was retreating from a conflict situation "If I catch you motherfukers alone tonight you are dead!" is considered a threat of murder under the law in the states as well, and attempting to grab someone firearm whilst doing so is intent. Nothing to prove but legal self-defence there. Only thing they can really try and nail him on is underage possession and breaking a curfew.

But the discussion is about the trial. Poster above was incorrect. And his error has no bearing on the crime or lack thereof.

One criminal act doesn’t mean the retaliation is legal.

Rittenhouse was also illegally carrying a firearm (a deadly weapon as you put it). Is that a felony? Does mean he’s as guilty as the others?

The Antifa/Proud Boys aspect seems a bit like media sensationalism. As does the EMT/Medic claims. Doesn’t mean he planned to help all, no more than carrying bullets mean he planned to kill.

I agree that Rittenhouse was breaking the law when he was open carrying, but that's only because he was 17, a fact Rosenbaum couldn't have known so there was no justification for him to attack and try to take Rittenhouse's rifle. For example, had Rittenhouse shot Gaige Grosskreutz before he brandished his handgun, he would not have been justified because he didn't know Grosskreutz was armed and a felon. I agree that it's not murder but I believe he acted in self defense, open carrying under the age of 18 is only a misdemeanor so it's not too serious of a crime.

Oh so then it's fairly cut and dry, if Rittenhouse wasn't breaking any laws then surely it can't be anything other than self defense.

But the discussion is about the trial. Poster above was incorrect. And his error has no bearing on the crime or lack thereof.

I might draw your attention to the thread title?..Off topic thread? I wasn't aware there was a requirement to be discussing one topic to the point that one cant correct an incorrect assertation without it being taken apart by pendantism?

One criminal act doesn’t mean the retaliation is legal.

So, therefore, going by your logic,if you are attacked and have the means to defend yourself with any weapon, you must forfeit your life, even if you possess a weapon capable of protecting yourself illegally??? How do you judge which life has more value?The defendant or the attacker is slain by the defender even if he possesses an illegal weapon?

I didn’t say the guy was justified in trying to take it from him. I was using a. Example to highlight how the “you broke the law, therefore I’m lawful” logic doesn’t hold up.

Same for Grosskreutz. You say RH was justified because Grosskreutz brandished a pistol. That arguement applies in reverse too. RH had a rifle. By your logic GK was justifed in brandishing in response. Hag he not brandished or stayed away he would have been shot. Again same as RH.

I wasn’t actually referring to RH’s open carry. I was referring to the fact he legally could not possess a SA rifle. He had had somebody go into the shop and illegally purchase the firearm for him. The open carry is an additional crime though.

He broke at least the two laws above. And regardless homicide is a crime in itself. You don’t need an additional crime to take place for it to be illegal manslaughter.

As I said, I don’t believe it was murder or close to it. But it’s not a cut and dry self defense. The fact the arguements put forward are so weak proves that.

I’m just pointing out it was clear what the poster meant. You’re perfectly entitled to correct people on technicalities. But “pendantism”? Lol. Isnt, that what you were doing?

Ive no idea how you arrive at that using “logic”. Complete nonsense as I’ve never claimed anything if the sort, or mentioned means to defend.

I’m saying a crime doesn’t inherently justify the retaliation. Pretty simple point. IOW it’s possible for two people to simultaneously commit crimes against each other.

Edit: I think I see your confusion. I said “does not”, very different to “can not”.

Lying on the form is a felony for the other guy only. 100% agree. That’s another felony. I was actually refer to the fact he supplied a minor with a firearm, which is what he’s been charged with.

Im not convinced on the possession part. Afaik there are two homicide charges against RH and a third charge for possession. If there is a charge before the courts, then surely it exists in law?

I would assume it’s Wisconsin Statute 948.60 (2) (a) which states it’s illegal for a person under 18 to go armed.

Wouldn’t that be a law he violated.

As I said, I’m only presuming it’s that section. Reports haven’t indicated the section. And I’m not familiar with specifics of wisconsin law. You appear to be somewhat.

I did see the exclusions in part 3 btw. (a) and (b) were clear and have obvious intent. I noted the sections referenced in (c) but the links didn’t open on the phone. I assumed it was a exemption for hunting?

I agree that a charge doesn’t mean it’s valid. But it’s not for the jury to decipher the fine print. If it doesn’t apply, then the defence lawyer should have the charge dismiss pretty easily right?

I’m saying it doesn’t apply one way or the other. That was the point.

I can see MM’s point. He could well be right, a typo in the law could negate the charge. But hold your horses there. The courts have to agree first.

Incorrect. We know exactly where he got it from. He has admitted where and how he got it. And the person who supplied has also been charged.

Also incorrect. The law referred to above intends to make possession illegal for minors. There are there exemptions of service firearms, target shooting and hunting.

As MM pointed out, the phrasing of the hunting section is sloppy.

That’s not the definition of self defence. Otherwise any gunman could provoke others to attack them and fire away.

I haven’t said he is guilty of anything relating to the homicides. I’ve just said that’s it’s a complex situation. And that many of the arguments put forward above are incredibly poor.

Complex compared to a clear a clear cut home invasion self defence killing for example.

This is a good example of the poor argument I mentioned. Just like Rosenbaum didn’t know RH was 17, and that doesn’t justify trying to take the gun. RH didn’t know he was a child molestor. So really silly to relive on that defence or introduce it a all. He was by all accounts, a dirty paedo not sure how he was on the street.

To be clear again I’m not saying it wasn’t self defence. In my first post I said the “why” he was there is important. As is the very first engagement. I stand by that. The videos I’ve seen are mid-chaos. The skateboard guy attacking after shots had been fired, etc. How it kicked off matters most imo. If RH attack Rosenbaum first, then everything that followed was possibly justified for the attackers. If RH was attacked first, his defence was probably justified. It all hinges on that imo.

I’ve read conflicting claims of who shot first. So want to see the evidence before I make up my mind. I’m not going to assume RH was in the right because other were illegally rioting. Because let’s be honest, Rittenhouse was slightly delusional and incapable of whatever he thought he was doing.