Rittenhouse Defense Releases New Video That Clearly Proves Self Defense

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • ajeandy

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    43   0   0
    Oct 25, 2013
    2,005
    63
    S. Indianapolis
    I don’t see how this changes anything. The people chasing him were after he shot the guy in the face. You can’t claim self defense while committing a crime.
     

    mark40sw

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 5, 2015
    697
    93
    Roanoke
    I don’t see how this changes anything. The people chasing him were after he shot the guy in the face. You can’t claim self defense while committing a crime.

    He was being chased by the first guy also. Shot him AS he lunged for his gun. Rittenhouse can not be an aggressor (armed or not) when he was trying to escape the first chase.
     
    Last edited:

    KG1

    Forgotten Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    25,631
    149
    I don’t see how this changes anything. The people chasing him were after he shot the guy in the face. You can’t claim self defense while committing a crime.
    If he was defending himself from mob action in the first shooting he most certainly was defending himself from another mob action in the subsequent shootings. The video clearly depicts that Rittenhouse was acting to defend himself in both cases. I don't see how you can just blow that off as irrelevant.
     

    printcraft

    INGO Clown
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    16   0   0
    Feb 14, 2008
    38,987
    113
    Uranus
    I don’t see how this changes anything. The people chasing him were after he shot the guy in the face. You can’t claim self defense while committing a crime.

    Tommy-Lee-Jones-in-No-Country-for-Old-Men.jpg
     

    mark40sw

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 5, 2015
    697
    93
    Roanoke
    I don’t see how this changes anything. The people chasing him were after he shot the guy in the face. You can’t claim self defense while committing a crime.

    Wait, wait, now I see this point of view. Rittenhouse was actually entrapping the hothead child molestor by running away from him. Just like how Pelosi said she was "set-up" by the hair salon and then demanded an apologee from them. Clearly Rittenhouse was the aggressor.

    Then as he is trying to entrap other innocent leftist firestarters by running away from them, he is clearly seen JAYWALKING. He has no claim to use self defense will committing the crime of jaywalking.
     

    ajeandy

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    43   0   0
    Oct 25, 2013
    2,005
    63
    S. Indianapolis
    What's this even mean?

    Correct me if I’m wrong, don’t believe I am, but he, 17, bright a rifle across state limes and was basically there for the “event.”

    I’m almost positive that alone screws his defense. That’s before considering he killed someone who “lunged” at him. If he has the weapon illegally he can’t claim self defense from my understanding of the law. He’s also not a police officer. A cop can shoot someone who is trying to take their gun, much harder for a non leo to do so without a legal fight. It’s almost like the scene out of southpark “he’s coming right for us! I don’t think you can legally shoot someone because you have a gun and someone lunges at you.
     

    churchmouse

    I still care....Really
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    187   0   0
    Dec 7, 2011
    191,809
    152
    Speedway area
    Correct me if I’m wrong, don’t believe I am, but he, 17, bright a rifle across state limes and was basically there for the “event.”

    I’m almost positive that alone screws his defense. That’s before considering he killed someone who “lunged” at him. If he has the weapon illegally he can’t claim self defense from my understanding of the law. He’s also not a police officer. A cop can shoot someone who is trying to take their gun, much harder for a non leo to do so without a legal fight. It’s almost like the scene out of southpark “he’s coming right for us! I don’t think you can legally shoot someone because you have a gun and someone lunges at you.

    He did not bring the rifle with him. He got it from a friend close by where this happened.
    Tell you what......get me in a heated situation that has me on full tilt and lunge your butt at me. See what happens. Seriously man you really do not get it.
    He was being shot at, assailed assaulted and shot at some more. Holy mother of god people.

    Yes this really twists me up.
     

    mark40sw

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 5, 2015
    697
    93
    Roanoke
    Correct me if I’m wrong, don’t believe I am, but he, 17, bright a rifle across state limes and was basically there for the “event.”

    I’m almost positive that alone screws his defense. That’s before considering he killed someone who “lunged” at him. If he has the weapon illegally he can’t claim self defense from my understanding of the law. He’s also not a police officer. A cop can shoot someone who is trying to take their gun, much harder for a non leo to do so without a legal fight. It’s almost like the scene out of southpark “he’s coming right for us! I don’t think you can legally shoot someone because you have a gun and someone lunges at you.

    OK, I'll correct you. That was not his rifle, it was given to him in that state on that night.

    And for your other argument, multiple child molester hothead can be seen on video yelling at the group trying to stop the destruction. Walking around like an idiot yelling "Shoot me n-word". He was chasing Rittenhouse after that scene, and I'm sure it wasn't to shake his hand. So multiple child molestor is seen chasing and attempting to seize Rittenhouse weapon. So he displayed verbal & physical threats toward Rittenhouse. I think those check off fearing for his life adequately.

    You reference a southpark scene where cartoon animals not move and get shot. And you think that closely mirrors this situation?

    As for a 17 year old having no right to self defense against an armed mob that is yelling for his death and attacks him? Really? Try to run that one past a jury.
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,968
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    Correct me if I’m wrong, don’t believe I am, but he, 17, bright a rifle across state limes and was basically there for the “event.”

    I’m almost positive that alone screws his defense. That’s before considering he killed someone who “lunged” at him. If he has the weapon illegally he can’t claim self defense from my understanding of the law. He’s also not a police officer. A cop can shoot someone who is trying to take their gun, much harder for a non leo to do so without a legal fight. It’s almost like the scene out of southpark “he’s coming right for us! I don’t think you can legally shoot someone because you have a gun and someone lunges at you.

    Incorrect as to all aspects.
     
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 14, 2017
    755
    79
    Southern Indiana
    That video should be running on a loop on every major news network, instead of the incendiary garbage that they're putting it out each night.
    Never happen. The very first accounts I saw they were reporting it as an active shooter situation. When a person shoots to defend themselves against an armed aggressive person (guy he shot in arm) or another aggressive person physically attacking him (guy with skateboard), or even defending himself against an aggressive person who is attempting to take his weapon (molester as described above) doesn't meet the active shooter description in my opinion especially when he is running away from the threats.
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,968
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    If he has the weapon illegally he can’t claim self defense from my understanding of the law.

    Incorrect, this is called Necessity under Indiana law. There is case law both on Carrying without a License and even Serious Violent Felon in Possession of a Firearm.

    A case I had last year. My client was accused of Carrying a Handgun Without a License after a successful self-defense shooting.

    The jury found that Necessity applied and acquitted him in under 30 minutes.

    https://www.wlfi.com/content/news/C...ting-death-was-in-self-defense-476288743.html
     
    Top Bottom