Illinois teen arrested in fatal shooting at Kenosha protest, police say

Again, the tape shows rosenbaum attacking rittenhouse from behind. This is not in contestation.
No expert witness needs to speak on the tape either, "Counsel".

 

By charging at rittenhouse, attacking him from behind, and trying to take a deadly weapon off of him.

 

I love how you point out that in that picture Rittenhouse exercises control after being attacked by a man with a deadly weapon and shooting him for it he doesn't shoot grosskreutz until grosskreutz pulls a gun when rittenhouse doesn't shoot him and starts to get up.

The trained medic he shot pulled a gun on him after he stopped short when charging him with skateboard guy when skateboard guy gets shot. Rittenhouse points at him, he shows hands, Rittenhouse points the gun away from him and starts to get up, Grosskreutz pulls a pistol and gets his elbow shot off.

 

Again: Its the same video that still is from. You're not saying you've seen the still only are you? Maybe you're looking at a BIASED SOURCE?

 

Ok, Why was he there then?

 

He only charged at him, he was shot prior to reaching him meaning he could not have “attacking him from behind” or tried to take the illegal “deadly weapon off of him”

 

Not to arrest or punish anyone or investigate anything. He certainly wasn't chasing any bad guys in the videos.

 

You didn’t answer the question.

He has identified two reasons: protect the business and render medical aid. Larping like he is EMS and police — thus vigilantism: law enforcement undertaken without legal authority by a self-appointed group of people.

 

People are allowed to protect businesses in this country, that's not going after bad guys. I'd hate to live in an un-free country where that was illegal.

 

Can you cite WI law allowing individuals to preform an armed patrol of another persons business during a curfew?

 

Yeah they were all out after curfew. Give them all tickets. I'm afraid you'd have to be the one citing the law stating it was illegal. Laws don't declare things legal, that's just absurd. And he wasn't guarding anything when he was attacked so it's irrelevant.

 

to help clean up after the riots..

 

Strange, no brandished weapon in that image.
Almost like those were two separate events…

 

That's the reason he traveled there, he stayed to help protect business from being burned to the ground and also to help people with medical..

You know this, you have asked this over and over and I and several others have already told you this info.. why do you keep asking the same question that you already know the answer?

 

Thank you for proving that he was acting as a wanna be police officer, aka vigilante. That was all I was inquiring about.

Is there a law allowing private citizens to arm themselves to protect businesses they do not own?

 

protecting property from arson is not against the law..

939.49  Defense of property and protection against retail theft.
(1)  A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with the person's property. Only such degree of force or threat thereof may intentionally be used as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. It is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of defense of one's property.
(2) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person's property from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend his or her own property from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such as would give the 3rd person the privilege to defend his or her own property, that his or her intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person's property, and that the 3rd person whose property the person is protecting is a member of his or her immediate family or household or a person whose property the person has a legal duty to protect, or is a merchant and the actor is the merchant's employee or agent. An official or adult employee or agent of a library is privileged to defend the property of the library in the manner specified in this subsection.
(3) In this section “unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.

you really need to stop trying to argue the legal side of things here

 

More conflicted statutes:m

and that the 3rd person whose property the person is protecting is a member of his or her immediate family or household or a person whose property the person has a legal duty to protect, or is a merchant and the actor is the merchant's employee or agent.​

Strange that you missed that

 

what do you mean I missed it? I posted that.. but that is irrelevant when the owner of the business asked for help protecting it so that would mean he would fall under the "or a person whose property the person has a legal duty to protect"

did he get charged with illegally protecting a business? lol

again you really need to give up arguing the legal side of things

 

and before you post anything else here, remember he didnt shoot anyone protecting someone's business, he used a fire extinguisher to protect a business, he used his rifle to protect himself. So this line of thinking you're trying to use here is not going to work..

 

Watch the court case. It won’t go as smoothly as you believe

You cannot go two posts without levying a personal attack so maybe we can discuss this when you are less emotional

 

what personal attack?

 

You're leaving out the part that the culprit aimed his gun, when he heard gunshots. And he aimed his gun at somebody not related to the gunshots. That is why the pointing the gun becomes an illegal assault and so the victim of that has the right to defend. That's how this works.

And I see how it works for you. You're just pretending the gun shots the culprit heard did not happen and so the kid must have aimed his weapon for a valid reason. And that valid reason is because the kid knew the criminal history of his victim (it's being brought up all the time for a reason)... and so it was alright and his victims life did not matter anyways.

 

Ah. What your opinion is when you see a tape matters more what a witness says under oath.
Sure buddy. You convinced me. lol

 

Sounds like a personal attack from somebody who still got a grudge that the Chauvin got a guilty verdict in a clear cut case despite it saw all his buddies agreeing with him on this forum that he's innocent.

 

The gunshots are irrelevant. They have no bearing on a person's right to defend themselves against a hostile charging attacker.

Being chased and attacked is a perfectly-valid reason to aim a weapon at the charging attacker, and ancillary gunshots don't change, or in anyway negate, a person's right to defend themselves against a charging attacker.

If, as you claim, aiming a gun at a person is illegal assault that negates self defense, then there is no such thing as legal self defense with a gun.

And that's just not the case.

See: The State of Florida Vs George Zimmerman