This message was self-deleted by its author

[yagotme]

64. He did "retreat". He turned, and left the immediate area.

He maintained control of his weapon, because there were no authorized persons to give it TO. When he finally DID make it to the police line, (yes, there's video), he attempted to surrender to them, and he was sent home instead. Police's fault, not KR's.

"pointed it at people prior to being chased. He shot numerous times, to kill those trying to defend themselves."

We've gone over this numerous times. He pointed the weapon. He then retreated. He was then chased. Had a plastic bag thrown at him, by the man who threatened to kill him, earlier. Got cornered by same man. Shot man while he was running toward him, trying to grab his weapon (he would have been a prohibited person, prior felony conviction). Group advances toward KR. He retreats again, (NOT shooting), until struck from behind, falling down, and being attacked/threatened by 3 different people (Face Kicker, Skateboard, and GG). He shot 2 of the above, only killing one. Why didn't he continue to fire on GG? His gun hand was disabled, an easy target, just a few feet away, right? But the mass murderer didn't fire, did he? Could it be he realized that the threat was no longer?

"By your logic, Rittenhouse can walk into a local Wisconsin high-school, point his gun at people and if someone attempts to disarm him, he can legally slaughter them? Bullshit."

A: Illegal to carry firearm into school. B: If he is in the act of assault, he is breaking the law. My point has always been, he was RETREATING from conflict, no longer "initiating" it. Disregarding "A:", if someone walks up to you on the street, and points a gun at you, he is committing assault. If he puts the gun down/away, and walks off, and you take off after him, you risk being shot, and self defense being claimed by him, because you assaulted him. Thus, my statement of, to call the police, and let them chase him down. Sorry you missed that part.

"Also: The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.

Great bodily harm does not mean you're adverse to a black eye. It means you reasonably fear your life is in immediate danger."

"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 his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself."

He was being chased by a man who threatened to kill him. Per testimony, said person had his hand(s) on his rifle, attempting to pull it from him. What part of this doesn't seem like a deadly threat?