Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is the murder weapon now? Who was it registered to? These are very important facts. If it was not turned in then that's a tampering with evidence charge and it goes towards intent.

Note: whether or not there is self-defemse it was still murder. Self-defense doesn't change the underlying act it just gives a get out of jail free card.

The underlying act is killing. It's only murder when you are convicted.

Those terms would be homicide and manslaughter. Those terms also only apply to the intent of the perpetrator and not the act itself. The act of killing someone by a non-State actor is called murder.

But that belies the point. Where is the murder weapon and who is it registered to?

Merriam-Webster
Murder definition is - the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.

Self defense is not unlawful. I'm taking Miriam Webster's definition over yours. It's an alleged murder until proven unlawful.

I don't know why you are so concerned about that. The police usually recover the weapon. If he tried to hide it, I'm sure we will hear about it sooner or later.

If it's not murder, then it wasn't self-defense. Why are you arguing legal definitions if you don't understand them?

I can ask you the same question. I gave you Merriam Webster's definition
Here's another one, from a law dictionary.

"What is MURDER?
The crime committed where a person of sound mind and discretion (that is, of sufficient age to form and execute a criminal design and not legally “insane”) kills any human creature in being (excluding quick but unborn children) and in the peace of the state or nation (including all persons except the military forces of the public enemy in time of war or battle) without any warrant, justification, or excuse in law. "

What do you have?

Thank you for proving my point. The act is called murder. Without a murder there is no self-defense.

No you are misreading. Murder is a crime. Killing without excuse is not. That's what it says. This is why newspapers say "alleged murder (or any other crime) " and when they don't they sometimes get sued for libel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I admire what this kid was trying to do but he should not have been there. They will convict him of something - perhaps short of murder but my guess is there are a lot of options around crossing state lines and illegal carrying of a weapon, some form of reckless endangerment etc.

I am mad at the Wisconsin governor and local officials for allowing things to get to a point where people feel driven to get involved in this way. I am guessing this kid is a like a lot of us that get really upset at innocent people's businesses being destroyed, elderly shop owners and random other people getting beaten up etc.. We do not see it as acceptable collateral damage for a great cause and are angry at local officials who allow it to happen.

You are putting yourself in his shoes and feeling sympathy for him and his (stated) goal. But he was acting like a movie hero. IRL, John Wick would be a bad guy and charged with murder, even if he only killed criminals.

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are actually nothing like this kid who is either dumb or evil or both.

Same poster, I think he is naive and dumb. Through my lens I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt which he may or may not deserve.

The thing is, take this kid's odd story out of it and this could be a shop or restaurant owner protecting a business. That is why we need to support the police and to invest in and improve the police. Whatever their flaws, professional law enforcement with appropriate support is going to handle these situations far better than random people on the street with guns. Frankly all the people involved in this incident sound like bad actors to me and should have been cleared off the streets well before this happened. The constitutional right is to peacefully assemble - which does not describe an awful lot of what has been going on these past three months.

Same PP. I think of the store owner who killed a shoplifter and was convicted of murder.

People who carry guns need to know the consequences of using them. If they don't, then they shouldn't have the gun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I admire what this kid was trying to do but he should not have been there. They will convict him of something - perhaps short of murder but my guess is there are a lot of options around crossing state lines and illegal carrying of a weapon, some form of reckless endangerment etc.

I am mad at the Wisconsin governor and local officials for allowing things to get to a point where people feel driven to get involved in this way. I am guessing this kid is a like a lot of us that get really upset at innocent people's businesses being destroyed, elderly shop owners and random other people getting beaten up etc.. We do not see it as acceptable collateral damage for a great cause and are angry at local officials who allow it to happen.

I appreciate your post.....

IRT the bolded.....

I have read that here more times than I can count.
You know what I haven't read? That the thugs who were looting, committing arson, and causing destruction shouldn't have been there.

As they say, it takes two to tango.

You are right, they shouldn't have been there. But were the particular people Rittenhouse shot looting or burning. Maybe. We don't know yet. The only thing we know so far is that they were breaking curfew and they weren't choirboys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is the murder weapon now? Who was it registered to? These are very important facts. If it was not turned in then that's a tampering with evidence charge and it goes towards intent.

Note: whether or not there is self-defemse it was still murder. Self-defense doesn't change the underlying act it just gives a get out of jail free card.

The underlying act is killing. It's only murder when you are convicted.

Those terms would be homicide and manslaughter. Those terms also only apply to the intent of the perpetrator and not the act itself. The act of killing someone by a non-State actor is called murder.

But that belies the point. Where is the murder weapon and who is it registered to?

Merriam-Webster
Murder definition is - the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.

Self defense is not unlawful. I'm taking Miriam Webster's definition over yours. It's an alleged murder until proven unlawful.

I don't know why you are so concerned about that. The police usually recover the weapon. If he tried to hide it, I'm sure we will hear about it sooner or later.

If it's not murder, then it wasn't self-defense. Why are you arguing legal definitions if you don't understand them?

I can ask you the same question. I gave you Merriam Webster's definition
Here's another one, from a law dictionary.

"What is MURDER?
The crime committed where a person of sound mind and discretion (that is, of sufficient age to form and execute a criminal design and not legally “insane”) kills any human creature in being (excluding quick but unborn children) and in the peace of the state or nation (including all persons except the military forces of the public enemy in time of war or battle) without any warrant, justification, or excuse in law. "

What do you have?

Thank you for proving my point. The act is called murder. Without a murder there is no self-defense.

No you are misreading. Murder is a crime. Killing without excuse is not. That's what it says. This is why newspapers say "alleged murder (or any other crime) " and when they don't they sometimes get sued for libel.

Self-defense is not a defense to killing, it's a defense to murder.

The law of murder and self-defense have been settled for hundreds of years, with a few tweaks around the edges. This is very old law, from before the US was a country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
No you are misreading. Murder is a crime. Killing without excuse is not. That's what it says. This is why newspapers say "alleged murder (or any other crime) " and when they don't they sometimes get sued for libel.

Until there is a conviction, the media says "alleged" because that is what it is, an allegation. Calling someone a murder who has not been convicted of the crime would be libel and poison a jury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No you are misreading. Murder is a crime. Killing without excuse is not. That's what it says. This is why newspapers say "alleged murder (or any other crime) " and when they don't they sometimes get sued for libel.

Until there is a conviction, the media says "alleged" because that is what it is, an allegation. Calling someone a murder who has not been convicted of the crime would be libel and poison a jury.

One cannot call the shooter a murderer without a conviction but one can say that the victim was murdered. Two different subjects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is the murder weapon now? Who was it registered to? These are very important facts. If it was not turned in then that's a tampering with evidence charge and it goes towards intent.

Note: whether or not there is self-defemse it was still murder. Self-defense doesn't change the underlying act it just gives a get out of jail free card.

The underlying act is killing. It's only murder when you are convicted.

Those terms would be homicide and manslaughter. Those terms also only apply to the intent of the perpetrator and not the act itself. The act of killing someone by a non-State actor is called murder.

But that belies the point. Where is the murder weapon and who is it registered to?

Merriam-Webster
Murder definition is - the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.

Self defense is not unlawful. I'm taking Miriam Webster's definition over yours. It's an alleged murder until proven unlawful.

I don't know why you are so concerned about that. The police usually recover the weapon. If he tried to hide it, I'm sure we will hear about it sooner or later.

If it's not murder, then it wasn't self-defense. Why are you arguing legal definitions if you don't understand them?

I can ask you the same question. I gave you Merriam Webster's definition
Here's another one, from a law dictionary.

"What is MURDER?
The crime committed where a person of sound mind and discretion (that is, of sufficient age to form and execute a criminal design and not legally “insane”) kills any human creature in being (excluding quick but unborn children) and in the peace of the state or nation (including all persons except the military forces of the public enemy in time of war or battle) without any warrant, justification, or excuse in law. "

What do you have?

Thank you for proving my point. The act is called murder. Without a murder there is no self-defense.

No you are misreading. Murder is a crime. Killing without excuse is not. That's what it says. This is why newspapers say "alleged murder (or any other crime) " and when they don't they sometimes get sued for libel.

Self-defense is not a defense to killing, it's a defense to murder.

The law of murder and self-defense have been settled for hundreds of years, with a few tweaks around the edges. This is very old law, from before the US was a country.

If you successfully defend against an accusation of murder, no crime was committed. That's because murder is a crime. Killing is not. Rittenhouse definitely killed someone. But he is not proven to have committed the crime of murder.

You correct that the law has been settled for hundreds of years. But the law is not what you say it is. You may be committing libel. That is also illegal. It's a defense to say that you reasonably believe what you are saying is true. Or should I just say you are actually committing libel but that's no insult because you have an excuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No you are misreading. Murder is a crime. Killing without excuse is not. That's what it says. This is why newspapers say "alleged murder (or any other crime) " and when they don't they sometimes get sued for libel.

Until there is a conviction, the media says "alleged" because that is what it is, an allegation. Calling someone a murder who has not been convicted of the crime would be libel and poison a jury.

One cannot call the shooter a murderer without a conviction but one can say that the victim was murdered. Two different subjects.

Well it's not libel to say someone was murdered without saying who did it, so newspapers do say that without getting in trouble. But sometimes they say "was allegedly murdered" anyway just to be safe. I have not seen any media outlet say this was a definite murder. Maybe I missed it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is the murder weapon now? Who was it registered to? These are very important facts. If it was not turned in then that's a tampering with evidence charge and it goes towards intent.

Note: whether or not there is self-defemse it was still murder. Self-defense doesn't change the underlying act it just gives a get out of jail free card.

The underlying act is killing. It's only murder when you are convicted.

Those terms would be homicide and manslaughter. Those terms also only apply to the intent of the perpetrator and not the act itself. The act of killing someone by a non-State actor is called murder.

But that belies the point. Where is the murder weapon and who is it registered to?

Merriam-Webster
Murder definition is - the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.

Self defense is not unlawful. I'm taking Miriam Webster's definition over yours. It's an alleged murder until proven unlawful.

I don't know why you are so concerned about that. The police usually recover the weapon. If he tried to hide it, I'm sure we will hear about it sooner or later.

If it's not murder, then it wasn't self-defense. Why are you arguing legal definitions if you don't understand them?

I can ask you the same question. I gave you Merriam Webster's definition
Here's another one, from a law dictionary.

"What is MURDER?
The crime committed where a person of sound mind and discretion (that is, of sufficient age to form and execute a criminal design and not legally “insane”) kills any human creature in being (excluding quick but unborn children) and in the peace of the state or nation (including all persons except the military forces of the public enemy in time of war or battle) without any warrant, justification, or excuse in law. "

What do you have?

Thank you for proving my point. The act is called murder. Without a murder there is no self-defense.

No you are misreading. Murder is a crime. Killing without excuse is not. That's what it says. This is why newspapers say "alleged murder (or any other crime) " and when they don't they sometimes get sued for libel.

Self-defense is not a defense to killing, it's a defense to murder.

The law of murder and self-defense have been settled for hundreds of years, with a few tweaks around the edges. This is very old law, from before the US was a country.

If you successfully defend against an accusation of murder, no crime was committed. That's because murder is a crime. Killing is not. Rittenhouse definitely killed someone. But he is not proven to have committed the crime of murder.

You correct that the law has been settled for hundreds of years. But the law is not what you say it is. You may be committing libel. That is also illegal. It's a defense to say that you reasonably believe what you are saying is true. Or should I just say you are actually committing libel but that's no insult because you have an excuse.

Are you being intentionally obtuse? Rosenbaum was murdered and Rittenhouse did not commit murder are not mutually exclusive statements.

The act of killing someone without inherent authority is called murder. A defense to murder is self-defense. Self-defense can only be raised when a murder has occurred. If one's self-defense claim is upheld then one is not a murderer however the victim was still murdered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is the murder weapon now? Who was it registered to? These are very important facts. If it was not turned in then that's a tampering with evidence charge and it goes towards intent.

Note: whether or not there is self-defemse it was still murder. Self-defense doesn't change the underlying act it just gives a get out of jail free card.

The underlying act is killing. It's only murder when you are convicted.

Those terms would be homicide and manslaughter. Those terms also only apply to the intent of the perpetrator and not the act itself. The act of killing someone by a non-State actor is called murder.

But that belies the point. Where is the murder weapon and who is it registered to?

Merriam-Webster
Murder definition is - the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.

Self defense is not unlawful. I'm taking Miriam Webster's definition over yours. It's an alleged murder until proven unlawful.

I don't know why you are so concerned about that. The police usually recover the weapon. If he tried to hide it, I'm sure we will hear about it sooner or later.

If it's not murder, then it wasn't self-defense. Why are you arguing legal definitions if you don't understand them?

I can ask you the same question. I gave you Merriam Webster's definition
Here's another one, from a law dictionary.

"What is MURDER?
The crime committed where a person of sound mind and discretion (that is, of sufficient age to form and execute a criminal design and not legally “insane”) kills any human creature in being (excluding quick but unborn children) and in the peace of the state or nation (including all persons except the military forces of the public enemy in time of war or battle) without any warrant, justification, or excuse in law. "

What do you have?

Thank you for proving my point. The act is called murder. Without a murder there is no self-defense.

No you are misreading. Murder is a crime. Killing without excuse is not. That's what it says. This is why newspapers say "alleged murder (or any other crime) " and when they don't they sometimes get sued for libel.

Self-defense is not a defense to killing, it's a defense to murder.

The law of murder and self-defense have been settled for hundreds of years, with a few tweaks around the edges. This is very old law, from before the US was a country.

If you successfully defend against an accusation of murder, no crime was committed. That's because murder is a crime. Killing is not. Rittenhouse definitely killed someone. But he is not proven to have committed the crime of murder.

You correct that the law has been settled for hundreds of years. But the law is not what you say it is. You may be committing libel. That is also illegal. It's a defense to say that you reasonably believe what you are saying is true. Or should I just say you are actually committing libel but that's no insult because you have an excuse.

A crime may not have been committed but the avt still happened. I am most definitely not committing libel. First off I'm not calling anyone a murderer or even reffering to an individual. Secondly the word you are trying to slander me with is slander not libel. You really should not be using words of art and terms that you clearly have no idea what they mean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is the murder weapon now? Who was it registered to? These are very important facts. If it was not turned in then that's a tampering with evidence charge and it goes towards intent.

Note: whether or not there is self-defemse it was still murder. Self-defense doesn't change the underlying act it just gives a get out of jail free card.

The underlying act is killing. It's only murder when you are convicted.

Those terms would be homicide and manslaughter. Those terms also only apply to the intent of the perpetrator and not the act itself. The act of killing someone by a non-State actor is called murder.

But that belies the point. Where is the murder weapon and who is it registered to?

Merriam-Webster
Murder definition is - the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.

Self defense is not unlawful. I'm taking Miriam Webster's definition over yours. It's an alleged murder until proven unlawful.

I don't know why you are so concerned about that. The police usually recover the weapon. If he tried to hide it, I'm sure we will hear about it sooner or later.

If it's not murder, then it wasn't self-defense. Why are you arguing legal definitions if you don't understand them?

I can ask you the same question. I gave you Merriam Webster's definition
Here's another one, from a law dictionary.

"What is MURDER?
The crime committed where a person of sound mind and discretion (that is, of sufficient age to form and execute a criminal design and not legally “insane”) kills any human creature in being (excluding quick but unborn children) and in the peace of the state or nation (including all persons except the military forces of the public enemy in time of war or battle) without any warrant, justification, or excuse in law. "

What do you have?

Thank you for proving my point. The act is called murder. Without a murder there is no self-defense.

No you are misreading. Murder is a crime. Killing without excuse is not. That's what it says. This is why newspapers say "alleged murder (or any other crime) " and when they don't they sometimes get sued for libel.

Self-defense is not a defense to killing, it's a defense to murder.

The law of murder and self-defense have been settled for hundreds of years, with a few tweaks around the edges. This is very old law, from before the US was a country.

If you successfully defend against an accusation of murder, no crime was committed. That's because murder is a crime. Killing is not. Rittenhouse definitely killed someone. But he is not proven to have committed the crime of murder.

You correct that the law has been settled for hundreds of years. But the law is not what you say it is. You may be committing libel. That is also illegal. It's a defense to say that you reasonably believe what you are saying is true. Or should I just say you are actually committing libel but that's no insult because you have an excuse.

A crime may not have been committed but the avt still happened. I am most definitely not committing libel. First off I'm not calling anyone a murderer or even reffering to an individual. Secondly the word you are trying to slander me with is slander not libel. You really should not be using words of art and terms that you clearly have no idea what they mean.

Please stop arguing with that idiot. You were arguing with with somebody dumb enough to try to get legal terms from Webster’s dictionary. Legally, he/ she is an idiot, but not a lawyer.

[Anonymous]

So much logomachy on this thread, especially the last few pages. Oy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is the murder weapon now? Who was it registered to? These are very important facts. If it was not turned in then that's a tampering with evidence charge and it goes towards intent.

Note: whether or not there is self-defemse it was still murder. Self-defense doesn't change the underlying act it just gives a get out of jail free card.

The underlying act is killing. It's only murder when you are convicted.

Those terms would be homicide and manslaughter. Those terms also only apply to the intent of the perpetrator and not the act itself. The act of killing someone by a non-State actor is called murder.

But that belies the point. Where is the murder weapon and who is it registered to?

Merriam-Webster
Murder definition is - the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.

Self defense is not unlawful. I'm taking Miriam Webster's definition over yours. It's an alleged murder until proven unlawful.

I don't know why you are so concerned about that. The police usually recover the weapon. If he tried to hide it, I'm sure we will hear about it sooner or later.

If it's not murder, then it wasn't self-defense. Why are you arguing legal definitions if you don't understand them?

I can ask you the same question. I gave you Merriam Webster's definition
Here's another one, from a law dictionary.

"What is MURDER?
The crime committed where a person of sound mind and discretion (that is, of sufficient age to form and execute a criminal design and not legally “insane”) kills any human creature in being (excluding quick but unborn children) and in the peace of the state or nation (including all persons except the military forces of the public enemy in time of war or battle) without any warrant, justification, or excuse in law. "

What do you have?

Thank you for proving my point. The act is called murder. Without a murder there is no self-defense.

No you are misreading. Murder is a crime. Killing without excuse is not. That's what it says. This is why newspapers say "alleged murder (or any other crime) " and when they don't they sometimes get sued for libel.

Self-defense is not a defense to killing, it's a defense to murder.

The law of murder and self-defense have been settled for hundreds of years, with a few tweaks around the edges. This is very old law, from before the US was a country.

If you successfully defend against an accusation of murder, no crime was committed. That's because murder is a crime. Killing is not. Rittenhouse definitely killed someone. But he is not proven to have committed the crime of murder.

You correct that the law has been settled for hundreds of years. But the law is not what you say it is. You may be committing libel. That is also illegal. It's a defense to say that you reasonably believe what you are saying is true. Or should I just say you are actually committing libel but that's no insult because you have an excuse.

Are you being intentionally obtuse? Rosenbaum was murdered and Rittenhouse did not commit murder are not mutually exclusive statements.

The act of killing someone without inherent authority is called murder. A defense to murder is self-defense. Self-defense can only be raised when a murder has occurred. If one's self-defense claim is upheld then one is not a murderer however the victim was still murdered.

Stop throwing around insults. We have a difference of opinion here. Your definition of murder is incorrect. You are making a small error that essentially calls someone a murderer before they are convicted of the crime. That could be libel. That's my only real point. Yeah, you could say someone was murdered without there being a murderer, but there are still potential libel issues around that, so as a practical matter, I've noticed media sometimes avoid saying that, probably on orders from the legal department even if it's technical okay. If you don't see what I am getting at here, then you've probably never written something that might be reviewed by hostile lawyers someday. You don't have to agree with me. But to assume someone is "deliberately obtuse" because they don't bow to your almighty wisdom is assinine. Especially on a legal issue. Where people really do argue about the meaning of a word all day long and can go to jail if they get it wrong. Call your lawyer if you still don't get it. He's probably had a lot of disagreements like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No you are misreading. Murder is a crime. Killing without excuse is not. That's what it says. This is why newspapers say "alleged murder (or any other crime) " and when they don't they sometimes get sued for libel.

Until there is a conviction, the media says "alleged" because that is what it is, an allegation. Calling someone a murder who has not been convicted of the crime would be libel and poison a jury.

Yes. that's what I said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is the murder weapon now? Who was it registered to? These are very important facts. If it was not turned in then that's a tampering with evidence charge and it goes towards intent.

Note: whether or not there is self-defemse it was still murder. Self-defense doesn't change the underlying act it just gives a get out of jail free card.

The underlying act is killing. It's only murder when you are convicted.

Those terms would be homicide and manslaughter. Those terms also only apply to the intent of the perpetrator and not the act itself. The act of killing someone by a non-State actor is called murder.

But that belies the point. Where is the murder weapon and who is it registered to?

Merriam-Webster
Murder definition is - the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.

Self defense is not unlawful. I'm taking Miriam Webster's definition over yours. It's an alleged murder until proven unlawful.

I don't know why you are so concerned about that. The police usually recover the weapon. If he tried to hide it, I'm sure we will hear about it sooner or later.

If it's not murder, then it wasn't self-defense. Why are you arguing legal definitions if you don't understand them?

I can ask you the same question. I gave you Merriam Webster's definition
Here's another one, from a law dictionary.

"What is MURDER?
The crime committed where a person of sound mind and discretion (that is, of sufficient age to form and execute a criminal design and not legally “insane”) kills any human creature in being (excluding quick but unborn children) and in the peace of the state or nation (including all persons except the military forces of the public enemy in time of war or battle) without any warrant, justification, or excuse in law. "

What do you have?

Thank you for proving my point. The act is called murder. Without a murder there is no self-defense.

No you are misreading. Murder is a crime. Killing without excuse is not. That's what it says. This is why newspapers say "alleged murder (or any other crime) " and when they don't they sometimes get sued for libel.

Self-defense is not a defense to killing, it's a defense to murder.

The law of murder and self-defense have been settled for hundreds of years, with a few tweaks around the edges. This is very old law, from before the US was a country.

If you successfully defend against an accusation of murder, no crime was committed. That's because murder is a crime. Killing is not. Rittenhouse definitely killed someone. But he is not proven to have committed the crime of murder.

You correct that the law has been settled for hundreds of years. But the law is not what you say it is. You may be committing libel. That is also illegal. It's a defense to say that you reasonably believe what you are saying is true. Or should I just say you are actually committing libel but that's no insult because you have an excuse.

Are you being intentionally obtuse? Rosenbaum was murdered and Rittenhouse did not commit murder are not mutually exclusive statements.

The act of killing someone without inherent authority is called murder. A defense to murder is self-defense. Self-defense can only be raised when a murder has occurred. If one's self-defense claim is upheld then one is not a murderer however the victim was still murdered.

Stop throwing around insults. We have a difference of opinion here. Your definition of murder is incorrect. You are making a small error that essentially calls someone a murderer before they are convicted of the crime. That could be libel. That's my only real point. Yeah, you could say someone was murdered without there being a murderer, but there are still potential libel issues around that, so as a practical matter, I've noticed media sometimes avoid saying that, probably on orders from the legal department even if it's technical okay. If you don't see what I am getting at here, then you've probably never written something that might be reviewed by hostile lawyers someday. You don't have to agree with me. But to assume someone is "deliberately obtuse" because they don't bow to your almighty wisdom is assinine. Especially on a legal issue. Where people really do argue about the meaning of a word all day long and can go to jail if they get it wrong. Call your lawyer if you still don't get it. He's probably had a lot of disagreements like this.

You are an idiot who has reading comprehension issues. I am a lawyer and you clearly are not. The woda murder and murderer refer to two separate things. One is an act while the other is an actor.