-->
@Intelligence_06
So you have him found guilty and convicted already....can you find a case where the person was a 17 year old Male in a similar situation and what that outcome was so we have an idea for comparison?
Kyle Rittenhouse
Posts
Total:
102
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
So you have him found guilty and convicted already....
No. Why would you think that? Would you have him found not guilty and released already?
can you find a case where the person was a 17 year old Male in a similar situation and what that outcome was so we have an idea for comparison?
This implies the use of subjective standards. Objective standards are used.
Wisconsin does have an objective portion to their self-defense law, so it is not a matter of what [Defendant] thought was reasonable entirely that's the issue. The issue is whether a reasonable person confronted with this situation would have acted in the fashion [Defendant] did.
-->
@Death23
I'm having difficulty seeing that an objectively reasonable belief of imminent great bodily harm can be formed based on what Rittenhouse observed. The first shooting is the one I'm having a hard time with. According to a witness, Rosenbaum began to approach Rittenhouse, who then began to running away and the chase ensued. At some point, Rosenbaum threw an object at Rittenhouse. It was shortly after the object was thrown that Rittenhouse began to turn and shoot. So, I'm thinking the Rittenhouse's decision to shoot rather than continue to run was heavily influenced by that object being thrown. I don't know what that object was. I can't tell from the video, and the prosecutor says it was a "plastic bag", but plastic bags don't move like that. (at least not the ones in the grocery store) Rittenhouse was close enough to see what the object was and the object was well-illuminated by the light. He was also looking in the right direction to see it.
The NYT actually did an excellent analysis of the event--it looks like it's been paywalled now unfortunately, but as Kyle was being chased right before the first shooting, someone chasing him fired a shot into the air--but since Kyle was running away, he had no way of knowing that the shot coming from the mob chasing him was not actually aimed at him. He turned around and returned fire, killing the man who was charging him. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html
It seems very reasonable to assume that someone who knows you are armed but is pursuing you anyway as you attempt to retreat intends to inflict grievous bodily harm upon you, especially when you hear a shot from behind. Unless there is something that was not caught on video, I would be stunned if he doesn't walk.
Still, going through the legal system is punishment enough. He is innocent of the crimes he is accused of and thus deserves a rigorous defense...but everyone else also needs to understand that his actions are NOT to be emulated. The most important lesson to learn is that when trouble comes, don't be there.
-->
@thett3
It didn't look like the person who fired the shot into the air was chasing Rittenhouse. It didn't look like a mob was chasing him. But yes, the shot in the air immediately preceded Rittenhouse opening fire. I hadn't considered that Rittenhouse may have thought that Rosenbaum had opened fire.
Definitely agree that his actions should not be emulated, and that he bears substantial moral blame for what happened. He was looking for trouble, and he found it. If anything, I begin to think he may have wanted to kill someone that night, and that he was baiting them. If that's the case, then self-defense doesn't apply at all.
A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/III/48
Also, if anyone is interested, try Opera browser with private window and VPN enabled. It helps with paywalls.
-->
@Death23
right, what part of what we saw do you think wasn't reasonable? the other stuff was a reply to someone else.
let's say this kid was a police officer, would that change your opinion?
many people have been shot by trying to disarm someone who is armed, including police, so that seems pretty justified as a threat.
this guy sums it up pretty well for me
-->
@Death23
It didn't look like the person who fired the shot into the air was chasing Rittenhouse. It didn't look like a mob was chasing him. But yes, the shot in the air immediately preceded Rittenhouse opening fire. I hadn't considered that Rittenhouse may have thought that Rosenbaum had opened fire.
My impression was that the person who fired the first shot was chasing him, albeit a lot further behind but I'm struggling to find the video now. Here is how the NYT (which if it is biased at all is biased against Rittenhouse) describes the incident:
"While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene. Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head."
He is being chased by a mob, hears gunfire from the direction of the mob, turns around and sees a man lunging at him. It seems like that would be INCREDIBLY hard to get a conviction on.
Definitely agree that his actions should not be emulated, and that he bears substantial moral blame for what happened. He was looking for trouble, and he found it. If anything, I begin to think he may have wanted to kill someone that night, and that he was baiting them. If that's the case, then self-defense doesn't apply at all.
Yeah but those are moral questions, not legal ones. As for his intent to kill, he was retreating in all circumstances so he fulfilled his moral duty to retreat if you believe in that. A LOT of people do the “bring your gun to the protest” LARP, including at that very protest. I’ve long thought it was a bad idea for this precise reason.
You can have all the private suspicions you want but the state won't be able to prove that to a jury
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
At 3m 57s - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P56g7RquD8&t=3m57s - he refers to a video where Rosenbaum was making threats at Rittenhouse. I have not seen this video. It is relevant.
-->
@Death23
yeah probably more will be coming, I wasn't sure if it was a video or eyewitnesses that claim Rosenbaum did what is being alleged.
-->
@thett3
I'm actually pretty convinced that the gunshot in the air is what caused Rittenhouse to turn and fire, mostly because it immediately preceded Rittenhouse opening fire. The chase, the throwing of the object, and then the gunshot (which he may have assumed came from Rosenbaum) all taken together, may form a reasonable basis for an objective belief that great bodily harm was imminent. Especially if there were threats from Rosenbaum leading up to the event, then it may be more than enough for me to be convinced, I think. A little curious about the location of the muzzle flash in the photo. It's not clear what direction it was in or how far it was. Also wondering how easy it is to estimate distance and direction of gunfire using only your ears. The existence of gunfire would dispense with any alternative imo.
You can have all the private suspicions you want but the state won't be able to prove that to a jury
Yes, it is unlikely to be provable unless Rittenhouse left some messages or emails indicating it, or perhaps a witness he confided in or something. It should be investigated anyway, given the totality of the circumstances.
Who are the parents? What were they doing?
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
This one has two vids on it. https://www.youtube.com/c/RandRLawAZ/videos It's pretty detailed. I think Rittenhouse would likely win a trial, at least based on what I've seen so far.
-->
@Death23
that was excellent analysis, whatever doubts I had, are now gone, well done, nice find.
-->
@Death23
I'm actually pretty convinced that the gunshot in the air is what caused Rittenhouse to turn and fire, mostly because it immediately preceded Rittenhouse opening fire. The chase, the throwing of the object, and then the gunshot (which he may have assumed came from Rosenbaum) all taken together, may form a reasonable basis for an objective belief that great bodily harm was imminent. Especially if there were threats from Rosenbaum leading up to the event, then it may be more than enough for me to be convinced, I think. A little curious about the location of the muzzle flash in the photo. It's not clear what direction it was in or how far it was. Also wondering how easy it is to estimate distance and direction of gunfire using only your ears. The existence of gunfire would dispense with any alternative imo.
I don’t know if Rosenbaum threatened him. The closest thing I saw was a clip of an altercation they had where Rosenbaum gets in his face and yells “shoot me nigga!” Repeatedly, but that isn’t a threat. I think this claim is the weakest argument I’ve seen from the pro-Kyle side unless I missed something
When it comes to the gun shot...guns are a lot louder than most people think. A LOT louder. It was definitely close enough to factor into his consideration.
Who are the parents? What were they doing?
Yeah I know. He could’ve very easily have been killed. As it stands he killed two people...that changes a person. Yeah it was in self defense but not to the same degree as if someone broke into your house or tried to kill you out of nowhere. He went looking for trouble and way more trouble than he bargained for
-->
@thett3
I did see more precisely where the errant gun was shot from. It was from some guy on the sidewalk where Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum had run past. Rittenhouse, Rosenbaum, and the errant gunner formed an almost straight line, and the errant shot was from approximately 20-40 feet (estimating) behind Rosenbaum. Rittenhouse probably could tell roughly the direction it was coming from, but he wasn't looking in that direction.
-->
@Death23
Wow I didn’t realize it was that close. I’m truly not trying to be condescending but most people unfamiliar with guns don’t understand how loud they are. If you want to understand what Kyle heard, drive to your nearest outdoor gun range without hearing protection and stand twenty feet away from someone firing. Your ears would be ringing. If a mob is chasing me and I hear a gunshot that close I’m definitely going to think they’re shooting at me
-->
@thett3
I'm plenty familiar with them. Used to go to shooting ranges, actually shooting clay pigeons was my favorite gun thing to do. Haven't done that in years though.
-->
@Death23
Take a look at that. By Wisconsin Law he acted under self-defense. The only charge that could conceivably carry forward is possession of weapon as minor but even that is under question as the post mentions.
-->
@Vader
Before anything else, I've got to say it: Kid looks like a bad G.I. Joe cosplayer.
Tough one as well. I am neutral. At one point, he was being attacked, but at the same time, he shot them in the head. You don't aim for the head, you aim for the foot or a non lethal part of the body in general. This happened in my town recently with a kid 16yr old kid who stabbed a kid because he was getting curbstomped. He used a knife and stabbed him in the stomach. Anyway, I don't think he was a registered carrier as well, so I think it's murder IMO.
Having been shot at plenty, I am not a fan of the perfect grazing wound idea. I would actually love to see that as an option in a FPS such as Halo, but in the real world there's a level of careful precision which no amount of training seems to instill reliably once adrenaline gets going.
Weirdly, I will compare him to George Zimmerman. Poor choices which made a situation needlessly worse, reckless endangerment and other crimes certainly but premeditated murder seems a far stretch. On the other hand with Rittenhouse, the felony murder rule could be applied since he was breaking various laws which lead to the escalation that was likely to result in death... A problem there becomes that he's underage, so my concern drifts toward whomever provided the weapons (intentionally plural).
Regardless of how this turns out, it is pretty good evidence for why the police should not be wholesale disbanded (as the other option is this shit as the norm instead of a national news story). Which isn't to insult the idea of massive reform and redirecting much of the funding.
-->
@Vader
Warning shots seem a bad idea to me.
Warning Shots Are A Terrible Idea - Active Self Protection
Personally I'd rather just try not get 'into situations where violence is likely.
-->
@ILikePie5
Only problem was that he lives in Illinois and it's illegal to own that gun in Illinois under 18. Then he drove up to the border without proper registration (illegal). That's my issue
-->
@Barney
I agree. I wouldn't call it premeditated by any means now. However, he claimed to go and defend stores in Kenosha. My question is, why? That's a 30 min drive and not even in the same state
-->
@Death23
Self-defense from what I have seen. One guy hit him with a skateboard, a molotov cocktail was thrown at him, and a guy tried to rush him with a gun.
Seems like a hero to me, keeping order when the government refuses to.
-->
@Vader
Why does the fact that it was a different state matter? What I would think matters is the length of the drive, which wasn't very long.
-->
@Vader
I just looked it up. It is a 33 minute drive from Antioch, IL (Kyle’s hometown) and Kenosha, WI.
I think the distinction between states is rather arbitrary for this matter.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Different state different state. Doesn’t matter IMO. I live in Illinois anyway, it’s a decent haul as well. It’s still the law
-->
@Vader
That was phrased a little weird. What is the law?
-->
@bmdrocks21
You can’t own a gun at 17 in Illinois legally. I think you can in Wisconsin, but you need a permit to have one and he didn’t have one in the first place, so it was illegal.
-->
@Vader
Ok, I see. So he could get slapped with a weapon crime is what you're saying?
-->
@bmdrocks21
Ok, I see. So he could get slapped with a weapon crime is what you're saying?
He could but Wisconsin law isn’t clear on which weapons he can have and cannot with regards to an AR-15. The biggest takeaway from this is that he surrendered peacefully to the police and obeyed their every order even though he had an AR. It’s all it takes. Just obey the cops and you’ll be fine
-->
@ILikePie5
Yeah, but apparently not resisting arrest is just too difficult for some people.......
Funny thing is, he was running to the police line, yet they pretend that they were trying to apprehend him. (And despite pulling a gun on him and throwing a molotov cocktail)