Society/Culture Kyle Rittenhouse

[Scallop Industry Thug]

I'd be less inclined to attack someone carrying an assault rifle.

Well, I hope the plastic bag didn't hurt Rittenhouse.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

The one who attacked him pointed a gun at him.

Which one?

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

The one with the bicep wound

Yeah the 3rd one after 2 people had been murdered.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

They shouldnt have attacked him for no reason.

He had a loaded ****ing gun.

 

[Eagle Wrath]

He had a loaded ******* gun.

So? If you were rioting and burning the place down, would you target a lone defender with a gun. Goodluck. He wasnt threatening anyone at any stage with that gun. Only when the mob had him on the ground, did he use it.

 

[Lethality]

Attacking a kid armed with an AR15, with a plastic bag and a skateboard, is about as dumb as bringing the rifle in the first place.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

The kid, the kid, the kid.

Honestly, this justification is textbook whitewashing.

 

[Gethelred]

Well tell us what you would do then.

While an interesting thought exercise, it's limited by the fact that most of the posters on here would not have placed themselves within that situation. There are a series of choices that lead to him being in possession of a firearm whilst isolated from his group at a riot, being pursued, and at any point any one of us might've made a different choice which lead away from your scenario.

What I'd like you to demonstrate is why what one of us would do in his place in that situation is relevant to the string of choices he made before he got there, for which he's being judged.

 

[eaglespremiers]

How dumb do you need to be to attack someone that is clearly armed, without provocation, and in an open carry precinct?

No doubt Kyle shouldn't have been there, but still what the hell is going through the mind of his attackers? He was legally entitled to defend himself with lethal force, the prosecution is struggling big time.

Here's a tip kidos, if you ever find yourself in an open carry part of the USA don't threaten someone with violence and try to disarm them.

Rosenbaum had just been released from hospital after a suicide attempt.
I don't think that the Defendant's representatives were able to lead such evidence but he was completely mentally unstable, even his fiancee concedes as much. She told him to "not go downtown" and he was in the midst of the rioting almost immediately.

 

[FrankGrimes]

He had a loaded ******* gun.

So they attacked him because he was carrying a loaded gun? They are stupider then Kyle then if that’s the reason.

 

[Chief]

So they attacked him because he was carrying a loaded gun? They are stupider then Kyle then if that’s the reason.

They’re not brave citizens protecting themselves and others from teenager waving a rifle around?

 

[RedVest4]

The 3rd guy was entirely justified in removing this stain from the world.

incorrect. That would have been murder

 

[RedVest4]

They’re not brave citizens protecting themselves and others from teenager waving a rifle around?

They attacked him for the crime of extinguishing a fire they had started. Yet somehow he is the bad guy???

 

[Chief]

They attacked him for the crime of extinguishing a fire they had started. Yet somehow he is the bad guy???

That’s why they attacked him?

 

[FrankGrimes]

They’re not brave citizens protecting themselves and others from teenager waving a rifle around?

Was he waving it around or just walking around?

 

[RedVest4]

That’s why they attacked him?

Hasn’t been disputed in the timeline of events in court

 

[Chief]

Was he waving it around or just walking around?

I don’t know I am just trying to match the embellishments.

Hasn’t been disputed in the timeline of events in court

”As” he was extinguishing a fire or “because”?

 

[scoman]

He'd killed 2 people to this point.

Self-defence seems to be a popular reason given in this discussion, will that do?

That would be a very interesting case if the 3rd guy had of pulled the trigger. I'm a bit sketchy on the details (haven't watched the footage for months), but did he come in with skateboard guy to attack Rittenhouse when he tried to flee? Or was he coming in with gun drawn trying to get everyone to stop? I guess either way, and being so soon after the original incident he could argue/ genuinely feel at the time that he was taking down a madman who was only going to keep killing. It's also possible that's what skateboard man felt he was doing to, rather than looking for the square up.

 

[Osho]

Which one?

Come on man, keep up. If you don't know the details of the case, you need to familiarise yourself, then form opinion.

 

[Osho]

That would be a very interesting case if the 3rd guy had of pulled the trigger. I'm a bit sketchy on the details (haven't watched the footage for months), but did he come in with skateboard guy to attack Rittenhouse when he tried to flee? Or was he coming in with gun drawn trying to get everyone to stop? I guess either way, and being so soon after the original incident he could argue/ genuinely feel at the time that he was taking down a madman who was only going to keep killing. It's also possible that's what skateboard man felt he was doing to, rather than looking for the square up.

He followed KR, feigned hands in air, wasn't shot, then pointed gun at accused, then was shot in the bicep. As stated under oath, by the bloke who was shot.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

No doubt Kyle shouldn't have been there, but still what the hell is going through the mind of his attackers? He was legally entitled to defend himself with lethal force, the prosecution is struggling big time.

Here's a tip kidos, if you ever find yourself in an open carry part of the USA don't threaten someone with violence and try to disarm them.

Can we play around with this theory that self defence should still apply even if you aren't allowed to carry a weapon nor have any reason to be in the place you're currently in?

If a kid carries a firearm into a school, is it self defence if they mow down somebody who charges at them before they shoot anybody else?

If a guy breaks into your house while armed, are they allowed to claim self defence for shooting you if you attempt to disarm them?

If somebody is waving a gun around in a threatening manner, are you now legally expected to acquiesce to their demands lest you be charged for assualting them?

Would really love to know where we draw the line.

 

[scoman]

While an interesting thought exercise, it's limited by the fact that most of the posters on here would not have placed themselves within that situation. There are a series of choices that lead to him being in possession of a firearm whilst isolated from his group at a riot, being pursued, and at any point any one of us might've made a different choice which lead away from your scenario.

What I'd like you to demonstrate is why what one of us would do in his place in that situation is relevant to the string of choices he made before he got there, for which he's being judged.

What one of us would do isn't really all that relevant in all honesty I grant you that. Further, living here in Australia means none of us is ever likely to (gun laws, culture and all that). My point is that once Rittenhouse gets himself in the situation he was in, he had very few options left. He can't allow someone to get their hands on him and his AR, which seems to have been Rosenbaum's intention. Then after trying to flee, stumbling and being set upon, he really has no other option but to keep pulling the trigger/ threatening until he is out of harm's way.
I must admit, if I had found myself in his situation (ignoring the fact that I wouldn't) I would probably be pulling the trigger as well. Yes I would have made a series of blunders to find myself in that situation, but I'm not going to sacrifice myself for my own stupidity. I'm going to defend myself by any means necessary.

 

[Alberto_Magnifico]

Rosenbaum had just been released from hospital after a suicide attempt.
I don't think that the Defendant's representatives were able to lead such evidence but he was completely mentally unstable, even his fiancee concedes as much. She told him to "not go downtown" and he was in the midst of the rioting almost immediately.

Well that makes a lot more sense now.

 

[eaglespremiers]

The 3rd guy was entirely justified in removing this stain from the world.

He murdered 2 people.

You seem to be imposing a legal verdict based on your moral outrage.
The legislation is quite clear:
"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."

There is the subjective test - what the individual believes, and the objective test - what is reasonable given the circumstances.
The subjective is difficult for the prosecution to attack, because it calls to question the mindset of the individual and, as defendants being witnesses go, Rittenhouse's evidence was quite concise and the prosecution likely did not cause anyone on the jury to reconsider Rittenhouse's beliefs as part of the cross-examination.

This leads to the objective test. Was the force used reasonable?
The prosecution has properly identified that the first shooting is the key to discrediting Rittenhouse's reasoning.
If the first shooting is considered by the jury as self-defence then virtually all other dominos fall. So what is the factual matrix that is painted by both the witnesses for the prosecution and defence during the last two weeks.
1. Rittenhouse is recorded numerous times in the hours prior to the shooting. One recording is an amateur "interview" where Kyle outlines his intentions (whether you accept them or not). Rittenhouse stipulates that "our job is to protect this business, my job is also to help people. If there is somebody hurt, I'm running into harms way". In another piece of footage he can be seen shouting and asking if anyone needs medical attention. You can argue voraciously that Kyle was putting on an act in these videos, however, it does paint a compelling picture as to Rittenhouse's alleged intentions and state of mind prior to any of the incidents.
2. A number of witnesses (outside of Rittenhouse himself) provide consistent evidence that in the hours leading up to the incident they are approached by Rosenbaum whilst standing in front of a car lot who attempts to start an altercation and Rosenbaum explicitly states that if he catches any of them alone he will attempt to kill them. This threat is conveyed on at least two occasions and it is directed at Rittenhouse specifically. At the time the defenders of the car lot have a number of support people, all of which are armed and while they take this threat seriously all understand that there is safety in armed numbers.
3. I believe that evidence is led that at some point the parties associated with Rittenhouse (including Rittenhouse) observed Rosenbaum wielding a long chain prior to him disappearing until the first altercation.
4. Rittenhouse is separated from his party by a police line.
5. Minutes before the incident Rosenbaum is recorded causing property damage to a large dumpster, setting it on fire and pushing it into the street.
6. Moments before the incident Rittenhouse is recorded with an extinguisher in his hand moving towards a burning vehicle.
7. Drone footage demonstrates that Rosenbaum hides in wait just off the main road as Rittenhouse passes by his location.
8. Rittenhouse then bursts into a sprit with Rosenbaum following a number of paces behind and gaining on Rittenhouse.
9. Rosenbaum throws his plastic bag of contents at Rittenhouse. This lands near Rittenhouse's feet.
10. A third party about 20m behind Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum shoots a handgun into the air immediately after 9.
11. While Rittenhouse's back is turned Rosenbaum continues to rush at him. This is confirmed in footage (see here).
12. Rittenhouse is cornered by motor vehicles and Rosenbaum lunges at him.
13. The time between Rittenhouse turning around to face Rosenbaum and the shooting occurring is less than a second. This is lead in the evidence by Dr John Black.
14. The distance between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum is two feet or less at the time of the shooting.

At no point during the trial has the prosecution been able to dislodge any of these material facts.
The problem for them is that these facts about the events paint a very compelling explanation as to reasonableness.
Particularly damning is point no. 2. The indisputable fact that Rosenbaum made threats to kill contingent on him isolating any defenders of the car lot gets to the very heart of reasonableness. Had this not occurred I believe that the prosecution could cast doubt that Rittenhouse's actions were disproportionate (not that this raises their case to "beyond a reasonable doubt" but it would be far closer).

The only way that the prosecution can pull a win out of this train wreck is if they can demonstrate provocation as required in the criminal code 939.48(2).
If Rittenhouse can be demonstrated to provoke the attack he is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defence and must exhaust every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his assailant. It is worth noting that this privilege may be regained by Rittenhouse at any time if he withdraws from the fight.

The problem for the prosecution is four-fold.
1. The evidence that Rittenhouse provoked the fight is scant. The prosecution produced grainy and under-exposed drone footage (that the judge ruled that they were unable to "pinch and zoom" into) of Rittenhouse purportedly raising his gun mere moments before Rosembaum started chasing him. The problem is, firstly, very few people (including Judge Schroeder) advised that they could see this action which the prosecution was arguing was tantamount to provocation. Also, anyone accepting the footage demonstrated what the prosecution suggested had to accept that Rittenhouse raised his gun with his left hand. As a right-hander this would've been a very unnatural position to fire from and is not consistent with the way that Rittenhouse held his gun in the copious amounts of footage both prior and during the altercations.
2. The person that Rittenhouse allegedly pointed the gun at to cause provocation did not testify. Further, this individual was definitely not Rosenbaum. Virtually the only evidence led was the grainy drone footage.
3. Regardless of whether it is found it is open to the jury to determine that Rittenhouse provoked the altercation there is evidence to demonstrate that Rittenhouse was withdrawing from the fight and the right to self-defence began applying again.
4. The question of provocation has to be considered in light of initial point 2 - Rosenbaum had previously threatened Rittenhouse. It appears to me to be problematic to prove provocation when the party being provoked had previously verbalised their intention to kill the other party.

The question of provocation has been left to the jury to determine.
This is the prosecutor's only hope. I cannot fathom that a jury will be satisfied on the legal standard of proof to determine that provocation occurred and Rittenhouse did not take steps to withdraw from the fight.

If it is found that Rittenhouse acted in self-defence as to the first shooting then the other incidents necessarily need to be considered upon the presumption of the first.
Rittenhouse was running towards the police line.
He fell over and was assaulted by jump-kick guy and then Huber with a skateboard without justification (remembering that if self-defence has been established both jump-kick guy and Huber have acted unlawfully).

Spoiler

Further, Grosskreutz made the astonishing admission to defence on cross-examination to the question "it wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him, now your hands down pointing at him, that he fired. Right?". To which Grosskreutz replied "correct". This is pretty damning exculpatory evidence.

Based on the above the only murder in this situation is the one that you are proposing where Grosskreutz was actually given the opportunity to shoot Rittenhouse.

Now you might not care about any of the above, however, I have found the last half a dozen pages exhaustive reading without any shred of legal analysis.
The term vigilatisim has stigmatism and does not rightly apply to this situation. Rittenhouse is not a hero and may have displayed a lack of judgment and common sense being in the situation but under the Wisconsin penal code he is not a murderer (although with their juries everything remains on the table).

We need to set aside our Australian sensibilities about gun laws and use and consider the laws of the land (whether we like them or not) and how the factual matrix played out.

 

[scoman]

He followed KR, feigned hands in air, wasn't shot, then pointed gun at accused, then was shot in the bicep. As stated under oath, by the bloke who was shot.

Seems like he was confused, unsure what to do. Can't say I blame him, would have been a crazy situation to be in.