-
Guest - BigFooty Tipping 2026 - Get on! - $500 first prize - Weekly Prizes - Click to Join
PLUS Your club board comp is now up!
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Opening Round
The Golden Ticket - Official AFL on-seller of MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Society/Culture Kyle Rittenhouse
- Thread starter RedVest4
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Staff
- #1,177
Jesus H Christ debating with you is a painful experience.
No, it's not.
The shooter can claim reasonable self defence from you trying to kill him, as long as he can prove he reasonably feared you were going to (and the jury agree that fear was reasonably held in those circumstances).
- Staff
- #1,178
Oh my God woman. You dont have to convince a Jury about anything about the victims state of mind.
HIS STATE OF MIND IS IRRELEVANT.
The only state of mind we legally give a shit about is KR's.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
Taylor
Community Leader
- Staff
- #1,181
You do need to convince them of the state of mind of two people. One being the aggressor, in this case Rosenbaum, and that then leads to understanding the state of mind of Rittenhouse and how you want them to be convinced of his own.
Granted if you can jump straight to Rittenhouse it works too, but I wouldn't rely on that.
- Staff
- #1,185
Yes, my personal view is each of the deceased was simply trying to disarm him, and were not actually trying to kill him, and had no intention of turning the rifle on him and shooting him should they have obtained possession of it.
But this is irrelevant to the defence. What they thought or didnt think is not relevant here legally.
Only what KR thought, and if that fear was reasonable.
- Staff
- #1,188
Yes, for the exact same reasons!
I also think KR was justified (under self defence) to shoot and kill those two blokes.
Why they were lunging for his gun is not relevant, any more than anything else that was going through their heads at the time.
That's not the legal question here.
- Staff
- #1,191
None of it was introduced as evidence (nor would it be allowed) as it doesnt do anything legally.
The state of mind of each of the victims is not relevant. The only relevant thing is 'did KR reasonably fear for his life when those men (with a mob behind them) were reaching for his gun'
He has no way of knowing his victims past criminal history or health status at the point when he pulled the trigger.
- Staff
- #1,192
That's the problem I'm trying to highlight here.
I dont agree he should get off, but legally speaking (under the laws for self defence in his jurisdiction) I think he will.
I dont agree a mass shooter should get off for blowing away someone trying to disarm him either, but he likely would under the exact same laws.
- Staff
- #1,194
Taylor
In this case the Prosecution need to prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that at the moment he pulled the trigger, KR did not reasonably fear for his life or that he was in threat of immanent serious harm, or that he did fear it, but it was not a reasonably held fear (having regard to the situation he found himself in).
That's it.
KR had no way of knowing about the mental health or criminal convictions or anything else about his victims when he pulled that trigger. At best he couild argue that the victims were acting erratically or aggressively. He certainly doesnt have sufficient time and training to make a medical diagnosis in that split second, and even if he could somehow pull that off, it doesnt otherwise lower or alter the threshold.
It's not relevant.
In this case the Prosecution need to prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that at the moment he pulled the trigger, KR did not reasonably fear for his life or that he was in threat of immanent serious harm, or that he did fear it, but it was not a reasonably held fear (having regard to the situation he found himself in).
That's it.
KR had no way of knowing about the mental health or criminal convictions or anything else about his victims when he pulled that trigger. At best he couild argue that the victims were acting erratically or aggressively. He certainly doesnt have sufficient time and training to make a medical diagnosis in that split second, and even if he could somehow pull that off, it doesnt otherwise lower or alter the threshold.
It's not relevant.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Staff
- #1,195
Not in this jurisdiction. You can still use lethal force in self defence in this jurisdiction even when provoked (as long as you're responding to lethal force).
Those laws I posted earlier in this thread for you.
Their laws are broken.
- Staff
- #1,196
'A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack, and who does provoke an attack, is not allowed to use or threaten force in self-defense against that attack.''
''However, if the attack which follows causes the person reasonably to believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, he or she may lawfully act in self-defense. But the person may not use or threaten force intended or likely to cause death unless he or she reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm''
https://wilawlibrary.gov/jury/files/criminal/0815.pdf
Taylor the above is the relevant law.
Read it and try and understand why he (and our mass shooter example) get off on self defence in this case.
A mass shooter is clearly ''a person engaging in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke an attack.''
However as long as our mass shooter (after shooting the person trying to disarm him) can prove he 'reasonably believed he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm (from the person disarming him)' he can shoot that heroic person dead and not be convicted of murder (homicide in this case).
Understand?
''However, if the attack which follows causes the person reasonably to believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, he or she may lawfully act in self-defense. But the person may not use or threaten force intended or likely to cause death unless he or she reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm''
https://wilawlibrary.gov/jury/files/criminal/0815.pdf
Taylor the above is the relevant law.
Read it and try and understand why he (and our mass shooter example) get off on self defence in this case.
A mass shooter is clearly ''a person engaging in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke an attack.''
However as long as our mass shooter (after shooting the person trying to disarm him) can prove he 'reasonably believed he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm (from the person disarming him)' he can shoot that heroic person dead and not be convicted of murder (homicide in this case).
Understand?
RookiePick
Hall of Famer
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2014
- Posts
- 30,899
- Reaction score
- 55,901
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Wasn't the prosecution in this case trying to prove Rittenhouse had incited Rosenbaum, in order to negate his self defence claim?
Why would they do this if your example is correct?
EDIT: Thanks for the extra posting but a mass shooter would fail the qualifying statement, surely?
" But the person may not use or threaten force intended or likely to cause death unless he or she reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm''
- Staff
- #1,198
True, the mass shooter would also need to avail themselves of this clause (tried to escape, or done whatever else is reasonable first, before resorting to lethal force). That would be dependent on the circumstances.
Look at KR in his circumstances. He was trying to get away from a mob.
He gets off.
- Banned
- #1,199
He’s not a mass shooter.