Society/Culture Kyle Rittenhouse

[Geelong_Sicko]

I added an explanation.

Ah, I get you. Fair points actually.

 

[Jupes]

Pretty silly stating anyone that finds it strange is ignorant. You can understand it to the ends of the earth and still find it bizarre if it is fundamentally different to how we exist over here.

that's fair enough. although i didn't claim anyone who finds it bizarre is ignorant but judging by a some of the hot takes itt a lot are. surely you'll admit that most australians in general aren't up to speed on things like us state gun laws, firearm safety/function, us gun culture history etc?

 

[scoman]

Ah, I get you. Fair points actually.

Perhaps I could have used the word fantasy rather than horse manure.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Perhaps I could have used the word fantasy rather than horse manure.

I didn't take offence, I just wondered what you disagreed with.

 

[BigTacoBandit]

An active shooter is someone who attends a scene with the intent to kill as many people as possible. Rittenhouse was present in the crowd for some time and only fired when he was chased/ attacked by those deceased. If he was an active shooter there would have been a much higher body count and absolutely no grounds for self defence.

But how would the 2nd and 3rd victims know that he wasn't an active shooter by that definition? All they knew was that a guy with a rifle was running away with others screaming and pointing that he shot someone.

The NRA would have us believe that anyone with a gun would be within their rights to summarily execute Rittenhouse as he was running away.

 

[Financialpanther]

that's fair enough. although i didn't claim anyone who finds it bizarre is ignorant but judging by a some of the hot takes itt a lot are. surely you'll admit that most australians in general aren't up to speed on things like us state gun laws, firearm safety/function, us gun culture history etc?

It’s a given - the US is a country with some many disparate jurisdictions and laws that make many heads spin. Add to that it’s over legislated and ya know.

 

[BigTacoBandit]

That is a bit murky with the Wisconsin laws. I don't think that is the case though. Regardless they would still be facing prosecution for the shootings at the school. That would be cold comfort for your family and friends if you were killed in that situation. At the end of the day, though, if you decide to pull your gun on someone you take a massive risk. Even if you believe you are defending people and saving lives

Agreed. Everyone should probably leave it to the authorities and leave their guns at home. Wild West over there.

 

[Achy Blakey Heart]

But how would the 2nd and 3rd victims know that he wasn't an active shooter by that definition? All they knew was that a guy with a rifle was running away with others screaming and pointing that he shot someone.

The NRA would have us believe that anyone with a gun would be within their rights to summarily execute Rittenhouse as he was running away.

Active shooter don’t run away from people. They run towards them and shoot more people. Don’t let you bias get in the way of the facts.

 

[Chief]

Active shooter don’t run away from people. They run towards them and shoot more people. Don’t let you bias get in the way of the facts.

This pseudo military language is silly.

How do you know exactly what a mass murderer thinks?

 

[Jafa]

But how would the 2nd and 3rd victims know that he wasn't an active shooter by that definition? All they knew was that a guy with a rifle was running away with others screaming and pointing that he shot someone.

The NRA would have us believe that anyone with a gun would be within their rights to summarily execute Rittenhouse as he was running away.

Victims? They where aggressors. They where only told he shot someone (they wouldn't have known it otherwise) and they went after him with intent to do damage. The video shows that quite clearly.

 

[Achy Blakey Heart]

This pseudo military language is silly.

How do you know exactly what a mass murderer thinks?

When was the last time you saw an active shooter in a mass shooting running away to the police?
Don’t be ****ing dumb.

 

[Chief]

When was the last time you saw an active shooter in a mass shooting running away to the police?
Don’t be ******* dumb.

I’ve never seen one at all you pillock.

And in the end, running out of patience with your shitty abusive posting.

 

[eaglespremiers]

I kinda understand him getting off the first shooting as self defence, but the other 2 were people trying to apprehend an active shooter.

So next school shooting, if an armed citizen points their gun at the fleeing active shooter, the shooter can shoot them and claim self defence?

But how would the 2nd and 3rd victims know that he wasn't an active shooter by that definition? All they knew was that a guy with a rifle was running away with others screaming and pointing that he shot someone.

The NRA would have us believe that anyone with a gun would be within their rights to summarily execute Rittenhouse as he was running away.

If you incorrectly perform/try to perform a citizen's arrest you are criminally responsible for your actions.
As the jury cleared Rittehouse of any wrongdoing in the initial Rosembaum shooting Huber and Maurice Freeland (aka Jump Kick Man) assaulted the defendant and tried to apprehend him illegally and, in fact, committed more crimes than Rittenhouse has been demonstrated to commit.
As for Grosskreutz, well, he should be charged under 939.32 and 941.23 and spend time in jail, however, there is no chance the Prosecution would run such a case on their "star" witness.

There was no acceptable evidence led by the prosecution that Rittenhouse tried to "incite" an altercation.
He received threats to his life directly from Rosenbaum, who then pursued him (when he was isolated) and cornered him.
These are facts that Huber and Freeland should have been aware of before they engaged in battery. Instead they operated on the inaccurate commentary and verbal discharge from the rioters. Ignorance is not an excuse, you do not physically engage and assault somebody if you are unaware of the events that transpired beforehand.

Rittenhouse was not an "active shooter" and this verdict should not deter citizens from intervening in matters of civilian safety on the basis that they act on a proper understanding of the situation and not simply on assumptions.

As to the hypothetical of school shootings there is an act from 1994 called the Gun Free Schools Act which is federal legislation and bans guns on or near primary/secondary schools. Accordingly, the very presence of a person with a gun at a school should be enough to trigger a proportionate response from security and the necessary authorities. Bearing a gun in an open-carry state and using it for justifiable self-defence (at least according to Rittenhouse's peers) is an entirely different situation.

 

[Chief]

assaulted the defendant and tried to apprehend him illegally

Is it based on actual actions of the shooter or is the validity of their actions dependent on their own reasonable belief?

 

[Noidenous]

Is it based on actual actions of the shooter or is the validity of their actions dependent on their own reasonable belief?

This old chestnut.

Do you assume someone repeating 'friendly, friendly' is an active shooter, do you?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

so? it was lawful open carry.

So it's not simply the right to bear arms that people are reacting against.

 

[checkraiseulite]

This pseudo military language is silly.

How do you know exactly what a mass murderer thinks?

have you watched the video?

i did for the first time today - and it was obvious he was not trying to kill people and was running away - after the shootings he ran towards the cops with his hands off his gun and was trying to surrender.

what a 17 year old kid was doing there with an AR-33 is another matter entirely.

 

[BigTacoBandit]

If you incorrectly perform/try to perform a citizen's arrest you are criminally responsible for your actions.
As the jury cleared Rittehouse of any wrongdoing in the initial Rosembaum shooting Huber and Maurice Freeland (aka Jump Kick Man) assaulted the defendant and tried to apprehend him illegally and, in fact, committed more crimes than Rittenhouse has been demonstrated to commit.
As for Grosskreutz, well, he should be charged under 939.32 and 941.23 and spend time in jail, however, there is no chance the Prosecution would run such a case on their "star" witness.

There was no acceptable evidence led by the prosecution that Rittenhouse tried to "incite" an altercation.
He received threats to his life directly from Rosenbaum, who then pursued him (when he was isolated) and cornered him.
These are facts that Huber and Freeland should have been aware of before they engaged in battery. Instead they operated on the inaccurate commentary and verbal discharge from the rioters. Ignorance is not an excuse, you do not physically engage and assault somebody if you are unaware of the events that transpired beforehand.

Rittenhouse was not an "active shooter" and this verdict should not deter citizens from intervening in matters of civilian safety on the basis that they act on a proper understanding of the situation and not simply on assumptions.

As to the hypothetical of school shootings there is an act from 1994 called the Gun Free Schools Act which is federal legislation and bans guns on or near primary/secondary schools. Accordingly, the very presence of a person with a gun at a school should be enough to trigger a proportionate response from security and the necessary authorities. Bearing a gun in an open-carry state and using it for justifiable self-defence (at least according to Rittenhouse's peers) is an entirely different situation.

This goe back to my original point then - the NRA should alter its "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with gun" ethos to "stop. Consider all relevant evidence. Ignore all witnesses til you've weighed up all sides and come to a rational conclusion. Don't point your gun at them coz they can shoot you back and claim self defence".

 

[Chief]

This old chestnut.

Do you assume someone repeating 'friendly, friendly' is an active shooter, do you?

If multiple other people are pointing and shouting that they shot someone? Maybe not believe the dude with the gun?

Any other time the people taking on the gunman are lionised.

Think about why these people aren’t.

 

[eaglespremiers]

Is it based on actual actions of the shooter or is the validity of their actions dependent on their own reasonable belief?

Yes, there is absolutely an element of reasonable belief if the question was that of self-defence:
"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."(939.48(1).

So obviously the first point would be belief (which can be difficult to dispute), but the second point would be the reasonableness of that belief.

The jury in their determinations were satisfied that Rittenhouse had a reasonable belief for his own safety to act in the manner that he did. But all of Huber, Freeland and Grosskreutz actively pursued and engaged Rittenhouse in a confrontation that would not have occurred had they not pursued and engaged him in. The facts do not give rise for any of Huber, Freeland or Grosskreutz to argue that Rittenhouse was going to cause unlawful interference with any of them (as required by 939.48) prior to them chasing him down and assaulting him, or pulling a gun on him (as in the case of Grosskreutz). Accordingly, any interference on their person was caused directly because of their own actions in initially interfering with Rittenhouse.

Then there is the question of defence of others:
"A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person's intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person."(939.48(3)).

The question raised under 939.48(3) would be did any of Huber, Freeland or Grosskreutz have a reasonable belief that intervention on Rittenhouse was necessary to protect a third party's life (so not their own). Had Rittenhouse been firing his gun at the moderately sized crowd surrounding him, or had there been evidence that he was even pointing the gun at the crowd this may have given rise for such a belief. The fact that the footage demonstrated that Rittenhouse was running away from people with his gun pointing down at all times prior to him being kicked by Freeland would go some ways to disprove the reasonableness of this belief. Of course, the major variable from Australia is as Wisconsin is an open carry state the mere presence of a weapon is not enough to create reasonableness. As an Australian this is counter-intuitive, but the consideration of reasonableness must always be situation-dependant so it is what it is.

On the above basis if Rittenhouse wasn't directly threatening any of Huber, Freeland or Grosskreutz (which he demonstrably was not based on the video evidence), nor was he threatening anyone else then they were simply performing a citizens arrest. Perfectly fine, if Rittenhouse had been found to have committed a relevant offence. As the jury has determined that he didn't, then it was illegal. I do not believe that the question of "reasonable belief" is a consideration for merely a citizen's arrest (in contrast to the legal question of self-defense or defense of others). Even if it was a consideration I do not believe that acting on the crowd's commentary and accusations without seeing the original events transpire could ever satisfy the legal requirements of reasonableness that they would have to establish to present a suitable defence. Of course, this is purely hypothetical and I cannot profess to reading any relevant judgements in Wisconsin that might have dealt with any of the above situations before positing my opinion.

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

I saw this post quoted before and assumed it was from a number of days ago. Thought it may have been quoted to show how wrong you were.

To discover you typed this abomination of a post this afternoon is truly quite sad.

I feel I need to ask if you are aware there was a trial this week, which concluded with a not guilty verdict?

If you are aware of that, did you take any time to familiarise yourself with the video and witness accounts and the applicable laws in Wisconsin? This information will help you understand why your hot take is ridiculous.

So if you're at a skatepark, and a guy trys to belt you with a skateboard, do you think you are within your rights to blow that guys brains out with an assault rifle?

 

[Noidenous]

If multiple other people are pointing and shouting that they shot someone? Maybe not believe the dude with the gun?

Any other time the people taking on the gunman are lionised.

Think about why these people aren’t.

If he was actually just attacking people, those around the initial instance would be taking it upon themselves to act. Not a bunch of goons a block away who didn't even bear witness to the event.

They're not lionised because they ****ed up.

 

[Noidenous]

So if you're at a skatepark, and a guy trys to belt you with a skateboard, do you think you are within your rights to blow that guys brains out with an assault rifle?

Yes.

Openly carrying a weapon is a show of force. If someone ignores that force and attacks you, they deserve to be subjected to it.

Why you've raised an idiotic analogy whereby someone brings a rifle to a skatepark is another matter.

 

[Goroyals22]

Vigilante behaviour, disproportionate force. He should have left the area when he got a slight bruise from a skateboard instead of going on a murder spree.
Anyone who is not a gun nut or republican can see that.

You haven’t watched any of the footage or the court case have you?

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

In one breath laments "vigilante" behaviour while in another claiming that rioting and looting was "protesting" police brutality.

I'm honestly not sure if you're aware how biased you are.

Not as biased as the judge who had a trump anthem as his ring tone.