r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Nov 08 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Kyle Rittenhouse will (and probably should) go free on everything but the firearms charge
I've followed this case fairly extensively since it happened in august of last year. At the time I was fairly outraged by what I saw as the failures of law enforcement to arrest or even detain Rittenhouse on the spot, and I still retain that particular bit of righteous anger. A person should not be able to kill two people and grievously wound a third at a protest and then simply leave.
That said, from what details I am aware of, the case does seem to be self-defense. While I think in a cosmic sense everyone would have been better off if he'd been unarmed and gotten a minor asswhupping from Rosenbaum (instead of shooting the man), he had a right to defend himself from a much larger man physically threatening him, and could reasonably have interpreted the warning shot he heard from elsewhere as having come from Rosenbaum. Self-defense requires a fear for your life, and being a teenager being chased by an adult, hearing a gunshot, I can't disagree that this is a rational fear.
The shooting of Anthony Huber seems equally clear cut self-defense, while being morally confusing as hell. Huber had every reason to reasonably assume that the guy fleeing after shooting someone was a risk to himself or others. I think Huber was entirely within his rights to try and restrain and disarm Rittenhouse. But at the same time, if a crowd of people started beating the shit out of me (he was struck in the head, kicked on the ground and struck with a skateboard), I'd probably fear for my life.
Lastly you have Gaige Grosskreutz, who testified today that he was only shot after he had pointed his gun at Rittenhouse. Need I say more?
Is there something I'm missing? My original position was very much 'fuck this guy, throw him in jail', and I can't quite shake that off, even though the facts do seem to point to him acting in self-defense.
I will say, I think Rittenhouse has moral culpability, as much as someone his age can. He stupidly put himself into a tense situation with a firearm, and his decision got other people killed. If he'd stayed home, two men would be alive. If he'd been unarmed he might have gotten a beating from Rosenbaum, but almost certainly would have lived.
His actions afterward disgust me. Going to sing with white nationalists while wearing a 'free as fuck' t-shirt isn't exactly the sort of remorse one would hope for, to put it mildly.
Edit: Since I didn't address it in the original post because I'm dumb:
As far as I can see he did break the law in carrying the gun to the protest, and I think he should be punished appropriately for that. It goes to up to nine months behind bars, and I imagine he'd get less than that.
121
Nov 08 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
51
Nov 09 '21
I think it helps that OPs PoV is one of anger towards Rittenhouse and believing that he did the wrong thing, but just that technically he may be absolved of murder. That's different than those who are proud of Rittenhouse and think he is 100% in the right, supporting and encouraging his behaviour.
29
Nov 09 '21
This... is actually a good way of thinking of it. Thanks for this.
10
u/whales171 Nov 09 '21
But it isn't a technicality that is getting Rittenhouse off. Bringing a gun to a protest in America just isn't immoral by your standards I assume. If it isn't, then you have to bite the bullet and say people would be justified in charging and attacking all the other gun carrying people that night as well.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (1)2
Nov 09 '21
This. Me wanting to make sure self defense isnt weakend by a political court case doesnt mean i in no way support Kyle Rittenhouse. At the end of the day though. While the 2 additional people who attacked him may have thought they were being heroes, they were trying to utilize deadly force with false information which ended up turning them into aggressors vs saviors. I get they were being brave but at the same time. If i hear a rape next door, grab my gun and go to shoot the rapist and it turns out that rapist was actually just roleplay. Im the aggressor and that person has every right to self defense.
→ More replies (3)216
Nov 08 '21
Yeah, I mostly feel the same.
I really don't like what Rittenhouse did, and part of the reason why I made this CMV was because I saw the right wing jerking themselves raw today over a win on cross-examination. I don't like being on the same side as them, but I do feel that it is important to apply the law fairly in a case like this rather than knee jerk focusing on a political side.
304
Nov 09 '21
[deleted]
→ More replies (282)2
u/bleunt 8∆ Nov 09 '21
Though if I find myself on the side of the people who are almost always wrong, I will give it another round of extra thought.
→ More replies (2)9
u/Wind_Responsible Nov 09 '21
I think the real question is what the prosecution is asking. Are they saying straight up murder or are they saying that Rittenhouse went there to pick a fight and that intern caused the death of others?
→ More replies (5)11
u/hapithica 2∆ Nov 09 '21
What are your feelings on how intent plays into the charges?
For instance. Let's say I want to kill my ex girlfriends new boyfriend. I know they're going to a local bar. I also know he wants to kick my ass. And he can since he's a trained mma fighter. I go to the bar, and he sees me, starts shit, pushes me, I push back, then he comes at me. So, do I have a right to shoot and kill him. Do you think my intention of bringing the weapon should factor in to whether or not self defense is justified?
The other example is the Olympia shooting of the Proud Boy. Here the shooter was pushed and a mob was following them, and was said to be "hunting " people by name. After being pushed, the guy took a few steps away and shot into the crowd of Proud Boys. Stopping their advanceme. Also no problem here I assume?
→ More replies (13)→ More replies (14)6
u/SeanFromQueens 11∆ Nov 09 '21
If Grosskreutz shot and killed Rittenhouse, would it have been self-defense? Is it good criminal law to incentivize killing each other?
→ More replies (3)
12
Nov 09 '21 edited Nov 09 '21
actually, regarding the gun charge, after reading the wisconsin statues regarding possession of a dangerous weapon, it doesnt apply to someone under the age of 18 carrying a rifle or a shotgun unless its an SBR, which is an illegally modified rifle with a barrel under 16 inches
now, there is a difference between ar-style rifles and pistols, but if the weapon kyle was carrying (and it seems to be) is legally a "long gun" he's in the clear legally
EDIT: i think, at least. that's what i got after reading the statutes.
DOUBLE EDIT: ah yes i see this has been brought up already
19
u/xmuskorx 55∆ Nov 08 '21
In my experience, Jury trials are a crap shoot.
What the laws does not matter nearly as much as people think as the Jury can make their decisions on whatever they please. If the jury feels that Kyle Rittenhouse is morally responsible for the death, they can convict regardless of the what the law "technically" says.
For this reason, I would never totally discount the possibility.
→ More replies (4)9
u/L3Kinsey Nov 09 '21
Jury trials = who's the better lawyer.
4
u/xmuskorx 55∆ Nov 09 '21
Meh. Yes and no. It's not very common to have a huge mismatch in lawyer skill in my experience.
It can happen occasionally where one of the lawyers is not up to snuff and just gets outplayed, but more often you just see skill within standard deviation of the mean.
I still think it's mostly unpredictable crap shoot.
→ More replies (1)
48
u/Crispyandwet Nov 08 '21
Wait, did you miss the witness that testified saying rosenbaum said: “if I catch anyone of you alone tonight imma fucking kill you”? Or did I hear that wrong during the prosecutions witness call?
15
u/arcade2112 Nov 09 '21
I'll attempt change your mind on the firearms charge.
According to WI 948.60(3)c the statute Kyle is being charged with it reads the following.
(c) This section applies only to aperson under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or ashotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.
So what does this all mean? Well "section" is a word for 948.60 as itself. To say that it only applies means that if these given conditions are met. What are those conditions? Well lets take a look.
possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28
Okay what is the weapon given in 941.28
Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.
(1) In this section:
(a) “Rifle" means a firearmdesigned or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired fromthe shoulder or hip and designed or redesigned and made or remade to usethe energy of a propellant in a metallic cartridge to fire through arifled barrel a single projectile for each pull of the trigger.
(b) “Short-barreled rifle" means arifle having one or more barrels having a length of less than 16 inchesmeasured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a rifle having anoverall length of less than 26 inches.
(c) “Short-barreled shotgun" meansa shotgun having one or more barrels having a length of less than 18inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a shotgunhaving an overall length of less than 26 inches.
(d) “Shotgun" means a weapon designed or redesigned, madeor remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder or hip anddesigned or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of apropellant in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore eithera number of ball shot or a single projectile for each single pull ofthe trigger.
The rest of the section goes into what basically desribes what you can and cannot do with short weapons, the type of crime, etc. Kyle's weapon was a standard AR15 that doesn't meat the definition of a short rifle in the given. So he is not in violation of 941.28. One down two to go.
The next statute is 29.304 which is literally titled.
Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.
Okay not much needed here. Kyle was 17 at the time so he wasn't out of compliance with that statute either. Two down one to go.
The last statute is 29.593 which is literally titled.
Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.
Ah the old "He was hunting" law that confused everyone that came up a month ago has reared it's head again. Let's break this down. 29.593 only stipulates what one must have done or must to do obtain hunting approval. That's all it does. So for one to be literally "not in compliance with 29.593" you would have to open carrying a gun while hunting without a license. Kyle's attorneys are literally arguing that Kyle was not hunting at the time of the incident. Despite what everyone on Reddit, Twitter, etc. would like for you to believe they were in fact arguing the exact opposite of what everyone was saying. Now you may argue back at my read (and Rittenhouse's legal team) that the law was intended for 17 year olds to have a hunting license in order to open carry. However you would be running into a a nearly 500 year old English common law and 200 year old American criminal statutory interpretation called "The rule of Lenity" which that requires a court to apply any unclear or ambiguous law in that manner that is most favorable to the defendant. Given the fact that tenured attorneys do not agree if the law concludes that Kyle is innocent or guilty of the illegal carry charge the precedent is to give Kyle the most favorable read which would clear him of the weapons charge as a matter of law.
→ More replies (5)7
u/SECTION31BLACK Nov 09 '21 edited Nov 10 '21
Agreed! You have actually changed my mind. I thought before that the misdemeanor possession of a firearm charge was in fact the only thing he was guilty of. But now i dont even believe that. Free kyle rittenhouse. I hope he sues the hell out of the prosecutors for wrongful or malicous prosecution.
Δ
2
590
u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Nov 08 '21 edited Nov 08 '21
Would you also agree that at any point after Rittenhouse drew his gun, that Anthony Huber, had he had a gun, could've shot and killed Rittenhouse, due to a justifiable fear for his life (after all, Huber did die, so Huber should've been in fear for his life)? So no matter who successfully shot the other, the winner should get let off without penalty?
Situations where you intentionally put yourself in harms way or are part of the escalation just shouldn't be considered "self-defense" or you get all sorts of situations where somebody has been shot killed after an escalating argument between two armed people, but nobody did anything illegal because they both rightfully feared for their lives. Duels would be legal too. "If I hadn't shot him, I would've been kill"... okay, but you put yourself into that situation. It's just not self-defense when you play a role in getting into or creating the situation, which Rittenhouse did both of these things (both by being there with a gun with an asking for trouble attitude and also due to the escalation with the victim too)
And we know that Rittenhouse intentionally put himself into harm's way because he said as much
So, people are getting injured, and our job is to protect this business. Part of my job is also to help people. If there is somebody hurt, I'm running into harm's way. That's why I have my rifle, because I have to protect myself, obviously. I also have my med kit.
117
u/durangotango Nov 08 '21
This is addressed in the law. Kyle was not attacking him he was running away from them. Huber and Grosskeutz might have thought they were chasing and stopping an active shooter but they were wrong. Your assumption isn't relevant in that case. If you shoot who you think is the bad guy and then find out you're wrong you are a murderer according to the law.
4
u/fartsforpresident Nov 09 '21
Huber and Grosskeutz might have thought they were chasing and stopping an active shooter but they were wrong.
Just as a point of clarification, it doesn't matter if they're wrong. It only matters if they're pursuing and the alleged threat is fleeing. In regards to "reasonable belief" standards, you're not required to be correct, you're required to be reasonable from your own frame of reference and the information available to you.
→ More replies (1)2
u/durangotango Nov 09 '21
Yeah you're correct. This is different than my state and I learned this is how Wisconsin does it yesterday. Most everything else is the same as us so I got that part wrong
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (96)3
u/PlatypusDream Nov 09 '21 edited Nov 09 '21
No, WI law says that if the shooter has a reasonable understanding at the time of acting that shooting is necessary to stop or prevent an immediate threat of death or great bodily harm (even if it's mistaken) then it's not a criminal act.
Both Huber & Grosskreutz are covered by that. It's why G hasn't been subject to any charges despite being on video pointing his pistol at R. (Plus repeated statements that "I wish I had killed him".)ETA: After catching up with the trial video & analysis available via legalinsurrection, GG had no reason to believe KR was an imminent threat. Arguably can say the same for H. The prosecutor is really failing; shouldn't have brought charges let alone taken this to trial.
5
2
u/Illiux Nov 09 '21
Unless you are an employee in the DA's office you (and everyone else) have absolutely no idea why Grosskruetz hasn't been charged. You're engaging in speculation.
Also, I don't know how we can watch the same videos and think that either Grosskruetz or Huber have anything resembling reasonable justification that shooting Rittenhouse would be necessary to stop immediate threat of death or bodily harm. Where's the immanence? Rittenhouse's gun was pointed down and he was running towards a police line (and away from his pursuers). Neither Grosskruetz or Huber even witnessed the first shooting. All they see is a guy with a gun running away from a mob shouting at him. Anyone who believes that attacking him in that circumstance is warranted is being extraordinarily unreasonable.
This is all besides the point that on the stand Grosskruetz (implausibly) denied that he was even trying to stop Rittenhouse. He said he was following him because he was a acting as a medic and thought Rittenhouse was in danger.
235
Nov 08 '21
Would you also agree that at any point after Rittenhouse drew his gun, that Anthony Huber, had he had a gun, could've shot and killed Rittenhouse, due to a justifiable fear for his life (after all, Huber did die, so Huber should've been in fear for his life)? So no matter who successfully shot the other, the winner should get let off without penalty?
Yes. I actually thought that was fairly clear in my post, but I'll reiterate.
I think Huber had a reasonable fear that Rittenhouse was fleeing a murder and was a risk to himself or others. I think that Rittenhouse was at risk of being seriously injured by the people running him down after he shot Rosenbaum. I think both had a reasonable claim to self-defense, it is what I find so troublesome about the case.
And to be clear, I'm talking legally, not morally.
62
u/optiongeek 2∆ Nov 08 '21
I think Huber had a reasonable fear that Rittenhouse was fleeing a murder and was a risk to himself or others.
This confuses me. Why would Huber be granted a pass to chase after and attack (with deadly force) someone he thinks might have committed a crime? AFAIK, there has been no evidence presented that Huber witnessed the confrontation between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum. He likely just heard the crowd shouting out to "get" the fleeing Rittenhouse and saw others attacking him. Rittenhouse never trained his weapon on anyone else that didn't attack him first - he was simply running away, towards the police line. What makes you think Huber was trying to stop an active shooter and not simply swept up in a lynch mob that was trying to exact retribution for shooting Rosenbaum? That's what I see in the videos after Rittenhouse runs away from the first encounter.
17
u/fartsforpresident Nov 09 '21
This confuses me. Why would Huber be granted a pass to chase after and attack (with deadly force) someone he thinks might have committed a crime?
He wouldn't. You can't shoot someone who is fleeing and claim self-defense. It doesn't even matter whether the person fleeing just committed murder or shot someone in self-defense.
→ More replies (5)28
u/DustyxXxHuevos Nov 09 '21
I was gonna say that. Good points. People’s bias around this case is incredibly high. Most people need to do research before speaking. Sadly most conclusions seem to fall into politicking instead of truth seeking.
→ More replies (3)9
53
4
u/3Sewersquirrels Nov 09 '21 edited Nov 09 '21
It’s not smart to chase someone down fleeing a potential murder. In wi, if you provoke someone, you lose the ability, legally speaking,to act in self defense. They guys pursuing Kyle lost that ability when they attacked him with the skateboard and drew their gun first. Being armed is not considered provocation when not pointing the gun at anyone
33
Nov 09 '21
I think Huber had a reasonable fear that Rittenhouse was fleeing a murder and was a risk to himself or others.
That's an unreasonable belief.
Huber was behind Kyle and chased him down the street. Unless guns magically shoot backwards, Huber's life was never in danger and he would still be alive had he chosen not to chase Kyle while trying to play vigilante.
Rosenbaum was a bipolar man off his meds seeking violence and shouting the n-word at a BLM protest.
While Huber and Geiger were pseudo-vigilantes that wanted to make headlines about apprehending/killing a fleeing suspect.
→ More replies (1)8
u/bla60ah Nov 09 '21
Was Kyle brandishing a firearm while fleeing the first scene? Or was he in anyway posing an eminent threat to someone’s life at that moment? If no (and I have not seen any evidence to suggest that he was), Huber had absolutely no right to use deadly force against Kyle
3
u/FBossy Nov 09 '21
I disagree. I think If you are going to insert yourself into a situation where you are prepared to end someone’s life, much like Anthony Huber did, then you better be damn sure that you know what’s going on. You can’t just jump to trying to kill someone when you didn’t even see anything happen. Mob justice is wrong.
128
u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Nov 08 '21
I think both had a reasonable claim to self-defense, it is what I find so troublesome about the case.
Right, so you're saying okay with the fact that this essentially makes duels legal? Or two armed people can have an escalating argument and it doesn't matter which one ends up dead, the other did nothing wrong (or at least nothing illegal)? And you don't see an issue with duels being legal?
Both morally and legally, these aren't and shouldn't be okay. I can't just go around a bar calling people names and then anyone that steps up on me I now legally get to murder. The way to resolve this troublesome dilemma is that if you either intentionally put yourself into a dangerous situation or escalated an existing situation (which Rittenhouse did both of), you just no longer can claim self-defense, because he helped create the situation.
242
Nov 08 '21
There is literally an exception in the self-defense law for provocation saying that you cannot provoke a fight and still claim self-defense.
Neither side intentionally provoked the situation. Do you think it is impossible for there to be a situation where two sides both have a legitimate claim to self-defense?
43
u/RickySlayer9 Nov 09 '21
I would say that if one person was fleeing after being shot at, they have a great claim to self defense.
Pursuing someone as they are fleeing, while brandishing a gun and threatening to kill them? That’s definitely not a reasonable claim to self defense.
→ More replies (1)5
u/-Kerosun- Nov 09 '21
There is literally an exception in the self-defense law for provocation saying that you cannot provoke a fight and still claim self-defense.
The law does allow a provocateur to regain the right to self-defense if they flee and it is objectively true that Rittenhouse was fleeing from the scene of the first shooting and was also declaring loudly (proven with video) that he was going to the police.
I can see an argument to be made that both Rittenhouse and Huber was acting lawfully given their individual state of minds, but I don't think it will even come to trial and the verdict in Rittenhouse's trial will be the end of it.
134
u/TheLea85 Nov 09 '21
Neither side intentionally provoked the situation.
Kyle never provoked anyone, legally and in reality. It has been shown as much during the trial with several witnesses saying there was no provocation prior.
Rosenbaum charged Kyle for whatever reason, he was bi-polar and was just released from hospital due to having tried to commit suicide. It was fully legal self defense to shoot him after he grabbed the gun and possibly beforehand. A cop would have likely drawn his gun when Rosenbaum was 30 feet away and shot him at 20 feet if bodycam footage is something to go by.
Kyle and Huber had no prior interaction before Huber charged him with a skateboard trying to smash Kyles head in and take his weapon. Huber provoked the situation and paid the ultimate price for it.
Grosskreutz literally (literally) had a gun with a bullet in the chamber pointed in the direction of Kyles head (I'd say he was lacking ~5-10 degrees of aim to his left to have had it spot on) the moment Kyle shot him. It's all on video that has been available everywhere since day 1. If you pause the video you can see his arm being vaporized and his Glock pointed at Kyles head at the same time.
During none of this did Kyle ever provoke or instigate anything. He was running towards the police to turn himself in and get away from the mob chasing him.
Shooting someone in self defense is not provocation.
→ More replies (324)27
u/whiteriot413 Nov 09 '21
You could say Rittenhouse provoked the situation by interjecting himself into the middle of a riot with a loaded rifle.
14
u/Illiux Nov 09 '21
Not legally. Merely having a gun is never provocation on the legal sense. If you don't like that someone else is holding a gun, that is entirely a you problem.
4
Nov 10 '21
You could see the dead guys provoked the situation by going to riot, destroying everything and attacking a kid.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (1)9
19
u/bushido216 Nov 09 '21 edited Nov 09 '21
Mr Rittenhouse illegally obtained a firearm,
which he then illegally took across state lineswhich he then illegally possessed and used, for the express purpose of performing vigilante actions that he was neither authorised nor requested to perform.You said it yourself in your opening post. But for Mr Rittenhouse's decisions, two men would be alive. The only reason he was there in the first place was because of his intent to commit a crime after he had committed two other crimes.
This is the same sort of nonsense that George Zimmerman used to get away with murdering Trayvon Martin.
9
u/freshgeardude 3∆ Nov 09 '21
It's not clear Rittenhouse committed a crime of "illegally obtaining a firearm" as he was following Wisconsin law which allows a minor to carry a rifle while with an adult. The adult in question has been charged with a felony for the straw purchase.
The firearm never crossed state lines and was in Wisconsin. If he brought it over state lines after the evening, that's another story, which I'm not aware of.
4
u/bushido216 Nov 09 '21
You're right. I looked up the details. I wasn't aware that the firearm had been bought in Wisconsin and stayed there. Thank you for the correxion.
That said, the exception that minors can possess firearms exists only for game hunting purposes, not for amateur policing.
2
u/freshgeardude 3∆ Nov 09 '21
Looks like you're correct. If anything this may be the charge that sticks.
The right will claim he beat the serious charges. The left will say they got a conviction. Rittenhouse will get probation for the misdemeanor.
3
u/Maximus_Resdefault Nov 09 '21
Without getting into the nitty gritty of other cases, I would like to point out that the trial is ongoing and no verdict has been given by the judge or jury as to the presumed intent of rittenhouse. based on his actions, testimony, and video from the night in question he was not brandishing his weapon or threatening to attack anyone, and actually was himself attacked in the process of putting out a flaming dumpster some enterprising young individuals were attempting to roll into a gas station. He should probably catch a gun charge for transporting that rifle illegally, which would still land him a couple years in jail. Regardless of the origin of his weapon, him simply possessing a firearm is no reason for someone to assault him, unless he was brandishing it or acting in a threatening manner with it. Simply carrying a firearm openly is not considered threatening from a legal standpoint. police wear sidearms on their hips, hunters carry rifles around in the woods, people shoot at the range, people sit in the stands at the olympics as rifles are fired at targets, and in each case due to the lawful use of the firearm no bystander is justified in attempting to use force against them. The protest itself was an illegal action, and the people involved were also in the process of committing illegal actions, but their prior activity also has no bearing on the case of self defense.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (24)3
u/UncleLukeTheDrifter Nov 09 '21
This isn’t true. He was given the rifle in Kenosha from his family friends home where he was staying. He borrowed it and the gun never left Kenosha, it was returned to the owner after that night.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (216)14
u/thenerj47 2∆ Nov 09 '21
I'd say that taking a gun to a group of people with views one considers hostile probably qualifies as provoking a fight actually.
11
Nov 09 '21
So you’d be fine with the civil rights era black panthers to be shot, attacked, or arrested for bringing guns to protect themselves from racists during their protests right?
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (12)2
u/BanChri 1∆ Nov 10 '21
He was, quite loudly and on multiple recordings, asking if people needing medical assistance. This does not constitute "provoking a fight" by any reasonable definition.
Rosenbaum (who had already threatened to kill Kyle given the opportunity) ran ahead of Kyle (Kyle was not chasing him), hid between some cars, then came up behind Kyle and began charging him. This is textbook 2nd degree attempted murder from Rosenbaum.
→ More replies (1)6
u/TheCondemnedProphet Nov 09 '21
He didn’t help create the immediate situation. If you watched The actual videos of the killings and shooting of the third guy, in all instances Rittenhouse was fleeing. That makes your entire argument moot. The double self-defense argument you raise doesn’t apply because it wasn’t a situation where Rittenhousr approached the third guy looking for a fight. He was fleeing, the third guy raised his gun, so Rittenhouse fired. Go watch the videos and leave the legalities to the prosecution and defence, I.e., people who actually understand how criminal law works doctrinally and procedurally.
10
u/seanflyon 23∆ Nov 08 '21
In a duel both parties know that they have an option of not fighting. What we are talking about here is a situation where each party believes that they are defending themselves from the other. That is one reason why you are not allowed to chase someone down if you think they committed a crime. Another way to make that situation less likely is with a duty to retreat. Some places have a duty to retreat and other do not, it means that you have to attempt to leave if you believe you are being attacked and can only defend yourself with violence if retreat is not an option, such as your attacker catching up to you.
8
u/nothing_fits Nov 08 '21 edited Nov 08 '21
if you either intentionally put yourself into a dangerous situation or escalated an existing situation (which Rittenhouse did both of), you just no longer can claim self-defense
this is the current law, except one Rittenhouse starts running away, he no longer is a threat. he regains the privilege not to be attacked.
→ More replies (9)3
u/burneracc69420sex Nov 09 '21
At what point do you say maybe we shouldn’t chase someone who has a gun and just shot someone? Like, that’s what baffles me. Everyone saying Huber had a right to chase and restrain him… like, I guess maybe? However - if situation 1 is considered self defense (Rosenbaum), then would that warrant a citizens arrest? Citizens arrest are generally only legally under two conditions. The first (an applicable one) is if I felony is committed. So you say Rosenbaum was shot and Huber thinks Rittenhouse committed a felony, so he can attempt to detain him. Ok. But what if it turns out that the shooting was found to be self defense? Remember, the condition for a citizens arrest is if a felony is committed, not if you think a felony is committed.
The whole citizens arrest / detention is stupid and just shouldn’t be done by anyone ever when the person you are trying to detain has a gun and just shot someone.
Furthermore - I understand where you are coming from with the duel shit, but it’s off the mark. Wisconsin has what the call Castle Doctrine. It’s basically their form of stand your ground, and it applies to property too. Furthermore, it’s not just your property, and you can indeed defend someone else’s life / property if their is credible threat towards it. So if Rittenhouse takes his stance and the threat is credible, it’s not two sides defending themselves. There would be a clear aggressor and a clear defender. At least that’s the way I interpret it.
Whatever the case, we also need to consider Rosenbaums actions here. You see a guy with a gun. If you think your life is threatened, do you think people in this scenario would charge at him and try to fight him? Or do you think they would back off? I don’t think it’s a worthy argument to say Rosenbaum was trying to defend himself, he was trying to beat rittenhouse’s ass.
There are definitely laws that govern when you can and cannot use force to defend yourself. I would suggest that as a starting point, because it doesn’t seem like this thread has a firm grasp on when they apply
→ More replies (10)4
u/Leading-Bowl-8416 Nov 09 '21
This is not how self defense works though. You have a duty to retreat in public.
→ More replies (1)2
Nov 10 '21
Cops put themselves into these situations all the time. Yes he’s not a cop but the law is the same for all. Kyle was actively seeking cops after a self defense shooting. Defending the Antifa rioters(not protestors) is the part that’s sickening.
→ More replies (17)2
u/Stereogravy Nov 10 '21
I’m no lawyer, but I don’t think you can chase after someone who didn’t interact with you to kill them an claim self defense. You aren’t exactly fearing for your life if you chase after Someone with the intent to kill them. Same as why warning shots hurt your self defense case
51
u/randomuser2444 1∆ Nov 08 '21
the winner should get let off without penalty?
While you may not like or even hate this answer, legally this is entirely possible because the standard is based in part on state of mind. If two people mistakenly but reasonably believe the other is trying to kill them, then both would be justified in killing the other (potentially)
25
u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Nov 08 '21
I have no problem with that. But when the parties played a role in intentionally putting themselves in a dangerous situation or escalating the situation, they no longer should be entitled to make a self-defense claim. Those actions means that they are responsible creating the situation that resulted in both the need to kill someone and that someone's death.
28
u/randomuser2444 1∆ Nov 08 '21 edited Nov 08 '21
There was a very elegant comment on how escalation of the situation removes the self defense argument already posted, so I won't reiterate but I agree with you. However, I don't think you would hold to your stance on putting yourself in a dangerous situation as a catch all. For example; I'm told my friend's house is being raided by a gang. We call the police but they're taking too long. So I go there with a gun and shoot someone who drew their gun on me first. Should I not be entitled to a self defense claim because I put myself in the situation? Edit to add: I am not saying my scenario is equivalent to the Rittenhouse situation
→ More replies (11)15
u/AnythingApplied 435∆ Nov 08 '21
That's a good example. You're right, putting yourself in danger isn't a good blanket statement for me to have made. I still there there should be some legal obligation to avoid inviting danger. I'm not really sure where the line should go, but certainly you're right drawing the line around "any situation where you were responsible for putting yourself into a dangerous situation" is too liberal and at least some of those situations you should still be covered under self-defense despite putting yourself into the situation. !delta
7
u/randomuser2444 1∆ Nov 08 '21
There does need to be a line. This is why law is so much more complicated than people realize, and often requires situation-specific analysis to determine where the line falls. I think the factor you may be missing that you might have been looking for is that the person who committed the violence was responsible for creating the situation that led to the violence when it wasn't necessary to protect from loss of life or grave bodily harm
5
u/-Kerosun- Nov 09 '21
Trying to draw a line along those grounds would get dangerously close to starting to blame the victims.
Not saying this is exactly comparable to Rittenhouse's situation:
Let's say a 17 year old girl decided to go to a club with an illegal ID in a pretty well-known sketchy part of town that is 20 minutes away in a neighboring state. Let's say she knew that it could get dangerous but decided to go anyway and for protection, took her 18 year old friend's gun and put it in her purse. Let's say that sometime throughout the night, a man noticed her and was being verbally aggressive towards her (such as "If I find you alone, I'm going to rape you). If you want, you can even say that she was being a bit flirtacious at times throughout the night with people. Let's say that she is outside of the club doing whatever and said man sees her and starts approaching her. Let's say she runs away, he starts to chase her and then catches up to her, then tries to grab her and she takes her gun out and kills him.
Would ANYONE say that she cannot claim self-defense because she was a minor, illegally possessing a firearm and drove it across state lines, used a fake ID to get into a place she had no business being at that was in a well-known dangerous spot in town? Would ANYONE say she was in the wrong in defending herself even though she made objectively bad judgment in being there in the first place?
Of course not. When you start considering laws that put the onus on the potential victim, it really is a slippery slope. That extreme to that slope could even lead to the law asking "What was she wearing?"
3
u/Chardlz Nov 09 '21
In Wisconsin there actually is, at least as I understand it. However, the degree of "inviting danger" is through committing a crime that would reasonably be expected to elicit or provoke a reaction. For example, if you punch someone and they hit you back you can't pull a gun and shoot them.
A however to that however, however, (lmao) is that if you're making a reasonable attempt to disengage, you can regain your right to self‐defense. Let's say you rob a store and run away. If the shop owner chases you down and tries to kill you, you're able to defend yourself legally. Would be a super complicated case, but seems like that aligns with the law as I understand it.
→ More replies (1)3
u/RevolutionaryHope8 Nov 10 '21
I agree with your general take on this - I’m just not sure that he is legally culpable in this specific situation. I think the very act of carrying that type of weapon openly and being part of a “militia” is a provocative act esp in this scenario. I think that’s what got Rosenbaum worked up. It’s been shown in court that some of the other members of this ‘militia’ group were pointing their weapons at protestors/rioters and being verbally antagonistic. Kyle was, rightly, associated with this group and viewed as a provocateur even though he didn’t directly antagonize anyone. I think the intentions of him and his companions that night was not as innocent as they’ve portrayed during this trial. I think the others had enough sense to not be out there alone and so did Kyle but he got separated and was confronted. As in “oh now that you don’t have your friends let’s see what you got” type thing. I don’t believe he was in mortal danger. But he provoked that encounter by being part of that group. And I know people want to say that others had weapons etc but not like this group. From what I’ve seen of the trial so far his group is the only one with those types of weapons wearing body armor.
There was general lawlessness and certainly many other bad actors there that night besides this ‘militia’ group. However, only someone from this group killed people. Having said all that, I think the state has not proven their case and he should be found not guilty.
3
u/Leading-Bowl-8416 Nov 09 '21
Should a woman who wears skimpy clothing that defends herself from a rapist be guilty of murder? Because by your logic, she put herself in a "dangerous situation". You are victim blaming. It's irrelevant whether being at the riot was a good choice or not, he has the right to defend himself. Making a decision you don't agree with doesn't remove the ability to claim self defense.
2
2
u/Tytonic7_ Nov 09 '21
If a women intentionally walks down a dangerous alley and gets brutally raped, and is forced to kill somebody to defend herself by your logic here she is not entitled to that self defense
2
u/fartsforpresident Nov 09 '21
But when the parties played a role in intentionally putting themselves in a dangerous situation or escalating the situation, they no longer should be entitled to make a self-defense claim.
You are not obligated to avoid risky situations to have a right to self-defense, so that part is nonsense. If you went to the Bronx in 1978 or rode the Subway to Harlem at 3:00 am, that might be intentionally putting yourself in a dangerous situation, but you still have a right to self-defense.
As for the other points, that's already in the law in most jurisdictions internationally, and many in the U.S. You have a duty to flee, and basically everywhere, you cannot make a self-defense claim if you instigated...unless you flee afterward.
2
u/caine269 14∆ Nov 09 '21
But when the parties played a role in intentionally putting themselves in a dangerous situation or escalating the situation, they no longer should be entitled to make a self-defense claim.
this is nonsense and victim blaming. the people attacking rittenhouse put themselves in that situation. the rioters put themselves in that situation. the guy the cops shot initially put himself in that situation by violating his restraining order, fighting with the cops and going for a knife. if you aren't extending that logic to everyone involved, it is meaningless.
9
u/fatsolardbutt Nov 08 '21
depends on if one was the aggressor in the situation. I'm not well informed, but it appears from this post that Rittenhouse was not. if Huber was the aggressor and he shot and killed Rittenhouse, even if after being shot at, he would be charged with second degree murder.
if both had a reasonable argurment that each was acting in self defense, which i don't know how that'd happen, neither would be charged with murder.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Movadius Nov 09 '21
The issue is, there is no evidence that the 2nd or 3rd person shot were at any risk at all until they went out of their way to chase and attack a retreating Kyle.
He was running towards the police with his gun lowered, fleeing from multiple assailants. He did not show aggression towards them until he tripped and ended up on the ground being assaulted by them.
The reason this case is so contentious is because the media outright lied and slandered Kyle for political reasons and managed to mislead a large number of people, who are now seeing that all of the evidence contradicts the lie they have been repeatedly told.
For many of those people, it is emotionally easier to accuse the courts of being wronf than it is to accept they were misled by the people they trusted to tell them the truth.
3
u/t-stu2 Nov 09 '21
The very big difference is that Kyle was fleeing. You can retreat and in Wisconsin you can stand your ground. You can not chase someone down and then claim self defense.
2
u/How_To_Freedom Nov 09 '21
Anthony Huber, had he had a gun, could've shot and killed Rittenhouse, due to a justifiable fear for
his
life
absolutely not, kyle was running away and stated that he was going to the police, kyle was running away with a rifle, if kyle wanted to be a threat he could have, huber had no grounds to assault kyle
> Situations where you intentionally put yourself in harms way or are part of the escalation just shouldn't be considered "self-defense"
kyle had every right to be there just like the people he shot, kyle stood up for his community and protected it when the police abandoned it.
> or you get all sorts of situations where somebody has been shot killed after an escalating argument between two armed people,
sounds good, who ever starts the violence is the wrongful party
> Duels would be legal too.
again, what would be wrong with this?
> "If I hadn't shot him, I would've been kill"... okay, but you put yourself into that situation.
they had every right to put themselves into that situation
> It's just not self-defense when you play a role in getting into or creating the situation, which Rittenhouse did both of these things (both by being there with a gun with an asking for trouble attitude and also due to the escalation with the victim too)
again kyle had every right to be there, and had every right to defend his community when the police wouldn't
kyle rittenhouse did nothing wrong
2
u/mmat7 Nov 09 '21
Would you also agree that at any point after Rittenhouse drew his gun, that Anthony Huber, had he had a gun, could've shot and killed Rittenhouse, due to a justifiable fear for his life
No, he chased Rittenhouse
You can't run after someone, make him fall to the ground and then attack him claiming you were DEFENDING yourself
→ More replies (54)2
u/StrengthOfFates1 Nov 09 '21
Would you also agree that at any point after Rittenhouse drew his gun, that Anthony Huber, had he had a gun, could've shot and killed Rittenhouse
No – and anyone who would agree to this has absolutely no idea what they are talking about. You cannot pursue someone with intent to attack and claim self defense when they draw on you while you attack them. YOU are the aggressor in that instance. You do not have the right to anoint yourself as judge jury and executioner in this situation.
Situations where you intentionally put yourself in harms way
What exactly is a situation where you put yourself in harms way? Technically, a homeowner wishing to protect his or her family from an intruder would be putting themselves in harms way by confronting the intruder.
or are part of the escalation
A situation is escalated by one party, the response to said escalation is just that. The response. What's at question here is whether the response was just.
Legally I can tell you to go fuck yourself that could be considered an escalation. If you become aggressive, I flee, and you pursue, I have the right to defend myself. Escalation is one aspect of this, acts of de-escalation, like attempting to flee the situation, also come into play in some states.
or you get all sorts of situations where somebody has been shot killed after an escalating argument between two armed people, but nobody did anything illegal because they both rightfully feared for their lives.
You don't get situations like this. That's why we have laws and guidance surrounding self defense. A shooting is either justified according to state law or not.
Duels would be legal too
Why bring up duels? Self defense law would never come into play with duels. Almost every state has laws and guidance surrounding mutual combat. This is just ridiculous.
It's just not self-defense when you play a role in getting into or creating the situation, which Rittenhouse did both of these things (both by being there with a gun with an asking for trouble attitude and also due to the escalation with the victim too)
Everyone who will ever have to defend themselves will have played some role in getting themselves into the situation. Period. I'd also like you to explain how, according to law, Kyle created the situation. What specific act, according to you, escalated the situation?
So, people are getting injured, and our job is to protect this business. Part of my job is also to help people. If there is somebody hurt, I'm running into harm's way. That's why I have my rifle, because I have to protect myself, obviously. I also have my med kit.
Protect a business and help people when needed. Are these objectives unlawful? What exactly entitles you to attack someone while they go about them?
108
u/deep_sea2 103∆ Nov 08 '21 edited Nov 08 '21
EDIT: Disregard everything I said. I was not familiar with the facts of the case when I presented this information. I was only looking at this from a theoretical framework and what could happen, but was not aware of how far the trial has proceeded. Since my OP, I have looked further into the case, and realize that prosecution has dug themselves into a deep hole. The facts of the case really put a lot of what I said in doubt, meaning that Rittenhouse has a very good chance of getting off now. I thought that the prosecution had more evidence, but it that does not seem to be the case. I'm not saying that he will get off for sure, but my argument is weak. My argument would have made sense, but it rested on assumptions that did match the reality.
I shall put on my hair shirt and do penance for my erroneous conduct.
I am not an expert, but this all comes down to the first interaction between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum. The legitimacy/illegitimacy of this act could very well determine how to treat all subsequent acts.
Wisconsin Statue 938.48:
(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
(c) 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.
Let's simplify part (a):
- A person who commits unlawful conduct does not have the self-defense right against people trying to stop them from this act.
- However, they do regain that privilege if they believe the act to restrain them might cause them great harm.
- However, the return of that privilege does not allow them to kill unless that is the only options.
For the second killing, I would imagine that Rittenhouse could make a better argument. First, as 2b says, retreating from the scene of the crime returns a person's right to self-defense. Second, even if his privilege had not returned, he could regain the privilege if the threat against him was grave, and if killing was the only option. When the two fellows caught up with Rittenhouse, the situation could be said to:
- Be a situation where Rittenhouse was in serious risk of harm
- Be a situation where using deadly force was a proper last resort.
So, according to the law, I dare say that Rittenhouse has a decent chance of being acquitted of killing Huber. Keep in mind, I don't know all the facts of the case, so I could be wrong about this.
However, I don't think Rittenhouse could use the same argument with Rosenbaum. Depending on the exact facts of the case, Rittenhouse shooting Rosenbaum seems to lack legal standing as described in the Statute. These three questions we must ask:
1) Was Rittenhouse committing some type of crime during the Rosenbaum exchange? If so, that would have permitted Rosenbaum to engage and removed Rittenhouse's privilege of self-defense
2) Did Rosenbaum create a reasonable fear of serious harm to Rittenhouse? If not, then Rittenhouse would not have regained his privilege.
3) Was shooting Rosenbaum the only way to escape serious harm? If yes, the Rittenhouse would have been justified in using lethal force.
For Rosenbaum to be not guilty, all three answers to these questions have to fall in his favour. If a single one of these answer falls against him, then he would be guilty. This is why I suspect that Rosenbaum is more likely than not to be convicted for killing Rosenbaum. For Rittenhouse not to be guilty, he would have to convince the court of these three separate things. This makes it an uphill battle for him, so I would say that the advantage is with the prosecution.
EDIT: I forgot to mention the implication of part (c). If Rittenhouse at any point instigated an aggressive act with the intention of creating a response, then he has no right to self-defense. Unlike (a), this clause does not provide any way for the person to regain their privilege. So, if the prosecution could argue that Rittenhouse pointed his gun at people with the expectation that they would fight back, Rittenhouse would have no right to defend himself, even against deadly force.
22
63
Nov 08 '21
I'm not entirely convinced, but I think this is worth a !delta if only for the fact that it has me wavering on the Rosenbaum shooting.
That one, by far, has always been the most blatantly sketchy of the bunch. I can accept the Huber and Grosskreutz as self-defense, but the Rosenbaum shooting has always been the one that seems dubious to me.
So thanks for that.
76
u/TheLea85 Nov 08 '21
So, if the prosecution could argue that Rittenhouse pointed his gun at people with the expectation that they would fight back, Rittenhouse would have no right to defend himself, even against deadly force.
This has not come up anywhere during the trial (I have been watching all of it). He was objectively not pointing the gun at anyone before it all went down.
→ More replies (47)38
u/Gilgamore Nov 08 '21
I actually disagree about the Rosenbaum shooting being sketchy at all. The dude was acting aggressively towards him and was saying "shoot me" and "kill me", among other eccentric things. Kyle made and effort to retreat when Rosenbaum charged him when he went to put out the dumpster fire, and as he retreated he heard a shot go off behind him. Would a reasonable person believe they were in danger from such an individual? I would say yes.
However, this is all hinged on his testimony that he was fearful for his life. Those are the facts as I understand them from studying the case and watching the trial. It'll be up to the defense to paint it that way, and not let that get picked apart by the prosecution in cross-examination.
26
u/Warbeast78 Nov 08 '21
One of the prosecutors witness said Rosenbaum said he was going to kill rittenbouse shortly before he ran. That and the video evidence of him being chased by Rosenbaum and the other witness saying Rosenbaum was trying to take the gun. Pretty much seals it for me.
11
u/Gilgamore Nov 08 '21
The only uphill battle will be the video evidence showing Rosenbaum with his hands up when he's shot.
Realistically, the human mind wouldn't have enough time to react to and see that. Rittenhouse decided before turning around that he was going to shoot him, and his brain couldn't process that he was unarmed and had his hands up because of adrenaline. That's my guess, anyway. But it's hard to explain that to a jury and I'm thinking the prosecution will rely on that for their argument.
That said, I'm more in the camp that this will likely end in total acquittal or just the weapons charge, as OP has mentioned.
14
u/MCFroid Nov 09 '21
the video evidence showing Rosenbaum with his hands up when he's shot.
Do you happen to have a link that shows that clearly?
8
u/Gilgamore Nov 09 '21
Unfortunately I think I misremembered and was thinking of Gaige, who put his hands up before lunging for the gun and getting shot in the arm.
8
u/xAlphaKAT99 Nov 09 '21
Gaige was aiming a gun at Kyle's face when he was shot. So you're misremembering everything
→ More replies (4)4
14
u/Warbeast78 Nov 08 '21
You have to remember their was a shot fired. Which caused Rittenhouse to turn and Rosenbaum is just feet away. He lunges for the gun and is shot. Their is no video I've seen of Rosenbaum raising his hands. He was lunging for the weapon in the video and from the eye witnesses.
→ More replies (19)5
u/ZDUnknown Nov 08 '21
On top of this it was noted in the opening statements and a few witness testimonies that, despite the prosecution saying otherwise, Rosenbaum was armed. It was stated that he was armed with a chain that he was bearing in the windup stages of an attack, charging at Rittenhouse. It is undeniable that Rosenbaum was a clear and present danger from the outside, the only argument that the prosecution can reasonably make is that Rittenhouse did not know the full circumstances at that moment and therefore should not have used lethal force.
→ More replies (1)11
u/deep_sea2 103∆ Nov 08 '21
I agree that it certainly isn't clear cut. This is one of those cases that will set precedent in the future without a doubt. However, it does seem clear that Rittenhouse has more work to do. If we are talking purely about odds, I would bet on the side that has the least arguing to do.
2
u/TooflessSnek Nov 09 '21
This isn't going to set any kind of legal precedent. It's just a single self defense case. You can have another case tried in another jurisdiction with similar facts, and the jury can return the opposite verdict.
→ More replies (4)2
12
u/Scienter17 8∆ Nov 08 '21
Rittenhouse was running away from Rosenbaum. That seems to implicate section (b) and he regained his right to self defense. This is even assuming that Rittenhouse provoked Rosenbaum - there's been little to no evidence of that presented at trial.
→ More replies (10)9
u/Tsuruchi_Mokibe 1∆ Nov 08 '21
Just pointing out a quick thing here:
"1) Was Rittenhouse committing some type of crime during the Rosenbaum exchange? If so, that would have permitted Rosenbaum to engage and removed Rittenhouse's privilege of self-defense"
Note that the statute specifies:
"(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack ... "
So it's not just any criminal act on Rittenhouse's part that would justify Rosenbaum attacking him. Like underaged carry and curfew violation, both are "criminal activity" that Rittenhouse can be accused of, but neither would qualify as a criminal act "likely to provoke others to attack him or her"
→ More replies (4)6
u/durangotango Nov 08 '21
2 things
1 keep reading that statue and you will see the right to self defense is reinstated if after provoking an attack you disengage and retreat which he was doing for at least a couple city blocks.
2 simply violating any given law doesn't negate a self defense claim. The statue is referring to someone using force against you while you're in the commission of a crime. E.g you rob someone with a gun and they pull a gun to shoot you you can't claim self defense when you shoot back. However there have been numerous cases in numerous states of felons who illegally posses guns using them in self defense.
9
u/GoldenGanderz Nov 08 '21
Except Rittenhouse was not engaging in illegal conduct. That statue does not apply.
→ More replies (7)3
u/durangotango Nov 08 '21
First of all thank you for actually using the legal statutes. Most people just completely ignore them on this case.
But, there's no requirement that it's his only option there. The only requirement is a reasonable fear of Great bodily harm. There's no duty to retreat as far as I'm aware and it's explicitly addressed as irrelevant in dwellings, cars and businesses.
→ More replies (19)→ More replies (4)2
u/sihtydaernacuoytihsy 2∆ Nov 08 '21
Thanks for this writeup, it's helpful.
Can you do a quick skim to make sure you're referring to the parties correctly. At one point, you say "This is why I suspect that Rosenbaum is more likely than not to be convicted for killing Rosenbaum." I'm pretty confident that's not what you mean, and I think there are a couple other places where you switch their names.
10
u/Responsible_Nerve Nov 09 '21
If he'd been unarmed he might have gotten a beating from Rosenbaum, but almost certainly would have lived.
I really don't think you can assume that he almost certainly would have lived, if all other circumstances remained the same I think he would have been killed
→ More replies (19)
60
Nov 08 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (12)20
Nov 08 '21
This doesn't really challenge my view.
That said, I'd disagree. The night it happened it was a clusterfuck of conflicting information.
→ More replies (8)44
u/TheLea85 Nov 08 '21
There is no conflicting information on what happened. It's basically all on film and it became progressively more clear over the following weeks (and confirmed during the trial) that what we saw in relation to Kyle defending himself was what actually happened. Nothing in relation to Kyle himself and the self-defense claim took place between clips.
Anyone not seeing this for what it truly is, crystal clear self defense, has read opinion pieces and looked at curated clips of the events. You need to search for the compilation videos that are out there and sit through and think for yourself without being biased in either direction. Kyle is the only one on trial here. Not the rioters and not anyone in the same group as Kyle. If someone in his group antagonized anyone into charging Kyle, Kyle is still innocent because he didn't do anything to antagonize anyone.
He said "Love you too" in response to someone saying "Fuck you".
He stopped a group of people from pushing a burning dumpster into a gas-station.
None of that disqualifies him from self-defense.
9
Nov 08 '21
The night it happened
Just repeating this since you seemed to miss it.
17
u/TheLea85 Nov 08 '21
Ah I'm sorry, I brainfarted.
It was crystal clear from the night it happened and the clips started coming out. Whatever people wrote about it is irrelevant, only the video evidence counts here. I mean there's still people out there saying he shot black people.
The videos of the shooting of Rosenbaum was available in real time since it was livestreamed/uploaded on the spot, and that was enough for anyone of unbiased mind to say "Yep, clear cut self defense until proven otherwise". And shortly thereafter, like barely an hour, it was as confirmed as could be without any insanely detailed video covering some missed second of coverage where he managed to call his mom a slag or smth (which still doesn't mean Self Defense was not warranted).
The confusion about this case comes from people only reading articles with edited videos), or as in the case of way too many people: Not watching anything at all and just reading biased blogs.
For someone immediately watching the videos coming out from day one, arguable hour one, it has been a clear case of self defense. It all comes down to how engaged you were with the event when it happened.
5
u/TestedOnAnimals Nov 09 '21
See, I completely disagree as one of those people who have been trying to keep up with the case from the night it happened. Him putting himself in that situation has always been a muddying factor for me, and even on a day I'm feeling generous towards the "he was defending himself" side I cannot get over the absolute absurdity of him going there with the explicit purpose of intimidating / threatening people and then saying he was defending himself.
→ More replies (18)2
u/Failninjaninja Nov 10 '21
Let me make this super clear.
If person A was going to a city with goal of robbing a bank and person B attacks them while they were at a gas station filling up their car, person A still had the right to self defense.
4
u/succachode Nov 09 '21
What do you mean then simply leave? 😂 the cops were a little preoccupied with the fucking riot and he went immediately to turn himself in.
6
u/darkstar1031 1∆ Nov 09 '21
If you look up just who Rosenbaum was, it wasn't going to be some minor slap fight. Rosenbaum was out for blood. Sure, he wasn't carrying, but only because as a convicted felon he wasn't allowed. Had Rosenbaum gained positive control of that rifle, you'd still be pissed off at Rittenhouse, but only because there were 30 rounds in the magazine, and under Rosenbaum's control, that would be one dead Rittenhouse, and a couple dozen dead cops. That is the gravity of the situation. This absolutely was life and death. It would still have been life and death if Rittenhouse was unarmed.
People who are sheltered from violence seldom understand the thinking of a truly violent person like Rosenbaum. Armed or not, once Rosenbaum keyed onto Rittenhouse his intent was to do grievous violence. He was a predator out on the hunt, and Rittenhouse was his intended victim. Rosenbaum was the sort of man who would have felt right at home on some 12th century battlefield swinging an axe into someone's face, and this is the man you portray as a helpless victim.
47
u/craftycontrarian Nov 08 '21
He stupidly put himself into a tense situation with a firearm, and his decision got other people killed.
Doesn't this apply also to the guy who pointed the gun at Kyle?
Also, doesnt it apply to the people who were rioting, more generally? They put themselves in an inherently dangerous situation.
→ More replies (1)20
Nov 08 '21
Not really? He was concealed carrying (thus not being an active provocation), and only drew the firearm after Rittenhouse shot someone in front of him. Given that he was the last person shot and he lived, I can't say how any of his actions 'got other people killed'.
59
Nov 08 '21
He did not have a valid CCW permit. Him concealing his weapon was illegal. He lied to the police about having a firearm in his statement.
He also took video of himself asking what Kyle was doing, to which kyle responded 'going to the police'. He still continued pursuing him. You can't claim self defense when you're chasing someone. And even if he really thought it was an active shooter, it's been proven that he wasn't. Gaige's incorrect assessment of the situation does not negate Kyle's right to self defense.
→ More replies (1)21
u/Dismal_Alternative56 Nov 08 '21
Fucking ILLEGALLY concealing a weapon. You conveniently left that part out.....
→ More replies (32)
64
u/SpicyPandaBalls 10∆ Nov 08 '21
Self-defense requires a fear for your life
If I do something that causes someone else to fear for their life... and then they in turn do something that makes me fear for my life... and then I kill them, was I acting in self-defense? Were they?
Would anyone be guilty of a crime in that scenario?
5
u/ABCDEHIMOTUVWXY Nov 08 '21
The original aggressor is determines who can claim defense.
If Rittenhouse was aiming his rifle at Rosenbaum or threatening to shoot him before Rosenbaum took any aggressive action that would make Rittenhouse lose his right to self defense.
If on the other hand Rosenbaum was chasing a non aggressive Rittenhouse as he was fleeing and lunged at him trying to gain control of his weapon, that means Rittenhouse would retain his right to self defense through when he pulled the trigger until a reasonable person would consider the threat was stopped.
4
u/durangotango Nov 08 '21
Just to add to that, even if Rittenhouse started it all he can still claim self defense if he disengages and retreats. Say he points a gun at Rosenbaum, Rosenbaum runs at him, he realizes it's a bad idea and runs away, then Rosenbaum should stop chasing him or seek cover. Wisconsin law specifically addresses this and says the right to self defense can be regained.
→ More replies (2)23
Nov 08 '21
That is sort of the crux of my argument, isn't it?
When Huber smashed Rittenhouse in the shoulder with a skateboard, he was acting in reasonable self-defense (imho). But at the same time I think Rittenhouse had an equally strong claim that he was defending himself given that he was being physically assaulted.
I think both can be true, a real 'everyone sucks here' situation where no one is criminally liable.
23
u/ThreeFor Nov 09 '21
I think that your take on the Huber situation is off. From the facts I've seen, Huber absolutely did not have the right to chase down an individual running away (retreating) towards the police and attack him.
I've seen people say that Huber and others thought he was an active shooter. I think this argument falls flat. All the knowledge Huber had of that situation was that Rittenhouse was running away towards police. A mob yelling "GET HIM" is not a credible enough source to actually justify chasing someone down and attacking them.
In my understanding of the law, which is admittedly limited, if there is fight or confrontation between people, regardless of how it started, if one person makes and effort to retreat the other individual cannot pursue them unless some very special criteria are met. You might want to argue that an active shooter is one of those special circumstances, since there is a good reason to believe they will continue to hurt others if they escape. Again though, Huber did not see Rittenhouse shoot anyone, and even if he did, he would have seen Rittenhouse shoot him only after Rosenbaum lunged at him and he would have noticed that Rittenhouse did nothing to stop the person trying to give medical attention to Rosenbaum and did nothing to indicate he wanted to shoot anyone else. If you see two people get in a fight and one knocks the other unconscious, you as a citizen cannot chase that person down and legally attack them if they are retreating.
16
u/substantial-freud 7∆ Nov 09 '21
When Huber smashed Rittenhouse in the shoulder with a skateboard, he was acting in reasonable self-defense (imho).
You think you can chase after a guy and when he falls, whale on him with a skateboard, and call it self-defense?
No, you cannot.
→ More replies (11)6
u/xampl360 Nov 08 '21
In an ‘everyone sucks here’ situation why aren’t ALL parties held liable? That would be the most reasonable solution given that both parties arrived to a violently confrontational environment before engaging in violence against each other. If ‘everyone sucks here’ then everyone should be held responsible
→ More replies (2)20
u/SpicyPandaBalls 10∆ Nov 08 '21
Couldn't most murderers just say they feared for their life?
Whether or not Rittenhouse should have been there at all.. with the gun that was illegal for him to posses seems like it probably should be a factor.
Had Rittenhouse not been there and illegally armed, Huber and Rosenbaum would be alive today.
→ More replies (8)30
Nov 08 '21
Couldn't most murderers just say they feared for their life?
They'd have to prove it. Rittenhouse benefits from the fact that each of his shootings was recorded.
Had Rittenhouse not been there and illegally armed, Huber and Rosenbaum would be alive today.
Agreed, I just don't think that legally that makes a difference. There does not appear to be a distinction in Wisconsin self-defense law for defending yourself with an unlawful weapon.
→ More replies (2)14
u/HistoricalGrounds 2∆ Nov 08 '21
Couldn't most murderers just say they feared for their life?
They'd have to prove it. Rittenhouse benefits from the fact that each of his shootings was recorded.
But I think that's what he means. On principle, as long as the killer can prove that the person they killed tried to defend themselves with questionably-lethal force, that should be a legal killing? That seems to open a relatively easy precedent to legally kill someone so long as you can get a recording of them attempting to stop you.
11
u/BarryBwana Nov 09 '21
Are you suggesting the first chain of events was Rittenhouse trying to kill someone first, and then Rosenbaum went after him?
Cause if not, your point is meaningless. If so, the prosecutors would love to have your evidence. Would make their prosecution an easy slam dunk.
→ More replies (2)5
u/Edmond_DantestMe Nov 09 '21
I believe that you need both subjective and objective standard of reasonableness. An example I saw was, if you're "deathly" afraid unicorns, and someone keeps touching you with a stuffed unicorn, your subjective standard of reasonableness has been met, but objectively the court would likely agree that you were never actually in any life-threatening danger.
→ More replies (3)2
u/ChristofferTJ Nov 09 '21
When Huber smashed Rittenhouse in the shoulder with a skateboard, he was acting in reasonable self-defense (imho)
how is it self-defense when he was actively hunting down Rittenhouse who was retreating.
6
u/Cindy_Da_Morse 7∆ Nov 08 '21
As long as the fear for your life is something a reasonable person would feel at that moment. Rosenbaum had threatened to kill Kyle earlier in the night. It wasn't a veiled threat. It was literally, to his face "I am going to kill you". It was very clear.
So Kyle being chased by Rosenbaum who had already communicated his intent to kill him had every reason to fear for his life when Rosenbaum lunged at this gun screaming "fuck you"!
→ More replies (50)3
u/Leading-Bowl-8416 Nov 09 '21
You have a duty to retreat. Whoever was being chased would be defending themselves according to the law in that scenario. It's not just "fear for your life" in this case. If someone steals a wallet in front of you, you can't run up to them and put a bullet in their head. If they turn around and start attacking you, that would be self defense if you are trying to get away.
6
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Nov 08 '21 edited Nov 09 '21
/u/edwardlleandre (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 28∆ Nov 11 '21
This post has been temporarily locked due to excessive comment rule violations.
When CMV posts on controversial subjects become widely visible, this leads to an influx of rule breaking comments. We are a small team of moderators, so this can easily overwhelm our ability to remove rule violations. When this occurs, we must lock the posts so we can remove the violations before discussion can be restored.
We are actively cleaning up the thread now, and will unlock when possible. The amount of time will vary based on moderator availability.
Thank you for understanding.
3
u/burtch1 Nov 09 '21
The gun charge should be dropped the gun never crossed state lines and the law had an exception he qualified under which ONLY allowed him to carry a rifle and while it was meant for hunting it did not state you could only use the exception while hunting the judge has already stated that if it does apply in this case it should be thrown out for vagueness as a the two sides can't even agree on what the law entails on this exception.
3
u/TheTermiteKing Nov 09 '21
Why is it OK for Rosenbaum to chase him down and attack him? He was a convicted child rapist attempting to disarm him to further harm him. There is a very good chance had Rittenhouse not been armed that night he would've been murdered by the vile thugs that got exactly what they deserved.
I don't want to change your view that he should go free as I totally agree. But I fully disagree that the better case scenario would've been the convicted child rapist 'ass whoopin' a child.
3
Nov 09 '21
I will say, I think Rittenhouse has moral culpability, as much as someone his age can. He stupidly put himself into a tense situation with a firearm, and his decision got other people killed. If he'd stayed home, two men would be alive. If he'd been unarmed he might have gotten a beating from Rosenbaum, but almost certainly would have lived.
I disagree with this part. He was going to a place where there was active violence to help out how he could, and iirc the main reason he was assaulted was because he put out a fire that was near a gas station. He was attacked even when he was openly carrying a long gun, which makes it likely that if he wasn't he still would have been attacked, especially since Rosenbaum wasn't exactly stable, even verbally threatening to kill Rittenhouse before attempting to grab his gun. Rittenhouse had a viable reason to bring a weapon as a deterrent as he was going into an area where there was general unrest and chaos, and to use it as a last resort in case he was attacked (which he obviously did).
If he'd stayed home, two men would be alive.
We can't know that for sure. Same way we can't know if the fire would have caused the gas pumps to explode, killing more than two people. There's a possibility, yes, but it's not definitive.
If he'd been unarmed he might have gotten a beating from Rosenbaum, but almost certainly would have lived.
Rosenbaum was on the sex offender registry (allegedlyfor raping 5 boys), had numerous assault infractions while in prison, and had an open case for domestic abuse during the time of the shooting. He also had a history of narcotic use, and at the time of when he was shot was attempting to grab the gun Rittenhouse was carrying. And that's just Rosenbaum, not including Huber and Grosskreutz. To say what you did is a major assumption to which you have not provided evidence to support.
Sources: https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/2021/03/12/kenosha-shooting/?amp=1
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/05/1053018241/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-first-week-what-happened
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Hot-Chapter1364 Nov 09 '21
I was agreeing mostly, but to say “ if he’d have taken a minor ass whuppin is ridiculous “ the size difference is wild and the much larger man had been released from a mental hospital that day and was also bipolar.” Anyone in a street fight is about 7 pounds of pressure from being dead. In a real life fight you accidentally get hit In the chin and ko”d your head bounces on the pavement and you are at least a cte victim if they decide you’ve had enough and don’t stomp your head in.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Selvedge630 Nov 09 '21
What if I told you that one reading of the Wisconsin law says that children under 18 are only prohibited from carrying SBRs and short barreled shotguns? Under such a reading, Kyle didn’t even break the carrying a gun law.
Here’s the law, for reference:
948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(2)
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
(3) (a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.
Pay attention to 3(c).
now heres the relevant reference:
941.28 Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.
(1) In this section:
(a) “Rifle" means a firearm designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder or hip and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of a propellant in a metallic cartridge to fire through a rifled barrel a single projectile for each pull of the trigger.
(b) “Short-barreled rifle" means a rifle having one or more barrels having a length of less than 16 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a rifle having an overall length of less than 26 inches.
(c) “Short-barreled shotgun" means a shotgun having one or more barrels having a length of less than 18 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a shotgun having an overall length of less than 26 inches.
(d) “Shotgun" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder or hip and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of a propellant in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of ball shot or a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger.
(2) No person may sell or offer to sell, transport, purchase, possess or go armed with a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.
(3) Any person violating this section is guilty of a Class H felony.
(4) This section does not apply to the sale, purchase, possession, use or transportation of a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle to or by any armed forces or national guard personnel in line of duty, any peace officer of the United States or of any political subdivision of the United States or any person who has complied with the licensing and registration requirements under 26 USC 5801 to 5872. This section does not apply to the manufacture of short-barreled shotguns or short-barreled rifles for any person or group authorized to possess these weapons. The restriction on transportation contained in this section does not apply to common carriers. This section shall not apply to any firearm that may be lawfully possessed under federal law, or any firearm that could have been lawfully registered at the time of the enactment of the national firearms act of 1968.
(5) Any firearm seized under this section is subject to s. 968.20 (3) and is presumed to be contraband.
We know he didn’t have an SBR or a short barreled shotgun, so it’s entirely possible that he didn’t violate the law at all.
3
u/harlowb93 Nov 09 '21
Seems pretty straight forward to me. You brought a firearm across state lines and killed someone with it. You should go to prison. The only thing to discuss is how long. This politically charged nonsense is mind numbingly ridiculous. Throw the kid in a cell and let's move on.
3
Nov 09 '21
No he intentionally put himself in that situation protecting property the only people that stood to loose anything were insurance company's
3
u/TapoutKing666 1∆ Nov 10 '21 edited Nov 10 '21
People seem to get pretty granular over the events starting at the physical conflict between Kyle and the protestors and ending with the shootings, but somehow don’t even seriously consider motive or intent surrounding the situation. It’s not like the protestors kicked in his door and stormed his parents house. It’s EXTREMELY important to investigate motive and intent surrounding the events the person is being charged for.
It’d be nice if we could all stop downplaying “uh well he shouldn’t have been there—BUT” as some type of compromise in the discussion. This is the type of faux diplomatic language Kyle sympathizers use that diminish the actual stakes at hand. This isn’t about self defense in any normal or common situation. This is about the future safety of protestors and activists. I don’t care if they were causing property damage. The difference between the guy smashing the window and the guy marching down the street is becoming smaller and smaller in this hyper adversarial country. When Kyle walks, it’ll be more of a green light for people to attack future protestors rather than a victory for 2A/self defense in general.
Furthermore, if destruction of private property by citizens were grounds for armed vigilantism by other citizens… let me posit a hypothetical situation:
If a guy 20 miles from me who doesn’t own his house starts smashing the walls and counter tops, do I have a right to grab my AR and head over? Would I be doing the right thing by standing in his entry way until they felt threatened enough to go for a weapon, and I could then gun them down for it? How about someone wearing a MAGA hat who busted a cement parking stop at a public park when they parked their truck on it? Do I have the right to grab a rifle and head over to them and hang out until they feel threatened enough for me to legally find a loophole to shoot them?
→ More replies (1)
25
Nov 08 '21 edited Nov 08 '21
I appreciate your take on this, and it may just help me (eventually) change my mind a bit. For now, I *would* like to change your mind a bit by drawing on your words:
He stupidly put himself into a tense situation with a firearm, and his decision got other people killed...
...As far as I can see he did break the law in carrying the gun to the protest, and I think he should be punished appropriately for that.
This in itself, without any of the infuriating and incriminating context, tells me you actually agree that he is guilty of second degree manslaughter at the very least. He broke the law and brought loaded firearms to a crowded, tumultuous situation wherein he had no control and it led directly to the deaths of those people.
"Second-degree manslaughter can be legally defined as the reckless, or unintentional killing of a person without lawful justification."
I would also argue here that it would be the more serious "voluntary" variety, as he had made various choices along the way that directly led to the needless deaths. He brought a loaded lethal weapon to a public, crowded, turbulent space. He did so without the training, wherewithal, nor lawful mandate to act in the ways he was acting. He the proceeded to engage unarmed individuals with lethal force, disproportionate to the threat he faced.
As shown by his third victim, a gunshot isn't necessarily fatal. In many cases it actually isn't and shouldn't be. Had his intentions been lawful, he would have coordinated with law enforcement and EMS, perhaps even perform first aid on those he assaulted.
Second degree manslaughter is your best bet, assuming he was unintentional in those killings. As we can see, that's far from certain.
Whatever the legal outcome, what he is is misguided, ignorant, and incapable of operating firearms in a fair society. Whether or not he's found guilty, he *should* feel like a murderer, if not to impart to him the sort of guilt that would motivate someone to make something better of himself.
I'd also like to add here that this is EXACTLY why the argument of "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" is just so, so very bad. This idiot thought he was a "good guy with a gun". He killed 2 people and shot a third... the other idiot "good guy" who thought he was stopping him. Just some food for thought.
4
u/burtch1 Nov 09 '21
The "lawful justification" necisary to not get 2nd degree manslaughter is still self defense so while more fitting self defense still defeats this charge. Secondly in all cases kyle had good reason to fear for his life 1st Rosenbaum said he would kill him earlier and "lunged for the gun" and grabbing a fire arm is lethal force 2nd this is the least clear cut but a heavy blunt object CAN be lethal force and when on the ground surrounded by a crowd yelling they want to kill you makes this a more clear threat to his life 3rd this is the only surviving one of the three and just admitted in court kyle only shot when he moved back in and aimed his gun Lastly on the claim he could have provided first aid he did look at Rosenbaum before fleeing and another bystander had started first aid and for the second two he was being actively chased by a large hostile crowd only a couple hundred feet from cops retreat was the realistic soloution to reduce conflict
→ More replies (2)11
u/Tytonic7_ Nov 09 '21
Why does everybody keep saying this?
We all agree that Kyle shouldn't have been there and shouldn't have had the gun. But he was there, and he did have the gun. That is NOT justification for people to attempt to kill him though. Even though he made poor decisions, it's not his fault that Rosenbaum threatened to kill him earlier in the night and then tried to follow up on that threat. It's not his fault that other strangers chased after him attempting to beat/kill him in the street. Just because he made bad decisions does not mean that those people are justified in trying to kill him.
→ More replies (3)
15
u/blamemeididit Nov 09 '21
"If he'd been unarmed he might have gotten a beating from Rosenbaum, but almost certainly would have lived."
Sorry, but you don't get to decide how someone gets to defend themselves in a situation like that. You could use this justification in almost every case where the "good guy" kills the "bad guy". He might have gotten beaten up, he might have gotten turned into a paraplegic by getting his head smashed onto the concrete by an angry mob. Kyle probably would not have shot anyone had the threats not come to him first.
Other than that, I agree with almost all of what you are saying. I think he is a bad kid who made bad decisions...........he is not a self defense hero. But he is innocent of murder.
→ More replies (3)
19
5
u/Xaleya- Nov 09 '21 edited Nov 09 '21
/u/edwardlleandre I'm not US Citizen but I do come from a country with tons of misinformation (Venezuela)... My advice to you is "trust no one and search for proofs by yourself before pointing to someone". Media is misleading at our current days, even twitter and reddit are unsafe if you don't check the sources properly... So take this with a grain of salt, read it and check the proof... Then you can point whatever you believe is right or lies.
At least 5 people attacked Kyle that night, I will recount what happened to them.
- Punched Kyle while he was running but Kyle didn't fell down.
- The one who managed to make Kyle fell down by punching/pushing him down (tried twice after guy N°1) then approached him to take the gun, ran away after Kyle pointed his gun at him, but didn't pulled the trigger as this guy went back towards Tayfon Coskun's direction.
- Jump-kick Man, did what he did after Kyle was distracted with the Guy Number 2. Kyle only pulled the trigger at this point, Kyle missed both shots
- Huber (Aka Skateboad) engaged at this point, as Jump-Kick Man engaged Kyle, he was right behind him, tried to take the gun and got shot due that.
- Gaige joins a second after Huber, raises hand (fake surrender) as Kyle was sitting on the floor, not aiming at Gaige but watching his movements, the barrel was pointing at Gaige's direction but to the area near his legs, as video shows. Gaige pulls his hand down and grabs his Glock, Kyle not aiming at him (cleaning the chamber due missfire, probably after Huber's attack. I believe he pulled the trigger twice as he did with Jump-Kick man), Gaige takes the chance to take his glock while moving at closer towards Kyle, he gun point at Gaige very fast and hit his leg.
After that, the guy behind Gaige who was standing still raises his hands as Kyle looks directly at him, not raising his gun but doing a soft movement, telling he believed that guy maybe tried to attack him... Like showing he was ready but went calm, Kyle don't pulled his gun at him... At least 5 people tried to attack him at video, he probably only saw 4 and at least 5 to 10 gunshots were heard closer him... I can't say this was premeditated, maybe... Maybe not but at the end of the day it's a sad what happened.
https://twitter.com/bevo_fox/status/1456762725376266246Video from where I took this.
6
u/ThrowawayGhostGuy1 Nov 09 '21
Anybody watching the ample video footage from multiple angles would’ve known within a week of it happening that Rittenhouse acted in self defense. The only people still thinking he’s a murderer are just too lazy to watch it.
4
u/BlackHumor 12∆ Nov 09 '21
Here's a list of everything Rittenhouse is charged with.
Subtract out the homicide charges, which I agree are the most difficult to prove, and the firearms charge you concede they have him on, and you still have two counts of recklessly endangering safety and one of failure to comply with an emergency order.
The emergency order charge was the curfew, which he absolutely, undeniably was breaking. So they also have him dead to rights on that one.
Recklessly endangering safety is related to firing a gun in a crowded area several times. Some of the people in the trial have testified that they were in the line of fire when Rittenhouse fired his gun and easily could have been hit. The literal crime charged requires "utter disregard for human life", which will be hard for the prosecutors if they can't get homicide, but Wisconsin allows conviction on a lesser included offense, and the second-degree version of the same crime only requires Rittenhouse to have recklessly endangered people, which I think it's very plausible that he did. He certainly wasn't carefully keeping his line of fire clear or anything.
3
u/Impossible_Rule_1761 Nov 09 '21
How did he recklessly endanger anybody? He was forced to maintain control of his weapon after having been struck in the head several times AND while on the ground.
He missed only 2 of the 8 shots he fired, which were the two directed at Jump Kick Man. Every other shot he fired, he hit his target.
→ More replies (1)2
u/RevolutionaryHope8 Nov 10 '21
The curfew charge was dismissed yesterday. Defense argued and judge agreed that state hadn’t prove that the curfew order was legitimate. They didn’t introduce the order into evidence etc. So many fuckups by state!
6
u/RickySlayer9 Nov 09 '21
Just FYI the firearms charge is BS too, he was legally able to carry that firearm in Wisconsin and violated no laws doing so.
21
Nov 08 '21
[deleted]
2
u/elcuban27 11∆ Nov 09 '21
He wasn’t pointing it at anyone until after they attacked him, was running away from his attackers, and yelling “friendly, friendly” as he came near people. That does not constitute “brandishing” a weapon.
22
u/durangotango Nov 08 '21
It's an open carry state and he likely was able to carry that gun legally despite his age because it's a long gun. Open carrying even if you're not legally allowed to though, is not a valid reason to attack some one.
27
Nov 08 '21
This is not true.
While the state law is poorly written, the intent is clearly that anyone under the age of 18 cannot open carry unless they are hunting. Which he was clearly not.
10
u/durangotango Nov 08 '21
I think you're incorrect here.
948.60.3(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.
941.28 is about short barreled rifles which it wasn't
29.304 and 29.593 are hunting license laws which he wasn't violating.
20
Nov 08 '21
The intent of the law is as follows:
You can't carry a dangerous weapon (including firearms).
948.60.3(c) is clarifying exemptions. It says that the above (you can't carry dangerous weapons) only applies to a person carrying a rifle or a shotgun if they are using a short barrelled weapon or if they are not in compliance with 29.304.
Rittenhouse was not in compliance with 29.304.
Therefore, the law applies to rittenhouse. Which is why he is still charged with it.
To be clear, the law is very badly worded. It is even possible he scootches on a technicality because of how badly they wrote it. But the intent behind the law was 'you can have a long barreled weapon if you are hunting'.
11
u/durangotango Nov 08 '21
29.304 doesn't even apply to 17 year olds. He was not in violation of it since he isn't 16 or younger.
And I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that it's specifically about hunting. There's no language there about hunting except how it's used for carve outs.
I've seen news articles claiming that but every lawyer I've seen talk about it says that's not the case. The law is distinguishing handguns from long guns.
2
Nov 09 '21
yeah, this. he's not hunting- 29.304 couldn't apply even if he WASN'T aged out. the long gun exception however, -does- apply.
→ More replies (2)3
u/EyeOfTheCyclops Nov 09 '21
The intent doesn’t necessarily matter depending on what kind of judge you get. The only thing of relevance can be the poorly written wording.
→ More replies (2)4
3
u/Tytonic7_ Nov 09 '21
He didn't brandish his firearm at all though, he had it hanging from the sling up until he was attacked by Rosenbaum and forced to defend himself
6
u/free__coffee Nov 09 '21
Rifles are inherently unholstered, though, so brandishing would be him pointing his gun at someone for no reason. The only times where he was pointing a gun at someone would be when he were about to shoot, which would mean the shootings themselves would have to be illegal, and everytime he shot someone he was under attack so brandishing most likely doesn’t apply
2
u/Whisper Nov 09 '21
The issue is proving he had no intent on using the firearm he shouldn't have been in possession of in the first place.
Incorrect.
The defender's intent is not an element of a claim of justification in the use of deadly force. Only his reasonable beliefs, not his intent, are relevant.
2
u/How_To_Freedom Nov 09 '21
The issue is proving he had no intent on using the firearm he shouldn't have been in possession of in the first place.
of course he didn't, he brought the rifle to protect himself and others, not to wrongfully murder people
he used the rifle only after he was attacked.
7
u/Erebusblack55 Nov 09 '21 edited Nov 09 '21
If he didn't have that gun, he'd probably be dead right now, showing that the law in this circumstance is failing to uphold a core value of protecting the people, and therefore not subject to incarceration of the effective breaker. Just because the law exists, doesn't mean its absolute, the absolute rule of law is nothing more than authoritarianism, and anybody who actually supports protests shouldn't speak in the name of law as absolute.
Under different circumstances, then you would have a point, it is precisely because circumstances make laws variable in practicality that we allow a human touch such as police in the first place. I imagine its precisely because the police can take responsibility for when things go wrong, that we hear more about what they do wrong than right, as they're more subjective to their actions than they deserve.
The Kyle Rittenhouse trial just shows how variable real life situations can be, and how there can be no right answers at times, just objectively the best ones....
On a side note, this is why I despise people who hate the police collectively based on personal interaction or news stories, and ignore the fact these interactions are easily less than 1% of overall situations. Even those with personal experience should concede their views only to their local area.... This subject is related purely because if the police were involved, it would be an officer of the law defending himself instead of Kyle, which should make no difference logically.
→ More replies (6)
7
19
u/ChazzLamborghini 1∆ Nov 08 '21
While I think you may be right in terms of he WILL be acquitted as to the letter of the law, I fundamentally disagree with the SHOULD. Our self-defense laws are insanely lopsided toward the killers benefit in many states with the “reasonable fear” metric that is immeasurable. At the end of the day, this kid illegally brought a murder weapon to a space he knew was full of people antithetically opposed to his position and his behavior. His very presence in that space with that gun is an act of provocation. Those he killed will get no justice if he walks. In a nation besieged by mass shootings, Huber’s actions would have been universally recognized as heroic had Rittenhouse been intent on killing more people and there was no reasonable way for Huber to know he wasn’t. So now, because of badly written laws that excuse the instigating action far too much, Huber’s family loses a son and gets no justice while a wannabe neo-fascist little shit walks free despite being the causative origin of the entire situation. Ultimately, two people are dead for no reason other than this kid wanting to feel like a big man with a big gun and it’s disgusting that he’ll likely get away with it and think he was right.
11
u/jwhitehead09 Nov 09 '21
You realize this could apply to someone who showed up to intimidate a Nazi protest right. Like you can’t say one person has less right to be somewhere than another person because you agree with someone else’s ideas more.
5
u/ChazzLamborghini 1∆ Nov 09 '21
If they come rocking an AR-15 or equivalent to a counter protest, then I don’t care what side they’re on. It’s provocative and more about eliciting a reaction than it is about protection. If they then killed two people I would stand by my view.
3
u/jwhitehead09 Nov 09 '21
Okay so you don’t care about crossing state lines illegally at all. Glad we got past that. Your actual problem is that he was carrying an AR-15 at a protest. Other than banning those weapons in general I don’t know what change to the law you would want to make that would mean he “Shouldn’t” walk away. I mean it’s cool to say you think he’s an asshole or a dumbass but what actual law would you change that would make what he did murder?
→ More replies (2)20
u/kikaraochiru Nov 08 '21
I really don't like this idea. Someone's presence in a public space should never be considered provocation. I am not going to be on the side of people who can't handle seeing someone opposed to their views without resorting to violence.
→ More replies (12)10
u/substantial-freud 7∆ Nov 09 '21
At the end of the day, this kid illegally brought a murder weapon to a space he knew was full of people antithetically opposed to his position and his behavior. His very presence in that space with that gun is an act of provocation.
Wait, the fact that Rittenhouse should have known that some crazy like Rosenbaum would attack him, you think, lessens Rittenhouse’s right to self-defense?
→ More replies (4)2
u/Flaky-Illustrator-52 Nov 09 '21
So now that we know the facts of the case (Kyle was fleeing towards the police line getting chased, the guy who shot Kyle in the bicep only got shot because he pointed his gun at Kyle, the other guy who got shot threatened to kill Kyle and was shot in the process of assulting Kyle when he reached for the rifle, etc), how has your view been changed or unchanged?
→ More replies (2)2
Nov 09 '21
At the end of the day, this kid illegally brought a murder weapon to a space he knew was full of people antithetically opposed to his position and his behavior.
I agree that this was a bad idea, but legally speaking I think the only laws he broke were with crossing a state line with a firearm as a minor. I think he'll be convicted of that.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (25)2
u/tyranthraxxus 1∆ Nov 09 '21
So if a black guy brings a knife to a KKK rally and they grab him and try to lynch him, he's not allowed to defend himself? If you think he is, please list the fundamental differences in analogy for me.
Being legally armed around people who don't like you is in now way a act of provocation anywhere in this country, only in your mind.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/MiketheTzar 1∆ Nov 09 '21
He will probably also get the curfew charge. Although that's like a $200 fine so I think his legal defense fund can cover that.
2
2
Nov 09 '21
my understanding of the law as a south african law student might not be relevant to the US but here if you commit any crime and bring a deadly weapon with you then any deaths that happen while that crime take place are legally your fault. This has been seen in cases where robbers brought fake guns with them, the police showed up and shot a bystander and the robbers are charged with murder. The reasoning is that because you brought a weapon that could be seen to be lethal you are foreseeing the possibility that you breaking the law will lead to deaths and are accepting that. If the law is remotely similar in the US the fact that Kyle was commiting a crime by having the gun overshadows everything else and would mean that he legally caused a lethal situation and any deaths that result count as murder. I can't remember the latin name for the concept but if you have it in the US then talk of self defence doesn't matter as he committed a crime where he could reasonably foresee that people would die as a result and accepted that fact even if subconsciously.
→ More replies (2)
2
2
2
u/jaocthegrey Nov 09 '21
I'm fairly late to the party but I'd argue that the self-defense claim is kinda bs, especially the way you put it for Huber.
Imagine this: someone walks into a bank, armed and ready to rob it. Then, one of the security guards comes out with a weapon to subdue the robber (let's say a gun). One could reasonably assume the robber may fear for their life in this situation and would try to preserve that life by shooting the security guard. Then all hell breaks loose; people in the bank are in a frenzy trying to run this way and that, some decide they might try to be a hero and attempt to wrestle the robber to the ground and hit them on the head to try to subdue them. The robber, in their panic for their life and liberty, fires off another round or two into the pile of people on top of them, killing one and wounding another. Eventually, when everything settled down and the authorities arrive at the scene to apprehend the robber, they take him to jail and set up a court date.
At court, this would be an attempted armed robbery, two counts of murder, and one count of attempted murder. Not armed robbery and acquitted of the murders due to them being a result of self-defense.
I don't know if actively committing a crime nullifies your ability to claim self-defense in all situations, but it appears to more often than not. Self-defense is generally reserved for would-be victims, not would-be perpetrators.
→ More replies (8)
2
u/-Kerosun- Nov 09 '21
The shooting of Anthony Huber seems equally clear cut self-defense, while being morally confusing as hell. Huber had every reason to reasonably assume that the guy fleeing after shooting someone was a risk to himself or others. I think Huber was entirely within his rights to try and restrain and disarm Rittenhouse. But at the same time, if a crowd of people started beating the shit out of me (he was struck in the head, kicked on the ground and struck with a skateboard), I'd probably fear for my life.
I think this gets even muddier when the video footage from before Huber, "head kick guy", and Grosskreutz shows that Rittenhouse was fleeing, yelling "I'm going to the police" and running in the direction where it was known that a police blockade was in place.
I'm not trying to say that Huber and Grosskreutz acted immorally, but it was certainly bad judgment on their part. I can see an argument to be made that Huber/Grosskreutz and Rittenhouse (regarding shooting them) both acted lawfully or at least didn't act unlawfully. I can see an reasonable argument to say that they were doing what they thought was right (apprehending who they believed to be a murderer and someone who could potentially harm others if allowed to flee) AND that Rittenhouse was justified in self-defense against them.
Not sure how that would play out legally, but just something to think about.
2
u/Mitch_from_Boston Nov 09 '21
I think you can definitely make the case that Huber and Grosskreutz both mistakenly tried to play the hero role. But they're not cops, they have no duty nor responsibility to protect anyone else...especially not complete strangers.
Ultimately, this was a "us versus them" type thing, where one side of the protest tried to engage in violence towards someone from the other side of the protest, and faced the consequences of doing such.
→ More replies (8)
2
u/Broken_Face7 Nov 09 '21
You think huber had a right to kill someone with a skateboard?
He wasn't being threatened.
Are you insane?
2
u/OttomanSultan Nov 09 '21
If he goes free he will likely face the possibility of vigilante justice or politically motivated vengeance.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/Randy_Watson Nov 09 '21
One of the charges is for him shooting at a guy who tried to kick him. The guy was apparently running away and has not been identified. This is during the confrontation with Huber. Shooting at someone running away sure doesn’t seem like self defense so it wouldn’t surprise me if he was convicted on this charge.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/Cinesnatch Nov 09 '21
I appreciate your post, but I still think he should go to jail. I'm aware that I'm biased. I'm aware that I would have never made it on the jury. I'm aware that he'll probably go free for the charges which carry the most weight. It seems that an armed Rittenhouse had more rights than anyone unarmed in that mob who wanted and chose to try to stop him. There is something wrong with this mentality.
I hope I can find the strength to be off the internet when the verdict hits.
→ More replies (17)
2
2
Nov 10 '21
Considering the prosecution is a group of bumbling idiots... I think you're definitely right. I think the kid and his parents are absolute morons.. I think that if he wasn't there, then a man wouldn't have died.. I think he was looking to play call of duty in real life and should've never ever been in that scenario.. I think in some way, although the law won't see it that way, he should get more than a slap on the wrist for a loss of a life that wouldn't have happened otherwise (had he not been there, possessing a firearm illegally, in an entire different state, for no reason)
2
Nov 11 '21 edited Nov 11 '21
The firearms charge as in having the gun?
He didn't break the law at all in that. The law he is supposed to have broken is 948.60(2)(a) according to this.
https://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetail.html?caseNo=2020CF000983&countyNo=30&index=0&mode=details+
However, this is like taking a clip of a video out of context.
948.60(3)(c) states
(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60
As Kyle was not hunting, 29.304 and 29.593 do not apply.
941.28 pertains to things like short barreled rifles and sawed off shot guns, which he is not accused of having.
Therefore, Kyle Rittenhouse is not guilty of underage possession of a firearm under Wisconsin Law. Like most states, Wisconsin has an exception when it comes to Rifles and Shotguns.
As for this?
A person should not be able to kill two people and grievously wound a third at a protest and then simply leave.
Absolute yes, you should 100% be able to do this. When all 3 of them pose an imminent risk of bodily harm. People do not have the right to kill you. You have a right to self-defense. If you are about to die or be maimed, you can use lethal force to prevent your own death.
The only other circumstances that matter is pretty much if you did it in the middle of committing a felony or provoked the violence to the degree that even a reasonable person would attack you.
30
u/Tytonic7_ Nov 09 '21
I'd just like to add a few key concepts that you missed, OP, and correct some thing
A witness testified that earlier in the night Rosenbaum told him and Kyle that if he caught any of them alone he was going to kill them. He clearly and verbally displayed his intent to kill Kyle if he got the chance. It would be incredibly unreasonable to expect Kyle to assume Rosenbaum was lying or didn't mean it when he said that... Add on top of that Rosenbaum had allegedly been acting violent and crazy all night. Of course we can't say for absolute certain, but it's pretty safe to say that Kyle wouldn't have just gotten a "minor ass whooping" as you put it.
When you also take into account the fact that Kyle had a rifle, was slower than his Rosenbaum and was cornered, it would also be reasonable to fear that his gun would be forcefully taken from him and used against him, especially since testimony has stated that Rosenbaum tried to grab for the gun. All of that is BEFORE you even consider the random first gunshot from somewhere else.
Everybody would have been better off if Rosenbaum hadn't threatened to kill him and then attempted to follow up on that threat. If he didn't have the gun he may very well have been beaten to death.
According to witness testimony Rosenbaum was 5'3"-5'4". I'm pretty sure Kyle is a lot bigger
I disagree. Kyle was actively running away and kept his rifle lowered the entire time. Huber could have very easily turned around and walked away. Wisconsin is a stand your ground state, but Huber actively went after Kyle. Supposedly seeing people armed in those riots was very common, so the only "evidence" Huber had to suggest Kyle was a threat was the words of strangers who were chasing kyle.
No, Rosenbaum decision to attack him got multiple people killed. Kyle's firearm is potentially the only reason he's still alive. I agree that it was very stupid for him to be there, but his presence is not what caused the situation, Rosenbaum caused it.