Rittenhouse/Kenosha Shooting Split

[J842P]

Again, you are just plain denying reality, or at the very least, completely ignorant of how the law works with regards to justifiable use of deadly force. In *every* single case that night Rittenhouse was completely justified in using his gun.

The self-defense defense for homicide is not available to use for any kind of threat, it only applies to threats of imminent death or great bodily harm. It's not at all clear cut that that is the case for every shot fired by KR.

It is absolutely clear cut. In all 4 instances, the persons were actively attacking Rittenhouse, and Rittenhouse had been actively fleeing in all the cases. Even *Grosskreutz himself* admitted as much, that Rittenhouse was in danger of significant harm, in hist cross examination!

Have you all even been watching the trial? Have you *seen* the videos?

 

[laughing dog]

BTW, it is also consistent with his violent responses, that he went with the willingness or intent to do violence.

There were *plenty* of people with guns. Handguns and long rifles all over the place. Random shots going off all night. But more importantly, all these points you bring up are completely irrelevant to whether or not Rittenhouse was justified in his use of force.

Yet there were other people with handguns and rifles who managed to not kill anyone or even use their weapon. Hmmm.

That is completely irrelevant. If they *had* killed people who had

1) lunged at them trying to take their gun, screaming "Fuck you" after saying "If I find you alone I'll kill you", after chasing him with another guy who *shot their handgun* and cornering them in the parking lot
2) chased and attacked them, striking their heads while they were on the ground, grabbing at their gun, and in one case, chasing them with a gun extended and pointed at them

Then they would have been justified in using deadly force. This is clear-cut legally. You trying to deny it with bringing up irrelevancies is just downright strange.

First, as others have pointed out, it is not clear cut legally. Second, has it even crossed your mind why Rittenhouse, out of all those armed people, had these problems while no one else did?

 

[Toni]

Again, you are just plain denying reality, or at the very least, completely ignorant of how the law works with regards to justifiable use of deadly force. In *every* single case that night Rittenhouse was completely justified in using his gun.

The self-defense defense for homicide is not available to use for any kind of threat, it only applies to threats of imminent death or great bodily harm. It's not at all clear cut that that is the case for every shot fired by KR.

It is absolutely clear cut. In all 4 instances, the persons were actively attacking Rittenhouse, and Rittenhouse had been actively fleeing in all the cases. Even *Grosskreutz himself* admitted as much, that Rittenhouse was in danger of significant harm, in hist cross examination!

Have you all even been watching the trial? Have you *seen* the videos?

Did you notice the video clip I posted above?

Grosskruetz testified that he raised his hands in surrender and Rittenhouse re-racked his weapon. And shot him.

What part of two vigilantes chases an armed vigilante who just killed a man do you not get?

 

[J842P]

BTW, it is also consistent with his violent responses, that he went with the willingness or intent to do violence.

There were *plenty* of people with guns. Handguns and long rifles all over the place. Random shots going off all night. But more importantly, all these points you bring up are completely irrelevant to whether or not Rittenhouse was justified in his use of force.

Yet there were other people with handguns and rifles who managed to not kill anyone or even use their weapon. Hmmm.

That is completely irrelevant. If they *had* killed people who had

1) lunged at them trying to take their gun, screaming "Fuck you" after saying "If I find you alone I'll kill you", after chasing him with another guy who *shot their handgun* and cornering them in the parking lot
2) chased and attacked them, striking their heads while they were on the ground, grabbing at their gun, and in one case, chasing them with a gun extended and pointed at them

Then they would have been justified in using deadly force. This is clear-cut legally. You trying to deny it with bringing up irrelevancies is just downright strange.

First, as others have pointed out, it is not clear cut legally. Second, has it even crossed your mind why Rittenhouse, out of all those armed people, had these problems while no one else did?

It absolutely *is clear cut* legally. Pretty much all of the requirements for justifiable deadly force were demonstrated through video (from multiple sources) and eyewitness testimony. Indeed, *even the prosecutions witness admitted the key facts on cross-examination*.

What problems? Being chased and attacked by Rosenbaum? It isn't clear. It *seems* that Rosenbaum was already angry that night and had been acting extremely aggressively. He apparently was going through a lot of personal issues. He had been actively trying to start fires. Rittenhouse was putting out fires, and this is when Rosenbaum began to stack and finally chase him, but that is admittedly still speculation. In *any case* it is irrelevant as to whether he was ultimately justified in defending himself, because he was running away and finally got cornered by Rosenbaum after Rosenbaum's friend shot a handgun in the air.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Rittenhouse may be found guilty of carrying the rifle underage. That is a misdemeanor, with, I think, a maximum of something like 90 days in jail.

You are being very emotionally reactionary about this and I disagree because your argument is shallow. Rittenhouse could be found guilty of such thing easily you have mentioned in this post, but your other posts show shallow dismissal of a reasoned middle ground. Whether or not KR is guilty of other things is not a thing you want to even think about it and he could easily be, provided those things have a factual and documented basis, able to be proved and demonstrated to an impartially minded jury or judge. Of course, he might not even be charged with the right crimes, much like Zimmerman wasn't comprehensively charged of the crimes that could _all_ be proved. So, for example, KR could easily also be guilty of reckless endangerment due to bringing and putting an illegally obtained gun on display and his motivations to hurt people, thus showing a reckless disregard for life. He could also be guilty of serious armed assault, provided certain things can be established in regard to the armed person he shot. Charges of murder are a bit extreme, sure, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water simply because you are getting emotional.

 

[Toni]

BTW, it is also consistent with his violent responses, that he went with the willingness or intent to do violence.

There were *plenty* of people with guns. Handguns and long rifles all over the place. Random shots going off all night. But more importantly, all these points you bring up are completely irrelevant to whether or not Rittenhouse was justified in his use of force.

Yet there were other people with handguns and rifles who managed to not kill anyone or even use their weapon. Hmmm.

That is completely irrelevant. If they *had* killed people who had

1) lunged at them trying to take their gun, screaming "Fuck you" after saying "If I find you alone I'll kill you", after chasing him with another guy who *shot their handgun* and cornering them in the parking lot
2) chased and attacked them, striking their heads while they were on the ground, grabbing at their gun, and in one case, chasing them with a gun extended and pointed at them

Then they would have been justified in using deadly force. This is clear-cut legally. You trying to deny it with bringing up irrelevancies is just downright strange.

First, as others have pointed out, it is not clear cut legally. Second, has it even crossed your mind why Rittenhouse, out of all those armed people, had these problems while no one else did?

It absolutely *is clear cut* legally. Pretty much all of the requirements for justifiable deadly force were demonstrated through video (from multiple sources) and eyewitness testimony. Indeed, *even the prosecutions witness admitted the key facts on cross-examination*.

What problems? Being chased and attacked by Rosenbaum? It isn't clear. It *seems* that Rosenbaum was already angry that night and had been acting extremely aggressively. He apparently was going through a lot of personal issues. He had been actively trying to start fires. Rittenhouse was putting out fires, and this is when Rosenbaum began to stack and finally chase him, but that is admittedly still speculation. In *any case* it is irrelevant as to whether he was ultimately justified in defending himself, because he was running away and finally got cornered by Rosenbaum after Rosenbaum's friend shot a handgun in the air.

At least some sources, including an officer who was there identified Rosenbaum as a non-threat. Rosenbaum was not armed.

 

[blastula]

It is absolutely clear cut. In all 4 instances, the persons were actively attacking Rittenhouse, and Rittenhouse had been actively fleeing in all the cases. Even *Grosskreutz himself* admitted as much, that Rittenhouse was in danger of significant harm, in hist cross examination!

Have you all even been watching the trial? Have you *seen* the videos?

Again, self-defense by deadly force only applies to a threat of imminent death or great bodily harm. I'm not sure what video you've seen that you think shows that for every shot fired.

 

[ZiprHead]

No Toni, all of those were justified. RIttenhouse killed Rosenbaum who was *attacking him*. It doesn't matter whether or not Rosenbaum was armed, it is still justifiable self defense. What the other two people thought they were doing is irrelevant to whether or not Rittenhouse acted justifiably. Being attacked, with or without a skateboard, is *makes him justified in defending himself*. Grosskreutz *himself* admitted that he was at risk of serious harm!

Again, you are just plain denying reality, or at the very least, completely ignorant of how the law works with regards to justifiable use of deadly force. In *every* single case that night Rittenhouse was completely justified in using his gun.

You are making the same mistake some others here are making. The right to a self defense claim is severely reduced if the claimant is in the process of committing criminal activity as Rittenhouse was. It is not as clear a self defense as you make it out to be.

 

[laughing dog]

BTW, it is also consistent with his violent responses, that he went with the willingness or intent to do violence.

There were *plenty* of people with guns. Handguns and long rifles all over the place. Random shots going off all night. But more importantly, all these points you bring up are completely irrelevant to whether or not Rittenhouse was justified in his use of force.

Yet there were other people with handguns and rifles who managed to not kill anyone or even use their weapon. Hmmm.

That is completely irrelevant. If they *had* killed people who had

1) lunged at them trying to take their gun, screaming "Fuck you" after saying "If I find you alone I'll kill you", after chasing him with another guy who *shot their handgun* and cornering them in the parking lot
2) chased and attacked them, striking their heads while they were on the ground, grabbing at their gun, and in one case, chasing them with a gun extended and pointed at them

Then they would have been justified in using deadly force. This is clear-cut legally. You trying to deny it with bringing up irrelevancies is just downright strange.

First, as others have pointed out, it is not clear cut legally. Second, has it even crossed your mind why Rittenhouse, out of all those armed people, had these problems while no one else did?

It absolutely *is clear cut* legally. Pretty much all of the requirements for justifiable deadly force were demonstrated through video (from multiple sources) and eyewitness testimony. Indeed, *even the prosecutions witness admitted the key facts on cross-examination*. A

What problems? Being chased and attacked by Rosenbaum? It isn't clear. It *seems* that Rosenbaum was already angry that night and had been acting extremely aggressively. He apparently was going through a lot of personal issues. He had been actively trying to start fires. Rittenhouse was putting out fires, and this is when Rosenbaum began to stack and finally chase him, but that is admittedly still speculation. In *any case* it is irrelevant as to whether he was ultimately justified in defending himself, because he was running away and finally got cornered by Rosenbaum after Rosenbaum's friend shot a handgun in the air.

Obviously, it is not "clear cut legally" since there is trial - that is my point.

I expect Mr. Rittenhouse to be found not guilty unless some overwhelmingly damning new evidence pops up because it is that part of Wisconsin.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is absolutely clear cut. In all 4 instances, the persons were actively attacking Rittenhouse, and Rittenhouse had been actively fleeing in all the cases. Even *Grosskreutz himself* admitted as much, that Rittenhouse was in danger of significant harm, in hist cross examination!

Have you all even been watching the trial? Have you *seen* the videos?

Again, self-defense by deadly force only applies to a threat of imminent death or great bodily harm. I'm not sure what video you've seen that you think shows that for every shot fired.

Agreed. The right to self-defense isn't an automatic authorization for deadly force.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It is absolutely clear cut. In all 4 instances, the persons were actively attacking Rittenhouse, and Rittenhouse had been actively fleeing in all the cases. Even *Grosskreutz himself* admitted as much, that Rittenhouse was in danger of significant harm, in hist cross examination!

Have you all even been watching the trial? Have you *seen* the videos?

Again, self-defense by deadly force only applies to a threat of imminent death or great bodily harm. I'm not sure what video you've seen that you think shows that for every shot fired.

I think the idea of self-defense might possibly be even be more nuanced than an idea about imminent death or harm. I will give two examples.

Example 1. Suppose two people decide to illegally have a duel. It's with illegally obtained pistols. After the count, one person is clearly advantaged. The other person is going to be shot first. He changes his mind about dueling. Too late. He ducks to compensate and then shoots the other person. No one in their right mind would claim that the imminent threat of death makes the shooter unaccountable to all the laws violated. I will mention again the specific crime of reckless endangerment which brought about the circumstance, whether or not there later was an imminent threat.

Example 2. Guy decides to drink and drive. He has a right to try to save his own neck, right? Consider later he is drunk driving 300mph. He gets into a situation where he has to crash into another car with 1 passenger but likely save his own life, crash into a second car with 3 passengers but also likely save his own life, or crash offroad, most likely dying. He decides option A, killing the passenger but saving his own skin. When we look at this situation, we don't consider only what is imminent. We also look at the recklessness of the individual in creating the circumstance whereby their options to choose life and death for other people materialized.

 

[Metaphor]

Once again, you have no clue what he was thinking. It should be fucking obvious to anyone that the vast majority of attendees of protests do not feel the need to carry illegal firearms.

I told you repeatedly that this is what I believe about why he went armed. I believe that reason makes more sense, and is more consistent with human psychology, than the idea he went there specifically to murder random people.

 

[Metaphor]

Malice aforethought is not involved in any of the charges against KR, it's a strawman. So yes, he is.

So if it is not, what do his intentions in going to the protest have to do with anything?

 

[Metaphor]

Apparently Rittenhouse is guilty of murder because Toni can't think of a 'legitimate', or 'good', or 'rational' reason for him being at a riot with a gun.

Rittenhouse is decidedly guilty of homicide. He shot people.
Whether it's justifiable homicide or not is a different question. It doesn't look justifiable to me, based on such evidence as has been made public.

But I could be wrong, I don't put as much faith in internet videos as some people do. And I don't much assume that internet pundits accusing him of murder have any credibility. He's a young person, where are the adults who were expected to make big decisions for him?
Why aren't they in court explaining and justifying the choices they made?
Tom

I don't know. I am not actually speculating on what happened when Rittenhouse was actually there. I am saying that some people have decided he is guilty because he went armed to a protest, and there's no 'legitimate', 'good', or 'rational' reason to do so.

 

[Metaphor]

This response is quite reprehensible. You can do better Metaphor.

Toni repeatedly makes the remark (and is still doing it) that Rittenhouse shot an unarmed man, as if an unarmed man poses no physical threat to somebody, and therefore a self-defense shooting could not possibly be justified.

 

[Toni]

This response is quite reprehensible. You can do better Metaphor.

Toni repeatedly makes the remark (and is still doing it) that Rittenhouse shot an unarmed man, as if an unarmed man poses no physical threat to somebody, and therefore a self-defense shooting could not possibly be justified.

We’ve heard more than enough about your interpretation of my statements.

Can’t you offer your own opinion?

If someone threatens to hurt me at some unspecified time, am I then justified in pulling out my AK15 and killing him?

 

[Toni]

Apparently Rittenhouse is guilty of murder because Toni can't think of a 'legitimate', or 'good', or 'rational' reason for him being at a riot with a gun.

Rittenhouse is decidedly guilty of homicide. He shot people.
Whether it's justifiable homicide or not is a different question. It doesn't look justifiable to me, based on such evidence as has been made public.

But I could be wrong, I don't put as much faith in internet videos as some people do. And I don't much assume that internet pundits accusing him of murder have any credibility. He's a young person, where are the adults who were expected to make big decisions for him?
Why aren't they in court explaining and justifying the choices they made?
Tom

I don't know. I am not actually speculating on what happened when Rittenhouse was actually there. I am saying that some people have decided he is guilty because he went armed to a protest, and there's no 'legitimate', 'good', or 'rational' reason to do so.

I’m not a lawyer. I’m not judging Rittenhouse as guilty of murder.

There was no good or legitimate reason for a 17 year old to take a loaded semiautomatic weapon to a demonstration, particularly when it was illegal for him to carry such a weapon. I would guess that virtually all police officers would agree with me. It’s dangerous. In this case, it resulted in the deaths of two people and disabled a third person.

 

[J842P]

Again, you are just plain denying reality, or at the very least, completely ignorant of how the law works with regards to justifiable use of deadly force. In *every* single case that night Rittenhouse was completely justified in using his gun.

The self-defense defense for homicide is not available to use for any kind of threat, it only applies to threats of imminent death or great bodily harm. It's not at all clear cut that that is the case for every shot fired by KR.

It is absolutely clear cut. In all 4 instances, the persons were actively attacking Rittenhouse, and Rittenhouse had been actively fleeing in all the cases. Even *Grosskreutz himself* admitted as much, that Rittenhouse was in danger of significant harm, in hist cross examination!

Have you all even been watching the trial? Have you *seen* the videos?

Did you notice the video clip I posted above?

Grosskruetz testified that he raised his hands in surrender and Rittenhouse re-racked his weapon. And shot him.

Yes, I saw the whole testimony. "re-racking" his weapon doesn't make it an unjustified shooting. He didn't "surrender", he raised his hands and immediately lowered them to point his handgun at Kyle's head. Now, he may have been *intending* to surrender. But at this point, all Rittenhouse knows is that this guy was charging at him *with a gun in his hand extended towards him*. Note, that fact was admitted by Grosskruetz on cross examination, pretty much after he lied about that fact earlier!

Notice, the other guy, right next to Grosskruetz without a weapon who held his hands up *didn't get shot*.

 

[J842P]

We’ve heard more than enough about your interpretation of my statements.

Can’t you offer your own opinion?

If someone threatens to hurt me at some unspecified time, am I then justified in pulling out my AK15 and killing him?

No, but if someone is *attacking you* you would be.

 

[Metaphor]

We’ve heard more than enough about your interpretation of my statements.

Can’t you offer your own opinion?

If someone threatens to hurt me at some unspecified time, am I then justified in pulling out my AK15 and killing him?

It depends on the circumstances. It may be reasonable for you to perceive an imminent threat to your life based on the words and actions of the person.