Thread: Kyle Rittenhouse. Murder or self defense ?

Originally Posted by fishlocker

Now on a serious note was kyle Rittenhouse acting in self defense when he shot some peaceful protesters after he had been shot at, then an attempt to steal his rifle, beaten with a skateboard, and drawn upon with a firearm.

Excellent question! No, I don't think he was. Rittenhouse was shot at, but not by Joseph Rosenbaum. But let's back up a bit....

"Before we get started with all the shooting stuff, I want to point out that it is illegal for a seventeen year old to own a rifle in the state of Wisconsin."
Cody Garrett

Rittenhouse extinguished a fire set by protesters. He might have had the best of intentions, but it was asking for trouble.

He was chased by Joseph Rosenbaum (and others), and he was shot at by someone behind Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum threw something at him - something burning, but not even a Molotov cocktail. Rittenhouse turned round and shot and killed Rosenbaum. That, to my mind, was a disproportionate response. There are arguments to be made about the events that followed, but the prosecution will probably maintain that everything that followed can been seen as Rittenhouse attempting to flee the scene, and aggressing on citizens who were trying to apprehend him; that his other victims were also asking for trouble is irrelevant, and doesn't justify Rittenhouse's actions, which stemmed from the first unlawful shooting. I'd have to agree with that.

In any case, to my mind, Rittenhouse murdered Rosenbaum, and this is why children shouldn't be running around cities armed with rifles in the first place.

Apologies in advance to my pet trolls if the above response doesn't fit your narrative.

Originally Posted by TheMadBaron

Excellent question! No, I don't think he was. Rittenhouse was shot at, but not by Joseph Rosenbaum. But let's back up a bit....

"Before we get started with all the shooting stuff, I want to point out that it is illegal for a seventeen year old to own a rifle in the state of Wisconsin."
Cody Garrett

Rittenhouse extinguished a fire set by protesters. He might have had the best of intentions, but it was asking for trouble.

He was chased by Joseph Rosenbaum (and others), and he was shot at by someone behind Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum threw something at him - something burning, but not even a Molotov cocktail. Rittenhouse turned round and shot and killed Rosenbaum.

Nope. Rosenbaum gave chase and cornered Rittenhouse between a building and some parked cars. He was within reaching distance of Rittenhouse when he got shot.
“For reasons that remain unclear, Rosenbaum began to pursue Rittenhouse upon finding him alone,” the teen’s attorneys wrote. “Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse into a car lot while other rioters flanked them.”

A shot rang out. The defense filing alleges that there was a man with Rosenbaum who fired the shot “into Rittenhouse’s direction.”


“Video captures the events as Rittenhouse turned towards the sound of the gunshot and Rosenbaum lunged for his rifle,” the defense filing adds. “Unable to retreat further and under grave risk of immediate harm, Rittenhouse fired four shots from his rifle at Rosenbaum.”

Originally Posted by TheMadBaron

The thread, and the crazy long video, are full of factors which are irrelevant to the homicide charge.

For a start, it wouldn't matter if Rittenhouse was acting in self-defence - that doesn't automatically mean that he meets the criteria for a legal defence of self-defence. If I go to the zoo with a gun and I poke a tiger, and the tiger attacks me, then at that moment the best thing to do might be to shoot the tiger; I will be acting in self defence. I will still be legally responsible for the death of the tiger, however, and claiming self defence won't impress any judge. Don't poke tigers.

It doesn't matter that there were guns everywhere that night. Whichever position you take regarding US gun laws, the fact remains that there are laws.

It wouldn't make a difference if this happened in a state where a seventeen year old could legally own a rifle at home, or on a range.... Rittenhouse didn't legally own a rifle, and yet he was walking the streets with one.

It doesn't matter if he didn't cross a state line with the weapon. That's just one relatively minor charge he won't be facing.

It doesn't matter if he's a decent guy. It doesn't matter if his victims were scum. It doesn't matter if there was a riot going on. Tragically, I don't get to shoot Timmy Mallett.

It doesn't matter that someone else fired a gun first. Rittenhouse commited an unlawful homicide.

There's a CCTV video on YouTube somewhere of two guys attempting to rob a store at gunpoint. Perp 1 struggles with the proprietor. The proprietor grabs a gun and shoots Perp 1. Both perps flee, but Perp 1 collapses and dies right outside the store. However, the proprietor is not charged with the murder of Perp 1; Perp 2 is charged with the murder of Perp 1.
After all, Perp 2 was committing a crime while in possession of a firearm, and as a direct result of the crime he was committing, a man was killed. The lawyers called it a joint enterprise criminal venture, and he was convicted of murder without having fired a shot. I have no problem with that.

There's an argument to be made that it wouldn't even matter if Rittenhouse hadn't pulled the trigger himself. He had an illegal weapon. Just by being there with that weapon, he was committing a crime. People died as a consequence of his committing that crime. As I understand it, that's enough to convict for murder, in some states anyway - I'm not sure about Wisconsin.

It doesn't matter what Rittenhouse or anybody else thinks his victims might have done to him if they could have got his gun. He brought the gun into a situation in which he lacked the maturity to behave responsibly with a gun, which is precisely why it is illegal for a seventeen year old to own a rifle in the state of Wisconsin.

For a start, it wouldn't matter if Rittenhouse was acting in self-defence - that doesn't automatically mean that he meets the criteria for a legal defence of self-defence. If I go to the zoo with a gun and I poke a tiger, and the tiger attacks me, then at that moment the best thing to do might be to shoot the tiger; I will be acting in self defence. I will still be legally responsible for the death of the tiger, however, and claiming self defence won't impress any judge. Don't poke tigers.

I am sure the judge will be very impressed with the deceased's decision to hurl and object at and give chase and get an arms reach distance to a man carrying a loaded AR-15. This is where your analogy just fails.

It wouldn't make a difference if this happened in a state where a seventeen year old could legally own a rifle at home, or on a range.... Rittenhouse didn't legally own a rifle, and yet he was walking the streets with one.

Everyone in this case was in violation of curfew. So Rosenbaum shouldn't have been there just as much as much as Rittenhouse shouldn't have had a gun. But none of this is relevant anyway. If you are drunk driving and you crash into someone who's driving on an expired license, you aren't free to go because the other guy shouldn't have been there.

It doesn't matter if he's a decent guy. It doesn't matter if his victims were scum.

I havn't said anything about the backround of either one of them


Self defense in the US
General rule


In the U.S., the general rule is that "[a] person is privileged to use such force as reasonably appears necessary to defend him or herself against an apparent threat of unlawful and immediate violence from another."^[1] In cases involving non-deadly force, this means that the person must reasonably believe that their use of force was necessary to prevent imminent, unlawful physical harm.^[2] When the use of deadly force is involved in a self-defense claim, the person must also reasonably believe that their use of deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's infliction of great bodily harm or death.^[3] Most states no longer require a person to retreat before using deadly force. In the minority of jurisdictions which do require retreat, there is no obligation to retreat when it is unsafe to do so or when one is inside one's own home.


^ Notice how there is nothing here about legalities of guns and bullshit ? Because it doesn't matter. You can do anything including shoot an unlicensed gun, if your life is in danger. Its basically ridiclous to even bring it up. Saving your life is not contingent on gun legalities.

Retreat


Rittenhouse retreated until the very last moment. He waited until Rosenbaum was in arms reach of him. There is just no way this cannot be construed as anything but self defense.

Main article: Duty to retreat

See also: Stand your ground and Castle doctrine



A majority of U.S. jurisdictions do not follow the common law rule that a person must retreat prior to using deadly force ^[11], but rather have rejected this theory via statutory law in what are known as "stand your ground laws", which explicitly remove the duty to retreat. ^[12] Whether the person retreated may, however, be relevant as to the reasonableness of the use of deadly force, where there isn't an explicit statutory law which affirmatively removes the duty.^[13] Under the common law rule and the rule in a minority of states, the actor must have shown that he or she retreated prior to using deadly force unless: 1) it was not safe to retreat; or 2) the incident occurred at the actor's home.^[14] In addition, the Model Penal Code requires retreat or compliance, if it can be done with complete safety.

Originally Posted by Backspin

I am sure the judge will be very impressed with the deceased's decision to hurl and object at and give chase and get an arms reach distance to a man carrying a loaded AR-15.

None of which gives a person just cause to shoot someone.

Originally Posted by Backspin

Everyone in this case was in violation of curfew. So Rosenbaum shouldn't have been there just as much as much as Rittenhouse shouldn't have had a gun. But none of this is relevant anyway. If you are drunk driving and you crash into someone who's driving on an expired license, you aren't free to go because the other guy shouldn't have been there.

That's right; I'd be guilty, and if the other driver died I'd be guilty of causing their death, because I shouldn't have been there in possession of a deadly weapon (a motor vehicle), without the capacity to operate it safely; just like Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there with his deadly weapon, lacking the capacity to operate it safely. Most reasonable adults have enough life experience that we would choose not to be there in the first place, and, if there, certainly not to go irritating the rioters, even if, especially if, we find ourselves carrying a rifle. It's a provocation. Some fool's going to get shot.

Originally Posted by Backspin

I haven't said anything about the backround of either one of them

And my post didn't say anything about you. One of the videos posted dwells on the victims' criminal records. Since Rittenhouse didn't know about the victims' criminal records, this is irrelevant (and a little sickening, actually).

Originally Posted by Backspin

In the minority of jurisdictions which do require retreat, there is no obligation to retreat when it is unsafe to do so or when one is inside one's own home.

The distinction is there to cover specific situations which don't apply here. Generally, if one is threatened on the street and can retreat, one should retreat. If one is threatened in one's own home, one need not retreat. This is not to say that one may foolishly place oneself in a situation from which one cannot retreat and which is not one's home, provoke aggression, and then shoot an aggressor in the head. One should not have put oneself in a situation from which one cannot retreat. Don't get in the tiger enclosure.

There is a case of a thirteen year boy who took possession of his mother's gun, shot through the front door of the family home and killed two men standing outside. Since those men were trying to break through the door at the time, the boy was never charged; different rules apply in one's own home. Elsewhere, one has a responsibility to one's own safety which might include, given a choice, a) not placing oneself in dangerous situations, b) maintaining a safe escape route from such dangerous situations as one might find oneself obliged to place oneself in, and c) not carrying weapons illegally into those situations. Rittenhouse has a) failed, b) failed and c) failed. And people are dead because of that.

Originally Posted by Edmond

Guilty of gun possession, not guilty of murder.

Originally Posted by Backspin

Notice how there is nothing here about legalities of guns and bullshit ? Because it doesn't matter. You can do anything including shoot an unlicensed gun, if your life is in danger. Its basically ridiclous to even bring it up. Saving your life is not contingent on gun legalities.

Which is to say that there is no connection between a) having a gun and shooting someone with it and b) not having a gun and not shooting someone....