Kyle Rittenhouse -- innocent by self-defense?

[_Jersey Girl]

Kyle was open carry, though.

- Doc

Yes, I need to find legal clarification on that.

[_Jersey Girl]

It’s one thing to have the right to open carry in public in order to protect yourself and your property, but is it another separate thing to open carry to protect others or their property?

- Doc

If you're referring to Castle Doctrine, I see how it applies in this case. Plus, I've already demonstrated by quoting and linking to WI state law that he couldn't have legally carried in any form or fashion to start with.

And he couldn't have been a licensed EMT. He could have been taking courses at his age, but licensing can't happen in WI until age 18.

[_Jersey Girl]

Don't know if this is reputable or not. It's the first thing I came up with, not a state law, and I'm too tired to look further just now. Anyway he wasn't legal to own or handle the weapon without adult oversight to start with.

Wisconsin Open Carry
Open carry is legal in Wisconsin. You do not need a Wisconsin Concealed Weapons License to open carry. Local authorities cannot have laws or ordinances against open carry since the state preempts all firearms laws in the state.

The minimum age to open carry in Wisconsin is 18.

https://www.usacarry.com/wisconsin-open-carry.html

[_Some Schmo]

As I wrote elsewhere, imagine it was a clear-cut active shooter situation, where the shooting in the first video was obvious cold-blooded murder. If an active shooter pulls and takes down somebody in a crowd, then would you not expect the crowd to go after him? The point at which the shooter loses control of the situation and runs means he's playing defense by definition. Were the Nazis at Normandy justified just because they were clearly "defending themselves" from the invasion?

This.

And this is why the gun advocates have their heads up their collective asses when they talk about self-defense.

The dude is a little sh-it who has no business owning a weapon, let alone an automatic one, had no business being on the street with it, and he should be fu-cking retained until he's at least 25.

Self defense... only someone influenced by the idiocy of the right would even entertain this thought. You really disappoint sometimes, Shades. It's not self-defense if you initiate things.

[_Icarus]

Dear participants,

When I first heard about the Kyle Rittenhouse thing, I saw the still photo of him wearing rubber gloves and thought, "That proves it; he was trying shoot people without leaving fingerprints." Tonight I was sent a link to a video that compiles a few different sources of footage showing that he was acting in self-defense. Regarding the gloves, apparently he was an EMT with a medical kit on his person and most likely had them on in anticipation of rendering first aid if necessary.

Yes, it's hosted at banned.video, so I'm sure everyone's first instinct will be to disregard it "guilt by association"-style, but video footage is video footage, regardless of where it's hosted, as we all have to admit. It pretty clearly shows Rittenhouse firing in self-defense:

https://banned.video/watch?id=5f52bc97af4ce8069e672e5d

So, is there any reason my mind SHOULDN'T be changed by this video? 'Cause I admit the footage makes it look pretty cut-and-dry in this guy's favor.

Thanks in advance!

Here is Wisconsin's law regarding self-defense: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statut ... 939/iii/48

It all depends on whether his attorney can convince a jury that he reasonably believed he would have been killed when the first guy was trying to disarm him.

[_Jersey Girl]

A couple of comments on the video and I'd like to take a crack at picking apart the whole film later just because I'm all sleuthy and sh-it and like doing this. My first impression having gone through the video a couple or three times is that this is something that some of our posters here would passively take as gospel and believe without question. In other words, it's propaganda intended to present Rittenhouse as a community hero.

1. We don't know who really produced the video or why. That will come out in trial if this particular video is used.

2. The set up for the video shows Rittenhouse volunteering to remove graffiti. The videographer wants us to see Rittenhouse as a conscientious young man interested in preserving his community.

3. It says that Rittenhouse' "Never crossed state lines and was legal to carry". The narrator is reading this right behind text that states that the weapon was registered to a friend, not Rittenhouse. We know from what has been posted above that Rittenhouse isn't old enough to own or discharge a weapon without adult oversight in the state of WI to start with.

4. Rittenhouse claims that "our job is to protect this business". It would seem that he's part of an organized group. So far as I know, Castle Doctrine isn't applicable here.

5. Rittenhouse verbally informs people that he's an EMT. We know by reading the state statutes that he couldn't be a licensed EMT. At age 17 he could be in training, but he's not licensed to practice.

6. At one point early on, the narrator claims that after Rittenhouse shot the individual (Rosenbaum) that he "Stopped to inspect the body, make a phone call to notify a friend, and then headed towards the police." At this point, we have no evidence that he's running towards the police. That'll come out in eye witness testimony and other videos that were shot if there were any. And again, what EMT having shot someone (the irony of that is astounding) would make the first call to a friend and not EMS?

I'll leave it there for right now.

[_Icarus]

It was illegal for him to have a gun in Illinois and it was illegal for him to have a gun in Wisconsin. He broke two laws there when he crossed state lines. When the narrator says he didn't commit a crime here and he didn't cross state lines, he's lying.

Wisconsin law says a person cannot claim self-defense if they're doing something unlawful, which he most certainly say. His presence was unlawful being past curfew and he was engaged in unlawful conduct.

As far as him being attacked by the crowd, that only happened after he killed someone and they were in an active shooter situation. Could an active shooter at a school claim self defense by killing more people trying to tackle him?

[_Temp. Admin.]

I give it 70/30 odds that he's guilty, and that the guy with the handgun in the second video who was injured probably could have shot him dead and been in the right. He was smart not to take the chance, however.

That's just it: He did try his best to shoot him dead, but Rittenhouse neutralized his ability to do so before he could actually do it.

Question: Why is my nose in the state statutes when yours is not? I mean, one of us is an ECP and one of us is a cop.

Because I'm focused on the killing in self-defense aspect of the story, not on whether one can be an EMT at age 17.

You really disappoint sometimes, Shades. It's not self-defense if you initiate things.

He didn't initiate. After he first video wherein the first shot is fired, the next video wherein the second and third shots are fired shows him in a completely different area. Some time had clearly elapsed, so he hadn't initiated toward the people in the second video who were trying to kill him.

Here's something about which I'm completely baffled: People nearly always say that pedophiles should be tortured, taken out and shot, etc. So when the first guy, a registered sex offender who had served time for raping his girlfriend's kids, gets shot, suddenly everyone completely loves this pedophile and considers him a heroic martyr of sorts. Will someone please explain the sudden about-face?

[_Jersey Girl]

It was illegal for him to have a gun in Illinois and it was illegal for him to have a gun in Wisconsin. He broke two laws there when he crossed state lines. When the narrator says he didn't commit a crime here and he didn't cross state lines, he's lying.

I heard the narrator say that the gun didn't cross state lines, not Rittenhouse himself. I'll re-watch the video again in case I missed that. Either the narrator or the article under it says he borrowed the weapon from a friend so, I'm thinking the friend could've been a WI resident in which case that would explain what I think the narrator said. I was posting very late last night, I easily could have overlooked something.

Wisconsin law says a person cannot claim self-defense if they're doing something unlawful, which he most certainly say. His presence was unlawful being past curfew and he was engaged in unlawful conduct.

Excellent points! I think you're right on the money there.

As far as him being attacked by the crowd, that only happened after he killed someone and they were in an active shooter situation. Could an active shooter at a school claim self defense by killing more people trying to tackle him?

I think my answer is "no". I do want to re-watch the video though. I hope to be able to see the police interview with Rittenhouse and his expected trial. I want to see how the prosecution goes at the case and how the defense attempts to counter it. These days I've noticed a reluctance on the part of the courts to release video of police interviews and to bar cameras from courtrooms entirely so that reporters are left with only their hand written notes and sketch artists, and the public can not view the proceedings. All of this presumably to preserve the integrity of the case.

Don't be surprised if we never see any of the events that I mentioned.

[_Jersey Girl]

Here's something about which I'm completely baffled: People nearly always say that pedophiles should be tortured, taken out and shot, etc. So when the first guy, a registered sex offender who had served time for raping his girlfriend's kids, gets shot, suddenly everyone completely loves this pedophile and considers him a heroic martyr of sorts. Will someone please explain the sudden about-face?

Did they know in advance that he was a pedo who served time for raping his gf's kids? What do you have on that?