Kyle Rittenhouse -- innocent by self-defense?

[_Dr Exiled]

Yeah, I can’t make out anything from the video of the first shooting. It looks like the shooter is running away from the victim just before the shooting. Even if the shooter had provoked, he could regain his right of self defense by retreating and verbally indicating he was doing so. But it’s not clear who was provoking whom. The victim had been confronting the armed folks earlier, so it’s possible he was the aggressor. I suspect it will come down to witnesses.

ETA: the third victim was armed with a handgun.

Yes, I agree, it will come down to witnesses as there is probably a lot outside of the video that is relevant and witness testimony will fill in the gaps. The victim with the handgun seems to be the best case of self-defense. That guy looked like he was going to use his gun on Rittenhouse and so self-defense seems viable there.

What does everyone think of having a skateboard to the head? Is that enough to believe one's life is threatened? Does that justify shooting the attacker? I've personally been involved with a skateboarder swinging a skateboard at me and my friends. I didn't feel it was life threatening. I've been kicked in a fight also and didn't feel it was life threatening as well. However, perhaps my experience is different than what others have experienced.

[_Analytics]

From my point of view, by brandishing an automatic riffle during a protest in a city and state in which he didn't live, the kid was engaging in felony reckless endangerment.

"Open carry" does not equal "brandish." There's no evidence he engaged in the latter.

Thus, using force to subdue him was in fact justified.

Not if he was merely open carrying it wasn't.

My understanding is that "open carry" means you can have a pistol or revolver in a visible holster. Once you remove it from the holster, you are brandishing. Going into a tense zone with an assault riffle in your hands is brandishing--not Lawful open carrying.

From wikipedia:

In the United States, open carry refers to the practice of "openly carrying a firearm in public", as distinguished from concealed carry, where firearms cannot be seen by the casual observer. To "carry" in this context indicates that the firearm is kept readily accessible on the person, within a holster or attached to a sling. "Carrying" a firearm directly in the hands, particularly in a firing position or combat stance, is also known as "brandishing" and may constitute a serious crime, but that is not the mode of "carrying" discussed in this article.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_ca ... ted_States

[Guest]

"Open carry" does not equal "brandish." There's no evidence he engaged in the latter.


Not if he was merely open carrying it wasn't.

My understanding is that "open carry" means you can have a pistol or revolver in a visible holster. Once you remove it from the holster, you are brandishing. Going into a tense zone with an assault riffle in your hands is brandishing--not Lawful open carrying.

From wikipedia:

In the United States, open carry refers to the practice of "openly carrying a firearm in public", as distinguished from concealed carry, where firearms cannot be seen by the casual observer. To "carry" in this context indicates that the firearm is kept readily accessible on the person, within a holster or attached to a sling. "Carrying" a firearm directly in the hands, particularly in a firing position or combat stance, is also known as "brandishing" and may constitute a serious crime, but that is not the mode of "carrying" discussed in this article.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_ca ... ted_States

I think this brings up an interesting question: does openly carrying an AR 15 generate fear in those around the person openly carrying the AR 15? Does the fear objectively trigger some to believe they are being threatened? Here in the US, it is unusual to see people openly carrying an AR 15 around town. I know I haven't seen anyone openly carrying an AR 15 around. So, perhaps when most see a person walking around with an AR 15 would think that person was a threat? The shirtless guy in the video that was demanding to be shot seemed to be or maybe might have been acting out of fear?

[_Temp. Admin.]

To "carry" in this context indicates that the firearm is kept readily accessible on the person, within a holster or attached to a sling.

Rittenhouse's firearm was attached to a sling.

"Carrying" a firearm directly in the hands, particularly in a firing position or combat stance, is also known as "brandishing" . . .

Rittenhouse wasn't in a firing position or a combat stance. He was running away from his pursuers.

The shirtless guy in the video that was demanding to be shot seemed to be or maybe might have been acting out of fear?

Hardly. If he was fearful of Rittenhouse, he would've been running away from Rittenhouse, not toward him.

[_Dr Exiled]

I think shirtless guy was demanding to be shot, not an aggressive stance, but perhaps something different? Maybe done out of fear and frustration that he had to deal with the constant pressure/fear of a militia kid toting a loaded AR 15? Shirtless guy could have feared that the kid, being a kid, might recklessly use the deadly weapon? Also, I don't think Rittenhouse could objectively be fearful of someone demanding that he shoot them, no? Shirtless guy used the N-word also, even though he was white. What do you make of that? It doesn't make sense, perhaps how people lost in fear react to gun toting teen?

[_Analytics]

I think this brings up an interesting question: does openly carrying an AR 15 generate fear in those around the person openly carrying the AR 15? Does the fear objectively trigger some to believe they are being threatened? Here in the US, it is unusual to see people openly carrying an AR 15 around town. I know I haven't seen anyone openly carrying an AR 15 around. So, perhaps when most see a person walking around with an AR 15 would think that person was a threat? The shirtless guy in the video that was demanding to be shot seemed to be or maybe might have been acting out of fear?

I totally agree. A militia nut carrying around a loaded assault riffle screams "I'M THE LAW!!" and is inherently threatening. This is doubly true in American culture where such people get into armed standoffs with the FBI and have fantasies about going to war with the government.

[_Analytics]

Rittenhouse wasn't in a firing position or a combat stance. He was running away from his pursuers.

That is after he already shot somebody though, right?

You are a cop, right? Do you ever do traffic stops? I would presume if you pull somebody over, you'd have a problem with him holding a loaded assault riffle in the driver's seat. Would you not also have a problem if it was merely in a sling?

In any event, this incident shows how stupid it is to allow open carry and how stupid it is to do so. Rittenhouse with a gun made the situation infinitely more dangerous for all involved, his fantasies about how the world needs "good guys" with guns to fight the "bad guys" with guns (or skateboards) notwithstanding.

[_Res Ipsa]

My understanding is that "open carry" means you can have a pistol or revolver in a visible holster. Once you remove it from the holster, you are brandishing. Going into a tense zone with an assault riffle in your hands is brandishing--not Lawful open carrying.

From wikipedia:

In the United States, open carry refers to the practice of "openly carrying a firearm in public", as distinguished from concealed carry, where firearms cannot be seen by the casual observer. To "carry" in this context indicates that the firearm is kept readily accessible on the person, within a holster or attached to a sling. "Carrying" a firearm directly in the hands, particularly in a firing position or combat stance, is also known as "brandishing" and may constitute a serious crime, but that is not the mode of "carrying" discussed in this article.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_ca ... ted_States

That' doesn't match my understanding of "open carry." The paragraph you quoted in wikipedia cites no authority for this distinction. Open carry in Wisconsin and in my state derive from the constitutional right to "bear arms." The Supreme Court has given a very broad meaning to the word "carry" --
One can "carry" a firearm in the trunk of a car. Nothing in Heller confines the term "carry" to "carry in a holster or sling."

States do have the power to limit ways in which a firearm can be carried. In Wisconsin, pointing a firearm at someone is a crime unless done within the privilege of self defense. But in neither open carry state that I looked at has a narrow definition of carry that does not include having the firearms in one's hands.

[_Res Ipsa]

My understanding is that "open carry" means you can have a pistol or revolver in a visible holster. Once you remove it from the holster, you are brandishing. Going into a tense zone with an assault riffle in your hands is brandishing--not Lawful open carrying.

From wikipedia:

In the United States, open carry refers to the practice of "openly carrying a firearm in public", as distinguished from concealed carry, where firearms cannot be seen by the casual observer. To "carry" in this context indicates that the firearm is kept readily accessible on the person, within a holster or attached to a sling. "Carrying" a firearm directly in the hands, particularly in a firing position or combat stance, is also known as "brandishing" and may constitute a serious crime, but that is not the mode of "carrying" discussed in this article.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_ca ... ted_States

I think this brings up an interesting question: does openly carrying an AR 15 generate fear in those around the person openly carrying the AR 15? Does the fear objectively trigger some to believe they are being threatened? Here in the US, it is unusual to see people openly carrying an AR 15 around town. I know I haven't seen anyone openly carrying an AR 15 around. So, perhaps when most see a person walking around with an AR 15 would think that person was a threat? The shirtless guy in the video that was demanding to be shot seemed to be or maybe might have been acting out of fear?
[/quote]

Thinking someone is a threat is not enough to invoke the privilege of self defense. The threat must be imminent. Also, if the reaction is present only in "some people," I'd describe that as subjective, not objective. If I see a guy carrying an AR-15, I can simply avoid him. Shirtless guy doesn't look like he was avoiding -- it looked like he was provoking.

[_Gadianton]

"A militia nut carrying around a loaded assault riffle screams "I'M THE LAW!!" and is inherently threatening."

Yes, I can't get passed that. When I was a kid riding in the back seat of the car with a sibling, we had this game where we'd draw an imaginary line down the middle of the seat. If either were to cross the line, the other had the right to strike the offending hand or fingers. So how do you taunt the other person just enough so as to strike back with righteousness? It would get ridiculous, making chopping motions very close to the line, for instance, "I guess if someone were to breech the line right now while this chopper is going, it would be too bed eh?" And it does sound to me like the laws are written as such to allow this kind of game playing to work.

I think both sides underestimated each other. Kyle already had proven he was a social misfit, having dropped out of school due to bullying. Yes, bullying is bad, but some people instinctively know how to play it, while others don't. If he couldn't stand up for himself in a way to earn respect at school, it's not surprising that he didn't know how to control an incited crowd by himself. Maybe he thought just having the gun on him would make him a bad ass to be respected? And then what the crowd saw was a weenie with a gun as big as he as, and didn't take it seriously. They thought they could poke at him, and I would say, legally, they were within their rights to do so. Criminal law allows for quite a bit in terms of insulting and provoking.

But it cuts both ways, from a couple articles I looked over, it sounds like the presence of the gun is a leveraging factor for both sides. Yes, the presence of the loaded assault rifle is inherently threatening, but it becomes a threat to Kyle also, in that the crowd could easily take it from him and shoot him with it. So it's now a hugely leveraged bet, and smaller acts of aggression have bigger repercussions for either side. This would be a great case study for the Mopologists to think through their beliefs in preemptive strikes.