Kyle Rittenhouse -- innocent by self-defense?

[_Jersey Girl]

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.

Got it!

But...but I do think the prosecution could make a case for the fact that he had no business being there to start with, carrying a weapon for which he had no legal license to carry, and that his very presence served to instigate the violence of which he himself became a victim. I'll have to think about that a good long while though. Really have only been bouncing in and out of this case as a local case is starting to gear up here a bit with a court date and shenanigans by the defendant so I've been following that.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

“If you're referring to Castle Doctrine...”

I’m not. I’m referring to self-defense in this case since he was out in the open, openly carrying, and aggressed upon by the pede in this first shooting, and then attacked by others as he attempted to flee the scene. Where I think he helps himself is that he wasn’t really an ‘active shooter’ because he wasn’t dumping mags into targets of opportunity. He limited his shooting to repelling direct attacks on his person.

I just want to be clear that I’m as supportive for Rittenhouse as I am the looters, which is to say 0%. I’ve never been so concerned about a Starbucks or Les Schwabb Tires that I felt the need to strap and defend their stores. in my opinion, Rittenhouse wanted this and he got it. If a business owner wanted to legit protect their business they needed to be there or to have hired security. It’s their deal, not mine.

- Doc

[_Jersey Girl]

“If you're referring to Castle Doctrine...”

I’m not. I’m referring to self-defense in this case since he was out in the open, openly carrying, and aggressed upon by the pede in this first shooting, and then attacked by others as he attempted to flee the scene. Where I think he helps himself is that he wasn’t really an ‘active shooter’ because he wasn’t dumping mags into targets of opportunity. He limited his shooting to repelling direct attacks on his person.

I'm confused. I was responding to this remark that you made. Maybe I misunderstood your intention there.

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?

Anyway, if you have a moment, do you know if he or others were aware that the guy was a pedo prior to the incident? In a court case, that wouldn't matter one bit but I do think your point about him repelling attacks on his person would count in his favor.

I just want to be clear that I’m as supportive for Rittenhouse as I am the looters, which is to say 0%. I’ve never been so concerned about a Starbucks or Les Schwabb Tires that I felt the need to strap and defend their stores. in my opinion, Rittenhouse wanted this and he got it. If a business owner wanted to legit protect their business they needed to be there or to have hired security. It’s their deal, not mine.

- Doc

This that you wrote: in my opinion, Rittenhouse wanted this and he got it.

Yeah exactly. He wanted to go out there playing militia man or cowboy. He got what he signed on for.

[_Temp. Admin.]

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.

That seems a little iffy to me. Does the "doing something unlawful" part mean the selfsame action that the accuse-ee is labeling "self-defense?" 'Cause if not, then one can never claim self-defense if one is doing anything illegal at the time. For example, if Person A is jaywalking, then Person B runs up and tries to kill him with a baseball bat, then Person A can't legally defend himself because he was in the act of "doing something unlawful," viz. jaywalking.

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?

I don't know what you mean by "in advance," but Rosenbaum's prison record can be seen at 4:09. One of several YouTube videos I watched--I don't remember the specific one--showed (what looks to be) the guy's judgment & commitment, pointing out that the victims were his girlfriend's kids.

While we're on the subject, Huber, the second shoot-ee, was a convicted wife-beater. Starting at 4:07 you can see the screen shots from his rap sheet showing as much.

Say what you will, but this seems like a bit of a contrast to a kid who cleans up grafitti, tries to put out fires, and tries to render medical aid.

I’ve never been so concerned about a Starbucks or Les Schwabb Tires that I felt the need to strap and defend their stores.

People in the comments section state repeatedly that he was defending his grandfather's car dealership. You can't believe everything you read on the Internet, of course, but there you have it.

[_Jersey Girl]

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?

I don't know what you mean by "in advance," but Rosenbaum's prison record can be seen at 4:09. One of several YouTube videos I watched--I don't remember the specific one--showed (what looks to be) the guy's judgment & commitment, pointing out that the victims were his girlfriend's kids.

While we're on the subject, Huber, the second shoot-ee, was a convicted wife-beater. Starting at 4:07 you can see the screen shots from his rap sheet showing as much.

I'm getting at relevance. Of what relevance is it that both had a rap sheet? Even convicted criminals that did time have equal rights and protections under the law. Look at George Floyd as a current example.

Say what you will, but this seems like a bit of a contrast to a kid who cleans up grafitti, tries to put out fires, and tries to render medical aid

And he was breaking the law the whole time his feet were on the street that night, Shades.

He had zero legal right to be present on the scene, he had zero legal right to attempt to render medical aid as a self-proclaimed EMT. Good Samaritan, perhaps. But he lied about his credentials.

[_Jersey Girl]

Something I hadn't previously considered.

If he was legally licensed as an EMT in the state of Illinois does that transfer during out of state travel? I don't know the answer to that. Other licenses such as those for CNA's and RN's don't transfer unless they are part of an interstate cohort.

ETA: I'm not bringing up the Illinois state statues but the required age to obtain an EMT license is 18. So yeah, that would lead me to conclude that he was making a false claim.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

“People in the comments section state repeatedly that he was defending his grandfather's car dealership.”

That doesn’t square with his lawyers’ statement:

https://spectrumnews1.com/wi/madison/ne ... -shootings

- Doc

[_Icarus]

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.

Based on what evidence?



You're telling me that the guy on the left holding a handgun in his left hand, did his best to shoot Rittenhouse dead? Did you even watch the video? There was ample opportunity to shoot him, especially after he tripped and fell to the ground, and even after Rittenhouse shot him in the arm he could have shot him. It seems like the kid was set on NOT trying to kill this kid. Their intentions appear to be disarming him. And this photo actually shows the guy clearly holding his hands up as if to say "don't shoot." He fired anyway.

He didn't initiate.

A trip from out of state while breaking several laws says he did.

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?

1. No one has tried to make that guy a hero.
2. How do you know he raped kids? His record only says sex with a minor, and it was when he was 18. As far as we know, he had sex with an under-aged girlfriend.
3. You're creating a straw man.

[_Icarus]

That seems a little iffy to me. Does the "doing something unlawful" part mean the selfsame action that the accuse-ee is labeling "self-defense?" 'Cause if not, then one can never claim self-defense if one is doing anything illegal at the time. For example, if Person A is jaywalking, then Person B runs up and tries to kill him with a baseball bat, then Person A can't legally defend himself because he was in the act of "doing something unlawful," viz. jaywalking.

That's for an attorney to argue and a jury to decide. Though I think the law could easily interpret his actions as provocation. If he hadn't gone there that night, three people wouldn't have been shot. He went there looking for trouble as most of these folks do. It seems to me that clause was put in there because it presumes the general public may reasonably be expected to detain/disarm because he or she is doing something unlawful. No one is going to be put under a citizen's arrest for jaywalking, but even if they did, it would be unreasonable to kill someone who tried it. Unlawfully carrying a weapon trying to provoke people, I think that could easily be an example of why that clause was put in there.

And while you're pissing on Rosenbaum's grave and accusing us of worshiping the guy as a pedophile hero, I notice you haven't commented on the recent video showing Rittenhouse pummeling a female teen in the back of the head.

[_Temp. Admin.]

I'm getting at relevance. Of what relevance is it that both had a rap sheet? Even convicted criminals that did time have equal rights and protections under the law. Look at George Floyd as a current example.

The relevance is that it amply demonstrates that these two had far less regard for the dignity of human life than the average citizen, making the defense's case easier that Mr. Rittenhouse had to act in self-defense.

And he was breaking the law the whole time his feet were on the street that night, Shades.

As were the looters who were trying to kill him.

He had zero legal right to be present on the scene, he had zero legal right to attempt to render medical aid as a self-proclaimed EMT. Good Samaritan, perhaps. But he lied about his credentials.

But he did have the legal right to defend his life--which is what this conversation is about.

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.

Based on what evidence?

The evidence at 2:32 in the original video. Gaige Grosskreautz is the third shoot-ee's name: "'So the kid shot gaige as he drew his weapon and gaige retreated with his gun in hand. I just talked to Gaige Grosskreutz too his only regret was not killing the kid and hesitating to pull the gun before emptying the entire mag into him. Coward,' a friend of Grosskreutz wrote in a chat."

You're telling me that the guy on the left holding a handgun in his left hand, did his best to shoot Rittenhouse dead?

No, he didn't do "his best," because he lamented being just a bit too slow on the draw.

There was ample opportunity to shoot him, especially after he tripped and fell to the ground, and even after Rittenhouse shot him in the arm he could have shot him.

No there wasn't--and no he couldn't--'cause Rittenhouse shot him in the same arm in which he was holding the handgun. (That's pretty accurate gunfire by Rittenhouse.)

He didn't initiate.

A trip from out of state while breaking several laws says he did.

Travelling someplace doesn't equal initiating. In addition, running away doesn't equal initiating, either.

If he hadn't gone there that night, three people wouldn't have been shot.

And if three people hadn't tried to kill someone that night, three people wouldn't have been shot.

He went there looking for trouble as most of these folks do.

And the looters went there looking to cause trouble, as most looters do.

It seems to me that clause was put in there because it presumes the general public may reasonably be expected to detain/disarm because he or she is doing something unlawful.

Why didn't the mob try to detain/disarm the first idiot who shot into the air? And why didn't the mob try to detain/disarm the guy who tried to shoot Rittenhouse?

Unlawfully carrying a weapon trying to provoke people, I think that could easily be an example of why that clause was put in there.

When does defending property against a mob count as "provocation?" He was rotating among three things before all this started: A) Standing there, B) trying to put out a fire, or B) trying to render medical aid.

And while you're pissing on Rosenbaum's grave and accusing us of worshiping the guy as a pedophile hero, I notice you haven't commented on the recent video showing Rittenhouse pummeling a female teen in the back of the head.

I can't comment on a video I've never heard of. Please post a link to it.