doubtingthomas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 7:10 pm
Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 4:29 am
Sure. There are common sense rules to follow for your own safety. One is don’t screw around with an armed person.
I agree, but deadly force should only be used as last resort. Rittenhouse could have run faster and scream for help. Rittenhosue screwed around with Rosenbaum earlier, and Rittenhouse was the bigger, stronger, and faster guy.
Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 2:07 am
Huber’s subjective intent is irrelevant.
Huber was doing the right thing. Huber was trying to disarm Rittenhouse after someone got shot and killed.
In these situations people shouldn't ask questions first. Huber didn't do anything to suggest that he was planning to kill or seriously injure Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse didn't have a good reason to believe the protestors were trying to kill him.
Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 4:29 am
Personally, if you’re not trained to disarm someone, don’t do it.
Huber was trying to prevent another Parkland because the kid didn't drop his weapon after killing someone. There is no reason to think Huber was planning to do something else.
Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 4:29 am
Rittenhouse didn’t shoot G, so not relevant..
Rittenhosue did shoot Grosskreutz.
You can see in the simulation and video that Rittenhouse pointed his weapon at Grosskreutz before Grosskrautz pointed his gun at Rittenhouse. It is also possible Rittenhouse pointed his weapon at Ziminski.
DT, it’s very easy for you, with the luxury of 20-20 hindsight and review video footage and simulations over and over, to say that he could have done this and he could have done that. The law doesn’t allow that kind of second guessing because it’s extremely unfair to the defendant.
When you look at the videos you are are seeing much more than R saw. And we have to judge based on his circumstances.
How do you know that R was bigger, stronger and faster? Did they have a force. Did they arm wrestle at some point? What were their respective heights and weights.
You don’t know how fast R could have safely run given the conditions. If I recall correctly, he was heading around a blind corner in the dark, and we can’t see what’s there. The law requires only that people act reasonably. It doesn’t require to do unreasonable things like charge around the corner of a building at full speed in the dark.
I can’t say it enough times. When he ran away rather than immediately use his weapon, Rittenhouse did the right thing. That was probably his best decision of the entire evening. I give him a gold star for that. The person who did the wrong thing at that point was Rosenbam, who chose to chase an armed individual who was running away. It was doubly wrong in light of the fact that the third guy had been egging him on to take R’s rifle and kill him with it.
I do not agree that Huber was doing the right thing. In fact, Huber might have been guilty of criminal assault. Rittenhouse was not an active shooter at the time Huber attacked him. He was not shooting protestors as he ran down the street. He was running down the street, clearly trying to get away. Under those facts, I’m not Souter he has any right to use any force at all against R.
Do we have any evidence of what Huber was thinking. Wasn’t he killed? How do we know what he was trying to do? In any event, legally it doesn’t matter what Huber’s intent was. All that counts is what a reasonable person in R’s position would believe. If a reasonable person in R’s position believed Huber was attacking him with the skateboard, then he was entitled to defend himself with deadly force. If used as a weapon, the skateboard would easily inflict serious bodily injury or even death. If somebody took a swing at me with Huber’s skateboard, it would be entirely reasonable for me to believe I faced an imminent threat of serious bodily injury.
Sorry about getting confused over which one was G. He was the guy with the gun. There is no rule that has to do with who points the gun at the other first. For example, in the case of two armed guys in a hostile confrontation, it is entitled both have a right to use deadly force against the other. It may be that both could reasonably believe the other was going to aim and fire at any second. In that case both would have a privilege to aim first and fire.
So, if R pointed the gun first, G or anyone else likely could have legally shot him. But, if R pointed the gun because he saw G’s gun and he reasonably believed G was about to shoot him, then R had a privilege to defend himself with deadly force.