Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
doubtingthomas
God
Posts: 2769
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:04 pm

Re: Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

Post by doubtingthomas »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Sat Nov 27, 2021 2:07 am
You’re latched onto things that are not relevant to whether Rittenhouse had the privilege to use deadly force. He was running away from Rosenbaum, in a location he was not familiar with, in the dark, carrying a rifle that he had a legal right to carry. There is no legal requirement that he run as fast as possible or at some minimum speed. Rittenhouse clearly broke off the encounter between the two and was running away from Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum made the idiotic decision to chase after a guy armed with a deadly weapon.
Legally required or not, you should still run as fast as possible when you fear for your life, it is common sense. But I understand the law is the law in Wisconsin.
Res Ipsa wrote:
Sat Nov 27, 2021 2:07 am

Finally, it’s 100% irrelevant whether Rittenhouse shot at the guy with a gun. He had no legal duty to shoot him.
Just two points

1. Grosskreutz didn't give Rittenhouse a reason to shoot him. It was Rittenhouse that pointed his rifle first.

2. Huber was simply trying to disarm Rittenhouse. Would you agree? So Rittenhouse didn't have a good reason to shoot Huber in my opinion.
Res Ipsa wrote:
Sat Nov 27, 2021 2:07 am

The verdict was well within what a reasonable jury could decide based on the evidence. That you disagree based on a misunderstanding of the law and a sliver of evidence does not mean the jury got it wrong.
I understand.
"I have the type of (REAL) job where I can choose how to spend my time," says Marcus. :roll:
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

Post by Res Ipsa »

doubtingthomas wrote:
Sat Nov 27, 2021 3:56 am
Res Ipsa wrote:
Sat Nov 27, 2021 2:07 am
You’re latched onto things that are not relevant to whether Rittenhouse had the privilege to use deadly force. He was running away from Rosenbaum, in a location he was not familiar with, in the dark, carrying a rifle that he had a legal right to carry. There is no legal requirement that he run as fast as possible or at some minimum speed. Rittenhouse clearly broke off the encounter between the two and was running away from Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum made the idiotic decision to chase after a guy armed with a deadly weapon.
Legally required or not, you should still run as fast as possible when you fear for your life, it is common sense. But I understand the law is the law in Wisconsin.
Res Ipsa wrote:
Sat Nov 27, 2021 2:07 am

Finally, it’s 100% irrelevant whether Rittenhouse shot at the guy with a gun. He had no legal duty to shoot him.
Just two points

1. Grosskreutz didn't give Rittenhouse a reason to shoot him. It was Rittenhouse that pointed his rifle first.

2. Huber was simply trying to disarm Rittenhouse. Would you agree? So Rittenhouse didn't have a good reason to shoot Huber in my opinion.
Res Ipsa wrote:
Sat Nov 27, 2021 2:07 am

The verdict was well within what a reasonable jury could decide based on the evidence. That you disagree based on a misunderstanding of the law and a sliver of evidence does not mean the jury got it wrong.
I understand.
Sure. There are common sense rules to follow for your own safety. One is don’t screw around with an armed person. Others are don’t violate emergency curfews. Don’t go to protest marches or demonstrations after dark. If you see fires or people throwing stuff at law enforcement, go home. When a scheduled March or demonstration is scheduled to end, go home. If law enforcement tells you disperse, go home. If you want to engage in civil disobedience, get trained on how to get arrested without getting injured. When you see a line of cops with riot shields in formation, go home.

Rittenhouse didn’t shoot G, so not relevant.

Huber’s subjective intent is irrelevant. All that is relevant is what a person in Rittenhouse’s position would reasonably believe. Personally, if you’re not trained to disarm someone, don’t do it. Unless you witness a bona fide active shooter, In which case do whatever it takes to stop him, but be prepared to die.
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
Binger
God
Posts: 6133
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:34 am
Location: That's the difference. I actually have a Blue Heeler

Re: Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

Post by Binger »

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Last edited by Binger on Sat Dec 04, 2021 6:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Binger
God
Posts: 6133
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:34 am
Location: That's the difference. I actually have a Blue Heeler

Re: Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

Post by Binger »

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Last edited by Binger on Sat Dec 04, 2021 6:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
doubtingthomas
God
Posts: 2769
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:04 pm

Re: Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

Post by doubtingthomas »

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.
"I have the type of (REAL) job where I can choose how to spend my time," says Marcus. :roll:
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

Post by Res Ipsa »

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.
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
doubtingthomas
God
Posts: 2769
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:04 pm

Re: Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

Post by doubtingthomas »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Sat Nov 27, 2021 8:10 pm
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.
G had his hands up and wasn't doing anything. There was no reason for R to point his rifle at G. It would be a double standard to claim that G was a threat. Rittenhouse was the initial aggressor.

https://youtu.be/JhtR3xybSMw?t=46
Res Ipsa wrote:
Sat Nov 27, 2021 4:29 am
It doesn’t require to do unreasonable things like charge around the corner of a building at full speed in the dark.
He should have just fled.
Res Ipsa wrote:
Sat Nov 27, 2021 8:10 pm

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.
I understand.
Res Ipsa wrote:
Sat Nov 27, 2021 8:10 pm
How do you know that R was bigger, stronger and faster? ... What were their respective heights and weights.
I already shared that information, is it relevant?
Res Ipsa wrote:
Sat Nov 27, 2021 8:10 pm
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.
It is not clear that Huber was attacking Rittenhouse with the skateboard. One could argue the skateboard simply made contact with Rittenhouse's left shoulder (according to court records). Huber was trying to get Rittenhouse's weapon before the skateboard touched Rittenhouse. Look at the video in slow motion
https://youtu.be/EYjG4uequWQ?t=154

And Huber had the right to disarm Rittenhouse "Wisconsin doesn’t actually have a specific statute regarding citizen’s arrests, but such arrests are covered by common law or judge-made law. Those laws allow citizens to make arrests under one of two conditions. The first is when a citizen has probable cause to believe that the person they are arresting has committed a felony."

https://www.baysidewi.gov/question/can- ... ens-arrest

And I think it is best to assume that a guy with a gun is dangerous when he shoots someone and runs away without dropping his weapon
"I have the type of (REAL) job where I can choose how to spend my time," says Marcus. :roll:
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

Post by Res Ipsa »

doubtingthomas wrote:
Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:49 pm
Res Ipsa wrote:
Sat Nov 27, 2021 8:10 pm
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.
So if R pointed his gun first, it would mean R was the aggressor and can't easily claim self-defense. You can see it clearly here https://youtu.be/JhtR3xybSMw?t=46

G had his hands up and wasn't doing anything. There was no reason for R to point his rifle at G. It would be a double standard to claim that G was a threat.
Res Ipsa wrote:
Sat Nov 27, 2021 4:29 am
It doesn’t require to do unreasonable things like charge around the corner of a building at full speed in the dark.
He should have just fled.
Res Ipsa wrote:
Sat Nov 27, 2021 8:10 pm

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.
I understand.
Res Ipsa wrote:
Sat Nov 27, 2021 8:10 pm
How do you know that R was bigger, stronger and faster? ... What were their respective heights and weights.
I already shared that information, is it relevant?
Res Ipsa wrote:
Sat Nov 27, 2021 8:10 pm
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.
It is not clear that Huber was attacking Rittenhouse with the skateboard. One could argue the skateboard simply made contact with Rittenhouse's left shoulder (according to court records). Huber was trying to get Rittenhouse's weapon before the skateboard touched Rittenhouse. Look at the video in slow motion
https://youtu.be/EYjG4uequWQ?t=154

And Huber had the right to disarm Rittenhouse "Wisconsin doesn’t actually have a specific statute regarding citizen’s arrests, but such arrests are covered by common law or judge-made law. Those laws allow citizens to make arrests under one of two conditions. The first is when a citizen has probable cause to believe that the person they are arresting has committed a felony."

https://www.baysidewi.gov/question/can- ... ens-arrest

And I think it is best to assume that a guy with a gun is dangerous when he shoots someone and runs away without dropping his weapon
You are a little mixed up on but about being the aggressor. The correct term under Wisconsin Law is provocation. If I provoke you in a way that is likely to lead you to respond with deadly force and you try to respond with deadly force, then I have to retreat rather than respond with deadly force. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statut ... 939/iii/48

I’m not 100% sure, but I don’t think G was provoked into trying to use deadly force, so the provocation rule doesn’t apply. If Rittenhouse reasonably believed G Washington an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. Again. Simply being the first person to point the gun, in and of itself, does not affect the privilege to defend with deadly force. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statut ... 939/iii/48

If you are approaching me with a gun and threatening to shoot me with it, I don’t have to wait until you point your gun at me before I have the right to aim and fire. That would render self defense against a firearm completely useless.

With respect to G, have you read R’s testimony? The jury doesn’t get to use 20-20 hindsight to second guess his decisions. It has to take into account what he saw, what he did, and why he did it. Then it has to substitute a hypothetical reasonable person, put that person into the described situation, and then apply the laws requirements.

R did flee from Rosenbaum. Sure, there are lots things R should have it shouldn’t have done. But if we’re talking about the jury verdict, the jury has to follow the law. And the doesn’t permit the jury to find him guilty based on their opinion of what he should have done.

Huber’s right to make a citizens arrest is really questionable. First, no felony was in fact committed. Second, the law governing use of force likely applies, since there’s no law saying otherwise. Third, I don’t think there is any evidence that Huber was attempting to arrest R. Did he communicate to R that he was placing him under arrest. As the Aubrey case shows, you just can’t use force on someone and then use citizens arrest as your excuse.

Assuming someone is dangerous has nothing to do with citizens arrest. I believe what you quoted is common sense advice, not law. As a matter of personal safety, I always assume that a person carrying a firearm other than in connection with a gun range or hunting is dangerous.

Here’s the City of Madison’s information on Citizens arrest.

https://www.cityofmadison.com/police/do ... ng2005.pdf
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
doubtingthomas
God
Posts: 2769
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:04 pm

Re: Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

Post by doubtingthomas »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:51 pm
Again. Simply being the first person to point the gun, in and of itself, does not affect the privilege to defend with deadly force. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statut ... 939/iii/48
That law is terrible. Makes it easy to claim self-defense in Wisconsin.
Res Ipsa wrote:
Sat Nov 27, 2021 11:51 pm
Huber’s right to make a citizens arrest is really questionable. First, no felony was in fact committed. Second, the law governing use of force likely applies, since there’s no law saying otherwise. Third, I don’t think there is any evidence that Huber was attempting to arrest R. Did he communicate to R that he was placing him under arrest. As the Aubrey case shows, you just can’t use force on someone and then use citizens arrest as your excuse.
Huber had "a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed." So in your view what is the most likely explanation to what Huber was trying to accomplish? You think it is likely that Huber was trying to kill Rittenhouse?
"I have the type of (REAL) job where I can choose how to spend my time," says Marcus. :roll:
Binger
God
Posts: 6133
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:34 am
Location: That's the difference. I actually have a Blue Heeler

Re: Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

Post by Binger »

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Last edited by Binger on Sat Dec 04, 2021 6:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply