Kyle Rittenhouse -- innocent by self-defense?

[_Gadianton]

"1. Not sure why people are making a big deal of that bag."

it's what he reasonably could believe it was. if the gun gets pointed and isn't loaded, it's the same subjective threat as if it's loaded. In this case, I have no reason to believe the bag could be seen as a big deal though.

"2. Are you saying Rosenbaum was armed with a gun? Or are you saying he went for Kyle's gun? I'm not sure going for someone's gun is grounds for murder, but I'm no lawyer.

Kyle hadn't done anything material yet. a dude pulls one off at a distance and a guy runs toward him and throws a bag. Okay, Kyle is spooked and on the run now. The threat is over for the good people of the crowd. But the bag-guy continues to pursue. If he can catch Kyle and disarm him, what's he going to do with his new toy?

And so I think that scenario puts a coin on Kyle's scale. Specifically: No one had been hurt by Kyle yet and they had ran him off. Pursuit by the crowd was unnecessary for their protection.

However, I don't think it's full tilt. What I keep coming back to is the severe disproportion of force, carrying an assault rifle and ready and wired to use it.

[_Jersey Girl]

This is what stands out for me. His replies. His body language and facial gestures. The last statements I bolded are either deceitful or delusional. Or both.

Rittenhouse: "We're protecting [from?] the citizens and I just got pepper sprayed from a person in the crowd."
Question: "So you had non lethal but you didn't respond."
Rittenhouse: "We don't have non lethal."
Question: " So you guys are full on ready to defend the property."
Rittenhouse: "Yes we are. Now if I can ask can you guys step back. Medical EMS right here. I'm an EMT. I'm an EMT."

[_ajax18]

However, I don't think it's full tilt. What I keep coming back to is the severe disproportion of force, carrying an assault rifle and ready and wired to use it.

Gad I'm just curious. In Louisiana we have the castle doctrine. You're allowed to have a gun in your house or even your car. If I were to turn down a street and not realize a protest was going on, and the protesters began to pursue and surround me, beating on my windows and hoping to drag me out of the car, would I better off running over them or risk lowering the window and firing my handgun at them? I know either of these actions will result in financially crippling attorneys fees, bail fees, lost wages etc. But that's still better than being beaten to death or simply not driving anywhere because I might run into a protester. Given how things are going with the police, it doesn't look like they could get there very quickly or able to do much themselves when they arrive. If they respond to a call like this not only does it not produce the revenue that writing speeding tickets does but they also put themselves at major risk for losing their job or even their life by having to confront these people.

I don't know if MO has a castle doctrine, but what if a group of protesters breaks into your gated community and starts hailing threats at you. It looks now that pointing a gun at them will get you arrested. One can always call the police but how long must wait before you draw your weapon? What if they start bashing in your car windows and are stealing stuff and vandalizing your house? You've called the police. Would you be justified in brandishing your weapon at this point or do you just have to watch them tear up your property and make a claim later?

[_subgenius]

Icaraus:
more than 400 businesses have been damaged and over $400 million in damage during the riots
also Icarus:
they're laughing at people like you who keep trying to describe their town as being a war zone every day

But yes, only about 7%% of BLM protests have been violent ..... and 2% of all, yes all, police encounters result in use of force by an officer(s).

[_Gadianton]

Gad I'm just curious. In Louisiana we have the castle doctrine. You're allowed to have a gun in your house or even your car. If I were to turn down a street and not realize a protest was going on, and the protesters began to pursue and surround me, beating on my windows and hoping to drag me out of the car, would I better off running over them or risk lowering the window and firing my handgun at them?

I don't know if MO has a castle doctrine, but what if a group of protesters breaks into your gated community and starts hailing threats at you. It looks now that pointing a gun at them will get you arrested.

You've come to the right place with your questions, Ajax.

Part of the issue here is the problem of asymmetric information. Did you ever watch Babylon 5? Remember how the Minbari and humans locked horns initially; the Minbari fighter ships coasted towards earth and as a sign of respect, activated their lasers. But they'd never read Hans Gadamer -- who DCP is trying to quote in recent days to support Mopologetics -- but that's a different issue -- and so they didn't conceive of how their actions might be misinterpreted. The Humans saw it as an act of aggression and attacked, and so billions dead because of a simple miscommunication. Now, I'm not trying to say the protesters in your example have your best interests at heart, but to say "hoping to drag me out of the car" instantiates a complete guess into a supposed factual problem. You don't know what they're thinking, and they don't know what you're thinking, but a fair bet in my experience, is that both parties have a vested interest in provoking the other party to cross an imaginary line. And so they likely want you to think they are going to hurt you, even if that's not their plan, so that you react with disproportional force. And you assume the same, hoping your options -- hoping as of now at least as we converse within the safety of this forum are -- to drive into the crowd, or empty the magazine of your gun in order to save your life.

Humor me here: Suppose a buddy sends you a Kevlar suit of armor as a gift, and it's around Halloween and so you put it on. Just then, a Neighbor texts you to hurry and come over, and so not realizing such protective gear is actually illegal to wear period, you dart out from your house and across the street. Lo and behold, a BLM protest just happens to be going on, and just as you enter the street, a white neighbor has dropped an Ak-47. You're startled and so you pick it up. And now here you are, wearing bullet-proof gear while holding a machine gun. They don't realize it's just a big mistake. You have no idea what they really want either. Both must assume the worst, such as in a prisoner's dilemma, and the rational choice for either you or the protesters leads to a suboptimal outcome. Asymmetric information.

My advice, should you ever find yourself surrounded by a mob or a mob has breached your gated community and bears down upon your house: use minimal force to escape the situation. Slowly accelerate your vehicle into the crowd and gradually speed up should they react with greater force. Leave your house and run, if you can, and file the insurance claim. this is good practical advise anyway, as you likely cannot take out a mob by yourself with your ak-47. Just because it's legal to have a gun, doesn't mean there are guaranteed scenarios where the gun will save you.

Closer to what you may want to get at is assume a single burglar has gotten into your house and you have a gun. What do you do? Shame on me, actually, I said "burglar", but you can't possibly know his motive as it's unfolding. Maybe he's there to do something worse?

If your family is there and there's no time, then maybe you just go for it and empty your gun. Make sure to position the corpse just right such that it looks like it planned to attack. Call your lawyer before you call the cops.

But -- prior to such a situation manifesting in the real world, make sure you understand that situations that leave your rational action as employing maximal force, are very rare. For instance, Kyle R. inserted himself directly into a big problem of asymmetric information, on purpose, believing he could control the narrative. Avoid that.

Finally, you ought to consider the following: Suppose you could rid the world of any set of ethnic groups or political parties. How much by materialistic measures do you think your life will be better off? Do you think you'd enjoy another 20k per year of spending money? Another 100k per year? Do you really think that our country's minorities, or liberals, are capping your pay?

[_Icarus]

But yes, only about 7%% of BLM protests have been violent ..... and 2% of all, yes all, police encounters result in use of force by an officer(s).

[_Icarus]

[_Temp. Admin.]

No, Kyle's life was not in danger. Did he think it was in danger? Probably.

And that's typically good enough, if a jury can be convinced that a "reasonable person" would conclude the same. I really ought to point out that the fear of "serious bodily injury" (or Wisconsin's equivalent verbiage)--not just the fear of death itself--is also reason enough to justify the use of deadly force (or Wisconsin's equivalent verbiage). Mr. Rittenhouse likely saw the video of the guy who was pulled out of his vehicle and kicked into a coma and rightfully feared that the same--or worse--would happen to him, knowing what the mob is capable of.

And he'd already made a statement to a reporter to the effect that his gun was only for killing (in self-defense, of course). In other words, the gun wasn't there to scare off a thug or for firing warning shots. He feels threatened, he kills.

I also ought to point out that, for better or for worse, less-lethal weapons such as tasers, super sock rounds, stingball grenades, flash-bangs, etc. are typically much more difficult to obtain than standard firearms, so he most likely had no other choice but to be armed with a lethal weapon.

As Icarus pointed out, if the mob was trying to kill him, he'd be dead.

I respectfully disagree. I would fix your statement by saying, "if he hadn't defended himself, he'd be dead." That weapon is the only reason he's not dead or on life support.

Sure, I fully believe that some from that crowd tried to intimidate Kyle, just to get him to cross the line.

I believe that mere "intimidation" took place when the pedophile was puffing up and posturing. When they chased him down, hit him in the head with a skateboard, drew down on him, etc., they went WAY past mere intimidation and entered the realm of "death or serious bodily injury."

Yet, a person intent on finding conflict, especially a 17yr old, can be overwhelmed, misinterpret what is happening, feel threatened and fire when less should have been the reaction.

"Misinterpret what is happening??" If you were in his shoes and the mob was doing to you precisely what it was doing to him, what would your interpretation, and your reaction, be?

We don't see good evidence that they intended to kill him.

But we see fantastic evidence that they intended to cause serious bodily injury to him--and that's enough to justify the use of deadly force in one's own defense.

I don't know the law for each state, but perceived should never be enough since it will be used to get away with murder.

Not necessarily. The defense rests on whether a "reasonable person" would have acted in the same manner under the same circumstances.

Watching that video in slow motion, this kid tripped and used the skateboard to catch himself while holding it in his right hand. At no point did he raise it above his head or swing it.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree; it looked like a swing to me. The fact that it conveniently happened to land right on Rittenhouse's head, or very near to it, makes me strongly disbelieve that he was merely "catch[ing] himself."

There are no scars or bruises anywhere on his head because he was never hit with it.

How can you be sure about that first part?

And after six months of intense protests/riots, how many people have actually been killed by protesters?

Again, it doesn't have to be "death." It can also be "serious bodily injury."

Does slamming someone in the back of the head with a baseball bat constitute attempted murder?

A reasonable person could easily construe it that way. If not attempted murder, then definitely serious bodily injury.

1. Not sure why people are making a big deal of that bag. First they said it was a Molotov cocktail, then they said it had a brick in it. But you could tell the way it fluttered gently to the ground, it didn't have anything in it that was heavy enough to cause physical harm.

Did Rittenhouse stand and observe it fluttering gently to the ground in order to accurately determine that there was nothing dangerous in it?

2. Are you saying Rosenbaum was armed with a gun? Or are you saying he went for Kyle's gun? I'm not sure going for someone's gun is grounds for murder, but I'm no lawyer.

The understanding is that if someone non-law enforcement tries to disarm you in any capacity other than self-defense, his or her intent is to use it on you.

[_Jersey Girl]

I also ought to point out that, for better or for worse, less-lethal weapons such as tasers, super sock rounds, stingball grenades, flash-bangs, etc. are typically much more difficult to obtain than standard firearms, so he most likely had no other choice but to be armed with a lethal weapon.

What do you mean that he had no other choice? Are you serious? On what basis do you see him as having no other choice?

[_Temp. Admin.]

Allow me to rephrase: If he was bound and determined to arm himself--in spite of the state law that forbids a person younger than 18 years old to open carry--then a standard firearm was most likely the only weapon that he could find with which to do so.

Although he shouldn't have been there to begin with.