Kyle Rittenhouse -- innocent by self-defense?

[_Jersey Girl]

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.

He made multiple choices leading up to the shooting. He chose to travel to WI (for whatever reason), he chose to arm himself with an illegal weapon, he chose to present himself as an EMT (lesser of all other poor choices, I'd say), he chose to insert himself into situation wherein he was allegedly defending a property that wasn't his, and he chose to put himself on the street after a curfew.

As if no LEO's existed.

He broke at least 4 laws leading up to the shooting so far as I can tell. What did I miss?

Had he chosen to travel to WI and chosen to limit his public activity to removing graffiti, he wouldn't be in the spot he's in today. And, he's likely going to take the gun owner down with him to the tune of a felony depending on how he came into possession of the AR.

[_ajax18]

Do you really think that our country's minorities, or liberals, are capping your pay?

My damn water and electric bill went from $300/month to $750/month due to the liberals in charge but that's another topic. It turns out that green energy isn't so cheap nor is the socialistic billing this government monopoly has been able to engage in.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

[quote=ajax18 post_id=1237925 time=1599827108 user_id=21][quote]My damn water and electric bill went from $300/month to $750/month due to the liberals in charge[/quote]

https://ibb.co/vsWmmmC

- Doc

[_Temp. Admin.]

He made multiple choices leading up to the shooting. He chose to travel to WI (for whatever reason), he chose to arm himself with an illegal weapon, he chose to present himself as an EMT (lesser of all other poor choices, I'd say), he chose to insert himself into situation wherein he was allegedly defending a property that wasn't his, and he chose to put himself on the street after a curfew.

You are 100% correct on all counts.

BUT THE PART YOU AREN'T GETTING IS THAT NONE OF THAT TAKES AWAY HIS RIGHT TO DEFEND HIMSELF AGAINST DEATH OR SERIOUS BODILY INJURY.

The points you bring up, true though they are, are nevertheless entirely irrelevant to the applicability of the above sentence. . . and the focus of this thread.

Had he chosen to travel to WI and chosen to limit his public activity to removing graffiti, he wouldn't be in the spot he's in today. And, he's likely going to take the gun owner down with him to the tune of a felony depending on how he came into possession of the AR.

Still correct on all counts.

If I am crossing the street outside of a crosswalk or intersection--which constitutes "jaywalking," an illegal activity--and someone comes up and tries to beat me to death with a baseball bat when I'm halfway across the street, have I forfeited the right to defend myself because I happened to be jaywalking at the time, and must placidly accept my death with a smile on my face?

A. Yes
B. No

When you've figured out that mental exercise, apply it to the Kyle Rittenhouse situation, then tell us your findings.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I think Shades’ analogy is a little self serving. Wouldn’t it be more akin to breaking into a zoo, wearing a meat suit, and then popping the lions in their heads when they attack with your borrowed SIG Sauer?

Edit: hrm. That’s a bad analogy, too.

Wouldn’t it be more akin to showing up to a riot in a different state, with a borrowed weapon, to protect property that isn’t yours, and then killing people who aggress on you?

Wait. That’s just a summary, not an analogy.

Wouldn’t it be more akin to being a vigilante because you weren’t hired to police the municipality?

Man, I really suck at analogies.

- Doc

[_Res Ipsa]

It looks to me like Rittenhouse has a decent case for self defense. Under the Wisconsin statute, the basic right to self-defense includes the use of deadly force if the person reasonably believes that use of deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. That right is limited under a couple of circumstances. If he provoked an attack for the purpose of killing the attackers, he loses the right of self defense with deadly force. I don't see any evidence that leads me to believe this applies. If he provoked the attack while doing something unlawful, he has a duty to take all reasonable measures to retreat from the confrontation before using deadly force. He was running away from his attackers until he fell. At that point, they were pretty much on top of him. I would not find it surprising that the video evidence would persuade a jury that a reasonable person in Rittenhouse's circumstances would believe deadly force was necessary to prevent great bodily injury to himself.

[_Themis]

It looks to me like Rittenhouse has a decent case for self defense. Under the Wisconsin statute, the basic right to self-defense includes the use of deadly force if the person reasonably believes that use of deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. That right is limited under a couple of circumstances. If he provoked an attack for the purpose of killing the attackers, he loses the right of self defense with deadly force. I don't see any evidence that leads me to believe this applies. If he provoked the attack while doing something unlawful, he has a duty to take all reasonable measures to retreat from the confrontation before using deadly force. He was running away from his attackers until he fell. At that point, they were pretty much on top of him. I would not find it surprising that the video evidence would persuade a jury that a reasonable person in Rittenhouse's circumstances would believe deadly force was necessary to prevent great bodily injury to himself.

Do you know what effect Rittenhouse illegally carrying a weapon would have on a self defense claim?

[_ajax18]

Do you know what effect Rittenhouse illegally carrying a weapon would have on a self defense claim?

This shows us a little better what effect Beto O'Rourke abolishing the second amendment will have on people trying to legally defend themselves against BLM if they happen to turn down the wrong street and interrupt their protest. see video of Portland man being kicked in the face while kneeling and then how long it took the assailant to get back out on the streets raising hell terrorizing other citizens thanks to Democrat politicians no bail and therapeutic jurisprudence laws.

[_Themis]

This shows us a little better what effect Beto O'Rourke abolishing the second amendment will have on people trying to legally defend themselves against BLM if they happen to turn down the wrong street and interrupt their protest. see video of Portland man being kicked in the face while kneeling and then how long it took the assailant to get back out on the streets raising hell terrorizing other citizens thanks to Democrat politicians no bail and therapeutic jurisprudence laws.

Yes I'm sure making sure everyone has guns to kill each other in self defense will make it all better.

[_Temp. Admin.]

Do you know what effect Rittenhouse illegally carrying a weapon would have on a self defense claim?

I don't know, per se, but I strongly suspect it will have 0 effect. If prosecutors wish to file separate charges for illegally carrying a weapon, that's their prerogative.