Kyle Rittenhouse -- innocent by self-defense?

[_Themis]

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.

What I am wondering about is if one can use a self defense argument while in the midst of breaking the law in Wisconsin. Especially since he killed two people with the gun he was not legally allowed to possess or use.

[_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.

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

If he didn't do anything to provoke the attack, then I would expect no effect at all. He could still be prosecuted for violating firearms laws.

[_Res Ipsa]

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.

What I am wondering about is if one can use a self defense argument while in the midst of breaking the law in Wisconsin. Especially since he killed two people with the gun he was not legally allowed to possess or use.

When I looked at the law, it looked to me like lawbreaking would be relevant only if he provoked the attack.

[_Temp. Admin.]

(Dr. Shades here, using our "Temp. Admin." account.)

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.

What I am wondering about is if one can use a self defense argument while in the midst of breaking the law in Wisconsin. Especially since he killed two people with the gun he was not legally allowed to possess or use.

YES. YES. A thousand times, YES. How many times must I painstakingly explain that in this thread??

Res Ipsa already explained that he's off the hook if he didn't do anything to provoke the attack, even if he is in the middle of breaking the law, because illegally carrying is an entirely separate charge. But since that isn't sinking in anyway, let me explain the nuance by using an analogy:

You are driving 26 miles per hour in a 25 mile per hour zone. A deranged resident of the neighborhood sees this, becomes incensed, grabs his handgun, runs outside, jumps on his motorcyle, chases you down, pulls up next to you, then begins shooting at you through your driver's side window. You try to drive faster, he keeps pace. You try to drive slower, he keeps pace.

He still shoots at you. At this point, in order to save your own life, you have no real choice but to pull to the left in an attempt to knock him over or run him off the road. At that moment, your vehicle becomes a deadly weapon since it can inflict death or serious bodily injury.

QUESTION: Are you allowed to use your car in an attempt to defend yourself? Or, since you were doing something illegal in the form of driving 26 m.p.h. in a 25 m.p.h. zone, are you legally obligated to sit there with a big smile on your face as you placidly await the bullet that finally kills you?

Please come up with a solution to this legal and moral conundrum. When you've done so, please apply your new knowledge to the Kyle Rittenhouse situation. After that, please post your findings here.

[_subgenius]

(Dr. Shades here, using our "Temp. Admin." account.)

What I am wondering about is if one can use a self defense argument while in the midst of breaking the law in Wisconsin. Especially since he killed two people with the gun he was not legally allowed to possess or use.

YES. YES. A thousand times, YES. How many times must I painstakingly explain that in this thread??

Themis might be trolling, before Res I provided Themis this:
http://mormondiscussions.com/viewtopic. ... 1#p1237481

He cannot use self defense as an argument when he was actively breaking the law by having the gun.

that's not how the law works. Even with bringing/possessing an illegal weapon does not exempt him from the right to defend himself. The gun issue would be a separate and it is entirely (and legally) possible to be innocent by self-defense but guilty on gun charge.
So, yes he can use that defense - unless you can prove that he brought the gun with intent to murder those whom were killed. (like if he had been attacked by a mugger on the way to kill someone and ended up killing mugger, he would not be guilty of murdering the mugger).

[_Icarus]

I dunno. A 13-year-boy who is autistic and white was just shot in the back by a sperg cop. The city isn’t protesting.

That's because there is no systemic threat to kids with autism. Holy crap you can't possibly be this dumb.

And you still haven't answered the question. How many black people need to be murdered by the state before you decide a half billion in collateral property damage doesn't outweigh it?

Here is a great opportunity for you. Show us just to what degree you're a racist.

[_Gadianton]

"And that's typically good enough, if a jury can be convinced that a "reasonable person" would conclude the same."

I have to point out that I updated my position in a post subsequent to the one you're responding to, after I'd read that he didn't shoot the first time until he'd been pursued. I will admit though, after reading a couple articles that took the local law into account, some of my other points probably don't stand. I was going by what seems logical to me.

"so he most likely had no other choice but to be armed with a lethal weapon"

I doubt his options matter. It sounds like he had what he had, and is able to use it for self defense, and kill.

The part I can't get over is walking around with a gun pretty much built for a mass shooting and not personal defense doesn't count towards the crowd feeling threatened (and his comments about being armed 'to kill'), if he'd been argumentative and talking trash. It sounds like the next Aurora shooter needs to head for Wisconsin. Suit up in Kevlar and carry plenty of guns, find a confined public space people can't escape, and start talking crazy talk. But no direct threats. Then, when people are looking at each other to coordinate a way to defend themselves, as soon as those two or three big guys rush him and someone in frustration yells, "kick his ass", the guy has free reign to open up the hydrant. Given so many present, it's reasonable to believe that even two reasonable-sized guys if angry enough, could tackle him and strangle him. After the initial killings, he'd have even greater cause to worry that anyone else rushing him may intend to seriously injure him, and he has free reign to kill, so long as anybody other than LE tries to stop him.

Yes, after the legal summaries I've read, including Res Ipsa's, I have to say I have a lot more respect for the logic of ldsfaqs than I used to.

To me, the actions of the crowd logically nullify murder charges, probably, but not something along the lines of some kind of manslaughter. If not, if he walks free and clear of this, then we've got a big problem. Well, I should say, the silver lining might be that it becomes obvious open carry is one of the dumbest human inventions ever, and it gets ended.

[_Jersey Girl]

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.

Yeah, Shades? I already stated earlier in the thread (possibly first page) that I thought he was acting in self defense. What I took exception to was your claim that he had no other choice than to arm himself with a lethal weapon.

[_Res Ipsa]

Gad, under the factual scenario you describe, he would have no self defense privilege at all. His intent to provoke and shoot could be inferred from his actions. As it was, he was under a legal duty to retreat when the original guy rushed him, which he attempted to do.

The kid is lucky that some other person with a gun didn’t shoot him in defense of the guys he shot. The rules for defense of others are the same as those for self defense. I hope some adult in a position of authority makes that clear to him.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

https://ibb.co/RvmtGrY

“A pistol isn’t even that deadly anyways.”

I would ask the potential jury if they post on Reddit, and then move to dismiss them.

- Doc