Kyle Rittenhouse -- innocent by self-defense?

[_Some Schmo]

Cell phone footage does not equal "idiotic right wing propaganda." Why do you steadfastly insist on not watching the actual footage??

I watched the video you linked. I call it idiotic right wing propaganda. It reminded me of the 9/11 truther video, with its ominous narration, cheesy music and reinterpretation of the facts.

[_Some Schmo]

No they didn't. They had no idea he was only 17, which means they had no idea he was committing a crime.

I meant to comment on this.

So what you're trying to tell me is that a kid (who clearly looks like a kid) running down the street armed with an automatic weapon doesn't represent an apparent crime? It's totally ok for kids to run around with automatic weapons these days?

And, further to that, if I saw a fu-cking kid running down the street armed with a weapon he shouldn't have, and tried to stop him because, holy fu-ck, look at this moron, what the hell is he doing with that gun...?

You're trying to convince me he has a right to kill me in self defense? Well I say, go fu-ck yourself. You're insane.

[_Temp. Admin.]

I watched the video you linked. I call it idiotic right wing propaganda. It reminded me of the 9/11 truther video, with its ominous narration, cheesy music and reinterpretation of the facts.

Then turn down the sound so you don't hear any ominous narration, cheesy music, or reinterpretation of the facts and watch it again so you have the video only. Then return & report.

So what you're trying to tell me is that a kid (who clearly looks like a kid) running down the street armed with an automatic weapon doesn't represent an apparent crime?

What I'm trying to tell you is that the chances that the collective mob knew the nuances of the law regarding the minimum age to open carry was statistically zero.

It's totally ok for kids to run around with automatic weapons these days?

No. But it's not O.K. for the mob to take the law into its own hands and forcefully remove it from him via beating him with a skateboard, kicking him in the head, and trying to shoot him. If they knew a 17 year-old was openly carrying in violation of Wisconsin law, they needed to call the police and report it.

And, further to that, if I saw a [foul language deleted] kid running down the street armed with a weapon he shouldn't have, and tried to stop him because, holy [foul language deleted], look at this moron, what the hell is he doing with that gun...?

"What the Hell he was doing" was trying to douse a fire. Nothing illegal about that. It's also not illegal to run, either.

You're trying to convince me he has a right to kill me in self defense?

When a mob chases you down, tosses something at you, tries to disarm you, kicks you in the head when you're down, beats your head with a skateboard when you're down, and tries to shoot you when you're down, you don't have a right to defend yourself and would simply smile and allow yourself to be killed or put into a coma?

Well I say, go [foul language deleted] yourself.

Keeping it classy, as always, I see.

You're insane.

Self-defense = insanity? Please explain.

[_Res Ipsa]

No they didn't. They had no idea he was only 17, which means they had no idea he was committing a crime.

I meant to comment on this.

So what you're trying to tell me is that a kid (who clearly looks like a kid) running down the street armed with an automatic weapon doesn't represent an apparent crime? It's totally ok for kids to run around with automatic weapons these days?

And, further to that, if I saw a fu-cking kid running down the street armed with a weapon he shouldn't have, and tried to stop him because, holy fu-ck, look at this moron, what the hell is he doing with that gun...?

You're trying to convince me he has a right to kill me in self defense? Well I say, go fu-ck yourself. You're insane.

That's not how the law works. It's more complicated. It's best to start with the basic proposition that no one has the right to use force on another person without their consent. In general, that's a crime of some kind. However, the law grants certain people under specific circumstances the privilege to use force, sometimes up to deadly force. So, if you use force on the 17 year old in your example, you are likely committing a crime unless you can find something in a statute or common law that grants you the privilege to use force.

How it works varies from state to state. The privilege to use force against someone who is committing or has committed a crime is commonly described under the ability to make a citizen's arrest. Here's one lawyer's description of how it works in Wisconsin. https://www.johnsflaherty.com/blog/how- ... est-not-to

So, let's apply the law. Possession of the rifle is a misdemeanor. So, the felony exception doesn't apply. The kid is simply running down the street, so the misdemeanor breach of the peace doesn't apply. And you're not a merchant detaining a shoplifter.

So, in your example, you would very likely be committing a crime if you use force on the kid. And if you attempt to use force on him, he has a legal privilege to respond with force. Whether he can use deadly force depends on the circumstances from his point of view, not yours. If your actions would lead a reasonable person to believe that they were in danger of death or great bodily harm, yes, the kid can legally shoot you. An example might be if you were screaming and brandishing a tire iron or you had a handgun in your hands.

And the self defense privilege clearly would not apply, because the threat of death or great bodily harm has to be imminent. Open carrying is legal in Wisconsin, so the fact that he has a rifle in his possession is not considered an imminent threat. He's running away from pursuers, indicating his intent is to get away, not to shoot someone.

And if the kid is 17 and can legally possess the gun at 18, you might have a difficult time convincing them it was reasonable to believe that he was committing a crime.

If there's insanity here, its in the law.

[_subgenius]

I meant to comment on this.

So what you're trying to tell me is that a kid (who clearly looks like a kid) running down the street armed with an automatic weapon doesn't represent an apparent crime? It's totally ok for kids to run around with automatic weapons these days?

And, further to that, if I saw a fu-cking kid running down the street armed with a weapon he shouldn't have, and tried to stop him because, holy fu-ck, look at this moron, what the hell is he doing with that gun...?

You're trying to convince me he has a right to kill me in self defense? Well I say, go fu-ck yourself. You're insane.

That's not how the law works. It's more complicated. It's best to start with the basic proposition that no one has the right to use force on another person without their consent. In general, that's a crime of some kind. However, the law grants certain people under specific circumstances the privilege to use force, sometimes up to deadly force. So, if you use force on the 17 year old in your example, you are likely committing a crime unless you can find something in a statute or common law that grants you the privilege to use force.

How it works varies from state to state. The privilege to use force against someone who is committing or has committed a crime is commonly described under the ability to make a citizen's arrest. Here's one lawyer's description of how it works in Wisconsin. https://www.johnsflaherty.com/blog/how- ... est-not-to

So, let's apply the law. Possession of the rifle is a misdemeanor. So, the felony exception doesn't apply. The kid is simply running down the street, so the misdemeanor breach of the peace doesn't apply. And you're not a merchant detaining a shoplifter.

So, in your example, you would very likely be committing a crime if you use force on the kid. And if you attempt to use force on him, he has a legal privilege to respond with force. Whether he can use deadly force depends on the circumstances from his point of view, not yours. If your actions would lead a reasonable person to believe that they were in danger of death or great bodily harm, yes, the kid can legally shoot you. An example might be if you were screaming and brandishing a tire iron or you had a handgun in your hands.

And the self defense privilege clearly would not apply, because the threat of death or great bodily harm has to be imminent. Open carrying is legal in Wisconsin, so the fact that he has a rifle in his possession is not considered an imminent threat. He's running away from pursuers, indicating his intent is to get away, not to shoot someone.

And if the kid is 17 and can legally possess the gun at 18, you might have a difficult time convincing them it was reasonable to believe that he was committing a crime.

If there's insanity here, its in the law.

Just a heads up, but well reasoned and fact based arguments. confuse Schmo.

[_Analytics]

From my point of view, by brandishing an automatic riffle during a protest in a city and state in which he didn't live, the kid was engaging in felony reckless endangerment. Thus, using force to subdue him was in fact justified.

[_Dr Exiled]

I think we need to look at other evidence not in the video(s). What happened in the first shooting? Why did Rittenhouse shoot the person in the parking lot? Why did he run away? The videos don't closely show what happened there. Did Rittenhouse provoke or recklessly brandish his weapon in the parking lot or prior, then was attacked by someone believing it was self-defense to attack Rittenhouse and then was shot by Rittenhouse? In that case Rittenhouse can't say he was acting in self-defense. Were the people shot later part of the first group? The Rittenhouse attackers seemed to know it was him that fired in the parking lot and attacked him. So, these attackers could have been trying to apprehend Rittenhouse under a citizen's arrest theory after witnessing Rittenhouse murder one of their friends? If that is the case, Rittenhouse cannot claim self-defense.

Anyway, I'd like to know more facts prior to coming to a conclusion. At this point, we only have a video that shows a slice in time and we don't know the facts surrounding the video. If Rittenhouse can show that he was acting lawfully at all times and was threatened by the mob and was then retreating when he was running away he can certainly claim self-defense.

Even so, was it reasonable to shoot when merely kicked in the head? Was it reasonable when hit in the head with a skateboard? Maybe an imperfect self-defense, where the defendant subjectively believes he is in danger but using deadly force is not reasonable might be the result. The determining question is if it was reasonable to shoot when chased down by people who didn't have guns but tried to kick him and hit him with a skateboard. Again, I'd like to see more information.

[_Res Ipsa]

Yeah, I can’t make out anything from the video of the first shooting. It looks like the shooter is running away from the victim just before the shooting. Even if the shooter had provoked, he could regain his right of self defense by retreating and verbally indicating he was doing so. But it’s not clear who was provoking whom. The victim had been confronting the armed folks earlier, so it’s possible he was the aggressor. I suspect it will come down to witnesses.

ETA: the third victim was armed with a handgun.

[_subgenius]

From my point of view, by brandishing an automatic riffle during a protest in a city and state in which he didn't live, the kid was engaging in felony reckless endangerment. Thus, using force to subdue him was in fact justified.

How was it known that he didn't live there? And how is that relevant? (for example, you seem to think your opinion matters on the subject yet you don't live there)

[_Temp. Admin.]

From my point of view, by brandishing an automatic riffle during a protest in a city and state in which he didn't live, the kid was engaging in felony reckless endangerment.

"Open carry" does not equal "brandish." There's no evidence he engaged in the latter.

Thus, using force to subdue him was in fact justified.

Not if he was merely open carrying it wasn't.