Kyle Rittenhouse -- innocent by self-defense?

[_Res Ipsa]

I think shirtless guy was demanding to be shot, not an aggressive stance, but perhaps something different? Maybe done out of fear and frustration that he had to deal with the constant pressure/fear of a militia kid toting a loaded AR 15? Shirtless guy could have feared that the kid, being a kid, might recklessly use the deadly weapon? Also, I don't think Rittenhouse could objectively be fearful of someone demanding that he shoot them, no? Shirtless guy used the N-word also, even though he was white. What do you make of that? It doesn't make sense, perhaps how people lost in fear react to gun toting teen?

I may be remembering the videos wrong, but I don't think Rittenhouse was present during shirtless guy's verbal confrontation with the armed people. And I'm not sure shirtless guy's state of mind comes into play when considering whether Rittenhouse had a privilege to use deadly force in self defense. That turns on what a reasonable person would perceive in Rittenhouse's position at the time he shot.

[_Res Ipsa]

Rittenhouse wasn't in a firing position or a combat stance. He was running away from his pursuers.

That is after he already shot somebody though, right?

You are a cop, right? Do you ever do traffic stops? I would presume if you pull somebody over, you'd have a problem with him holding a loaded assault riffle in the driver's seat. Would you not also have a problem if it was merely in a sling?

In any event, this incident shows how stupid it is to allow open carry and how stupid it is to do so. Rittenhouse with a gun made the situation infinitely more dangerous for all involved, his fantasies about how the world needs "good guys" with guns to fight the "bad guys" with guns (or skateboards) notwithstanding.

As Exiled has pointed out, we don't know what precipitated the first shooting. But it appeared to me in the videos that the victim was chasing Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse shot him. in my opinion, that raises the possibility of a valid claim of the self defense privilege.

Personally, I think private citizens choosing to carry a weapon into an avoidable confrontations is moronic. So is confronting someone who is armed. But my personal opinion has nothing to do with the law. Given that the Supreme Court has found an individual right to bear arms, I'm not sure simply banning open carry would be found unconstitutional. Personally, i'd prefer that armed citizens display their weapons openly so that i can take steps to protect myself by staying the hell away from them. Attempting to ban open carry seems to me to me to create a tremendous incentive to illegally carry hidden weapons, which would rob me of my ability to avoid them.

[Alf'Omega]

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

Which is pretty much what I'm reacting to in this thread and story. Apparently, we're discussing whether a fu-cking child is engaging in self-defense in a situation in which he put himself, brandishing... or merely carrying a deadly weapon on city streets (like "brandishing vs carrying" makes a difference - we're talking about a child walking around with a gun as big as he is).

The culture in this country is fu-cked up. I don't think Americans really get it; you're all so seemingly anesthetized to it.

[_Res Ipsa]

I think this brings up an interesting question: does openly carrying an AR 15 generate fear in those around the person openly carrying the AR 15? Does the fear objectively trigger some to believe they are being threatened? Here in the US, it is unusual to see people openly carrying an AR 15 around town. I know I haven't seen anyone openly carrying an AR 15 around. So, perhaps when most see a person walking around with an AR 15 would think that person was a threat? The shirtless guy in the video that was demanding to be shot seemed to be or maybe might have been acting out of fear?

Thinking someone is a threat is not enough to invoke the privilege of self defense. The threat must be imminent. Also, if the reaction is present only in "some people," I'd describe that as subjective, not objective. If I see a guy carrying an AR-15, I can simply avoid him. Shirtless guy doesn't look like he was avoiding -- it looked like he was provoking.

[_Analytics]

I found the editorial in the link below insightful. After describing the events in detail, Leonard Pits Jr. finishes with:

To recap: Before the shooting, police gave him water and attaboys. After the shooting, they let him walk right by. And Tucker Carlson is making excuses for him.

The imagination grinds like an 18-wheeler going uphill trying to conceive of an armed 17-year-old Black boy being treated with similar deference. Or even an unarmed one, like Trayvon Martin. Take it as an inducement to reconsider how we construct our narratives of innocence — and guilt. Or not.

After all, just days later, Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, William Barr (in his day job, he doubles as U.S. attorney general), opined how there “appears” to be a phenomenon where Black people “feel” they’re mistreated by police. “I don’t think that that necessarily reflects some deep-seated racism,” he sniffed.

And so it goes. We live a double standard some people call justice. Examples of its unfairness are abundant, yet abundantly denied. So beg pardon, but no, this vigilante is not a hero.

He’s just another example.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/09/08/ ... Old Testament-a-hero/

[_Analytics]

I wonder if a self-defense argument can be made in this case without a double standard. In comparison, Zimmerman was a vigilante who decided that the smaller and unarmed Trayvon Martin was a thug, and decided to chase him down with his gun. Did Martin feel threatened? If so, did that give him the right to kill Zimmeman? We don't know--we never heard his side of the story. When Zimmerman eventually got the confrontation he was after, he felt threatened by the unarmed black kid, and according to the jury, this gave him the legal right to kill him.

There are two reasons this might not work for Rittenhouse. First, there were lots of witnesses, most of whom presumably also felt quite threatened by the kid from out of town with the assault riffle. Second, one of the people Rittenhouse shot survived. If Gaige Grosskreutz felt threatened by Rittenhouse running around killing people, did that give Grosskruetz license to kill Rittenhouse in self defense? Or did Rittenhouse feeling threatened by Grosskreutz give him license to kill? If they both felt threatened did they have the legal right to a shootout where the loser dies and the winner is exonerated of any crime?

The fact that walking around with guns is permitted so that you can legally kill armed or unarmed people who make you feel threatened illustrates Some Schmo's point--the culture of this country is fu-cked ip.

[_Res Ipsa]

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

Which is pretty much what I'm reacting to in this thread and story. Apparently, we're discussing whether a fu-cking child is engaging in self-defense in a situation in which he put himself, brandishing... or merely carrying a deadly weapon on city streets (like "brandishing vs carrying" makes a difference - we're talking about a child walking around with a gun as big as he is).

The culture in this country is fu-cked up. I don't think Americans really get it; you're all so seemingly anesthetized to it.

Not anesthetized: distinguishing between is and ought. If you don't know that the law is and why it is that way, how can you hope to make intelligent changes to it? Changes to the law driven by emotion tend to have bad, unintended consequences because they aren't thought through clearly.

Using the term "child" to describe Rittenhouse is an emotive argument that obscures the actual situation we are dealing with. One of the dilemmas we face is that at age 18, a "child" magically transforms into an "adult" and is entitled to a whole bundle of rights and privileges. Would Rittenhouse's judgment be any better if he'd been 18? I doubt it.

[_Some Schmo]

If you don't know that the law is and why it is that way, how can you hope to make intelligent changes to it? Changes to the law driven by emotion tend to have bad, unintended consequences because they aren't thought through clearly.

An emotional reaction is entirely appropriate right now. I'm not sitting here making legislative suggestions. I'm reacting to what I consider the blindness and seeming indifference to what this conversation is in the first place.

Using the term "child" to describe Rittenhouse is an emotive argument that obscures the actual situation we are dealing with. One of the dilemmas we face is that at age 18, a "child" magically transforms into an "adult" and is entitled to a whole bundle of rights and privileges. Would Rittenhouse's judgment be any better if he'd been 18? I doubt it.

Dude, I have a soon to be 20 year old daughter. As far as I'm concerned, she's still a child. It's extremely difficult for me to look at anyone under the age of 25 as anything but a child.

Yes, 18 is too young to have a gun. So is 88, unless you're a trained, lawful and safety conscious gun owner.

[_Res Ipsa]

I found the editorial in the link below insightful. After describing the events in detail, Leonard Pits Jr. finishes with:

To recap: Before the shooting, police gave him water and attaboys. After the shooting, they let him walk right by. And Tucker Carlson is making excuses for him.

The imagination grinds like an 18-wheeler going uphill trying to conceive of an armed 17-year-old Black boy being treated with similar deference. Or even an unarmed one, like Trayvon Martin. Take it as an inducement to reconsider how we construct our narratives of innocence — and guilt. Or not.

After all, just days later, Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, William Barr (in his day job, he doubles as U.S. attorney general), opined how there “appears” to be a phenomenon where Black people “feel” they’re mistreated by police. “I don’t think that that necessarily reflects some deep-seated racism,” he sniffed.

And so it goes. We live a double standard some people call justice. Examples of its unfairness are abundant, yet abundantly denied. So beg pardon, but no, this vigilante is not a hero.

He’s just another example.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/09/08/ ... Old Testament-a-hero/

I agree with this. The officer who told the group that the police really appreciated them should be disciplined, if not fired. And it would be interesting to run the hypothetical in which Rittenhouse is black.

I'm not claiming that Rittenhouse is a hero. I think he's a 17 year old who didn't think through what it would mean to take a life. He put himself in a situation in which he was way, way over his head. I think he got separated from his comrades in arms and panicked. In both instances, it looked like he was running away from people who were chasing him before he shot his pursuers.

I have my own theory about justice: No strict law can be justly applied in every factual circumstance. Discretion will be abused in some cases to reach an unjust result. The closest we can come to justice requires some combination of law and discretion, and we must be ever vigilant in searching for the ways in which the system will inevitably produce unjust outcomes.

[_Analytics]

I'm not claiming that Rittenhouse is a hero. I think he's a 17 year old who didn't think through what it would mean to take a life. He put himself in a situation in which he was way, way over his head. I think he got separated from his comrades in arms and panicked. In both instances, it looked like he was running away from people who were chasing him before he shot his pursuers.

I have my own theory about justice: No strict law can be justly applied in every factual circumstance. Discretion will be abused in some cases to reach an unjust result. The closest we can come to justice requires some combination of law and discretion, and we must be ever vigilant in searching for the ways in which the system will inevitably produce unjust outcomes.

Well, the good news for Ritterhouse is that misguided people who think he is a hero have donated millions to his legal defense fund, so he'll have the best defense money can buy. He'll probably walk and end up rich because of this.

But there can't be anything approaching justice here. Ritterhouse's foolishness made a bad situation much worse and ended with two people dead and another disabled. My point is simply that the blame must be put on America's gun culture--guns almost always do more harm than good, and it just shouldn't be legal for vigilantes or traitors (who ironically see themselves as patriots) to walk around with assault riffles. It shouldn't be legal, much less celebrated.

In general I'm all for showing 17-year olds mercy. But 17-year olds with guns? No--make an example out of them.