Kyle Rittenhouse -- innocent by self-defense?
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2018 3:50 am
Kyle Rittenhouse -- innocent by self-defense?
Dear participants,
When I first heard about the Kyle Rittenhouse thing, I saw the still photo of him wearing rubber gloves and thought, "That proves it; he was trying shoot people without leaving fingerprints." Tonight I was sent a link to a video that compiles a few different sources of footage showing that he was acting in self-defense. Regarding the gloves, apparently he was an EMT with a medical kit on his person and most likely had them on in anticipation of rendering first aid if necessary.
Yes, it's hosted at banned.video, so I'm sure everyone's first instinct will be to disregard it "guilt by association"-style, but video footage is video footage, regardless of where it's hosted, as we all have to admit. It pretty clearly shows Rittenhouse firing in self-defense:
https://banned.video/watch?id=5f52bc97af4ce8069e672e5d
So, is there any reason my mind SHOULDN'T be changed by this video? 'Cause I admit the footage makes it look pretty cut-and-dry in this guy's favor.
Thanks in advance!
When I first heard about the Kyle Rittenhouse thing, I saw the still photo of him wearing rubber gloves and thought, "That proves it; he was trying shoot people without leaving fingerprints." Tonight I was sent a link to a video that compiles a few different sources of footage showing that he was acting in self-defense. Regarding the gloves, apparently he was an EMT with a medical kit on his person and most likely had them on in anticipation of rendering first aid if necessary.
Yes, it's hosted at banned.video, so I'm sure everyone's first instinct will be to disregard it "guilt by association"-style, but video footage is video footage, regardless of where it's hosted, as we all have to admit. It pretty clearly shows Rittenhouse firing in self-defense:
https://banned.video/watch?id=5f52bc97af4ce8069e672e5d
So, is there any reason my mind SHOULDN'T be changed by this video? 'Cause I admit the footage makes it look pretty cut-and-dry in this guy's favor.
Thanks in advance!
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 34407
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse -- innocent by self-defense?
Shades I recently posted a link to a video by a Denver criminal defense attorney whose videos I watch as part of the true crime community. In any case, in this one he's got video and close up still shots. I don't know if this will help your efforts here or not. I believe that he also did a video before and after this one on the case.
Crime Talk: Let's Talk Kyle Rittenhouse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2zB6yXsX9E
Crime Talk: Let's Talk Kyle Rittenhouse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2zB6yXsX9E
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Chinese Proverb
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 34407
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse -- innocent by self-defense?
Heck, I think your video has the same video and stills, but it looks like the banned video definitely supplies more information. I'd want to watch it again a few times and mull it over before making further comment.
I do have a question. Are you sure that at age 17 that it was legal for Kyle Rittenhouse to be open carrying that weapon, who owns it and who is it registered to? Have you checked that out and isn't that an AR-15? I'm like 99% sure it is but I don't claim to know everything but I've seen at least one in real life.
Currently listening to a true crime report so will get back here when I'm ready but just on the surface, I think he fired his weapon in self defense.
I do have a question. Are you sure that at age 17 that it was legal for Kyle Rittenhouse to be open carrying that weapon, who owns it and who is it registered to? Have you checked that out and isn't that an AR-15? I'm like 99% sure it is but I don't claim to know everything but I've seen at least one in real life.
Currently listening to a true crime report so will get back here when I'm ready but just on the surface, I think he fired his weapon in self defense.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Chinese Proverb
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 9947
- Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse -- innocent by self-defense?
As I wrote elsewhere, imagine it was a clear-cut active shooter situation, where the shooting in the first video was obvious cold-blooded murder. If an active shooter pulls and takes down somebody in a crowd, then would you not expect the crowd to go after him? The point at which the shooter loses control of the situation and runs means he's playing defense by definition. Were the Nazis at Normandy justified just because they were clearly "defending themselves" from the invasion?
So it comes down to what's in the first video. That's the first time I've seen the first video (I saw the glove video interview before). I'm tired, and so I'm going more by memory of descriptions of the first video, but I believe the person he killed was the one who threw that bag at him, right? So what if some other person had a gun in the background. Kyle had a gun. A lot of people had guns. Because somebody else in the crowd had a gun, he can shoot somebody who throws a bag at him?
I give it 70/30 odds that he's guilty, and that the guy with the handgun in the second video who was injured probably could have shot him dead and been in the right. He was smart not to take the chance, however. Bullet wounds heal. Legal problems like that don't.
It will be really interesting to see how things go in the future. This incident was right out of the faqs playbook to "get in their faces with our guns".
when crowds of liberals and conservatives start standing off in the streets, it's going to be a lot of fun to figure out who pushed whose buttons first such that when the first trigger gets pulled, was that pull justified?
So it comes down to what's in the first video. That's the first time I've seen the first video (I saw the glove video interview before). I'm tired, and so I'm going more by memory of descriptions of the first video, but I believe the person he killed was the one who threw that bag at him, right? So what if some other person had a gun in the background. Kyle had a gun. A lot of people had guns. Because somebody else in the crowd had a gun, he can shoot somebody who throws a bag at him?
I give it 70/30 odds that he's guilty, and that the guy with the handgun in the second video who was injured probably could have shot him dead and been in the right. He was smart not to take the chance, however. Bullet wounds heal. Legal problems like that don't.
It will be really interesting to see how things go in the future. This incident was right out of the faqs playbook to "get in their faces with our guns".
when crowds of liberals and conservatives start standing off in the streets, it's going to be a lot of fun to figure out who pushed whose buttons first such that when the first trigger gets pulled, was that pull justified?
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 21663
- Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:02 am
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse -- innocent by self-defense?
There were and are dozens of these people larping as EMTs, security, and Press at these things. Him showing up and acting as an uncertified and unofficial EMT is neither here nor there. I guess my first question for this situation is this:
Did he have a Constitutional right to open carry that weapon, in Kenosha, that night?
My second question is this:
Did he have a Constitutional right to defend property that wasn’t his, without charge from the state to do so, effectively deputizing him on behalf of the state?
It’s one thing to have the right to open carry in public in order to protect yourself and your property, but is it another separate thing to open carry to protect others or their property?
- Doc
Did he have a Constitutional right to open carry that weapon, in Kenosha, that night?
My second question is this:
Did he have a Constitutional right to defend property that wasn’t his, without charge from the state to do so, effectively deputizing him on behalf of the state?
It’s one thing to have the right to open carry in public in order to protect yourself and your property, but is it another separate thing to open carry to protect others or their property?
- Doc
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 34407
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse -- innocent by self-defense?
So back on the horse here.
Q: How do you become an EMT at age 17?
A: You can't.
I had to fish around on the Wisconsin DHS website before I ended up getting to this:
Temp. Admin. wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 4:40 amRegarding the gloves, apparently he was an EMT with a medical kit on his person and most likely had them on in anticipation of rendering first aid if necessary.
Q: How do you become an EMT at age 17?
A: You can't.
I had to fish around on the Wisconsin DHS website before I ended up getting to this:
http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/ad ... hs/110/110DHS 110.06 Application for initial license or certificate; initial training requirements; endorsements.
(1) Eligibility. To apply for an initial license as an EMT or certificate as a first responder, the applicant shall meet all of the following requirements:
(a) The individual is 18 years of age or older.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Chinese Proverb
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 34407
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse -- innocent by self-defense?
Answering my own questions here.
Question: Why is my nose in the state statutes when yours is not? I mean, one of us is an ECP and one of us is a cop.
Well, no, Jersey. It wasn't legal for Kyle Rittenhouse to be open carrying that weapon. We don't know who owns it or who it's registered to, but it couldn't legally be Rittenhouse.Jersey Girl wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 5:18 amI do have a question. Are you sure that at age 17 that it was legal for Kyle Rittenhouse to be open carrying that weapon, who owns it and who is it registered to? Have you checked that out and isn't that an AR-15?
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statut ... tes/948/60948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(2)
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
(3)
(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.
History: 1987 a. 332; 1991 a. 18, 139; 1993 a. 98; 1995 a. 27, 77; 1997 a. 248; 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 163; 2011 a. 35.
Sub. (2) (b) does not set a standard for civil liability, and a violation of sub. (2) (b) does not constitute negligence per se. Logarto v. Gustafson, 998 F. Supp. 998 (1998).
Question: Why is my nose in the state statutes when yours is not? I mean, one of us is an ECP and one of us is a cop.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Chinese Proverb
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 34407
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse -- innocent by self-defense?
Well, yes. I can think of a couple or three reasons. We know he couldn't have been a licensed EMT or legal gun owner. I have to conclude that he was a self deluded kid playing militia man who had no real business being there doing what he was doing to start with.Temp. Admin. wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 4:40 amSo, is there any reason my mind SHOULDN'T be changed by this video? 'Cause I admit the footage makes it look pretty cut-and-dry in this guy's favor.
I haven't checked out the open carry law for WI yet, but I'll get there.
But let's just say for the sake of argument, that he was a trained and licensed EMT, legal gun owner with the right to open carry his firearm. If you were all of those things and you had shot a person, would your first move be to call your friend or would you roll EMS? I'm just asking the questions here.
No prob. I could change my mind about some of my comments but that's what I've got so far.Thanks in advance!
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Chinese Proverb
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 34407
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse -- innocent by self-defense?
https://www.doj.state.wi.us/sites/defau ... 1-2018.pdfCARRYING CONCEALED WEAPON LICENSE PROCESS AND REQUIREMENTS
A. Eligibility for a CCW license
Who is eligible to apply for a CCW license?
In order to obtain a CCW license, the applicant must:
• Be 21 years of age or older.
• Not prohibited from possessing a firearm under state or federal law.
• Not have been ordered as a condition of bail or release in a criminal case from
possessing a dangerous weapon.
• Be a Wisconsin resident (as evidenced by a valid Wisconsin driver’s license or ID card), or be
active military stationed in Wisconsin.
• Have provided proof of the firearms training required for a license. (see Training
Requirement below)
Wis. Stat. § 175.60(3)(a) through (g)
The above should help somewhat to forward the discussion.
Last edited by Google Feedfetcher on Sun Sep 06, 2020 9:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Chinese Proverb
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 21663
- Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:02 am
Re: Kyle Rittenhouse -- innocent by self-defense?
Kyle was open carry, though.
- Doc
- Doc