Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
But I think we can discuss the law and relevant facts without retreating to our respective political camps. We had a mostly great discussion going in the other thread on these issues so I think we can really do it here (we mostly are at this point).
As discussed previously, it possibly comes into play in the duty to retreat issue, but I agree that the video appears to show him clearly trying to retreat from the last two guys.
I think the acts themselves were self defense. However, I also believe Rittenhouse was acting as a vigilante, illegally bringing a gun someplace he had no legal right to be to do something no one asked him to do. That can't be ok.
Self-defense becomes more difficult when there is a crime involved. Let's say there was no issue of self-defense on the first shooting. He just flat out murders the guy. The witnesses who see this chase him down with the intent to disarm him and detain him for arrest. Does he have the right to shoot as many of them as he wants because he fears imminent bodily harm? I don't think that's how it's supposed to work.
For my position, I don't see how age would matter. Simply put, my opinion is, if your decisions and actions cause you to get into a situation where you fear for your life and you take a life, you should be held accountable in some fashion. I get kind of hung up on personal responsibility and have a hard time looking past the fact that choices people make of their own fruition get them in bad situations. They need to be accountable for those choices especially in situations where different choices most likely lead to less dead people.
Agreed. Condemning Rittenhouse is by no means endorsing the riots. No one "loves" the guy who was in and put of mental institutions & a child molester (except maybe his mom & fiance).
Right. And Rosenbaum has felt the ramifications of his actions. Rittenhouse should too, obviously not via death but certainly some other level of accountability. Our actions have consequences, sometimes dire ones.
I think this post does a great job of summing up the issue that has been nagging at me about this event. First off, I am not as well-versed as a lot of folks in this thread on the specifics of the videos and the evidence obtained thus far, and this includes Jon and others who have a great deal of certainty that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. That said, my question is the same as what you raised. What if one or more of the three guys were simply trying to disarm Rittenhouse because they perceived him to be a threat? Sure, the first guy was pursuing him and acting crazy, but he was also unarmed. When Rittenhouse turned and aimed his gun at him, perhaps he tried to get the gun from him to disarm him and eliminate the threat that he perceived, as opposed to wanting to kill him. And when Rittenhouse killed the first guy, the other two guys may have been pursuing him because they thought he had just committed murder and they were trying to apprehend and disarm him before he shot anyone else. I could definitely see that happening. Of course, two of the three guys are dead and can’t offer any insight into their motives, and I thought I heard that the third guy might have made a statement indicating that he was intending to kill Rittenhouse, so perhaps that’s a non-starter. Also, there’s the issue that even if none of the three guys intended to harm Rittenhouse in any way, that doesn’t necessarily rob him of a successful self-defense claim if a reasonable person in Rittenhouse’s shoes would have perceived that deadly force was necessary to protect himself from death or severe bodily injury.
This argument makes sense to me. What are the charges for a minor under these circumstances. Does manslaughter come into play instead of murder?
Yeah, that's another thing that makes it more complicated. Grosskreutz legally had a gun and a permit for concealed carry (claims that he is a convicted felon are false). He never fired it and denies any intent to. He says he was there as a paramedic providing aid to injured people, and he has witnesses supporting him.
As I read Wisconsin law, self-defense in the course of committing a crime has a different burden of proof than if you're not committing a crime. The curfew violation and illegal possession charge may be a way for the prosecutors to shift the burden of proof to prove self-defense to Rittenhouse.
Because those that actually work in the system, that deal with these types of cases and actually have to consider the applicable law, don't permit themselves to succumb to the white noise that is your last paragraph.
While Wisconsin may be more nuanced, in my jurisdiction the standard for determining whether a juvenile may be tried as an adult doesn't have anything due with whether an element of one of the charges requires the state to prove he was a minor at the time of the offense.
There is also video of the first guy chasing after Rittenhouse. Again clearly trying to avoid conflict.
They attacked because of Rosenbaum being shot. Without Rosenbaum initiating the first event the second event never happens.
The bail was probably set that high due to the incompetence of Wood and Pierce. Rittenhouse would of had no trouble raising bail regardless.
A 17 year old who shoots three people is always going to be tried as an adult in Wisconsin. It is automatic at that age. It becomes a close call when they are a year or two younger. A 14 year old can be prosecuted in adult court for certain violent crimes if the judge agrees. It doesn’t matter that one on the charged crimes is underage possession of a gun.
Probably have to back up to the start - why did he go to Kenosha in the first place? I agree with much of what you are saying here.
Rittenhouse had his gun strapped over his shoulder, he was not pointing it anyone when the chase was initiated. Grosskreutz had the gun out in his hand and pursuing someone. That is a very threatening posture which shows intent. He was also in the process of aiming his gun when he was shot. Compared to most police shootings, Rittenhouse was actually fairly restrained and accurate in his shooting. Reckless shots could have easily killed innocent bystanders.
He works in Kenosha as a lifeguard. He volunteered that day scrubbing graffiti off of local schools from the vandalism from the night before. He did not want his community destroyed by another night of mayhem.
No, it probably wasn't.
There was a decent discussion going on back when it happened in one of the threads here - and the consensus was you are correct that his first two lawyers did him a disservice as it relates to the bail. The theory was that Wood and Pierce made a strategy error in choosing to fight extradition from Illinois to Wisconsin. The better strategy as I understand it would have been to get a bail hearing in Illinois, get him out on bail there in his home county, then have him come to Wisconsin and submit to the charges voluntarily. That would have given him a good argument to show he is not a flight risk. In any event, I agree the money was probably there for him regardless, but I have no problem crediting Wood for raising it. Whatever one thinks about Lin Wood, I think Kyle Rittenhouse has to be extremely thankful for that. 99% of criminal defendants in the exact same position would already be serving their life sentence.
I agree that the circumstances warrant trying Rittenhouse as an adult, assuming one wants to file charges. But for the record I really hate the idea of charging a 14 year old kid as an adult, almost regardless of the crime involved. I know you're just stating the facts and not advocating anything -- just adding my two cents.
It wasn't his community, he lived across state lines in Antioch Illinois, which is 21 miles away, and he returned to that community after the shootings.
He shot and killed Rosenbaum. At that point his gun was not strapped over his shoulder. He now has a gun out and has killed a man. Under his theory, everyone near him is now in imminent threat of bodily harm, and he is fair game to be shot to death. He fired several shots that missed during the altercations with Huber and Grosskreutz which is part of the reckless endangerment charge (one of the spent shells hit a journalist, who thought he had been hit by a richochet).
He only pulled his gun out because he was getting chased by a lunatic. You guys keep trying to spin Rittenhouse out as the aggressor, but he wasn't.
Antioch is a village of about 14,000 people. Kenosha is where Rittenhouse would have to go for shopping and entertainment and work.
No spin needed, he brought and brandished an AR to a riot in an attempt to play vigilante. He was an aggressor.
For the purposes of this particular argument, who cares why he pulled his gun out? It was suggested that another person he shot had a gun, so that justified Rittenhouse shooting him. But Rittenhouse had a gun out, and had already killed two people at that point. Seems like if his argument is valid, anyone who felt threatened by Rittenhouse could have justifiably killed him at that point. Self defense, right?
In an open carry state simply having a weapon is not brandishing and is not considered an act of aggression. So yes you are spinning.
Exactly. That speaks to a post I made yesterday in the other thread discussing this. The Rittenhouse defenders somehow want to vilify the other guys who brought guns to a riot but defend this kid for doing the same. Makes no sense what so ever, they were all idiots that were playing with fire.
It is when it’s done illegally like he was doing.
Of course it makes sense. I am not villifying them for bringing a gun. It is an odd situation but during the second chase either side would have been justified with the killing. Eventhough they wrongly assumed Rittenhouse committed murder, it was reasonable to fear him. The people chasing Riddenhouse were the real vigilantes acting as the aggressor which made Rittenhouse actions perfectly legal.
There are multiple grocery stores in Antioch. As well as a movie theater, a few shopping plazas, and a bunch of restaurants. He didn't need to go 20+ miles away to Kenosha for any of those things.
You continue to ignore the context and act as if this was a normal Tuesday afternoon. He brought aggression to an overly aggressive situation.
He has friends there he hangs out with. He works there. He volunteers there. He feels part of the community. Why is it so important to label him an outsider?
In the numerous clips of video of the night, NOT ONE of them show Rittenhouse displaying one ounce of aggression. Rosenbaum on the otherhand was a raging maniac displaying aggression and anger towards numerous people and attempted to violently burn down a gas station which could have exploded and killed a dozen people.
Huh interesting. I wasn’t aware of this part of the procedural process in his case.
Jon we’re simply speaking a different language at this point. The fact you don’t see walking around with an AR at a riot as an aggressive act means we are never going find any common ground here.
When Rosenbaum was pursuing him, and Rittenhouse hears the gunshots and turns, does he aim or point his gun at Rosenbaum? (I haven’t watched the video.)
I do not believe the video is clear. But the reporter/witness McGinnis said that the unarmed guy (Rosenbaum) was trying to get the defendant’s gun. Rosenbaum was unsuccessful, and Rittenhouse pulled it away, raised it and fired.
