Kyle Rittenhouse a hero? (update - not guilty on all charges)

[81usaf92]

The reality is it appears some here have never researched what constitutes legal self-defense in most states.

What’s new? As a society we have many here that believe unarmed means they can’t be shot in self defense. I detest vigilantes like Rittenhouse, but I still can’t side with the prosecution based on the relative lack of damning evidence.

 

[twofbyc]

The facts of the case will determine his guilt or innocence.

The reality is it appears some here have never researched what constitutes legal self-defense in most states.

I read the Wisconsin law, so you’re not talking about me. The reality here is some here think shooting an unarmed person four times, once in the back, when that person hasn’t laid a hand on you, and you are already breaking the law by carrying that gun on the street in the first place, entitles you to claim self defense.
Others don’t.

 

[AUDub]

I read the Wisconsin law, so you’re not talking about me. The reality here is some here think shooting an unarmed person four times, once in the back, when that person hasn’t laid a hand on you, and you are already breaking the law by carrying that gun on the street in the first place, entitles you to claim self defense.

That is some really lazy framing given the evidence revealed so far.

 

[twofbyc]

That is some really lazy framing given the evidence revealed so far.

That’s your opinion and your entitled to it. It matches what I saw in the video.

 

[twofbyc]

It's more like saying he would have blown a 0.05 in a few hours vs the 0.16 he blew at the time of the accident. So what?! At the time he wasn't legal. Period.

That is why the defense has tried desperately to get that charge dropped, and the judge correctly refused.
Misdemeanor or not, it’s still a crime. Wanna compare the severity of it to stealing a six pack? That six pack ain’t gonna start spitting bullets.
That’s part of the reason for the gun violence today; it should be a felony. Too many think it won’t help, or more likely don’t want their kids to catch a felony even before they’re 18.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

It's possible I'm losing my mind but I definitely made a post and then it definitely wasn't there.

Is there a minimum character limit?

I saw a one word post which made no sense, so I deleted it. Now, I'm going to say this once only, since you're new. We do not discuss administrative actions on the open forum. Period. Next time you have a question, address it via PM. It's OK to copy all the admins on it. IOW, do not answer this post on the open forum...

 

[81usaf92]

I read the Wisconsin law, so you’re not talking about me. The reality here is some here think shooting an unarmed person four times, once in the back, when that person hasn’t laid a hand on you, and you are already breaking the law by carrying that gun on the street in the first place, entitles you to claim self defense.
Others don’t.

It amazes me that so many people continue to say "unarmed" as that automatically equals murder if the person who is unarmed is shot and killed. Here is a hint.... It doesnt.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Incorrect, open carrying a rifle is legal in WI. He was breaking the law by being under 18, but it's otherwise legal, hence the misdemeanor charge.


I'm guessing you didn't read the report - the first two shots were to his leg / groin area, thus he was falling when the second two shots hit him. All four were fired with 0.76 seconds, so good luck making this a 'shot him in the back' argument wt self defense.

I'm unclear on which cases we're discussing. I see clear self-defense in the case of the guy he shot in the arm who had his gun raised. On the other cases, he killed one guy who grabbed his gun and one where the guy hit him over the head with a skateboard. On these, I'd bet on manslaughter of some degree, not being familiar with WI law. I do know that there have many cases which landed there when one person had a firearm and one had a knife. There is such a thing as disproportionate force and that's definitely there when one person is armed with a skateboard. I actually think the self-defense is stronger with the guy trying to take away his gun. After all, he could have taken away the gun and used it on the kid. In the end, I bet against murder and for one case of manslaughter, if not two...

 

[TIDE-HSV]

I read the Wisconsin law, so you’re not talking about me. The reality here is some here think shooting an unarmed person four times, once in the back, when that person hasn’t laid a hand on you, and you are already breaking the law by carrying that gun on the street in the first place, entitles you to claim self defense.
Others don’t.

How many years did that take?

 

[TIDE-HSV]

It amazes me that so many people continue to say "unarmed" as that automatically equals murder if the person who is unarmed is shot and killed. Here is a hint.... It doesnt.

This is correct. However, it may support manslaughter...

 

[NationalTitles18]

It amazes me that so many people continue to say "unarmed" as that automatically equals murder if the person who is unarmed is shot and killed. Here is a hint.... It doesnt.

By the same token someone coming toward you or even throwing something at you does not equal a threat to your life. If you are that jumpy you don’t need a gun in your hand. This was not a war zone, even though it was chaotic. The kid made many poor choices and two people paid with their lives. They likely also made poor choices in one case. The guy with the gun who was shot should have pulled the trigger.

 

[twofbyc]

How many years did that take?

About 10 seconds; only a synopsis of the self defense statute. And the open carry statute.

 

[twofbyc]

I'm unclear on which cases we're discussing. I see clear self-defense in the case of the guy he shot in the arm who had his gun raised. On the other cases, he killed one guy who grabbed his gun and one where the guy hit him over the head with a skateboard. On these, I'd bet on manslaughter of some degree, not being familiar with WI law. I do know that there have many cases which landed there when one person had a firearm and one had a knife. There is such a thing as disproportionate force and that's definitely there when one person is armed with a skateboard. I actually think the self-defense is stronger with the guy trying to take away his gun. After all, he could have taken away the gun and used it on the kid. In the end, I bet against murder and for one case of manslaughter, if not two...

There is no evidence to support the guy grabbed KR’s gun. Or that he even touched it.

 

[NationalTitles18]

There is no evidence to support the guy grabbed KR’s gun. Or that he even touched it.

In the video I’ve seen and posted he was not even close to grabbing the gun and was several feet away and stopped and possibly barely moving away from the murderer when he was gunned down.

 

[81usaf92]

By the same token someone coming toward you or even throwing something at you does not equal a threat to your life. If you are that jumpy you don’t need a gun in your hand. This was not a war zone, even though it was chaotic. The kid made many poor choices and two people paid with their lives. They likely also made poor choices in one case. The guy with the gun who was shot should have pulled the trigger.

Personally I would make a horrible juror in a case like this or something like Casey Anthony case (different reason on this one though) . Im someone who believes why something happens is just as important in many cases as how they happen. Personally I think he wanted to be vigilante and bag him a looter. Why else would you put yourself in that situation?

But the problem is that there were other stupid people involved and the kid can actually say "I was in fear of my life while retreating". As seen on here there are varying opinions on if self defense was warranted in this case, and a jury is going to be just as confused on it.

My bigger point is surrounding the idea that "unarmed" and shot in the back are damning reasons to say "no self defense". Without context they dont really mean anything.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

In the video I’ve seen and posted he was not even close to grabbing the gun and was several feet away and stopped and possibly barely moving away from the murderer when he was gunned down.

I'll go back and look. I haven't given it a lot of attention...

 

[twofbyc]

In the video I’ve seen and posted he was not even close to grabbing the gun and was several feet away and stopped and possibly barely moving away from the murderer when he was gunned down.

Well, the second shot hit his hand, first one hit his hip; it’s possible after the first shot it was reflex to knock the gun away - you know, “self defense”. But no evidence that he tried to grab the gun before the first shot - video shows he wasn’t close enough.

 

[AUDub]

In the video I’ve seen and posted he was not even close to grabbing the gun and was several feet away and stopped and possibly barely moving away from the murderer when he was gunned down.

Enhanced drone video shows the first of two fatal shootings by Kyle Rittenhouse

Joseph Rosenbaum appeared to be chasing Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse turned and opened fire at close range, killing the 36-year-old during protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

www.nbcnews.com

Watch the video embedded in that article.

 

[AUDub]

Rittenhouse was chased down by Rosenbaum. He had his back to him. Rosenbaum caught up to him, Rittenhouse turned and fired from at extremely close range as Rosenbaum either grabbed for the gun or swatted at the barrel.

 

[MikeInBama]

We can argue all day what his intent was using his rifle against humans by going and make compelling cases for each side of the debate.
But I think it’s beyond obvious that he should have never been there, and was looking for trouble by going.

He's on video stating his intent was to defend businesses and render medical aid. None of the people he shot should have been there either and would have not been shot had they not attacked him first.