Self defense or murder? Seen the videos? Any opinions?
Kyle Rittenhouse
Posts
Total:
102
-->
@Death23
that's a tough one imo, my current opinion is self defense, he was on the ground being attacked. there could be other charges for laws he might have broken, but from what I have seen/heard he was actually running or walking away, was pursued and being attacked while on the ground, I'm not sure how it could not be seen as self defense.
Eh who has time for courts in 2020? Let's go burn stuff.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Democrats intimidating political opposition since 2016. Putin is pleased.
-->
@Greyparrot
so tolerant
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
It's funny how the media is spinning people having guns as terrorists for having guns but the "peaceful protestors" beating the shit out of others and sometimes killing people without a gun is just fine.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
You remember the leftist chant "white silence is violence?"
What about Joe Biden's silence on all these riots???
Tough one as well. I am neutral. At one point, he was being attacked, but at the same time, he shot them in the head. You don't aim for the head, you aim for the foot or a non lethal part of the body in general. This happened in my town recently with a kid 16yr old kid who stabbed a kid because he was getting curbstomped. He used a knife and stabbed him in the stomach. Anyway, I don't think he was a registered carrier as well, so I think it's murder IMO.
Also a gun is much more lethal than a skateboard
-->
@Vader
Yeah, unfortunately, the courts don't see it that way. Bringing a gun to a knife fight is still not illegal.
But by all means, continue supporting street justice.
-->
@Greyparrot
defund the police and we will police ourselves......isn't that what they wanted? "be careful what you ask for" someone should have told them.
-->
@Greyparrot
I am confused by which are you referring to street justice for? Rittenhouse or the skateboarder
IDK, I think that I would have acted similarly in his situation, although I probably wouldn't have brought a gun in the first place, but that's beside the point. I am convinced that his actions can certainly be justified, but it's not an easy cut and dry issue.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
that's a tough one imo, my current opinion is self defense, he was on the ground being attacked. there could be other charges for laws he might have broken, but from what I have seen/heard he was actually running or walking away, was pursued and being attacked while on the ground, I'm not sure how it could not be seen as self defense.
From what I've read, the standard for use of deadly force in self defense there apparently is that the use of deadly force must be objectively necessary to prevent "great bodily harm" (not just any harm). Ohio isn't a "stand your ground" state, but there's no "duty to retreat" either. Though, if you can get away safely, it is part of the things the jury considers when determining whether or not the use of force is necessary.
I'm having difficulty seeing that an objectively reasonable belief of imminent great bodily harm can be formed based on what Rittenhouse observed. The first shooting is the one I'm having a hard time with. According to a witness, Rosenbaum began to approach Rittenhouse, who then began to running away and the chase ensued. At some point, Rosenbaum threw an object at Rittenhouse. It was shortly after the object was thrown that Rittenhouse began to turn and shoot. So, I'm thinking the Rittenhouse's decision to shoot rather than continue to run was heavily influenced by that object being thrown. I don't know what that object was. I can't tell from the video, and the prosecutor says it was a "plastic bag", but plastic bags don't move like that. (at least not the ones in the grocery store) Rittenhouse was close enough to see what the object was and the object was well-illuminated by the light. He was also looking in the right direction to see it.
-->
@Vader
I am mostly thinking about the first shooting rather than the second one. I think the self-defense privilege in the second one may largely depend on whether or not the first one was self defense, though I haven't double checked that. (It was the first shooting that "activated" the angry mob, which led to the second shooting)
-->
@Death23
watch this if you haven't guy in white shirt runs up behind him and hits him in the head, probably something in his hand
I don't see anyone being shot until he's on the ground, the one guy tried to jump stomp him, guy with skateboard looks like he hit him, dunno but looks self defense from that video.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Yes, but you're talking about the second shooting when he was on his back being chased by an angry mob, with some of them tackling him and attacking. It is clear that he could not run because he was on the ground and that the angry mob intended to inflict great bodily harm upon him. They were out for blood after the first shooting. If you listen to what the mob was saying it was clear what their intentions were. "Get him! Fuck him! Get that guy! He shot somebody!"
I'm talking about the first shooting where he was being chased by a single person whose intentions seemed unclear. He fired when he was on his feet, not his back.
-->
@Death23
I'm not sure which shooting you are talking about I guess, the 2 dead and the 1 injured all happened from the general area when he was on the ground afaik.
Let's assume they were chasing him because he shot someone, does he still not have the right to defend himself?
watch the video again, he only shoots while he's on the ground, unless I'm missing something.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I will PM you the link.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
So sad "street justice" is allowed in the dystopias. Where are the police?
-->
@Death23
so I think we are talking about 2 different incidents, the one the news keeps showing is the one when he is on the ground which I think is self defense, the video you sent I can't see enough or much of anything to form a real opinion about it. I'll have to wait for more on the first person who died in that video.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
You can see that one person was chasing him, but others were not. You can see that the person who was chasing him threw an object at Rittenhouse, and then continued to chase him. You can also see that the shooting started very shortly after the object was thrown. So, the thrown object was probably a big factor in Rittenhouse's thinking. If it had been a brick or a knife, I think that would signify an intent to inflict great bodily harm. Though, if it had been a pillow, I don't think that would be very threatening. The prosecutor says it was a "plastic bag", but I don't believe that. Maybe it was a newspaper in plastic? I mean, that's what's usually there.
Yeah, I can't really form an opinion on it either right now. There's just not enough context.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
This article may provide context, though bear in mind that it's the prosecution's version of events.
-->
@Death23
it's hard to know what is true at this point, but if that article is accurate/true then a really good case for self defense can be made imo.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
(14) “Great bodily harm" means bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ or other serious bodily injury.
In the link I PM'd you you can see the object that was thrown more closely in the video that begins at 4:00. It does look like a plastic bag with something inside of it. I don't think that being thrown is sufficient to have substantially changed things. Though, I mean, Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse and trying to rob him, albeit apparently unarmed. Could Rittenhouse have continued to run? Could he have fired warning shots? I didn't see him yell for help. It did look like he could have continued to run.
I think it is obvious that Rittenhouse was defending himself from a threat. The issue is whether or not the significance of that threat rose to the level where the use of deadly force was warranted, and also whether or not there were viable alternatives. For example, it did look like Rittenhouse could have maintained the status quo of the chase by continuing to run. I also did not see that Rittenhouse attempted to yell for help from the people.
probably self-defense, but he should be serve same punishment to a black American of same shoes.
-->
@Death23
Could Rittenhouse have continued to run? Could he have fired warning shots? I didn't see him yell for help. It did look like he could have continued to run.
he looked surrounded, perhaps trapped by buildings to me.
Yell for help? that's not a requirement anywhere, being 17 and panicked? I'm not sure that's a reasonable requirement.
In the article it said Rosenbaum grabbed the barrel of the gun and then was shot, also he shot at him hitting the ground in front of him, so much for firing a warning shot it would seem.
unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
being surrounded by hostile people, someone attempting to take your gun, being chased while being armed no less, yeah I think it fits.
it's difficult to put yourself in that situation and then say I would have done x, it's easy to say after the fact and with help of video and knowing the outcome.
what would a reasonable person do based on the facts, having someone chase you while armed, grab your gun while being surrounded by a hostile mob, could you outrun them? how do you know if you could? is it prudent to turn your back on such a mob chasing you? how do you know someone is throwing something at you and doesn't have a baseball bat? are you going to wait and see how it feels and then decide how to defend yourself?
what is in the mind of a person chasing an armed person who shot at and or shot someone? does that seem reasonable?
-->
@Intelligence_06
probably self-defense, but he should be serve same punishment to a black American of same shoes.
you mean he shouldn't be prosecuted or have to post bail?
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Well I have heard that black criminals serve longer in prison so I figured he should serve equal to a black person that did the same crime. Whatever they should be equal in this society.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
He wasn't trapped by buildings. Those were cars, and there was apparently ample space between them from what can be seen on the video starting at 4:00. I did think about whether or not Rittenhouse was "backed in to a corner", but it didn't look like it.
The existence of alternatives isn't spelled out in the statute, but it goes to the necessity requirement. See, e.g., these jury instructions -
There is no duty to retreat. However, in determining whether the defendant reasonably believed the amount of force used was necessary to prevent or terminate the interference, you may consider whether the defendant had the opportunity to retreat with safety, whether such retreat was feasible, and whether the defendant knew of the opportunity to retreat.
I can't say in good conscience that something is "necessary" when there are reasonable alternatives. Kind of wondering whether or not Rittenhouse learned of Rosenbaum's true intention, which was to take Rittenhouse's gun. That may be sufficient in my eyes to show an objectively reasonable basis for a belief that great bodily harm was imminent.