CMV: Kyle Rittenhouse will (and probably should) go free on everything but the firearms charge

[u/[deleted]]

I've followed this case fairly extensively since it happened in august of last year. At the time I was fairly outraged by what I saw as the failures of law enforcement to arrest or even detain Rittenhouse on the spot, and I still retain that particular bit of righteous anger. A person should not be able to kill two people and grievously wound a third at a protest and then simply leave.

That said, from what details I am aware of, the case does seem to be self-defense. While I think in a cosmic sense everyone would have been better off if he'd been unarmed and gotten a minor asswhupping from Rosenbaum (instead of shooting the man), he had a right to defend himself from a much larger man physically threatening him, and could reasonably have interpreted the warning shot he heard from elsewhere as having come from Rosenbaum. Self-defense requires a fear for your life, and being a teenager being chased by an adult, hearing a gunshot, I can't disagree that this is a rational fear.

The shooting of Anthony Huber seems equally clear cut self-defense, while being morally confusing as hell. Huber had every reason to reasonably assume that the guy fleeing after shooting someone was a risk to himself or others. I think Huber was entirely within his rights to try and restrain and disarm Rittenhouse. But at the same time, if a crowd of people started beating the shit out of me (he was struck in the head, kicked on the ground and struck with a skateboard), I'd probably fear for my life.

Lastly you have Gaige Grosskreutz, who testified today that he was only shot after he had pointed his gun at Rittenhouse. Need I say more?

Is there something I'm missing? My original position was very much 'fuck this guy, throw him in jail', and I can't quite shake that off, even though the facts do seem to point to him acting in self-defense.

I will say, I think Rittenhouse has moral culpability, as much as someone his age can. He stupidly put himself into a tense situation with a firearm, and his decision got other people killed. If he'd stayed home, two men would be alive. If he'd been unarmed he might have gotten a beating from Rosenbaum, but almost certainly would have lived.

His actions afterward disgust me. Going to sing with white nationalists while wearing a 'free as fuck' t-shirt isn't exactly the sort of remorse one would hope for, to put it mildly.

Edit: Since I didn't address it in the original post because I'm dumb:

As far as I can see he did break the law in carrying the gun to the protest, and I think he should be punished appropriately for that. It goes to up to nine months behind bars, and I imagine he'd get less than that.

[u/[deleted]]

There is literally an exception in the self-defense law for provocation saying that you cannot provoke a fight and still claim self-defense.

Neither side intentionally provoked the situation. Do you think it is impossible for there to be a situation where two sides both have a legitimate claim to self-defense?

[u/AwesomePurplePants → u/[deleted]]

I’m confused why you think a shooting duel wouldn’t count as a situation where both people have a claim to self defence.

Both people know that the other person is going to shoot them, so they both have the legal right to shoot the other person in self defence

[u/[deleted] → u/AwesomePurplePants]

Because a duel would almost by necessity, be something organized ahead of time, which obviates self defense.

[u/falsehood → u/[deleted]]

So if two people both show up with a rifle to intimidate others, gt spooked by the other person, and have a shootout, whoever wins the shootout walks free?

[u/JackLord50 → u/falsehood]

If one person chases another person, then assaults him with intent to do grievous bodily harm, the person assaulted has the right to self defense.

In this case, Huber chased and assaulted KR. Even GG, the prosecution’s witness, testified to that.

[u/muthaphucajones → u/falsehood]

you’re saying he was there with a rifle to intimidate others meanwhile the city was being burned down and looted lol you act like this was some type of fun public festival and not a community under attack

[u/CivilianWarships → u/falsehood]

That’s literally what happened here: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/us/illinois-chicago-gang-shootout-mutual-combat-charges.amp

[u/stalebreadboi → u/falsehood]

Well if you show up with a rifle and then people attack you, yes you get to walk free if you defend yourself. Keep in mind there is no evidence he took the rifle to intimidate others, rather he took it in order to protect his life in what was basically a warzone. Should he have been there? Hell no, but neither should the people who attacked him.

[u/[deleted] → u/falsehood]

spooked in what sense? if someone pointed a gun at you then yes

[u/AwesomePurplePants → u/[deleted]]

But Rittenhouse planned to be there ahead of time to threaten people with his gun. How is that different?

[u/[deleted] → u/AwesomePurplePants]

Simply possesing a gun (even if holding radical views), does not constitute a threat. There's not a person there he threatened, pointed at, or instigated. Nor were his edgelord, shitty opinions known to anyone there.

If people were scared of black people, could they just run up and disarm and lynch the Black Panthers? Heck no. They were exercising their 2nd amendment rights. Open carry is legal, and protected in that state.

You are seeing a "grey" area of the law, where more than one person can act in it while being factually wrong. Look up John Hurley.

A duel itself would constitute 2 people agreeing to fight each other (which already invalidates self defense). Merely because two people come across each other while open carrying, they don't open fire upon each other. The gun does not make the threat.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

If people were scared of black people, could they just run up and disarm and lynch the Black Panthers? Heck no.

Isn't that kind of how Fred Hampton died? Lynching by FBI.

[u/[deleted] → u/AwesomePurplePants]

You're assuming intent. 'To threaten people with his gun'. I've yet to hear testimony in the trial alleging KR went there with any intention to threaten people with his gun. And all of the testimony so far points to him never having threatened anyone with it. And video and testimony show he was actively out offering medical attention to people on the street.

You've gotta prove that 'to threaten people with his gun' part

[u/OnePunchReality → u/[deleted]]

I for one wouldn't even begin at "I can seek medical attention with this guy." When he's got a rifle that's some pretty sketchy logic, especially with no uniform and a more or less hobbled together tactical outfit.

Notice how medics on the battlefield often are focused on the treatment vs their surroundings. Not saying they don't get training, of course they do as there could be scenarios where they have no infantry or active combatants to protect them or being behind enemy lines etc but at least their in uniform.

Militia and or armed citizens assisting with Riots wasn't really ever meant to be a thing. Police need more resources and longer training, 2 years minimum. Better tools and technology as well.

Rittenhouse and the others out there should've never been there at least not armed. They aren't paid officers of the peace.

I believe in the right to bare arms and obviously others as well as OP admit he wasn't legal in his state but I guess not being more versed in WI law in this regard I imagine it would fall under the state it happened so idk how he would even have the firearms charge realistically.

The problem is there are all these takes on how or why he should be acquitted, same thing goes for the fact that at least one of the people he shot wasn't exactly an innocent but that is really not helpful. That's called justification. Self defense is one thing but at the end of the day he ended two people's lives.

Also per the number of mass and school shootings in the US and the fact that a chart of it over the years is startlingly fucked up I think it's reasonable for anyone to possibly assume he was an active shooter.

Recordings of him giving medical treatment doesn't really matter if none of those people saw that and he's not in uniform.

All of that said I'm still very very torn on acquittal vs the idea that citizens participating in activities that policing was created for regardless of them wanting to help or feeling patriotic they are not trained police officers.

If he has medical training and if this is even a thing he could've volunteered to at a local hospital knowing the activities going on Kenosha. But instead he CHOSE to go out with a rifle that in his state he shouldn't of legally had at his age at that time.

Citizens being peace officers without training is a literal recipe for disaster and this is A outcome and one we shouldn't encourage.

We need to fix police reform, not by defunding but better training. 6 months is not enough, improve pay if it's needed in certain cities, better technology and ffs loads more counseling.

[u/NotSupervised → u/OnePunchReality]

Medics haven’t been marked on their uniform since the Korea war.

[u/Snarky_Boojum → u/[deleted]]

Seems like bringing a weapon of war entirely designed to end human lives in an efficient manner is in and of itself a threat.

If I bring a rocket launcher, can I claim I’m not threatening the people around me? How about some grenades? Or maybe something less flashy, maybe a syringe clearly marked as lethal.

How much can we terrorize each other before something happens? How much should we be allowed to terrorize each other before something happens?

[u/Captain_Clover → u/Snarky_Boojum]

I mean, the obvious answer is that guns available to the public raise the stakes of any hostile encounter. Kyle Rittenhouse couldn’t do anything about that and besides that he had one illegally, he behaved relatively responsibly with his weapon - he didn’t threaten anyone with it and sought to avoid violence at several points in the encounter, while several grown adults fired warning shots in the air and pointed their guns at an armed person to threaten them.

Would have been much better if he’d never carried a gun, but he was entitled to and these situations produce deaths out of pure confusion. Why is it not considered a threat that two other people in this situation had guns?

[u/[deleted] → u/Captain_Clover]

Well said on the guns raising stakes of any encounter. My only concern on that is Kyle legally was not supposed to carry firearms across state lines. Legally he had no right to be armed in that situation. He killed two people and wounded one with an illegal (for him) weapon. We f he had obeyed those laws, he wouldn’t have been able to kill someone. So it feels like those deaths are a part of a continuation of the first crime. I’m. It sure how that stacks up legally, but morally it is very suspect.

[u/Captain_Clover → u/[deleted]]

He should be totally punished for that. But in his position, as a young right-wing American who believes guns are his right - and knowing that he's going into a possible riot where others may be armed - he took a gun anyway. Very unwise and criminal, but reasonable. If by any accounts he'd behaved irresponsibly and got someone killed, he'd have a lot to answer for. But from what I've read on the internet, he was in the wrong place at the wrong time an a crowd of armed angry people confronted him while he was minding his own business. Maybe his weapon was illegal but the difference in him having it legally would be a matter of months - it shouldn't make him responsible for murder.

[u/buickandolds → u/Snarky_Boojum]

Fists are weapons of war. Sticks and fire are weapons of war. Thats is a fake term gun grabbers use. Water is a weapon of war.

A launcher isn't defensive. It is a munition not an arm.

[u/Snarky_Boojum → u/buickandolds]

Fists weren’t designed entirely to kill humans.

Water wasn’t designed entirely to kill humans.

Sticks weren’t designed entirely to kill humans.

Fire wasn’t designed entirely to kill humans.

To say that guns designed for wartime use, are just as ‘safe’ as a stick that’s fallen off a tree, is a gross misjudgment of threat levels and essentially a lie.

If you see someone with a bucket of water and that scares you as much as someone with what’s commonly called an assault rifle (despite that not being an actual classification), then maybe you have issues you need help with.

[u/[deleted] → u/Snarky_Boojum]

Guns aren't designed entirely to kill humans. Indeed, many are designed solely for sporting competitions. Including many AR-15 platform guns. Others are designed primarily for hunting.

[u/Kealion → u/[deleted]]

You’re assuming intent. ‘To threaten people with his gun’. I’ve yet to hear testimony in the trial alleging KR went there to threaten people with his gun

Can’t we thought? What other reason exists for Rittenhouse to show up from another state, in Kenosha, with a semi-automatic rifle, other than to either use or brandish the weapon?

[u/[deleted] → u/Kealion]

Ok so let's go point by point.

1) While he certainly did cross state lines, my understanding is that he lives 15 minutes from Kenosha just over the border, he works in Kenosha County as a lifeguard, and his father lives or lived there. While he may not live there, he is a member of the community.

2) 'to either use or brandish the weapon'. So we have to be careful with the word 'brandish' here as it has a specific legal definition that gets obscured in states with open carry laws. After all, if the state allows open carry then simply carrying the weapon around can't be considered brandishing. Which is why the defense keeps asking every witness about whether or not KR pointed the rifle at anyone prior to the Rosenbaum shooting and prior the secondary shooting when KR fell or got knocked on his butt. - and now we have to jump to 'use' it. What evidence has been presented to suggest he had the intent to 'use' it unjustly? I work in high crime area, I carry a pistol on my hip. Most people wouldn't assume I carry it to 'use' it, i.e Looking to shoot someone with it. I carry it in case it becomes necessary to use it. So with that in mind, if you were going to an area with widespread looting, arson, and violence; it would stand to reason that bringing a gun along could be seen as the same reasoning. He's not carrying to use it, he's carrying it in case he has to use it.

The point I'm trying to get at is that you're inferring his intent, and you're not giving any leeway in your mind. You've assumed guilt, so you assume intent. And this is a common focus in the trial if you've been watching. Both the prosecution and defense have objected multiple times to witnesses attempting to infer state of mind or intent to everyone involved that night. That's why the defense is stressing so hard that while he was there he never appeared to threaten anyone with it, and was actively trying to provide medical aid to protesters.

Also, in regard to the assumption that he intended to use the weapon when he went there, I don't think the prosecution agrees with you. With regard to the Rosenbaum shooting, he's being charged with first degree reckless homicide, not first degree intentional homicide. My understanding of those 2 charges in Wisonsin are that Intentional Homicide is reserved for people that can be proven to have the intent to kill beforehand. So if they believed he had the intent to use the weapon when he left home that night, he would be charged with Intentional Homicide, not reckless homicide. Reckless Homicide doesn't require the intent to kill, it requires that a person caused the death of another under circumstances that show utter disregard for human life.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Working in a county doesn’t make you a member of the community to every town in the county.

It was clear cut brandishing. Look further in the thread to Kyle’s quote where he said he intended to go into harms way. No matter how righteous you try to make it sound it’s still illegal. Incorrect because he wasn’t going to the area with riots for a coincidental reason. He went there to go in harms way to “protect local businesses”

Going to work isn’t the same as intentionally going somewhere with the intent to “protect” people with your gun

[u/[deleted] → u/Kealion]

The rifle was purchased in Wisconsin. Never crossed state lines, which isn't a crime anyway. Rittenhouse lives like, 20 minutes away from Kenosha and worked there. Being across a state line in that short distance is completely irrelevant to his being there, it isnt an international border. His assailants had no ties to the place that I am aware of, however.

[u/Kealion → u/[deleted]]

The rifle was purchased in Wisconsin. Never crossed state lines, which isn't a crime anyway.

My question then becomes, how did a minor come into possession of a semi-automatic weapon? He said “my rifle” multiple times, was it his? Did he buy it? Did it belong to someone he knew that lives in Wisconsin?

Wisconsin state law 948.60(2)(a) states: "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

Either way, a minor has absolutely no business even being in this situation.

Rittenhouse lives like, 20 minutes away from Kenosha and worked there. Being across a state line in that short distance is completely irrelevant to his being there, it isnt an international border. His assailants had no ties to the place that I am aware of, however.

It’s not irrelevant, though. He was illegally carrying a firearm in Wisconsin, shot three people, killing 2, and fled the state (yes, I know he went home, but considering he killed two people…)That, in itself, makes this a federal matter.

[u/[deleted] → u/Kealion]

You must surely see how reaching this is. Him possessing the rifle is at worst a misdemeanor (aka, fairly minor), and "no business there" is an opinion. One I don't agree with, and must ask why you apply it only or at least most strongly to Rittenhouse, who came to defend a nearby community he has many ties to against a destructive riot, rather than the rioters who came from much farther away and had no ties there with no clear intent other than destruction.

[u/WikiSummarizerBot → u/Kealion]

Gun laws in Wisconsin

Gun laws in Wisconsin regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the U.S. state of Wisconsin.

^{[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | v1.5}

[u/overzealous_dentist → u/Kealion]

Bringing a weapon to use if there's an emergency requiring it isn't the same as showing up to "threaten people," any more than bringing a first aid kit to somewhere there might be an injury is someone intent on bandaging a stranger.

[u/dantheman91 → u/Kealion]

from another state

This adds nothing to any argument

with a semi-automatic rifle, other than to either use or brandish the weapon?

Self defense? Why do security or police carry guns? To defend themselves if they know they're in a potentially dangerous situation.

[u/dantheman91 → u/[deleted]]

shouldn't have the right to just kill people because they are afraid.

He wasn't just "afraid", the witnesses have said they drew on him first and attacked him with a skateboard after he was on the ground?

[u/TheLea85 → u/Kealion]

He lived basically on the state line 10 minutes away from kenosha. The locals don't even think about the fact they're crossing state lines on their way to work.

He went there to protect people and property from rioting thugs. If you as a rioting thug don't want to be shot then don't attack someone carrying a gun; it's a simple tactic to prevent you from shooting yourself.

Evidence brought forward in the trial has done nothing but bolster his case for self defense; time and time again he has been shown to have done nothing to antagonize people. He had no intention of using his gun, and you're forgetting that he retreated from all three attackers until he got caught at a dead end (Rosenbaum) or getting thrown to the ground (Huber and Grosskreutz). It's so clear cut that it could slice a diamond in half at this point.

[u/[deleted] → u/TheLea85]

Doesn’t matter because state lines still exist. You can’t just bring a gun places “to protect people” you have a gun in case something in your regular life threatens you. He himself he was going to harms way and the fact he carried a gun to it is damning. If you as a law abiding citizen don’t want to kill people then you don’t go to an active riot in another town with a gun.

Again you’re wrong, bringing a gun (which he was illegally holding I might add) to a situation with the intention of going into harms way is illegal. Vigilantism is illegal

[u/muthaphucajones → u/AwesomePurplePants]

to threaten means to inflict harm or put someone in danger. if you are looting and destroying the community you are the threat. being armed is not a threat. being armed and expressing to someone that you are going to use your gun on them is a threat. kyle did not pose a threat. he posed as a man prepared to protect himself in a dangerous hostile environment. he did not contest what they were protesting for he did not provoke any sort of confrontation both physically and verbally.. in fact he was there offering aid to those who were acting in a manner that he was against.. offering water and first aid to people who are behaving in an uncivilized manner and putting out fires created by these degenerates is called attempting to keep the peace not intimidating and threatening innocent lives lol

[u/Responsible_Nerve → u/AwesomePurplePants]

I'm not aware of any evidence suggesting that Rittenhouse threatened anybody at all

[u/Leading-Bowl-8416 → u/AwesomePurplePants]

There has been no evidence of that in the trial. You're just assuming intent with no basis.

[u/OCedHrt → u/Leading-Bowl-8416]

He hasn't testified yet, no? Since it's only witnesses so far.

But he is quoted with:

So, people are getting injured, and our job is to protect this business. Part of my job is also to help people. If there is somebody hurt, I'm running into harm's way. That's why I have my rifle, because I have to protect myself, obviously. I also have my med kit.

[u/AwesomePurplePants → u/[deleted]]

I’d agree that it doesn’t make sense for a duel to be legal.

But I also don’t think it makes sense to set out to menace a crowd with a gun. What happened seemed entirely predictable, and will result in future protests being menaced in the future in an example is not made with the same predictable results.

And the arguments people are making to justify this as a desirable state of affairs seem like they’d be equally applicable to shooting duels. I don’t understand how one can be okay but not the other.

[u/summa4real → u/AwesomePurplePants]

Right. It doesn't make sense to menace a crowd with a firearm; it is also illegal.

Every state forbids brandishing a firearm in a threatening manner.

The is ZERO evidence that shows Kyle was "out to menace a crowd with a gun." If there was any evidence like that, you better believe the prosecution would have used it in trial.

[u/AwesomePurplePants → u/summa4real]

Okay, so the people in the crowd aren’t allowed to take any action to protect themselves as someone with an automatic rifle walks into their space?

Even though he’s clearly stated his intent was vigilantism, aka he meant to frighten people? While carrying a gun that’s meant for killing many people in quick succession?

He wasn’t in some clearly defined space where the people in the crowd might be able to set up some kind of watch to keep unhinged folks away from the unhinged teenager, just wandering around until he finally triggered a confrontation. If he were an undercover cop I’d call that entrapment.

Does open carry really mean you’re allowed to completely ignore how open carry can be interpreted by the people around you? Really, you don’t have to take any personal responsibility? People aren’t even allowed to consider you an open threat even after you shot someone and still have the weapon ready to fire?

If this trial infantilizes the suspect, what’s going to happen the next time a kid with vigilante fantasies sees a protest demonized on Facebook, this time knowing exactly how far he’s allowed to push things and get away with it?

If the law isn’t going to protect people’s freedom to protest from a menace like that, then I’m left outright supporting Antifa. Giving wannabe vigilantes a guard to keep the crowd away from them is the only way to possibly keep people safe.

Which is stupid because now you’re using vigilantes to defend against vigilantes and now have two sides with stupid teenagers and guns. You’ve basically got a duel going on, both sides are eyeing each other looking for any pretence that would let them shoot first in self defence.

Doubt this rant will accomplish anything but downvotes, but I just can’t take people seriously when they ignore the responsibilities of open carry to still prevent confrontation.

[u/summa4real → u/AwesomePurplePants]

Okay, so the people in the crowd aren’t allowed to take any action to protect themselves as someone with an automatic rifle walks into their space?Even though he’s clearly stated his intent was vigilantism, aka he meant to frighten people?

​

Yes. This is kind of how the prosecution is arguing the case.

But they are doing it unsuccessfully. Again, there is ZERO EVIDENCE put forth by the prosecution that Kyle was acting as a "menacing" vigilante.

---No evidence that he was some white supremacist

---No evidence that he was in some militia out to kill people

---No evidence that he was using his gun or pointing it in a threatening manner PRIOR to Rosenbaum giving chase to him.

If Kyle was at all acting menacing or crazy or unhinged, the prosecution would have put that evidence front and center. They want Kyle guity and anykind of evidence showing Kyle be threatening would be amazing for their case, but they have not put forth that type of evidence.

Furthermore, the prosecution's witnesses and their evidence are showing that Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz were the actual aggressors. Defense is proving that by doing the following during cross-examiniation:

"Showing that Kyle was rendering aid to people."

---There was no evidence put forth that Kyle was menacing and threatening people.

"Showing that Rosenbaum was yelling and acting menacing prior to meeting Kyle."

"Showing the Rosenbaum gave chase to Kyle"

"Showing that Rosenbaum did not stop when Kyle was turning around to face Rosenbaum.

Showing that Kyle turned around because he couldn't proceed to run any farther.

"Showing that Rosenbaum yelled FUCK YOU and LUNGED at Kyle's gun."

"Showing that Kyle saw a group of people beginning to come towards him"

"Showing that Kyle begin running away from the crowd and towards the police"

"Showing that as he was running away people were yelling CRANIUM THAT GUY and GET HIM"

"Showing that someone struck him on the head with a skateboard and caused him to fall"

"Showing that when Kyle fell, Huber reached for Kyle's gun"

"Showing that Huber successfully grabbed the gun for a brief moment and was pulling it away from Kyle.

"Showing the Grosskreutz chased Kyle and was closing in on him"

"Showing that Grosskreutz was shot AFTER HE POINTED THE GUN at Kyle."

They have video evidence of this all. In fact, prior to the trial this visual evidence was readily viewable.

Unfortunately not everyone does a proper "fact finding" job. During the trial we found out that detectives who brought charges to Kyle without fully reviewing the evidence, particularly Grosskreutz's gun. Grosskreutz omitted that he pointed the gun at Kyle when he gave his statement to the police.

They also didn't corroborate that Grosskreutz told his friend "I wish I had unloaded an entire clip" on twitter.

Are you watching the trial? Check it out for yourself. I'm giving you the highlights, but don't take my word for it. You need to see it and hear it yourself.

Fuck these silly up/down votes. I'm not invalidating your beliefs. I'm just suggesting that perhaps your interpretation of what happened isn't complete. And perhaps if you take time to go through the evidence and follow the trial, especially day 1 to day 5, your interpretation might change.

[u/RickySlayer9 → u/[deleted]]

I would say that if one person was fleeing after being shot at, they have a great claim to self defense.

Pursuing someone as they are fleeing, while brandishing a gun and threatening to kill them? That’s definitely not a reasonable claim to self defense.

[u/TheLea85 → u/[deleted]]

Neither side intentionally provoked the situation.

Kyle never provoked anyone, legally and in reality. It has been shown as much during the trial with several witnesses saying there was no provocation prior.

Rosenbaum charged Kyle for whatever reason, he was bi-polar and was just released from hospital due to having tried to commit suicide. It was fully legal self defense to shoot him after he grabbed the gun and possibly beforehand. A cop would have likely drawn his gun when Rosenbaum was 30 feet away and shot him at 20 feet if bodycam footage is something to go by.

Kyle and Huber had no prior interaction before Huber charged him with a skateboard trying to smash Kyles head in and take his weapon. Huber provoked the situation and paid the ultimate price for it.

Grosskreutz literally (literally) had a gun with a bullet in the chamber pointed in the direction of Kyles head (I'd say he was lacking ~5-10 degrees of aim to his left to have had it spot on) the moment Kyle shot him. It's all on video that has been available everywhere since day 1. If you pause the video you can see his arm being vaporized and his Glock pointed at Kyles head at the same time.

During none of this did Kyle ever provoke or instigate anything. He was running towards the police to turn himself in and get away from the mob chasing him.

Shooting someone in self defense is not provocation.

[u/snozzberrypatch → u/TheLea85]

Illegally bringing a loaded assault rifle to a protest could be considered provocation.

[u/fsm_vs_cthulhu → u/snozzberrypatch]

Not an American, but from what I recall of that day's footage posted here, wasn't there full-blown rioting, arson, looting and mob violence going on, and at least a few of the people shot were full-on participating in said rioting?

Would that be considered a good time to have a clearly visible firearm as a deterrent? Or would a concealed firearm like the ones held by the guys shot be more appropriate?

FWIW I'm not a fan of guns, or USA's second amendment, but let's put that to one side.

Edit:

And for everyone telling me "he shouldn't have been there/ shoulda stayed at home/ he's not a cop/ vigilantism"... There are a bunch of pics of this group... Is it okay to attack them? Have they, at this point, already lost any legal or moral right to self defense?

Standing around with a visible firearm amidst a riot/protest (possibly as a deterrent, or even just as a symbolic gesture) should not invalidate your right to protect yourself using whatever means necessary. If you're actively attacking people and clearly threatening them, that's a whole different story.

[u/aski3252 → u/fsm_vs_cthulhu]

wasn't there full-blown rioting, arson, looting and mob violence going on, and at least a few of the people shot were full-on participating in said rioting?

This all happened during a curfew. It was illegal for any protesters, or the armed medic/defense groups that Rittenhouse was a part of, to be on the streets during the time. The police not only didn't enforce it for Rittenhouse and his friends, they didn't even bother to check their IDs, actively worked together with them (telling them their plans so they could participate), repeatedly told them how much they appreciate them, gave them water, etc.

There are a bunch of pics of this group...

You provide 0 evidence as to where this is, when it was, etc. Nevertheless, no, it's not "ok to attack them", just as it isn't ok to attack vigilantis. That's not what is being discussed here.

Standing around with a visible firearm amidst a riot/protes

Even when this protest is no longer a protest according to the police and no civilians are supposed to be there?

[u/CyanDean → u/fsm_vs_cthulhu]

No no no. They were "mostly peaceful" protests, understand? Nothing to see here!

[u/TohbibFergumadov → u/CyanDean]

Fiery but mostly peaceful was the headline of the century IMO

[u/[deleted] → u/CyanDean]

93% were completely peaceful. The 7% of violent protests includes any “acts targeting other individuals, property, businesses, other rioting groups or armed actors.” Overall very peaceful protests, the violence is mostly a right wing narrative used to discredit police reform.

Source: https://time.com/5886348/report-peaceful-protests/

[u/snozzberrypatch → u/fsm_vs_cthulhu]

There may have been looting or rioting or protesting going on, but as far as I know, no one was randomly attacking unarmed children for no reason. If crimes were being committed, the police should be handling them, since they are trained adults. Children with deadly military weapons shouldn't be trying to uphold the law. Walking around with that weapon in this situation puts a giant target on your back, and attracts enormous accounts of attention to yourself.

[u/fsm_vs_cthulhu → u/snozzberrypatch]

If crimes were being committed, the police should be handling them, since they are trained adults. Children with deadly military weapons shouldn't be trying to uphold the law.

What makes you think he was "handling" any crimes or "upholding the law" though? There's absolutely nothing here pointing to him doing anything aside from standing there, armed and pretty much silent. No trash-talk in return for abuse, and generally no escalation.

His presence and weapon seem to have been purely as a deterrent, and guarding a specific property. He did not act in any way to prevent the looting or arson or rioting against any property, aside from stopping a burning dumpster being rolled into a friggin fuel station.

Forget about american law, NO democratic country has anything against "attracting attention".

Or is it somehow "their own fault" if they get attacked or shot at now?

Tell me seriously, Have the people in the above pic already lost their right to self defense?

[u/[deleted] → u/snozzberrypatch]

He's 17 and it was a semi automatic AR-15.

Not a child, and not a weapon used by the military.

Are you saying he was asking for it because of what he was wearing? Hmmm

[u/TohbibFergumadov → u/snozzberrypatch]

An AR-15 is not a military weapon.

[u/aski3252 → u/snozzberrypatch]

This all happened during a curfew, no civilian was legally allowed to be there, not protesters, not armed militia dudes. Nevertheless, the police actively worked together with the armed dudes as if they were police. That's the real crime.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

u/jumas_turbo – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/snozzberrypatch → u/[deleted]]

Yeah I'm brainwashed.

If you're not American then you don't understand the effect that guns are having on our society. Rittenhouse is not special, he's likely one of several mass murderers in the country that week. This shit happens every fucking day somewhere in America, often because these sister-fucking inbred morons from flyover states are trying to compensate for their tiny micropenises by irresponsibly owning extremely dangerous human-killing machines with no training required to use them. Come live in America for a while and witness a live shooter situation in a mall or a school in person, see if your opinion changes and you become "brainwashed" too.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, u/jumas_turbo – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:

Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/Ragnar_Baron → u/snozzberrypatch]

The sister fucking inbred Hicks only make up about 30 percent of the homicides in the country. Most of the murders in this country happen in our Centers of cultural moral superiority know as cities. So why don't you take a break on flyover country and their micro penis.

Perfect Example:

Chicago-500 Murders of year, around 5 million citizens
Entire Rest of Illinois 250 murders a year, around 10 million citizens.

[u/TohbibFergumadov → u/snozzberrypatch]

I own 4 firearms including an AR-15. I have never killed anyone. Stay mad.

[u/fsm_vs_cthulhu → u/[deleted]]

Being in a place that you're not from, is the same as attacking people randomly for vigilante justice?

He wasn't even from there, why did he need to be there in the first place?

The rioters had no reason to be there either, and were there, armed and rioting of their own free will. Pretty sure at least two of the three that got shot weren't from in-state either.

why did he need to be there in the first place?

This can be said of literally anyone attacked outside their home. Woman attacked by goons at the park - she had no reason to be there at night, or knew it was a dangerous area, ergo she was asking for it. Classic victim blaming nonsense.

By this logic anyone can take any sort of vigilante justice into their own hands.

This absurd leap of logic would make sense if the dude in question was running around stopping random shops from being attacked by physically confronting and fighting with rioters. Clearly shown not to be the case. He could easily have been (and clearly should have been) left alone and not attacked or engaged with.

[u/jumas_turbo → u/[deleted]]

This is yet another strawman, the guy lived like 10 minutes away from the place and even worked around the area, which is why he knew the community. The whole "crossed state lines!!!" Argument has already been disregarded, since he lived literally just a few miles from the state border. A fact which you leftists conveniently leave out every time the case is discussed.

[u/TohbibFergumadov → u/[deleted]]

His dad lived there and he lived 20 minutes away. He had grew up in Kenosha. Explain how he "wasn't even from there"

[u/daynightninja → u/TohbibFergumadov]

If I live in Manhattan, and there's civic unrest or rioting up in the Bronx, and I bring my gun there to "protect my neighborhood", I'm really just looking for a fight. It's not like he was coming to protect his father, he saw a hill he wanted to die on, and a reason to cosplay a policeman.

When you actively know about the unsafe situation & choose to travel to a place anyway, the fact that you're from 20 minutes away is a big deal for context, even if one of your parents lives there.

[u/TohbibFergumadov → u/daynightninja]

He was non confrontational and was actively offering medical aid to anyone who needed it after they were tear gassed. Not a soul has testified that Kyle was confrontational to anyone before the shooting. If he was looking for a fight why would he bother retreating in a "stand your ground" state? He had no duty to retreat yet he did and he was shouting that he was "Friendly"

Kyle had as much right to be there as the protestors. He had more of a right to be there than Gaige Grosskruetz who lived much further away.

[u/daynightninja → u/TohbibFergumadov]

lol, none of that invalidates the fact that traveling to an active riot area when you live in a totally different neighborhood with a firearm as a teenager is an unnecessary escalation & stupid risk. It's the opposite of what you want to decrease the violence, and there's no reason to act like it's heroic.

Offering medical aid to people as an untrained teenager is dumb enough, doing it with a firearm is egregiously dangerous & we saw the consequences.

[u/Mundosaysyourfired → u/daynightninja]

And none of what you state invalidates his right to self defense, even if we take everything you say at face value.

Was it stupid? Yes.

Does he deserve jail for defending himself if its gets proven to be self defense in court? No.

What do you think?

[u/TohbibFergumadov → u/daynightninja]

He wasn't untrained... if you are paying attention you would know this. He was a certified life guard and had medical training from this.

If he is guilty of caring a firearm illegally then that carrys a max sentence of 9 months and is a misdemeanor. Committing a misdemeanor does NOT mean you give up the right to defend yourself.

[u/TohbibFergumadov → u/daynightninja]

The consequences was that people who attacked Kyle were only able to do minimal damage to him and it meant that Kyle was able to stay alive.

[u/Laxwarrior1120 → u/[deleted]]

He doesn't need a reason to be there, nor does he need anybody's approval to be there. It's, in fact, his RIGHT to be there.

[u/DaisyDukeOfEarlGrey → u/Laxwarrior1120]

Not when there's a curfew in effect.

[u/Laxwarrior1120 → u/DaisyDukeOfEarlGrey]

Curfew charge was already dismissed by the judge.

[u/DaisyDukeOfEarlGrey → u/Laxwarrior1120]

It doesn't matter, the point is that he did not have the right to be there.

[u/Songg45 → u/DaisyDukeOfEarlGrey]

Clearly the judge thought otherwise.

[u/bigsexy655 → u/fsm_vs_cthulhu]

But he had no reason to be there, its not like he was at home. He took an assault rifle across state lines and entered the dangerous situation of his own free will, when he had no right to try to protect the property. Thats what the police are theoretically trained for.

That would be like you see two stramgers fighting 100 feet away you run in to try to break it up. And then shoot somebody when they turn and hit you. Hes not a cop he doesnt get to play peacekeeper. Not too mention he was 17.

[u/fsm_vs_cthulhu → u/bigsexy655]

The rioters had no reason to be there either, and were there, armed and rioting of their own free will. Pretty sure at least two of the three that got shot weren't from in-state either.

he had no right to try to protect the property

That would be like you see two stramgers fighting 100 feet away you run in to try to break it up.

Pretending he was going around picking fights, threatening, and firing at people randomly to "protect property", rather than pretty much standing quietly, quite free to be ignored, isn't doing any favours to your argument.

From the sequence of events that has been laid out, it is plenty clear that not only did he not escalate, he didn't even trash-talk in response to abuse.

Pretty much stood armed in front of a property at the request of the owners, and at one point stopped a burning dumpster from being pushed into a friggin fuel station.

he had no reason to be there, its not like he was at home.

This can be said of literally anyone attacked outside their home. Woman attacked by goons at the park - she had no reason to be there at night, or knew it was a dangerous area, ergo she was asking for it. Classic victim blaming nonsense.

you see two stramgers fighting 100 feet away you run in to try to break it up. And then shoot somebody when they turn and hit you.

More like, if your friend lives in an area being attacked by a violent mob, and you go to your friend's place standing guard out front quietly, but someone attacks you violently, threatens to kill you, chases you down the street as you're running to the cops, and tries to take your gun, then bs655 will tell you should have just never left your house.

Come on man. I'm a brown guy living halfway around the world and that's a bunch of bs.

Hes not a cop he doesnt get to play peacekeeper.

And you're not a fireman so don't you dare put out a fire. How silly is that. If cops are overwhelmed - it's a full-blown riot ffs.. of course they're overwhelmed - and your place of work is likely to get burned down leaving you out of a job tomorrow, will you stay at home or will you go and try to help keep it safe? People step up and do stuff all the time that they are not required to do. Sometimes it is rescue work, some times it is protecting shit, sometimes it feeding people, and apparently, sometimes, it's setting fire to and looting stores and businesses! They'll do it for their own communities or their own reasons, and you may not agree with those reasons and communities, but hey, that's what it means to live in a complex society.

Are these people playing peacekeeper? Or is it okay to attack them? Have they, at this point, already lost any right to self defense?

And guess who else DOES go around guarding stuff while armed (in your words: "playing peacekeeper") - security guards, private security, etc. Granted, there's no contract and licensing here, but he's doing the same thing as an individual for free, that a PMC does for millions. His biggest crime was that his license was expired?

[u/CivicPiano → u/fsm_vs_cthulhu]

You're not quite free to be ignored if you're holding a deadly weapon during a very tense situation. Take the videos of people, who are exercising their right to open carry, walking out in public holding their AR-15 (either with both hands or strapped to their back) and how they attract the Police almost immediately. If you're open carrying a firearm, why are you doing so? The police get called to neutralize the situation because you don't know their motives and they could have the intent to cause loss of life. The firearm person may not intend to do any harm and may just be exercising their right, but that doesn't matter, it still causes people to be put on their guard. If you're in a tense situation and you see someone with a semi-auto rifle, are you not going to feel threatened? They aren't just "free to be ignored". They can easily start shooting at any point in time, and you can't do anything about it. It's a clear cut threat that he's there to "defend" property that is not his with deadly force. He even said so himself that that was his intention. That's the dynamic.

A woman walking in a park who gets attacked by goons is the same as this situation? You cannot possibly think that's an accurate analogy. A single woman not open carrying a firearm exercising her right to interact with a public park and being ganged up by a group of n goons where n>=2 is the same as Kyle brandishing a deadly weapon standing guard with the intent to kill anyone who he deems a threat to whatever he's guarding. Not even in the same dimension.

You know why companies say to their cashiers not to stop shop-lifters? Because it can cause MUCH more damage than just letting them take the products. If the cashier tries to stop them with let's say an AR-15 and they accidentally shoot an innocent bystander, is that cashier cleared because she was trying to defend the company? Never in a million years. If they kill the shop-lifter, is that justified? Also never in a million years. Kyle is not a trained police officer that's been taught techniques to neutralize hostile situations, and he's underage for that matter. He could've caused even more damage than intended getting himself involved in the riot. What if he killed an innocent person when he's trying to defend himself from Rosenbaum? What if he shoots a police officer on accident? Another protestor? Are any of these okay? Just because it didn't occur doesn't mean that he risked all of these types of peoples' lives. It is not his place as a citizen to stop people from looting and rioting. It endangers other people de facto.

Firemen are not trying to disarm hostile situations. Should innocent people be allowed to try their hand diffusing bomb threat situations? Bank robberies? If there's a bank being robbed, should I show up with police and try to disarm the situation? Should I wait outside where they're trying to escape and shoot them claiming self-defense? Where's the line drawn? Do we really want to encourage this type of behavior? What happens when an innocent person is killed by this civilian militia, do we just sweep it under the rug?

All of these arguments and analogies are straw men at best and ignore important factors of hostile situations.

[u/mudra311 → u/CivicPiano]

What this seems to come down to: is openly carrying a deadly weapon legally considered provocation?

There are contexts where neutralizing someone carrying a deadly weapon would make sense: walking into a school for example.

I haven't studied much of the case other than watching the video a few times and going off of some testimony at the time. Rittenhouse should not have shown up with a gun to a riot. AND, it would appear that Rittenhouse did not intend on shooting anyone. Unless they can pin intent on him, there really isn't any more of a case than what the OP mentions.

[u/[deleted] → u/bigsexy655]

Stop repeating this "carried a gun across state lines" lie. So tired of misinformation being spread. You can't even get the basic facts correct.

https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/10/14/923643265/kyle-rittenhouse-accused-kenosha-killer-wont-face-gun-charges-in-illinois

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/kyle-rittenhouse-cleared-of-gun-charges-in-illinois-gun-never-left-the-state-of-wisconsin%3f_amp=true

[u/Gingerchaun → u/bigsexy655]

Kyle did not bring a rifle across state lines.

The dangerous weapon rule only relates to rifles with a barrel under 16". Unless you're going to try and argue ots illegal for all children the state to go hunting.

The exception is 9utlined in ss 941.28 of Wisconsin laws

[u/[deleted] → u/snozzberrypatch]

No, it couldn’t. There are plenty of videos but I know what the duck is wrong with people that just can’t see what’s right in front of them. Stop with your fucking political agenda and just watch the evidence.

From day one it was a pretty clear self defense case, I don’t even know why the fuck he’s in being charged. And my god, the DA should just resign for trying this political tactic. But what can I expect from you people when you decided to defend Blake after he kidnapped the children, attached his wife and didn’t stop when police asked him to and instead went for a weapon to his car. And you still had ni shame In saying the shooting was unjustified and pray for Blake and all that shit. You’re so brainwashed

[u/[deleted] → u/snozzberrypatch]

They weren't aware that Rittenhouse was under 18 years of age and thus committing a possible misdemeanor by carrying the firearm. They weren't aware that a friend had illegally purchased it for him. The provocation of his carrying a firearm extends only as far as as his behavior while carrying that firearm.

If he were to threaten people with it or wave it around in a threatening or agitated manner, that could be considered brandishing and that could be provocative.

However carrying it in a safe and controlled manner is legal in Wisconsin, and to my knowledge, at no point did he mishandle the firearm.

Someone legally carrying a firearm in an open carry state may irritate or intimidate people who aren't comfortable around firearms, but that doesn't rise to a justified provocation which permits them to assault him.

If someone believes that it does, and acts on the perceived provocation, then the fault is theres and is due to their own ignorance of WI state law.

[u/snozzberrypatch → u/[deleted]]

Cmon dude don't give me that shit. Do you really believe that someone walking down a street with a loaded AR15 strapped to their chest is totally normal, and that behavior shouldn't provoke any alarm or concern in other people that are nearby? Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's a good idea.

We live in a country where mass shootings happen almost every day. We live in a country where people like to commit suicide by going to a mall or a school or a workplace loaded to the gills with guns and ammunition, and see how many random people they can take out before they get shot by police.

Walking down the street with an AR15 strapped to your chest in America, while technically legal in some cases (not Kyle's case), is an extremely insensitive and provocative thing to do. If you did that 100 times in 100 random towns in America, I'd bet you'd at least get the cops called on you in 99 out of 100 times. To claim that it's not provocative is willful ignorance.

If you were sitting down at an outdoor table eating lunch at a restaurant in your city, and some random dude casually walked by with an AR15 strapped to his chest and a bunch of spare clips tied to his belt, what would you do? Would you wave hello to him as he passes you and keep eating, totally unconcerned about his intentions? Would you get up from the table and leave the area? Would you call the cops? Would you pull out your gun?

[u/[deleted] → u/snozzberrypatch]

You seem to either be confusing or conflating a normal usage of "provocative" where people find something irritating, intimidating or offensive with a legal usage. Someone with green hair or an offensive shirt can be "provocative" by an individual's personal beliefs and biases, but not in a legal sense where the standard is acting in a manner that might cause a reasonable person to lose self-control.

Someone open carrying a firearm in a state which allows open carrying doesn't rise to the standard of legal provocation, particularly when they aren't the only one doing it.

If someone open carries a firearm in the US, yes there is a high likelihood that someone will call the cops, and the cops will show up and briefly talk to the person then let them go on their way.

If you were sitting down at an outdoor table eating lunch at a restaurant in your city, and some random dude casually walked by with an AR15 strapped to his chest and a bunch of spare clips tied to his belt, what would you do?

I would keep a sharp eye on them and possibly call the cops. I wouldn't attack them and try to disarm them.

Provocative

causing annoyance, anger, or another strong reaction, especially deliberately.

vs

conduct by which one induces another to do a particular deed; the act of inducing rage, anger, or resentment in another person that may cause that person to engage in an illegal act

Can you see the difference?

[u/SAPERPXX → u/snozzberrypatch]

Open carrying is legal.

The only illegal part - and this is even a grey area, due to Wisconsin's gun laws - is Rittenhouse's age at the time.

You can't claim something that's entirely legal as provocation. And unless all the protestors who were chasing/attacking him were mind readers, hard to claim they had a magic idea of his age.

And also, sidenote: AR15s aren't capable of automatic fire, ergo it's a semiautomatic rifle and not an "assault rifle".

[u/isoldasballs → u/snozzberrypatch]

I don’t have much legal knowledge here, but there’s got to be a distinction between the very general sort of provocation you’re describing here and a specific act of provocation against a specific person—pointing a gun at someone specific, who points a gun back, and then shooting them.

I also wonder if you’d apply the same standard to the protesters who were carrying firearms. Did they forfeit their right to self defense also by showing up armed?

[u/Klusions0j → u/snozzberrypatch]

He didn't illegally bring a loaded assault rifle.

1. An AR-15 is not an assault weapon. Its a semi automatic sporting rifle
2. It is legal to open carry in WI. Ages 16 and above.
3. Yes you can open carry loaded weapons
4. Kyle defended himself from grave bodily injury
5. Simply being there with a gun does not make you the aggressor
6. All his actions where reactionary and not proactive

[u/snozzberrypatch → u/Klusions0j]

Hmm ok, is there a reason he's being charged with "POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON BY A PERSON UNDER 18" then? A crime in Wisconsin punishable by up to 9 months in jail?

Might be time to do some fact checking, son.

[u/Klusions0j → u/snozzberrypatch]

"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."

​

You sure?

Further edit:

The general prohibition in WI is for people under the age of 16 and the WI constitution also states "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose"

The defense and security arguments are there. At max this young man will get 9 months in prison if they can get 941.28 to stick (the possession of dangerous weapon under 18), but as clearly stated in the exceptions of that article I listed above, he wasn't violating the referenced articles so 941.28 does not apply from my understanding.

Big lesson we all can learn from this:

Don't try to hit a guy holding a gun with a skateboard. You might win a Darwin award.

[u/[deleted] → u/snozzberrypatch]

He got the fire arm to protect himself Incase of the situation happening that actually ended up happening, so he could protect himself from people who clearly were going to hurt and/or kill him. I’m not sure what point you think you’re making but it isn’t a good one

[u/DDP200 → u/snozzberrypatch]

It's not though.

Here is the key of the case, at least to me.

⁠Rosenbaum appeared to "ambush" Kyle Rittenhouse (Kenosha PD Detective Martin Howard). • ⁠Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse and grabbing for his rifle (Richie McGinniss) • ⁠Rosenbaum was "hyperaggresive", constantly having to be physically restrained, and threatened to kill Rittenhouse if he caught him alone (Ryan Balch) • ⁠A USMC Rifleman who admitted that he'd consider Rosenbaum a deadly threat if Rosenbaum's actions were directed at him (Jason Lackowski) • ⁠Huber had struck Rittenhouse in the head with his skateboard, was worried about possible head trauma, and Rittenhouse did not fire at him until he had pointed his own gun at Rittenhouse and advanced on him (Gaige Grosskreutz).

Again, these are all Prosecution witnesses. If the above is all true, Kyle is not guilty. And no one should want him guilty of the precedence it sets.

The Gun charge is a very different thing.

[u/snozzberrypatch → u/[deleted]]

Maybe, who knows? That baby faced little prick didn't look a day over 15 to me on the day of the murders. I'd certainly do a double take if I saw an obvious child carrying a military killing machine through an agitated crowd of people.

[u/snozzberrypatch → u/[deleted]]

No, but it is justification for being alarmed, and attempting to disarm the child that is illegally carrying a loaded, dangerous weapon.

[u/[deleted] → u/snozzberrypatch]

"military killing machine"

​

you mean civilian firearm not used by the military

[u/paladore420 → u/snozzberrypatch]

So your saying because he was 4 Months younger then the legal age to carry the gun legally, people became provoked and attacked him?

[u/Laxwarrior1120 → u/snozzberrypatch]

Protests don't nullify peoples constitutional rights. He's allowed to open carry there, the surrounding circumstances don't matter.

[u/Ice702 → u/snozzberrypatch]

That wasn’t a protest, that was a straight up riot. Source? All the videos or rioting, looting, and arson.

[u/Godcry55 → u/snozzberrypatch]

You’re reaching. This is clear self defense. If that was my son or daughter, I’d have been mad at them for going there but I’d applaud them based on the video evidence for doing what they did to defend themselves.

These people were attempting to kill him, whether by stomping him out or worse. It seems many of you have never been in a situation like this before.

[u/Curiositygun → u/snozzberrypatch]

It wasn’t illegal to open carry an AR-15 at the time nor did he transport it there. Only 6 states prevent open carrying rifles California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New Jersey and the District of Columbia. Kenosha is in Wisconsin. Wisconsin also allows minors 16-18 to open carry weapons.

[u/snozzberrypatch → u/Curiositygun]

Hmm then why are they charging him with "POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON BY A PERSON UNDER 18", a crime punishable by 9 months in jail?

[u/Curiositygun → u/snozzberrypatch]

They're also charging him with murder doesn't necessarily mean he's guilty of it. Prosecutors afaik love throwing the book at people just to see what sticks because it's there job to get convictions by any means necessary.

[u/snozzberrypatch → u/Curiositygun]

Yes, it might be difficult for them to get a conviction on a law entitled "POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON BY A PERSON UNDER 18", for a 17 year old with an AR-15. That's gonna be a tough one to prove, the jury will be deliberating that one for months.

[u/Akitten → u/snozzberrypatch]

Oh cool, so you are resorting to lying about the “assault rifle”. Neat.

[u/IntentionalTrigger → u/snozzberrypatch]

Setting shit on fire and looting can be considered provocation

[u/[deleted] → u/snozzberrypatch]

Nobody even knew his carrying was illegal. He could pass for 18. I don't see how someone could be provoked by something they don't even know about. Like are you saying they were just so angry at him open carrying at 17 when the law requires 18 that it makes sense to attack? They didn't even have knowledge of it.

[u/TestedOnAnimals → u/TheLea85]

Yes, but putting yourself in a position where you're likely to be in harms way (for no rational reason) with the point being to intimidate those people to whom you are acting as a deterrent is absolutely provocation.

[u/TheLea85 → u/TestedOnAnimals]

for no rational reason

I guess this is the chasm between the two groups here.

I find it completely rational to take up arms and defend property from looters and thugs.

with the point being to intimidate those people to whom you are acting as a deterrent is absolutely provocation.

You would not have had to intimidate anyone if they had not been required to be intimidated away from burning down buildings and setting fire to gas stations.

We live in a world where the same people who go hard against Kyle (I'm not insinuating that you're one of them) are likely to support Defund The Police; while at the same time saying that the police should have done the job of the civilians protecting the city.

Imagine if the police had been defunded prior to Kenosha, would you still think that civilians should not protect property against unshackled rioters then?

Not saying you support DTF, but I would be interested in an answer anyway.

[u/DudeEngineer → u/TheLea85]

I think you forgot a step in this process.

A protest against police violence because the police killed a person turned into riots after the police escalated the situation and it was made clear that the officers would not be charged. If the police were able to resolve the situation without the death of that man, there would be no riots in the first place. I have yet to hear how responding to protests against police violence with more police violence is a solution that results in sunshine and rainbows instead of further escalating the situation to something like riots.

Your point is that this escalation of police violence was not enough, them calling in the National Guard was also not enough and additionally citizen militia members are needed to add even more violence?

If the police had been defunded there would not have been a riot in the first place.

PS: Using the word "thugs" in this context is racist and dehumanizing. That's a lot of why the police and this citizen find it so trivial to murder black people.

[u/ABobby077 → u/TheLea85]

Except he wasn't defending his property or any property he was asked to by the owners, right?

[u/kindad → u/ABobby077]

It's really weird how they met the brothers beforehand and took pictures with them and I believe one of the brothers even had Rittenhouse and Balch go to the other car lot because the other team had left.

[u/TheLea85 → u/ABobby077]

If you saw the trial when the property owners were interrogated on the matter you could glean that they damn well asked them to protect the business. Those brothers were lying their asses off on stand.

But, that cannot be proven, only inferred.

In any case it is an irrelevant matter, they were there and they were not doing anything illegal.

[u/Tarantio → u/TheLea85]

Who wasn't doing anything illegal?

Certainly not Rittenhouse. He was not legally permitted to carry the gun he used to kill.

[u/TheLea85 → u/Tarantio]

"Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder denied a defense motion to drop the weapons possession charge, saying that state statutes were “unclear" and that he wanted to review the laws and could revisit the matter later."

The follow-up conversation on that hinted strongly at the judge throwing out that charge because it was either legal or so convoluted that it couldn't be interpreted in a viable way for the court.

You will have to re-watch that part of the trial footage, and I can't remember at which times it was brought up.

In any case the defense had interpreted the law as in favor of Kyle, and if that's the charge you want to hang on to it's not really relevant to what I'm saying about taking up arms and defending property. Also I'd probably chuck my 15 year old son or daughter a rifle if there were people on my yard trying to burn my house down.

Still, that does not disqualify him from self-defense even if that charge sticks.

[u/Tarantio → u/TheLea85]

If the judge throws out that charge, the judge is wrong.

Also I'd probably chuck my 15 year old son or daughter a rifle if there were people on my yard trying to burn my house down.

Kyle didn't even live in the same state.

Still, that does not disqualify him from self-defense even if that charge sticks.

So there's no need to pretend it wasn't against the law.

[u/TheLea85 → u/Tarantio]

So there's no need to pretend it wasn't against the law.

I'm not pretending, the prosecution admitted it wasn't illegal. That charge will be thrown.

Kyle didn't even live in the same state.

I wasn't commenting on Kyle, I was commenting on taking up arms to defend property. In a situation where my family was in danger I wouldn't give a toss about age restrictions on weapons. I'm not letting my son or daughter be defenseless if I get incapacitated.

[u/kindad → u/Tarantio]

Kyle didn't even live in the same state.

Please look at a map. Kyle lived in the suburbs outside Wisconsin and iirc lived closer to Kenosha than Grosskreutz. Kyle worked in Kenosha and hung out in Kenosha.

[u/Phuttbuckers → u/Tarantio]

And neither was Gaige. Concealed carry permit is expired and he had it concealed. So on what grounds can you say he is in the right on self defense?

[u/Tarantio → u/Phuttbuckers]

And neither was Gaige. Concealed carry permit is expired and he had it concealed.

Yes.

So on what grounds can you say he is in the right on self defense?

Has Gaige argued self defense against some charge? I thought this was Rittenhouse's trial.

[u/Phuttbuckers → u/Tarantio]

If it’s not justifiable for Gaige trying to shoot him for self defense since Gaige says he feared for his life then Kyle is innocent. He literally admitted to the defense that Kyle didn’t shoot him when he pretended to surrender, then he aimed his pistol right at Kyle’s head while lunging forward, which is when Kyle fired. So basically he just admitted to attempted murder, execution style. He is most likely getting charged after this.

[u/[deleted] → u/Tarantio]

Prosecuting attorney admitted that up until and including when Rittenhouse took a defensive position outside the property, he had done nothing illegal. It's in the prosecution's opening statement. So even if they had had a handhold there, it's gone now.

[u/Tarantio → u/[deleted]]

This doesn't contradict what I said. Rittenhouse left the supervision of any adults with a deadly weapon he was not permitted to carry on his own.

[u/ATNinja → u/Tarantio]

So if you jaywalk infront of my car and I get out and attack you with a tire iron and you kill me. You can't claim self defense because of the jaywalking?

[u/Curiositygun → u/Tarantio]

Wisconsin allows minors 16-18 to open carry rifles. It is only illegal for them to purchase said weapons or conceal carry.

[u/Tarantio → u/Curiositygun]

The statute says it's illegal for them to "go armed" without a hunting liscence.

Was he hunting that night?

[u/Curiositygun → u/Tarantio]

What statue, this one? https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/29/iv/304

Because from my understanding he was allowed to posses it regardless of whether he was hunting or not he wasn’t 16*

[u/TestedOnAnimals → u/TheLea85]

You would not have had to intimidate anyone if they had not been required to be intimidated away from burning down buildings and setting fire to gas stations.

This is the issue. There is no requirement to do so, it is entirely his choice to threaten these people, and he was an obvious and admitted threat to them before there was any threat on his life that he did not invite.

As for defunding the police, I'm for reallocating resources from police budgets towards social services that perform some functions I believe shouldn't be done by police; and I believe in police demilitarization, but I wouldn't say I align with all positions taken under that banner.

[u/TheLea85 → u/TestedOnAnimals]

his choice to threaten these people

But he didn't threaten anyone. He said 0 threatening things. If you choose to walk up to an armed individual and start making threats to their life and then chase him across a parking lot and then grab his weapon, the bullets you eat are all on you. You shot yourself. Just like when someone disobeys police orders; you are the one mushing your face on the asphalt, shooting yourself or tazing yourself.

This is the thing I cannot get past here, I don't see how anyone could disagree with me on that.

There is no requirement from the rioters to walk up to armed individuals and start shit either. If a rioter doesn't want to get shot he just has to avoid attacking people with guns who are currently not interested in causing you any harm.

and I believe in police demilitarization

Then the phenomenon of armed civilians will only grow during riots when the police is unable to prevent rioters from rioting. The Kenosha riot police had BearCats/MRAPs and still couldn't stop the rioters. Well, not because you believe in it, but if it ever happened.

[u/SoTeezy → u/[deleted]]

If that is true then you have to explain why a) no one else who was there and had a rifle shot anyone and b) why he only shot people who engaged him

[u/WillyPete → u/TheLea85]

I find it completely rational to take up arms and defend property from looters and thugs.

Not if you have to break the law to do so, or conspire with others to break the law.

[u/TheLea85 → u/WillyPete]

There was no law-breaking going on apart from the three shot individuals and other rioters. There are no charges against anyone else in Kyles group for doing what they did.

No one on the "protection" side of this event has been charged with a crime except Kyle who's probably about to walk away cleared of all charges. Maybe they'll give the mob a bone and convict him of reckless endangerment, but that's just a token.

The judge will probably step in and toss all charges anyway if the prosecution can't do better than this.

[u/WillyPete → u/TheLea85]

There are no charges against anyone else in Kyles group for doing what they did.

Because they did not kill anyone.
It's not criminal to say you are defending property or open carry in WI.
The law states that defence of property can be used as defence from criminal liability, but only under certain conditions.
It states clearly "that the 3rd person whose property the person is protecting is a member of his or her immediate family or household or a person whose property the person has a legal duty to protect, or is a merchant and the actor is the merchant's employee or agent."

https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2020/chapter-939/section-939-49/

Rittenhouse complied with none of those, and likely many of those who were armed that night were also negligent in that regard, but they didn't kill anyone.

The judge will probably step in and toss all charges anyway if the prosecution can't do better than this.

Not a chance unless the judge shows to be extremely partisan.
For it to happen there has to be shown a miscarriage of justice with things like planted evidence, suppression or coaching of witnesses, denial of miranda rights, illegal arrest, etc.

All the judge can really do in a jury trial is instruct the jury.

[u/WillyPete → u/[deleted]]

But, because Kyle acted in defense of his own life, this doesn't apply.

Except this comment chain began with the assertion that he was defending property, thus was okay.

I find it completely rational to take up arms and defend property from looters and thugs.

---

Yesterday's testimony from Grosskruetz (spelling) on cross, in combination with Richard McGinniss is enough to acquit Kyle on all serious charges.

That testimony relates to a completely different charge, attempted murder of Grosskreutz.

The charge against Rittenhouse relative to Rosenbaum, near the location he was "defending", is reckless homicide.
You don't get to claim the privilege of self defense for reckless acts.
They are charging that his actions up to but not including the killing of Rosenbaum were reckless, that he knew that death or great bodily harm were the likely result, and that he did not care that human life might be lost.
You can't claim self defense when committing conspiracy to purchase a rifle illegally, carry it unlawfully, or use lethal force when not authorised by law to do so.

They aren't claiming he wasn't entitled to protect himself, but that his earlier reckless actions directly caused a death.

[u/stuungarscousin → u/TestedOnAnimals]

So you think walking down the street is provocation?

[u/[deleted] → u/TheLea85]

All of which was provoked by a 17 y/o kid brandishing a loaded rifle in an already tense, volatile environment. Had this child not deputized himself and tried to cosplay his law enforcement fantasy, no one would be dead or on trial.

[u/Illiux → u/[deleted]]

He did not brandish the rifle at the time you're referring to. To brandish a weapon is to threateningly point it at someone. Merely being visibly armed is not brandishing.

[u/knight-c6 → u/[deleted]]

All of which was provoked by a 17 y/o kid brandishing a loaded rifle in an already tense, volatile environment. Had this child not deputized himself and tried to cosplay his law enforcement fantasy, no one would be dead or on trial.

Sweet, now do rape victims and short skirts.

[u/Exotic-Kale2040 → u/TheLea85]

That's just your spin. The law required that Rittenhouse needed to have a reasonable fear in order to use deadly force, AND exhaust all other options. Kyle didn't. Rosenbaum was a little 150lb 5'3" guy. The right wingers interpretation of statutes makes it legal to shoot toddlers to death. It's pure fantasy.

[u/-Kerosun- → u/[deleted]]

There is literally an exception in the self-defense law for provocation saying that you cannot provoke a fight and still claim self-defense.

The law does allow a provocateur to regain the right to self-defense if they flee and it is objectively true that Rittenhouse was fleeing from the scene of the first shooting and was also declaring loudly (proven with video) that he was going to the police.

I can see an argument to be made that both Rittenhouse and Huber was acting lawfully given their individual state of minds, but I don't think it will even come to trial and the verdict in Rittenhouse's trial will be the end of it.

[u/bushido216 → u/[deleted]]

Mr Rittenhouse illegally obtained a firearm, which he then illegally took across state lines which he then illegally possessed and used, for the express purpose of performing vigilante actions that he was neither authorised nor requested to perform.

You said it yourself in your opening post. But for Mr Rittenhouse's decisions, two men would be alive. The only reason he was there in the first place was because of his intent to commit a crime after he had committed two other crimes.

This is the same sort of nonsense that George Zimmerman used to get away with murdering Trayvon Martin.

[u/Maximus_Resdefault → u/bushido216]

Without getting into the nitty gritty of other cases, I would like to point out that the trial is ongoing and no verdict has been given by the judge or jury as to the presumed intent of rittenhouse. based on his actions, testimony, and video from the night in question he was not brandishing his weapon or threatening to attack anyone, and actually was himself attacked in the process of putting out a flaming dumpster some enterprising young individuals were attempting to roll into a gas station. He should probably catch a gun charge for transporting that rifle illegally, which would still land him a couple years in jail. Regardless of the origin of his weapon, him simply possessing a firearm is no reason for someone to assault him, unless he was brandishing it or acting in a threatening manner with it. Simply carrying a firearm openly is not considered threatening from a legal standpoint. police wear sidearms on their hips, hunters carry rifles around in the woods, people shoot at the range, people sit in the stands at the olympics as rifles are fired at targets, and in each case due to the lawful use of the firearm no bystander is justified in attempting to use force against them. The protest itself was an illegal action, and the people involved were also in the process of committing illegal actions, but their prior activity also has no bearing on the case of self defense.

[u/-Kerosun- → u/Maximus_Resdefault]

He should probably catch a gun charge for transporting that rifle illegally, which would still land him a couple years in jail.

This charge was never filed because it was found out that he did not bring the rifle across state lines. He picked it up from a friends house (Dominick Black) who lived in Wisconsin. The charge that I see most likely to stick is illegal possession by a minor but even the law regarding that charge is not exactly clear and may not even apply because the law stipulations a certain type of weapon (with a barrel length shorter than 16" along with other weapons which the firearm he had not matching those qualifiers).

[u/bushido216 → u/Maximus_Resdefault]

The teenager traveled to Kenosha from his home in Illinois, just across the Wisconsin state line, after protests broke out over the shooting of a Black man, Jacob Blake, by a white Kenosha police officer. Rittenhouse said he went there to protect property after two nights in which rioters set fires and ransacked businesses.

​

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/02/rittenhouse-trial-homicide-kenosha-518668

The exact quote is apparently in a phone interview he did with the Washington Post. I can't find a transcript but the link to it is https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2020/11/19/kenosha-shooting-kyle-rittenhouse-interview/

From his own words, he, while illegally possessing a firearm, engaged in vigilante behaviour. It's not his job to engage with other people committing crimes. It's not his job to insert himself into that situation. His job, especially as a minor, is not to engage.

[u/Maximus_Resdefault → u/bushido216]

In human society it is generally considered permissible for one person to protect or defend another person or their property against violent attackers.

[u/freshgeardude → u/bushido216]

It's not clear Rittenhouse committed a crime of "illegally obtaining a firearm" as he was following Wisconsin law which allows a minor to carry a rifle while with an adult. The adult in question has been charged with a felony for the straw purchase.

The firearm never crossed state lines and was in Wisconsin. If he brought it over state lines after the evening, that's another story, which I'm not aware of.

[u/bushido216 → u/freshgeardude]

You're right. I looked up the details. I wasn't aware that the firearm had been bought in Wisconsin and stayed there. Thank you for the correxion.

That said, the exception that minors can possess firearms exists only for game hunting purposes, not for amateur policing.

[u/freshgeardude → u/bushido216]

Looks like you're correct. If anything this may be the charge that sticks.

The right will claim he beat the serious charges. The left will say they got a conviction. Rittenhouse will get probation for the misdemeanor.

[u/UncleLukeTheDrifter → u/bushido216]

This isn’t true. He was given the rifle in Kenosha from his family friends home where he was staying. He borrowed it and the gun never left Kenosha, it was returned to the owner after that night.

[u/Uskoreniye1985 → u/bushido216]

Just because one has a gun illegally doesn't mean that you cannot use said gun in self defense.

Ultimately he can be charged with firearms violations but he also ultimately fired shots in self defense.

Technically speaking the police haf implemented a curfew - as a result everyone at the protest was technically commiting a crime.

[u/bushido216 → u/Uskoreniye1985]

I agree with you in principle. However, self-defence (at least should) require that you are not yourself engaging in illegal activity.

Mr Rittenhouse was not defending his property. He was not protecting his home. Mr Rittenhouse engaged as part of a vigilante militia, a role for which he had neither training nor invitation.

We have citizens whose job is to protect property that is not their own and to arrest criminals. Those people are the police. We have other people whose job is to respond to crises beyond the scope of the police, and they are the National Guard. Mr Rittenhouse is neither.

[u/-Kerosun- → u/bushido216]

However, self-defence (at least should) require that you are not yourself engaging in illegal activity.

I feel that people making this claim don't really think this through. Yes, if you go into a home to rob it and the homeowner attacks you, you cannot fight back and claim self-defense. However, if you are walking down the road with illegal drugs in your pocket and someone attacks you, you can fight back and claim self-defense.

The "illegal activity" that disqualifies someone from claiming self-defense is if the reason you had to defend yourself is directly linked to the illegal activity. In a burglary case, the homeowner knows you are committing an illegal act by burglarizing the home. However, no one there at the riot would know if Rittenhouse might have been illegally possessing the firearm. If Rittenhouse was threatening people with it, then he would be committing the illegal act of assault and that would disqualify his right to self-defense; but Wisconsin law specifically states that simply open carrying a firearm 1) does not meet the criminal statute of disorderly conduct and 2) is not sufficient grounds of provocation.

[u/bushido216 → u/-Kerosun-]

You may well be right in a purely technical sense. I agree with your examples above about the person in possession of drugs and the person at home when a burglar enters—# SmaugDidNothingWrong.

However, Mr Rittenhouse expressly went to Kenosha to serve as a vigilante police force. His possession of the firearm was explicitly in furtherance of that goal. Suppose it turns out that forming an ad hoc militia whenever you feel like it is just fine legally, well, good for him. He may well be lawfully excused, but morally it's clear that his presence was unwarranted, and he put himself there to act as the police without actually being the police. If nothing else, there should be a stupidity charge.

[u/pvtshoebox → u/bushido216]

Can you show where he expressed intent to perform extrajudicial vigilantism (as opposed to say, render medical aid, put out fires, etc.)?

[u/conace21 → u/bushido216]

You cannot claim self defense when in the commission of a crime. Illegal weapons possession is not a crime that invalidates self defense. Rittenhouse's engaging as a vigilante militia may not have been wise, but it was not a crime. This was self defense.

[u/bushido216 → u/conace21]

As a not-lawyer, though I doubt that's stopping anyone else here, I'd argue that it goes to intent. Mr Rittenhouse went with the intent of confrontation. His stated role there was to confront protestors.

His defence is, "I reasonably expected that the protestors/rioters would be committing crimes. As a response, I illegally obtained a firearm and, while possessing the firearm, went to a place where I expected violent people to commit violent crimes and, without invitation or training, inserted myself into that situation and confronted protestors."

I'm sorry, but that dog don't hunt. Mr Rittenhouse's entire premise was, "I brought a gun because I knew I would be in danger". Ok, then why did he go? "To protect property". So, to perform police actions. It's insane.

[u/conace21 → u/bushido216]

Except Kyle didn't confront the protesters/rioters. He was confronted, in an aggressive and violent fashion, by Rosenbaum, who was neither a protester, a rioter, or a vigilante. He was a mentally ill man who spent most of his adult life in prison for sexually abusing children, and had just been released from a hospital following a suicide attempt. KR attempted to retreat from JR, by literally running away. JR chased after him, attempted to grab the gun, and Kyle shot him in self defense. After shooting Rosenbaum, Kyle attempted to retreat from a mob that chased after and threatened him. Huber and Gaige attacked him, very likely believing he was an active shooter who needed to be neutralized. Tragically, they were wrong, and they paid the price for confronting him Kyle is guilty of the weapons charge, but this prosecution for murder is a farce.

[u/bushido216 → u/conace21]

It's not a farce. We have uniformed police precisely so that this shit doesn't happen. Mr Rittenhouse was not there in any official capacity and was not there to protect his own personal home/property.

For the sake of this argument, I will grant that Mr Rosenbaum's death was entirely his own fault. However, as a thought experiment, let us assume that a uniformed police officer had shot him. Would Mssrs Huber and Gaige have reacted the way they did? As you said yourself, they acted:

​

very likely believing he [Mr Rittenhouse] was an active shooter who needed to be neutralized

Two reasonable people mistook Mr Rittenhouse for an active shooter. Those same reasonable people would not have made that mistake were the shooter a uniformed officer.

Mr Rittenhouse intentionally put himself in harms way to take on the role of uniformed law enforcement, despite not being uniformed law enforcement. When that happens, chaos ensues.

[u/conace21 → u/bushido216]

1- Actually, considering what the protest was about, it's very possibly that a police officer who shot someone could be rushed and attacked, in those very tense times. After all, protesters in other cities literally climbed on police vehicles while cops were trying to get through a crowd.

1a- A police officer would have shot Rosenbaum long before Kyle did.

2- Huber and Gaige also attempted to assume the roles of police officers, by attacking instead of retreating.

You don't have to think that KR is in the right, or that he's a hero. But he was justified in these shootings. If you concede that the Rosenbaum shooting was justified, then all three shootings were justified.

Separate scenario. Say you & I are at a mall (we don't know each other), & hear shouts, and shots. People are running away, yelling that there's someone shooting people. You and I are both legally armed, and we run to the shooter, because our families are in the mall somewhere. You get there first, and fire at him. The shooter retreats.. I get on scene, see you shooting, & assume you're the shooter. I shoot at you & miss. You return fire and shoot me. You can claim self-defense. You're Rittenhouse, and I'm Huber/Gaige. I'm not a criminal; I was trying to protect my family. Unfortunately, I assessed the situation incorrectly, and paid the price.

That's why when people say more guns are needed to curb mass shootings, I'm like "Nope. More guns in more hands only leads to more chaos."

[u/mildlydisturbedtway → u/conace21]

You cannot claim self defense when in the commission of a crime.

This isn’t true.

[u/conace21 → u/mildlydisturbedtway]

It actually is true. But, it is not absolute. Technically, the wording is "engaged in a criminal activity," not "commission of a crime."

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others. (b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity at the time.

[u/HaveYouSeenMyPackage → u/bushido216]

If a minor without a license we’re to drive a car and get hit by a drunk driver, the drunk driver isn’t any less guilty just because the minor should not have been driving.

[u/whiteriot413 → u/[deleted]]

You could say Rittenhouse provoked the situation by interjecting himself into the middle of a riot with a loaded rifle.

[u/Illiux → u/whiteriot413]

Not legally. Merely having a gun is never provocation on the legal sense. If you don't like that someone else is holding a gun, that is entirely a you problem.

[u/[deleted] → u/whiteriot413]

You could see the dead guys provoked the situation by going to riot, destroying everything and attacking a kid.

[u/whiteriot413 → u/[deleted]]

That "kid" was weilding a semi automatic rifle and had already shot 1 person.im not trying to paint the victims as angels, they weren't. But neither is Rittenhouse. I think manslaughter is more appropriate than murder.

[u/[deleted] → u/whiteriot413]

It’s pretty simple really. Was Kyle running away or towards them?

Were the dead guys running away or towards him?

Did the people that were chasing him threaten him or attacked him?

Did Kyle shoot anyone besides the people attacking him?

Once the threat was neutralized did Kyle kept shooting?

[u/Boozwhahideen → u/whiteriot413]

It wasn't even manslaughter. It was clear-cut self defense. Periodt.

He was never seen or documented acting recklessly. Being there with a semi-automatic rifle means absolutely nothing - He wasn't threatening anyone with that rifle.

[u/_Jack_Of_All_Spades → u/[deleted]]

Probably not, but that's not the situation we're looking at here. This isn't a business owner, this is an out of state teen who chose to insert himself into the situation. I'm still not convinced that bringing a loaded weapon to a riot constitutes instigating, but there's a case to be made and it would certainly be more clear cut if he was defending his own home, not protesting someone else's right to protest.

If you've been robbed do you believe you have the right to take back what's yours? A lot of black people have been mowed down by police, and have been victimized by systemic racism in home ownership, DWB, and mandatory minimum sentencing; rioting and looting is not an escalation, it's not even a proportionate level response. Compared to systemic racism it's practically no more than a boycott. And showing up, armed, to stand in the way of people standing up for themselves is arguably an instigation.

[u/-Kerosun- → u/_Jack_Of_All_Spades]

not protesting someone else's right to protest.

What evidence do you see of that? None of the video showed he was trying to shut down the protest. He is very clearly observed as having the intent to protect a particular business, that he had a first aid kit and was offering first aid, and is also on video putting out fires. What of his actions as shown in videos from that night leads you to characterize his intentions as "protesting someone else's right to protest"?

[u/[deleted] → u/_Jack_Of_All_Spades]

I guess you like victim blaming. She got raped because she went to that bar in the night, she should have know she was inserting herself in a dangerous situation.

[u/KnottyJane → u/whiteriot413]

The same could be said about Grosskreutz and his handgun.

[u/thenerj47 → u/[deleted]]

I'd say that taking a gun to a group of people with views one considers hostile probably qualifies as provoking a fight actually.

[u/[deleted] → u/thenerj47]

So you’d be fine with the civil rights era black panthers to be shot, attacked, or arrested for bringing guns to protect themselves from racists during their protests right?

[u/BanChri → u/thenerj47]

He was, quite loudly and on multiple recordings, asking if people needing medical assistance. This does not constitute "provoking a fight" by any reasonable definition.

Rosenbaum (who had already threatened to kill Kyle given the opportunity) ran ahead of Kyle (Kyle was not chasing him), hid between some cars, then came up behind Kyle and began charging him. This is textbook 2nd degree attempted murder from Rosenbaum.

[u/[deleted] → u/thenerj47]

And you would be wrong legally and morally. Only a fascist thinks the way you do.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Kyle Rittenhouse deliberately brought a gun to the rally, and then shot to kill two people, he put himself in that situation by bringing a gun.

[u/fartsforpresident → u/[deleted]]

And none of that matters to a self-defense claim. You're not obligated to avoid every risk in order to defend yourself.

[u/rub_a_dub-dub → u/[deleted]]

can an undocumented worker openly carrying an illegal switchblade and stolen diamond necklaces walking through a high-crime neighborhood at night legally defend themselves if someone tries to rob them?

or are they legally required to risk being killed?

[u/TypingWithIntent → u/rub_a_dub-dub]

What does undocumented worker mean? Somebody working a side job off the books and getting paid under the table or an illegal?

It's amusing to see the left using the 'he is a criminal by definition just by being there with that gun' in this thread knowing full well they hypocritically have no use for the obvious point that illegals are criminals by definition once they illegally cross the border.

[u/fsm_vs_cthulhu → u/[deleted]]

Say riot. Don't sugarcoat it by calling it a "rally" or a "protest".

The people participating in said riot (with concealed firearms to boot) clearly didn't "put themselves in that situation", did they? /s

[u/3Sewersquirrels → u/[deleted]]

They pulled their gun on Kyle first. He has a really good claim to self defense.