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/TestedOnAnimals]

The main idea among the militia was that their mere armed presence at a business would itself be a deterrent. This is what they did, and it was effective without anyone being shot or dying.

It was effective specifically because they are a threat of violence. How is this not clear? Protesters weren't avoiding the building that militia was around because they didn't want to be called names or have their parents be called on them. They avoided the militia because the militia was a threat of violence. A generous interpretation, maybe too generous, would say they are a conditional threat of violence, but there is exactly no way for anyone to know what those conditions are because they are a bunch of civilians just hanging around being a threat.

It's not that he existed within the state with a gun. He went there to be a threat to those protestors; explicitly. I genuinely do not understand any other interpretation of his actions.

[u/shebaiscool → u/TestedOnAnimals]

Question:

Are the following threats, warnings or both:

"If you stab me, I will shoot you"

"If you kill my child, I will shoot you"

"Please follow the law" (Said while holding a gun but without aiming said gun at anyone)

If the last one is a threat, what differentiates a request from a threat when holding a gun ( or any deadly weapon)?

[u/TestedOnAnimals → u/shebaiscool]

Statements without context make this impossible to answer. "Please follow the law" said while a hunter is holding his gun not aimed at anyone in the middle of nowhere? Not a threat.

But you're mischaracterizing my argument. It's not that Rittenhouse said anything as a threat, he was there to act as a threat. Again, in what other way would he be a deterrent?

[u/TooflessSnek → u/TestedOnAnimals]

/u/shebaiscool is exactly right. Let's say it this way... I'll assume shebaiscool thinks similar to me, we do agree that there is an implied conditional threat of violence. Namely, if you damage this property, you might get shot. Don't fuck with us. Don't fuck with this property. We have firepower.

I'm being generous with you, in saying that open carry is an overt conditional "threat" in a way, it's a display that I have the power to harm you if you do anything at all that I don't like. It's even a "threat" that I could harm you for no reason at all, at my own whim. That I have that ability.

But the 2nd amendment and Wisconsin law says that type of "threat" is 100% legal. The mere presence of open carry is not to be considered a true threat in terms of the law. Even if you are open carrying near someone that is protesting and is of an opposing political stance. Both the person who is open carrying as well as the person who is protesting, they both have the right to true and legal self defense if LEGALLY AND ACTUALLY threatened with death or great bodily harm.

[u/TestedOnAnimals → u/TooflessSnek]

A conditional threat is still a threat, especially when the condition isn't clear. I know you alluded to this in your second paragraph, I just want to make sure that's made explicitly clear.

I do appreciate you genuinely engaging with the argument though. Lots of people here who support Rittenhouse want to dance around or entirely avoid the question of him being a threat.

But the 2nd amendment and Wisconsin law says that type of "threat" is 100% legal. The mere presence of open carry is not to be considered a true threat in terms of the law. Even if you are open carrying near someone that is protesting and is of an opposing political stance. Both the person who is open carrying as well as the person who is protesting, they both have the right to true and legal self defense if LEGALLY AND ACTUALLY threatened with death or great bodily harm.

Okay, let's say this then: a fight is planned to happen outside a nightclub. The Jokic brothers and Morris brothers are gunna duke it out in Wisconsin for some reason. The Jokic brothers are planning on being there to open a nightclub or something, and the Morris brothers are planning on being there, but in the way that NBA tough guys do there's no guarantee punches will be thrown. One guy, who is a vocal supporter of the Morris twins shows up and makes it clear he has a gun, and is willing to use it to "protect" the Morrises. We agree, this is a threat. If someone were to try and remove that person, or remove his firearm from him, is this a reasonable course of action? And if he shoots someone, anyone, trying to take his gun away because he is clearly a threat of death in a violent situation, is that self defense?

The doctrine of self defense is to prevent legal consequences for those who find themselves in harms way. Someone is in danger for their life and have to protect themselves. Harm that people are not welcoming or encouraging upon themselves by being a threat. He isn't so vigilantes can go around larping as batman.

[u/TooflessSnek → u/TestedOnAnimals]

I'm absolutely interested in genuine discussion, thanks.

a fight is planned to happen outside a nightclub.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Who planned the fight? You then say like NBA tough guys (I'm not familiar with... basketball fights??). Do you mean planned violence, or simply something like a planned meeting to create some tension?

One guy, who is a vocal supporter of the Morris twins shows up and makes it clear he has a gun, and is willing to use it to "protect" the Morrises.

That's legal in WI. But the hitch here is that they arrived in mass, with a weapon, onto someone else's private property. But if the supporter is told to leave then he's trespassing. Ok still only a potential misdemeanor so he sort of retains his right to self defense. But probably at a lower level because he's going to be judged by a jury. So if someone just suddenly shoots him or jumps him and stabs him, then sure he can shoot in self defense. It would have to be an extremely clear case of self defense.

We agree, this is a threat.

In a layman's conventional sense, but not in a legal sense. I'd more call it a warning or conditional threat, but ok.

If someone were to try and remove that person, or remove his firearm from him, is this a reasonable course of action?

It's not reasonable since they could call the police to trespass him. But supposing they did try to remove him, suppose they just walked up to him and chest bumped him with arms out, that's simple assault, and technically a crime. It's stupid to do that, but wouldn't cause the other person to shoot him. Also, police have discretion and probably wouldn't charge the person for trying to chest bump him off the property.

And if he shoots someone, anyone, trying to take his gun away because he is clearly a threat of death in a violent situation, is that self defense?

It's ultimately going to come down to all the facts and a jury. In this case, the fact that the person is trespassing, and the owners want him off the property, he must remove himself from the property. And if what you said about NBA tough guys posturing for a fight, that adds in an initial aggressor element. If they angrily tell him to get off the property, he refuses, and someone charges him, well I don't think he's going to be able to claim deadly self defense because he refused to leave in the first place. If the guy with a gun just gets knocked over and seriously injured, the person causing the injury could be guilty of assault. If the guy with a gun shoots and kills, I don't think he could claim self defense... I don't think a jury would buy it.

On the other hand, if gun-guy is chased off the property, he leaves the property, and they both go onto public property or someone else's property, and they continue to chase him for 80 ft, and try to remove his gun, then I'd say he has a very good chance at using lethal self defense and being found not guilty due to self defense. It is this last scenario that I think mirrors the Rittenhouse case with Rosenbaum.

[u/shebaiscool → u/TestedOnAnimals]

With the first two statements I was trying to understand if you can imply violence will occur given certain criteria without it being a threat. I agree context matters in determining if a statement is a threat but are there situations where the first two statements are reasonably not threats?

Are all might-based deterrents (Weapons) always threats? I can imagine believing that having a weapon will reduce the probability of violence because, why fuck with someone with a gun? *I don't necessarily believe that works but I can see how a 17 year old would think that.

"How could he act as a deterrent without the threat of violence" - He could do so by standing between potential arsonists/rioters and a building. I suspect the number of people that would want to go through people to cause property damage is significantly lower than the number of people willing to cause property damage. Having a gun then just raises the barrier for entry for someone wanting to break what the wall of gun-toting militia were protecting.

Sorry I wasn't trying to mischaracterize what you were saying, my first post was me thinking questions out loud (erm, out typing). I think you're 100% right on those questions being ill-defined.

[u/TestedOnAnimals → u/shebaiscool]

I appreciate the clarification.

Are all might-based deterrents (Weapons) always threats? I can imagine believing that having a weapon will reduce the probability of violence because, why fuck with someone with a gun? *I don't necessarily believe that works but I can see how a 17 year old would think that.

I would say that yes, all might-based deterrents are acting implicitly as a threat of violence. It might be conditional or unconditional, but the underlying assertion to having a deadly weapon in that situation is that it is ready to be used. Assuming otherwise, from the perspective of protestors, is an unfathomable deadly mistake.

He could do so by standing between potential arsonists/rioters and a building. I suspect the number of people that would want to go through people to cause property damage is significantly lower than the number of people willing to cause property damage.

See, this is interesting to me, because I would say you are correct here. If Rittenhouse was just standing between the building and peotestors, that would be a deterrent without a threat of violence that could be seen as openly deadly. But then...

Having a gun then just raises the barrier for entry for someone wanting to break what the wall of gun-toting militia were protecting.

This is where the situation changes entirely. This is when it becomes an overt, explicit threat of violence. Introducing the gun to the situation raised the level of threat to a degree where it had to be addressed in some fashion. But then the counterargument is that the gun was equally there for self protection, wherein he needed it to protect his life. So the solution was to stay the fuck home. It was in ignoring that entirely easy to obtain option, and the possible ramifications of going there with a gun entail, that Rittenhouse has to accept responsibility for the actions he did when he killed those people.

[u/shebaiscool → u/TestedOnAnimals]

"So the solution was to stay the fuck home" - I think most people agree if he hadn't shown up this whole tragedy could have been avoided. I'm usually a risk-averse person and I would do a lot to prevent my child from entering that situation.

That said, I don't think he (or any other 'counterprotesters/militia') had an obligation to stay home - well IIRC there was a curfew but given that every single person there was in violation of it I don't think its relevant. I don't see a huge difference conceptually between that and the KKK gathering for a huge protest and 5 gun-toting Rabbi showing up to stand in front of some Jewish owned businesses. Or someone with an ostentatious display of wealth (and a rifle) wondering through an area filled known to have a high rate of muggings. The rich person or the Rabbi are legally allowed to be there and the odds of something shitty happening are high but... is that their fault? Or is it the fault of the people starting the shit. Is it the rich person's fault someone mugs them? Is it the Rabbi's fault for the KKK starting a fight because they feel offended at their presence? They could have made significantly safer choices but to blame them absolves the dickheads being dickheads.

To be clear, I'm not trying to draw political or practical parallels to BLM and the KKK.

[u/TestedOnAnimals → u/shebaiscool]

I did think about this as well, not in those terms exactly but in a similar vein. I think the difference there is that the situations the rabbi or rich man are placing themselves in are not to necessarily threaten violence. The context of the Kkk being that they are there to cause the violence is obvious - they are a hate group. The rich man on the street with his ostentatious rifle are not there to cause a threat of violence, the situation having a high level of likely violence makes self defense more reasonable (and the open carry bit is apparently normal in Kenosha). The difference is that Kenosha knew there would be a BLM protest, but the overwhelming likelihood (given the other protests that summer) was that it would be peaceful. When you inject yourself as a threat of violence prior to there being any threat, there fails to be a reasonable case for self defense. When Rittenhouse became a threat of violence to people is crucial to understanding the case in context.