Kyle Rittenhouse - hero

[Confused-by-christianity]

If Kyle Rittenhouse was there to protect a place, he should have been at the place he was there to protect.

I think there is the most important thing of this whole event that is getting lost.
Security, defence, protection etc - maybe this sort of work happens way way before people take up their guns and stand guard.

I would agree that in the moment of being knocked down--as Kyle Rittenhouse was--the situation turned into self-defense.

I heard that the man who attempted to take KR's rifle could also have made a reasonable self defence argument.

 

[Peter J Barban]

If Kyle Rittenhouse was there to protect a place, he should have been at the place he was there to protect.

This reminds me of the situation a few years back when the armed citizen chose to get into an argument with a woman sitting in a car parked in a handicapped zone. A fight with her boyfriend occurred, the armed citizen got knocked down, and shot the boyfriend.

I would agree that in the moment of being knocked down--as Kyle Rittenhouse was--the situation turned into self-defense.

But I would also point out that the man with the gun unnecessarily precipitated the situation, and the same with Kyle Rittenhouse.

Apparently, Kyle had paired with a buddy, in the beginning, I agree it was a major mistake for Kyle to go off on his own. Even Roman soldiers in the time of the New Testament went about in pairs due to the presence of Jewish assassins seeking to get soldiers alone.

Kyle's other mistake was not recognizing how easily he stood out and how much some people wanted to peacefully protest over his broken body.

Even so, if wisdom requires waiting in safety while evil acts with impunity, then we should rethink if our wisdom really pleases God.

 

[Peter J Barban]

I think there is the most important thing of this whole event that is getting lost.
Security, defence, protection etc - maybe this sort of work happens way way before people take up their guns and stand guard.


I heard that the man who attempted to take KR's rifle could also have made a reasonable self defence argument.

No, none of those who attacked Kyle had a self-defense claim under Wisconsin law.

Wisconsin requires you to flee conflict if possible. If you initiate the conflict, you are not operating in self-defense. Kyle was not threatening any of the people before they threatened him. Chasing someone down and threatening them is never self-defense in Wisconsin.

 

[RDKirk]

I heard that the man who attempted to take KR's rifle could also have made a reasonable self defence argument.

I've mentioned earlier in the thread that attempting to disarm someone is the same thing as assault and robbery, so the self-defense argument goes to the person being robbed of his weapon, besides the fact that an armed citizen must not allow someone to take his weapon (other than surrendering it to law enforcement).

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

I've mentioned earlier in the thread that attempting to disarm someone is the same thing as assault and robbery, so the self-defense argument goes to the person being robbed of his weapon, besides the fact that an armed citizen must not allow someone to take his weapon (other than surrendering it to law enforcement).

So they should have shot him?

How are you to defend yourself against someone you perceive to be a legitimate threat to your life like KR? haha (I'm playing devil advocate here - my whole theme is querying the sentinment of injustice that many seem to feel)

 

[RDKirk]

So they should have shot him?

How are you to defend yourself against someone you perceive to be a legitimate threat to your life like KR? haha (I'm playing devil advocate here - my whole theme is querying the sentinment of injustice that many seem to feel)

As I've said before, they should have taken cover.

I am licensed to carry a weapon in my state, and I do. Even then, if someone pulls out an AR-15 and threatens to use it, I will take cover. Only idiots stand out on the street facing a rifle.

If the situation deteriorates to the point of requiring me to use my weapon, I'll use it from cover. While I think Kyle Rittenhouse precipitated a dangerous situation by being unnecessarily out on the street with his rifle, the other people certainly participated in making it incredibly more dangerous by trying to take the rifle from him.

This was a "stupid game, stupid prize" situation all around that could have been avoided by any one of the players acting with wisdom.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

As I've said before, they should have taken cover.

I am licensed to carry a weapon in my state, and I do. Even then, if someone pulls out an AR-15 and threatens to use it, I will take cover. Only idiots stand out on the street facing a rifle.

That being so, with no cover available - ought you have shot KR? If you genuinely believe he is a threat to your life and the lives of others and he has opened fire on someone else ? If you genuinely believe he is killing and will kill unlawfully?

... by trying to take the rifle from him ...

Their recourse is to shoot first rather than disarm? Legally?

This was a "stupid game, stupid prize" situation all around that could have been avoided by any one of the players acting with wisdom.

I personally wouldn't focus so much on the legal argument. The legal argument says nothing of the quality of the law to begin with - which is what I think the real problem might be.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

No, none of those who attacked Kyle had a self-defense claim under Wisconsin law.

Wisconsin requires you to flee conflict if possible. If you initiate the conflict, you are not operating in self-defense. Kyle was not threatening any of the people before they threatened him. Chasing someone down and threatening them is never self-defense in Wisconsin.

I personally wouldn't just take your word for that, that's for the lawyers.

And what do you think to the quality of the law in wisconsin?

Do you think that many people have been left feeling that what happened was fundamentally wrong - and if so - is this going to be a problem for american society?

 

[Peter J Barban]

I personally wouldn't just take your word for that, that's for the lawyers.

And what do you think to the quality of the law in wisconsin?

Do you think that many people have been left feeling that what happened was fundamentally wrong - and if so - is this going to be a problem for american society?

1. I think the law is fine, people say that similar self-defense laws are common in other states. I'm from Illinois, but, I have actually lived in Taiwan for the past 30 years. Here, only the police, soldiers, and serious criminals carry guns. The only rifle I've seen here was carried by a US Marine inside the US Embassy. Big, Black dude with big black gun is scary and awesome in Taiwan.

2. I think that the divide in America is a major problem and is leading to America's downfall/decline. I blame the media and rich political donors for creating this mess.

Appendix. Since you won't take my word for Self Defense Law, here is what US News and World Reports says:
"WHAT DOES WISCONSIN LAW SAY ABOUT SELF-DEFENSE?
It allows someone to use deadly force only if “necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.” And it sets a two-part test for jurors.
First, they have to decide if Rittenhouse really believed he was in peril. Hindsight may show he was wrong. But did he sincerely believe it at the time?
Next, they must determine if Rittenhouse’s belief was objectively “reasonable.” To make that call, jurors will be instructed to consider whether any reasonable person in Rittenhouse’s shoes would have also felt they had no choice but to shoot.
WHAT OTHER LEGAL FACTORS COME INTO PLAY?
Wisconsin law doesn't require someone whose life is in danger to flee before shooting. But jurors can consider whether someone tried to move away from danger as they assess the reasonableness of a self-defense claim. Self-defense can't be invoked by someone if they were an aggressor."

Wisconsin doesn't have a so-called stand-your-ground law that grants wide-ranging rights for a person to stay put and fend off an attack no matter where it occurs.
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/arti...see-strong-self-defense-claim-for-rittenhouse

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

... Hindsight may show he was wrong. But did he sincerely believe it at the time? ...

Was he wrong? Pretty sure I read he heard a gun going off elsewhere, and so opened fire on someone chasing him?

 

[Peter J Barban]

The first guy Rittenhouse shot, Joseph Rosenbaum, had earlier threatened to kill Rittenhouse if he ever caught him alone. Rittenhouse was retreating (probably from threats by Ziminski because Rittenhouse put out the fire that Zimninsky started), Ziminski fired a shot in the air and Rittenhouse saw Rosenbaum chasing him. Rosenbaum lunged for Rittenhouse and got his hand on the AR15 rifle barrel. (Rosenbaum's hand had powder burns consistent with being shot while holding the rifle barrel.)

Legally, when someone grabs your gun, you are in a life-threatening situation. This is a universal observation.

Likewise, the second guy, Huber, was shot while grabbing Rittenhouse's gun, after striking Rittenhouse twice with a skateboard.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

The first guy Rittenhouse shot,

Did KR make a mistake in that he thought he heard someone shooting at him and incorrectly determined that it was Rosenbaum shooting at him?

 

[Peter J Barban]

Did KR make a mistake in that he thought he heard someone shooting at him and incorrectly determined that it was Rosenbaum shooting at him?

Nope! However, Kyle did turn around and see Rosenbaum due to the gunshot. But Kyle didn't fire point-blank until Rosenbaum lunged at him.

All this and more is on video and witnessed by independent reporters who gave testimony at the trial.

 

[Derek1111]

Do you respect the law that you claim so much knowledge about? Then respect the legal system. Kyle went through the entire legal process, the evidence was presented, and he was acquitted. Stop with the slander that leads to things like what happened in Waukesha where a black guy saw fit to run down a bunch of children. That's what happens when you keep spreading lies and disinformation.

I respect the law but not the verdict. Or are you so naive that you believe justice is always done?

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

Nope! However, Kyle did turn around and see Rosenbaum due to the gunshot. But Kyle didn't fire point-blank until Rosenbaum lunged at him.
All this and more is on video and witnessed by independent reporters who gave testimony at the trial.

And the guy hitting KR with the skateboard. Why was he doing that?

If you know?

 

[Derek1111]

I'll be interested to see if the same people who still see Rittenhouse as a vigilante will hold the same view of the black guy that mowed down children with his SUV in Waukesha.

Rittenhouse ... "the black guy"... I think I see where the problem lies here.

For the record, I unequivocally condemn the events that led to the deaths of five people at the hands of suspect Daryl Brooks in Waukesha. Do you seriously think any of us are going to defend these actions?

 

[LeGato]

I'll be interested to see if the same people who still see Rittenhouse as a vigilante will hold the same view of the black guy that mowed down children with his SUV in Waukesha.

You know they won't...
People in bad taste all over the internet are already saying that those people were run over in "self-defense".

 

[Derek1111]

As for the trope that Rittenhouse had no business being there that night, his stated business was to protect property from rioters and to render aid to any who were hurt.

In fact, Rittenhouse did protect property, put out fires, and give first aid to two rioters before he was assaulted. The night before, he scrubbed graffiti from a school that protesters had defaced.

His business was to be a good Samaritan to the community that contained his work, his family, and his friends. It may not have been wise, but it was heroic and there were many other unsung heroes that night.

If you deny Rittenhouse his moral right to help others during a riot when the police are intentionally absent, then also you deny all victims the moral right to ask for aid in the face of evil.

Smart move, stating your business as something that helps your defence.

Your last paragraph is illogical. Victims' right for support does not require untrained idiots carrying guns to wreak havoc on their behalf.

 

[Peter J Barban]

I respect the law but not the verdict. Or are you so naive that you believe justice is always done?

I feared that justice would not be done. There were a lot of worries that some jurors had their minds made up before the trial and were not persuadable by law or evidence.

Some people wanted Kyle punished for standing up to the rioters and not allowing Kenosha to burn. Others don't care about the law or the facts, they just know what is right in their hearts - and in their hearts, Kyle is a killer who must pay.

Fortunately, the jury decided to follow the facts and the law to the only just verdict - innocent on all counts.

 

[LeGato]

Is it fair to say that a significant number of people are outraged by what the court has determined?

Facts (nor the legal system) cares about Feelings.