Rittenhouse trial to start soon, Judge is laying out rules.

[VRAMdemon]

Circular reasoning.



One of your problems is that you're trying to simplify the situation into "if this broad thing, then this narrow thing follows" whereas these determinations are based on the totality of the situation. There's a big difference between having a firearm pointed at you in an obviously threatening manner, or defensively when you act in a threatening manner, or haphazardly where the wielder does not have a good understanding of firearm safety, and so on. And there are going to be countless secondary considerations for any one concrete case. Reasonableness isn't a binary thing, it exists on a spectrum.

In any situation where someone did point a firearm at you however, regardless of whether in a threatening, defensive, or neglect manner, you would be more justified to shoot them within, or immediately following, the fraction of a second where you felt threatened than if you were to start chasing after them on foot. That's not to say that chasing after them on foot would never be justified. It certainly would be justified to pursue the Christchurch shooter, for one.

At this time there is no strong evidence that Kyle threateningly bared his weapon at Rosenbaum though.



Circular, and very dumb. Next time you see someone open carrying an AR, why don't you go ahead and charge at them and grab for their weapon? The fact that you would end up ventilated isn't proof that you had to attack.



All the people Kyle shot were at very short range.

I disagree with the assertion that Kyle was "running around pointing a rifle at people." And I wouldn't use the phrase "established himself as a deadly threat." I will say that some of the people chasing after Kyle, not knowing the details of his encounter with Rosenbaum, and only hearing about an active shooter, would be justified in trying to apprehend him, just as Kyle was justified in defending himself from being lynched (with members in the crowd shouting things like "cranium him") after exercising self defense against Rosenbaum. This is one of those instances where both sides can be justified. I don't know if I would extend that to Grosskreutz since Kyle told him he was going to the police. If anything, Grosskreutz is especially vile for helping to rally the mob to go after someone he knew was surrendering.



It all depends on motivation. If you're open carrying to act as a deterrent, then there is no similarity at all. Usually, you don't find yourself in a situation where you are "required" to use your weapon against unarmed individuals, because those individuals know better than to attack someone who is open carrying. That's the point of open carry. In the one-in-a-million chance you find yourself charged by a psychotic pedophile who was just discharged from a mental institution, you may have to use that weapon, and if you find yourself squared up against such a lunatic, going unarmed might end even more poorly.

If you go armed hoping that someone will give you the excuse to shoot them then that's premeditation. If you admit as much you lose your claim to self defense, which has happened to a few people acting "tacticool" to responding officers.



Rosenbaum would be charged and would have no reasonable claim to self defense. He's also a repeat offender pedophile. The book would be thrown at him.

Grosskreutz would have a very, very, strong self defense claim if Kyle hadn't told him he was surrendering to the police. But because he did, it would be tough. Maybe not impossible though.

Huber would depend on how he killed Kyle. A single lucky blow to the head with the skateboard? Very strong. Repeatedly bashing Kyle's face in with skateboard until he expires? Much less strong. Disarming Kyle and shooting him? Depends on whether they were still struggling over the gun or not, whether Kyle was trying to regain possession, etc.



Rosenbaum and Grosskreutz had the worst of intentions, but yes, Kyle's state of mind is (or at least should be) the determining factor. You may want to consider the fact that if Kyle had gone into Kenosha looking for an excuse to kill people, the mob that chased after him was a target rich environment. He only shot at people who were an imminent threat to him. He didn't mow down the mob indiscriminately. If he were looking for an excuse to kill people, he should have.

There is nothing "circular" about what I said. And YES ... He was teenager running around with a long gun he wasn't legally allowed to have pointing it at people. Underaged Kyle had no reason to be there with a firearm. He was PERFECTLY safe at home. He should have just kept himself home. His actions directly and indirectly caused the death of two people and wounding of a third that should be alive today if not for inserting himself in a volatile situation he should not have been in. Where people can purposefully gear up and place themselves into situations where they can be forced to shoot someone - "legally" kill. He intentionally put himself there and reasonable people are calling him out.

There seems to be some veiwpoints -

Viewpoint A: Someone in such a situation with a firearm is by default seen as a "good guy with a gun". The assumption is that if that gun was fired, then it was for a “good” reason and to prevent something bad. Anyone attempting to disarm said person with a firearm is obviously up to no good, and full self defense mode including killing the attemptee is warranted

Viewpoint B: Someone with a firearm in such a situation is by default seen as someone to at least be wary of and potentially a hair trigger teenager with a gun in his hand looking to use it. Teenager with a gun in his hand shoots someone, and the immediate assumption is that teenager with a gun in his hand has been confirmed to be a bad actor that could easily be shooting other people. Hence a potential active shooter, and as said teenager with a gun in his hand just shot someone in front of witnesses, the potential to be an active shooter is significant. Fight or flight reflexes kick in amongst those in the crowd.

It's Rittenhouse’s responsibility to determine whether those gunshots were actually a threat to him before opening fire on someone who wasn’t even carrying a gun. This is something any competent gun owner should be able to do. People are saying this kid opened fire because he was scared. But if no one was shooting at him, he had no valid reason to be scared, so he was defending himself against an imaginary threat – he did not have the maturity, judgement, or competence to be carrying a weapon in a potentially dangerous situation.

He went to Kenosha to ‘defend a business’. With a gun he seemed to have no problem acquiring knowing he no business being there and no experience in that type of situation. Fifteen days prior he’s on video saying he would like to shoot some men who were shoplifting. Reasonable people will continue to question the idea that he went there for any other reason than as an excuse to shoot people.

 

[Rigg]

Too bad that first part is conveniently ignored

The stated right is the second part. The first part is not a condition of the right it's a justification for it. Think of "well regulated militia" being defined as a capable citizen fighting force. Well regulated isn't referring to legal regulation in this instance.

 

[Vic]

I'm pro-2a as much as anyone else, but anyone who thinks the 2a was created for any other reason than the fact that the Founding Fathers didn't want to pay to arm the militia is just fooling themselves.

That said, Rittenhouse is not a 2a issue and anyone arguing that is simply being dishonest. As proof of that, I will simply point to the fact that no one is arguing that Rittenhouse's victims had the right to even defend themselves against an armed assailant, much less their right to bear arms.
FFS, we already saw how the self-labelled pro-2a "free speech warriors" on the right-wing won't even allow the left to protest peacefully without falsely labeling them as "rioters" and "looters" and trying to kill and imprison them, with their political leaders demanding the Constitution be suspended and the military called in to kill American citizens on American soil.. so I can't even imagine what the right-wing would do if the left dared try to peacefully exercise its 2a right to bear arms. Most likely they'd claim the left was trying to start a civil war and try to Rittenhouse as many of them as thought they could get away with.

Bias is increasingly prevalent and partisan in today's politics, and nothing proves that more than seeing people claim that the exercise of their rights and freedoms requires that they be able to deprive others of their rights and freedoms. Or when people demand under false pretenses that others be deprived without due process of the same rights and freedoms that they claim to champion.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Right here you implied that Baldwin should be in jail but won't be because of his "get out of jail card."

"Implied" Thank you.

 

[dank69]

"Implied" Thank you.

Why do conservatives so often find themselves afraid to own things their words imply?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Why do conservatives so often find themselves afraid to own things their words imply?

Because there's a huge difference between saying he should be jailed and saying that elites, the rich and celebrities have a get out of jail free card under our justice system.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Newest testimony in the case.

Shooting victim says he was unintentionally pointing his gun at Rittenhouse

The third and final man shot by Kyle Rittenhouse during a night of turbulent protests in the summer of 2020, took the stand Monday at Rittenhouse's murder trial.

www.wcnc.com

"Under questioning from the prosecution, Grosskreutz said he had his hands raised as he closed in on Rittenhouse. Prosecutor Thomas Binger asked Grosskreutz why he didn’t shoot first.
“That’s not the kind of person that I am. That’s not why I was out there,” he said. “It’s not who I am. And definitely not somebody I would want to become.”
But during cross-examination, Rittenhouse defense attorney Corey Chirafisi asked: "It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him … that he fired, right?”
“Correct,” Grosskreutz replied."

It's basic.

 

[dank69]

Because there's a huge difference between saying he should be jailed and saying that elites, the rich and celebrities have a get out of jail free card under our justice system.

Sure, but there isn't a huge difference when you use it a the sole reason why you won't be upset when Baldwin does not go to jail. In that context, there is zero difference. After all, if you hadn't become so used to it, you would be upset he isn't going to jail, which means you think he deserves to go to jail for this.

 

[Vic]

Because there's a huge difference between saying he should be jailed and saying that elites, the rich and celebrities have a get out of jail free card under our justice system.

I guess it was only a matter of time before Taj took whataboutism to its furthest extreme and used to defend murder.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Newest testimony in the case.

Shooting victim says he was unintentionally pointing his gun at Rittenhouse

The third and final man shot by Kyle Rittenhouse during a night of turbulent protests in the summer of 2020, took the stand Monday at Rittenhouse's murder trial.

www.wcnc.com

"Under questioning from the prosecution, Grosskreutz said he had his hands raised as he closed in on Rittenhouse. Prosecutor Thomas Binger asked Grosskreutz why he didn’t shoot first.
“That’s not the kind of person that I am. That’s not why I was out there,” he said. “It’s not who I am. And definitely not somebody I would want to become.”
But during cross-examination, Rittenhouse defense attorney Corey Chirafisi asked: "It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him … that he fired, right?”
“Correct,” Grosskreutz replied."

It's basic.

Looks like you snipped the part that you wanted, ignored the rest. Good job!

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Import seems to have left this important bit out:

"Gaige Grosskreutz said he advanced toward Rittenhouse because he thought he was an "active shooter" during his testimony Monday."

Rittenhouse Shooting Survivor Thought He Was ‘Going To Die’—Was Shot After Pointing His Own Gun

Gaige Grosskreutz said he advanced toward Rittenhouse because he thought he was an “active shooter” during his testimony Monday.

www.forbes.com

The little punk posed the bigger threat and acted out his threat when people tried to contain him.

Kinda like if the other students had tried to stop the guys at Columbine.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Import seems to have left this important bit out:

"Gaige Grosskreutz said he advanced toward Rittenhouse because he thought he was an "active shooter" during his testimony Monday."

Rittenhouse Shooting Survivor Thought He Was ‘Going To Die’—Was Shot After Pointing His Own Gun

Gaige Grosskreutz said he advanced toward Rittenhouse because he thought he was an “active shooter” during his testimony Monday.

www.forbes.com

The little punk posed the bigger threat and acted out his threat when people tried to contain him.

Kinda like if the other students had tried to stop the guys at Columbine.

He wasn't shot until he advanced and pointed a gun at Rittenhouse. It doesn't matter what he thought at the time, he was the aggressor.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

he was the aggressor.

The punk from Illinois was, yes.

 

[Greenman]

The punk from Illinois was, yes.

Except that the other fellow said he pointed a gun a KR first. That's an incredible admission and clearly defines that he was the aggressor. How can you not see that?

 

[Vic]

Except that the other fellow said he pointed a gun a KR first. That's an incredible admission and clearly defines that he was the aggressor. How can you not see that?

The "other fellow" was acting in self-defense. How can you not see that?

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Except that the other fellow said he pointed a gun a KR first. That's an incredible admission and clearly defines that he was the aggressor. How can you not see that?

Becase he thought the punk from Illinois was an active shooter and was going to start whacking people. Which he was. And did.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Except that the other fellow said he pointed a gun a KR first. That's an incredible admission and clearly defines that he was the aggressor. How can you not see that?

It's reasonable to believe the alleged active shooter was the "aggressor" because he shot first and was not shot by anyone. If Grosskreutz "was" the aggressor, Rittenhouse just might be shot dead. What are the rules of engagement for the "good guy with the gun"? just moving toward an active shooter is grounds to be shot? How far away does the good guy have to be.? across the street? Remember this if you’re a ‘good guy with a gun’ and decide to respond to hearing there’s an active shooter near you.

Schrodinger’s Gunman: the Guy with a gun is in a superposition of “Good” and “Bad”. When you shoot him, the wave function collapses, and you have either saved the day, or murdered an innocent person. It is impossible to tell whether the gunman was a Good Guy With A Gun or an Active Shooter until he is dead.

I'm assuming this guy should be charged with assault since he was the "aggressor" and moved toward him?

Tennessee pastor tackles, disarms man who pointed gun at people during church service

 

[kt]

Except that the other fellow said he pointed a gun a KR first. That's an incredible admission and clearly defines that he was the aggressor. How can you not see that?

The fact that Rittenhouse put himself in a volatile situation with a deadly weapon in his hand that he illegally obtained already made him the aggressor. How can you not see that?

 

[Paratus]

It's reasonable to believe the alleged active shooter was the "aggressor" because he shot first and was not shot by anyone. If Grosskreutz "was" the aggressor, Rittenhouse just might be shot dead. What are the rules of engagement for the "good guy with the gun"? just moving toward an active shooter is grounds to be shot? How far away does the good guy have to be.? across the street? Remember this if you’re a ‘good guy with a gun’ and decide to respond to hearing there’s an active shooter near you.

Schrodinger’s Gunman: the Guy with a gun is in a superposition of “Good” and “Bad”. When you shoot him, the wave function collapses, and you have either saved the day, or murdered an innocent person. It is impossible to tell whether the gunman was a Good Guy With A Gun or an Active Shooter until he is dead.

I'm assuming this guy should be charged with assault since he was the "aggressor" and moved toward him?

Tennessee pastor tackles, disarms man who pointed gun at people during church service

Absolutely. In this thread and others members have argued it’s a deadly assault if you charge someone with a gun and that a gunman has the right to citizens arrest whoever they want at gun point. Another member has said it’s impossible to know if someone has stolen from you.

So the gunman here was probably just getting ready to perform an armed citizens arrest on someone who may or may not have stolen from him when he was assaulted.

Edit: just watched the video. Guy wasn’t an under age white kid or a good ole boy with a confederate flag on his truck so nevermind

 

[HomerJS]

He wasn't shot until he advanced and pointed a gun at Rittenhouse. It doesn't matter what he thought at the time, he was the aggressor.

KR had already killed 2 people so why wasn't GG within his rights to detain KR by any means necessary?

If I recall in another thread you extoled the virtues of citizens arrest.

 

[soundforbjt]

He wasn't shot until he advanced and pointed a gun at Rittenhouse. It doesn't matter what he thought at the time, he was the aggressor.

Guess you missed the part where GG says Kyle tried to shoot him and re-racked the bolt when it didn’t fire while he had his hands n the air.

 

[HomerJS]

Because there's a huge difference between saying he should be jailed and saying that elites, the rich and celebrities have a get out of jail free card under our justice system.

You must have been in a coma during the last administration.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

The punk from Illinois was, yes.

The testimony says different...... you can read can't you ?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

You must have been in a coma during the last administration.

There's been little to no difference for the last 6 Administrations.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

The fact that Rittenhouse put himself in a volatile situation with a deadly weapon in his hand that he illegally obtained already made him the aggressor. How can you not see that?

Because he knows what the law says?