Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
But wasn’t the first guy he shot chasing and threatening him? It’s not like he just showed up and shot someone for no reason. Not an expert here so I could be wrong. |
Anonymous
So if someone assaults you and you shoot him, is his friend then justified in trying to attack you to disarm you? When he attacks you are justified in shooting him too? |
Anonymous
Disproportionate force is a thing. Civilians don't get the benefit of the "I was scared" excuse that police get in use-of-force cases. |
Anonymous
I think there's a dispute about that. I haven't been watching the trial. But I'm just responding to the claim that if you shoot someone pointing a gun at you, you get to claim self-defense. It seems like it's not true based on common sense, but I'm not an expert. Maybe some legal expert can clarify. |
Anonymous
Only if he's armed with a skateboard. Any ER doctors l will tell you that those are lethal weapons. |
Anonymous
They do if they're Kyle Rittenhouse. |
Anonymous
I don't know the answer to that, but all your questions indicate that context is pretty important and simple rules like "you can legally shoot anyone pointing a gun at you" are probably not very good. |
Anonymous
I would presume this is another exception to the "you can legally shoot anyone pointing a gun at you" rule from the PP. Surely it's not legal to shoot a cop who is pointing a gun at you. |
Anonymous
| Here, because R plead self defense, the prosecutor has to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not acting in self defense. The burden of proof on the prosecutor is not so convince them they R did it. R stipulated to that by pleading self defense. Given all the strife and violence in the videos, I think convincing them beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense is an incredibly high bar. |
Anonymous
But force must be proportionate to the risk. Rosenbaum had not used any force against Rittenhouse, was not armed with a weapon. A skateboard is not a proportionate weapon to an AR-15. Escalation of force and proportionate response are concepts that must be met when making self-defense claims. His claim of self-defense is weakest with Rosenbaum. |
Anonymous
agree - it is not helping that all the video I have seen of the kid depicts a pretty genial kid . He doesn’t appear to be picking or courting conflict. Seems to me like a kid who totally overestimated his capabilities, wanted to be heroic and important and underestimated the seriousness of the situation in which he put himself. |
Anonymous
So you can show up to a protest with an AR, kill a couple of protesters, and then get off? ‘Murica truly is the greatest country in the world |
Anonymous
Well it was used in self defense. |
Anonymous
|
I think this is the Wisconsin State pattern jury instruction on self defense, so I suspect they’ll use something like this to instruct the jury. I bolded what I think might be a key part. I have not watch trial closely, but IIRC, the first guy he shot was chasing him and threw a plastic bag containing socks at Rittenhouse, and then Rittenhouse shot him four times. Who knows what the jury will do, but it’s hard to see how Rottonhouse could reasonably believe deadly force was necessary to protect himself from a plastic bag being thrown.
https://wilawlibrary.gov/jury/files/criminal/0801.doc Self-Defense Self-defense is an issue in this case. In deciding whether the defendant’s conduct [was criminally reckless conduct which showed utter disregard for human life] [was criminally reckless conduct] [was criminally negligent conduct], you should also consider whether the defendant acted lawfully in self-defense. The law of self-defense allows the defendant to threaten or intentionally use force against another only if: • the defendant believed that there was an actual or imminent unlawful interference with the defendant’s person; and; • the defendant believed that the amount of force the defendant used or threatened to use was necessary to prevent or terminate the interference; and • the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable. [ADD THE FOLLOWING IF THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE FORCE USED WAS INTENDED OR LIKELY TO CAUSE DEATH OR GREAT BODILY HARM.] [The defendant may intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if the defendant reasonably believed that the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to (himself) (herself).] Determining Whether Beliefs Were Reasonable A belief may be reasonable even though mistaken. In determining whether the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable, the standard is what a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence would have believed in the defendant’s position under the circumstances that existed at the time of the alleged offense. The reasonableness of the defendant’s beliefs must be determined from the standpoint of the defendant at the time of the defendant’s acts and not from the viewpoint of the jury now. [IF RETREAT IS AN ISSUE, ADD APPROPRIATE INSTRUCTION HERE – SEE WIS JI-CRIMINAL 810.] [IF THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE DEFENDANT PROVOKED THE ATTACK, ADD APPROPRIATE INSTRUCTION HERE – SEE WIS JI-CRIMINAL 815.] CONTINUE WITH THE DEFINITION OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME. FOR ALL OFFENSES INVOLVING CRIMINAL RECKLESSNESS OR CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE, ADD THE FOLLOWING TO THE DEFINITION OF THE RECKLESSNESS OR NEGLIGENCE ELEMENT: You should consider the evidence relating to self-defense in deciding whether the defendant’s conduct created an unreasonable risk to another. If the defendant was acting lawfully in self-defense, (his) (her) conduct did not create an unreasonable risk to another. The burden is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act lawfully in self-defense. And, you must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt from all the evidence in the case that the risk was unreasonable. FOR FIRST DEGREE RECKLESS OFFENSES, ALSO ADD THE FOLLOWING TO THE DEFINITION OF THE “UTTER DISREGARD FOR HUMAN LIFE” ELEMENT: [You should consider the evidence relating to self-defense in deciding whether the defendant’s conduct showed utter disregard for human life. The burden is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act lawfully in self-defense. And, you must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt from all the evidence in the case that the circumstances of the defendant’s conduct showed utter disregard for human life.] CONTINUE WITH THE CONCLUDING PARAGRAPHS OF THE INSTRUCTION. And here is the provocation instruction … Provocation You should also consider whether the defendant provoked the attack. A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack, and who does provoke an attack, is not allowed to use or threaten force in self defense against that attack. [USE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS THAT ARE SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.] [However, if the attack which follows causes the person reasonably to believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, he or she may lawfully act in self defense. But the person may not use or threaten force intended or likely to cause death unless he or she reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm.] [A person who provokes an attack may regain the right to use or threaten force if the person in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice of the withdrawal to his assailant.] [A person who provokes an attack whether by lawful or unlawful conduct with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to another person is not entitled to use or threaten force in self defense.] |
Anonymous