Extremely detailed analysis of the Kenosha shooting by a lawyer

[jdog21]

Honestly, he very closely fits the standard description of mass-shooter.

And to be fair to those who pursued him on the scene, I believe it would be very easy to articulate as much.

Cause he's white?

 

[LosAngelesAngel]

For all we know, those people pursuing him prevented Rittenhouse from going on a much more deadly shooting spree.

~ I am thinking nothing would have happened if those 3 had not been out looking for trouble.
I expect Rittenhouse to have a successful self-defense case .

 

[Chips]

Cause he's white?

Honestly, that coupled with the fact that he was a acting alone at the time of the shooting and carrying an assault-rifle into a crowded area filled with people he was clearly antagonistic towards.

Yea, that's as close to the visual description of a mass-shooter as you could get, contemporarily.

 

[Chips]

~ I am thinking nothing would have happened if those 3 had not been out looking for trouble.
I expect Rittenhouse to have a successful self-defense case .

If it hadn't been those three, it would've been someone else. Rittenhouse was clearly not experienced enough to be carrying the assault rifle in such a situation. And honestly, how could he be expected to have the necessary level of competence with such a firearm at his age?

 

[jdog21]

Honestly, that coupled with the fact that he was a acting alone at the time of the shooting and carrying an assault-rifle into a crowded area filled with people he was clearly antagonistic towards.

Yea, that's as close to the visual description of a mass-shooter as you could get, contemporarily.

I think you will find that whites commit less mass shootings then their percentage make up of the country and "assault-rifle" such as the AR15 make up a very tiny percentage of the mass shootings.

So given those two facts, why would he fit your stereotype?

 

[LosAngelesAngel]

If it hadn't been those three, it would've been someone else. Rittenhouse was clearly not experienced enough to be carrying the assault rifle in such a situation. And honestly, how could he be expected to have the necessary level of competence with such a firearm at his age?

~ You make a good point. However the three had even worse judgement and are much older. I am wondering about the IQ of those three ...

 

[Noodlegawd]

It took a while to read through all this and I'm left with one question: Was the first guy (head shot) killed by Rittenhouse?

You don't need an extremely detailed rundown of the shooting, all you need to do is read the criminal complaint against Rittenhouse. It explains exactly why Rittenhouse was justified in shooting the ex-con. It's almost like it was written by the defense, except for all the subtle but hugely dishonest omissions.

 

[Noodlegawd]

~ You make a good point. However the three had even worse judgement and are much older. I am wondering about the IQ of those three ...

No need to wonder. Word has it that the first one was a registered sex offender who served 10 years in prison for sexually assaulting a child, and who repeatedly assaulted prison personnel while he was there.

The others were at least stupid enough to try to apprehend a man with an AR15 who was running toward the police who were only a block away.

 

[Chips]

I think you will find that whites commit less mass shootings then their percentage make up of the country and "assault-rifle" such as the AR15 make up a very tiny percentage of the mass shootings.

So given those two facts, why would he fit your stereotype?

In the past three years, there've been at least 9 mass shootings in the united states. And all but one of them was perpetrated by a lone white gunman with a semi-automatic rifle.

Please cite, where you've learned otherwise.

 

[Chips]

~ You make a good point. However the three had even worse judgement and are much older. I am wondering about the IQ of those three ...

Those three might've had some poor judgement in approaching someone who clearly had the superior firearm.

Or where they being heroic?

Honestly, it's impossible to tell. I'd cite the 2015 attack on the Thalys train in Europe. No less than four unarmed me attacked a terrorist with a rifle on the train, thereby saving many lives.

 

[Rucker61]

In the past three years, there've been at least 9 mass shootings in the united states. And all but one of them was perpetrated by a lone white gunman with a semi-automatic rifle.

Please cite, where you've learned otherwise.

I'll go with the Mother Jones tracker, which classifies a mass shooting as "three or more dead, not including the shooter". For 2018-2020 MJ shows 23 mass shootings. Of the 23, four were committed by Blacks, three by Latinos, one by an Asian, one by a Middle Easterner and the rest by whites. Handguns were used in eleven of the shootings; semiautomatic rifles in ten of the shootings; and shotguns in two of the shootings. The last mass shooting where an semiautomatic rifle was used, the Jersey City kosher market shooting, was committed by Blacks. The last three mass shootings were committed by non-whites.

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2020: Data From Mother Jones’ Investigation – Mother Jones

Mass shooting demographics.

Nearly all mass shooters are men. White men are about 60% of all men. White men are about 60% of mass shooters. It’s purely demographics.

Who commits mass shootings? - CNN
• U.S.: mass shootings by race 1982-2019 | Statista
PolitiFact | Are white males responsible for more mass shootings than any other group?

What the white mass-shooter myth gets right and wrong about killers’ demographics.

 

[Chips]

I'll go with the Mother Jones tracker,

That was a great reference, thanks for the link. I don't know why I hadn't used them prior, but the CSV format made it easy to review the data.

Nearly all mass shooters are men. White men are about 60% of all men. White men are about 60% of mass shooters. It’s purely demographics.

I agree that the total, taken at face value, does fall roughly along demographic lines.

However, you need to consider two factors:

1. With the exception of the December 2019 shooting at the Kosher Market in New Jersey, all of the mass-shootings attributed to POC occurred at establishments they had an ongoing dispute with (i.e. workplace).
2. Of the shootings attributed to white men, the majority were completed by lone gunmen using long guns (i.e. assault rifle/ shotgun). Only one appeared to be motivated by a long-term dispute with the establishment. And one appears to be related to a domestic issue (i.e. girlfriend).

Also, even if it is strictly along demographic lines, the absolute value of the totals show that more than half of all mass shootings over the past two years were completed by lone white gunmen (with 70% of those using long barreled guns).

So, the portrait of a mass shooter for an open area/ gathering does trend towards lone-white gunmen armed with long barrel firearms.

 

[Rucker61]

That was a great reference, thanks for the link. I don't know why I hadn't used them prior, but the CSV format made it easy to review the data.





I agree that the total, taken at face value, does fall roughly along demographic lines.

However, you need to consider two factors:

1. With the exception of the December 2019 shooting at the Kosher Market in New Jersey, all of the mass-shootings attributed to POC occurred at establishments they had an ongoing dispute with (i.e. workplace).
2. Of the shootings attributed to white men, the majority were completed by lone gunmen using long guns (i.e. assault rifle/ shotgun). Only one appeared to be motivated by a long-term dispute with the establishment. And one appears to be related to a domestic issue (i.e. girlfriend).

Also, even if it is strictly along demographic lines, the absolute value of the totals show that more than half of all mass shootings over the past two years were completed by lone white gunmen (with 70% of those using long barreled guns).

So, the portrait of a mass shooter for an open area/ gathering does trend towards lone-white gunmen armed with long barrel firearms.

In the 56 years that we've had AR15s, they've been used in mass shootings by a civilian about 17 times total. We have 20 million of them, so the odds againat one being used in a mass shooting are absurdly small. Mass shootings themselves are extremely rare. Since the starting date 1982 in the MJ tracker, there have been a total of about 1000 deaths in mass shootings; more people are murdered every single year by knives. Of those deaths, about 256 were from a civilian using an AR-15. That's fewer than the number of people who die every single year from galling out of bed or drowning in the bathrub.

 

[Captain Adverse]

That might be the case, if he hadn't intentionally placed himself there with an illegal firearm.

However, the pretext for his presence at the scene of the first shooting completely negates the self-defense claim he will certainly make.

Doubtful. I (and other's) have laid out ad nauseam in other threads how you are likely incorrect in this assertion.

But I'll let the legal team in Wisconsin deal with that in Court.

As for this comment?

For all we know, those people pursuing him prevented Rittenhouse from going on a much more deadly shooting spree.

IMO a ridiculous assertion.

From ALL the available video evidence, we know three things:

1. Mr. Rittenhouse did not start a single one of those shooting incidents. In each case he was defending himself against aggressors.

2. Each time, he fired only enough to stop his attackers, stopping as soon as he saw he was not facing any further attack.

3. Each time, once free of immediate threat, he attempted to flee to safety. Even shown walking with hands up and talking to two groups of police.

As pointed out in #3 above, he spoke to the local police, who appear to have been too busy to deal with him. So he turned himself in to his local police once he got home (20 miles away).

There is NO evidence he was an aggressor/initiator of violence in any video evidence to date.

 

[Artymoon]

Here's Colion Noir's take...

This was a good take of the events. Everyone is passionate about this one way or the other but when it is looked at from a purely legal standpoint, he looks to have touched all the bases.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Was he carrying illegally?

 

[Rucker61]

Was he carrying illegally?

Was the law Constitutional?

 

[iguanaman]

That isn't a crime, much less a felony. Stop lying.

Read more: Can Use Of Illegally Carried Gun Harm Claim Of Self-Defense? LOSD Question of the Week
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Getting a felony conviction for the illegal possession of a gun is not going to help the defendant’s testimony in front of the jury. Further, a felony conviction feeds in nicely to the prosecution’s compelling narrative of guilt, that the defendant is a bad guy who does bad things—including shooting people NOT in self-defense.

This is especially for any of the jurors who are not particularly comfortable around firearms, especially handguns – a sentiment that is far more common than those of us who live deeply immersed in the gun community might recognize. Even the licensed carry of a pistol is looked at askance by many people, and the prosecution is sure to trot out the old argument that “the defendant is just a nut with a gun looking to shoot someone” – but at least licensed carry is lawful, and something done by law abiding people.

The illegal carry of a gun, on the other hands, is something done by bad guys. And you don’t want to look like a bad guy in a self-defense case, because the connotation goes right to the element of innocence. If you’re perceived as the bad guy, is it more or less likely the jury will believe the prosecution’s arguments that you were the aggressor, or at the very least were a willing participant in mutual combat?

Can Use Of Illegally Carried Gun Harm Claim Of Self-Defense? LOSD Question of the Week

 

[Artymoon]

Was he carrying illegally?

Yes, it looks to be - misdemeanor offense. No bearing on proving self defense though.

 

[apdst]

Read more: Can Use Of Illegally Carried Gun Harm Claim Of Self-Defense? LOSD Question of the Week
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook



Can Use Of Illegally Carried Gun Harm Claim Of Self-Defense? LOSD Question of the Week

It's a misdemeaner, not a felony.

 

[apdst]

Was he carrying illegally?

Huber was carrying illegally.

 

[Chips]

In the 56 years that we've had AR15s, they've been used in mass shootings by a civilian about 17 times total. We have 20 million of them, so the odds againat one being used in a mass shooting are absurdly small.

Honestly, I completely agree with the above statement. And as a gun owner myself, I can say that the odds of any firearm I own being used in such a shooting is essentially zero. However, that's not the correct way to look at the statistic, especially from potential active shooter standpoint.

For that you look at the actual mass shootings that've occurred recently (a nearly 50% annual increase since 2017), and if one is going to happen the odds are:

60% chance it's a lone white gunman
75% chance he'll be using a long barreled gun (rifle or shotgun)

The odds increase if you control for the ‘mass shootings’ where the shooter had a long-standing grudge against a particular workplace or individual (I’d personally consider that more of a murder than a mass shooting, but that’s semantics).

Regardless, look at it like plane crashes.

Domestically I only fly JetBlue, and to date they’ve never had a fatal crash. So from one perspective, the chances of me dying in a plane crash are essentially zero. However, plane crashes do happen, and if I’m to die in one, it will likely be a Jet Blue crash.

So, if you’re looking to prevent the next mass shooting, and you see a lone white male armed with a long-barreled gun in the area of a known shooting, odds are you’ve got a very strong case for assuming he’s the shooter.

Mass shootings themselves are extremely rare. Since the starting date 1982 in the MJ tracker, there have been a total of about 1000 deaths in mass shootings; more people are murdered every single year by knives. Of those deaths, about 256 were from a civilian using an AR-15. That's fewer than the number of people who die every single year from galling out of bed or drowning in the bathrub.

Sure, they aren’t super common compared to other forms of death.

Individual murders will always outnumber mass shootings (both in quantity of occurrence, and total number of victims).

But, for some reason the public finds mass shootings much more frightening. I’m guessing because the seeming randomness of it all, and apparent unavoidability of the scenario. Like many peoples irrational fear of plane crashes.

You’re more likely to die in a car crash than a plane crash. But you’ve got feeling of control behind the wheel of the car, and somehow that makes it feel safer.

 

[Chips]

But I'll let the legal team in Wisconsin deal with that in Court.

Agreed, as that’s the only logical thing to do.

My parting shot on Rittenhouse’s self defense claim is his failure to render immediate aid to Rosenbaum after the first shooting neutralized his status as a threat.

At that moment, no one else was pursuing Rittenhouse.

Had he immediately shouldered the rifle and used the “medic kit” he was carrying, he would’ve:

A- proven his intent, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

b- possibly eliminated the subsequent foot chase and shooting that followed the first shooting.

IMO a ridiculous assertion.

From ALL the available video evidence, we know three things:

1. Mr. Rittenhouse did not start a single one of those shooting incidents. In each case he was defending himself against aggressors.

2. Each time, he fired only enough to stop his attackers, stopping as soon as he saw he was not facing any further attack.

3. Each time, once free of immediate threat, he attempted to flee to safety. Even shown walking with hands up and talking to two groups of police.

As pointed out in #3 above, he spoke to the local police, who appear to have been too busy to deal with him. So he turned himself in to his local police once he got home (20 miles away).

There is NO evidence he was an aggressor/initiator of violence in any video evidence to date.

1. We do not actually know how the first shooting incident started, to date I haven’t seen any footage of the initial interaction between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum (prior to Rosenbaum throwing the bag at him). While Rosenbaum was clearly an aggressive individual, Rittenhouse also clearly abandoned his position with the other ‘militia’ types guarding the businesses. If Rittenhouse chose to ‘go into harm’s way’ as he had previously stated, it’s also possible he instigated the contact with Rosenbaum.

2. An active shooter returning fire as people attempt to disarm him does not get to claim self defense. It matters not that he only fired a few rounds prior to illogically turning his back [each time] to what he should’ve considered an imminent threat.

3. This really illustrates that he was not equipped with the experience/ maturity to carry the rifle in such a situation in the first place. And the fact that he didn’t patiently wait to turn himself in at the scene really furthers the concept that he was not mentally fit for the role he had self-assumed.

 

[Chips]

There is NO evidence he was an aggressor/initiator of violence in any video evidence to date.

But on the possibility of Rittenhouse possibly harming more people had [at least] the second group not approached and attempted to disarm him, I'd say the fact that he was involved in the first shooting at all lends credibility to the fact that his inexperience and immaturity could very easily have lead to a much more dangerous shooting had he not been stopped/ forced to flee when he was.

In the end, this just does damage to the rest of us who legally and safely own firearms.

This kid should never have been in possession of that rifle in any scenario, much less during an active protest situation. When people throw around the phrase "Guns don't shoot people, people shoot people," Kyle Rittenhouse is EXACTLY who they are talking about.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Agreed, as that’s the only logical thing to do.

My parting shot on Rittenhouse’s self defense claim is his failure to render immediate aid to Rosenbaum after the first shooting neutralized his status as a threat.

He did not have to. However, he did initially approach to see whatever, he did not "immediately flee." He then makes a call (to a friend?) and as more people approached the downed individual, some screaming "get him, he did it" (or words to that effect), he fled.

IMO because people were already yelling about him as "the shooter" and to "get him." Running away, instead of "standing his ground" and unloading a magazine on all comers would IMO be a wise move for a person NOT seeking to harm anyone else.

1. We do not actually know how the first shooting incident started, to date I haven’t seen any footage of the initial interaction between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum (prior to Rosenbaum throwing the bag at him). While Rosenbaum was clearly an aggressive individual, Rittenhouse also clearly abandoned his position with the other ‘militia’ types guarding the businesses. If Rittenhouse chose to ‘go into harm’s way’ as he had previously stated, it’s also possible he instigated the contact with Rosenbaum.

Conversely, we have no evidence that Rittenhouse was "an aggressive individual" during the rioting period. Yet as you acknowledge, there IS evidence Rosenbaum was acting aggressively during the day toward other armed individuals volunteering to protect the property that had not been burned the night before. So unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, what we do have is Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse, throwing something at him in a plastic bag, continuing to chase and try to charge into Rittenhouse. I might have shot the man too. :shrug:

2. An active shooter returning fire as people attempt to disarm him does not get to claim self defense. It matters not that he only fired a few rounds prior to illogically turning his back [each time] to what he should’ve considered an imminent threat.

I disagree. You can color their actions any way you want to. But after the initial shooting we have video evidence of someone running up and striking Rittenhouse in the back of the head with an object. Another trying to curb-stomp his head. A third striking at his head with a skateboard. A fourth rushing up with to grab his rifle and when that failed coming back and trying to point a gun at him. All while other people are screaming "get him," and we hear other gunshots while he is not firing.

I can tell you right now, I would have defended myself with that weapon had I been attacked in that same series of events. I would argue the same self-defense right. Period.

3. This really illustrates that he was not equipped with the experience/ maturity to carry the rifle in such a situation in the first place. And the fact that he didn’t patiently wait to turn himself in at the scene really furthers the concept that he was not mentally fit for the role he had self-assumed.

Perhaps. But again IMO, as ex-Army? I would have defended myself in each situation as well. Those "citizens" are the ones who should have been calling for police assistance. You can try to portray them as "heroes," but IMO they were not.

I think he did try to tell the police, from what I can make out in the video. But they didn't seem to have any time for him. He turned himself in as soon as he got back to his home town.