Extremely detailed analysis of the Kenosha shooting by a lawyer

[Captain Adverse]

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.

You are arguing from "facts not in evidence," i.e. offering speculation.

So I'm going to respond with MY opinion too.

1. After watching the actions of this "crowd," not only that day but on preceding dates, IMO they would not have "detained him." They would have tried to kill him.

2. I disagree with your characterization of his actions in the initial shooting. He was fleeing. He was trying to avoid Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum was actively and aggressively pursuing Rittenhouse with clear intent to cause harm, perhaps even taking his firearm for personal use. NOTE: Rosenbaum is a convicted violent felon, recently released from prison. HE was well-aware that merely possessing a firearm would get him back in jail. If he felt Rittenhouse was a threat, really, then he should have found some police and reported it.

IMO, by his every action Rittenhouse was geared to disengage and seek the police. That was obvious when he finally saw law enforcement. You can see he immediately let go of his firearm, raised his hands above his head and slowly walked toward the police.

 

[Chips]

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.

Sure he didn’t have to render aid.

He didn’t have to be there at all.

But being as he clearly stated to a reporter, shortly before the shooting, that he was there specifically to guard property and render medical assistance, he probably should’ve rendered aid.

Besides, in the video of that first engagement, there is a lengthly pause during which time an ill equipped reporter actually starts rendering aid as Rittenhouse calls a friend on the phone. The ‘get him’ yell happens afterwards.

If Rittenhouse had simply done as he should’ve, and started First Aid, that might’ve neutralized the situation right there. And it certainly would’ve painted Rosenbaum as the clear aggressor.

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:

Actually, video evidence from a fight Rittenhouse was involved in earlier this summer clearly demonstrating his predilection for physical violence. So, we are still left with two potentially violent individuals in an un-filmed interaction.

Only difference is that Rittenhouse drove twenty miles and brought a rifle to the interaction. And it was his presence that is central to the shooting, not Rosenbaum.

Armed ‘militia’ types had been around perviously and in other locations, interacting with Rosenbaum during the protests. And yet, only Rittenhouse fired a single round.

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.

And I can tell you right now, that I would’ve tried to disarm an active shooter. Or at least I can only hope that I would’ve had the same courage to do so.

All training and experience aside, you can only know how you’ll react in such a situation at the moment it happens.

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.

Here’s to hoping that you’re more mature than Rittenhouse, and would not allow yourself to get tangled into such a situation in the first place.

 

[Chips]

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.

Of course, and thats a difference of opinions between two Monday morning quarterbacks.

However, I’d say that the level of urgency that would lead the second three subjects to approach an individual armed with an assault rifle must’ve been great enough for them to overcome the obvious fear for their own lives.

They weren’t pursuing an unarmed individual.

And when the second victim actually did manage to make contact with Rittenhouse, he immediately attempted to disarm him, rather than continue attacking him with the skateboard. Honestly looked like a legitimate attempt to neutralize Rittenhouse as a threat to other protestors.

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.

He might’ve made a very superficial attempt to tell the police, but still ended up fleeing the scene. And didn’t surrender to arrest until the next morning.

Given that he was a ‘police cadet’ I imagine he had at least enough knowledge to understand that he should not have left the scene.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Was the law Constitutional?

Was he carrying illegally?

 

[CaughtInThe]

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

so he was he carrying legally?

 

[CaughtInThe]

Huber was carrying illegally.

Was Rittenhouse carrying illegally?

 

[Chips]

You are arguing from "facts not in evidence," i.e. offering speculation.

So I'm going to respond with MY opinion too.

Really, that's all either of us have at the moment.

Until a legitimate investigation occurs. However, I'll hold my breath even then. Given the Police Chief's clear bias towards the actions of Rittenhouse (referring to his actions as if Rittenhouse were actually a sworn Police Officer during a press conference), I don't know how clean the investigation will be.

1. After watching the actions of this "crowd," not only that day but on preceding dates, IMO they would not have "detained him." They would have tried to kill him.

2. I disagree with your characterization of his actions in the initial shooting. He was fleeing. He was trying to avoid Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum was actively and aggressively pursuing Rittenhouse with clear intent to cause harm, perhaps even taking his firearm for personal use. NOTE: Rosenbaum is a convicted violent felon, recently released from prison. HE was well-aware that merely possessing a firearm would get him back in jail. If he felt Rittenhouse was a threat, really, then he should have found some police and reported it.

1. That night and on previous nights, both Rosenbaum and other armed 'militia' folks had been present during the protests. According to one at least one account, Rosenbaum has been regularly protesting throughout the summer.

This leads to the obvious conclusion that Rosenbaum was the control in the situation, and that Rittenhouse was the variable.

2. And Kyle Rittenhouse was a 'Police Cadet' who had openly violated gun laws and curfew. He had also abandoned the post he claimed to be protecting, and was wandering several blocks from where he was stationed with other armed 'militia' types. Earlier in the night he expressed intent to 'go into harm's way.' I don't think it's a stretch to imagine this particular seventeen year old creating a situation where he sparked the interaction with Rosenbaum.

IMO, by his every action Rittenhouse was geared to disengage and seek the police. That was obvious when he finally saw law enforcement. You can see he immediately let go of his firearm, raised his hands above his head and slowly walked toward the police.

In watching the video of Rittenhouse actually reaching the line of approaching Police Officers, he looked more relieved than anything. Relieved like a kid who reached the finish line of a race or a safety in a dodgeball match.

It was Rittenhouse's every action, starting from the moment he decided to drive out of his way and bring an assault rifle, that he was ill equipped to carry, to an active protest, that lead to the shootings.

Rosenbaum had been there all along, and so had other armed 'militia' types.

And yet it was Rittenhouse that committed the murders.

 

[Chips]

Was Rittenhouse carrying illegally?

Yes, he was carrying illegally.

 

[Rucker61]

Yes, he was carrying illegally.

What does Wisconsin law say?

 

[CaughtInThe]

Yes, he was carrying illegally.

we (some people here/across the nation) are still in Stage 1 (Denial) on that very first thing.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Actually, video evidence from a fight Rittenhouse was involved in earlier this summer clearly demonstrating his predilection for physical violence. So, we are still left with two potentially violent individuals in an un-filmed interaction.

:doh

I thought you might pull that crap up.

I saw that video. Those were high school kids, doing high school crap. If I recall correctly the "fight" was started by one of the girls there, who apparently felt entitled to "strike" out at someone expecting to do it with impunity. Sadly for her, Mr. Rittenhouse chose to respond in kind.

But that is not a valid example, as we are discussing actions on the day in question. What evidence on the day, and between the parties involved, shows Mr. Rittenhouse was acting violently? NONE so far, prior to the attack by Rosenbaum.

When discussing the issue of self-defense, one does not go back to some unrelated incident who knows how long prior, occurring elsewhere, and under different circumstances. One focuses on the time and place of the incident and the immediate surrounding period.

Now again, if any evidence does come up showing Rittenhouse was the initial aggressor? Well and good.

Till then, stick to the facts IN evidence.

Only difference is that Rittenhouse drove twenty miles and brought a rifle to the interaction. And it was his presence that is central to the shooting, not Rosenbaum.

Wrong again. According to this response from his legal team Rittenhouse was WORKING as a lifeguard in Kenosha, which is a 20 minute drive from Antioch IL, his hometown. After his shift, he went to clean graffiti off of school buildings. There the volunteers were approached by a man whose car dealership had been burned down and he was seeking protection volunteers.

First of all, we now have evidence he did not transport any weapon across state lines...

Rittenhouse Attorneys Claim Self-Defense Kenosha Shootings

He was already in Wisconsin for work, and stayed to help with cleaning up. Kenosha is a 20 minute drive away from his home town of Antioch IL. That's not a "trip," it's like a normal commuting distance.

map of kenosha wi at DuckDuckGo

Armed ‘militia’ types had been around previously and in other locations, interacting with Rosenbaum during the protests. And yet, only Rittenhouse fired a single round.

1. As you can now see he was not a member of any "armed militia."

2. Trying to lump him in as one, there originally to act as one, when the reality is he was there for work, then to help with a cleanup, and only when asked volunteered to help protect property.

Now a question arises. Was that location where this all started one of the two repair shops the volunteers were asked to help protect?

If so that answers one question, i.e. he was there because he was supposed to be.

If not, then I grant that we do need to know why he was there.

And I can tell you right now, that I would’ve tried to disarm an active shooter. Or at least I can only hope that I would’ve had the same courage to do so.

All training and experience aside, you can only know how you’ll react in such a situation at the moment it happens.

IMO you are incorrect. Training and experience have a great deal of effect.

I can tell YOU right now that I would have assessed the situation before I took any action, unless I was an actual WITNESS and knew Mr. Rittenhouse was, in FACT, the kind of "active shooter" requiring such action.

You've seen what happens when a mob jumps to the wrong conclusions, and how someone acting "wrongly" can be injured, maimed for life, or killed by acting without knowing the facts.

Here’s to hoping that you’re more mature than Rittenhouse, and would not allow yourself to get tangled into such a situation in the first place.

Where have I heard that kind of cautionary response before? :unsure13:

I have a life's worth of experience in many dangerous situations, in and out of military service and for all sorts of reasons.

That's why I prefer to do an active threat assessment rather than jump to conclusions and precipitate action.

I hope YOU are mature enough to recognize that in THIS situation, jumping to conclusions about someone's guilt or innocence...or about what you would or would not actually do in the same situation may be problematic...

And no excuse if you get hurt or hurt someone else.

 

[zsu2357]

:lamo

Of course you think it's funny, that's because it doesn't fit your narrative.

 

[zsu2357]

I don't think you can claim self-defense with an illegal gun can you? He is already guilty of a felony because he's a minor that carried a gun across State lines. He was a felon the entire time he was at the protest too. It is illegal for a 17 year old to carry a gun in public.



When Open Carry Turns Fatal: Kenosha Unrest Shooting Raises Questions About Wisconsin Gun Laws | WUWM

Did you read all of the OP or skim it?

[Edit Aug 28: "Apparently (though I have not confirmed this) Lin Wood, who is involved in Rittenhouse's defence, Tweeted that Rittenhouse had borrowed the rifle he was carrying from someone in Wisconsin. That Tweet is here. Of course, if this was true it is one more defence against any weapons charges involving interstate transportation.]"

I don't know, I wasn't there, and I'm not the Judge nor will I sit on a jury if one is needed. I read it all. Just saying.

 

[iguanaman]

Did you read all of the OP or skim it?



I don't know, I wasn't there, and I'm not the Judge nor will I sit on a jury if one is needed. I read it all. Just saying.

So whomever gave that gun to a minor was breaking the law also?

 

[Rucker61]

So whomever gave that gun to a minor was breaking the law also?

What does Wisconsin law say? What does 10 USC 246 say?

 

[zsu2357]

Well:

That he dropped out of high-school.

That he was recently turned away from the Marines.

That he was recently cited for driving without a valid drivers license.

That he is not an EMT, contrary to his statements just prior to the shooting.

Etc. Etc. Etc.

Put into that context, Rittenhouse sounds sounds like a very violent individual. The part about the drivers license seals it. Give him life in prison.

 

[iguanaman]

What does Wisconsin law say? What does 10 USC 246 say?

Whomever gave him that gun is screwed. I beleive they will charge him with accessory to murder too.

Firearms and minors
Possession of a dangerous weapon by anyone under 18 is a class A misdemeanor. Giving/loaning/selling a dangerous weapon to someone under 18 is a class I felony.

Gun laws in Wisconsin - Wikipedia

 

[Rucker61]

Whomever gave him that gun is screwed. I beleive they will charge him with accessory to murder too.



Gun laws in Wisconsin - Wikipedia

From your cite:

"Open carry is legal anywhere concealed carry is legal. It is legal for all adults unless they are prohibited from possession of firearms. Furthermore, minors that are 16 years of age or older can openly carry long guns, provided they are not considered "short-barreled rifles" or "short-barreled shotguns" and are not otherwise prohibited from possession of firearms."

 

[Artymoon]

so he was he carrying legally?

Already answered that. Again, whether he was carrying legal or illegal won't change his right to self defense.

 

[iguanaman]

From your cite:

"Open carry is legal anywhere concealed carry is legal. It is legal for all adults unless they are prohibited from possession of firearms. Furthermore, minors that are 16 years of age or older can openly carry long guns, provided they are not considered "short-barreled rifles" or "short-barreled shotguns" and are not otherwise prohibited from possession of firearms."

Giving/loaning/selling a dangerous weapon to someone under 18 is a class I felony.

Also..

Firearms retailers are required to provide every buyer with a written warning stating, "If you leave a loaded firearm within the reach or easy access of a child, you may be fined or imprisoned or both if the child improperly discharges, possesses or exhibits the firearm."

 

[Rucker61]

Giving/loaning/selling a dangerous weapon to someone under 18 is a class I felony.

Also..

Firearms retailers are required to provide every buyer with a written warning stating, "If you leave a loaded firearm within the reach or easy access of a child, you may be fined or imprisoned or both if the child improperly discharges, possesses or exhibits the firearm."

How can someone be guilty of giving a weapon to a child if the recipient is being charged as a adult?

How can someone who is a member of the federal militia by law possess a long gun illegally?

 

[apdst]

Was Rittenhouse carrying illegally?

Huber was committing a felony. A Federal one, at that. At worst, Rittenhouse was committing a misdemeanor.

 

[iguanaman]

Huber was committing a felony. A Federal one, at that. At worst, Rittenhouse was committing a misdemeanor.

Whom ever gave that gun to the 17 year old was committing a felony though.

 

[zsu2357]

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?

An AR 15 is NOT an "assault rifle" no bad how the gun banners want it to be so. Oh and at seventeen I was more than competent on the real deal.:mrgreen: Honestly.

 

[apdst]

Whom ever gave that gun to the 17 year old was committing a felony though.

Which felony did they commit?