Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, charged with murder after two killed during Wisconsin protests

[buck]

It's not like he was running in some walled off corridor that fed him directly into the police vehicles that were three blocks away.

I don't believe that was even three blocks. Regardless, it's why I continued my statement with: Instead ensure the cops knew what occurred so they could properly react. Had they done that and not attacked Kyle, two people wouldn't have been shot and the cops would have had Kyle right away.

 

[sjmay]

He is a minor. As a minor he had no right to be there.

Yea, no, that's not how rights work.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

he lost that ability when he killed someone.

Wisconsin law does not support your assertion. You've been told this. Repeatedly. You are running dangerously low on credibility and bordering on trollery.

 

[ClaraD]

Wisconsin law does not support your assertion. You've been told this. Repeatedly. You are running dangerously low on credibility and bordering on trollery.

actually it does, and that has been pointed out to you repeatedly.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

actually it does, and that has been pointed out to you repeatedly.

Never have you ever provided a statutory citation that indicates a person is allowed only one exercise of deadly force in the name of self defense.

 

[ClaraD]

Never have you ever provided a statutory citation that indicates a person is allowed only one exercise of deadly force in the name of self defense.

I have cited both case law and the law...you ignored it, I will not go back over it....you can go back and read the thread again.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

I have cited both case law and the law...you ignored it, I will not go back over it....you can go back and read the thread again.

Nowhere have you cited statutory text that you only get one use of deadly force in self defense. That appears nowhere in the thread, because no statute in Wisconsin law supports such a statement.

Any claim to the contrary is a lie.

 

[Oborosen]

Nowhere have you cited statutory text that you only get one use of deadly force in self defense. That appears nowhere in the thread, because no statute in Wisconsin law supports such a statement.

Any claim to the contrary is a lie.

I hope it's sunk it at this point, that you're asking the impossible of Clara.

 

[SkyFox76]

This is where I think Rittenhouse is going to have a problem. From the self defense law ClaraD provided earlier on the thread.

In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her 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 his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

We know for a fact Rittenhouse was not cornered or trapped and could have kept running. Instead of heading across the car lot he could have cut his move the other direction and been headed back to the other armed people, and past that intersection police had backed up to someplace close. At 17 he should have been been able to outrun a 36 year old with a beer gut. But then I guess it also could depend on how much Rittenhouse smokes vs if Rosenbaum smokes or not.

The second part is also an issue if it's proven Rittenhouse provoked Rosenbaum into going after him. Are there witnesses that can testify he pointed the gun at Rosenbaum? If there are, then doesn't that clearly state he can't claim self defense after provoking an attack?

 

[ASHES]

He is a minor. As a minor he had no right to be there.

This is where I think Rittenhouse is going to have a problem. From the self defense law ClaraD provided earlier on the thread.




We know for a fact Rittenhouse was not cornered or trapped and could have kept running. Instead of heading across the car lot he could have cut his move the other direction and been headed back to the other armed people, and past that intersection police had backed up to someplace close. At 17 he should have been been able to outrun a 36 year old with a beer gut. But then I guess it also could depend on how much Rittenhouse smokes vs if Rosenbaum smokes or not.

The second part is also an issue if it's proven Rittenhouse provoked Rosenbaum into going after him. Are there witnesses that can testify he pointed the gun at Rosenbaum? If there are, then doesn't that clearly state he can't claim self defense after provoking an attack?

From 939.48 case law: "Although intentionally pointing a firearm at another constitutes a violation of s. 941.20, under sub. (1) a person is privileged to point a gun at another person in self-defense if the person reasonably believes that the threat of force is necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference. State v. Watkins, 2002 WI 101, 255 Wis. 2d 265, 647 N.W.2d 244, 00-0064."

So even if Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Rosenbaum, that isn't automatically illegal, we would need to know the full circumstances of what led to that confrontation to make that determination. If he was using brandishing as a defense mechanism against an aggressive provocateur, that is not necessarily illegal. It certainly doesn't give Rosenbaum the right to affect a citizen's arrest if he was the primary aggressor and the pointing of the firearm was an initial response to that aggression. Also from the law, that ClaraD doesn't provide:
939.48 (2)(b):
"(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant."
If Kyle provoked the confrontation by illegally brandishing, he would not have the right to self defense if Rosenbaum pulled a gun and tried to shoot him. We don't see any such provocation by Rittenhouse though. We see him withdrawing from the fight, which certainly counts as adequate notice of withdrawal. Rosenbaum then continues the altercation, by chasing the withdrawing party down (no evidence he was trying to affect a citizen's arrest) and attempting to disarm him, which makes him the aggressor under 939.48.

 

[dcsports]

This is where I think Rittenhouse is going to have a problem. From the self defense law ClaraD provided earlier on the thread.




We know for a fact Rittenhouse was not cornered or trapped and could have kept running. Instead of heading across the car lot he could have cut his move the other direction and been headed back to the other armed people, and past that intersection police had backed up to someplace close. At 17 he should have been been able to outrun a 36 year old with a beer gut. But then I guess it also could depend on how much Rittenhouse smokes vs if Rosenbaum smokes or not.

The second part is also an issue if it's proven Rittenhouse provoked Rosenbaum into going after him. Are there witnesses that can testify he pointed the gun at Rosenbaum? If there are, then doesn't that clearly state he can't claim self defense after provoking an attack?

I'm not sure what you are suggesting - second guessing earlier events? It was clear Rittenhouse was running from those people and tripped.

How did Rittenhouse 'provoke Rosenbaum'? What you suggest - warning away Rosenbaum, who then attacked anyway, would only strengthen his position of self defense.

 

[Ikari]

Well we'll see how it comes out in court. As of now, though, I believe he's being held in a juvenile facility and as a 2 million dollar bail.

 

[SkyFox76]

From 939.48 case law: "Although intentionally pointing a firearm at another constitutes a violation of s. 941.20, under sub. (1) a person is privileged to point a gun at another person in self-defense if the person reasonably believes that the threat of force is necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference. State v. Watkins, 2002 WI 101, 255 Wis. 2d 265, 647 N.W.2d 244, 00-0064."

So even if Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Rosenbaum, that isn't automatically illegal, we would need to know the full circumstances of what led to that confrontation to make that determination. If he was using brandishing as a defense mechanism against an aggressive provocateur, that is not necessarily illegal. It certainly doesn't give Rosenbaum the right to affect a citizen's arrest if he was the primary aggressor and the pointing of the firearm was an initial response to that aggression. Also from the law, that ClaraD doesn't provide:
939.48 (2)(b):
"(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant."
If Kyle provoked the confrontation by illegally brandishing, he would not have the right to self defense if Rosenbaum pulled a gun and tried to shoot him. We don't see any such provocation by Rittenhouse though. We see him withdrawing from the fight, which certainly counts as adequate notice of withdrawal. Rosenbaum then continues the altercation, by chasing the withdrawing party down (no evidence he was trying to affect a citizen's arrest) and attempting to disarm him, which makes him the aggressor under 939.48.

Remember there are already two witnesses that say he pointed the weapon at them. One was just trying to get to his car and the others were either on or in a car.

So let's say Rosenbaum sees Rittenhouse and calls him a derogatory name. Rittenhouse gets irked raises the weapon which provokes Rosenbaum. At that point the chase begins.

Does running, stopping to point the weapon, running again and stopping to point the weapon (then firing it) really fall under giving adequate notice? Seems like further provocation to me.

Now say if he was running and when he stopped the first time and pointed it, when Rosenbaum reacted by stopping and beginning to retreat, At that point Rittenhouse let go of his weapon and raised his hands to indicate he was withdrawing, and maybe verbally communicate it, then yeah that is adequate notice.

 

[ClaraD]

I hope it's sunk it at this point, that you're asking the impossible of Clara.

Kyle Rittenhouse was on that street engaging in illegal behavior that he should have known could provoke others to attack him...you cannot provoke an attack and then claim self defense....ever.
We do know in the video that you can hear Rosenbaum yelling at Rittenhouse to just ** shoot him if he is going to. Why would he say that if Rittenhouse had made no provocative move or threat? Witnesses seem to back that up as well, several witnesses have said that he was pointing his weapon and ordering people to get in their cars and get out of there. He isn't police, he cannot point his weapon or order anyone to do anything...pointing your weapon is provocation and gives that other person you are pointing it at the right to kill you dead.
So, lets look at all of the facts....

He had a suspended drivers license. He was illegally open carrying in the state of Wisconsin and we still have the question of if he actually crossed state lines with the weapon...no, I don't believe his quack attorneys.

1st: it is a Class A misdemeanor to open carry in Wisconsin if you are under 18...we all know he is under 18....as presented that he is just 17....does not matter if he is 1 day or 10 months from 18...he is under 18.

What does self defense laws say in Wisconsin? Well, there is no stand your ground in Wisconsin..
(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm
(c) 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 his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.
(3) The privilege of self-defense extends not only to the intentional infliction of harm upon a real or apparent wrongdoer, but also to the unintended infliction of harm upon a 3rd person, except that if the unintended infliction of harm amounts to the crime of first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless homicide, homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless injury or injury by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, the actor is liable for whichever one of those crimes is committed.

2: He was not invited there by either this militia group or the owner of the car lot. Here is what the leader of this so called vigilante group said
"He's not one of us," Mishler said of Rittenhouse.
(so he isn't any part of any convoluted militia group either....
Here is what the car lot owner said.

Anmol Khindri, who said he co-owns Car Source with his father, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that no one was asked to protect the business. “Why would I? ... I’m already burned out. There was nothing left to protect,” Khindri was quoted as saying.

Also, on television, Rittenhouse stupidly said this....you cannot use lethal force in Wisconsin to defend property, especially property you aren't entitled to defend in the first place...this goes to what his intent was...why would you go with only non lethal rounds if you want to avoid an attack and to avoid killing someone?
Rittenhouse spoke to a man recording a video at one point before the shootings. He assured the man that he and other armed men alongside him were carrying lethal weapons.

 

[ClaraD]

"We don't have nonlethal," the teenager said, wearing a baseball cap backward and adding he had just "got pepper-sprayed by a person in the crowd."
A witness named Jerimiah stated that he was trying to get to his car and crossed the parking lot. He said that there were 2 militia members on the roof, sniper style...no one in their right mind would say that is not provocation....and then 2 or 3 others were standing guard over the lot. So, as you seem to want to claim...Rittenhouse wasn't alone. The witness identified one of them as Rittenhouse. He stated that Rittenhouse started yelling at him and Jerimiah yelled back 'I am just trying to get out of here, if you are going to shoot me, just shoot me."
He then goes on to state that Rittenhouse then turned and raised his rifle and pointed it at Rosenbaum and this time Rittenhouse fired, several times.
So, we will stop here and just deal with this and not the next segments. The law says if you go looking for a fight, find it, and provoke the other party, you have no right to self defense...it further goes on to say that you have to try to escape from the situation if you are committing a crime with the need for self defense comes up...your rights are diminished. He was clearly violating the law on several accounts. Then he shot an unarmed man multiple times after he had pointed his gun at another protester....pointing your gun is provocation...full stop.

He wasn't invited to defend anything so he cannot argue castle doctrine either...and he was not a licensed security guard, especially not in the state of Wisconsin....what will be admissible, is testimony from classmates, witnesses, media, etc....his classmates said he bullied and threatened people that did not agree with his view points. Oh, and that video of him punching a girl and only backing down when a group of guys got involved...that will be shown as well to demonstrate a pattern of violence...and you can bet that his scumbag, fifth rate attorney will be put on the hot seat to prove who gave the gun to him....why? Because that act alone is felony.

 

[SkyFox76]

I'm not sure what you are suggesting - second guessing earlier events? It was clear Rittenhouse was running from those people and tripped.

How did Rittenhouse 'provoke Rosenbaum'? What you suggest - warning away Rosenbaum, who then attacked anyway, would only strengthen his position of self defense.

Rittenhouse didn't have the right to just walk around pointing his weapon at whoever and demanding what people could do or not do. He's not law enforcement regardless of what he claimed his "job" was.

He showed up to a tense situation, armed, and ignorantly talking about running into harm's way.

Withdrawing means stop. Not go, stop, go, stop. Which is what he did.

 

[dcsports]

Remember there are already two witnesses that say he pointed the weapon at them. One was just trying to get to his car and the others were either on or in a car.

So let's say Rosenbaum sees Rittenhouse and calls him a derogatory name. Rittenhouse gets irked raises the weapon which provokes Rosenbaum. At that point the chase begins.

Does running, stopping to point the weapon, running again and stopping to point the weapon (then firing it) really fall under giving adequate notice? Seems like further provocation to me.

Now say if he was running and when he stopped the first time and pointed it, when Rosenbaum reacted by stopping and beginning to retreat, At that point Rittenhouse let go of his weapon and raised his hands to indicate he was withdrawing, and maybe verbally communicate it, then yeah that is adequate notice.

I think you are trying to complicate the situation. Rittenhouse was running away from the group yelling "Get his A__", toward the police. Rosenbaum isn't defending himself by 'getting irked' and charging him with a weapon. Rittenhouse is retreating, and doesn't fire until trapped. Rosenbaum is attacking. Rosenbaum is not going to be able to claim self defense.

 

[SkyFox76]

Kyle Rittenhouse was on that street engaging in illegal behavior that he should have known could provoke others to attack him...you cannot provoke an attack and then claim self defense....ever.
We do know in the video that you can hear Rosenbaum yelling at Rittenhouse to just ** shoot him if he is going to. Why would he say that if Rittenhouse had made no provocative move or threat? Witnesses seem to back that up as well, several witnesses have said that he was pointing his weapon and ordering people to get in their cars and get out of there. He isn't police, he cannot point his weapon or order anyone to do anything...pointing your weapon is provocation and gives that other person you are pointing it at the right to kill you dead.
So, lets look at all of the facts....

He had a suspended drivers license. He was illegally open carrying in the state of Wisconsin and we still have the question of if he actually crossed state lines with the weapon...no, I don't believe his quack attorneys.

1st: it is a Class A misdemeanor to open carry in Wisconsin if you are under 18...we all know he is under 18....as presented that he is just 17....does not matter if he is 1 day or 10 months from 18...he is under 18.

What does self defense laws say in Wisconsin? Well, there is no stand your ground in Wisconsin..
(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm
(c) 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 his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.
(3) The privilege of self-defense extends not only to the intentional infliction of harm upon a real or apparent wrongdoer, but also to the unintended infliction of harm upon a 3rd person, except that if the unintended infliction of harm amounts to the crime of first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless homicide, homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless injury or injury by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, the actor is liable for whichever one of those crimes is committed.

2: He was not invited there by either this militia group or the owner of the car lot. Here is what the leader of this so called vigilante group said
"He's not one of us," Mishler said of Rittenhouse.
(so he isn't any part of any convoluted militia group either....
Here is what the car lot owner said.

Anmol Khindri, who said he co-owns Car Source with his father, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that no one was asked to protect the business. “Why would I? ... I’m already burned out. There was nothing left to protect,” Khindri was quoted as saying.

Also, on television, Rittenhouse stupidly said this....you cannot use lethal force in Wisconsin to defend property, especially property you aren't entitled to defend in the first place...this goes to what his intent was...why would you go with only non lethal rounds if you want to avoid an attack and to avoid killing someone?
Rittenhouse spoke to a man recording a video at one point before the shootings. He assured the man that he and other armed men alongside him were carrying lethal weapons.

Just to be clear, the video pans back to show who Rosenbaum was yelling toward and Rittenhouse was not part of it.

But yes, we do know that despite Balch saying he and others carried less than lethal means like pepper spray, Rittenhouse specifically stated his only means was lethal. So that says he wasn't prepared for anything less than using his weapon as defense.

 

[dcsports]

Rittenhouse didn't have the right to just walk around pointing his weapon at whoever and demanding what people could do or not do. He's not law enforcement regardless of what he claimed his "job" was.

He showed up to a tense situation, armed, and ignorantly talking about running into harm's way.

Withdrawing means stop. Not go, stop, go, stop. Which is what he did.

If he was "pointing his weapon" at people, they should have called the police. He could be charged for that. The 'mob' and Rosenbaum are not law enforcement either. They were wrong in running Rittenhouse down.

 

[ClaraD]

This is where I think Rittenhouse is going to have a problem. From the self defense law ClaraD provided earlier on the thread.




We know for a fact Rittenhouse was not cornered or trapped and could have kept running. Instead of heading across the car lot he could have cut his move the other direction and been headed back to the other armed people, and past that intersection police had backed up to someplace close. At 17 he should have been been able to outrun a 36 year old with a beer gut. But then I guess it also could depend on how much Rittenhouse smokes vs if Rosenbaum smokes or not.

The second part is also an issue if it's proven Rittenhouse provoked Rosenbaum into going after him. Are there witnesses that can testify he pointed the gun at Rosenbaum? If there are, then doesn't that clearly state he can't claim self defense after provoking an attack?

there is a witness...I provided their statement...there is also nearby video that has not been released on the internet...the police and prosecution have it...from what I understand, witness statements and that video...are why he was charged...not to mention if he was in fear of his life, how did he have time to call a friend, stop and look at Rosenbaum, but not render aid and say 'I just killed someone' instead of dialing...9-1-1...something we are all taught to do in an emergency....

 

[ClaraD]

If he was "pointing his weapon" at people, they should have called the police. He could be charged for that. The 'mob' and Rosenbaum are not law enforcement either. They were wrong in running Rittenhouse down.

my understanding is people did call the police, they did not come.

 

[ClaraD]

I think you are trying to complicate the situation. Rittenhouse was running away from the group yelling "Get his A__", toward the police. Rosenbaum isn't defending himself by 'getting irked' and charging him with a weapon. Rittenhouse is retreating, and doesn't fire until trapped. Rosenbaum is attacking. Rosenbaum is not going to be able to claim self defense.

If Rittenhouse pointed a weapon at Rosenbaum, he automatically loses his right to self defense...that is provoking a person into an action of going after you.

 

[ClaraD]

From 939.48 case law: "Although intentionally pointing a firearm at another constitutes a violation of s. 941.20, under sub. (1) a person is privileged to point a gun at another person in self-defense if the person reasonably believes that the threat of force is necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference. State v. Watkins, 2002 WI 101, 255 Wis. 2d 265, 647 N.W.2d 244, 00-0064."

So even if Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Rosenbaum, that isn't automatically illegal, we would need to know the full circumstances of what led to that confrontation to make that determination. If he was using brandishing as a defense mechanism against an aggressive provocateur, that is not necessarily illegal. It certainly doesn't give Rosenbaum the right to affect a citizen's arrest if he was the primary aggressor and the pointing of the firearm was an initial response to that aggression. Also from the law, that ClaraD doesn't provide:
939.48 (2)(b):
"(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant."
If Kyle provoked the confrontation by illegally brandishing, he would not have the right to self defense if Rosenbaum pulled a gun and tried to shoot him. We don't see any such provocation by Rittenhouse though. We see him withdrawing from the fight, which certainly counts as adequate notice of withdrawal. Rosenbaum then continues the altercation, by chasing the withdrawing party down (no evidence he was trying to affect a citizen's arrest) and attempting to disarm him, which makes him the aggressor under 939.48.

he didn't withdraw...you know why....because when he was retreating..he stopped and turned and pointed his weapon at Rosenbaum...that is not disengaging.

 

[ASHES]

he didn't withdraw...you know why....because when he was retreating..he stopped and turned and pointed his weapon at Rosenbaum...that is not disengaging.

He stopped and turned after a gun was discharged shortly behind him. He waited to turn until he had slight cover of the car because it was reasonable for him to think he was the one under fire. He knew he was being chased, and stopping in the open to face someone with a gun apparently firing at him while also being chased down by a supposed adult whose intention was to disarm Kyle (per prosecution witness) isn't a reasonable action.

 

[SkyFox76]

He stopped and turned after a gun was discharged shortly behind him. He waited to turn until he had slight cover of the car because it was reasonable for him to think he was the one under fire. He knew he was being chased, and stopping in the open to face someone with a gun apparently firing at him while also being chased down by a supposed adult whose intention was to disarm Kyle (per prosecution witness) isn't a reasonable action.

He stopped and turned right after Rosenbaum threw the bag too. That's when Rosenbaum slammed on his brakes and had his hands raised at his sides. That is the moment Rittenhouse could have let go of his weapon and withdrew.