Armed civilian, 17, shoots 2 dead during Kenosha happening

[Houseman]

It's not actually different. Because the self-defense plea is going to fall apart when it's pointed out he willingly went into a dangerous situation. And he was so far removed from the dangerous situation himself that he's from another state.

Here's some case law, not that this law from Louisiana applies to Wisconsin (or Illinois, the state that is charging him), but it's a start:

2013 Louisiana Laws :: Revised Statutes :: TITLE 14 - Criminal Law :: RS 14:21 - Aggressor cannot claim self defense

law.justia.com

" A person who is the aggressor or who brings on a difficulty cannot claim the right of self-defense unless he withdraws from the conflict in good faith and in such a manner that his adversary knows or should know that he desires to withdraw and discontinue the conflict. "

EVEN IF we want to say that Rittenhouse is the aggressor, because he chose to be there, or something:
He absolutely withdrew from the conflict, and his adversaries knew he was withdrawing and desired to discontinue the conflict.
In every video clip we've seen of him, he was running away.
He's running, and his attackers CHASE HIM DOWN and KNOCK HIM DOWN. Only when they are within striking distance does Rittenhouse turn and fire.
He's withdrawing.
He's discontinuing the conflict.
All of this in good faith (it's not a false surrender like the guy with the pistol)


So if you want to claim that self-defense won't fly, you should produce better evidence than I have here.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

Can't help but wonder how this farce would play out if it was one of the protesters who shot this untrained kid instead. Oh who am I kidding? Of course we all know how that would play out.

 

[Houseman]

Can't help but wonder how this farce would play out if it was one of the protesters who shot this untrained kid instead. Oh who am I kidding? Of course we all know how that would play out.

There wouldn't have even been a thread about it, just like there haven't been threads about the 20+ others killed by "protesters"

 

[crimson5pheonix]

He was there to help people with a medkit and he was protecting an auto shop that ASKED him to be there. Those are not things that justify you being attacked and make you defending yourself from that attack a crime. He wasn't in any way reckless.

Yes, he walked himself into a dangerous situation, and killed people. That's called murder, not self defense.

State lines mean nothing when you live near them. Going five miles to the next state is no more arduous than going five miles in the opposite direction, further into your state. You need to get over this point.

No, because crossing state lines also makes it a federal crime.

Here's some case law, not that this law from Louisiana applies to Wisconsin (or Illinois, the state that is charging him), but it's a start:

2013 Louisiana Laws :: Revised Statutes :: TITLE 14 - Criminal Law :: RS 14:21 - Aggressor cannot claim self defense

law.justia.com

" A person who is the aggressor or who brings on a difficulty cannot claim the right of self-defense unless he withdraws from the conflict in good faith and in such a manner that his adversary knows or should know that he desires to withdraw and discontinue the conflict. "

EVEN IF we want to say that Rittenhouse is the aggressor, because he chose to be there, or something:
He absolutely withdrew from the conflict, and his adversaries knew he was withdrawing and desired to discontinue the conflict.
In every video clip we've seen of him, he was running away.
He's running, and his attackers CHASE HIM DOWN and KNOCK HIM DOWN. Only when they are within striking distance does Rittenhouse turn and fire.
He's withdrawing.
He's discontinuing the conflict.
All of this in good faith (it's not a false surrender like the guy with the pistol)


So if you want to claim that self-defense won't fly, you should produce better evidence than I have here.

That's actually the point here for why he can't claim self defense. He already failed duty to retreat by being there in the first place, armed. It'll be up to the jury to decide, but they tend to err on duty to retreat.

 

[Houseman]

That's actually the point here for why he can't claim self defense. He already failed duty to retreat by being there in the first place

Like I said, bring some evidence to the table. I already provided evidence that being the aggressor (i.e "failing duty to retreat") does not rule out self-defense as long as you wish to discontinue and withdraw. Where's yours that says the opposite?

 

[Specter Von Baren]

No, because crossing state lines also makes it a federal crime.

So the time I got a speeding ticket when I was in Kansas was a federal crime? Guess it being a federal crime means nothing since anything can be a federal crime.

And at any rate. I was responding to your comment implying it takes some big commitment to go to another state when you live near the border. It doesn't. You just drive over.

 

[Dreiko]

Yes, he walked himself into a dangerous situation, and killed people. That's called murder, not self defense.

You have a right to walk anywhere the hell you are welcomed at. If the auto shop welcomes him, who the hell are the protesters to undo that and make it an illegitimate thing for him to be there? You don't have the authority to achieve such a feat. You are in the wrong if you attack someone who is simply protecting an autoshop and healing people with a medkit. And he has the right to defend himself and preserve his freedom to protect an autoshop that wants his protection.

 

[Buyetyen]

How did the kid exploit anything?

Wasn't him I was talking about.

Didn't Blake have a warrant out for his arrest and got tasered twice and refused to come peacefully before the shooting happened?

I'm not sure if you knew this, but nothing on the legal books says that is justification for an extrajudicial summary execution.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Like I said, bring some evidence to the table. I already provided evidence that being the aggressor (i.e "failing duty to retreat") does not rule out self-defense as long as you wish to discontinue and withdraw. Where's yours that says the opposite?

No you didn't, this isn't Louisiana.

So the time I got a speeding ticket when I was in Kansas was a federal crime? Guess it being a federal crime means nothing since anything can be a federal crime.

And at any rate. I was responding to your comment implying it takes some big commitment to go to another state when you live near the border. It doesn't. You just drive over.

"Just drive over" is putting yourself in a dangerous situation, you invalidate self defense.

You have a right to walk anywhere the hell you are welcomed at. If the auto shop welcomes him, who the hell are the protesters to undo that and make it an illegitimate thing for him to be there? You don't have the authority to achieve such a feat. You are in the wrong if you attack someone who is simply protecting an autoshop and healing people with a medkit. And he has the right to defend himself and preserve his freedom to protect an autoshop that wants his protection.

No he doesn't. That's the police's job, as bad as they are at it. Wisconsin actually specifically forbids using lethal force to defend property, and as he was carrying and using a lethal weapon that was loaded with ammunition, he fucked up there too.

 

[lil devils x]

It looks like the gun was owned by a friend of his. The friend was the one you see with him in some of the clips interviewing him, the guns are his and he's under his supervision. What I don't understand is how he got separated and found himself alone surrounded by protesters. Look I don't want to keep this shit up because there aren't enough details besides people googling state laws online and a lot of assumptions. At least I got a few clips of the kid, he seemed harmless. Besides the gun, of course, but I'm desensitized to M16s and M4s, so it didn't matter to me.

lel

Even if this is true, What authority did his friend have to give a firearm to a minor or supervise them? IS this not contributing to the delinquency of a minor? Is he his legal guardian? How does that in any way excuse the kid from breaking the law by open carrying the gun? As a parent or other legal guardian, you can supervise a minor on your own property or on private property, but breaking open carry laws would not be covered by that neither would it be somehow okay for some other adult to supervise you that is not your parent or legal guardian. That is like saying, "His friend gave him the gun he had when he went into the liquor store" and think that somehow would make a difference in his arrest. It doesn't.

WTF kind of statement of a kid illegally running around with a loaded gun at a protest " looks harmless?" Seriously? There IS NOTHING harmless about a kid running around with a loaded firearm at a protest. Is this the level of insanity that we have reached that this is somehow okay now? IS the US some third world war zone or something where child soldiers is the norm?

 

[Specter Von Baren]

I'm not sure if you knew this, but nothing on the legal books says that is justification for an extrajudicial summary execution.

You're the one that said they were trigger happy when there were several attempts to resolve the situation without shots being fired.

"Just drive over" is putting yourself in a dangerous situation, you invalidate self defense.

No it doesn't. Show me proof it does.

 

[Buyetyen]

You're the one that said they were trigger happy when there were several attempts to resolve the situation without shots being fired.

I don't know what point you're trying to make and I don't think you do either.

WTF kind of statement of a kid illegally running around with a loaded gun at a protest " looks harmless?" Seriously? There IS NOTHING harmless about a kid running around with a loaded firearm at a protest. Is this the level of insanity that we have reached that this is somehow okay now?

Apparently, some people in this thread are totally down with 17-year-old vigilantes.

 

[lil devils x]

I don't know what point you're trying to make and I don't think you do either.



Apparently, some people in this thread are totally down with 17-year-old vigilantes.

Except when it is non white "thugs" or " gangs" doing it in the hood. Then they should all just be shot on sight and forgotten/s. It is the pretending that this kid was any different than the other " hoodlums" that take the law into their own hands that is the issue.

The same people defending this kid are perfectly fine with kids doing the same thing in the hood getting the death penalty, or even save the time and money, just let the cops shoot them as soon as they see them right?

 

[Buyetyen]

Except when it is non white "thugs" or " gangs" doing it in the hood. Then they should all just be shot on sight and forgotten/s. It is the pretending that this kid was any different than the other " hoodlums" that take the law into their own hands that is the issue.

Which is about par for the course. Rittenhouse is all set up now to be the next darling on the conservative speaking circuit for a few years to come before they find a new shiny object and forget he existed. It's the SOP: privileged white testicle commits felony, right wing defends said teste, walking gonad makes 6 figures on telling aging white racists what they want to hear. Failing upward is the American way!

 

[crimson5pheonix]

You're the one that said they were trigger happy when there were several attempts to resolve the situation without shots being fired.



No it doesn't. Show me proof it does.

Wisconsin state law. You're allowed self defense, but

(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(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.

And it's going to be quite hard to argue that intentionally going to a protest armed, out of his way to get there, and then killing 2 people and shooting a third when his defense was "he was asked to and illegally armed to do so" is self defense. He doesn't qualify.

If a protester had shot him first, they'd be up on murder charges and there'd be no claim of self defense either, even if the kid was illegally armed.

 

[lil devils x]

Which is about par for the course. Rittenhouse is all set up now to be the next darling on the conservative speaking circuit for a few years to come before they find a new shiny object and forget he existed. It's the SOP: privileged white testicle commits felony, right wing defends said teste, walking gonad makes 6 figures on telling aging white racists what they want to hear. Failing upward is the American way!

Where I grew up that was the norm. People like to pretend all this crime doesn't happen in wealthy neighborhoods or good families, but the reality is it does, just the law does not apply to everyone equally. The wealthy act like the law doesn't apply to them because it really doesn't. They bring the kids hoe to their parents rather than even file the crime at all when they know the kid comes from money.

 

[Buyetyen]

Where I grew up that was the norm. People like to pretend all this crime doesn't happen in wealthy neighborhoods or good families, but the reality is it does, just the law does not apply to everyone equally. The wealthy act like the law doesn't apply to them because it really doesn't. They bring the kids hoe to their parents rather than even file the crime at all when they know the kid comes from money.

I remember when Tru-TV was still Court-TV (is that channel even a thing anymore?). There was a particularly maddening show called Power, Privilege and Justice in which a veteran trial lawyer walked viewers through a number of cases wherein rich parasites committed fraud, murder and all sorts of other heinous crimes and totally got away with it.

And people look shocked when I tell them the wealthy elite will be the first against the wall.

 

[lil devils x]

I remember when Tru-TV was still Court-TV (is that channel even a thing anymore?). There was a particularly maddening show called Power, Privilege and Justice in which a veteran trial lawyer walked viewers through a number of cases wherein rich parasites committed fraud, murder and all sorts of other heinous crimes and totally got away with it.

And people look shocked when I tell them the wealthy elite will be the first against the wall.

Seriously, they are some of the worst criminals there are because they actually feel as though they are entitled to do whatever they want and not have the law apply, and this is totally reinforced by the way they have been treated in the legal system. They believe this because it is true. And still so many people are still willing to just turn a blind eye to it happening and not believe it. Though I am not sure if they really don't believe it or if they are just choosing to ignore it because it supports their world view, which is far more likely.

 

[Buyetyen]

Seriously, they are some of the worst criminals there are because they actually feel as though they are entitled to do whatever they want and not have the law apply, and this is totally reinforced by the way they have been treated in the legal system. They believe this because it is true. And still so many people are still willing to just turn a blind eye to it happening and not believe it. Though I am not sure if they really don't believe it or if they are just choosing to ignore it because it supports their world view, which is far more likely.

Quite a few give in to the comforting poison of cynicism. I almost did about 10 years ago. Those were some dark times for me in general, but I digress.

The new season of Aggretsuko reminded me of some bosses I've had in the entertainment world. Even, no especially the ones that are well off are cheap, dishonest, cheats and deviants. There are probably more Zoroastrians still in the world than there are decent human beings in the upper echelons of business. For every Henry John Heinz, there's at least a dozen Henry Clay Fricks.

 

[Dreiko]

Except when it is non white "thugs" or " gangs" doing it in the hood. Then they should all just be shot on sight and forgotten/s. It is the pretending that this kid was any different than the other " hoodlums" that take the law into their own hands that is the issue.

The same people defending this kid are perfectly fine with kids doing the same thing in the hood getting the death penalty, or even save the time and money, just let the cops shoot them as soon as they see them right?

A gang isn't gonna mind its business if you don't do anything dumb and only cause harm if you do something to the gang members. A gang will be engaged in crimes and sell drugs and what have you, which is why they get treated differently.

If people don't riot and damage property, auto shop owners won't have to vigilantize random 17 year olds, and then the 17 year olds will continue being neighborhood lifeguards and washing schools.

Selling drugs and engaging in petty crime is not the same as being a lifeguard and cleaning vandalized walls.