8 ms·

Do you believe Grosskreutz would have been in his right to kill Rittenhouse after Rittenhouse shot him? If not, why not?

csee 5y ago
No, because Grosskreutz pointed his gun at Rittenhouse first. If I point my gun at someone in a context that is easily interpreted as threatening, and then they shoot me in response to me doing that, I don't get to shoot them. It was my fault for pointing the gun at them in the first place.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > No, because Grosskreutz pointed his gun at Rittenhouse first. After Rittenhouse had already shot two people, right?
  - hunterb123 5y ago
    After those two people chased and attacked him, right? You conveniently left that part out. Lucky for us, we got to see the videos and witnesses testify about those instances.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      Assuming everyone on the scene possesses full situational awareness of the nature you can slowly and meticulously tease out in a courtroom is insanely silly. A concrete and sad example: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/no-charges-colorado-officer-who-killed-hero-who-stopped-mass-n1283532 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/no-charges-colorado-off...
      - hunterb123 5y ago
        Yeah that's why you can't chase after someone and self defense is the only reason you can kill/harm someone. You have to be in immediate danger, you can't guess that a man shot someone else unjustly and use that to chase someone down. What you linked is irrelevant and tragic, the cop should have been charged, nothing to do with this case though. The good samaritan who ended the mass shooting was in immediate danger himself when he killed the shooter with his pistol.
        ceejayoz 5y ago
        Sorry, you're saying detaining an active shooter at gunpoint is not self defense until they shoot specifically at you?
        HNo 5y ago
        He was not an active shooter, he was a victim fleeing, so, no.
        ceejayoz 5y ago
        He had just shot two people, was still armed, and proceeded to shoot a third shortly after. That fits every definition of “active shooter” I’ve ever seen.
        HNo 5y ago
        >He had just shot two people He had just defended himself against two assailants. >was still armed But not threatening or brandishing. >and proceeded to shoot a third shortly after. And proceeded to defend himself against a third assailant. >That fits every definition of “active shooter” I’ve ever seen. Fits practically no definition of "active shooter".
        ceejayoz 5y ago
        The definition of "active shooter" is "there's someone running around shooting people". Self-defense comes into play at charging time and in the courtroom, as it is now. The cops role during the shooting incident is to stop the shooting and detain whoever's doing it. Until they do, it's an active shooter incident.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - hajile 5y ago
    He admitted on the stand that he didn't have any reason at the time to believe Rittenhouse had shot anyone. He even had a short conversation with Rittenhouse while he was going toward the police line. Furthermore, he testified that he was worried about Rittenhouse being hurt by the skateboard. To his knowledge at the time (according to his testimony -- and I firmly believe he was lying a LOT), he was worried about Rittenhouse being attacked. Rittenhouse then (by his own perception) shoots in self-defense. Where does he then see a need to attack or point a gun at Rittenhouse?
- croes 5y ago
  Rittenhouse first shot others. Would you wait until a shooter points his gun at you? Do you think a guy with a M&P15 who already shot two people is a threatening context?
  - csee 5y ago
    You've used the word "shooter" in order to cast Rittenhouse as the aggressor in the situation. If he really was defending himself in the first two shootings, that definitely doesn't give a third person the right to execute him, no.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      > If he really was defending himself in the first two shootings, that definitely doesn't give a third person the right to execute him, no. It'd probably be legitimate to hold him at gunpoint, though, especially if the details of the first shootings weren't quite clear. Of course, if a fourth person comes along and executes you for that, they might get off scot-free. (If they're a cop.) https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/no-charges-colorado-officer-who-killed-hero-who-stopped-mass-n1283532 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/no-charges-colorado-off...
      - throwawaylinux 5y ago
        Be very careful there. In lots of places you make a citizen's arrest without having probable cause to believe they committed a felony, or witnessing a crime, or various other legal requirements. If as you say the details were not "quite clear" to you when you attempted to make the arrest, that could already be a very serious problem for you if it came to court. Even if you think you have probable cause, chances are quite good that the court will see it differently. Being part of a frenzied rioting mob chasing someone down and you hear people shout "get him, he murdered someone" will not necessarily cut the mustard. And even if you did have probable cause, and whether or not they had committed a crime, your actions might give them a reasonable fear for their life, or otherwise that may cause them to respond to you. I'm not a lawyer but I have heard more than one say that citizens arrests are just a bad idea all around. You can easily open yourself up to injury, death, or being convicted on charges of falsely making the arrest or the injuries or deaths that result in the escalation. The correct advice is to never escalate a potentially violent situation. Never try to detain anybody, never threaten anybody with a gun, never attack anybody. If you fear that you or someone else is in imminent danger of being killed or seriously injured then you should do what you think is necessary to prevent that. But of course that is not escalation.
smsm42 5y ago
Because he was the source of danger. The test is really simple here (in many cases it isn't, but this is not one of them). To know whether person A is justified in defending himself, ask yourself - if A would do nothing (except maybe run away), would they be in danger? If Grosskreutz did nothing or run away, he'd be in no danger. Rittenhouse was running away, and if he didn't shoot he'd likely be either in a hospital or dead. Maybe shot by the same Grosskreutz - pointing a gun at a person is rarely for just showing him what a cool new gun you have.
dreamsicle 5y ago
Maybe, he'd certainly have a claim to it. Probably a harder one to defend since he chose to pursue instead of retreat and that Kyle chose not to fire despite having the opportunity to do so until after Grosskreutz had pointed his weapon at him. This all being on video. Do you think the DA would have pursued charges against Grosskreutz for first degree murder?
Grieving 5y ago
No. Whatever the state of mind of both parties, Grosskreutz and Huber were responsible for engaging Rittenhouse in combat (in the second encounter). Even if the initial encounter were the fault of Rittenhouse (I don't believe that it was), he was running toward police in a non-threatening manner. You aren't allowed to attack a fleeing person, much less one clearly attempting to turn himself in, which is what Huber and Grosskreutz did. When you do so, you are responsible for the encounter and can't claim self-defense. The only scenario in which they could is if they then attempted to flee and Rittenhouse continued the attack, which didn't happen (and in which case all parties would be guilty).

csee 5y ago

No, because Grosskreutz pointed his gun at Rittenhouse first. If I point my gun at someone in a context that is easily interpreted as threatening, and then they shoot me in response to me doing that, I don't get to shoot them. It was my fault for pointing the gun at them in the first place.

ceejayoz 5y ago
> No, because Grosskreutz pointed his gun at Rittenhouse first. After Rittenhouse had already shot two people, right?
- hunterb123 5y ago
  After those two people chased and attacked him, right? You conveniently left that part out. Lucky for us, we got to see the videos and witnesses testify about those instances.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    Assuming everyone on the scene possesses full situational awareness of the nature you can slowly and meticulously tease out in a courtroom is insanely silly. A concrete and sad example: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/no-charges-colorado-officer-who-killed-hero-who-stopped-mass-n1283532 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/no-charges-colorado-off...
    - hunterb123 5y ago
      Yeah that's why you can't chase after someone and self defense is the only reason you can kill/harm someone. You have to be in immediate danger, you can't guess that a man shot someone else unjustly and use that to chase someone down. What you linked is irrelevant and tragic, the cop should have been charged, nothing to do with this case though. The good samaritan who ended the mass shooting was in immediate danger himself when he killed the shooter with his pistol.
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        Sorry, you're saying detaining an active shooter at gunpoint is not self defense until they shoot specifically at you?
        HNo 5y ago
        He was not an active shooter, he was a victim fleeing, so, no.
        ceejayoz 5y ago
        He had just shot two people, was still armed, and proceeded to shoot a third shortly after. That fits every definition of “active shooter” I’ve ever seen.
        HNo 5y ago
        >He had just shot two people He had just defended himself against two assailants. >was still armed But not threatening or brandishing. >and proceeded to shoot a third shortly after. And proceeded to defend himself against a third assailant. >That fits every definition of “active shooter” I’ve ever seen. Fits practically no definition of "active shooter".
        ceejayoz 5y ago
        The definition of "active shooter" is "there's someone running around shooting people". Self-defense comes into play at charging time and in the courtroom, as it is now. The cops role during the shooting incident is to stop the shooting and detain whoever's doing it. Until they do, it's an active shooter incident.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- hajile 5y ago
  He admitted on the stand that he didn't have any reason at the time to believe Rittenhouse had shot anyone. He even had a short conversation with Rittenhouse while he was going toward the police line. Furthermore, he testified that he was worried about Rittenhouse being hurt by the skateboard. To his knowledge at the time (according to his testimony -- and I firmly believe he was lying a LOT), he was worried about Rittenhouse being attacked. Rittenhouse then (by his own perception) shoots in self-defense. Where does he then see a need to attack or point a gun at Rittenhouse?
croes 5y ago
Rittenhouse first shot others. Would you wait until a shooter points his gun at you? Do you think a guy with a M&P15 who already shot two people is a threatening context?
- csee 5y ago
  You've used the word "shooter" in order to cast Rittenhouse as the aggressor in the situation. If he really was defending himself in the first two shootings, that definitely doesn't give a third person the right to execute him, no.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    > If he really was defending himself in the first two shootings, that definitely doesn't give a third person the right to execute him, no. It'd probably be legitimate to hold him at gunpoint, though, especially if the details of the first shootings weren't quite clear. Of course, if a fourth person comes along and executes you for that, they might get off scot-free. (If they're a cop.) https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/no-charges-colorado-officer-who-killed-hero-who-stopped-mass-n1283532 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/no-charges-colorado-off...
    - throwawaylinux 5y ago
      Be very careful there. In lots of places you make a citizen's arrest without having probable cause to believe they committed a felony, or witnessing a crime, or various other legal requirements. If as you say the details were not "quite clear" to you when you attempted to make the arrest, that could already be a very serious problem for you if it came to court. Even if you think you have probable cause, chances are quite good that the court will see it differently. Being part of a frenzied rioting mob chasing someone down and you hear people shout "get him, he murdered someone" will not necessarily cut the mustard. And even if you did have probable cause, and whether or not they had committed a crime, your actions might give them a reasonable fear for their life, or otherwise that may cause them to respond to you. I'm not a lawyer but I have heard more than one say that citizens arrests are just a bad idea all around. You can easily open yourself up to injury, death, or being convicted on charges of falsely making the arrest or the injuries or deaths that result in the escalation. The correct advice is to never escalate a potentially violent situation. Never try to detain anybody, never threaten anybody with a gun, never attack anybody. If you fear that you or someone else is in imminent danger of being killed or seriously injured then you should do what you think is necessary to prevent that. But of course that is not escalation.

smsm42 5y ago

Because he was the source of danger. The test is really simple here (in many cases it isn't, but this is not one of them). To know whether person A is justified in defending himself, ask yourself - if A would do nothing (except maybe run away), would they be in danger? If Grosskreutz did nothing or run away, he'd be in no danger. Rittenhouse was running away, and if he didn't shoot he'd likely be either in a hospital or dead. Maybe shot by the same Grosskreutz - pointing a gun at a person is rarely for just showing him what a cool new gun you have.

dreamsicle 5y ago

Maybe, he'd certainly have a claim to it. Probably a harder one to defend since he chose to pursue instead of retreat and that Kyle chose not to fire despite having the opportunity to do so until after Grosskreutz had pointed his weapon at him. This all being on video. Do you think the DA would have pursued charges against Grosskreutz for first degree murder?

Grieving 5y ago

No. Whatever the state of mind of both parties, Grosskreutz and Huber were responsible for engaging Rittenhouse in combat (in the second encounter). Even if the initial encounter were the fault of Rittenhouse (I don't believe that it was), he was running toward police in a non-threatening manner. You aren't allowed to attack a fleeing person, much less one clearly attempting to turn himself in, which is what Huber and Grosskreutz did. When you do so, you are responsible for the encounter and can't claim self-defense. The only scenario in which they could is if they then attempted to flee and Rittenhouse continued the attack, which didn't happen (and in which case all parties would be guilty).