3 ms·

I'm frankly surprised that the misdemeanor charge isn't being used to counter the self-defense argument. From Wisconsin state law: > A person who engages in un

by vitus 5y ago

I'm frankly surprised that the misdemeanor charge isn't being used to counter the self-defense argument. From Wisconsin state law: > A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. > 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. > 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. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48/2# https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/4... Maybe it was justified in the case where Rosenbaum chased down the kid, but certainly not in the other two cases. Either way, I'm skeptical that there was "adequate notice".

pseudo0 5y ago
Open carrying isn't "conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack". If you see someone simply walking down the street with a rifle in Wisconsin, you can't just whip out your own gun and start blasting. Even if they turn out to be a felon or underage, the conduct itself isn't a provocation, and generally it's perfectly legal.
- vitus 5y ago
  Open carrying with a gun strapped to your back or at your side is a very different situation than carrying the gun in your hands, ready to fire, especially if you've just fired it. I agree that people probably wouldn't jump on a dude walking down the street with a holstered pistol at his hip, but if that guy had said pistol out, they might try to defuse an active shooter situation.
  - pseudo0 5y ago
    From what I saw, Rittenhouse was using a pretty standard open carry configuration, with the rifle held in front of him, pointed down, and secured with a sling. Generally that is safer than slinging it across your back, because you are better able to control the muzzle direction and maintain control of the firearm if someone tries to grab it, like the video and physical evidence shows Rosenbaum doing. I get your point about the situation after shots had been fired though, and that's where it starts getting sort of weird from a self-defense perspective. It's entirely possible that both Rittenhouse and his latter assailants could successfully claim self-defense. In the case of Rittenhouse, it would be because his previous actions were lawful self-defense, and then he was attacked again, with an imminent danger of serious bodily harm or death. For Grosskreutz and Huber, they could argue that they thought Rittenhouse was an imminent danger to the people nearby. That would be a tougher sell I think though, given how Rittenhouse was retreating towards the police line, and neither of them actually witnessed the first incident.

by vitus 5y ago

pseudo0 5y ago

Open carrying isn't "conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack". If you see someone simply walking down the street with a rifle in Wisconsin, you can't just whip out your own gun and start blasting. Even if they turn out to be a felon or underage, the conduct itself isn't a provocation, and generally it's perfectly legal.

vitus 5y ago
Open carrying with a gun strapped to your back or at your side is a very different situation than carrying the gun in your hands, ready to fire, especially if you've just fired it. I agree that people probably wouldn't jump on a dude walking down the street with a holstered pistol at his hip, but if that guy had said pistol out, they might try to defuse an active shooter situation.
- pseudo0 5y ago
  From what I saw, Rittenhouse was using a pretty standard open carry configuration, with the rifle held in front of him, pointed down, and secured with a sling. Generally that is safer than slinging it across your back, because you are better able to control the muzzle direction and maintain control of the firearm if someone tries to grab it, like the video and physical evidence shows Rosenbaum doing. I get your point about the situation after shots had been fired though, and that's where it starts getting sort of weird from a self-defense perspective. It's entirely possible that both Rittenhouse and his latter assailants could successfully claim self-defense. In the case of Rittenhouse, it would be because his previous actions were lawful self-defense, and then he was attacked again, with an imminent danger of serious bodily harm or death. For Grosskreutz and Huber, they could argue that they thought Rittenhouse was an imminent danger to the people nearby. That would be a tougher sell I think though, given how Rittenhouse was retreating towards the police line, and neither of them actually witnessed the first incident.