5 ms·

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, th

by 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.
croes 5y ago
You've used the word "execute" to cast Grosskreutz as the aggressor. He didn't even shoot, did he. Imagine being in Grosskreutz position. From his point if view there was a guy who already shot two people. What would you have done? Would you have waited until he targeted you too?
- hunterb123 5y ago
  I would have not chased a kid down the street and I definitely wouldn't have pointed a gun at him. If I was in his situation at the end I wouldn't have lunged at Kyle after I put my hands up and he lowered his weapon.
  - croes 5y ago
    So in a school shooting you would do nothing if you would've the chance to stop the shooter? Don't forget you don't know all the circumstamces in the moment, all you know is two people are dead.
    - csee 5y ago
      The difference here is context. In a school, if you hear shots, that can only be bad. The night in question had many people with guns and it was open mayhem. Shots going off could mean anything. You don't get to aggressively approach someone and aim a gun at them in such a context unless you actually know what's going on.
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        > You don't get to aggressively approach someone and aim a gun at them in such a context unless you actually know what's going on. Yes, you do. 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...
sofixa 5y ago
And that's why laugh in disbelief when people evoke the good Samaritan bullcrap, that all that's needed to stop gun violence is more guns, and good people will step in to stop agressors. I don't see how that doesn't end in a bloodbath by misunderstanding like 9 times out of 10. If he was really self defending against two people, and a third person saw him kill them, that third person now sees a bad guy that needs to be stopped. Who's guilty if he shoots and kills?
- hunterb123 5y ago
  > I don't see how that doesn't end in a bloodbath by misunderstanding like 9 times out of 10. Gun safety training and lots of range practice. Many shootings are ended by good Samaritans with no friendly fire involved. Generally you don't want to shoot anyone if you weren't in the immediate vicinity of the conflict.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    > Generally you don't want to shoot anyone if you weren't in the immediate vicinity of the conflict. You hear noise, and see someone(A) shoot another person(B) 50 meters away from you. You're a good person(C), you take out your personal gun and approach. A sees a new threat approaching with a weapon, prepares to defend themselves, and turns their gun towards C. C sees a gunman who just shot B, turn their weapon on them. What does C do? Point their gun to avoid getting shot seems like a common scenario in the heat of the moment, adrenaline and all that. It really doesn't seem to me that there's anything even close to some sort of standard for minimum training to own a gun in the US (unlike in probably all other developed countries). So it will all depend on the will of the owner to train themselves. What could possibly go wrong? Heck, isn't it similar to what happened with that Kyle guy?
    - hunterb123 5y ago
      > and see someone(A) shoot another person(B) Noone that attacked Kyle saw Kyle shoot another person, they were going on hearsay. When in doubt, hide. Unless you see someone pull out a gun and start spraying down innocent people, fucking hide. Don't chase people down. Really fucking simple.

by csee 5y ago

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.

croes 5y ago

You've used the word "execute" to cast Grosskreutz as the aggressor. He didn't even shoot, did he. Imagine being in Grosskreutz position. From his point if view there was a guy who already shot two people. What would you have done? Would you have waited until he targeted you too?

hunterb123 5y ago
I would have not chased a kid down the street and I definitely wouldn't have pointed a gun at him. If I was in his situation at the end I wouldn't have lunged at Kyle after I put my hands up and he lowered his weapon.
- croes 5y ago
  So in a school shooting you would do nothing if you would've the chance to stop the shooter? Don't forget you don't know all the circumstamces in the moment, all you know is two people are dead.
  - csee 5y ago
    The difference here is context. In a school, if you hear shots, that can only be bad. The night in question had many people with guns and it was open mayhem. Shots going off could mean anything. You don't get to aggressively approach someone and aim a gun at them in such a context unless you actually know what's going on.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      > You don't get to aggressively approach someone and aim a gun at them in such a context unless you actually know what's going on. Yes, you do. 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...

sofixa 5y ago

And that's why laugh in disbelief when people evoke the good Samaritan bullcrap, that all that's needed to stop gun violence is more guns, and good people will step in to stop agressors. I don't see how that doesn't end in a bloodbath by misunderstanding like 9 times out of 10. If he was really self defending against two people, and a third person saw him kill them, that third person now sees a bad guy that needs to be stopped. Who's guilty if he shoots and kills?

hunterb123 5y ago
> I don't see how that doesn't end in a bloodbath by misunderstanding like 9 times out of 10. Gun safety training and lots of range practice. Many shootings are ended by good Samaritans with no friendly fire involved. Generally you don't want to shoot anyone if you weren't in the immediate vicinity of the conflict.
- sofixa 5y ago
  > Generally you don't want to shoot anyone if you weren't in the immediate vicinity of the conflict. You hear noise, and see someone(A) shoot another person(B) 50 meters away from you. You're a good person(C), you take out your personal gun and approach. A sees a new threat approaching with a weapon, prepares to defend themselves, and turns their gun towards C. C sees a gunman who just shot B, turn their weapon on them. What does C do? Point their gun to avoid getting shot seems like a common scenario in the heat of the moment, adrenaline and all that. It really doesn't seem to me that there's anything even close to some sort of standard for minimum training to own a gun in the US (unlike in probably all other developed countries). So it will all depend on the will of the owner to train themselves. What could possibly go wrong? Heck, isn't it similar to what happened with that Kyle guy?
  - hunterb123 5y ago
    > and see someone(A) shoot another person(B) Noone that attacked Kyle saw Kyle shoot another person, they were going on hearsay. When in doubt, hide. Unless you see someone pull out a gun and start spraying down innocent people, fucking hide. Don't chase people down. Really fucking simple.