3 ms·

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

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.

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.