5 ms·

>Having watched the videos, it was plainly obvious that in each case, Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense. my understanding is that you can't claim self-def

by trhway 5y ago

>Having watched the videos, it was plainly obvious that in each case, Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense. my understanding is that you can't claim self-defense if you initiated violence yourself. Threatening unarmed people with a gun, pointing it at them is a credible threat of violence that the people have the right to defend themselves from, and that is what they tried to do in particular by chasing that gun wielding moron away. Unfortunately that aspect seems to have been totally overlooked.

mrkstu 5y ago
Except he never pointed a gun at anybody that wasn’t already threatening/chasing him.
- trhway 5y ago
  pointing gun isn't necessary. As we know from for example many police shootings mere presence of a gun even at a minimally tense situation is usually already perceived as a threat even by well trained and used to guns people.
  - perryizgr8 5y ago
    > pointing gun isn't necessary. If you threaten a person with bodily harm, I think it is reasonable to point a gun at them to get them to stop. Would you voluntarily get bashed in the head with a skateboard if you were in that position?
    - trhway 5y ago
      if you're an active shooter in a populated place i think you're extremely lucky to get only slightly bashed in the head as normally much worse things would happen to you.
      - mrkstu 5y ago
        Again, cause and effect backwards here. He was attacked previous to any trigger pulling.
        trhway 5y ago
        >Again, cause and effect backwards here. cause - the guy shoots an unarmed man and just coldly walks away from it. No victim check, no attempt to render first aid, no reporting to and waiting for police and emergency services... nothing what is reasonably expected in the situation of self-defense. effect - reasonable perception that it is a killer on the lose, a threat to defend from.
        afiori 5y ago
        This is an argument for justifying the following attacks on Kyle. Kyle acting in self defence does not imply that Huber was not acting in self defence.
  - ryathal 5y ago
    Using police are a bad example, because they aren't held to the same standard as non-police. Whether that should be or not is debatable, but it's not debatable that there are clearly different standards. Police are routinely determined justified in killing people based on the possibility of a weapon, those Rittenhouse shot not only had weapons, but showed intent to use them.
    - trhway 5y ago
      i'm not talking about standards. I'm talking about human perception of gun danger and use as an example well established perception of gun danger by the people known to be well accustomed to guns and associated dangers. >those Rittenhouse shot not only had weapons, but showed intent to use them. these people were defending themselves and others around from Rittenhouse after he shot an unarmed man and just walked away not checking on the victim, nor waiting for police like one would do in a bona fide self-defense, and that made him to be reasonably perceived as an active shooter that is a threat to anybody around. Thus he created that violent situation of him being a threat and necessitating a defense against him, and he shot the people who were defending themselves and others from him. One shouldn't be able to claim self-defense in such situation.
      - Svettie 5y ago
        There doesn't need to be a clear "bad guy" in every situation. Situations can escalate and get out of hand without any individual actors with bad intentions. So it's entirely plausible that the people charging Rittenhouse thought he was a terrorist and wanted to disarm him, and it's entirely plausible that Rittenhouse feared for his life when he shot them. To illustrate my point: Suppose there are two people at two corners of a dark alleyway. They both hear a gunshot towards the center of the alley and draw their pistols in self-defence. They take a few steps and now see each other holding a gun. Each one raises his gun at the other, thinking that's the shooter. One fires and kills the other. AFAIK it would be justified self-defense
polartx 5y ago
>Threatening unarmed people with a gun a) he never threatened anyone. In fact, he demonstrated better gun safety than, say, a Hollywood actor/producer 3 times his age. b) how can you claim the crowd was unarmed? Of the 3 people that stuck around to be searched, 2 of them had weapons. A skateboard used as a bludgeon. And a Glock pistol that was drawn from concealment and pointed at his head.
- trhway 5y ago
  >In fact, he demonstrated better gun safety Ah! so that is what responsible gun owner's gun safety looks like - 2 dead 1 wounded just because that stupid POS wanted to get off playing with a gun feeling all powerful. He didn't even bother to check on his victims and render first help (his skills he was so boasting about to journalists just 15 minutes before he killed his first victim), nor attempted to call for help for them. Kill-and-run. That is gun safety? Nope. That is total disregard for and reckless endangerment of the people lives which resulted in those cold blooded murders. >Hollywood actor/producer 3 times his age the person who was responsible for those guns on the set and handed the guns to the actor declaring them "Cool" (ie. not having real bullets) is 24 years old former model to whom it was only second time she worked as an armorer. From what i read it looks to me that she has about the same as Rittenhouse lack of understanding what guns aren't toys. >b) how can you claim the crowd was unarmed? i just watch those Kenosha videos and see that only those militia gun fetishists are having guns (and at one point police tells them something like "Tell your men to stop pointing guns at the people")
  - School-Cotton 5y ago
    > i just watch those Kenosha videos and see that only those militia gun fetishists are having guns No, this isn’t a matter for debate — it’s an established fact of the case, agreed to by all parties, that Gaige Grosskreutz was carrying a pistol. He also admitted under oath that Rittenhouse only shot him after he pointed the pistol at him.
    - trhway 5y ago
      it was visibly unarmed crowd that the armed militia was threatening. Few people carrying concealed guns happens everywhere and doesn't change the unarmed nature of the crowd.
devjungle 5y ago
There are a lot more layers to the case than you would originally think. Like an obligation to flee if reasonable to do so etc. Legal Eagle on YT did a great breakdown of it all. It's not as simple as "can't claim self-defence if you initiated violence yourself".
- trhway 5y ago
  >Like an obligation to flee if reasonable to do so etc. If you're targeted personally i suppose. When the violence isn't targeted your running away wouldn't change the situation if there are other people around who can be shot. That reminds about that veteran who attacked the shooter several years ago at the Oregon college - he could have fled i guess, yet he didn't. Did he had an obligation to flee? I don't think anybody there entertained even for a moment such nonsense idea as the shooter's self-defense against the veteran who attacked him and got wounded in that fight. In Kenosha though the shooter shot the guys who tried to stop him (and from any point of view he was the active shooter to be stopped as he didn't stay with his first victim calling/waiting for police and rendering help to the victim as one would do in a true self-defense situation, and as an active shooter he was a threat to everybody, a threat that the people have the right to defend themselves from), and it somehow got successfully sold as self-defense on his part.
  - hajile 5y ago
    Oregon does NOT have a stand your ground law. If that were the only statute, he'd be guilty of murder (showing that such a law is not well thought out). My guess is they have another law (like most states do) that allows coming to the defense of someone else.
  - Svettie 5y ago
    "a true self-defense situation", according to who? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
- redis_mlc 5y ago
  > Like an obligation to flee if reasonable to do so etc. Generally speaking, that's not the law in the US, and not recommended unless you're Usain Bolt. For example, in California, the law is you do not have to retreat. Other states have "stand your ground" laws. However, generally speaking, parties cannot flee and then return to fight. So the best legal approach is to continue the fight if you think you can incapacitate the attacker, then retreat and call police. I watched the Kyle videos, and he did what was prudent and legal. Actually, I've talked to several young people and they all think they can block the path of other people or act in an aggressive manner, and always act surpised when I tell them they will get knocked out if it continues. Their expression is like, "That can't possibly happen to me." If you watch the Kyle and 2020 BLM riots, you can tell the assailants don't realize the personal danger they're in when they run at a random stranger, who could be armed or trained to defend themselves. An overweight woman on a bicycle attacked one of Larry Elder's bodyguards earlier this year. One shove and she would have fallen sideways hard on the pavement. Luckily for her, he was a trained bodyguard and was paid to move Larry along, not get involved in the crowd scene.

by trhway 5y ago

mrkstu 5y ago

Except he never pointed a gun at anybody that wasn’t already threatening/chasing him.

trhway 5y ago
pointing gun isn't necessary. As we know from for example many police shootings mere presence of a gun even at a minimally tense situation is usually already perceived as a threat even by well trained and used to guns people.
- perryizgr8 5y ago
  > pointing gun isn't necessary. If you threaten a person with bodily harm, I think it is reasonable to point a gun at them to get them to stop. Would you voluntarily get bashed in the head with a skateboard if you were in that position?
  - trhway 5y ago
    if you're an active shooter in a populated place i think you're extremely lucky to get only slightly bashed in the head as normally much worse things would happen to you.
    - mrkstu 5y ago
      Again, cause and effect backwards here. He was attacked previous to any trigger pulling.
      - trhway 5y ago
        >Again, cause and effect backwards here. cause - the guy shoots an unarmed man and just coldly walks away from it. No victim check, no attempt to render first aid, no reporting to and waiting for police and emergency services... nothing what is reasonably expected in the situation of self-defense. effect - reasonable perception that it is a killer on the lose, a threat to defend from.
        afiori 5y ago
        This is an argument for justifying the following attacks on Kyle. Kyle acting in self defence does not imply that Huber was not acting in self defence.
- ryathal 5y ago
  Using police are a bad example, because they aren't held to the same standard as non-police. Whether that should be or not is debatable, but it's not debatable that there are clearly different standards. Police are routinely determined justified in killing people based on the possibility of a weapon, those Rittenhouse shot not only had weapons, but showed intent to use them.
  - trhway 5y ago
    i'm not talking about standards. I'm talking about human perception of gun danger and use as an example well established perception of gun danger by the people known to be well accustomed to guns and associated dangers. >those Rittenhouse shot not only had weapons, but showed intent to use them. these people were defending themselves and others around from Rittenhouse after he shot an unarmed man and just walked away not checking on the victim, nor waiting for police like one would do in a bona fide self-defense, and that made him to be reasonably perceived as an active shooter that is a threat to anybody around. Thus he created that violent situation of him being a threat and necessitating a defense against him, and he shot the people who were defending themselves and others from him. One shouldn't be able to claim self-defense in such situation.
    - Svettie 5y ago
      There doesn't need to be a clear "bad guy" in every situation. Situations can escalate and get out of hand without any individual actors with bad intentions. So it's entirely plausible that the people charging Rittenhouse thought he was a terrorist and wanted to disarm him, and it's entirely plausible that Rittenhouse feared for his life when he shot them. To illustrate my point: Suppose there are two people at two corners of a dark alleyway. They both hear a gunshot towards the center of the alley and draw their pistols in self-defence. They take a few steps and now see each other holding a gun. Each one raises his gun at the other, thinking that's the shooter. One fires and kills the other. AFAIK it would be justified self-defense

polartx 5y ago

>Threatening unarmed people with a gun a) he never threatened anyone. In fact, he demonstrated better gun safety than, say, a Hollywood actor/producer 3 times his age. b) how can you claim the crowd was unarmed? Of the 3 people that stuck around to be searched, 2 of them had weapons. A skateboard used as a bludgeon. And a Glock pistol that was drawn from concealment and pointed at his head.

trhway 5y ago
>In fact, he demonstrated better gun safety Ah! so that is what responsible gun owner's gun safety looks like - 2 dead 1 wounded just because that stupid POS wanted to get off playing with a gun feeling all powerful. He didn't even bother to check on his victims and render first help (his skills he was so boasting about to journalists just 15 minutes before he killed his first victim), nor attempted to call for help for them. Kill-and-run. That is gun safety? Nope. That is total disregard for and reckless endangerment of the people lives which resulted in those cold blooded murders. >Hollywood actor/producer 3 times his age the person who was responsible for those guns on the set and handed the guns to the actor declaring them "Cool" (ie. not having real bullets) is 24 years old former model to whom it was only second time she worked as an armorer. From what i read it looks to me that she has about the same as Rittenhouse lack of understanding what guns aren't toys. >b) how can you claim the crowd was unarmed? i just watch those Kenosha videos and see that only those militia gun fetishists are having guns (and at one point police tells them something like "Tell your men to stop pointing guns at the people")
- School-Cotton 5y ago
  > i just watch those Kenosha videos and see that only those militia gun fetishists are having guns No, this isn’t a matter for debate — it’s an established fact of the case, agreed to by all parties, that Gaige Grosskreutz was carrying a pistol. He also admitted under oath that Rittenhouse only shot him after he pointed the pistol at him.
  - trhway 5y ago
    it was visibly unarmed crowd that the armed militia was threatening. Few people carrying concealed guns happens everywhere and doesn't change the unarmed nature of the crowd.

devjungle 5y ago

There are a lot more layers to the case than you would originally think. Like an obligation to flee if reasonable to do so etc. Legal Eagle on YT did a great breakdown of it all. It's not as simple as "can't claim self-defence if you initiated violence yourself".

trhway 5y ago
>Like an obligation to flee if reasonable to do so etc. If you're targeted personally i suppose. When the violence isn't targeted your running away wouldn't change the situation if there are other people around who can be shot. That reminds about that veteran who attacked the shooter several years ago at the Oregon college - he could have fled i guess, yet he didn't. Did he had an obligation to flee? I don't think anybody there entertained even for a moment such nonsense idea as the shooter's self-defense against the veteran who attacked him and got wounded in that fight. In Kenosha though the shooter shot the guys who tried to stop him (and from any point of view he was the active shooter to be stopped as he didn't stay with his first victim calling/waiting for police and rendering help to the victim as one would do in a true self-defense situation, and as an active shooter he was a threat to everybody, a threat that the people have the right to defend themselves from), and it somehow got successfully sold as self-defense on his part.
- hajile 5y ago
  Oregon does NOT have a stand your ground law. If that were the only statute, he'd be guilty of murder (showing that such a law is not well thought out). My guess is they have another law (like most states do) that allows coming to the defense of someone else.
- Svettie 5y ago
  "a true self-defense situation", according to who? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
redis_mlc 5y ago
> Like an obligation to flee if reasonable to do so etc. Generally speaking, that's not the law in the US, and not recommended unless you're Usain Bolt. For example, in California, the law is you do not have to retreat. Other states have "stand your ground" laws. However, generally speaking, parties cannot flee and then return to fight. So the best legal approach is to continue the fight if you think you can incapacitate the attacker, then retreat and call police. I watched the Kyle videos, and he did what was prudent and legal. Actually, I've talked to several young people and they all think they can block the path of other people or act in an aggressive manner, and always act surpised when I tell them they will get knocked out if it continues. Their expression is like, "That can't possibly happen to me." If you watch the Kyle and 2020 BLM riots, you can tell the assailants don't realize the personal danger they're in when they run at a random stranger, who could be armed or trained to defend themselves. An overweight woman on a bicycle attacked one of Larry Elder's bodyguards earlier this year. One shove and she would have fallen sideways hard on the pavement. Luckily for her, he was a trained bodyguard and was paid to move Larry along, not get involved in the crowd scene.