Domestic terrorist attack in Wisconsin

[billsfan1959]

13 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Funny how many of the "conservatives" here drop their "personal responsibility" mantra so quickly and easily.  I don't. 

 

I am all about personal responsibility. He put himself in a situation in which things could potentially go very bad, and they did. He certainly has some culpability in what transpired. However, It is a quantum leap from that to first-degree murder.

[VaMilBill]

4 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

I am all about personal responsibility. He put himself in a situation in which things could potentially go very bad, and they did. He certainly has some culpability in what transpired. However, It is a quantum leap from that to first-degree murder.

I agree. Stupidity is not a crime. As in, going there with an AR is not a crime. 

[Chef Jim]

3 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

I am all about personal responsibility. He put himself in a situation in which things could potentially go very bad, and they did. He certainly has some culpability in what transpired. However, It is a quantum leap from that to first-degree murder.

 

Not sure if you putting that quantum to first degree murder on me but I never suggested that should be what he is convicted of.  Some level of manslaughter or reckless use of a firearm would not surprise me.  

Just now, VaMilBill said:

I agree. Stupidity is not a crime. As in, going there with an AR is not a crime. 

 

Of course not.  That's not part of the charges.  It's what he did with his weapon that could be construed as criminal.  

[billsfan1959]

11 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

Not sure if you putting that quantum to first degree murder on me but I never suggested that should be what he is convicted of.  Some level of manslaughter or reckless use of a firearm would not surprise me.  

 

I should have more clear. No, I wasn't putting that on you. That was in reference to the charges brought by the prosecution.

[T&C]

Schroeder must be kicking himself in the ass for not having this jury sequestered. 

[Chef Jim]

28 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

I should have more clear. No, I wasn't putting that on you. That was in reference to the charges brought by the prosecution.

 

No, you were relatively clear.  I think the prosecution loads in the greatest possible conviction knowing they won't likely get it.  I think it's a tactic to get at least a lesser charge to stick.  I'm not a trial lawyer but I do read Erle Stanley Gardner books.  LOL 

[Westside]

1 hour ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Funny how many of the "conservatives" here drop their "personal responsibility" mantra so quickly and easily.  I don't. 

I’m not a conservative 

[billsfan1959]

Just now, Westside said:

I’m not a conservative 

 

We won't hold it against you...

[Chef Jim]

3 minutes ago, Westside said:

I’m not a conservative 

 

Libertarian?  

[Bill51390]

2 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

 

It didn't happen?  Was Kyle in the street or not with a loaded weapon?  That is a FACT of the case.  

 

Can I not make the case that if you walk down the street with a loaded AR you get what you deserve?  Brining this upon himself, in my mind, greatly reduces the self defense claim. 

No you can’t, simply because it is not illegal to do such in Wisconsin. If it was in a state where it was illegal it would be different. 

[Chef Jim]

12 minutes ago, Bill51390 said:

No you can’t, simply because it is not illegal to do such in Wisconsin. If it was in a state where it was illegal it would be different. 

When I say “get what you deserve” I’m not talking about the legal aspect. I’m talking about getting your head bashed with a skateboard and then claim self defense. 

[Dukestreetking]

Ok, I'll try to sneak in a comment to answer some of the interesting questions/issues. Won't be able to cover whole gamut right now, and I'll prob repeat what some have said.

 

1. Law of (potential) deadly force self-defense (SD) is not emotional or "court of public opinion"...it is a set of standards that are weighed against evidence.

 

2. Cops have generally same standards but more privileges/immunities.

 

3. Some of the theoretical cases w/n the thread are not relevant to present issue.

 

4. As to Chef bar fight example: it begins to bleed into the sticky wicket of "mutual combat" law, which can remove certain SD privileges. The branches and sequels of that combat are too numerous to concisely address in this forum.

 

However, in Chef's specific example, he would almost certainly not be charged, if the assumptions are true.

 

Chef not aggressor=Innocence standard; he matched punch for punch=Proportional; the mutual combat was singular (he didn't sucker punch me 20m later)=Imminence; he fought vs me instead of just sitting there getting his ass kicked=Reasonable.

 

Again, I emphasize that it's particularly complicated.

 

5. As mentioned, WI is a "shall open carry" state under standard firearm license. Meaning, you are allowed to carry openly; only a CCW/CCP allows concealment. Thus the LAW, not one's personal feelings, recognizes such an act is not inherently aggressive.

 

6. With that in mind, one can have general poor judgement/be stupid yet he still retains, in a deadly force encounter, all the relevant SD privileges. I'm not suggesting KR was particularly stupid, btw.

 

7. In the case of "defending vs active shooter" (imv, not proven in this case), the standard is "good faith". I won't further describe as I have example up-thread.

 

More to say about this case's circumstances (I actually watched it live via a protester vid stream) but will have to weigh in later. Sorry for long post.

[B-Man]

14 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

When I say “get what you deserve” I’m not talking about the legal aspect. I’m talking about getting your head bashed with a skateboard and then claim self defense. 

 

 

and that is where you lose everybody.

 

getting your head bashed in while doing nothing illegal is not where we want to go.

 

Every American has a right of self defense, no matter how hard you parse your hypotheticals and questions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Chef Jim]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

 

 

and that is where you lose everybody.

 

getting your head bashed in while doing nothing illegal is not where we want to go.

 

Every American has a right of self defense, no matter how hard you parse your hypotheticals and questions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What threat was he facing from Rosenbaum that justified Rittenhouse shooting and killing him? 

[Albwan]

lefties? no way!

[daz28]

Apparently a lot of people here are claiming that every person there was a lawless rioter, EXCEPT Kyle Rittenhouse.  I guess it's ok to take that MASSIVE leap if it makes your point look better.  Maybe just admit you have no idea why the people who attempted to intervene and disarm him were there.  What's more believable: a) they knew Rittenhouse was trying to defend property, and they were willing to risk life and limb to ensure more looting took place; b) people were yelling, 'that guy just shot someone", and they risked life and limb to make sure he didn't hurt anyone else, or get away.

 

Pray tell, why did the "hero" call a friend(instead of the police), and say, "I just shot someone"?  Why didn't he turn himself in until the next day?  If someone broke in my house9or any other scenario), and I shot them defending myself, I'd call the police, and report it IMMEDIATELY.  

 

One last point about his "right" to have the AR.  If I'm not mistaken, he has a 17 year old 'hunting' exemption.  How does a hunting exception allow him to be "defending" a car lot, and the CITY streets of Kenosha at NIGHT?  

[Bill51390]

1 hour ago, Chef Jim said:

What threat was he facing from Rosenbaum that justified Rittenhouse shooting and killing him? 

Maybe it’s just me, but if I was to be openly carrying a rifle during a riot, and someone has stated to me that they would kill me. Then later in the night, said person that made  verbal threats, begins chasing after me, I would legitimately be concerned for my safety. My thought process is, who in their right mind would chase after a person that has a rifle, while unarmed. So my belief is that this guy is going to seriously try and hurt me or kill me. So, I begin running away from him, simultaneously a gun shot goes off from behind me while being chased down. 

At this point I could understand a person being in fear of great bodily harm or death, and turning back and pointing their weapon at Rosenbaum. 
 

Rittenhouse then turns away and continues running. Rosenbaum even after having the weapon pointed at him continues to chase, which again if I’m Rittenhouse further makes me believe Rosenbaums attempts to make good on his threats. Rittenhouse then stops a second time, Rosenbaum then closes in and reaches towards his gun and is then fatally shot. 

 

[Buffarukus]

1 hour ago, daz28 said:

Apparently a lot of people here are claiming that every person there was a lawless rioter, EXCEPT Kyle Rittenhouse.  I guess it's ok to take that MASSIVE leap if it makes your point look better.  Maybe just admit you have no idea why the people who attempted to intervene and disarm him were there.  What's more believable: a) they knew Rittenhouse was trying to defend property, and they were willing to risk life and limb to ensure more looting took place; b) people were yelling, 'that guy just shot someone", and they risked life and limb to make sure he didn't hurt anyone else, or get away.

 

Pray tell, why did the "hero" call a friend(instead of the police), and say, "I just shot someone"?  Why didn't he turn himself in until the next day?  If someone broke in my house9or any other scenario), and I shot them defending myself, I'd call the police, and report it IMMEDIATELY.  

 

One last point about his "right" to have the AR.  If I'm not mistaken, he has a 17 year old 'hunting' exemption.  How does a hunting exception allow him to be "defending" a car lot, and the CITY streets of Kenosha at NIGHT?  

 

after the first encounter he told the camera person and everyone who would listen he was going to the police to turn himself in. they were engaged in a ideological "protest" that prevented them from doing the proper thing. trying to "cranium" a person instead of allowing him to get to police directly down the street as he ran AWAY from them not subjecting anyone to any threats or intimidation on the way.

 

have you watched the full videos that have been out for months because texting the whole incident is repetitive especially when multi videos angles eye witness accounts  are all on record.

 

lastly the gun charge was dropped by the prosecution. hunting exemption, barrel size. it was dismissed in court.

 

 

 

Edited November 19, 2021 by Buffarukus

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

26 minutes ago, daz28 said:

Apparently a lot of people here are claiming that every person there was a lawless rioter, EXCEPT Kyle Rittenhouse.  I guess it's ok to take that MASSIVE leap if it makes your point look better.  Maybe just admit you have no idea why the people who attempted to intervene and disarm him were there.  What's more believable: a) they knew Rittenhouse was trying to defend property, and they were willing to risk life and limb to ensure more looting took place; b) people were yelling, 'that guy just shot someone", and they risked life and limb to make sure he didn't hurt anyone else, or get away.

 

Pray tell, why did the "hero" call a friend(instead of the police), and say, "I just shot someone"?  Why didn't he turn himself in until the next day?  If someone broke in my house9or any other scenario), and I shot them defending myself, I'd call the police, and report it IMMEDIATELY.  

 

One last point about his "right" to have the AR.  If I'm not mistaken, he has a 17 year old 'hunting' exemption.  How does a hunting exception allow him to be "defending" a car lot, and the CITY streets of Kenosha at NIGHT?  

I’m not sure I follow you.   Who is arguing everyone in Kenosha was a lawless rioter? There were people who were being victimized, people trying to lend a hand, law enforcement officials and apparently a few people skateboarding to a campfire sponsored by the National Association of Adults Who Victimize Children (NAAWVC).  

What seems most reasonable to me is the folks who set upon KR were intent in doing him harm, though perhaps not to the extent that they would take his life, maybe just leave him with a traumatic brain injury.  I think that because chaos was the order of the day,s one people love chaos and victimizing people who can’t or won’t fight back, and sometimes even those who do.   It’s also possible that they saw KR as an easy mark, and an AR-15 as a pretty good score on Loot N Shoot night.  
 

No idea why he would call a friend, but I’d hazard a guess that the shooting left him traumatized and he reached out to someone he trusted for reassurance.  
 

If he’s guilty of violating gun regulations, he should be held accountable for that.   If he assassinated the victims he should be held accountable for that as well.  However, there are clearly, demonstrably and indisputable facts that cast doubt and raise questions on where you’re going with all this.  

[Buffarukus]

2 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

What threat was he facing from Rosenbaum that justified Rittenhouse shooting and killing him? 

 

people seem to forget that as kyle was being chased by a guy who threatened him a gunmen shot into the air right behind him. so your running from a guy who threatened you. your screaming friendly!, friendly!, friendly!and then a gunshot rings out. no idea who or where. you turn and the guy is going for your only protection at what point can you, in fact, protect yourself?

 

at any point is rosenbaum or any of the others under the same duty to retreat and not escalate? 

 

 

Edited November 19, 2021 by Buffarukus