Senate Gun Control

As a European, the ability in some US state to be able to own and even lawfully carry this weapon in public is completely alien to me also, but that seem to be the culture. I do not think it have any bearing on the justify or not justify of his actions however. He could have done same with a semi-automatic hand gun I suspect ? (Not that I know much about these guns)

 

The fact that Rittenhouse had no business being in Kenosha with a gun is irrelevant to his self-defense argument. It only matters whether he reasonably feared for his life in the moment.

 

I agree. People do not have to agree whether the Kyle Rittenhouse should or should no have been in these town. They do not even have to like him, or his view. They do not have to agree with his self-appoint civilian defense / medic / firefighter ideals. But even this teen has the right to prevent himself being chased and have gun take from him, or kick and beaten or potential shot in the street as he is retreating toward the police. The idea that he should surrender his gun there and take whatever was coming to him in the hope that the police would arrest people for any beating or worse dish out to him is a concept that I do not understand.

 

But it should be relevant. You don't go out of your way to get yourself to a dangerous situation and then claim you had to use your gun to protect yourself. If he had simply stayed at home, he wouldn't have felt threatened and wouldn't have needed to defend himself. It really is that simple. It's not like BLM came over to his house and started breaking the door down - then his self-defense argument would at least have made sense.

How is this not obvious?

 

To be in the immediate vicinity of a trouble spot, either by accident or deliberate, should not mean forfeit of a right to self-defense if there is a reasonable fear for life. Would a reporter or journalist purposely at a war zone or trouble spot for example be expected not to take action if necessary?

 

One can argue the people who were walking towards a guy openly carrying a ****ing assault rifle were doing so because they rightfully felt their lives were in danger.

 

A reporter or a journalist goes to a war zone dangerous place because they're doing their job - reporting on the events in that area. That is their purpose for being there - not just because they fancy it or want to join in. (Also, reporters don't usually carry guns, AFAIK - and certainly not assault rifles).

Is Rittenhouse a journalist or a reporter? Was he writing a report on the protests? If not, what was his purpose for being there?

 

I suspect this was these response, but the principle is the same. A person who find themselves in a dangerous situation, whether by accident or deliberate do not forfeit the right to defend themselves if they have reasonable belief that their life in immediate danger. Rittenhouse appear to have been some kind of self-appointed civilian defense of property from fire and damage, was shout offering first aid and was even seen on one video run back and forth with fire extinguish to put out fires. This may be misguided or even wrong, but he have no obligation to let himself be chase, have his gun taken from him, beaten, kicked and have a gun point at him whilst he on the ground on his way to the police line. He really does not.

What the jury must decide now is whether they agree with this belief, and Rittenhose response to it, as been reasonable.

Yes they could but it would not been logical. The logical thing to in this instance be what he did, and attempt to run in the opposite direction from immediate danger.

 

Sorry, no. There would have been no threat whatsoever of him being chased, beaten, kicked or having gun pointed at him if he hadn't gone there in the first place.

Again, I am asking: what was the purpose of him being here?

 

But he was there, and the case must deal with matter of this fact. I say above what appear to be his reason for going there. He will part of a group of people who had taken on themselves to defend some property and business from damage during a protest or civil unrest.

By same principle, do you feel that Gaige Grosskreutz brought his wound on himself by going there with a loaded and unlawful carry gun?

 

But that is not accurate. I have not say that I think he was right to be there, I am repeat what the court and media report as the why he claim to be there.

I can only defend what I see on the video evidence at exact moment of when he shoots and apparently why, because it is there in front of my very eyes. Along with some legal expert and other commentator, I happen to think he may have a defense or partial defense based on this circumstance. I do not have to like this person to think that.

It is not whataboutism either when principle of arguments offered apply to both actors, but only one is condemn for their part in being there.

This is why I say this case is divisive and has split opinion wildly depend on political alignment. The left see this person as some kind of derange domestic terrorist who "shoot at will" at peaceful protester who have the moral high ground, the right see him as an American patriot who defended himself, stop violent criminals from rioting and is icon of US gun ownership.

I do not care to make a judgment on him either way, but I am interested in what happen when he shot Rosenbaum who appear to try and take his gun. Was that reasonable under circumstances? What happen when he get kicked on the ground, and hit in the face with a wooden skateboard? Was he right to fire from the ground at Huber? What happen when Grosskreutz approach with his own gun? Does shoot at this armed man be reasonable? Those are these details of the case which I think may be a defense.

 

But you can't simply reduce the whole issue to those few moments just before he fired his gun. The wider context matters.

 

If we're trying to view this in a logical manner, yes, but I doubt we're going to get a reasonable response (or ethical for that matter) from them anytime soon considering all the excuses they keep coming up with to cover for that gun-toting teenager.

 

It will be exactly those circumstances which will determine whether jury believe his action reasonable. There were other people there with gun as part of this civilian group, and they are not on trial because they did not encounter same situation as he did. The exact circumstance detail are what will matter.

 

They do if they got into the dangerous situation via committing a felony, and the dangerous situation is "the process of committing a felony". That's how the felony murder principle works - if you're a bank robber in a bank, robbing it, and you shoot a cop or bystander, even if they are the one attacking you, and you shot only to save your own life, you get convictable of murder.

If "right to self-defend" can be lost there, it can maybe be lost in other, similar situations.

 

I have read about this principle and I agree. I did read some article about whether he carry a rifle unlawfully due to age would count toward this type of thing, and some legal expert could not decide. Some say that his possession of rifle might be obstacle for his defense, some say it would not be a factor when consider self-defense principles.

 

I have not excuse it, I am making an objective observation base on the court proceeding, commentary and the widely available video evidence. And the reason that he face a trial to determine his action and isn't starting a prison sentence already, is because the legal defense of self-defense must be examine for validity. Some legal expert have opine already that due to the exact circumstances of why he fire, he may have a defense.

 

Guns should not be used in self defense unless you are at home. No one besides law enforcement should be carrying guns in public .

 

But you have determine already it is murder before a verdict is reach, so do that confirm your bias?

I have never praise Kyle Rittenhouse, say I support him, say that he was right, say that he should have been there, say that the protester deserve it. Nothing like this.

I am interested only in whether the circumstances make his decision to shoot reasonable. Each time I watch the footage as show at the trial, it show him attempting to run from protesters and firing when either corner and the man appear to grab his gun, or when he is run down the road, knock onto on the ground, being beaten and kick and confronted with a gun by people in a mob. So then I ask myself these questions "Would i let somebody try to grab my gun?" Probably no. "Would I let a crowd kick or beat me in the street if I had a gun, or let somebody point their gun at me?" and the answer I reach again is probably no. It is this kind of thought process that jury in self-defense case have to go through when they are task with determine what is reasonable in those circumstances.