Kyle Rittenhouse trial set for early November .

[zukiphile]

In the Rittenhouse case, I don't remember the details of the first shooting.

A fire had been started in a dumpster at the front of the property at which Rittenhouse stood. Rittenhouse used a fire extinguisher on it, putting out the fire. Rosenbaum was part of a group who were incensed that the fire had been extinguished. Rittenhouse ran back toward the building as something was thrown at him, and he ended up appearing to be trapped amongst parked cars with Rosenbaum blocking one of his exits.

Rosenbaum was shot, briefly drawing the attention of the crowd. Rittenhouse appeared to be dialing his telephone when he realized that the crowd had re-focused its attention on him. Next is the video of Rittenhouse running down the street before falling.

It's hard to find video that isn't tied to editorial content, but this shows several of those events.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZVVuqXfs14

[mehavey]

Originally Posted by JKS

Homicide is illegal.

Homicide is a legal term for any killing of a human being by another human being. Homicide itself is not necessarily a crime—for instance, a justifiable killing of a suspect by the police or a killing in self-defense. Murder and manslaughter fall under the category of unlawful homicides.

Not all homicides are crimes. However, all killings of humans are included in the homicide definition. Many homicides, such as murder and manslaughter, violate criminal laws. Others, such as a killing committed in justified self-defense, are not criminal. Illegal killings range from manslaughter to murder, with multiple degrees of each representing the gravity of the crime.
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/cri...efinition.html

It is the context & circumstance of the homicide that assigns its legal character.

... which is the issue at hand for Kyle Rittenhouse

[Metal god]

Just watched that video linked above , I never heard that first shot fired before in that first altercation . Which was not by Kyle and both sides in court acknowledged was fired by someone else ( name was given in court ) just before Kyle opened fire . It sure seems less gray now IMHO . Kyle being chased , cornered "and shot at" in that first altercation sure seems to lead to lawful self defense .

Prosecution claims to have inferred drone footage from a fixed wing aircraft that night that shows Kyle was chasing Rosenbom , defense claims they both were running in the same direction so it may look like Kyle was in pursuit . However Kyle actually caught up and passed him indicating Kyle was not chasing him . This is a interesting aspect in the case and I look forward to seeing that work it self out in court .

I believe the "chase" in question was when Kyle ran down the street to get the fire extinguisher and the claimed footage is of Kyle running back to the car lot with the extinguisher to put out a fire .

[Eight_is_enough]

I will rephrase. Rittenhouse committed homicide. Homicide is treated as a crime in Wisconsin until which time it is determined as to its status of legality. He was arrested for it and and apparently getting prosecuted as a result. That is due process. The possibility was there for it not to go this far, but it has.

Homicide is investigated as a crime, but if the evidence indicates deadly force was justified then no one gets arrested or charged. In other words, it is not treated as a crime.

What I said was that after reviewing all the videos and photos, I do not see how any reasonable prosecutor could believe that Rittenhouse acted unlawfully.

After raging at the armed militia members, Rosenbaum is clearly seen in one video walking away swinging a length of chain. It looks to be about 3/4" link and 3' long, a classic street-brawl weapon. It was only minutes later that he got shot. Rosenbaum was clearly looking to menace the people trying to stop property desctruction. He did not want to do it on the street in front of all the videoing phones, but his behavior indicates he was very likely to attack any militia member he could if he thought he could get away with it. Away from the street, among the parked cars, he thought he could get away with it.

OTOH I have seen no indication whatsoever that Rittenhouse was "looking to shoot someone," or looking for confrontation at all.

A good timeline:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYjG4uequWQ

[Double Naught Spy]

Homicide is investigated as a crime, but if the evidence indicates deadly force was justified then no one gets arrested or charged. In other words, it is not treated as a crime.

So being investigated as a crime isn't until legality is determined isn't being the same as treated like a crime? I believe you are mincing words.

After raging at the armed militia members, Rosenbaum is clearly seen in one video walking away swinging a length of chain. It looks to be about 3/4" link and 3' long, a classic street-brawl weapon. It was only minutes later that he got shot.

So much front end loading of your description, but let's play devil's advocate.

Rittenhouse is clearly seen swinging a rifle. Lots of people with weapons that night that looked "menacing," right?

When Rosenbaum was shot, was he menacing anybody with the classic street brawl weapon chain? What happened minutes before isn't necessarily related.

[Metal god]

Was Rosenbom menacing right be for he got shot .

“Menacing” - suggesting the presence of danger; threatening.

Chasing and throwing something in your direction, all while understanding how unstable he was acting earlier would be a reasonable definition of menacing .

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Double Naught Spy

When Rosenbaum was shot, was he menacing anybody with the classic street brawl weapon chain? What happened minutes before isn't necessarily related.

When Rosenbaum was shot, he was trying to take the rifle away from Rittenhouse. A former LEO commented in this thread (post #11)

Originally Posted by Sharkbite

The first assailant tried to take his gun from him. As a former LEO, i can tell you, attempting to wrestle my gun from me will be considered a deadly attack and would be met with that level of response.

[stagpanther]

Much more than just a sociopathic kid is on trial here. Personally, I think given the amount of special interest money and sensational lawyers arrayed in his defense, the case will likely be thrown out on a contrived technicality or tied up indefinitely on appeals.

The problem with the line of reasoning used by some here is that stretch it far enough and you end up justifying a free-for-all shoot-out at the OK corral with all "sides" being justified in killing one-another.

One could use the same rationale, for example, for showing up at the capital on Jan 6 and shooting and killing the protestors.

[dahermit]

...a sociopathic kid is on trial here.

While people tend to use the terms "psychopath" and "sociopath", as disparaging insults, they have specific meanings and if one does not know what they are and the difference, one should not use them.

[stagpanther]

While people tend to use the terms "psychopath" and "sociopath", as disparaging insults, they have specific meanings and if one does not know what they are and the difference, one should not use them.

I know exactly what the word means--I believe he was raised to be one by his parents and was motivated by their own sociopathic tendencies to feel compelled to travel and act as a vigilante to make things right against "undesirables" in society. A disorder of some sort could actually be used in his defense, BTW.

[Double Naught Spy]

At least initially, the defense is claiming he acted in self defense, not because he is psychologically compromised. I can't recall any murder cases where a sociopathic diagnosis was a beneficial defense. Can you?

Interesting that you characterize it as a sociopathic tendency when in similar but different circumstances, folks that travel long distances voluntarily to help others in need against natural (not cultural) threats/crises are considered heroes.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by stagpanther

I know exactly what the word means--I believe he was raised to be one by his parents and was motivated by their own sociopathic tendencies to feel compelled to travel and act as a vigilante to make things right against "undesirables" in society.

I don't see the case for Rittenhouse as a sociopath being supported by the video.

The lad deserves a dope slap from an adult for several decisions he has made, but the pertinent one is how he treated the approach of Grosskreutz. In the midst of a group attack, he allowed Grosskreutz to get within literal spitting distance with a pistol, then let his guard down when Grosskreutz, having first pointed the pistol at Rittenhouse, then put his hand up as if to surrender but retained his pistol.

Someone who was motivated to be there to shoot a bad guy wouldn't wait to be chased by a group, and wouldn't let Grosskreutz back away after having initiated an approach with pistol in hand. That he only shot Grosskreutz once also indicates to me that he wasn't primarily looking for someone to kill. Someone with a vigilante fantasy should be doing more than his defensive minimum to better live out that fantasy.

The next interesting thing in this story may be the cross-examination of Grosskreutz.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by stagpanther

I know exactly what the word means--I believe he was raised to be one by his parents and was motivated by their own sociopathic tendencies to feel compelled to travel and act as a vigilante to make things right against "undesirables" in society.

Since you know what the word "sociopathic" means, what is your evidence that his custodial parent was a sociopath? What is your evidence that Kyle felt "compelled" to act as a vigilante?

A disorder of some sort could actually be used in his defense, BTW.

What disorder has Kyle been diagnosed with, and by whom was he diagnosed?

[stagpanther]

Originally Posted by stagpanther
I know exactly what the word means--I believe he was raised to be one by his parents and was motivated by their own sociopathic tendencies to feel compelled to travel and act as a vigilante to make things right against "undesirables" in society.
Since you know what the word "sociopathic" means, what is your evidence that his custodial parent was a sociopath? What is your evidence that Kyle felt "compelled" to act as a vigilante?

Quote:
A disorder of some sort could actually be used in his defense, BTW.
What disorder has Kyle been diagnosed with, and by whom was he diagnosed?

After carefully examining a couple YouTube videos and methodically diagnosing a few bits and pieces of internet analysis by others, I decided to self-anoint myself as an expert on when murder is justifiable--just like most everyone else on this thread.

[HiBC]

After carefully examining a couple YouTube videos and methodically diagnosing a few bits and pieces of internet analysis by others, I decided to self-anoint myself as an expert on when murder is justifiable--just like most everyone else on this thread.

Murder is not justifiable. Homicide might be.

Along with the Freedom to Keep and Bear Arms,I have some other old fashioned ideas I won't let go of.
I believe in Freedom of Travel.
While I might not choose to go East of the Mississippi....I believe opinions that "KR should not have been there" (so he is guilty) or "KR should not have been armed" (so he is guilty) come from the same place as " YOU should not be allowed to have a gun"
I have another"Old Fashioned Belief" The PRESUMPTION of INNOCENCE UNTIL CONVICTED IN a COURT OF LAW.

Right now,today,as I write this, KR has not been convicted,so I presume him innocent.

I will stand by this statement:

I'm going to do what a lot of people should probably do.

Say this:

"I just don't have enough factual information to offer an opinion."

[Metal god]

After carefully examining a couple YouTube videos and methodically diagnosing a few bits and pieces of internet analysis by others, I decided to self-anoint myself as an expert on when murder is justifiable--just like most everyone else on this thread.

Good answer haha

I still think this is about the charges . If he is only charged with 2nd degree murder he walks . The prosecution tried to have a video allowed that had KR sitting in a car watching what he thought was a guy/s shoplifting . KR commented something to the effect he wished he had his gun . There theory is that KR has been looking for a fight and the video shows he has been wanting to use the gun in said fight . Judge said not admissible ( in the link in OP ) Why would that not be relevant ? Simple , actions matter more then thoughts and that day KR believed to have seen shoplifters he called the police and did not intervene . He did what we've been told since 911 ( if you see something say something ) and yet the state would try to use that against him . Could you imagine how full the jails would be if we could be prosecuted for are thoughts .

Ok that said lets talk actions as a few seem to think that him just being there was good enough to be guilty . Lets take that to the next level and use this scenario . What If I just randomly walked up to someone and punch them in the face and and they proceeded to beat the crap out of me and will not stop . Because I started it , do I deserve to die ? Would I be justified in using lethal force to stop my "attacker" ? I concluded in my mind anyway that yes I would but I'd also be guilty of causing the incident in the first place therefore some repercussions and or penalties should be imposed on me . However at no point would it be reasonable for anyone to think I must just sit there and hope the guy stops beating on me because I started it .

Now that's an extreme example of someone actually starting a/the altercation and still having the right to self defense . There may be consequences after but I still had a right NOT TO DIE regardless if I started it . In this case the aggressor never had a chance to throw that first punch because he chased and cornered a man that was openly displaying a firearm . Rosenbeum was unable to carry out his will before being incapacitated ( see I can use big words too lol )

As for free for all's in the streets , Isn't confronting lawlessness the way to stop those things from happening . Wasn't the free for all already happening that night and the nights proceeding ? It's not that I disagree completely with some that look at this differently . It's that I believe there are extenuating circumstances that over ride the basic "he should not have been there argument .

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by stagpanther

I know exactly what the word means--I believe he was raised to be one by his parents and was motivated by their own sociopathic tendencies to feel compelled to travel and act as a vigilante to make things right against "undesirables" in society.

"Sociopath" is not a term currently used in medical practice. The correct term is "Antisocial Personality Disorder."

https://www.medicinenet.com/antisoci...er/article.htm

Since you have diagnosed Kyle's custodial parent as a sociopath, which of the contributing antisocial behaviors does the custodial parent routinely exhibit?

Since a diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder should not be made until a person is at least 18 years of age, and is then based on a continuum of antisocial behavioral patterns since at least the age of fifteen -- what pattern of antisocial behaviors has Kyle Rittenhouse exhibited since he was fifteen years old?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Metal god

Ok that said lets talk actions as a few seem to think that him just being there was good enough to be guilty . Lets take that to the next level and use this scenario . What If I just randomly walked up to someone and punch them in the face and and they proceeded to beat the crap out of me and will not stop . Because I started it , do I deserve to die ? Would I be justified in using lethal force to stop my "attacker" ? I concluded in my mind anyway that yes I would but I'd also be guilty of causing the incident in the first place therefore some repercussions and or penalties should be imposed on me . However at no point would it be reasonable for anyone to think I must just sit there and hope the guy stops beating on me because I started it .

Now that's an extreme example of someone actually starting a/the altercation and still having the right to self defense .

Actually, I think in the circumstances you describe you would not have a legal right to use lethal force in self defense. As you stated -- in your hypothetical example, you were the aggressor. That pretty much removes your legal right to then claim "self defense."

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Metal God

Ok that said lets talk actions as a few seem to think that him just being there was good enough to be guilty . Lets take that to the next level and use this scenario . What If I just randomly walked up to someone and punch them in the face and and they proceeded to beat the crap out of me and will not stop . Because I started it , do I deserve to die ?

Possibly.

Originally Posted by Metal God

Would I be justified in using lethal force to stop my "attacker" ?

Probably not.

The concept of voluntary combat arises where a concealed carrier chooses not to employ his firearm, but relies on his fists for defense. A court might find that he consented to combat so that he would not be entitled to then employ deadly force when things turned and he didn't prevail.

The issue you raise is whether someone who initiates a fight is entitled to use deadly force if it doesn't work out in his favor. I can see lots of policy reasons for him not having that right.

[stagpanther]

I personally think what he did was the direct result of choosing a path that he knew and self-trained for and knowing it would likely result in a confrontation necessitating the use of of an efficient war firearm. Everything else that led up to the moments of the killings were merely the unpredictable and fluid circumstances that inexorably led him to use his weapon. Does that rise to the level of premeditation? IMO, yes. But that's almost certainly not what is going to happen. My prediction is back room baseball card trading will go on eventually resulting in a "minor" manslaughter charge pled guilty to and let off with very little time if any incarcerated. The role of law enforcement has a stake in this too.

[dahermit]

I personally think what he did was the direct result of choosing a path that he knew and self-trained for and knowing it would likely result in a confrontation necessitating the use of of an efficient war firearm.

Hang your shingle out: "Psychological Help 5 Cents."

[stagpanther]

Hang your shingle out: "Psychological Help 5 Cents."

Not a bad idea--except I already know-all and can cure-all for free, so that would be a bit redundant.

[Metal god]

Actually, I think in the circumstances you describe you would not have a legal right to use lethal force in self defense. As you stated -- in your hypothetical example, you were the aggressor. That pretty much removes your legal right to then claim "self defense."

Ok just so I understand you , it's your belief if a person starts a fight they for fit the ability to defend them selves ? At what point is instigating the fight an instigation ? If I bump you ? If I bump you hard ? step on your foot ? Those all can be instigation to a greater fight .

Maybe my point was not well made , I think I would still need to go to jail but again I also still have a right to live as well so If the guy wont stop after I started it how do I get to legally stay alive ?

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Metal God

...so If the guy wont stop after I started it how do I get to legally stay alive ?

Answers to that question could include having the foresight to:

1. know that your victim may not know that you don't intend to kill him, and
2. refrain from assaulting people.

At what point is instigating the fight an instigation ? If I bump you ? If I bump you hard ? step on your foot ?

Those are fine questions, but they bear on whether you've started a fight rather than whether you have a right to deadly force in self defense once you've started a fight.

[44 AMP]

Ok just so I understand you , it's your belief if a person starts a fight they for fit the ability to defend them selves ?

I think you are mixing together two things the law generally considers separate. Self defense, and the use of deadly force in self defense. And also the difference between moral and legal justification.

If you start the fight, initiate the attack, throw the first punch, then you forfeit the legal right to claim self defense. Now, if things go against you and you have a valid fear for your life, you have the moral right to do what you have to do to survive.

the law does not require you to die, but it does require you to pay the penalty for illegal actions. And, generally speaking starting the fight involves an illegal action, and therefore your legal protection for acts deriving from that is limited. Its the way the law is. Might not be what you feel is right, but its the way the law is.