Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

[Jersey Girl]

Just imagine if he had let it burn. We would have been left with a dumpster with some ashes in it. Sort of a mobile fire pit.

Too bad he wasted a perfectly good fire extinguisher on that.

Can't have that. It is better to risk losing lives rather than to see a pile of garbage burn in a steel container.

KR didn't extinguish the dumpster fire.

[Binger]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Binger]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Gadianton]

How do we best determine that the intent is to kill?

The CNN legal analyst presented a view that doesn't quite line up with Res Ipsa's. Does he have reasonable belief to think his life is in danger in that moment, without respect to whatever bad actions of his own had led up to that moment?

Guy1 prances around a crowd in an urban setting with a semi-auto rifle capable of killing a lot of people and having words here and there with individuals from the crowd. Guy2 moves abruptly toward guy1. Guy1 reasons that guy2 must have the capability either by gun, knife, or fight skills to cause himself serious harm -- unless insane, nobody would move abruptly toward a guy with an assault rifle unless the person believed themselves to be a serious threat to an armed individual. Further, even had he not trolled the crowd, guy2 moving abruptly toward guy1 could trigger the crowd into believing guy1 is a threat.

[Res Ipsa]

In that scenario, an unexpected move would not even justify use of non-lethal force. You don’t get to shoot someone’s because they made an unexpected move toward you.

thanks for clarifying this point so many times. It's one I also have been confused over because while what you say makes sense, certain things had made me wonder if the ldsfaqs doctrine really might have legal merit. So while I do believe open carry laws are completely stupid, the situation is a little better than what I was beginning to come to believe about the law.

Tacking on "with intent to kill" to an otherwise mundane scenario isn't helpful since we can't read minds. We must surmise intent.

You’re welcome. The relevant fact isn’t what the aggressors subjective intent actually was or what the defendant subjectively thought the aggressor’s intent was. It’s whether a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have reasonably concluded that he or someone else was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm and that deadly force was necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm.

The key terms that I think folks tend to blow past are “reasonable person,” imminent,” and “necessary.”

[Some Schmo]

Well that's just damned great. Here's hoping someone finds him an imminent threat and wastes him in "self-defense."

This damned idiotic country.

[Binger]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Res Ipsa]

In that scenario, an unexpected move would not even justify use of non-lethal force. You don’t get to shoot someone’s because they made an unexpected move toward you.

And I would add that just because a bigger and stronger person chooses to beat you within an inch of your life you're still not justified in returning this violence with gunfire. Bullies should be allowed to dish out physical abuse upon those they prey upon without having to fear being fatally shot return. If the victim cannot defend himself or herself with her own fists, than she must take the beating that the bully decides to inflict upon her. This has been settled law in the Blue States of America since the Travon Martin case.

That’s just wrong, Hawkeye. The standard for use deadly force is “imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.” The standard is much lower for use of force that is not deadly force.

The part you’ve got right is that you can’t shoot someone for throwing a punch. The problem I see is the number of folks I read about who appear to believe that they can legally shoot someone in response to any threat they perceive.

[Res Ipsa]

Well that's just F'ing great. Here's hoping someone finds him an imminent threat and wastes him in "self-defense."

This F'ing idiotic country.

I get the frustration, but I don’t wish any harm on the young man. I find it completely believable that he’s suffering from PTSD. And it wouldn’t surprise me if he continues to suffer from it for a long time. I hope he’s able to go past it and go on to live a happy and fulfilling life.

As far as I’m concerned, the criminal Justice system did what it was supposed to. He got his day in court and was able to argue his case to a jury of his peers.

[Gadianton]

Will be interesting to see how this ruling shapes street conflicts. I think K was LARPing. He entered the arena in fantasy mode hoping to troll his way to a conflict that he could end by legally using deadly force. However, once he got down the path, he was in over his head. I think when he ran away from R, if he could have pushed a teleport button and got out of there, he would have. He wasn't ready for the reality of combat. But, here he was, and he had to think fast and so it goes. As wrong as he was, he wasn't an active shooter. He wasn't playing out a concocted fantasy. If he was, he did so masterfully, I'll give him that.

The biggest problem is open carry itself, especially in the context of a street battle where ideological foes are out to push each others buttons. I think this ruling will change the terms of the game being played.

Recall 911. Very quickly, the hijack game changed. By plane 3, the passengers had to assume the worst intentions and the only choice is to rush those making the threat. It may not be possible to hijack a plane anymore, because everyone knows to go all-in at the outset.

A street conflict isn't quite that stark, there are more options, but in principle, knowing that a perceived deadly threat is legally allowed to kill you if s/he feels threatened: either run like hell, or go all-in with a response. It won't take too many incidents like this before a crowd feeling threatened by a person with a gun moves decisively to take care of the problem. Kyle's unique psychological profile made him something like a guerrilla warrior in the midst of British soldiers firing volleys. Nobody expected he'd have the balls, and nobody really expected he'd have the balls and then get off Scott free.

People who share the street with armed vigilantes will update their expectations about how these conflicts might play out, and put the squeeze on the advantages of being an armed provocateur.