Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

[Kishkumen]

The point wasn't whether Rittenhouse knew his attackers were all convicted felons with extensive criminal histories (including jump kick man, it turns out. Surprise!). The point was whether the GOP likes pedophiles or not.

If they don’t, you wouldn’t know it by the number they employ!

[canpakes]

But don’t you think, at the end of the day, that the verdict was correct? I mean, considering what he was charged with …

I think that at the point that he was on the ground after running post Rosenbaum, it was reasonable for Rittenhouse to conclude that his life could be in danger (although I don’t agree with the characterization that he was getting his head bashed in with a skateboard by someone ‘intending to kill him’; the video seems to pretty clearly show Huber striking and attempting to grab the gun while in passing motion away from Rittenhouse, as opposed to stopping and issuing repeated head strikes).

I haven’t been convinced that Rittenhouse needed to believe that his life was in danger from Rosenbaum, who had taunted others but wasn’t seen as a threat by any of them.

Were I on the jury, I would not have voted to convict RIttenhouse of intentional homicide of any of the victims. I do believe, though, that the reckless homicide and endangerment charges could be applicable. But unless I’m going to sit through the entire trial, be privy to all evidence and depending upon whatever any mandatory minimum sentencing requirements were, I won’t commit to the latter two charges.

All of that is still separate from the problems that this situation and trial shed light on, for open carry of long guns in questionable situations vis-a-vis the ‘good guy with a gun vs. the bad guy with a gun’ narrative so often pushed by some firearms fanatics.

[K Graham]

Chrystul Kizer isn't a hero to FOX news. She's black, and the GOP apparently likes pedophiles these days.

??? Rosenbaum was a pedophile, and the GOP doesn’t seem to like him one bit.

Mostly because they perceive him as a leftist pedophile even if he isn't. Meanwhile Chrystul is on trial for murdering her pedophile rapist and Right Wing media is all crickets about that because, well, she's black, and the dead pedophile is likely a GOP strategist of some kind.

[Marcus]

No one deserves to have their life destroyed for being a young, dumb kid with grotesque opinions

Likewise, no one deserves to have their lives ended by a young dumb kid with grotesque opinions.

[Dr. Shades]

First things first. Rittenhouse was witnessed by some folks who saw him kill Rosenbaum. I’m not convinced that Rittenhouse needed to use deadly force there, let alone fire 4 times in quick succession. . . I haven’t been convinced that Rittenhouse needed to believe that his life was in danger from Rosenbaum, who had taunted others but wasn’t seen as a threat by any of them.

If you were in that precise situation at that precise time--a guy who had threatened to kill you runs you down and tries to get your firearm away from you--what force would you have used, if any? Why?

He was spotted by others who asked why he shot Rosenbaum, then Rittenhouse ended up trotting down the street with his weapon lowered but forward.

I don't see your point. What else was he supposed to do?

If you assume that folks seeing Rittenhouse and chasing him wanted to kill him rather than just stop/disarm him, then you must also assume that folks viewing Rittenhouse jogging down the street with a firearm at the ready position might likewise believe that he posed a threat to or wanted to kill them. Even if they didn’t witness what they may have heard about.

Again, I don't see your point.

All of that is still separate from the problems that this situation and trial shed light on, for open carry of long guns in questionable situations vis-a-vis the ‘good guy with a gun vs. the bad guy with a gun’ narrative so often pushed by some firearms fanatics.

Well, the problem of open wearing of a miniskirt in questionable situations has been resolved to everyone's satisfaction. I think polite society has unanimously agreed that if a convicted felon with a long criminal record--or anyone else, for that matter--tries to rape a woman who wears a miniskirt in a questionable situation, then she is justified in using a firearm against him to defend herself, regardless of why she put herself in that situation, and regardless of what she is holding/carrying/wearing, etc. I don't see how this is any different.

No one deserves to have their life destroyed for being a young, dumb kid with grotesque opinions

Likewise, no one deserves to have their lives ended by a young dumb kid with grotesque opinions.

Indeed. If only there was some way--some way at all--for the rioters to have avoided being shot. . .

[Binger]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Dr. Shades]

You seem to be arguing that those individuals or group were righteous in their vigilantism (acting outside the law to deliver justice), though you have been deliberately unclear.

That's another good observation. If the rioters were righteous in their vigilantism as they attempted to kill Rittenhouse, then why wasn't Rittenhouse righteous in his own vigilantism as he put out fires, defused a situation, and stood stoically defending a car dealership?

[canpakes]

First things first. Rittenhouse was witnessed by some folks who saw him kill Rosenbaum. I’m not convinced that Rittenhouse needed to use deadly force there, let alone fire 4 times in quick succession.

If you were in that precise situation at that precise time--a guy who had threatened to kill you runs you down and tries to get your firearm away from you--what force would you have used, if any? Why?

Rittenhouse may have had options with Rosenbaum. Leave the area. Ignore Rosenbaum, as others had. Sling his weapon as opposed to having it in hand. Not point his weapon in Rosenbaum’s direction, or close enough to have the barrel grabbed by him, which is alleged but unproven. Use another defensive measure other that shoot 4 times into a guy who threw a plastic bag at him.

He was spotted by others who asked why he shot Rosenbaum, then Rittenhouse ended up trotting down the street with his weapon lowered but forward.

I don't see your point. What else was he supposed to do?

He could have stayed with Rosenbaum until police arrived. He could have placed the rifle in a non-defensive position or on his back as he had been previously carrying it. Taking off down the street like he did was probably the worst choice.

If you assume that folks seeing Rittenhouse and chasing him wanted to kill him rather than just stop/disarm him, then you must also assume that folks viewing Rittenhouse jogging down the street with a firearm at the ready position might likewise believe that he posed a threat to or wanted to kill them. Even if they didn’t witness what they may have heard about.

Again, I don't see your point.

The point is that Rittenhouse did just about everything wrong. It’s hard to rationalize his go-to of ‘shoot first’ as his only option. Two times, at that.

When he tripped, he righted himself and immediately aimed at people approaching him. No attempt at hands up, or anything else. What would you expect anyone close to him would think that he was going to do?

[canpakes]

You seem to be arguing that those individuals or group were righteous in their vigilantism (acting outside the law to deliver justice), though you have been deliberately unclear.

That's another good observation. If the rioters were righteous in their vigilantism as they attempted to kill Rittenhouse, then why wasn't Rittenhouse righteous in his own vigilantism as he put out fires, defused a situation, and stood stoically defending a car dealership?

That’s the problem. Neither were righteous. I’m not arguing righteousness (what does that even mean here, aside from being a straw man?). I’m arguing expectations, as that was your question.

You can’t tell me that a man carrying a gun in the ready position and running down the street has any expectation of fearing for his life any more so than anyone else around him that he hasn’t already shot yet.

You ask what Rittenhouse was expected to think. He probably should have engaged in thinking well before that point; regardless, the crowd seems to have reacted as expected, as well. Especially if someone’s first action after tripping is to right himself and point a weapon at the crowd.

[Marcus]

Likewise, no one deserves to have their lives ended by a young dumb kid with grotesque opinions.

Indeed. If only there was some way--some way at all--for the rioters to have avoided being shot. . .

Indeed. If only there was some way--some way at all--for the shooter to have avoided shooting people dead. . .