Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

[Res Ipsa]

Like, fire on folks because they feel threatened. Self defense, yo.

If you had been in Kyle Rittenhouse's situation, what would you have done?

Stayed at home and played Call of Duty.

[canpakes]

If you had been in Kyle Rittenhouse's situation, what would you have done?

Stayed at home and played Call of Duty.

I think that we’re only allowed to ask the question for the split second that Rittenhouse had sat back up on his arse* after tripping, then pointed his AR at folks 10 feet away.

That’s the only time that anyone is allowed to ask what he should have done that night.

Not that putting the AR down could likely have kept the number of dead at 1, or anything. We HAVE to assume that the crowd of people was going to KILL Rittenhouse, because the folks who watched Rittenhouse kill Rosenbaum also clearly wanted to KILL Rittenhouse, but only managed to ask why he shot Rosenbaum, so they must have just forgotten about their BLOODLUST.

We must also remember that it cannot ever be assumed that the unidentified guy with the gun - running down the street with his weapon in the ready position while being asked why he shot somebody - could possibly ever be seen by the crowd as someone who posed a threat to anyone.


*and while in view of an approaching police line

[Kishkumen]

The big picture:

A democratic society not only allows for, but required, peaceful protest and activism to motivate change.

A civil society is one where the citizenry outsource the enforcing of law to trained individuals who take on that responsibility - and it's a responsibility with all that entails.

When civil, democratic society begins to fray the individual breakdown of both of the above are not in anyone's best long term interest if one values living in a civil society.

The law as it currently exists isn't well equipped to address this fraying. And whatever the result may be, overreaction is most likely to result in problematic legislation. Likely we'll see bad laws from states come out of this that reflect bad reactions from both sides.

Agreed.

[Gadianton]

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.

The problem with your example is that you're introducing conflicting plausible motive for the attackers to attack. A lone woman dressing sexy who is hit to the ground and has a gun pulled on her is likely being attacked for a different reason than a lone woman dressing sexy carrying an AR-15, and who the attackers have just learned had recently killed someone.

You and Cultellus make the same mistake by loading your questions. You clearly identify the motives of the attackers as "attempting to kill" or "attempting to rape". If the intent is identified in advance as rape, then why mention the miniskirt? If we have to piece the evidence together without your psychological stipulations, then a miniskirt in and of itself is hardly enough evidence to determine the reason for the attack. You mention a "questionable situation". Let me try.

The woman is a prostitute, shows up to a hotel room for agreed-upon services, but there's four guys instead of one guy, and they lunge for her as she steps into the door. Surprise; she has a concealed .38, pulls, and shoots.

regardless of what she is holding/carrying/wearing, etc. I don't see how this is any different

The woman is a prostitute, shows up to a hotel room for agreed-upon services, she opens the door to a lone man who weighs approximately 130 pounds. She steps into the room wearing a miniskirt and carrying an AR-15 in her hands. The man lunges toward her gun. He must be trying to disarm her in order to rape her, correct?

If you believe K was just like a vulnerable girl threatened with impending rape by a guy holding a gun, then it wouldn't be enough that K's shooting was clean, you'd also be calling for the prosecution of G-G - the guy shot in the shoulder. For you and Cultellus, he's an attempted murder. The fact that it's never occurred to either of you that he should be punished for trying to kill K shows that you don't believe that he was trying to kill K. You don't believe any of them were.

You may believe that K thought he was going to be killed or in for great bodily harm, and a reasonable person in the same situation would have thought the same. Some of us question that a reasonable person would think this, but not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Those who have reasonable belief that a person is an active shooter putting the lives of others in immediate danger may act more decisively next time.

[Binger]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Binger]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Binger]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Kukulkan]

I'm seeing some people in this thread talk about how Kyle could have resisted by fighting back with his fists and should not have used the gun.

According to Wisconsin self defense laws

A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.

I think that it is reasonable to assume that if Rosenbaum had made it to Kyle he was going to cause him great bodily harm. Kyle doesn't even need to believe Rosenbaum is going to kill him, only cause him great bodily harm. I think any other reasonable person would come to the same conclusion. It's pretty clear that Kyle's use of his firearm is well justified under Wisconsin self defense law. It isn't the responsibility of Kyle to 'play fair' and engage Rosenbaum in fisticuffs.

[Binger]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Binger]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯