I want to be clear that this line of argument is poor. Once the events turned into a conflict, the reality of the law is Rittenhouse was justified in his actions as affirmed by a jury of his peers.
I think Canpake's point stands. While the trial itself was over K's actions, we can still think about the actions of others in the scenario. That K was justified in defending himself doesn't mean that others weren't justified in stopping what they perceived to be a threat to other people. Had G-G returned fire after getting shot and connected, would he have been prosecuted for defending himself from death?
Had a third party pulled and shot as K was shooting others, would the third party have certainly been convicted of murder? It would come down to how reasonable it was for others to claim they perceived K as a threat to the lives of themselves or others.
This highlights why it's a poor argument. Once it became a conflict between Rittenhouse and the others the justification for enacting violence dropped to the level of perception of every individual involved.
The law as it currently stands isn't established in a way that deals well with vigilantism in a chaotic environment. And the odds are new laws enacted to address this will be negotiating complicated issues.
So that begs the question: What exactly is the aim of the argument you believe is valid?
Last edited by honorentheos on Mon Nov 22, 2021 12:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Let go or be dragged, I say. Good on ya, though. This content of this thread is now like 80% B.S..
I watched a better quality video in slow motion. Here is a better explanation
According to court records, Huber had a skateboard in his right hand and used it to "make contact" with Rittenhouse's left shoulder as they struggled for control of the gun.
You should also consider whether the defendant provoked the attack. A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack, and who does provoke an attack, is not allowed to use or threaten force in self-defense against that attack. However, if the attack which follows causes the person reasonably to believe that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, he may lawfully act in self-defense. But the person may not use or threaten force intended or likely to cause death unless he reasonably believes he has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm.
Last edited by Gadianton on Mon Nov 22, 2021 12:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Social distancing has likely already begun to flatten the curve...Continue to research good antivirals and vaccine candidates. Make everyone wear masks. -- J.D. Vance
Hence the reason why it is so much more dangerous. Have you ever heard of mob mentality? The mob mentality was so strong here that it caused 3 people who didn't even witness the Rosenbaum shooting to pursue and attack Kyle.
Okay. Let me ask in a different way. Would Huber be found guilty of attempted murder or assault in a court of law? Was Grosskreutz ever charged with attempted murder?
Don't you think it would colossally “F” up the States case against Rittenhouse if they charged the people he shot with attempted murder or assault? That would vindicate Kyle would it not?
Have you ever heard of mob mentality? The mob mentality was so strong here that it caused 3 people who didn't even witness the Rosenbaum shooting to pursue and attack Kyle.
It can happen, but it doesn't mean Huber had to intention to kill him or to send him to the hospital. The burden of proof now falls on you. Innocent until proven innocent.
Huber didn't do anything against the law, he had the right to disarm the 17 year old boy.
"Under Wisconsin law, anyone under 18 who possesses a dangerous weapon is guilty of a misdemeanor, unless they fall under an exception, such as for hunting, military service or target practice." https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/202 ... 640342002/
If you refer to the gifs that Doc posted I think you will realize that Huber was intending to cause Kyle bodily injury or death.
"I advise all to go on to perfection and search deeper and deeper into the mysteries of Godliness." -Joseph Smith
Let go or be dragged, I say. Good on ya, though. This content of this thread is now like 80% B.S..
I watched a better quality video in slow motion. Here is a better explanation
According to court records, Huber had a skateboard in his right hand and used it to "make contact" with Rittenhouse's left shoulder as they struggled for control of the gun.
I want to be clear that this line of argument is poor. Once the events turned into a conflict, the reality of the law is Rittenhouse was justified in his actions as affirmed by a jury of his peers.
That’s OK, honor, and understood. I’m not trying to construct any sort of legal argument along these lines. I’m playing devil’s advocate with possible crowd dynamics and consequences and with regard to the faulty rationale and thin thinking offered up in some arguments for open carry … especially in situations like this.
Upstream, I’ve already stated that Rittenhouse was reasonable in assuming that his life was in danger and that I would never vote to convict him on intentional homicide charges.
The issue is that the conflict itself was a degrading of the social order, both by rioters engaging in criminal activity and by vigilantes inserting firearms into the situation.
Our justice system was dealing narrowly with the case as it was. Legislation is almost certainly going to attempt to react to this in potentially damaging ways from both the left and right due to being reactionary. Yeah, we need to rethink how the law should be evolved to deal with the current fraying of society. But that needs to be value based. For good or ill, Rittenhouse has rights that needed protecting for the good of society, too.
Highlight is mine, especially with regard to reactionary.
I think democracy is a bit fragile these days and too important to be damned around with just to score points on the internet.
Don't you think it would colossally F up the States case against Rittenhouse if they charged the people he shot with attempted murder or assault? That would vindicate Kyle would it not?
I am not saying Rittenhouse is guilty of murder. I said earlier,
