Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

[Dr. Shades]

Even if Rosenbaum was aggressive or irrational, that isn’t a guaranteed that he wants to kill Rittenhouse.

How about his earlier stated intent, directly to Rittenhouse, that he will kill Rittenhouse? Isn't that a guarantee?

Rosembaum hectored several other folks that evening. None of them ran off to a secluded spot and then decided that they needed to shoot Rosenbaum.

That's only because none of them were pursued by Rosenbaum. Did you truly not catch that little detail?

[Some Schmo]

We have a gun-friendly culture, and that horse left the barn a long time ago. At this point in time, it would be incredibly risky to try to turn the gun situation around, so I think it is a better idea to try to find different solutions to our cultural and societal sickness.

Sincerely, good luck with that. The only problem is that I can't think of any plausible solutions to the sickness to which you refer, so long as the guns are still out there and short of massive media censorship.

So that's both the second and the first amendments getting in the way.

Agreed. There will be no solution to the problem if it isn't recognized as the problem.

Essentially, America has a cancer, and people are willing to fight to the death for their right to keep America cancer-ridden and let everyone die. Better to let thousands be shot and killed every year than *gasp* restrict guns from people who have no business having them.

As I've been saying all along, this is a cultural problem. I've been plenty of places where this isn't a problem. America is an exception, and the idiots in this country think that's what makes us exceptional.

[canpakes]

https://youtu.be/xGUSuyCtWyc

Here's the criminal record of the guy canpakes is defending

There goes your reading comprehension difficulty again, Mike. I’m not defending anyone.

I’d ask you to explain my ‘defense’, but you won’t because there isn’t one.

[canpakes]

https://youtu.be/0sGxLfAlM8M

Testimony describing Joseph Rosenbaums actions the night he decided to attack a minor. Remember, canpakes says Kyle Rittenhouse was the one who instigated the shooting by merely having an evil evil evil AR15.

You believe in the Great Pumpkin and that ivermectin cures halitosis.

Your turn, now.

[Binger]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[canpakes]

Even if Rosenbaum was aggressive or irrational, that isn’t a guaranteed that he wants to kill Rittenhouse.

How about his earlier stated intent, directly to Rittenhouse, that he will kill Rittenhouse? Isn't that a guarantee?

A guarantee? No.

Rosembaum hectored several other folks that evening. None of them ran off to a secluded spot and then decided that they needed to shoot Rosenbaum.

That's only because none of them were pursued by Rosenbaum. Did you truly not catch that little detail?

What difference would it have made if he hadn’t?

Your questions earlier were about a very different part of the timeline.

[Gadianton]

I can understand the need for business owners to align themselves with right-leaning militias

The evidence suggests they probably asked the group to defend their business but publicly testified to the contrary to avoid potential lawsuits from those shot by Rittenhouse.

Well, there's a huge amount of liability involved in calling upon a right-leaning militia to protect your business.

939.49  Defense of property and protection against retail theft.
(1)  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 the person's property. Only such degree of force or threat thereof may intentionally be used as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. It is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of defense of one's property.

So basically, the only force guns are good for is illegal to use to protect a business.

Militia personnel may wish to carry their guns to protect themselves in the process of threatening or applying non-lethal force, but then, they need to take great personal risk in order to engage in protection, as they can't do much from a distance but yell. One specifically can't use a .223 from a distance to provide protection of property. And any armed encounters will then put the business owner and the militia man at risk for a very big lawsuit, as you explained.

So as a business owner, what's the better play?

a) carry enough property insurance to protect your business during a riot.
b) hire a right-wing militia to protect your business, which may lead to criminal charges, a huge lawsuit, and negative national attention?

[Res Ipsa]

All you idiots taking sides in this break down of society are F'ing nuts.

I could be wrong but I don't think people are advocating for armed citizens to regularly patrol streets and such. This was an incredibly unique situation. The closest thing I can think of that is remotely similar was the Roof Koreans during the LA Riots. I don't think that defending ones property is 'nuts'. Should Kyle have been there? No. Should the rioters have been there? No. I think we all agree it was dumb as F for anyone to be there that night. Despite that, I can understand the need for business owners to align themselves with right-leaning militias considering according to their own testimony, police weren't doing anything about the rioters burning down their livelihoods.

I agree that it is pretty unique. But, what many people don't understand is that people outside a business cannot use deadly force against a person to protect an unoccupied business. The Rooftop Koreans didn't kill anyone. They shot in the air or at the ground when protecting property. If Rittenhouse had shot someone because he saw them breaking windows in a building, he'd be serving a sentence right now.

[Res Ipsa]

I can understand the need for business owners to align themselves with right-leaning militias

The evidence suggests they probably asked the group to defend their business but publicly testified to the contrary to avoid potential lawsuits from those shot by Rittenhouse.

Well, there's a huge amount of liability involved in calling upon a right-leaning militia to protect your business.

939.49  Defense of property and protection against retail theft.
(1)  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 the person's property. Only such degree of force or threat thereof may intentionally be used as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. It is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of defense of one's property.

So basically, the only force guns are good for is illegal to use to protect a business.

Militia personnel may wish to carry their guns to protect themselves in the process of threatening or applying non-lethal force, but then, they need to take great personal risk in order to engage in protection, as they can't do much from a distance but yell. One specifically can't use a .223 from a distance to provide protection of property. And any armed encounters will then put the business owner and the militia man at risk for a very big lawsuit, as you explained.

So as a business owner, what's the better play?

a) carry enough property insurance to protect your business during a riot.
b) hire a right-wing militia to protect your business, which may lead to criminal charges, a huge lawsuit, and negative national attention?

If the property owner is in the building, he can use deadly force against someone who has or is trying to unlawfully enter. If a building is occupied at all, there's a pretty good argument that setting fire to it is a threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury and deadly force can be used if necessary to keep the building from being set ablaze. In Wisconsin. Your state may vary.

[Kukulkan]

I can understand the need for business owners to align themselves with right-leaning militias

The evidence suggests they probably asked the group to defend their business but publicly testified to the contrary to avoid potential lawsuits from those shot by Rittenhouse.

Well, there's a huge amount of liability involved in calling upon a right-leaning militia to protect your business.

939.49  Defense of property and protection against retail theft.
(1)  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 the person's property. Only such degree of force or threat thereof may intentionally be used as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. It is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of defense of one's property.

So basically, the only force guns are good for is illegal to use to protect a business.

Militia personnel may wish to carry their guns to protect themselves in the process of threatening or applying non-lethal force, but then, they need to take great personal risk in order to engage in protection, as they can't do much from a distance but yell. One specifically can't use a .223 from a distance to provide protection of property. And any armed encounters will then put the business owner and the militia man at risk for a very big lawsuit, as you explained.

So as a business owner, what's the better play?

a) carry enough property insurance to protect your business during a riot.
b) hire a right-wing militia to protect your business, which may lead to criminal charges, a huge lawsuit, and negative national attention?

I absolutely agree they had no legal authority to defend the businesses. I think their intention was to provide more of a buffer zone or deterrence from those attempting to burn and loot.