Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

[Res Ipsa]

Probably because some, to include myself, simply didn’t consider Rittenhouse as the provoker.

Nobody knows for sure. But Rittenhouse didn't have to shoot him four times. Rosenbaum was no longer a threat when he was shot the first time. And Rittenhouse simply didn't run away when he noticed Rosenbaum was following him.

I am starting to think the jury got it wrong.

Have you read the jury instructions and heard and seen there evidence that the jury did? If not, you’re really not in much of a position to second guess the jury.

I don’t understand why you keep claiming that Rittenhouse didn’t run away. There is video that clearly shows him running away from Rosenbaum, Rosenbaum chasing him, Rosenbaum catching up to him until he right behind him. Only then does Rittenhouse turn and shoot.

And you seem to be putting restrictions on the use of deadly force when someone is privileged to do so. There is no requirement that R shoot once, then wait to see if his attacker stops. If not, shoot one more time, then check and see if the attacker stops. It all happens very fast, and the law doesn’t require that deadly force be used s as sparingly as possible. Put bluntly, if you have the privilege to use deadly force, you get to kill the other guy so he doesn’t kill you (or seriously injure you). It’s a sledgehammer, not a scalpel.

[Atlanticmike]

DT,

You didn't watch the video. Because of course you didn't. You wouldn't have said that otherwise. Being a troll is one thing, but being an unclever ignorant troll is tiresome.

- Doc

You are not so clever yourself Doc. Still, Rittenhouse didn't have to shoot him four times. And Rittenhouse had the opportunity to run away when he noticed Rosenbaum was following him. "Prosecutors said Rittenhouse should have fled"
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 588251002/

https://youtu.be/RSW372xB84g
Hey DT! Do you salivate when watching the news commentators in this video? You Progressives crack me up! Lie after lie after lie! I can't wait until Kyle Rittenhouse starts suing some of these Progressive idiots.

[Marcus]

…And you seem to be putting restrictions on the use of deadly force when someone is privileged to do so. There is no requirement that R shoot once, then wait to see if his attacker stops. If not, shoot one more time, then check and see if the attacker stops. It all happens very fast, and the law doesn’t require that deadly force be used s as sparingly as possible. Put bluntly, if you have the privilege to use deadly force, you get to kill the other guy so he doesn’t kill you (or seriously injure you). It’s a sledgehammer, not a scalpel.

Interesting, thank you. I hadn't thought of it that way, but your definition adds a lot of understanding. It seems that the legal right to use deadly force encompasses only the lowest moral denominator, unfortunately.

[Res Ipsa]

…And you seem to be putting restrictions on the use of deadly force when someone is privileged to do so. There is no requirement that R shoot once, then wait to see if his attacker stops. If not, shoot one more time, then check and see if the attacker stops. It all happens very fast, and the law doesn’t require that deadly force be used s as sparingly as possible. Put bluntly, if you have the privilege to use deadly force, you get to kill the other guy so he doesn’t kill you (or seriously injure you). It’s a sledgehammer, not a scalpel.

Interesting, thank you. I hadn't thought of it that way, but your definition adds a lot of understanding. It seems that the legal right to use deadly force encompasses only the lowest moral denominator, unfortunately.

Thanks, Marcus. It’s kind of a collision between legal concepts that date back centuries in England with modern weaponry that can kill in an instant. In an emergency situation, where deploying deadly force can take only squeeze of the hand, no human brain is going to be able to process and act based on fine distinctions. It’s hard enough to puzzle through the self defense laws we have on the books now.

I don’t have any better legal solution to that particular issue. It’s a solution intended for extreme situations, which, I think, calls for a simple yes/no decision.

[Binger]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Marcus]

Interesting, thank you. I hadn't thought of it that way, but your definition adds a lot of understanding. It seems that the legal right to use deadly force encompasses only the lowest moral denominator, unfortunately.

Thanks, Marcus. It’s kind of a collision between legal concepts that date back centuries in England with modern weaponry that can kill in an instant. In an emergency situation, where deploying deadly force can take only squeeze of the hand, no human brain is going to be able to process and act based on fine distinctions. It’s hard enough to puzzle through the self defense laws we have on the books now.

I don’t have any better legal solution to that particular issue. It’s a solution intended for extreme situations, which, I think, calls for a simple yes/no decision.

I can see that as the best solution in that context, yes. It has to be one that, I suppose, captures the most basic human response, not necessarily the best.

[Atlanticmike]

Interesting, thank you. I hadn't thought of it that way, but your definition adds a lot of understanding. It seems that the legal right to use deadly force encompasses only the lowest moral denominator, unfortunately.

Thanks, Marcus. It’s kind of a collision between legal concepts that date back centuries in England with modern weaponry that can kill in an instant. In an emergency situation, where deploying deadly force can take only squeeze of the hand, no human brain is going to be able to process and act based on fine distinctions. It’s hard enough to puzzle through the self defense laws we have on the books now.

I don’t have any better legal solution to that particular issue. It’s a solution intended for extreme situations, which, I think, calls for a simple yes/no decision.

I know! Let's outlaw guns, yay!! Why? Because guns kill fasty fast and we would all be better off with bows and arrows, says the lawyer. While we're at it, let's outlaw cars because of pollution. Ohohoh! Also, electricity, I watched a YouTube video on how make candles, no more evil coal plants. Ok! I gotta stop typing, I'm building an ark in my backyard so when all the glaciers melt I can float away comfortably with all my animals and multiple wives. If anyone wants a spot on my ark cashapp me $150,000 and I'll reserve a spot for you. Warning though! If you're a progressive, you'll be kept in a pin with the asses and mules.

[doubtingthomas]

I don’t understand why you keep claiming that Rittenhouse didn’t run away. There is video that clearly shows him running away from Rosenbaum, Rosenbaum chasing him, Rosenbaum catching up to him until he right behind him. Only then does Rittenhouse turn and shoot.

That is what the prosecution argued.
"Prosecutors said Rittenhouse should have fled"
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... 588251002/

Notice how Rosenbaum slows down to throw a plastic bag and then somehow catches up to Rittenhouse. The truth is Rittenhouse was just jogging, he wasn't running away like I would expect a 17 year old fearing for his life. Rittenhouse (with or without his rifle) was capable of running much faster. Rittenhouse should have fled when he allegedly heard another man tell Rosenbaum to "get him and kill him." For how long was Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse?

It all happens very fast

Yes, I was thinking about that, it is a good point, but how many times did Rittenhouse shoot the guy with a gun? Rittenhouse never panicked and he was a very good shooter.

If the simulation is accurate it means Rittenhouse is guilty of attempted murder. Looking at the simulation Rittenhouse pointed his rifle first.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhtR3xybSMw

[Res Ipsa]

Funny, I don’t recall mentioning outlawing guns.

There is a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, which the Supreme Court has now ruled to be a personal right and not tied to a well organized militia. So, even if I thought outlawing guns was a good idea (which I don’t), it’s a non starter. Regulations similar to the time, place and manner restrictions permitted under the first amendment, sure. Outlawing? Nope. And among the progressives I hang with and communicate with, I’m not aware of any that advocate outlawing guns. The whole “they’re coming for our guns” is a marketing plot to scare people into help gun manufacturers get richer, the NRA get richer, and GOP candidates get elected. Yes, you can find some some folks on the fringe who advocate confiscation, but it’s not a representative position by a long shot. And lots of liberals own guns.

I’m more about harm reduction and shifting the costs imposed on the rest of us by people who use guns. If people choose to use guns, especially open and concealed carry, the cost of the collateral damage to folks who don’t carry guns should be borne by the gun owners. There are several ways to do that: mandatory insurance with specified limits; absolute liability for deaths or injury caused by guns placed on gun manufacturers or owners, or taxing gun sales to create a gun injury compensation system similar to workers comp, and others In sure I’m forgetting.

The inevitable result of gun widespread gun ownership and use is millions (Billions?) of dollars a year in medical costs, lost employment, and loss of productivity. A properly structured market economy requires the external costs of a good to be included in the price of the good.

Your right to own and use guns does not require me to subsidize your gun ownership. Unless, like, you’re a socialist or something.

[Res Ipsa]

I don’t understand why you keep claiming that Rittenhouse didn’t run away. There is video that clearly shows him running away from Rosenbaum, Rosenbaum chasing him, Rosenbaum catching up to him until he right behind him. Only then does Rittenhouse turn and shoot.

That is what the prosecution argued.
"Prosecutors said Rittenhouse should have fled"
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... 588251002/

Notice how Rosenbaum slows down to throw a plastic bag and then somehow catches up to Rittenhouse. The truth is Rittenhouse was just jogging, he wasn't running away like I would expect a 17 year old fearing for his life. Rittenhouse (with or without his rifle) was capable of running much faster. Rittenhouse should have fled when he allegedly heard another man tell Rosenbaum to "get him and kill him." For how long was Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse?

It all happens very fast

True. It is a good point, but Rittenhouse didn't shoot more than once at the man who had a gun.

If the simulation is accurate it means Rittenhouse is guilty of attempted murder. Looking at the simulation Rittenhouse pointed his rifle first.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhtR3xybSMw

Well, yes, that’s what the prosecutor argued. And the technical term for that argument is “not persuasive.”

You’re latched onto things that are not relevant to whether Rittenhouse had the privilege to use deadly force. He was running away from Rosenbaum, in a location he was not familiar with, in the dark, carrying a rifle that he had a legal right to carry. There is no legal requirement that he run as fast as possible or at some minimum speed. Rittenhouse clearly broke off the encounter between the two and was running away from Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum made the idiotic decision to chase after a guy armed with a deadly weapon.

Nobody has a legal obligation to flee simply because they hear a verbal threat. The laws are what they say, not what you want them to say. In fact, if I recall correctly, there is no legal duty to retreat before using deadly force, but the jury can consider the ability to retreat when deciding whether the use of force was necessary.

Finally, it’s 100% irrelevant whether Rittenhouse shot at the guy with a gun. He had no legal duty to shoot him. And it has nothing to do with whether a reasonable person in Rittenhouse’s position would reasonably believe that he faced a threat of imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm and that use of deadly force was necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm.

The jury saw much more evidence than a simulation and they were instructed in what the law actually is. The verdict was well within what a reasonable jury could decide based on the evidence. That you disagree based on a misunderstanding of the law and a sliver of evidence does not mean the jury got it wrong.