Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

[ajax18]

Multiple times, by multiple people, the protesters have been referred to as vigilantes. Could someone help explain to me how they fit that label? Weren’t Rittenhouse, et.al. the ones who were taking upon themselves a role of law enforcement by setting out to protect private property against lawless rioters?

Or do I have a skewed understanding of what a vigilante is?

Trying to disarm Rittenhouse seems pretty vigilante to me.

[ajax18]

In my personal experience, if there ever has been a time in my life I could have used something to protect myself, it would have been in Jr. high. Is the general rule of no guns within 1000 feet of a school contrary to the 2nd amendment?

I'm going to have to agree you about Jr. High.

I think pharmacists will have to be armed as things get worse.

[Res Ipsa]

Multiple times, by multiple people, the protesters have been referred to as vigilantes. Could someone help explain to me how they fit that label? Weren’t Rittenhouse, et.al. the ones who were taking upon themselves a role of law enforcement by setting out to protect private property against lawless rioters?

Or do I have a skewed understanding of what a vigilante is?

Trying to disarm Rittenhouse seems pretty vigilante to me.

Does it? If they thought, whether mistaken or not, that they were legally using less than deadly force to protect others, their intent was to exercise the rights the state gives to its citizens — not to enforce the laws.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Trying to disarm Rittenhouse seems pretty vigilante to me.

Does it? If they thought, whether mistaken or not, that they were legally using less than deadly force to protect others, their intent was to exercise the rights the state gives to its citizens — not to enforce the laws.

If they thought …

I suppose they could testify to a jury or judge what they thought, but it seems like that’d be not super effective in the Rittenhouse trial, no?

- Doc

[Res Ipsa]

Does it? If they thought, whether mistaken or not, that they were legally using less than deadly force to protect others, their intent was to exercise the rights the state gives to its citizens — not to enforce the laws.

If they thought …

I suppose they could testify to a jury or judge what they thought, but it seems like that’d be not super effective in the Rittenhouse trial, no?

- Doc

Well, that is the advantage of being the last man standing. You’re the only one who gets to testify. I was thinking more about the theoretical difference difference between a citizens exercising individual rights under law and a citizen taking on the duties of law enforcement.

[canpakes]

I think pharmacists will have to be armed as things get worse.

Unfair advantage. Your clients already need glasses.

ETA: Sorry, ajax. I thought that you had written, ‘optometrists’, there … but, you actually wrote ‘pharmacists’.

Here you go:

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime ... story.html

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I suppose they could testify to a jury or judge what they thought, but it seems like that’d be not super effective in the Rittenhouse trial, no?

- Doc

Well, that is the advantage of being the last man standing.

Except three men were left standing, two of which declined to testify. One did. Why wouldn’t the DA have offered some sort of deal to the other two men if this were an effective strategy?

- Doc

[Res Ipsa]

Well, that is the advantage of being the last man standing.

Except three men were left standing, two of which declined to testify. One did. Why wouldn’t the DA have offered some sort of deal to the other two men if this were an effective strategy?

- Doc

Sorry Doc, I misunderstood your point. Yes, what each of the other persons were thinking at the time is fairly irrelevant in deciding where R was within the self-defense privilege. Their testimony could be recent to what actually happened, but their internal thought process at the time isn’t related to what a reasonable person in R’s position would have reasonably thought. I’m assuming the DA could have subpoena witnesses, but I’m not sure how much new information they would have provided.

Last man standing wouldn’t have helped R much because of the camera footage. But it sure was a big advantage to Zimmerman, as an example.

[doubtingthomas]

Wrong. The tragedy is that people screwed around and found out. Open carry is not the tragedy at all.

Grosskreutz didn't break the law for having a gun in his hand. Rittenhouse did break the law for pointing his rifle. "If a person intentionally points a gun at someone else, they may face Class A misdemeanor charges".
https://www.bucherlawgroup.com/milwauke ... hould-know

And Grosskreutz didn't break the law for following the crowd. According to the law in Wisconsin, "Stalking is defined as conduct directed towards the victim on two separate occasions, during which—on one occasion—the accused stalker became aware that the actions were unwelcome."
https://www.traceywood.com/wisconsin-stalking-laws/

According to a professor of criminal law, "First, the use of force must be proportionate to the force employed by the aggressor. If the aggressor lightly punches the victim in the arm, for example, the victim cannot use deadly force in response. It’s not proportional...A person’s own subjective view of this fear is not enough to satisfy the standard for self-defense."

[doubtingthomas]

And after doing my reading I found out there is no evidence that Rosenbaum verbally threaten Rittenhouse.

According to a professor of criminal law, "First, the use of force must be proportionate to the force employed by the aggressor. If the aggressor lightly punches the victim in the arm, for example, the victim cannot use deadly force in response. It’s not proportional...A person’s own subjective view of this fear is not enough to satisfy the standard for self-defense."