Dadto2 Posted November 9, 2021 Share Posted November 9, 2021 Not sure if there's anyone following this trial, but it looks like there's a good chance of the shooter, Kyle Rittenhouse, being acquitting of the 2 homicide charges and numerous other charges too. He shot and killed 2 people and seriously wounded another during the Kenosha riots. Pretty crazy, but looks like it was justified self-defence. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purplekitty Posted November 9, 2021 Share Posted November 9, 2021 Sure it was. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dadto2 Posted November 9, 2021 Author Share Posted November 9, 2021 4 minutes ago, purplekitty said: Sure it was. Well maybe not in Australia, but in the US with their "stand your ground" law, it looks like it will be classed as self-defence. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotsoSure Posted November 9, 2021 Share Posted November 9, 2021 Information on the trial here and here. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cherubs Posted November 9, 2021 Share Posted November 9, 2021 It makes me so angry, one he had no business being there, then killed people in cold blood, stand your ground, what a load, it wasn’t his ground he was being a arsehole. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dadto2 Posted November 9, 2021 Author Share Posted November 9, 2021 1 hour ago, Cherubs said: It makes me so angry, one he had no business being there, then killed people in cold blood, stand your ground, what a load, it wasn’t his ground he was being a arsehole. There are a whole bunch of issues really. You're right, he had no business being there, especially with a military grade weapon. His wasn't legal, but the fact there were guys there with legal powerful semi-automatic guns is just crazy. Re the shooting of the 3 guys, especially the last 2, it's clear cut self defence all captured on high definition video. It's ugly that someone is going to walk after killing 2 people, but the reality is he was being chased by a mob with guns yelling "get him". The last guy to be shot, Gaige Grosskreutz, chased after Rittenhouse, pointed a gun at him and was then shot my Rittenhouse. He admitted this yesterday in court, which will most likely lead to his acquittal. At least on the shooting of Grosskreutz and also Huber. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dadto2 Posted November 9, 2021 Author Share Posted November 9, 2021 Maybe some good will come out of it and they'll change the archaic gun laws. The second amendment dates back 250 years. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kadoodle Posted November 9, 2021 Share Posted November 9, 2021 51 minutes ago, Dadto2 said: Maybe some good will come out of it and they'll change the archaic gun laws. The second amendment dates back 250 years. Don’t hold your breath. 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lesley225 Posted November 9, 2021 Share Posted November 9, 2021 But why were they not both defending themselves? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cherubs Posted November 9, 2021 Share Posted November 9, 2021 45 minutes ago, Lesley225 said: But why were they not both defending themselves? Yes, why indeed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dadto2 Posted November 9, 2021 Author Share Posted November 9, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, Lesley225 said: But why were they not both defending themselves? The shooter was being chased by an angry mob with guns yelling "get him". Huber tripped up Rittenhouse and tried to hit him over the head with his skateboard, he missed and was shot, Grosskretutz ran up to Rittenhouse, pulled his gun and pointed it at Rittenhouse who shot him. Edited November 9, 2021 by Dadto2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lesley225 Posted November 9, 2021 Share Posted November 9, 2021 But he also could be seen as being threatening to the others so they could argue he was a risk. I don't know with these stand your ground laws if someone pulls a gun and other pulls a gun against the threat who gets to say who was defending who? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cherubs Posted November 9, 2021 Share Posted November 9, 2021 America's gun laws are pathetic and can’t be defended case in point https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/joe-hendrix-man-who-shot-alzheimer-s-patient-won-t-face-charges-1.2555487 Life is cheap in the world’s richest slum, otherwise known as the US of A 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dadto2 Posted November 9, 2021 Author Share Posted November 9, 2021 1 hour ago, Lesley225 said: But he also could be seen as being threatening to the others so they could argue he was a risk. I don't know with these stand your ground laws if someone pulls a gun and other pulls a gun against the threat who gets to say who was defending who? Good point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotsoSure Posted November 9, 2021 Share Posted November 9, 2021 15 hours ago, Dadto2 said: Maybe some good will come out of it and they'll change the archaic gun laws. The second amendment dates back 250 years. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." It's interesting seeing how the above was interpreted differently over the last 250 years. Personally, I still fail to see how the use of commas does not clearly indicate an intention that the the right to bear arms is only in the context of being able to join a "well-regulated" state militia, i.e. armed forces. The case law on the 2nd amendment is fascinating, and disturbing to say the least. 5 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotsoSure Posted November 9, 2021 Share Posted November 9, 2021 10 hours ago, Lesley225 said: But he also could be seen as being threatening to the others so they could argue he was a risk. I don't know with these stand your ground laws if someone pulls a gun and other pulls a gun against the threat who gets to say who was defending who? The person who pulls second. They pull their gun in response to the other guy having pulled the gun. The same as in assault cases in Australia, the person who engages the self-defence protection against a charge of assault is not the person who throws the first punch to start a fight, but the person who swings back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dadto2 Posted November 9, 2021 Author Share Posted November 9, 2021 1 hour ago, NotsoSure said: the person who engages the self-defence protection against a charge of assault is not the person who throws the first punch to start a fight, but the person who swings back. And in this case its the shooter Rittenhouse. Grosskretutz runs up to him, Rittenhouse turns his gun towards him, Grosskretutz puts his hands up in a surrender motion so Rittenhouse lowers his gun, then Grosskretutz points his gun towards Rittenhouse who then shoots him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dadto2 Posted November 9, 2021 Author Share Posted November 9, 2021 12 hours ago, Lesley225 said: But he also could be seen as being threatening to the others so they could argue he was a risk. I don't know with these stand your ground laws if someone pulls a gun and other pulls a gun against the threat who gets to say who was defending who? I think the mob chasing Rittenhouse all viewed him as an "active shooter". None were privy to the first shooting, they just knew he shot someone, so I'm guessing they were acting as vigilantes trying to nullify a threat. You would think they would be legally entitled to shoot an active shooter who was indiscriminately shooting people. Except Rittenhouse was running away from the mob towards the police with his weapon down. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotsoSure Posted November 10, 2021 Share Posted November 10, 2021 That's the issue thought, isn't it? Shooting someone you know is an active shooter is different to shooting someone you think is an active shooter. When you know it, have seen it etc, then yeah, I think a case can be made for self defence which (in Australia at least) also extends to the defence of others in some circumstances. When you only think it, that is where the issues start. If you ever get a chance, chat with a local lawyer who does criminal law - a common story is where people jump in to stop a fight where the person they tried to stop (i.e., punch and tackle) was actually the person defending themselves from an unprovoked attack. Same thing. They didn't know who the 'active assaulter' was, they just assumed that the man swinging punches (unbeknownst to them, in self-defence) and appearing to win was the trouble maker. This case is tragic all round, and a great example of why keeping guns out of as many hands as possible is good public policy. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dadto2 Posted November 10, 2021 Author Share Posted November 10, 2021 50 minutes ago, NotsoSure said: That's the issue thought, isn't it? Shooting someone you know is an active shooter is different to shooting someone you think is an active shooter. When you know it, have seen it etc, then yeah, I think a case can be made for self defence which (in Australia at least) also extends to the defence of others in some circumstances. When you only think it, that is where the issues start. Yup exactly. I'm surprised Rittenhouse was even charged with homicide. All 3 shootings look to be justifiable IMO. Although most of my legal knowledge has been gleaned from watching episodes of Judge Judy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotsoSure Posted November 10, 2021 Share Posted November 10, 2021 I don't know enough about the first shooting to pass an informed opinion, but from what I've seen reported about the second and particularly the third, they do seem justified. If someone pointed a gun at me, and I also had a gun, I'm not sure I wouldn't attempt to shoot them first, especially if DH or DD1 and DD2 were with me. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dadto2 Posted November 10, 2021 Author Share Posted November 10, 2021 Just now, NotsoSure said: I don't know enough about the first shooting to pass an informed opinion. There's quite an interesting 20min video on the events of that night (pretty objective), I will see if I can find a link. I think initially it was a peaceful BLM protest predominated by African Americans, by the time night rolled along, the majority of "protestors" were white, many armed and most with a different agenda. The first guy shot and killed, Rosenbaum had just been released from mental hospital that day, he was running around screaming at the armed militia to shoot him. He then set fire to rubbish in a skip and when Rittenhouse tried to put it out, he chased after him, threw something at him. Someone also chasing after Rittenhouse shot in the air. Rosenbaum caught up with Rittenhouse, tried to grab the gun and was shot and killed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dadto2 Posted November 10, 2021 Author Share Posted November 10, 2021 Graphic scenes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotsoSure Posted November 10, 2021 Share Posted November 10, 2021 Interesting, is the video from a professional journalistic organisation? If so, would be interested in it. It was not unheard of for BLM protests to be followed by riots and looting, usually by predominately by people (of various backgrounds) who didn't attend the protest. Not the norm is vast majority of cases, but not rare as hens teeth either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dadto2 Posted November 10, 2021 Author Share Posted November 10, 2021 6 minutes ago, NotsoSure said: Interesting, is the video from a professional journalistic organisation? If so, would be interested in it. It was not unheard of for BLM protests to be followed by riots and looting, usually by predominately by people (of various backgrounds) who didn't attend the protest. Not the norm is vast majority of cases, but not rare as hens teeth either. This was produced by the New York Times. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.