I’m not sure how much faster he’d have to run to be in retreat. I’m glad he’s got lawyers and isn’t depending on any of us for his advice.
1 Like
Everyone is NOT focused on the second two shootings.
I have stated several times Rittenhouse was being chased… THAT IS THE FIRST SHOOTING
Yes, it was either a molotov cocktail or a brick, per witness accounts.
The first shooting, 4… repeat… 4 shots . There was a shot that was stated not fired by Rittenhouse, and that was when Rittenhouse turned and found Rosenbaum right up on him lunging… and Rittenhouse fired 4 shots.
Running away is attempting to retreat. You do not have a duty to retreat after the attackers catch you…
Are you arguing that you should keep running, retreating as the attacker catches you and kills you?
The video and the witness account all point to Rosenbaum closing the distance between them and lunging at Rittenhouse, and the fact of the first shot, which was not Rittenhouse, may have caused him to stop running thinking he was being shot at.
Outnumbered, chased, I still say the first shooting was self defense.
2 Likes
In the videos I saw he was running down the street from #2 and #3.
I would be glad if you could provide a link to him running from #1 (Mr. Scrambled Brain Bucket)
No you have not.
I never claimed he was 100% legal. He was legally in Kenosha, the rifle and the curfew are legal issues he must deal with, but that does not negate the fact he was chased, attacked and fired in self defense.
He worked in Kenosha, he had been working there that day and after work he helped clean graffiti off of the high school building.
I have already stated SEVERAL times that the under 18 with a rifle is an issue, and the curfew might also be an issue, so your repeating that is simply diverting.
YES. I listened to the eyewitness.
We may not all agree on everything, but we should agree on the criteria for self defense, and that seems to be in serious question.
And your attempt to say he violated the curfew somehow negates self defense, I asked clearly… if you violate a law, such as speeding, and someone does not like you speeding and they chase you, they catch you and attack you… are you able to defend yourself, or do you lose the legal defense of self defense because you violated a law.
1 Like
12 second mark
2 Likes
Lol. I’m going to assume the “Mr. Scrambled Brain Bucket” was not addressed to me or my personality. While occasionally true, I wouldn’t appreciate it being pointed out. 
I saw that one. Didn’t it speculate a little bit in order to fill in the GAPS?
This guy was there, comments on what he saw and doesnt guess on what he didnt…
That was just the first video I grabbed that showed him running away.
1 Like
Number 1 was clearly self defense, and may have led others to seek him out, but that does not negate self defense. By defending yourself at one point against one attacker, may cause their friends to chase you, but you did not instigate it by defending yourself, and those who chase you afterwards do not become righteous because you shot your attacker. He was chased into the parking lot of the car dealer, and a brick or block of ice can be deadly, so yes, a weapon thrown and a gun shot heard are valid reasons to fear for your life.
There are many things we all may disagree on, but it appears the one thing we should agree on, the criteria for self defense is something we all disagree on.
2 Likes
ROFL. Absolutely NOT!!!
I have actually come to respect you by virtue of some if your posts…
1 Like
I may just have to stand corrected.
In fact, I stand corrected.
Not trying to correct you. Just trying to provide the info you were looking for. We’re all on the same “team” here and I learn a lot by having discussions like this. I appreciate everyone’s contributions.
2 Likes
I do find it concerning that a lot of videos about this are being censored. Including the one I posted earlier from Colion Noir.
1 Like
I don’t care what he did before the riots, as neither will the prosecutor. He may well not have provoked the attack, but we don’t know what happened before the witness showed up. He may have shot someone in self defense, but much like your speeding scenario, he wouldn’t have had to defend himself if he wasn’t breaking the law. We agree on the shootings, from what we currently know, being SD. Violating curfew and illegal possession of a firearm do not negate SD, but he wouldn’t have had to defend himself if he was not acting illegally. At this point SD isn’t the question for me, it’s how he aquired the firearm…he shouldn’t have had it. Legal issue. If he worked during the day at the pool, then cleaned graffiti, did he hang out in kinosha for the riots, just happened to decide to go since he was there, or leave and return? Did he know the shops owner and ask or get asked to defend? The SD may be cut and dry, but the legal side rarely is.
His lawyer states that he was asked by the shop owner to help. I don’t think they addressed the relationship between the 2 in the statement, but stands to reason he knew him in some manner.
1 Like
That is a question we still need answered, and some reports say he did not bring it across state lines, so who gave it to him…
Yes, the curfew issue is a legal battle he will have, but primarily due to his being charged with murder… if not, there would be no issue regarding the curfew.
I agree, but as the saying goes, you don’t speed with a trunk full of drugs. Get pinched for one, you get pinched for all.
I am all about self defense and helping people, but it is still illegal to provide a minor with a deadly weapon in WI. If he wouldn’t have had the firearm, maybe he wouldn’t have broken another law, which ended in a shooting.
I do not take anything personally, I do not appreciate inanity and distortions.
We all may disagree on many things, but the criteria for self defense is something we should agree on, and in this, the criteria for self defense is met.
Rittenhouse is not instigating any conflict, he is running from his attackers and he acts in defense of himself.
Any law regarding a curfew or the carrying of the rifle is not instigating conflict, it is not a crime such as an armed robbery, a bank robbery, a armed car jacking, where your life is in danger, and the criminal has no claim of self defense if you draw your firearm.
Rittenhouse may have violated a curfew, and may have violated the law of carrying a rifle under 18 but he has not threatened anyone, he has not instigated any conflict.
I have said that consistently.
I have listened to the eye witness account, the person who had been behind Rosenbaum, and viewed the video, and everything points to self defense, and I do not consider violating a curfew to negate the self defense.
I take your comments to be somewhat sanctimonious and condemning of Rittenhouse, as if he did not meet the criteria for self defense, and you and some few others seem to suggest by violating the curfew he loses any claim of self defense… and originally the argument by some was he was not from Kenosha, so he was at fault for being there… and we have since learned he worked there.
I am not arguing the curfew or the carrying of a rifle under 18, I am pointing to the criteria for self defense… and only that.
You want to argue, it seems, that he loses his self defense simply for being in town, or for being in violation of the curfew…
Written words may not bring across context and may fail to provide certain aspects that might be expressed in actual verbal exchanges, and perhaps you are not arguing his guilt for simply being there, but that is how it seems, and I do not see it that way and am only pointing to the criteria for self defense.
If he aimed his rifle at someone without cause, or threatened someone, he might be the instigator, but there has been NO reports that happened.
2 Likes
These cases are always interesting to me because some folks will jump on one side or the other and dig their heels in to prove a point. It is worth emphasizing that we do not yet have all the answers. All we have is grainy video and the witness statement that is posted in The Complaint (which, IMO ironically 100% invalidates the charges filed).
Was he legally allowed to be there? And does it matter?
This is the point of much debate, rightly so, especially because we do not have all the answers. “Why” he was there and how it will be explained to a potential jury will likely also influence whether it even matters. Without official confirmation, I have heard that he works there, he lives nearby, he was there to render medical aid. It is possible he was asked to watch by his employer, but I do not know if that matters either
If there is a Facebook post where he says he’s going to kill all the commies, that will paint a very different picture from he was there cleaning up the neighborhood and helping people.
Was there a curfew and did Rittenhouse violate it? I don’t know. That was not on the list of charges, and so I assume it the answer is “no” because they certainly piled everything else they could think of onto the list of charges.
IMO, the distance and across state lines should not matter. I commute 20-25mi each way myself. And the border to two different states is even closer.
Was he legally allowed to have a rifle? And does it matter?
Again I’m not sure about the law there. Some states do not allow purchase by minors, but possession is OK. If he is guilty of having a rifle when he shouldn’t, I do not think that invalidates his self-defense claim.
An example was given above that you can’t claim self-defense when robbing a bank. Sure, but possession of a firearm while offering first-aid is a far-cry from actively committing a harmful crime such as robbing a bank. Imagine, you as a CCW holder if you let your CCW permit expire and then the next day (because Murphy’s Law) you end up in a self-defense situation while CCW’ing. Theoretically, you were breaking the law when self-defending… does that mean your self-defense claim is now moot? And what about other minor infractions… What if you were illegally parked? Self-defense invalidated? What if you were jay-walking? Self-defense invalidated?
However, if any of the folks with legal knowledge can weigh in this would be helpful as this seems to be an important grey area.
Duty to Retreat
From the video we’ve all seen, AND FROM THE WITNESS STATEMENT IN THE COMPLAINT… Rittenhouse did not start the altercation. And he immediately started running away from Rosenbaum and the mob. He fired when Rosenbaum caught up to him and snatched at his rifle. THIS IS IN THE COMPLAINT. It is not the second mob chase, this is the first mob chase. THIS IS IN THE COMPLAINT (repeated for effect).
You have a duty to retreat as long as you can do so safely. I would actually love to see the prosecution try to paint a safe avenue of egress from that situation.
The duty to retreat does not apply days, hours, or even minutes ahead of the encounter. It requires you to retreat when confronted by the threat if it is safe to do so. Whether or not Rittenhouse was legally allowed to be here is a separate question/issue from Duty To Retreat.
The Plastic Bag
There are a few parts to this, and most of them don’t matter.
(We don’t know the answer to this) Did Rittenhouse use the thrown plastic bag as part of the equation to determine if he was in imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm?
Rittenhouse at that point was being chased by (my guess) about half a dozen people, in the middle of a riot, with no safe place to run to, and in particular being chased relentlessly by Rosenbaum (I say relentlessly because Rosenbaum was not deterred by the presence of the rifle, not deterred by a warning shot, and not deterred by the rifle being aimed at him). On top of that, someone fires a shot. It is entirely possible, that we (the public) care about this bag because everyone on twitter keeps pointing at it, but it would not surprise me if that bag was so far down the list of threats that it didn’t even register to Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse also may have just perceived Rosenbaum threw “something” at him, without knowing it was a plastic bag.
If he did use the plastic bag as part of his “imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm” equation, what did Rittenhouse perceive/assume was in it? Would a reasonable person also come to the same conclusion as Rittenhouse knowing what Rittenhouse knew at the time? If Rittenhouse knew these folks were running around with bricks and/or molotov cocktails in these bags as part of their rioting, then he could definitely assume that was the case here.
Additionally, the bag (and whatever was or wasn’t in it) was long out of play by the time Rosenbaum reached Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse’s very immediate threat was Rosenbaum who was snatching at his rifle.
What was actually in the bag doesn’t matter. If a criminals says “i have a gun in my pocket and i will shoot you”, if you then shoot that person and it turns out to be a packet of twinkies in his pocket, that does not make a bad shoot. If a criminal points what you perceive to be a firearm at you, but it turns out it was unloaded/inoperative or even a fake plastic pistol does not make it a bad shoot. Otherwise, the standard for self-defense would require the criminal to shoot you first before you can defend yourself because that’s the only way to be really sure that the threat is a real one.
And to be clear, none of us know what was actually in the bag. We can make assumptions on grainy video until the cows come home. Maybe it was a molotov cocktail that was thrown, but it didn’t light. Or it did light, but most of the fuel spilled out while Rosenbaum was running so it only lit briefly. Or maybe it was a brick/rock in it. Maybe it was a Gatorade and Powerbar.
The only thing we can be reasonably sure of is that
a) Rosenbaum thought it was worth throwing. Considering he was chasing Rittenhouse he is unlikely to have thrown something positive like a bag of money at him. Whatever was in it, was intended to harm
b) Whatever was in the bag had enough weight to travel (my guess) about 5-10yards. I have no idea what would go that far, nor with what force Rosenbaum threw it, but an empty plastic bag will not go more than a few feet from you no matter how much force you throw it with.
3 Likes
On a moral or ethical stance I agree. But my question revolves around this. If he was where he was in violation of (any reason or any “legal weapon”) he may not meet the “Clean hands” criteria. From the situation he was in, when he acted, I’m of the opinion that he was justified. How he got to where he was, might effect what he can legally argue. I’m glad he has representation, and not just my opinion. Personally I’m pulling for him. I probably couldn’t sit on his jury because I have a predetermined desired outcome.
3 Likes