Anonymous #2 2w

Also he didn't have an assault rifle, it wasn't select fire.

-1

Anonymous #1 2w

he wasn’t legally allowed to open carry, so…

1

Anonymous #3 2w

tbh this is why I don’t think he’s guilty of murder, but instead homicide.

1

Anonymous #5 2w

from the perspective of me shopping at the store, i have no idea if the guy is allowed to have that gun or not. it makes no difference to the evaluation of self defense. if he had it illegally i still would not be in the right to attack him lol, the legal argument makes no sense

1

Anonymous #1 2w

I think they’re talking about the illegal possession charge that got dismissed

7

Anonymous #1 2w

it doesn’t matter in that immediate instance though, it matters in a court of law. the issue with your argument is his actions were not the equivalent of just shopping in a store while open carrying; it’s the equivalent of bringing a gun to a bank, brandishing it, then declaring self defense after shooting one of the guards that attempted to stop you.

1

this isnt really relevant to the self defense though. if you were to cross the border then get attacked and defend yourself, its still considered self defense. youd likely only get charged with the weapon violation

0

Anonymous #5 2w

he went out of his way to bring a loaded firearm across state lines and illegally opencarry specifically at a protest, where emotions are already escalated. his being there with a loaded firearm, as a private civilian with no authority for law enforcement (which was his intention for being there in the first place, illegally acting as civilian law enforcement), inherently escalated tensions and put everyone’s lives at risk, including those he shot.

1

Anonymous #1 2w

unless you started the fight in the first place.

11

Anonymous #5 2w

a bank is a gun free zone, so open carrying in a bank would automatically be an implicit threat. open carrying in public in an open carry state is not taken as an implicit threat, so just existing out in public with a gun is not aggressing on others such that they could attack you and you cant defend yourself

5

Anonymous #5 2w

True that'd be an exception, unless the altercation were started because of reasonable defense of private property

-1

Anonymous #5 2w

yeah exactly, it would never be considered self defense if youre the aggressor

1

Yeah state lines can be tricky but I think in his case it applied more to the open carry vs constitutional carry thing and he was open carrying

1

Anonymous #5 2w

Worth noting that WI doesn’t have a specific “brandishing” law, so it would need to be disorderly conduct or something like that instead

5

Anonymous #5 2w

idk why you keep bringing up the illegally thing when we already established thats not relevant to the actual self defense

3

Anonymous #2 2w

MA is like an east coast CA for gun laws so I know that's a pretty harsh example but in the midwest, and back then especially, it was pretty lax in comparison

1

Anonymous #5 2w

They couldn’t get him on illegal possession because the law was written poorly and might not have covered this case. The precedent is to err on the side of the defendant if there’s ambiguity. So it wasn’t illegal

4

Anonymous #1 2w

which is why my analysis is not based solely on him illegally brandishing the weapon, it’s based on the combination of contextual information such as his intention of vigilantism, the transport of the weapon across state lines, the illegality of him open carrying, and his negligence in bringing an armed weapon to an active protest as a civilian.

1

Anonymous #3 2w

he was 17 at the time of the protest, and Wisconsin requires you to be 18 in order to open carry. I’m not surprised that he got off for such reasoning, especially in this country specifically, but I personally don’t view that as a justified outcome of the case if that makes sense.

1

Anonymous #2 2w

you mean vigilantism? he was not defending his private property, he traversed state lines with an illegal firearm in order to perform the role of law enforcement, while breaking some laws in the process.

3

Anonymous #5 2w

quite literally the ONLY detail relevant to the self defense claim was who physically started the attack, which was rosenbaum when he chased him and grabbed the barrel of his gun

4

Anonymous #5 2w

He was defending private property, not his own but someone who asked him to help. That's not vigilantism, that's self defense.

-2

Anonymous #1 2w

him planning on escalating the conflict isn’t relevant in your perspective? as I stated, if he didn’t have a majority-white jury, he would’ve been charged.

4

Anonymous #5 2w

do you feel the same about black panthers open carrying to protect their communities in the 70’s or even today during their protests?

1

Anonymous #2 2w

it’s directly vigilantism. they even premeditated their vigilantism and advertised it. Not just him, but his entire group.

5

Anonymous #5 2w

it doesnt matter the intention because he wasnt the actual aggressor. if he picked a fight with rosenbaum thats a different story, but rosenbaum picked a fight with him. rittenhouse even tried to flee first and only fired when the guys hand was literally on the barrel of his gun. pretty easy to establish fear for his life there

1

Anonymous #1 2w

the difference is the black panthers solely open carry, and legally I might add. additionally, you’re really going to bring up the black panthers given our countries targeted aggression towards the organization? specifically on the topic of exercising 2a as well.

5

Anonymous #5 2w

since you dodged the question, are the black panthers not being vigilantes also in your view? i think the answer is no but idk how u get around what u said abt rittenhouse

4

Anonymous #1 2w

him being there with a loaded firearm indeed escalated the entire situation. I wonder why a protestor would try to disarm an armed counter protestor? this is what I hate about you fucks claiming rittenhouse was acting in self defense.

2

Anonymous #1 2w

The issue you keep ignoring is how rittenhouse confessed their planning to “defend businesses” Open carrying in and of itself is not vigilantism, open carrying for the specific purpose of combatting perceived crime is. the best part, vigilantism is only illegal when laws are broken in the process, which is my entire point. legally people can engage in vigilantism as long as they follow all existing laws, at least as far as I’m aware. Once a law is broke in the process, that changes.

1

Anonymous #5 2w

you keep playing this word game. “escalating” is different than aggressing. having a gun certainly escalated the likelihood of someone getting shot, but that has no bearing on who actually aggressed in the situation which was clearly rosenbaum

4

Anonymous #5 2w

dodging the question yet again. your answer is obviously yes, black panthers defending their communities against racist whites by open carrying as a show of force is vigilantism in your definition

3

Anonymous #1 2w

escalating, in this situation, i view as being the aggressor. Let’s try it like this: if someone is threatening you with a gun, and you try to disarm them, who do you believe is acting in self defense in that scenario?

0

Anonymous #5 2w

The law says “This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.” Which means the law banning under 18 possession doesn’t apply UNLESS they’re violating the short-barreled firearm law or hunting law (which makes no sense, so that’s why it was thrown out)

6

Anonymous #1 2w

Did you need me to restate my previous answer in different words, or did you just not like it?

1

Anonymous #5 2w

the disarmer obviously. but no one disagrees. the point is that standing outside holding a gun (not pointing it at anyone, just holding it) does not constitute “threatening with a gun.” you would have to show that rittenhouse was pointing the gun at rosenbaum or a similar physically threatening action

1

Anonymous #3 2w

Yes, he wasn’t charged with illegal possession due to a technicality (despite technically being in violation of the hunting law, but that “and” is carrying all the weight tbh)

0

Anonymous #1 2w

They don’t even need to decide who the aggressor is (the prosecution showed videos that apparently showed he raised his gun first). The defense just needs to create doubt that it was him, and make a credible argument that he may have feared he was in danger. The defense said those videos showed he was consistently retreating, which also discredits the “provocation” argument

6

Anonymous #1 2w

It actually was argued that he did point his weapon at people prior to the direct altercation, but the evidence was found inadmissible because the footage was too low quality.

3

Anonymous #1 2w

but given the outcome of the case, I can see where you’re coming from, even if I don’t personally agree with it.

1

Anonymous #1 2w

I would point out that intention, in this case, is a major factor because he could have met the standards for self inducement or provocation which invalidates self defense like if you show up somewhere and try to piss people off to get them to attack you, that’s pretty damn relevant, and the fact that he was carrying an illegal weapon and was there to do illegal things does NOT help his case as to saying “I was there being totally innocent and doing nothing”

9

Anonymous #6 2w

I think it would have been hard to convict him of murder in this case, cause he meets the standards for reasonable doubt without considering the evidence that was excluded, but given that evidence and all the things he’s said and done since the incident I fully believe he went there to kill people and got away with it he literally made jokes about “crossing state lines” again to go ‘help’ with the anti ICE protests after Renee Good’s killing and supported her death

7

Anonymous #6 2w

yeah theres just no evidence that he was provoking the situation. in fact theres a lot of evidence and witness statements to the fact that rosenbaum was acting erratic and openly threatening peoples lives. rittenhouse even tried to flee the situation, and only shot when his hand was on the barrel of the gun. thats not really consistent with someone provoking a situation cuz he wants to kill someone

1

Anonymous #6 2w

if I shot someone in self defense I probably wouldn’t be going on the news afterwards and being like yeah I’m so happy I shot someone afterwards

5

Anonymous #1 2w

okay, so like, why was he there in the first place doing illegal things two weeks beforehand he was telling his friends about people breaking the law down the street- hey, if I had my rifle I’d shoot those people right now then later he shows up where he thinks people are breaking the law and kills two people

6

Anonymous #1 2w

to be fair there’s not a lot of evidence relevant to the trial, specifically, and again I can understand why he got off- reasonable doubt exists because it’s better to avoid convicting someone who isn’t guilty than let someone innocent be convicted but also I fully believe he went there to be violent and potentially kill people, and he got away with it.

4

Anonymous #1 2w

Yeah

1

Anonymous #2 2w

Both the Black Panthers and Kyle Rittenhouse should have been allowed to open carry/defend themselves

1

Anonymous #2 2w

Defending property isn’t self defense unless it’s your own house, car, or business

1

Anonymous #3 2w

Its kind of a roof korean situation, its completely lawful to position yourself in a way such that one would have to intend to harm you to intend to harm your property

1

Anonymous #3 2w

And as the owner, you can extend that privilege to others

1

Anonymous #3 2w

Hence it being both self defense and defense of property simultaneously

1

Anonymous #2 2w

No, you can’t extend that to others in WI. 939.48 (1m) (a) 2 says: “‘Place of business’” means a business that the actor owns or operates And Rittenhouse does own or operate it. Even hired private security can’t use deadly force to protect property unless they fear for their lives

1

Anonymous #3 2w

The rooftop Koreans could do that (under WI law) because they owned the business

1

Anonymous #3 2w

Doesn't* but I see what you're getting at and why you have to be cautious of the retreat thing in blue or purple states. Even then the idea still stands that you can put yourself in such a situation lawfully

1

Anonymous #2 2w

“completely lawful” “it’s not lawful” “but the idea stands!” bro what

1

Anonymous #6 2w

Not what was said

1

Anonymous #6 2w

I compared it to the roof koreans in that you can lawfully put yourself in such a situation that one would have to threaten your life (or for the rittenhouse case someone you asked to defend your business's life) to be able to threaten your business, not in that both situations show stand your ground law or extension of castle doctrine.

1

Anonymous #6 2w

I understand if thats a little above the head for you though, it is abstract

0

Anonymous #2 2w

…no? #3 literally just said you can’t do that, at least in Wisconsin, which is where this happened?

1

Anonymous #2 2w

If it’s not a business you own or operate it becomes murkier. You’d still have to look at who provoked who. For the rooftop Koreans it was usually that the provoker was not definitively the business owners (all you need is uncertainty), and it was their own place of business (castle doctrine/duty to retreat)

1

Anonymous #3 2w

IIRC he didn’t even argue that the gun was to protect property. I think he said it was a deterrent and backup in case he faced harm. It would be a different story if he was shooting people for simply shoplifting (which he said online that he wanted to do, but that was not admissible because it wasn’t deemed relevant to the case)

1

Anonymous #6 2w

The part about using force to defend a business no, thats what I conceded. However you're still allowed to position yourself in such a way and defend your own life

1

Anonymous #6 2w

did rittenhouse attack rosenbaum first or did rosenbaum attack rittenhouse first? that is literally the ONLY relevant question to self defense

6

Anonymous #2 2w

I say that that still is defense of property because of the way it does so indirectly

1

Anonymous #2 2w

It depends on the facts of the case. If the prosecution argues your informal, armed presence increased the tension or escalated the situation, then that hurts your self-defense claim. The prosecution tried to argue that with Rittenhouse, but at the *moment force was used* (which is why the fact he crossed state lines doesn’t matter much legally, but could be an attempt to convince the jury he was the initial aggressor), his gun was being grabbed, he was hit with something, etc

1

Anonymous #3 2w

If you’re in a state where brandishing a weapon isn’t allowed, and you’re waving it around and pointing it at people, you might be considered the initial aggressor if they react and you end up shooting them

1

Anonymous #3 2w

I'm not saying that his exact conduct translates perfectly to every of the 50 states, I'm saying the fact that you can put yourself in such a situation does when armed lawfully

1