Because the prosecutors have no case. The photographer witness was damning against them.
Kyle will walk, we all knew he would. It was a clear case of self defense.
When the narrative isn't supported, the powers at be pretend it doesn't exist.
Kyle will walk, we all knew he would. It was a clear case of self defense.
When the narrative isn't supported, the powers at be pretend it doesn't exist.
I doubt he'll get a weapon charge either. The curfew charge was already dropped too.
@ceejayoz, @croes, and others conveniently leave out that the two other people Kyle shot were the aggressors as well.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60
Section (3)(c): 948.60(3)(c) (c) 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. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.
941.28 relates to NFA controlled SBRs. 29.304 and 29.593 are specific to those involved in hunting.
They have become completely divorced from reality and not even linking and quoting statutes and case law or footage and transcripts from this trial or photo and video evidence from this case changes their mind. They've been literally brainwashed into not believing their lying eyes, it's like flat earthers and anti vaxers. It's really scary how effective this branwashing is and how so many gullible people fall for it :(
If I point my gun at someone in a context that is easily interpreted as threatening, and then they shoot me in response to me doing that, I don't get to shoot them. It was my fault for pointing the gun at them in the first place.
After Rittenhouse had already shot two people, right?
Lucky for us, we got to see the videos and witnesses testify about those instances.
A concrete and sad example: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/no-charges-colorado-off...
You have to be in immediate danger, you can't guess that a man shot someone else unjustly and use that to chase someone down.
What you linked is irrelevant and tragic, the cop should have been charged, nothing to do with this case though.
The good samaritan who ended the mass shooting was in immediate danger himself when he killed the shooter with his pistol.
He didn't go looking for the active shooter or chase after him.
You're conflating two separate events with different contexts.
That fits every definition of “active shooter” I’ve ever seen.
He had just defended himself against two assailants.
>was still armed
But not threatening or brandishing.
>and proceeded to shoot a third shortly after.
And proceeded to defend himself against a third assailant.
>That fits every definition of “active shooter” I’ve ever seen.
Fits practically no definition of "active shooter".
The cops role during the shooting incident is to stop the shooting and detain whoever's doing it. Until they do, it's an active shooter incident.
No it's not: The United States Department of Homeland Security defines an active shooter as "an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area; in most cases, active shooters use firearms and there is no pattern or method to their selection of victims."[0]
Even if it was, I'm glad that definition excludes the events that transpired when Rittenhouse was attacked.
>Self-defense comes into play at charging time and in the courtroom, as it is now.
Self-defense came into play when he defended himself against assailants.
>The cops role during the shooting incident is to stop the shooting and detain whoever's doing it.
Non sequitur.
>Until they do, it's an active shooter incident.
That is not what an active shooter scenario is.
To his knowledge at the time (according to his testimony -- and I firmly believe he was lying a LOT), he was worried about Rittenhouse being attacked. Rittenhouse then (by his own perception) shoots in self-defense. Where does he then see a need to attack or point a gun at Rittenhouse?
Would you wait until a shooter points his gun at you?
Do you think a guy with a M&P15 who already shot two people is a threatening context?
Couldn't Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz also claim self-defense?
Simply speaking hypothetically: Rosenbaum tried to disarm an armed a teenager. Huber tried to stop someone who already shot someone. Grosskreutz tried to hold someone at gunpoint who already shot two people.
Could it simply be that both sides saw the other as threat?
Huber chased down and attacked Rittenhouse who was running away to the police line. Huber was not at the initial altercation nor would he have been in the right even if he was.
Grosskreutz chased down and pointed a gun at Rittenhouse after previously holding his hands up and Rittenhouse lowered his gun beforehand.
Pro tip: you can't claim self defense if you are chasing someone as your life isn't in immediate danger.
You can't chase down someone on others behalf and claim self defense.
Now if Kyle ran at one of these individuals the story would be different, but they ran after him.
Don't forget this happenend in the moment, all you know is someone was shot dead by him. In hindsight with lots of time it's easy to say you would have act differently.
You can claim self-defense if the life of others is in danger. Self-defense includes third parties.
If a someone chases and shoots a school shooter to prevent more victims he can claim self-defense.
It'd probably be legitimate to hold him at gunpoint, though, especially if the details of the first shootings weren't quite clear.
Of course, if a fourth person comes along and executes you for that, they might get off scot-free. (If they're a cop.)
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/no-charges-colorado-off...
In lots of places you make a citizen's arrest without having probable cause to believe they committed a felony, or witnessing a crime, or various other legal requirements. If as you say the details were not "quite clear" to you when you attempted to make the arrest, that could already be a very serious problem for you if it came to court.
Even if you think you have probable cause, chances are quite good that the court will see it differently. Being part of a frenzied rioting mob chasing someone down and you hear people shout "get him, he murdered someone" will not necessarily cut the mustard. And even if you did have probable cause, and whether or not they had committed a crime, your actions might give them a reasonable fear for their life, or otherwise that may cause them to respond to you.
I'm not a lawyer but I have heard more than one say that citizens arrests are just a bad idea all around. You can easily open yourself up to injury, death, or being convicted on charges of falsely making the arrest or the injuries or deaths that result in the escalation. The correct advice is to never escalate a potentially violent situation. Never try to detain anybody, never threaten anybody with a gun, never attack anybody. If you fear that you or someone else is in imminent danger of being killed or seriously injured then you should do what you think is necessary to prevent that. But of course that is not escalation.
If I was in his situation at the end I wouldn't have lunged at Kyle after I put my hands up and he lowered his weapon.
Don't forget you don't know all the circumstamces in the moment, all you know is two people are dead.
Yes, you do.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/no-charges-colorado-off...
If he was really self defending against two people, and a third person saw him kill them, that third person now sees a bad guy that needs to be stopped. Who's guilty if he shoots and kills?
Gun safety training and lots of range practice.
Many shootings are ended by good Samaritans with no friendly fire involved.
Generally you don't want to shoot anyone if you weren't in the immediate vicinity of the conflict.
You hear noise, and see someone(A) shoot another person(B) 50 meters away from you. You're a good person(C), you take out your personal gun and approach. A sees a new threat approaching with a weapon, prepares to defend themselves, and turns their gun towards C. C sees a gunman who just shot B, turn their weapon on them. What does C do? Point their gun to avoid getting shot seems like a common scenario in the heat of the moment, adrenaline and all that.
It really doesn't seem to me that there's anything even close to some sort of standard for minimum training to own a gun in the US (unlike in probably all other developed countries). So it will all depend on the will of the owner to train themselves. What could possibly go wrong?
Heck, isn't it similar to what happened with that Kyle guy?
Noone that attacked Kyle saw Kyle shoot another person, they were going on hearsay.
When in doubt, hide. Unless you see someone pull out a gun and start spraying down innocent people, fucking hide. Don't chase people down. Really fucking simple.
Do you think the DA would have pursued charges against Grosskreutz for first degree murder?
@jachee: You don't have to "transfer" a gun to carry it across state lines, only when you first buy it through the FFL.
@croes: being armed by itself is not a threat, if you point a gun at someone you are the aggressor and that person can defend themselves.
just because you "see" someone with a gun doesn't mean you can shoot them, if they aim it at you that's another story. the first aggressor matters.
@happytoexplain: no you would be wrong to try to restrain the man who is simply armed. if that state had a open carry law you would be in the wrong trying to confront him if he was not pointing it at you or others. there are plenty examples of both sides openly carrying at protests.
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/kyle-rittenhouse-revea...
Second, Black has been charged but not convicted, and I don't think the charge will stick: the argument is that while this was technically legal according to the letter of the law, the law in question was written with only underage hunters in mind, and should not apply in this case. Since the law itself makes no such distinctions, I don't see this as anything more than an empty gesture. Maybe I'm wrong.
If you buy a firearm in your home state and then take it to another state you don't have to transfer or register it.
If two sides are armed each side sees the other as a threat. So both can claim self defense and both are wrong.
He does face a possession charge, but according to NBC, that charge, "possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18", is only a misdemeanor.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/was-kyle-rittenhouse-s-...
> A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.
> In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
> The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/4...
Maybe it was justified in the case where Rosenbaum chased down the kid, but certainly not in the other two cases. Either way, I'm skeptical that there was "adequate notice".
I agree that people probably wouldn't jump on a dude walking down the street with a holstered pistol at his hip, but if that guy had said pistol out, they might try to defuse an active shooter situation.
I get your point about the situation after shots had been fired though, and that's where it starts getting sort of weird from a self-defense perspective. It's entirely possible that both Rittenhouse and his latter assailants could successfully claim self-defense. In the case of Rittenhouse, it would be because his previous actions were lawful self-defense, and then he was attacked again, with an imminent danger of serious bodily harm or death. For Grosskreutz and Huber, they could argue that they thought Rittenhouse was an imminent danger to the people nearby. That would be a tougher sell I think though, given how Rittenhouse was retreating towards the police line, and neither of them actually witnessed the first incident.