This case is so weird from a european pov. Rittenhouse would be certainly convicted of murder in countries like germany. The self-defense argument would get you some laughs at the trial.
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__32.html
What makes you think the case would’ve been adjudicated differently in Germany?
Edit: to be clear, certainly bringing a gun to a protest at all is illegal in Germany, so he could presumably be prosecuted for that, but it's not at all clear why he'd have been guilty of murder.
Of course in the UK he'd be looking at multiple years in prison just for the gun offence, and it's also less likely someone else would be waving a gun around in his direction.
Although perhaps it would be enough to get it downgraded to manslaughter.
I'd love to hear from a lawyer on this TBH.
Me too! I'm not at all sure I'm right -- but then again, neither are (or should be) the people with hot takes shot from the hip about how obviously he would have been found guilty of murder in enlightened Europe. Thanks for the interesting discussion.
Pepper spray is also illegal in the UK.
> If during that hypothetical protest, there were people jump kicking him and swinging skateboards at him, and he used the pepper spray, would he be charged with battery for bringing the pepper spray in the first place?
Basically, going prepared with any form of weapon in the UK is illegal.
If you picked up something off the street, a piece of 2x4 that was lying around, that sort of thing, then you're likely to be OK if it's clear you were under attack. But if you're packing weapons ahead of time to go out to an event then you should either not go or expect that you will be charged with a criminal offence if you get involved in any trouble.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offensive-weapons-kniv...
“any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him or by some other person”.
Judging Rittenhouse as if he was in Germany makes no sense. Watch the video—this wasn’t Germany, it was Iraq. In Germany, the police would never have allowed armed rioters to burn down multiple city blocks over two days.
Aren't there any acceptable scenarios were lethal self defense can be applied?
Kyle Rittenhouse isn't guilty of murder under US law, and the killings have been determined to be self defence. OK then.
But you have a young person being driven to a counter-protest by a parent, picking up a firearm on the way, ostensibly to use the threat of deadly force to help prevent property damage to some businesses as part of some sort of vigilante militia. There is just so much wrong with this picture before we even get to the (inevitable IMHO) tragedy.
This is where I stopped reading, because you're incorrect about basic facts of the case:
https://news.yahoo.com/kyle-rittenhouses-mother-did-not-1838...
OK great, the mother wasn't involved, TIL. But the rest stands, there is so much wrong with the whole picture leading up to the (inevitable) tragedy.
When a person manages to be wrong so efficiently, why on Earth should they feel entitled to partial credit for supporting arguments to a factually incorrect main idea?
Then you misunderstood the thesis of my comment. Who provided the transport was the least part of it.
The main idea is that the picture is pretty damn f'd up when teenage civillians are going armed to protect private property at/from a protest.
That his mother didn't drive him makes it slightly less messed up, but the overall picture of US society it paints is pretty much the same giant WTF as it was before.
I disagree. It's all a huge mess. Armed citizens setting themselves up as effective vigilante defence forces is terrible both for the circumstances that lead there, and the action itself. It really looks like a broken society, and is something I'd expect in far less developed countries.
> Take away the 2nd, there'd be more damage
Maybe, but maybe there would be more people alive.
Now, when the state fails to uphold its obligations and the social contract is broken, what happens is that people either flee the area, or they turn to vigilantism. Doing nothing is a privilege few can afford. The people living in these communities do not want to flee. They have tried calling the police, but the police do not come. They have tried voting, but it doesn't work. They hear of another impending riot. They decide to defend their community. This is the setting of the Rittenhouse saga, and many other such sagas soon to come. Yes, it is a 'weird' situation in a first world country, but it is not weird at all in the annals of history. The case resonates emotionally about more than guns — he is either a hero who stood up when no one else would to stop this madness and defended himself from the violent hordes, or he is an instigator who inserted himself into a lawful anti-racism event and joyfully gunned down the peaceful protesters.
I feel like I sound like one of the right wing sympathizers but I'm honestly just curious how things work over there, are you willing to explain?
Can you cite the specific German statute or case history that says this? Or is it just what you intuitively expect to be true?
> There is a good reason why only highly trained government forces are allowed to carry a weapon let alone some teenager.
For what it's worth, I wish that were the case in the US too. But whether carrying a gun is illegal is a different question from whether using it in this specific situation makes you also guilty of the additional crime of murder.
It is a valid excuse in penal law, yet it does not apply to civil liabilities. You can still be sued for damages. An official prosecutor told me that you can use it once in your life to beat somebody up. After that, they will not believe you anymore.
However, I completely agree that it does not make sense to judge the Rittenhouse case by German law.
In every state of which I’ve ever been a resident, responding with lethal force in such a case is in fact legal.