Rittenhouse Case

[Langue_doc]

The sequence of events, according to the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/10/03/kenosha-shooting-victims/?itid=hp-top-table-main

[ciao_yall]

The kid was being attacked. I have only watched the videos once, but it seemed pretty clear to me.

He was brandishing a weapon, which by definition makes him the aggressor.

[dismalist]

The kid was being attacked. I have only watched the videos once, but it seemed pretty clear to me.

He was brandishing a weapon, which by definition makes him the aggressor.

Brandishing a weapon is illegal in Wisconsin. Five or so of the charges against Rittenhouse have appended to them or have in them "use of a dangerous weapon". He was declared not guilty of all of them.

[Wahoo Redux]

Wikipedia does not have a paywall:

Rittenhouse had been pursued by a group that included Kenosha resident Joseph Rosenbaum, who was unarmed.[10] After Racine resident Joshua Ziminski allegedly fired a shot into the air,[11][12] Rittenhouse turned towards Rosenbaum,[13] who according to a witness lunged at him and tried to take his rifle.[14] Rittenhouse fired four times at Rosenbaum, killing him.[15][16] Rittenhouse then ran down the street while being followed by a crowd of around a dozen people.[17] He tripped and fell to the ground after being hit in the head, then fired twice at a 39-year-old man who jump kicked him, his shots missing both times.[18][19] While Rittenhouse was still on the ground, Silver Lake resident Anthony Huber struck him in the shoulder with a skateboard and attempted to take his rifle. Rittenhouse fired at Huber once, fatally striking him in the chest.[10][20] When West Allis resident Gaige Grosskreutz approached Rittenhouse while carrying a handgun which, in court, he admitted having pointed at Rittenhouse.[21] Rittenhouse shot him once in the right arm.[20][22]

The NYTimes article linked above:

During the unrest he was pursued by a man, Joseph Rosenbaum, who Mr. Rittenhouse said he feared would wrest control of his gun. Mr. Rittenhouse shot and killed him. That, according to evidence presented at the trial, caused members of the crowd to perceive Mr. Rittenhouse as a dangerous aggressor.

One man, Anthony Huber, used a skateboard as a weapon against him. Mr. Rittenhouse shot and killed him before facing off with a third man, Gaige Grosskreutz, who had pulled out a handgun. Mr. Rittenhouse wounded him in the arm.

And watch the videos.

So no, you are wrong.

Is Rittenhouse a stupid young jerk who should have stayed home?  Yes.

Is he a gullible little wanna-be tough-guy?  Probably.

Is he a product of conservative zealotry and (ostensible) racial bigotry?  Probably.

Was he "ethically wrong" to insert himself into the situation in Kenosha?  Yes.

Did he do anything illegal in going to Kenosha?  No.

As it turns out, did the weapon he was carrying actually fit within the bounds of the law for a 17 year old?  Yes.

Does any of that give protestors the right to attack him?  Of course not.

Did Grosskreutz in court admit he pointed a pistol at Rittenhouse?  Yes.

Should Kyle's mother be given an award for the Worst Mother of the 21st Century?  Yes.

We may not like Kyle or what he stands for----I certainly do not.  And I had exactly the same impression of the case as do a number of the posters here.  Then I watched the video and read about the chain of events.

We cannot just make up facts to fit our own cultural beliefs.  And the law applies even to stupid, now-traumatized young wanna-be tough guys.

[jimbogumbo]

I agree with a lot of what Wahoo just posted. But I have a question regarding one statement, and also something dismalist said.

First a short belief statement. I don't think the type of weapon he carried should be legal to own. That it can be in the US is awful.

That said, he did not legally purchase the weapon under current law; it was "given" to him by someone unrelated to him, and he carried it across state lines. Is there no Federal charge that can be used in such a case?

Finally, while dismalist is correct on the attached brandishing charges, I did not see anywhere that a specific charge of brandishing was included. I think it was obvious he did that.

[mahagonny]

Is he a product of conservative zealotry and (ostensible) racial bigotry?  Probably.

What is this zealotry and what evidence is there of racial bigotry? Could it be declining to be a fan of BLM?

ETA: A member(s) of the Proud Boys applauding you for trying to protect businesses from looters and arsonists, graffiti slobs and other vandals is not evidence that one is a white supremacist.

[dismalist]

I agree with a lot of what Wahoo just posted. But I have a question regarding one statement, and also something dismalist said.

First a short belief statement. I don't think the type of weapon he carried should be legal to own. That it can be in the US is awful.


--While the press often describes an "AR-15 style" weapon as a military weapon, that is not true. The civilian versions are semi-automatic. They have no full auto. Nevertheless, they can be fired rapidly. [I often think Scalia, the textualist, should have consulted his 18th century dictionary [he really used one!] for the definition of "arm". One could hardly use muskets in the rain!]

That said, he did not legally purchase the weapon under current law; it was "given" to him by someone unrelated to him, and he carried it across state lines. Is there no Federal charge that can be used in such a case?

--He didn't carry the gun across state lines. He picked it up from a friend in Wisconsin itself.


Finally, while dismalist is correct on the attached brandishing charges, I did not see anywhere that a specific charge of brandishing was included. I think it was obvious he did that.

--He was not accused of brandishing as far as I can tell from googling. Maybe it wasn't obvious. Maybe the prosecution was incompetent.

[jimbogumbo]

Thank you sir!

I don't think of an AR-15 as being military; I just wish they weren't legal to own. Machine guns were made illegal in that way after their use by crooks in the early 20th century because they were so dangerous. I think this category of weapon should be treated in the same way.

I agree the prosecution was not great at all. On another board I visit a commentator pointed out how a legal analyst (don't know who, don't know where) had contrasted this pRosecution with the skilled way in which the case against Elizabeth Holmes is being conducted.

[Wahoo Redux]

I don't think the type of weapon he carried should be legal to own. That it can be in the US is awful.

I think it was obvious he did that.

As you said, it is legal to own such a weapon.  Part of the issue with "assault rifles" that we can buy at a gun shop is that they are not structurally all that different from your average hunting rifles.  Cosmetically, the weapon Rittenhouse was carrying looked like a military automatic assault rifle, but it wasn't.  That is precisely why the weapons charge was dropped; the rifle fit within the definition of a hunting rifle, which 17 year old kids can carry.  These cosmetic differences between hunting and "assault" rifles, which do not actually equate to differences in lethality or mechanism, are precisely why "assault" rifles are so hard to ban.

What is the law relating to brandishing in Wisconsin?  The prosecution was pretty aggressive----I don't know why they would not pursue a charge of menacing with a weapon if they thought it would stick.

If it is any comfort, consider what this fame and infamy and civil liability is going to do to Rittenhouse's life. 

[mahagonny]

Thank you sir!

I don't think of an AR-15 as being military; I just wish they weren't legal to own. Machine guns were made illegal in that way after their use by crooks in the early 20th century because they were so dangerous. I think this category of weapon should be treated in the same way.

If they weren't legal to own, why would he have had one? Maybe you wish the laws were different so Kyle would be guilty of something.

If it is any comfort, consider what this fame and infamy and civil liability is going to do to Rittenhouse's life. 

He now wears the scarlet 'W.' For 'white supremacist.'

[Wahoo Redux]

"W" for "white supremacist," even if he is not.

"M" for "murderer," even though he was acquitted, and for "moron."

"I" for "in over his head."

"C" for "crier," an image which will always be a part of his public persona from now on.

"H" for "hero" for angry conservative sociopaths and gullible troglodytes. 

"B" is for "bankrupt" after the lawsuits which the kick-starters will not be able to cover.

"T" for "target" for all sorts of people, rightly or wrongly.

Rightly or wrongly, like Zimmerman, these events will travel with him through life.

And I can't feel sorry for him, even as I feel sorry for this poor young fool who is clearly not a killer at heart but was manipulated into being a shooter by the zeitgeist.

mahagonny, you are part of the zeitgeist that killed two guys and ruined this kid's life.

[jimbogumbo]

Thank you sir!

I don't think of an AR-15 as being military; I just wish they weren't legal to own. Machine guns were made illegal in that way after their use by crooks in the early 20th century because they were so dangerous. I think this category of weapon should be treated in the same way.

If they weren't legal to own, why would he have had one? Maybe you wish the laws were different so Kyle would be guilty of something.

If it is any comfort, consider what this fame and infamy and civil liability is going to do to Rittenhouse's life. 

He now wears the scarlet 'W.' For 'white supremacist.'

Don't be an ass. I want the laws to be different so that it is harder for people to be killed by other people with those and similar weapons. The first time I felt like this was when I was watching Columbine unfold live. I've gotten to re-live that sickening feeling over and over again. Sandy Hook. Dylan Roof. Pulse. The radicalized terrorists in California. The Walmart gunman in Texas. So no, my feelings about this way preceded Kyle Rittenhouse. Sorry if you can't wrap your head around that.

[mahagonny]

Don't be an ass. I want the laws to be different so that it is harder for people to be killed by other people with those and similar weapons. The first time I felt like this was when I was watching Columbine unfold live. I've gotten to re-live that sickening feeling over and over again. Sandy Hook. Dylan Roof. Pulse. The radicalized terrorists in California. The Walmart gunman in Texas. So no, my feelings about this way preceded Kyle Rittenhouse. Sorry if you can't wrap your head around that.

You don't have to like him. The self-defense provision strikes me as odd in a way. Whereas under the law every person has an equal right to their own life, with killing someone in self defense it seems like you get to circumvent that. You get to value your own life over another's and act on greater society accordingly. Do we think Kyle's life will benefit society more than the others'? Who do you like or dislike more?

mahagonny, you are part of the zeitgeist that killed two guys and ruined this kid's life.

I'll wear my scarlet 'Z' with appropriate shame, but not too much, since you already tried to link Kyle to white supremacy without any real reason.

[dismalist]

Whereas under the law every person has an equal right to their own life, with killing someone in self defense it seems like you get to circumvent that. You get to value your own life over another's and act on greater society accordingly.

The law recognizes property rights. You have property in your own life. If someone tries to take it, you have the right to defend yourself from this attempted theft. It's like defending your bubble gum from theft, only a hell of a lot more serious.

[Wahoo Redux]

Don't be an ass. I want the laws to be different so that it is harder for people to be killed by other people with those and similar weapons. The first time I felt like this was when I was watching Columbine unfold live. I've gotten to re-live that sickening feeling over and over again. Sandy Hook. Dylan Roof. Pulse. The radicalized terrorists in California. The Walmart gunman in Texas. So no, my feelings about this way preceded Kyle Rittenhouse. Sorry if you can't wrap your head around that.

You don't have to like him. The self-defense provision strikes me as odd in a way. Whereas under the law every person has an equal right to their own life, with killing someone in self defense it seems like you get to circumvent that. You get to value your own life over another's and act accordingly. Do we think Kyle's life will benefit society more than the others'?

mahagonny, you are part of the zeitgeist that killed two guys and ruined this kid's life.

I'll wear my scarlet 'Z' with appropriate shame, but not too much, since you already tried to link Kyle to white supremacy without any real reason.

Rightly or wrongly, Rittenhouse is now implicated in white supremacy discourse.  I do not know what he believes. It is not a big stretch to imagine him associated with those people who honestly do harbor racist beliefs.  Conservatives bristle at charges of racism after years of race baiting and stoking racial resentments, then they, like you, regurgitate faux-outrage whenever the subject comes up.