Edit, It let me view, and it is saying an unknown gunman fired a shot int he air,how does that jibe with you saying Rittenhouse was shot at by the protesters? How did you get what you previously posted from this? What is clear about anybody shooting at who?
That NYT reporter's thread on the shooting is a fantastic recount of the events. We still don't know what led up to the initial shooting, but the sequence of events after it began is a lot clearer thanks to that.
The video shows , before Rittenhouse ever fires a shot, the the mob chasing him fired a shot. They fired in the air, but all Rittenhouse knows is the mob chasing him just shot a gun. At that point everything after is obvious self defense.
This is just another reason guns shouldn't be handed out like candy. He didn't travel out of state with a gun to protest peacefully. He wanted to act like a badass.
The video does not show that and a crowd is not chasing him it's one guy. All you hear is gunshot, and you have no idea who was the shooter. It's amazing that you were claiming the NYT reporter exonerated him yet he did no such thing, so why would anyone believe you? The title of the twitter post itself proves you wrong. #AltFacts.
I haven't studied a lot of the evidence so I can't say whether Rittenhouse committed murder or not. What I am confident saying is that he is an idiot. He put himself and other people at risk by going to a place he doesn't know with no training or experience. Going around an already tense situation open carrying with nothing identifying why he's there or for his safety. I've put myself in dangerous situations as recently as during the worst of the George Floyd protests. I did so working with others, wearing high visibility clothing so as not to appear as a threat and also with an abundance of caution. This kid, and yes he is a kid, acted rashly and immaturely and now is paying the price. Even if it is shown he acted out of self-defense, things still could've gone very bad for him and at the minimum he will have to live with killing someone in a situation he had no business being in. The worst part about this whole story is what the hell was Kenosha PD thinking?! There is something seriously wrong with them first with the shooting of Blake, that whether justified or not shouldn't have gotten to that point, and now not just allowing this kid to be there but encouraging it. You would think LEO with common sense, and especially any with children, would've told him to go home and let them do the job not high five him.
The video shows 2 or 3 people, max, pursuing Rittenhouse, with only 1 person aggressing him. There's a person trailing with his phone recording everything, and a person near that person lightly jogging. Everyone else is basically a bystander. Even the person who fired the first shot doesn't pursue Rittenhouse. Of course there could be many more pursuers off camera, but we don't know that. I don't know that a random person firing a shot into the air exonerates Rittenhouse, but it could absolutely explain why Rittenhouse may have panicked.
Even if he is acquitted of murder, which I think he will be, he will still go to prison for 10+ years, in my opinion. He broke the law in travelling across state lines with a gun. He also injected himself into a volatile situation and should never have been in a situation where he needed to fire his gun. All these things will add up to a maximum reckless endangerment sentence, plus whatever else. Source: amateur basketball fan pretending to know the law.
Read the NYT summary of the video collection. Watching the videos themselves, its confusing what's going on. I think I'm going to need to see a trial to test this murder/self-defense debate because the video itself isn't enough to understand. Don't know the WI law on this, but I should hope you don't lose a right to defend yourself for a misdemeanor.
Interesting question for lawyers and judges, but I think if you are committing a crime you lose the "reasonable person" argument in the statutes. A reasonable person would not have chosen to confront protesters with a gun they had to commit an illegal act to have. To me, that indicates intent and forethought (murder). And, I'm not sure the law will consider a minor a 'reasonable person'. Also a conundrum, Wisconsin can try a 17 year old as an adult but the first crime is for being a minor. This is going to get stckey.
Actually this is well said, as much as I am firm in the self defense aspects of the scenario ...yes he indeed did wrong traveling out of state while being underage for a firearm carry even in the most gun friendly states like Texas or Tennessee, this is true. not disputing that
Its a real insight into the minds of LEO and it will be interesting to see the ramifications, what will happen to those officers?
I don't know if murder applies but I am very sure self defense does not because of the situation he put himslf i and its documented officers told him not to go back over there. Has to at least be some kind of manslaughter.
I'm not sure carrying a firearm across state lines ends up in a 10+ year sentence but I hope they throw the book at him. What he did was complete reckless and endangered a lot of people including himself. Personally I feel they need to make an example of him that life isn't a video game. There are serious consequences to this with the most dire taking another person's life when you never should've been there in the first place. On FB last night a friend of mine who has done private security and like me is a martial artist who has trained LE went after me when I posted that this is a reminder not to take the law into your hands. He came back that LE isn't obligated to protect private property and that I must therefore thought the Korean shopkeepers who defended their stores during Rodney King shouldn't have taken the law into their own hands. I reminded him that I did as a civilian go out and protect my neighborhood and pointed out to him that those shopkeepers were in a crisis situation but more importantly were protecting their own stores in their own neighborhood. That is very different situation than a 17 year old with no training coming to someplace he has no knowledge of.
I don't know if they can be charged with a crime but they should be fired. As irresponsible Rittenhouse was he is an immature kid these are supposed to be trained adults. Allowing Rittenhouse to go into that situation armed is the equivalent of the Coast Guard just allowed a 17 year old wearing a life vest saying he wanted to do water rescues into Hurricane Laura. My own view again goes to this idea that LE is at war. There are enemies and there are allies and they saw him as an ally so let him do his thing. Protect and serve should mean protecting people from putting themselves into harms way or where they can harm other people.
I agree with much of what you said lately but I don’t agree they should be fired. He could easily be mistaken for a 20 yo or someone at least of age for whatever reason he appears to have separated from the group there which put a target on him. Safety is in numbers especially when a hostile and dangerous group of rioters are in the area ...I said it before , he had no business being there just like I feel the same if Next level Portland rioters go there. especially in a low level group that was ill equipped, ill planned and especially the very fact he wasn’t of age. He should have realized if something went down that would be the first thing they would pin on him
Even if he was a 20 year old they still shouldn't have let him in there. He's not trained, he's not from Kenosha, he's not even wearing a hi-visibility vest or something that would identify him as someone there to help and not cause mischief. it was a recipe for disaster.
