Listening to Grosskreutz's testimony is why situations like this can get messy and violent and the inherent danger of being "a good guy with a gun". From both Grosskreutz and Rittenhouse's standpoint both are acting on limiting information confronting another armed person with no certainly of the motivation of the other. In this case Rittenhouse shot first but I can easily see where if Grosskreutz shot Rittenhouse he could've claimed self-defense. This isn't to say that Rittenhouse is guilty but that both appear to have a reasonable basis of self-defense and both also bear responsibility for putting themselves into that situation.
The only self defense claim that is relevant is for the defendant currently on trial. Grossarm also first approached Rittenhouse easier and told him to leave calling him a ****ing stooge before anything happened.
Grossarm gave good advice that would have saved lives. He also accurately labeled Rittenhouse. Maybe that could play in favor Gorssarm if he needed character testimony.
So, now I'm confused. Do you think white nationalists are or aren't consequential? It looks like you are agreeing with me that since Trump supports a white nationalist group, then it is a problem.
You don't have the expectation of self defense when you are the attacker. At least 3 of them physically struck him. Grosskreutz has no self defense claim. He ran head first into that , weapon drawn on fleeing Rittenhouse.
Let's take a different scenario. Let's say you have some dude with a gun, who goes into a crowd of black people and screams the N-word, and when they jump him, he pulls his gun out and shoots them. Is that self-defense then? Is this legal behavior? I'm asking an honest question.
That would be incredibly stupid .... and is a really loaded question. Two things we must consider: He has to know that his actions are provocative - to elicit a specific response - that being kicking his ass. What gave those people legal authority / right to physically assault him ? Man I don't know what the outcome of that one would be .....
That was my first thought too ..... but that person has to know that he's eliciting a specific response to his actions. His actions don't justify their attacking him but .... he drew their ire with specific intent to be able to retaliate. Seems too premeditated to me to justify "self defense"
It's stupid, but not illegal. Generally, self defense legality is about the level of threat and proportional response. Scotus is about to define the Constitutional right to carry. Doesn't mean you can wave your gun around legally, but it does mean you can walk with it and say whatever as long as you're not threatening violence.
Well is it legal to attack someone who says a racial slur? No. It's not acceptable to wait around for an excuse to initiate violence like "someone said words".
Reading the thread from start to finish is amazing. Goes from distorting facts of the case to fantasizing about Kyle yelling racial slurs.
Grosskreutz had as much right to approach Rittenhouse as Rittenhouse had to approach anyone else there. My point though isn't to say this lessens Rittenhouse's defense argument it is that if Grosskreutz had shot Rittenhouse he could've claimed self-defense also.
It's interesting right - if you know someone has an intent to provoke violence in order to use lethal force in self defense - is it still self defense? I don't know the answer to that. I ask because while we will never know Rittenhouse's intent 100%, it does tie into what @rocketsjudoka is raising that carrying a weapon to a protest certainly does appear to be at least somewhat provocative. The question is was Rittenhouse negligent in bringing a weapon to a protest and a volatile situation - one that he did not have any other purpose but to serve as an unsanctioned additional police force. I'm not sure the law was written to take this kind of situation into consideration.
He was acting under information that he believed that Rittenhouse had shot someone already, which he did, and there is third party self-defense laws. As stated above he has as much right to approach Rittenhouse in public. Also Rittenhouse already had a drawn weapon. Again neither of them were acting with complete knowledge of the other or their motivations. This is why these situations can be extra dangerous when multiple parties are armed and acting in a very confused and chaotic situation.
Open carrying is certainly provocative but my point about Rittenhouse is that he was untrained and unprepared for the situation.
