It goes from discussing the case to discussing broader and theoretical concepts regarding the larger issue of self-defense. Pretty normal evolution of discussions. As long as people separate the fact from theoretical, no harm done.
That's not "self defense" .... approaching him voids that warranty. Apparently Grosskreutz ran alongside Rittenhouse for a short distance while videoing him and asked if he shot someone - Rittenhouse response was I'm going to get the police. The video was shown to the jury. Grosskreutz stopped following him momentarily , considered going to look for the injured then heard the shots and again approached Rittenhouse who was grounded and attacked by Flying kick guy And Skateboard guy. This according to Grosskreutz testimony. He was seen by Rittenhouse as another attacker - an armed one. If he doesn't close the distance between him & Rittenhouse , some 20 yards , he's not likely in danger presenting no requirement to "defend himself". His approaching Rittenhouse was complete ignorance , He knew Rittenhouse was heading for the police. Had he shot Rittenhouse , he might have gotten off by claiming he was taking out an active shooter - that's different than self defense.
I'd buy that if they hadn't come into contact with one another earlier. Rittenhouse did what he could to diffuse the situation with Rosenbaum - he was having none of it. That guy was the instigator of the entire event. There's a video of them as a third party tried explaining to him they were only there to help and all he could do was say shoot me ***** time and again. That guy was looking for a reason to start trouble - he got it. Grosskreutz had also come in contact with Rittenhouse earlier ... Take Rosenbaum out of the equation and none of this goes down.
Rittenhouse was one among many, on both sides, who were armed. He wasn’t even the first person to fire his weapon. He had as much of a right to be there as the protesters, aside from carrying a weapon while underage which should be a separate charge.
Taking a step back from this particular situation, this is broader policy difficulty with stand-your-ground laws vs. obligation-to-run laws. There can be many situations plausible where two people, via a miscommunication or volatile siutuation or complicated situation, can arguably claim self-defense at the same time. I even think this about bad police shootings, though it'd be a terrible test and the police generally would have the upper hand. But yes, with stand-your-ground, there are some clear situations, but also murky situations. If you are in an armed confrontation, the best bet is to train well and be the best draw. You have to be justified to win the legal aspect, and be the better/quicker shooter to win the life battle aspect. It's hard to come up with perfectly clear and clean laws in dealing with an armed society.
If that was the case then George Zimmerman and Joe Horn would've been found guilty. Grosskreutz has the right to do that. Under third party self-defense taking out an activity shooter would be self-defense.
Exactly and that is why I'm debating this. As stated from what I've seen I think it is most likely that Rittenhouse is acquitted that doesn't mean that this case doesn't show many problematic issues. This is also why I felt that the George Zimmerman Trayvon Martin case was problematic. While I think there wasn't the evidence there for murder it certainly was dangerous and reckless of Zimmerman to follow Martin. In this case it was completely irresponsible for Rittenhouse to be there. Frankly it was irresponsible of Grosskreutz to be there armed if his primary goal was to provide medical aid. As is both of them as much right as the other to be there. Apparently both as much right to be there armed. As been argued ad nauseum in the Trayvon Martin case people have the right to follow someone they think is a threat or committing a crime. As very well illustrated both had guns drawn and a gun drawn is a lethal threat. Rittenhouse happened to shoot first.
Let me ask a simple question. If I see someone in a street with a gun and I believe he has shot someone do I have the right to approach him armed?
This is the problem with arming everyone. It's impossible to know who started and escalated it. Reminds of the Waco shootout at Twin Peaks. Nine bikers were killed, 18 others wounded or injured and no one was convicted of anything even though a bunch of people were arrested and there were plenty of witness.
So you are stating people have a right to provoke violence at a protest? Honest question. Is that part of our free speech - to be able to use words to ignite violence intentionally? I question whether anyone should be allowed to bring weapons to a protest. Of course that runs afoul of most gun rights advocates, but a municipality should be able to govern fire arms at an event public or private. You aren't allowed to bring a weapon to see the president speak in a public place, why are you allowed to bring a weapon to a protest that is highly likely to become violent?
No but you do have the right to shoot him in self defense, right? If you think you are next do you need to wait for him to aim his weapon? This is what is so confusing about these definitions - what is the criteria of self defense. The people who tried to disarm Rittenhouse were shot and that is justified as self defense - but they saw him as the threat and were in fact acting in self defense. My expectation is that you can't really convict Rittenhouse of much here under the laws currently. If someone has the right to bring a rifle to a protest, then all his subsequent behavior appears to be within the legal framework of using firearms.
The Right To ? .... Sure you do but you would be showing incredible stupidity and likely end up just like Grosskreutz or worse - Whether or not he is an active shooter , a victim protecting himself or otherwise harmless individual. You just escalated the situation from defcon1 to defcon5.. There's a difference between rights and common sense. You see an individual with a gun , confronting him isn't a very smart thing to do , just ask Rosenbaum , Skateboard dude & Grosskreutz. Get away from them unless of course you have no other options. (This coming from a person who's carried a weapon every day for more than 20 years and not once have I so much as considered drawing my weapon ) I almost find it funny that you want to bring up what I call playing cowboy in such a situation when more often than not opponents of the 2nd amendment like to use scenario's like that as a reason against legal carry. Citizens playing cowboy .... Now you want to hypothesize playing cowboy like its a right. What happened to the cop who shot the guy who shot the "active shooter" ? ..... Dude shoulda let the cops handle it. The problem with Grosskreutz is that he had a conversation with Rittenhouse seconds before and Grosskreutz videoed the conversation. - Grosskreutz: did you shoot someone ? Rittenhouse: I'm going to get the police!
The problem in the Martin case is that nothing Zimmerman did granted Martin the right to attack him .... He simply "followed him". Martins action did in fact grant Zimmerman the right to defend himself as he did physically attack him. This kinda goes back to the question @Sweet Lou 4 2 proposed earlier ----
Circumstances dictate course of action .... Just because they have a weapon doesn't grant you carte blanche. If you can avoid confrontation with an armed individual , do so. Nothing confusing about it. They had no right to disarm him. Regardless of the fact that he did shoot Rosenbaum. He did so in (Direct) self defense. Rosenbaum chased him down and attacked him. They didn't assume he was a threat , had they made that assumption do you really believe any single one of them would have attacked him ? If you make the assumption that he is a threat attacking him armed with a ****ing skateboard is .... suicide. Think about that for a moment .... really , do you think they saw him as a threat ? If they did , they would have scattered to the winds , not attack him. (apply common sense here) Not a damn one of them thought he would shoot - until he did. That's not self defense , that's a mob acting on impulse , I won't even consider it vigilante justice. I know damn well I wouldn't confront someone toting a ****ing AR15 .... I'm headed for the nearest cover or as far away as I can get. On this we agree completely ....
Except at least one thought he had already shot someone and was therefore a threat. Many people did scatter to the winds. Others might have thought to end the threat of the armed shooter, Rittenhouse. I don't find that idea unreasonable. Rittenhouse inserted himself into the situation. He traveled there with the intention of confronting the protesters. He did so carrying a firearm. He have avoided confrontation with an armed individual and did not do so. Again, I think he walks on shooting the people. But it isn't cut and dry.
How did he provoke violence? Did he verbally threaten anyone? Did he point his gun at anyone in a threatening manner? Suppose he was an owner of one of the businesses. Do you think it should it be illegal for him to guard his property, while armed, from vandals or looters?
It appears that a kid with an assault gun went to a protest for the off chance of shooting people for sport.
How are they to know Rittenhouse was acting in self defense? They see an unarmed man shot four times it's more reasonable to assume the shooter was the aggressor and they were facing an active shooter situation.. I don't know why anyone would chase down a gunman with a skateboard - it does seem incredibly stupid. At the same time, I don't know if the right action is to shoot someone with a skateboard in the head. We're talking about a skateboard here. I can't even take that as a serious weapon given how easy it would be parry. You'd have to have a serious windup to do damage with a skateboard. Some may say that Rittenhouse was the cowboy and vigilante, showing up at a protest with a gun to defend....cars? Why come to do the police's job to help save insurance company's a bit of money? That sounds incredibly stupid as well.
