Oh sure, there’s plenty of times when cops shoot the wrong person entirely. And there are many miscarriages of justice.
But, when someone successfully stops an active shooter, sometimes they don’t end up dead or charged, and in fact, are considered a hero.
Though I suppose there will be some who consider that to be an irrational act.
You may not think you have, but it’s pretty obvious in both this thread and the main thread that this is exactly what you have done.
Well, the reality is often black and white. If you shoot someone, there are going to be consequences, even for what is called a righteous shoot. That’s reality. And it’s a reality that most gun carriers know since it’s drummed into you during the training. That you don’t seem to know this is not really surprising, based on many of your answers in this and the other thread.
Your own words say this: “I think that the lesson that can be taken from this is that you don’t try to disarm a person with a gun who is pointing it at protestors. You just shoot him.”.
So, now you know where I got this from.
He was a 17 year old kid being confronted by 20 somethings. If you don’t see the distinction then that’s fine, but a jury would, especially if your guy had done what you said. Let me quote that again: "You just shoot him. "
Personal that you are basically regurgitating the prosecution narrative? I don’t see why that’s personal.
That is a valid point, but not one you or most have been making except peripherally. The laws are what they are, and the jury has to work within them, but laws can be changed. If you don’t like the laws, advocate for change. Going to be a pretty hard sell to change self defense laws, IMHO, but that shouldn’t stop anyone from trying. I have zero issue with that.
I agree with this. Plus, the next day hangover is never fun. But I don’t think I was being presumptive, though I generally am more combative and an asshole when I drink a lot, so, I will apologize for that.
He was a 17 year old kid pointing a rifle at those 20-somethings. That’s a rather important distinction in interpreting what k9bfriender said. From their POV, he was confronting them. They also had valid (if erroneous) reason to believe he had already fired a shot. But if you leave that bit out, you’re correct in that it does change the narrative.
It’s not irrational or biased to say “If you attempt to disarm someone holding a gun, you are likely to get shot – as this very incident demonstrates - and so the better course of action is shoot them instead to neutralize the threat”. It is, however, rather sad.
You go in one short paragraph from “pointing” to “holding” as what the threat is. I believe you might have wanted to use “pointing” again the second time around.
The first time was specific to Rittenhouse; the second was intended as a broader statement. But if it helps for whatever reason, imagine I said “pointed” both times.
That is, indeed the narrative the prosecution tried to paint. The counter-narrative was he was a 17-year-old kid who pointed a weapon at people who were shouting and threatening him, and who was chasing him, throwing things at him and eventually cornered him while trying to take away his gun. So, no, I’m not leaving out a bit…a bit is being left out of the discussion…and it’s a crucial bit that doesn’t seem to be addressed her much, but was addressed in depth by both the defense and prosecution who both spun contrary narratives. The jury was obviously convinced by the defense.
You can see how the spin matters here. Pointing a gun and threatening is different than pointing a gun and warning. Frankly, I don’t find pointing a gun and threatening compelling because of the subsequent actions by those involved. The jury pretty obviously didn’t either. It’s apparent in this thread that most DO find the prosecution’s narrative compelling, and thus the disconnect between the expectations of many in this thread and what happened. At least IMHO.
It is irrational as it’s an attempt to spin the narrative, the results along with an obvious misunderstanding of self-defense law. Had the person in question done what k9bfriender wanted (i.e. shot first) he would have been arrested and gone to trial. For sure. Whether he would have won or not is dependent on whether his defense lawyer could make a good self-defense claim. Had he shot after the first shot from Rittenhouse I think there would have been a good chance, again, depending on the eyewitness testimony and if they backed up the narrative that Rittenhouse was threatening with his gun with no provocation. Had he shot first, I think it would have been a much harder case to make for the defense, especially in light of previous criminal activity. Again, YMMV and obviously does, but all of your and many others’ claims hinge on how the prosecution laid out the narrative…which, in the end, wasn’t compelling to the jury.
Objection, still leading the witness. The people that attacked KR were not proven to be violent rioters. Some had records, but KR had no knowledge of that. And there was certainly some dodgy history of KR’s that was not allowed into the trial.
No doubt, KR would have gotten his ass kicked and prolly pretty hard. To say KR had a legitimate fear that the folks thinking they were stopping an active shooter would have killed him with his rifle is a little man with a gun in his hand fantasy. The fact is the 3rd guy with the handgun hesitated because he didn’t want to kill someone, and therefore got shot himself.
The Arbery murder trial defendents are trying the same tact of “after hunting Arbery in the truck and jumping out with a shotgun, I was in mortal fear that that black man would murder me with my own gun, so I shot him down in self-defense.” I hope this BS excuse doesn’t work this time.
One other takeaway is that if I ever get caught up in an active shooter case with a long gun, and it’s him or me, is to tackle the SOB. Ground and pound. Kicking in the head or trying to hit KR with a skateboard was not a good move. Instead, get really close so the long gun can’t be used effectively.
Ironically, you are doing the exact same thing here…unless you are asserting that KR knew beyond reasonable doubt that the 3rd guy wouldn’t use that gun on him. Which, of course, he didn’t.
I’ve been watching a video on this from LegalEagle and it’s really going through both what the actual law in Wisconsin is wrt self-defense and when you can…and can’t…invoke it as a defendant. And, basically, your statement here saying “gotten his ass kicked and prolly pretty hard” alone justifies him to use self-defense and deadly force, especially when he did actually make an attempt to flee first, and was cornered. Essentially, even if you think that KR ‘provoked’ the attack, it STILL was legal for him to defend himself, based on Wisconsin law, if he thought he was in danger of bodily harm AND had made an attempt to flee and couldn’t.
I’m no lawyer, but the guy doing this commentary is. I’ve also heard a number of actual lawyers who have looked into the real laws in Wisconsin who are saying basically the same thing. I think the disconnect here is that people THINK they understand the law, but really, they don’t, especially the specific laws in play in Wisconsin. Had this trial happened in other states with different laws the outcome might…probably would…have been different.
You do realize that you don’t have to be passive when an an angry mob is violating you? What you are saying completely negates the concept of self defense.
You do realize when you are the active shooter in a crowd, then the right to self-defense goes out the window, right? It’s like if you pick a fight, and you lose, then you don’t get to play the innocent card. KR was found not guilty of certain charges in WI, but he sure as hell was not “innocent” and two are dead by his hand.
And it is complete utter nonsense to posit that there is a legitimate fear that in an active shooter situation, the crowd is gonna take away and kill the shooter with his own gun. That’s 2nd Amendment enthusiast fantasy territory.
To be fair (and God knows I’m not taking octopus’s side here), KR wasn’t an active shooter until he had to defend himself against Rosenbaum. Whether Rosenbaum thought he was an active shooter is a separate question, but he wasn’t one.
I believe the jury considered this as well. They also considered your second sentence wrt picking a fight. They still found the defense’s narrative of self-defense compelling and the opposite narrative by the prosecution to not be compelling. And, as I said, many lawyers are also in the same boat. Many 'dopers obviously aren’t in that boat, however, and keep brining up the same things that have already been discussed and analyzed.
You and others keep saying this, and while it’s clear you’ve all convinced yourselves this is the case it’s neither fantasy nor as outlandish as you’ve tried to paint. Basically, in this very specific situation (leaving generalities aside), you had a ‘crowd’ of highly aggressive individuals, the first of which chased a guy with a gun, threw things at him, and attempted to corner him. Let that sink in for a moment. This was, of course, before Rittenhouse became an ‘active shooter’. He chased a person with a loaded gun and ran him down and cornered him. And you think it’s unreasonable to assume that, having done all of that highly irrational and stupid stuff, this guy would have simply taken away Rittenhouse’s gun and maybe given him a few smacks for the trouble? 
Whether the others acted more rationally or not is a separate question, but I’ve seen the video of the subsequent chase, with several people who tried flying jump kicks and other silly ass stuff plus the guy with the skateboard and finally the guy with the pistol, and it didn’t look to me as if the ‘crowd’ was in any sort of mood to just disarm Rittenhouse to turn him over to the police. While they might not have taken his rifle to go on a killing spree of their own, and maybe wouldn’t have used it against him, Rittenhouse would have still been either nearly or fully dead one way or the other in the aftermath. And, the thing is, in that situation, Rittenhouse didn’t have the time to sit back and watch the video over and over, so really this is about what he thought would happen. Having had the leisure to kick back and watch it safely from my computer I basically think the assertion this is ‘enthusiast fantasy territory’ wrt what the ‘crowd’ might or might not have done fails to compel and is really about their own fantasy projection of a ‘crowd’ out to right wrongs and do justice and protect themselves from a rampaging right-wing gun nut, blah blah blah. Both narratives are equally fantasy concocted to try and spin their own narrative the way they want it to come out. The actual situation was much more of a muddled cluster fuck, a total fog of war situation with people on both sides doing stupid, often irrational things until, as you say, 2 people died and a 3rd was shot…and it could have been a lot worse, as more shots were fired that that.
Makes me wonder what happens to McMichael if Arbery got lucky and got the gun away from him? He’s not likely to just “toss” the gun and run away as the assailants are still in close proximity, assuming he doesn’t shoot McMichael himself but just takes off running with the gun, then he’s a “black man running with a gun”.
The guy with the pistol could have shot Rittenhouse, but he didn’t. He attempted to subdue the shooter and, I believe, would have held him for the police.
You believe based on how you perceived the events sitting at home on your computer and filtered through your own prejudices regarding this entire case. Same as me. The thing is, we weren’t there, and it wasn’t happening to us in real-time. Also, we only know how it played out, not how it might have. I agree, to an extent, that Grosskreutz PROBABLY wouldn’t have killed Rittenhouse himself either with Rittenhouse’s gun, his own gun, or simply beating him to death…but Grosskreutz wasn’t exactly alone there, and there were plenty of others there who might have. And I think probably would have. Flying kick guy and rush guy along with maybe a half dozen others who were moving around in that chaos spring to mind as, perhaps, less rational than your pistol guy.
But, again, Rittenhouse didn’t know that pistol guy wasn’t going to shoot him and didn’t know…just like we don’t…what the outcome would be for him if he was subdued and his gun taken away.
True - and no one of the many armed individuals in the crowd fired on anyone else or even at Rittenhouse after he had killed two people. Right there you have statistical evidence of how reasonable and prudent people act in the situation under discussion.
There is ample evidence that they would have restrained Rittenhouse for the police. And under those conditions the police probably would have arrested KR.
We also have ample evidence of people acting irrationally and unreasonably, however, including Rosenbaum who initially seemed to precipitate this entire cluster fuck by trying to chase down a gun armed with a rifle. You have a crowd of people who, after this, were actively chasing and attacking Rittenhouse, including Huber who hit him with a skateboard. Again, this was a totally chaotic mess of a situation with many people acting erratically and irrationally.
There is zero evidence this would be the case. There is ample SPECULATION it MIGHT have been the case. As to the police response to a citizen’s arrest of Rittenhouse, it would depend on when in these events it happened…and what, exactly, the crowd’s response would have been. Had they beaten him half to death…or fully to death…then I doubt the police would have accepted that. Had this happened prior to Rosenbaum’s death then my WAG is Rosenbaum would have been on the hot seat to prove Rittenhouse was threatening him and that taking Rittenhouse’s gun was self-defense…something I think he could have made stick, but wasn’t a slam dunk. After Rosenbaum’s death, I think a better case could have been made for disarming Rittenhouse, especially the the ‘crowd’ was restrained in their actions…which I think is doubtful, based on my own viewing of the video, but I concede that going to differ by the viewer. I still think Rittenhouse would have been found not guilty of Rosenbaum’s death, as it would have been exactly the same case…i.e. it was self-defense. But I think if the ‘crowd’ was restrained and simply apprehended him they would have also been found not guilty.
There would not have been a citizens arrest. A couple of guys would have sat on him until the police arrived. That’s what reasonable and prudent people do.
I’m not sure what the point of splitting this hair is. I guess I could say they were holding him, against his will until the police arrived to sort it out, but that was a lot more words than ‘citizens arrest’ and I think most, including you, got the point.
Based on what we learned from the Arberry trial and threads on this forum, ‘citizens arrest’ is a term of art that involves more than is understood by every man on the street. Faced with a kid, with a gun, who had just shot some people, bystanders would probably have just subdued and sat on him until the cops got there. I doubt there would have been any formalities like “you are under arrest”. When it became obvious that Rittenhouse was still actively shooting anyone who tried to disarm him, the crowd avoided KR.