You seem to be suggesting that he was trying to detain or arrest people. The Wikipedia page indicates he wasn’t “playing” cop. At the time of his encounter with Rosenbaum, he was trying to extinguish a vehicle fire. His encounters with Rosenbaum and the others he shot were all instances of self-defense.
I haven’t seen any indication that Huber actually saw KR shoot Rosenbaum. Unless you can point to a source that says otherwise, my understanding is that he chose to attack KR based only on the word of bystanders in the crowd. The same goes for Grosskreutz. While Huber and Grosskreutz may have been acting with noble intent, their failure to understand the rules of engagement got one of them killed and the other grievously wounded when KR sought to defend himself from their attacks.
Whatever the details, Huber sought to disarm Rittenhouse. Not unlike the recent incident in California. The shooter was disarmed by a citizen based on suspicion only.
I think there are significant differences in those two cases. For one, the CA shooter wasn’t disarmed “based on suspicion only.” In that case, the gunman entered the dance studio and pointed his gun at the citizen who was working there, who lunged for it and wrestled it away.
That’s kettling. I learned about it when they did it in Milwaukee during some BLM protests. The kettling, as expected, turned protestors into rioters. It gave the police a reason to retaliate and, more importantly, it meant we spend the next week hearing people say ‘why didn’t they just leave?’. It was difficult to get people to understand that they were trying to leave. They protest was headed back ‘home’, until the cops guided it into a blocked off area and started arresting people.
I assume it’s the case everywhere in the US, but self-defense is generally extended to protecting another person in the same way that you’d protect yourself. I’m confident disarming an active shooter would fall under this protection.
A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person’s intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person.
But what if it’s not an active shooter? What if it’s another citizen legally using self-defense? Similar to what comes up in discussions about citizen arrest, you better make damn sure you are right about the situation before you act.
That is definitely not what the instruction will be. He did commit a deliberate act that resulted in death. Obviously. The criminal trial established that the deliberate act was legal. A civil jury can assign liability regardless of the findings of the criminal jury but they don’t have to determine if there was a deliberate act. That’s established fact. They have to determine if that act was tortious. Quite frankly I doubt they care since Rittenhouse has shallow pockets.
I have no idea why you have mentioned police unions several times. Unions don’t establish tactics or give orders. They negotiate contracts and advocate for their members when management is doing something to harm them. Just like any other union. The union will have zero standing in this case.
I have seen no indication that anyone was deputized. Only that some private citizens made a call to action. I think that’s a non-starter. It’s possible to call into question the tactics and procedures used that night and make a claim that those tactics made them partially liable for the deaths.
If the officers are somehow made responsible, it is my conjecture that the police union may come to their defense.
" He did commit a deliberate act that resulted in death." Not guilty of murder does not make him innocent. He is still responsible for the death. Huber was not engaged in an illegal act. Huber was disarming a shooter.
[quote=“Loach, post:25, topic:979218”]
But what if it’s not an active shooter? What if it’s another citizen legally using self-defense? [/quote]
I don’t know, I was just considering the case where it is an active shooter since that was the question. Your scenario sounds like a good candidate for a judge, jury and some expensive lawyers to figure out in a courtroom.
I assume that’s why it uses the phrase “reasonably believes” instead of “believes”. If I understand the difference, “believes” just means that you, well, believe it. “Reasonably believes” means that in addition to actually believing it to the case, it’s also something that’s actually plausible.
Although how police unions work are not the same across the country in general they don’t come to anyone’s defense. Like some other unions they have a legal protection plan. You pay into it with your dues. You may never need it for an entire career. If you need a lawyer due to actions taken on the job you can get a lawyer with the legal protection plan you paid into.
It probably won’t come into play because I believe Wisconsin does have qualified immunity. Many don’t understand what that is. It doesn’t give criminal immunity. It gives immunity towards civil liability unless the individual acts unlawfully or unconstitutionally. There have been no accusations of unlawful activity on the part of the police in this case.
Your other point is certainly correct. Rittenhouse was found not guilty but he can still be found civilly liable. That outcome might be likely. Think O.J. The burden of proof is lower.
I’m not sure about that. His pockets are certainly shallower than the government. The government is also more likely to make a big settlement and they will pay if found liable. Individuals, especially ones that are connected, seem to be able to weasel out of paying what they owe.
Huber hadn’t witnessed Rittenhouse shooting Rosenbaum. Huber was hearing apocryphal and non-specific reports from a crowd of strangers exclaiming that Rittenhouse had shot Rosenbaum; he had no idea how accurate those crowd-sourced reports were, and he had no idea whether it was a legit self-defense shooting. Based on that weak information, he committed felony assault on Rittenhouse.
I think a key issue is in what circumstances is a person openly carrying a firearm in public somebody who is defending himself from the threat of violence and in what circumstances is a person openly carrying a firearm in public a threat of violence which other people can defend themselves against.
These would be my first questions: did Rittenhouse leave the car dealership property? If so then at that point, does his status change?
Also, to be a security guard in pretty much any state you need certification. Did R have certification to be a security guard in that state? Did he have the added certification to be an armed guard?
I think those would trump police and/or property owner’s request for R to serve and protect.
Well, that’s why this whole idea of wild west guns blazing “self defense” is ridiculous and unworkable in a modern, civilized society. When guns get involved, everyone can claim self defense.
In the heat of the moment, telling apart an active shooter from a “good guy with a gun” (yeah, right) is impossible. So if two “good guys with a gun” shoot each other, whoever killed the other can claim self defense.