Rittenhouse and the other people were asked for help by the car lots son. He even gave them a ride in his car. They were given access to the building.
I found it interesting at Trial the car lot owner and family were allowed to deny asking for help. They even claimed a limited understanding of English.
Ultimately I think they can be held criminally liable.
But the Rittenhouse shootings didn’t take place at the Car Lot. That may help the owners of the car lots case.
Doesn’t make it legal if the son is not an owner or manager I would think since the son legally couldn’t act for the car lot.
If no criminality is attached, Rittenhouse will be called upon to testify about what arrangements were made between himself, the police, the dealership and the militia. Should be a good story.
There was no danger. KR was open-carrying, allowed by WI law (except for the fact that he was underage, which Huber could not have known at the time). He was not aiming the gun at anyone, and was in fact busy retreating at the time. In chasing KR down and striking him across the shoulder and neck with a skateboard, Huber was the danger.
Assume Rittenhouse is found liable, which seems at least possible. Let’s say the judgement is for $1,000,000 (just to pick a number). Let’s say Rittenhouse doesn’t have the money. Would he declare bankruptcy and that’s the end of it? Or can funds be garnished from future appearances he makes on the right-wing talking circuit (or other earnings)?
Perhaps so, but then you have the reasonable person thing. There had been a gun shot and Rittenhouse was a guy with a gun running away. Huber acted to stop him.
I guess there is some risk associated with joining a lynch mob and taking the law into your own hands.
On twitter, he is soliciting donations to help him with attorney fees.
Exactly. And I take issue with this notion that “You’d better make damn sure you’re right about the situation before you act.” Cops and citizens regularly misread situations in which people end up dead, mistaking toy guns for real guns, or cell phones for real guns, or someone running away as a deadly threat, etc. Sometimes that matters, sometimes it doesn’t.
A guy who just murdered someone with a gun and is fleeing the scene looks just like a guy who just shot someone in self-defense and is retreating to safety. Huber had no way of telling the difference. If Huber had been carrying a gun of his own and shot KR in the back of the head, he would be serving hard time for murder right now.
A 17 year old with an assault weapon, walking around looking for “criminals”, would not happen in a western civilized country. Except ofcourse usa. It miight ofcourse happen anywhere, but he would be taken care of by psycogologists and be taken care of by the proper institutions.
usa is sick. Someone must try to fix it.
But Rittenhouse took that risk.
Right, which is why it’s odd that there are some who are so insistent that it is the latter and not the former.
Back of the head, maybe. But why would you phrase it like that? If he had shot him in the front, he certainly could have claimed self defense.
Now, are you making the assertion that Rittenhouse’s muzzle was always pointed at the ground, and never pointed at a person before he shot Huber?
Perhaps not. Under the reasonable person trope Huber had sufficient reason to disarm Rittenhouse. Had he done so and discovered an error, little harm would have been done.
Let’s not pretend that we don’t have video evidence of what exactly transpired when Huber was killed. We have a group of people chasing KR, who is armed. He’s not “actively shooting” at people, he is fleeing. Huber doesn’t confront him and tell him to put down his gun or turn himself in. He assaults him with his skateboard while at the same time a couple other people try to land kicks and punches. It’s highly likely that if Huber had managed to wrestle the gun away from KR that he would have been severely injured or killed and that is why his jury found him not guilty.
He’s unarmed and thinks the guy is a potential mass murderer. I think confronting him would have been a bad idea.
I would hope that I had Huber’s courage if even in a situation like that.
But in that video, it certainly appears as though his rifle is not pointed at the ground, and in fact, is likely pointing at people. The standard of “actively shooting” is one that is made up out of hole cloth to defend him. If you point a gun at someone, then I am justified in shooting you.
It’s even more likely that if Rittenhouse hadn’t come armed to the protest, that nothing at all would have happened to him.
Before he shot someone, I doubt that anything more would have happened to him other than having his gun taken away. After he killed someone, it’s more probable that people would have harmed him, similar to how the shooter at Club Q received some of his injuries after he was disarmed.
I’m not insisting on one or the other at this point. I’m saying Huber had no basis for concluding one way or the other at the time he started whaling on KR’s head and neck with his skateboard and trying to grab KR’s gun.
Not making any such claim. Just prior to Huber’s attack, another person (believed to be Maurice Freelander) was jump-kicking KR. KR then shot at that person (but missed). Assuming Huber saw that whole sequence of events, he should have understood it as a case of self-defense.
If it had been a simple case of forcibly taking KR’s gun away from him without injuring him, that might be so. But Huber’s opening act was to swing his skateboard against KR’s shoulder, head, and neck, and he was lining up for a second blow when KR shot him. Had things gone slightly differently, KR might have suffered a traumatic brain injury, neck-down paralysis, or even death.
Yeah, you can get hurt if you carry a gun to situation like this and start shooting people. He’s lucky he wasn’t shot by a cop.
There is no need to speculate. Rittenhouse already testified as to why he was there. If he had been “deputized” that would have already come out in the previous trial. It would only help his case so there would be no need to hide it. He voluntarily agreed to testify in his criminal trial. He would be compelled to testify in a civil trial but there is no reason to believe there will be any surprises.