Rittenhouse has been charged with multiple felonies including recklessly endangering safety and reckless homicide. They may fail to convict on the intentional homicide and succeed on those.
However, at the bitter end after trial and appeals I put the odds at greater than 75% that he eventually walks.
This is based only on what I currently know about the case and what I know about the law.
I won’t go so far and say likely. I think it’s a chance he is found not guilty of at least some of the counts.
So why not defend yourself even more effectively, by not carrying the gun? We’re always told that people should be allowed to carry guns, because they need to defend themselves, and now we’re being told by those same people that guns make you less defended? Then what’s the point of the gun at all?
The logic of Fearless Fosdick
His “Ground” isn’t in Wisconsin.
The person that is assaulting you is breaking the law. The gun is to protect you from a criminal. The criminal who wants to take your gun and shoot you will have an easier time harming you if you are not armed. A criminal who wants to harm you will not automatically become a model citizen because you aren’t carrying a gun.
I’m speaking as someone who can carry all the time but I generally don’t. Someone who feels the need to carry may have a different answer.
The term active shooter honestly tends to be a tactical / law enforcement response term. Generally the determination is not based on the sound of gunfire–it is based on an emergency call being placed that someone is actively shooting / killing people. That never actually appeared to happen in Kenosha. FWIW Crane, as far as I know, was not at Kenosha. So he only knows about this retrospectively, so when he called Rittenhouse an “active shooter”, he was not in a position where he had to make the discernment from the sound of gunfire.
Definitionally here is what the authorities say about the term “active shooter”:
For someone not party to the event, Crane really has no logical reason to use this term as it does not at all line up with the known facts of the case.
As @Loach says plurality is probably a baseline right? I’ve never heard of a “two man mob”, and as best we can tell that is the largest “group” Rittenhouse was a part of during the protests/riots. Rittenhouse says he saw a local car dealer speak to the media about how he planned to protect his car dealership, and that he was inspired to travel to Kenosha to take part in helping with that. He planned this with his friend, Dominick Black, who is also of age and lives in Wisconsin, so was able to buy the weapon that Rittenhouse used.
While him and Black traveled to Kenosha together, it doesn’t even appear they were together when the shooting occurred, as at the point of the shooting Rittenhouse was literally by himself. I would be curious in what circumstance you’d find it reasonable to refer to a person walking down a sidewalk by themselves as a “mob”?
Nitpick: by California law, two people is all it takes to riot:
I don’t think this has anything to do with your point, I just find it interesting
I don’t even agree that he is morally a murderer without a lot more evidence–namely that he was the aggressor in the conflict that led to the killing. Murderer, morally, to me means someone who intentionally kills someone and did not do so under a genuine belief that he had proper justification (i.e. someone who kills, knowing the killing is wrong, or while doing something else he knows is wrong, like robbing a bank.) I would say that for example, “intentionally creating” a scenario where he could knowingly use self defense and get away with killing someone, while difficult/perhaps impossible to prove as murder in court, would be a “murder in the moral sense.” But we don’t even have good evidence that was true.
We know Rittenhouse went to Kenosha supposedly to defend businesses, and he armed himself. That in and of itself to me, is not morally the same as murder, which is a serious moral wrong. I think you as an individual choosing to go defend a business is unwise, but I also don’t think it’s the same, morally, as murder. If he intentionally precipitated the confrontation then I think we cross over into that.
FWIW I think burning dumpsters, breaking cars parked at businesses, carrying guns to a protest, and other things that many of the “protesters” were doing in Kenosha is also very unwise, and not appropriate behavior. I do think it’s starting to show some serious moral blinders that this forum does not appear to care nearly that much that at least two of the “protesters” involved in the affray with Rittenhouse were in fact armed with firearms themselves.
My take is a lot of stupid people showed up at Kenosha and did stupid things. I am unconvinced based on what we actually know that any of the people involved had murder in their hearts when they went out. They all certainly had a mixture of bad and stupid intentions.
I agree, and worse, it detracts from the very real issued people were trying to protest.
I agree and as I’ve said I think any of the other people who showed up armed should also be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Going to a protest armed is a needless escalation of violence.
The fullest extent of the law is they are allowed to have the weapons without penalty. That’s the problem with open carry. They envision protecting the wimmin folk from bad hombres but more likely it’s two people who would otherwise just yell at each other shooting instead.
You are right, that was a bad turn of phrase. I agree that those people DESERVE to be prosecuted and even punished, just as Kyle Rittenhouse deserves jailtime. I also recognize that this is not how our legal system is currently structured. As you say, this is a problem with places that allow open carry.
(I’d also be against Rittenhouse being found not guilty and then a law being passed that retroactively makes him guilty, or anything like that. As bad as a legal system where people can purposefully gear up and place themselves into situations where they can legally kill is, a legal system that retroactively changes laws is worse. But I’d be cool with a Rittenhouse Law designed specifically to discourage this sort of behavior in the future.)
You are correct. The gun thing is largely based on fantasy.
Be assured, that first item is constitutionally forbidden. Criminal law in the USA can criminalize something only going forward from when it’s enacted.
Yes, I know - that’s one of the very good, important things in the constitution.
True. The people killed by Rittenhouse were people that freaked out when they saw the gun. It can’t be shown that he protected a single business from being “burned and looted”, or that he actually protected anyone when he donned his cape and responded to Kenosha’s lighting of the Bat Signal.
The people killed by Rittenhouse were people who thought the best course of action was rushing a guy with a gun. It also cannot be shown that he’d have never have shot anyone if he wasn’t rushed up on.
I’m picturing a scenario where they see a scared kid with a gun and figured he ain’t got the balls to actually use it. So they rush in thinking they’ll take his gun, beat his ass to teach him a lesson then go tell all their friends back home what a badass they were for disarming an eight foot tall 300lb giant of man at Kenosha who was totally attacking everyone he saw and was definitely not a teenager walking down the sidewalk in a lawful way(gun or no gun).
I can lay this out simplistically into two diametrically opposite view points.
Viewpoint A: Someone in such a situation with a firearm is by default seen as a good guy with a gun. The assumption is that if that gun was fired, then it was for a “good” reason and to prevent something bad. Anyone attempting to disarm said person with a firearm is obviously up to no good, and full self defense mode including killing the attemptee is warranted
Viewpoint B: Someone with a firearm in such a situation is by default seen as someone to at least be wary of and potentially a hair trigger little man with a gun in his hand looking to use it. Little man with a gun in his hand shoots someone, and the immediate assumption is that little man with a gun in his hand has been confirmed to be a bad actor that could easily be shooting other people. Hence a potential active shooter, and as said little man with a gun in his hand just shot someone in front of witnesses, the potential to be an active shooter is significant. Fight or flight reflexes kick in amongst those in the crowd.
Underaged Kyle had no reason to be there with a firearm. He should have just kept himself home. His actions directly and indirectly caused the death of two people and wounding of a third that should be alive today if not for inserting himself in a volatile situation Kyle should not have been in.
Politely stated, I like it. But when the city fathers of Kenosha cry out for help, what is a lonely superhero to do?
Those are two view points out of very large number of possible viewpoints. Sadly, those two aren’t at all relevant or accurate for this particular case.