It absolutely was true in the Rodney King case. Paladin is certainly taking the tape as the be and end all for his interpretation of the Rittenhouse case.
There are certainly people who do trot out the line that the video isn't going to tell the whole story often. And I would say that's a fair comment on a lot of cases. Of course, I think that pretty much nothing Rodney King could possibly have done would have justified the beating he got, but I don't live in Simi Valley. Paladin seems to speak out when people like George Zimmerman and now Kyle Rittenhouse claim self-defense but is typically at home washing his tights when people are victimized by cops or others. I find it an interesting contrast of how he is talking about how Kyle was attacked by a mob who had no right to use force against someone they'd literally just saw shoot someone to death, versus his take on the people who killed Ahmaud Arbery. What could possibly account for the difference, I wonder?
Explain how angrily chasing someone to beat them looks different than angrily chasing someone to trash talk them. Make an argument for "no." Rosenbaum was pursuing him, Rosenbaum threw something at him. Rosenbaum was belligerent. Possibly a lot. It caused Rittenhouse to turn which put Rosenbaum in a position to lunge at him. Rittenhouse didn't fire until Rosenbaum lunged, however. If you act violently toward someone in a mistaken belief you're acting in self-defense, does the person you're acting against lose their right of self-defense because of your mistake? There's no apparent effort to make an arrest there. And the people attacking Rittenhouse are using force unnecessarily.
Angrily chasing someone to beat them can look and be the same as just to trash-talk them. It depends a lot on the circumstances. It would be more reasonable to think that Rosenbaum was intending to harm Rittenhouse if Rosenbaum were yelling, "I'm going to take that AR-15, shove it up your ass and pull the trigger" than if he were yelling, "Yeah, run back to your mama, pussy!" And some people might even conclude that if it was the former it was an empty bluff and there was no actual intent to harm, while if it were the latter, that trash-talk was a prelude to intended violence. That's why there are juries. A lot of things aren't going to be clear-cut. I meant, "for what reason did Rittenhouse think Rosenbaum was pursuing him" as opposed to "Did Rittenhouse think that Rosenbaum was pursuing him or not?" The answer to that question is not a yes-no answer. If Rittenhouse truly thought that Rosenbaum was going to try to take his gun away and shoot him with it, it is different from if Rittenhouse thought that Rosenbaum was going to yell at him, or if he thought Rosenbaum was going to sic the cops on him or any number of other things. Assuming as the defense attorneys presumably argued that Rittenhouse thought Rosenbaum was going to kill him, different people might think that was a reasonable and accurate belief, or a reasonable but mistaken belief, or an unreasonable belief. Depending on what the jury thinks, that might change how much protection his self-defense claim might offer. I don't know how one can tell from the videotape the timing of the lunging versus the shooting. Assuming for argument's sake that the order is point, lunge, shoot, it still is an open question of whether the lunging was the act of someone trying to take the gun as an initial aggressor or out of a desire to defend one's self from the sudden threat of a gun being pointed at them. That's again something reasonable people (presumably) can see in multiple ways. Again, I don't claim to be an expert on self-defense law, particularly as it applies in Wisconsin and in this situation. But generally, there is something called imperfect self-defense where someone has a reasonable but mistaken belief that their life is at risk. One scenario that we're familiar with is a police officer who fires at someone with a toy gun or a cell phone that they mistake for a gun. But there are a few other concepts that factor into self-defense as well. Depending on the jurisdiction, there is a duty to retreat. So it could be that under the law of Wisconsin, Rittenhouse had a duty to retreat and stopping to face Rosenbaum will prove problematic. It also may be that the act of pointing a gun at Rosenbaum makes Rittenhouse the initial aggressor, and as a general thing, people who are the initial aggressors lose the right to claim self-defense. People's mileage will vary on what the crowd is attempting to do. I'll bet 2000 quatloos that at least some of the people who were chasing Rittenhouse will indeed testify they were trying to arrest him. Whether someone thinks that they are lying or they should have called the police instead or whatever is up to them. But I think it interesting that patrolling with a gun in case violence might happen seems to be OK in your book, but attempting to use violence to subdue someone who apparently just shot someone is apparently unnecessary force.
Exactly. Either could be viewed as threatening. It's absurd to think that someone has to utter an explicit verbal threat before the intended victim can defend themselves. No one chases someone saying "I intend to inflict serious injury or death upon you." I think acting belligerently, throwing something at someone, and then chasing them are pretty clear cut. But even if you don't think so, how can you account for Rosenbaum grabbing for Rittenhouse's weapon? If you're being threatened, you need not understand the reasoning for the threat before defending yourself. It is impossible for the defender to know what the attacker's mind is, only to see what the attacker is doing. Rittenhouse only knew that an angry man was chasing him and was lunging for his gun. If you try to forcibly seize someone's weapon, you should not expect the benefit of the doubt for your actions. True, jurors can have all sorts of beliefs, some of them not altogether rational. Put yourself in Rittenhouse's place: a belligerent person is chasing you, throws something at you, and makes a grab for your gun. How can you interpret that as anything other than overtly hostile and threatening? If you concede that Rittenhouse might've been in reasonable fear of injury or death at the instant he fired, then you have to concede that self-defense is a reasonable interpretation of the facts. You can't chase after a guy with a gun and then claim you're threatened when the guy brings the gun to bear. And if you can't say whether the lunge is aggression or self-defense, then you acknowledge that it could be aggression. Rosenbaum isn't on trial; Rittenhouse is. And if you can't with great confidence say his actions aren't self-defense, then you admit that they could be. And that's sufficient for reasonable doubt. During the course of the chase, someone on the scene fired a handgun. With a gun fired in such close proximity to Rittenhouse, his turn to see if someone was shooting at him is reasonable. They can claim what they want. But shouting "Cranium him!" does not help their case. It could be that the people who attempted to "subdue" Rittenhouse were indeed acting on the belief that he was a wrongdoer and they were somehow legally justified. But if you have A who believes he's in the right to subdue B and B who believes he's righteously defending himself against A, you've got a problem. B is the one on trial here, and the reasonableness of A's motives is irrelevant; it's a question of whether B was reasonable. If you can't distinguish A's actions from mob violence--and I argue in this case you cannot--then what reasonable option does B have other than to submit and hope that A doesn't kill him?
You explanation makes sense. There is a difference between public opinion and what a jury ends up deciding. Rittenhouse has every right to claim self defense and to defend himself in court. There is, I think, a need for some sort of better law regarding instigating a deadly or injurious conflict with a firearm. Ok, the moment he shot it might have been in self defense. But his actions did lead to that conflict, and it was a reasonable outcome considering how he got to that situation. Going into a conflict with a firearm with the intent to cause violence should be a serious felony for people with a firearm. That would be something that needs some legislation. This kid was not defending his property in any way. He was not deputized to enforce the law. He was not a security person for the property being attacked. He was simply a vigilante acting on his own. If we are going to continue to allow firearms in public we need better laws for vigilante actions that can charge people like kyle for their actions which clearly are part of the assault. Either the prosecutors are ignoring relevant charges, or the laws simply are not present and need to be improved. The moment of shooting may have been self defense, but he should have never walked into a conflict like that armed for combat. He manufactured the situation and he should be punished for it along with his ability to ever be in possession of a firearm revoked. Not to mention there should be some sort of terrorism charge due to his planning with terrorist organizations like the proud boys.
Either an explicit threat of violence or a taunt could be threatening but there is a difference in threats. You're only entitled to use deadly force in response to a threat of serious bodily injury or deadly force. A mean look or an angry taunt could seem threatening. But it's not necessarily enough -- and generally isn't enough -- to justify the use of deadly force in and of itself. The operative question isn't whether there was a threat. It's whether the response of deadly force was reasonable. And that depends a lot on circumstances, some of which -- probably most of which still have to be established. One witness says that Rosenbaum lunged. Does the jury believe him? Assuming that they do, how far was Rosenbaum when he lunged? In lunging, was Rosenbaum acting in self-defense or to attack? Those sorts of things might play a role in whether the claim of self-defense is successful. No one said anything about there having to be an explicit verbal threat to confirm that Rosenbaum was threatening Rittenhouse. I explicitly said that despite what the words were, people could reasonably conclude that the words didn't match what the behavior was. It depends on the perception of the circumstances. You have concluded that Rosenbaum posed a serious enough threat to Rittenhouse to justify the use of deadly force by Rittenhouse, or at least to provide enough reasonable doubt that he should not be convicted of a crime. And that's cool. Other people looking at incident might see some of the facts differently, or might see the facts the same way as you but come to a different conclusion when it comes time to apply the correct law to the case, which no one here can (presumably) claim to know. At least I don't. One can account for Rosenbaum trying to grab Rittenhouse's weapon as an act of self-defense by Rosenbaum after Rittenhouse pointed a gun at him. For one put in the shoes of Rosenbaum, how many other options does he have when Rittenhouse turns to point a gun at him from a relatively close distance but to try to grab the gun in the few seconds before Rittenhouse shoots? Rittenhouse's beliefs on why he was being pursued are relevant because it goes to the reasonableness of his fear that Rosenbaum was going to seriously harm or kill him, and therefore the reasonableness of using deadly force, and whether he can claim self-defense. If he believed that Rosenbaum was chasing merely to taunt and posed no actual threat, then there would be a good argument for self-defense not being available. If the jury finds that a reasonable person in Rittenhouse's position would not have felt threatened enough to use deadly force, then it should reject a self-defense claim. All due respect, there's only one person who knows what Rittenhouse truly was thinking. You and I can make educated guesses as to what he was thinking. His attorneys can make claims about what he was thinking. It'll be up to the jury to make their findings based on more evidence than any of us in the peanut gallery will see. If I were to bet, they will vote to acquit. But depending on the intricacies of self-defense law, it's not unreasonable to render another verdict. The question isn't whether it's threatening. It's whether the actions are threatening enough to justify the use of deadly force. Again the details of what happened are important. how did Rosenbaum make the play for the gun? It is a vastly different scenario if I have never pointed the gun at Rosenbaum, Rosenbaum has tackled me from behind, and actually has his hands on the gun versus I have stopped, pointed the gun at Rosenbaum, and his lunging starts from 20 feet away. In the first scenario, self-defense is clear cut. In the second, one can conclude I am the initial aggressor because I was the first to use force by pointing the gun. (It's possible that the throwing of the bag could be considered the first use of force. It depends on the circumstances and the law). I have always conceded that self-defense is a reasonable interpretation of the facts. I just don't concede that it is the ONLY reasonable interpretation of the facts, especially because a lot of the facts aren't known. And just because a credible witness says something is true doesn't mean that it is true. McGinnis's account that Rosenbaum lunged might be true. It might be seen as an exaggeration. Or it might be seen as a flat-out lie. Chasing after someone isn't using force. So I would guess, again, without having doing actual legal research, that chasing after someone with a gun doesn't deprive you the right to claim self-defense as a matter of law any more than bringing a weapon that you illegally possess denies you the right to use self-defense. Yes, I have never claimed that self-defense could be ruled out. All I have ever said is that a reasonable jury need not find self-defense, depending on their interpretation of the facts and the details of what the actual law of self-defense is at play in Wisconsin. You seem to be asserting that the only possible finding is not guilty because of self-defense, and I don't think that's true. Not every jury is going to interpret the facts as you have. There may be other facts that contradict what you think are the facts. And the law of self-defense may be very different from what you think it is or should be. Rittenhouse's turn to see where the shot came from could be perfectly reasonable, sure. But a) depending on where the shot came from, turning toward Rosenbaum might not be and b) even assuming that the shot came from the direction that Rosenbaum was and that turning toward him was reasonable, that wouldn't necessarily make raising the rifle and pointing it at Rosenbaum reasonable. Trained police officers have, I'm sure, yelled out some obnoxious and crazy things during arrest attempts. That doesn't change whether they were fundamentally trying to arrest someone. In any event, it seems poor logic to think that it is fine for Rittenhouse to use deadly force to stop a threat to himself but others having just seen Rittenhouse use deadly force could not use deadly force to apprehend him or prevent him from threatening others. If we put this in a slightly different scenario, say, a school shooting or what have you, would you argue that people who are trying to stop the school shooter aren't entitled to try to hit him with an object or that it would be unnecessary force? That they should just leave the school shooter for the cops? The situation of multiple people believing that they are justified in the use of force is probably something that Wisconsin law has some say about. Here's what U.S. News and World Report has to say, which is generally consistent with the discussion above. https://www.usnews.com/news/us/arti...see-strong-self-defense-claim-for-rittenhouse I would say the evidence is largely in his favor on the first prong of believing his was in peril. But just being in peril does not mean any reasonable person in the same situation would have felt no choice but to shoot. Some people might think that the reasonable choice would be to run. Some people might think that the reasonable choice was to use non-lethal force. Some people might feel a warning shot would have been appropriate, or shooting an arm or a leg rather than wherever Rittenhouse hit Rosenbaum. It could be that a jury finds Rittenhouse was justified in all three, not justified in all three, justified in the first but not the second or various other variations.
It's interesting that Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law basically eliminates the duty to retreat, which probably would make this case all but impossible to prosecute. Of course, Florida is dealing with unintended consequences that make it damn near impossible to prosecute a wide range of cases, much to the chagrin of law enforcement, but that's a different story altogether. I do wonder if Wisconsin's Trumpista dominated legislature might consider such a law.
I have to correct some of what I said before because I was not aware of all the charges, and there are charges for possesion and use of the firearm that were not murder charges. Maybe those laws are already in place and he will be convicted on them. So I have finally seen the video of the rosenbaum shooting and instigation beforehand. I am going to just say IMO it would seem like an instance of self defence at that point. Here is why. Kyle ran the fuck away. I get he was a stupid kid and went into a violent situation looking to be a tough guy with his gun, but he ran away. He retreated with his gun. He tried to take himself out of the bad situation and he was chased down by a man looking to do violence to him. Rosenbaum knew he had a gun and could defend himself with it, yet he still continued his violent pursuit of rittenhouse. At that point it is clearly self defense. Neither of the two are law enforcement or hired security, and they both should have backed off. I think Kyle is a fucking scumbag little creep, but the fact of the matter is he ran away, and I believe he ran away in fear of the situation. I look at the pictures of the angry rosenbaum and he is clearly in a violent rage. He is not under control. He is unhinged and a danger to society. That is not protesting. I would have to see videos of the later encounter to make a better judgment on that, but it does not seem like rittenhouse is firing blindly or agressively. This is where the evidence becomes important. If he was not violently firing into the crowd and is only shooting at the people who are coming up to him after that then maybe the crowd was scaring the fuck out of him and he was keeping some control. If his actions were seeking police after the shooting, then he may have acted properly in self defense. I was ready to fry the fucker given the stories I had heard and what I had seen, but I think the video shows lesser charges than murder, and that the violent agression was on the part of those coming after him when they should have let him run and not chased him down. They should have retreated when he did, and most certainly after he shot.
Again, thank you for a informative in depth look at the law. When I see the video rosenbaum was chasing the kid down. In my mind that would put him into an assault, and he would be the instigator against rittenhouse. Rittenhous did not keep on firing after he fell. Rittenhouse kept trying to get away. I do not think that it can be said he was a danger to anyone else because he was trying to get away and not actively shooting people in his way. Here is where I do not consider it reasonable for people to consider him an active shooter. You are chasing him. You are not afraid of him, you are angry with him. If you are not afraid of an active shooter then that is not a danger to you and others. It actually seems that despite his fear kyle is not spraying the crowd in an effort to scare them away. That is actually self control in the face of fear. It shows me a desire not to just kill the opponents. That is in the face of some obvious propaganda against the people doing the violence. Video paints a much different picture of what I imagined from what the news reported.
seems to me this is relevant... Rittenhouse carrying a rifle at a public demonstration is in itself an act of aggression, if not outright vigilante intimidation.
Open carry seems to be the law there. I disagree that you should just be allowed to carry a firearm for no reason at all, but if that is the rules of the state then so be it. However I think Rittenhouse is facing charges of unlawfully possessing a firearm which would seem to be a obvious guilty.
Unlawful possession by a minor...a misdemeanor. There was also talk about illegally transporting a firearm across state lines, but I don't know what came of that.
technically speaking, I can open carry a sword here. if I show up to a demonstration (especially one with a counter demo going on), it's not an unreasonable conclusion that I'm wearing it to - at the very least - intimidate. Rittenhouse came prepared for lethal confrontation and in doing so became the escalating factor in the sequence of events that resulted.
According to the news story I linked to, Wisconsin doesn't have a duty to retreat, but jurors can consider the decision not to retreat as part of their analysis of whether the self-defense was reasonable. Each of the shootings would be analyzed separately, so even if the Rosenbaum shooting was legitimate self-defense, it doesn't necessarily follow that the other two are.
In the law of where he was the fact he had a gun would not be considered an instigating factor by law. He was not waving it around in a threatening manner so just having it on his person is not a direct threat. It is a dick move by a weak POS, but you do not get to chase him down and get his gun. You call the police and retreat from the threat. Given Kyle was retreating himself you do not chase him down. Yes, there is a responsibility by the other side to not persist in the assault which it seems pretty clear rosenbaum persisted in assaulting kyle after he clearly ran away. Rosenbaum was not law enforcement or security and therefor had the responsibility to stay clear of the assault, which he did not.
If people kept up the assault on kyle after he shot someone rather than retreating it does sort of seem like he was defending himself at that point. I am not expecting him to just lie down and take whatever they dish out. I would not expect anyone to do that. If Kyle is not actively shooting people and is just being defensive then the rest of the people need to stay the fuck away. No one is going to surrender to the angry mob. That is not the law. You surrender to law enforcement because they are supposed to arrest you and bring you to trial safely. By the descriptions I heard Kyle was threatening and shooting people who came near him while standing his ground. That dude in the video was trying to run away and people were chasing him down. You do not have to stand there and be lynched because some people are all hyped up about it.
From what I recall, the weapon was actually stored at his friend's house in the same state where the shooting happened. In fact, apparently his friend bought it for him and Rittenhouse's mother wasn't happy about it. ISTR reading that in a New Yorker article that's behind a paywall for me now.
It's our gun culture. Live by it and die. 1st step would be to disarm the cops. Call in an armed team if it's warranted.
there is something at 30 seconds, but I don't think it shows what you said. At 46 seconds is a mugshot.
you go to a riot carrying a gun. Don't expect good things to happen. 2 people are dead because some shithead thought he was invincible, and had a gun to prove it. Was it murder? dunno. reckless homicide, probably.
Does that apply to Grosskreutz as well? The first guy is dead because he was a belligerent mental case and chased someone with a gun in an already volatile situation. The second guy is dead because he attacked an armed man and attempted to take his gun. It isn't reckless if the person firing the shot was in reasonable fear of their life.
Someone firing in self-defense/defense of others could still fire in a reckless fashion. The conclusion that Louisville PD seemed to reach was that one of its officers in the Breonna Taylor case fired recklessly even though he clearly was firing in defense of himself/his fellow officers. It appears that he had no line of sight on the boyfriend and just kind of shot blindly. Which is not to say that anything about what Rittenhouse did was reckless. Just to point out that the two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
yup. Rittenhouse should have been in another state. He came looking for trouble. He shouldn't have been there. Did he have a legal right to be there carrying an assault rifle? Probably, in this fucked up country. He shouldn't have been in fear for his life. He was reckless, came to a riot in another state, carrying an assault rifle. And he killed two people.
You do realize that Kenosha is on the state line and that Rittenhouse lives just on the other side of it? Rosenbaum shouldn't have come to a riot looking to start fires, act belligerent, and chase people.
I watched the first few minutes, and didn't see what paladin described. Please feel free to point out when the video shows what Paladin stated.
Paladin said it shows Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse. The video I posted shows Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse starting at 46 seconds in. They even draw circles and label who's chasing whom.
