Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

CourtTV recap in anticipation of trial starting 11/1: https://www.courttv.com/title/10-18-21- ... pproaches/

Let's just say they are not on team Rittenhouse. Anders will certainly take issue with their commentary

Sunday 9pm EST CourtTV has a Rittenhouse special. FWIW.

The Court TV trailer showed video I had not seen. There were some shots heard that came from another site right before Rittenhouse fell and shot Rosenbaum. Too, also, Rosenbaum was in the company of an individual who had a hand gun. Immediately after shooting Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse takes out his phone and looks at Rosenbaum who is being helped by others. Rittenhouse does not render assistance or call 911. He walks, then runs away while talking on the phone.

[andersweinstein]

You can see some of the defense response in this video, which remarks on some new information contained in it:

- a state's witness told law enforcement that Rosenbaum said he was going to "kill you motherfucking n*****s on the roof" and that he was going to "cut their hearts out" and also observed him throwing homemade gas bombs onto the roof of the Car Source garage.

- It is "undisputed" [asserts the defense] that Gaige Grosskreutz was illegally carrying a firearm. [In interviews Grosskreutz has said he had a concealed carry permit]

The videomaker is pro-Rittenhouse, but what commentary there is in this particular one seems pretty even-handed.

[LM K]

The usage or not really is not grounded in fact, but instead how much the speaker empathizes with the shooter.

Yeah: an "active shooter" is just a person actively trying to kill other people in a populated (or confined) area. (Some believe even "shooting" isn't part of the definition; just attempting to kill, by any means.)

Right, something Rittenhouse does not appear to be. In every case he is fleeing and in every case he only shot people who attacked him and left everybody else alone, including people who came up on him and visibly pulled up. This is a most basic obvious fact about these events. There is no evidence he theatened anybody. There is evidence this started with an unprovoked ambush by Rosenbaum and Ziminski.

I just think the idea that he was an "active shooter" is ridiculous on this evidence. I don't object if folks say he used way more defensive force against his assailants than was justified. But god, at least recognize this ovious fact that he was a defensive shooter only. I mean, that's just the prima facie appearance on the video, a guy running away and shooting at the last minute at people who attack him. He doesn't even look like an active shooter in any of the shootings, he looks like a guy running for his life.

Interesting. Your definition of evidence is very skewed.

There is NO evidence of an unprovoked ambush, attempted ambush, or intention to ambush.

Why would Rittenhouse assume a potential ambush when people all around him were running for cover after hearing multiple gunshots in the area? What "evidence" do you have to support that that is what Kyle was thinking?

And why ignore the fact that Rosenbaum was being chased by Rittenhouse? Isn't Rosenbaum allowed to protect himself when being chased by an armed man? Or are the rules different for Rittenhouse?

[Dave from down under]

The rules are different when you want to justify killing two people..

[bob]

Your definition of evidence is very skewed.

The rules are different when you want to justify killing two people..

When your intended audience has reached consensus as to both your unpersuasiveness and the basis for the persuasiveness, try listening to the audience.

Or conclude the audience is wrong, but then at least stop wasting your time and theirs, unless the goal actually is to troll and annoy.

[sugar magnolia]

Your definition of evidence is very skewed.

The rules are different when you want to justify killing two people..

When your intended audience has reached consensus as to both your unpersuasiveness and the basis for the persuasiveness, try listening to the audience.

Or conclude the audience is wrong, but then at least stop wasting your time and theirs, unless the goal actually is to troll and annoy.

My grandfather used to say "If one person calls you a horse's ass, chalk it up to their opinion. If everyone calls you a horse's ass maybe you should start shopping for a saddle."

[LM K]

I just think the idea that he was an "active shooter" is ridiculous on this evidence.

TBH, I mostly agree. But I am also trying to point out that 'active shooter' is a very subjective concept and is mostly rooted in, as I said, how much you empathize with the shooter as opposed to a description of their actions. 'active shooter' has been used in cases where a person shows up with a gun without intent to use it and then does when things do not go their way. robberies are a simple example of this, as are fights that escalate. Which TBH, this case falls comfortably into that last category. You describe the initial confrontation as an 'ambush', but he was the heavily armed paramilitary out patrolling for brown people. You say he was running, but he had just killed someone for their group affiliation, others from that group had a vested interest in being next. You say he went to police, but he didn't, including he kept running while people were trying to tell police he was the shooter and police ignored them because the shooter was on their side while the protesters were the enemy.

He went in with an 'obey me or die' framing. Yes, it was 'self defense' in the existential way.. people did not obey and respect him, even confronted him, so they died.

In schools, an active shooter is anyone who shoots. They are active until they leave campus or are stopped and disarmed.

[Azastan]

My grandfather used to say "If one person calls you a horse's ass, chalk it up to their opinion. If everyone calls you a horse's ass maybe you should start shopping for a saddle."

Oh yes, this is brilliant.

[bob]

In schools, an active shooter is anyone who shoots. They are active until they leave campus or are stopped and disarmed.

According to the noted legal font Wikipedia, you must know what's in the shooter's mind and heart before using that term.

And you aren't allowed to infer what's in the shooter's mind and heart without a Bond-villian-esque monologue.

[Dave from down under]

Ahhhh….

But what they say may not be what they are thinking..

So only if you are a mind reader can you know what they are thinking…

But even then only their conscious thoughts and not their true thoughts that even they might not know or acknowledge…

Mini Kyle… 2 Kills and a wounded… that isn’t a great score in Call of Duty - Vigilante

[LM K]

I'd say it denotes someone who is in the midst of a single ongoing process of deliberately shooting multiple people. ...

You're right the label is irrelevant. It came from the idea that the individuals who ran at KR were justified because disarming an active shooter.

No goddammit

Its a person,
with a gun,
who has shot at someone
who still has the gun
and might be shooting at someone else.

Until a shooter is disarmed, he is an active shooter.

I used the term in accordance with the definition in Wikipedia, and also in the ones from the FBI, and DHS that you yourself [Gregg] cite. If you read them you'll see they all refer to a very specific type of crime, not just anyone who shoots someone, but rather a type of public mass shooting. The paradigm case has victims chosen at random and very often with a shooter who will commit suicide.

I'd like to make a motion that Wikipedia never be used as a source for describing, explaining, or defining any legal concept.*

Do I have a second?

[bob]

I'd like to make a motion that Wikipedia never be used as a source for describing, explaining, or defining any legal concept.*

Do I have a second?

It is sad that you have to even state something that should be obvious.

[Lani]

[Foggy]

Yeah, you have to use Black's.

It's a joke, don't hurt me!

[bob]

Yeah, you have to use Black's.

Two Merriams and a Webster, or GTFO!

* * *

The average Wikipedia article actually usually has a decent summary of a legal concept. But I would never, ever state the law is what the law is because Wikipedia says so. Especially in the face of contrary sources, such as federal law-enforcement agencies.

[jemcanada2]

Yeah, you have to use Black's.

It's a joke, don't hurt me!

5th edition

[Slim Cognito]

Just my $0.02 but I've used Wikipedia as a starting point, then drop down to the reference sources. I was burned early by a jokester and never forgot it.

[LM K]

Just my $0.02 but I've used Wikipedia as a starting point, then drop down to the reference sources. I was burned early by a jokester and never forgot it.

I do the same. Thankfully I've never been burned.

[andersweinstein]

Yeah: an "active shooter" is just a person actively trying to kill other people in a populated (or confined) area. (Some believe even "shooting" isn't part of the definition; just attempting to kill, by any means.)

Right, something Rittenhouse does not appear to be. In every case he is fleeing and in every case he only shot people who attacked him and left everybody else alone, including people who came up on him and visibly pulled up. This is a most basic obvious fact about these events. There is no evidence he theatened anybody. There is evidence this started with an unprovoked ambush by Rosenbaum and Ziminski.

I just think the idea that he was an "active shooter" is ridiculous on this evidence. I don't object if folks say he used way more defensive force against his assailants than was justified. But god, at least recognize this ovious fact that he was a defensive shooter only. I mean, that's just the prima facie appearance on the video, a guy running away and shooting at the last minute at people who attack him. He doesn't even look like an active shooter in any of the shootings, he looks like a guy running for his life.

Interesting. Your definition of evidence is very skewed.

There is NO evidence of an unprovoked ambush, attempted ambush, or intention to ambush.

Why would Rittenhouse assume a potential ambush when people all around him were running for cover after hearing multiple gunshots in the area? What "evidence" do you have to support that that is what Kyle was thinking?

And why ignore the fact that Rosenbaum was being chased by Rittenhouse? Isn't Rosenbaum allowed to protect himself when being chased by an armed man? Or are the rules different for Rittenhouse?

I have mentioned the evidence I was appealing to earlier. Again, briefly, after being trapped on the wrong side of a police barricade, Rittenhouse is seen on video running from a gas station at 60th st with a fire extinguisher and walking south alone down Sheridan Road, though Richie McGinnis picks him up and tails him. Rittenhouse continues chanting "anyone need medical" as he walks. At some point you can see Rosenbaum emerge from a group of people setting a small fire in the middle of the road. He walks ahead of Rittenhouse, with no sign of any interaction, then at some point breaks into a trot and runs ahead, apparently taking up a position behind a parked car.

According to McGinnis' eyewitness testimony in the criminal complaint, when Rittenhouse got at the lot it was Rosenbaum who tried to engage him and tried to get closer. Rittenhouse made a juke move and ran. What is visible on video is Rittenhouse fleeing Rosenbaum, not the other way around.

The defense theory is that Rosenbaum ran ahead to take up a position from which to accost Rittenhouse in a kind of ambush. Josh Ziminski, on the other side of the car, also participated, shouting "you aren't going to do shit motherfucker" and firing his gun into the air.

Rosenbaum was seen earlier flying into a rage and behaving aggressively toward a different group of armed men at a gas station when someone there put out a fire in a dumpster which he had a hand in pushing. Rosenbaum shouted "shoot me, n****a" and had to be held back. Witnesses have stated he threatened to kill Kyle and made other threats against the armed men.

Although Rosenbaum's past will not be admissible evidence, it turns out he is an ex-con who lived from age 18 to 32 in Arizona state prison for raping young boys, had a no-contact order from his girlfriend for battering her, was homeless after being dumped onto the street on discharge from a psychiatric hospital after a suicide attempt, unable to get his meds, and does not seem to have had any interest in the Black Lives Matter cause (he had never been to a protest before and his girlfriend, who urged him not to go, said she had no idea why he went. The Washington Post claimed he "belonged to neither side" and represented their encounter as a non-political accident.)

The Rittenhouse we see on video is not hostile to protestors, was there to protect property and give first aid to protestors as he said, and is never seen on video behaving aggressively or seeking out confrontation with protestors.

For those reasons I believe it is overwhelmingly more likely that Rosenbaum was the aggressor in this initial confrontation which looks like a kind of ambush.

Not that it is legally relevant, but as a moral matter, it looks to me that Rosenbaum, though an exceptionally damaged individual, is a morally worse character than the misguided boy scout but basically decent Rittenhouse, and bears the responsibility for his own death by being aggressive enough to attack someone who brought a gun for self-defense with intent to do him harm. We should not be blaming the victim here! We should be blaming Rosenbaum, in my opinion.

After that first shooting we have a more tragic situation. All evidence suggests Rittenhouse tried to run to the cops but encountered further interference with his person. But this post is long enough.

I am not sure why you believe Rosenbaum was running from Rittenhouse.

[Dave from down under]

Rosenbaum did not kill 2 people.

[Dave from down under]

the misguided boy scout but basically decent Rittenhouse,

Who armed himself illegally to be a vigilante , who shot dead 2 people and wounded a 3rd..

Strange* definition of "decent".

*warped, distorted, perverted, corrupted, complicit et al

[andersweinstein]

the misguided boy scout but basically decent Rittenhouse,

Who armed himself illegally to be a vigilante , who shot dead 2 people and wounded a 3rd..

It looks to me like there is no evidence he acted like a vigilante or intended to be a vigilante. The armed men he was with are never seen on available video behaving like vigilantes, that is, people who undertake law enforcement functions or administration of justice without authority. (But maybe I should check Wikipedia's definition ) From what we know, it seems more accurate to say they went there to act as unlicensed private security guards there to deter property destruction for an immigrant business owner personally known to one of them (Dominick Black, the friend with whom Rittenhouse tagged along). The business owner had lost all the cars on one of his lots to the riots on previous nights.

Rittenhouse himself also wanted to act as a medic giving first aide to the injured. That was kind of his downfall, since it led him to roam a bit among the crowd and get trapped away from the safety of the group.

The also put out some fires. That put them at odds with people there who wanted to start fires or use dumpsters containing fires as obstacles against the police. That is the aspect of what they did that seemed to cause the biggest conflict.

[andersweinstein]

I'd like to make a motion that Wikipedia never be used as a source for describing, explaining, or defining any legal concept.*

Sigh. Many people pointed out that "active shooter" is not a *legal* concept and I've always agreed.

[Dave from down under]

You have convinced me that he was a vigilante who illegally armed himself to play out his sick fantasy of killer/saviour.

[Patagoniagirl]

You have convinced me that he was a vigilante who illegally armed himself to play out his sick fantasy of killer/saviour.

❤❤❤