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

[neeneko]

Again, here are the facts I am referring to which "we", meaning anyone, can see on video of the shootings:

- In each shooting he is seen trying to flee
- In each shooting he shoots someone who is attacking him
- In each shooting he does not shoot until the attacker is right up against him
- He never shoots anyone who doesn't attack him.
- When people running at him pulled up and stopped, he also pulled up.
- He is never seen raising his weapon or pointing it anybody when he was not under attack
- He told Grosskgreutz he was going to get the police and he was in fact running straight toward their lights which everyone could see
- He walked slowly hands up by the police and tried to communicate with them (but was ordered away).

Another way to frame this : he is a scared kid and thus was really bad at living out his warrior fantasy. He was not calm or collected, he did not think things through, he just reacted to the immediate close range situation. He lost control and sucked at what he was doing.

The problem with the word 'attack' here though is, well, it is pretty subjective. Watching the same video, I see an attacker being disarmed. You see a victim being attacked. Both framings are rooted in empathy with the shooter. But at the end of the day, he is alive, the others are dead, and that is why he brought the gun in the first place, to ensure in any conflict (which he was there to dissuade or engage) he lives and the other party does not. Even with his incredible advantage he simply was not very good at executing his imagined corse of action.

[Patagoniagirl]

As far as I know, "active shooter" is not a legal term. It is a term used to describe when someone, usually unknown, has a firearm and has shot at one or more persons and the situation appears ongoing. Doesn't matter if it is an over-indulged teenager, a radicalized racists, or a combination of both.

It is not a legal term. AFAIK.

[bill_g]

Somewhat irrelevant but in the UK any unauthorised person merely reported to be carrying a firearm in public is quite likely to end up being shot dead by the police. (Ok, 2nd Amendment, right to bear arms, freedum, blood of tyrants etc.). To me It really is quite boggling that any sane person would support random private citizens going to a demo/protest or whatever armed.

It's boggling for those of us that live here.

One carries a pen in their pocket because they expect to use it. Likewise with money, a kerchief, and an umbrella. I pack as little as possible. The less I carry, the less I lose something. I don't accessorize. I carry something with intent. I have a shopping bag because I'm going to use it. I have a notepad because I'm going to use it. If you see holding a can of bug spray, guess what? I'm going to use it.

So, why shouldn't someone assume the same if I'm carrying a weapon?

The logic is simple, and yet eludes so many in the US.

If one needs to carry a gun because they are concerned for their safety, then perhaps they should consider moving, or better - running for office to improve the condition of their community.

[RVInit]

Yeah. Or maybe he was never an "active shooter" at all. Evidence for that is feeble or non-existent.

Another hypothesis is that he was a scared kid who got attacked, ran, shot in self-defense, then tried to get to police. That makes a lot more sense of what we see. For example him always trying to flee from confrontation until others forced it upon him, him making a beeline to the police whose lights everyone could see, him never threatening much less shooting anyone who didn't attack him.

Plenty of evidence that he was an "active shooter". There is simply no other scenario where unarmed people start chasing a guy with a gun who has already shot and killed someone. He wasn't "attacked". The people chasing him were trying to prevent him from killing ANOTHER unarmed person who had not done anything to him other than throw an empty plastic bag.

[Maybenaut]

I don't object if folks say he used way more defensive force against his assailants than was justified.

Some of us don't actually give a good fuck what you object to. You apparently have no actual legal education or experience to interpret laws, nor can you see how the situation will be perceived by the jurors. They obviously won't have the advantage of your questionable perspective of how the law should be parsed. They will only have their own observations and the ACTUAL interpretations of ACTUAL law by ACTUAL lawyers during their deliberations. Multiple real lawyers, including at least one licensed in the very state this trial will take place in, have patiently tried to explain to you the application of the law and yet you cling to your own interpretations, which will ultimately result in your disappointment at the verdict. Consider the fogbow posters as a mini mock trial jury.

I tried to make this point a while back. A trial is a closed universe. The only evidence the jury will be allowed to consider is the evidence actually presented to them. Some of that evidence will be admissible only for a limited purpose, and the jury will be instructed on those limitations. And the jury will be instructed on the law, including the elements of each offense, the defenses, and the burden of proof.

That’s why, to me at least, much of the discussion emanating from certain quarters is pointless because we don’t actually know what is going to be presented to the jury. We know from the rulings on the motions some of the evidence that will not be presented, but the parties in this case, and not the armchair lawyers and wannabes on the internet, are going to decide what will be presented.

The Durst trial is a good example of what I’m talking about. Durst made that supposed admission while being miked up for that documentary and everyone thought it was the smoking gun. Reasonable minds can differ about the strength of that evidence, and the government ultimately decided they didn’t need it. Durst was convicted, so it turns out they made the right call for their case. If he had been acquitted, they’d be wishing they had played it differently.

Every trial is a chess game. Both sides have to use the available evidence to their best advantage. Some evidence cuts both ways, and there might be reasons neither side wants it in. So, to me at least, it’s pointless to point to a particular fact and say it proves this or that because it’s too speculative.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t be discussing it. I’m just saying that we can’t be absolutely certain what any particular fact will mean to the jury when it’s possible they may may never hear about that fact.

[neeneko]

So, why shouldn't someone assume the same if I'm carrying a weapon?

Well, that is the whole point of open carry. You open carry if you want people to assume that you are ready to use deadly force and thus change the way they treat you or behave around you. Open carry is all about leveraging people's assumption about the person doing so.

If you are interested in safety, you conceal carry.

[raison de arizona]

If one needs to carry a gun because they are concerned for their safety, then perhaps they should consider moving, or better - running for office to improve the condition of their community.

One might argue that in this case Rittenhouse did in fact move, he moved from the safety and security of his home in IL to the streets of WI in the middle of a riot with an AR slung around his neck openly looking for people to intimidate and shoot. He found a few.

A jury may see in differently.

[andersweinstein]

Yeah. Or maybe he was never an "active shooter" at all. Evidence for that is feeble or non-existent.

Another hypothesis is that he was a scared kid who got attacked, ran, shot in self-defense, then tried to get to police. That makes a lot more sense of what we see. For example him always trying to flee from confrontation until others forced it upon him, him making a beeline to the police whose lights everyone could see, him never threatening much less shooting anyone who didn't attack him.

Plenty of evidence that he was an "active shooter". There is simply no other scenario where unarmed people start chasing a guy with a gun who has already shot and killed someone. He wasn't "attacked". The people chasing him were trying to prevent him from killing ANOTHER unarmed person who had not done anything to him other than throw an empty plastic bag.

Let me ask this: imagine a Black man travels through an area populated by virulent white racists. He gets a gun to protect himself, though it is not legal for him to do so. In fact he does wind up attacked by one, tries to flee down an alley, gets cornered, and finally shoots in self-defense. Others from the racist group see him emerging from the alley and the body of their compatriot, shout "hey that n**** just shot someone!", "get him!", and "cranium that boy!" and give chase, running after him and using some level of force in attempt to disarm him. He tries to tell them he is going to the police but they give his words no credence.

*Is* he an 'active shooter'? Does he have the right to use his gun in self-defense? Can the people who were attacking say they were only trying to disarm an active shooter and prevent him from shooting again?

The defense position is that Rittenhouse was in the same position, legally speaking, as the Black man in the above hypothetical. If you think it *could* be legal for that man to exercise his right of self-defense after the first shooting, then you must admit it is POSSIBLE for someone to get into such a situation, legally speaking. There's a difference on the facts. But not on the idea that this is a possible thing for someone who has just shot someone to claim.

[RVInit]

Oy.

I can't even....

[raison de arizona]

Personally I find that comparison laughable and offensive.

[Maybenaut]

By the way, whether Rittenhouse was or was not an “active shooter” is completely meaningless. Law-enforcement uses that term to describe a guy with a gun who is currently pulling the trigger. I think it’s unlikely in the extreme is that the jury will ever hear that term, and if they do, it would only be in the context of the 911 operator or some other cop describing their response. It’ll have absolutely nothing to do with Rittenhouse and what he was doing and what he thought.

[andersweinstein]

By the way, whether Rittenhouse was or was not an “active shooter” is completely meaningless. Law-enforcement uses that term to describe a guy with a gun who is currently pulling the trigger. I think it’s unlikely in the extreme is that the jury will ever hear that term, and if they do, it would only be in the context of the 911 operator or some other cop describing their response. It’ll have absolutely nothing to do with Rittenhouse and what he was doing and what he thought.

I'd say it denotes someone who is in the midst of a single ongoing process of deliberately shooting multiple people. The person could be walking from room to room opening doors searching out more victims, so not "currently pulling the trigger" for long stretches of time, and they'd still say there was an active shooter roaming the building. (I suspect that's what you meant, just don't find that phrase so clear to express it.)

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.

Actually even if they did believe that was what they were doing, my understanding is that it is also entirely irrelevant to his self-defense claim. This because the validity of his self-defense claims depends only on what *he* could reasonably believe from his perspective in those circumstances, not on what the others believed. In the language of the statute or model jury instructions, the question will be whether he had a reasonable belief there was an unlawful interference with his person of a sort likely to cause death or serious bodily harm and the force used was necessary to terminate the interference. And it doesn't matter for that what others believed.

[Uninformed]

I have read and heard the term “active shooter” used in relation to the shooting, whether fatal or not, of a single person and the supposedly still armed person being at large. “Active shooter” protocols for schools would come into effect after a single shot regardless of whether anyone was injured and will be treated as such until shown to not conform to the “LE definition”. In some cases whether an event is or is not referred to as involving an “active shooter/shooting” will only be known after it’s all over. It’s not rigorously or legally defined terminology.

[Uninformed]

It's boggling for those of us that live here.

[raison de arizona]

I have read and heard the term “active shooter” used in relation to the shooting, whether fatal or not, of a single person and the supposedly still armed person being at large. “Active shooter” protocols for schools would come into effect after a single shot regardless of whether anyone was injured and will be treated as such until shown to not conform to the “LE definition”. In some cases whether an event is or is not referred to as involving an “active shooter/shooting” will only be known after it’s all over. It’s not rigorously or legally defined terminology.

Here's the FBI definition FWIW:

An active shooter is an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area,

https://www.fbi.gov/about/partnerships/ ... -resources

Seems like the shoe fits to me although ultimately yeah it doesn't really matter for the case I wouldn't think

[Maybenaut]

By the way, whether Rittenhouse was or was not an “active shooter” is completely meaningless. Law-enforcement uses that term to describe a guy with a gun who is currently pulling the trigger. I think it’s unlikely in the extreme is that the jury will ever hear that term, and if they do, it would only be in the context of the 911 operator or some other cop describing their response. It’ll have absolutely nothing to do with Rittenhouse and what he was doing and what he thought.

I'd say it denotes someone who is in the midst of a single ongoing process of deliberately shooting multiple people. The person could be walking from room to room opening doors searching out more victims, so not "currently pulling the trigger" for long stretches of time, and they'd still say there was an active shooter roaming the building. (I suspect that's what you meant, just don't find that phrase so clear to express it.)

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.

Actually even if they did believe that was what they were doing, my understanding is that it is also entirely irrelevant to his self-defense claim. This because the validity of his self-defense claims depends only on what *he* could reasonably believe from his perspective in those circumstances, not on what the others believed. In the language of the statute or model jury instructions, the question will be whether he had a reasonable belief there was an unlawful interference with his person of a sort likely to cause death or serious bodily harm and the force used was necessary to terminate the interference. And it doesn't matter for that what others believed.

The first person to talk about “active shooters” in this topic is you.

This forum has been around a long time. The members here have a great deal of experience with people who come in here and post only in one topic, and start arguments about the meaning of irrelevant terms. It’s quite tiring.

[neeneko]

The defense position is that Rittenhouse was in the same position, legally speaking, as the Black man in the above hypothetical. If you think it *could* be legal for that man to exercise his right of self-defense after the first shooting, then you must admit it is POSSIBLE for someone to get into such a situation, legally speaking. There's a difference on the facts. But not on the idea that this is a possible thing for someone who has just shot someone to claim.

I can not speak to the legal aspect, but conceptually, the major difference between your analogy and what happened is that the shooter was not just 'traveling through' with a gun 'for protection', he was entering and holding an area along with a well armed group of like minded individuals who, like him, were not from there, with the hope of either showing the locals their place or having to shoot them.

The locals were also not a racist or race aligned group, only the outsiders of which the shooter was one had ties to supremacy of any kind, so for your analogy to work the shooter would have to be something like a black separatist unhappy that white and poc were protesting together.

[bob]

A trial is a closed universe. The only evidence the jury will be allowed to consider is the evidence actually presented to them. Some of that evidence will be admissible only for a limited purpose, and the jury will be instructed on those limitations. And the jury will be instructed on the law, including the elements of each offense, the defenses, and the burden of proof.

That’s why, to me at least, much of the discussion emanating from certain quarters is pointless because we don’t actually know what is going to be presented to the jury. We know from the rulings on the motions some of the evidence that will not be presented, but the parties in this case, and not the armchair lawyers and wannabes on the internet, are going to decide what will be presented.

To add: Juries are entitled to make inferences, come to conclusions about credibility, etc. So spinning facts to benefit the defendant on some forum is especially pointless because the jurors, who will hear all of the evidence presented -- and only the evidence presented, will decide for themselves.

Reasonable opinions like "self-defense has a chance of prevailing here" or "the prosecution will have an uphill challenge to meet its burden, especially as to what the defendant was thinking" are fine because they are reasonable assessments of the present state of the case.

But we have long since moved past reasonable opinions.

[raison de arizona]

State looks to block defense in Rittenhouse case from referring to shot men as "looters"
Prosecutors are asking a judge to prohibit defense attorneys from referring to the men shot by Kyle Rittenhouse as rioters or looters.

Rittenhouse, 18, is scheduled to go to trial Nov. 1 on charges of homicide and attempted homicide for the shooting deaths of Joseph Rosenbaum of Kenosha and Anthony Huber of Silver Lake, and the wounding of Gaige Grosskreutz of West Allis last August during protests and rioting in the Kenosha following the shooting of Jacob Blake by a Kenosha Police officer. Rittenhouse and his supporters have maintained he was defending himself.

In a motion filed Monday, the prosecution is asking Kenosha County Circuit Court Judge Bruce Schroeder to prohibit the defense from referring to past criminal history of any of the men, of any pending lawsuits related to the case, or of referring to any of the three men in “pejorative” terms.

The motion asks that the defense “be prohibited from referring to Joseph Rosenbaum, Anthony Huber or Gaige Grosskreutz as ‘rioters,’ ‘looters,’ ‘arsonists’ or any other pejorative term. Much like this court prohibits the state from referring to anyone as a “victim,’ these terms prejudice the status of these individuals.”

The motion also asks that all parties in the case refer to Rittenhouse, the witnesses and the men shot “formally by their last names.” Throughout the case, supporters of Rittenhouse have typically referred to him as Kyle, emphasizing his youth.

https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/local/ ... 5dc92.html

[Maybenaut]

The motion also asks that all parties in the case refer to Rittenhouse, the witnesses and the men shot “formally by their last names.” Throughout the case, supporters of Rittenhouse have typically referred to him as Kyle, emphasizing his youth.

This is a pet irritation of mine. Prosecutors in military cases will often refer to a military sex-assault victim by her first name rather than by her rank and last name. The defense never objects, and the military judges never order the prosecutors to knock it off. Aside from being infantilizing and misogynistic, it’s easier for a jury to view Sally as a victim than Sergeant Schmidlap.

[Dave from down under]

That to me is a very reasonable motion.

It also destroys my day dreaming opening and closing arguments that call RITTENHOUSE a vigilante..

[Gregg]

I don't object if folks say he used way more defensive force against his assailants than was justified.

Some of us don't actually give a good fuck what you object to. You apparently have no actual legal education or experience to interpret laws, nor can you see how the situation will be perceived by the jurors. They obviously won't have the advantage of your questionable perspective of how the law should be parsed. They will only have their own observations and the ACTUAL interpretations of ACTUAL law by ACTUAL lawyers during their deliberations. Multiple real lawyers, including at least one licensed in the very state this trial will take place in, have patiently tried to explain to you the application of the law and yet you cling to your own interpretations, which will ultimately result in your disappointment at the verdict. Consider the fogbow posters as a mini mock trial jury.

[Gregg]

Personally I find that comparison laughable and offensive.

That's somebody who has obviously never been in a country MTG wouldn't carry by 40%.
Or he believes in unicorns and faireys.

[Gregg]

By the way, whether Rittenhouse was or was not an “active shooter” is completely meaningless. Law-enforcement uses that term to describe a guy with a gun who is currently pulling the trigger. I think it’s unlikely in the extreme is that the jury will ever hear that term, and if they do, it would only be in the context of the 911 operator or some other cop describing their response. It’ll have absolutely nothing to do with Rittenhouse and what he was doing and what he thought.

I'd say it denotes someone who is in the midst of a single ongoing process of deliberately shooting multiple people. The person could be walking from room to room opening doors searching out more victims, so not "currently pulling the trigger" for long stretches of time, and they'd still say there was an active shooter roaming the building. (I suspect that's what you meant, just don't find that phrase so clear to express it.)

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.

Actually even if they did believe that was what they were doing, my understanding is that it is also entirely irrelevant to his self-defense claim. This because the validity of his self-defense claims depends only on what *he* could reasonably believe from his perspective in those circumstances, not on what the others believed. In the language of the statute or model jury instructions, the question will be whether he had a reasonable belief there was an unlawful interference with his person of a sort likely to cause death or serious bodily harm and the force used was necessary to terminate the interference. And it doesn't matter for that what others believed.

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.


The "official FBI definition is "An active shooter is an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area" https://www.fbi.gov/about/partnerships/ ... -resources

The Department of Homeland Security defines it thus: "An Active Shooter is an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in
a confined and populated area; in most cases, active shooters use firearms(s) and there is no
pattern or method to their selection of victims" https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/act ... ooklet.pdf

So all this "poor kid armed to the teeth attacked by a mob ain't an active shooter is just gaslighting bullshit.

Okay?

Now, go to bed, you're dismissed.

[RVInit]

We need a man's shoe emoji. A nice loafer to go along with this one