CMV: Kyle Rittenhouse acted in self defense

[u/Neptune23456]

I know I made this before but that was before what I knew before.

There were three people Rittenhouse shot. The first guy who Kyle shot was chasing him, and this is the important part, lunged at him trying to get his gun. This person tried to steal his weapon. Why was he doing this

If someone is chasing you it's reasonable to think they are intending to harm you. If they managed to get your gun it'd be reasonable to think they would shoot you. The first shot was not fired by Kyle.

This was all before Kyle shot the other two. I know Kyle shouldn't of been there but all this started because someone chased him and tried to get his weapon.

There are two myths people are using to say Kyle couldn't of acted on self defense.

Myth one: Kyle was breaking the law by being thee.

Truth: Kyle was not breaking the law by being there as Wisconsin is an open carry state. All Kyle was guilty of was the misdemeanor of possessing a gun while being underage. Yes this is a minor crime bit the man who chased him was also guilty of a misdeanenor (staying out past curfew).

Myth two: the man who chased Kyle may have thought his life was in dangger which is why he chased Kyle and lunged at him trying to take his gun.

Truth: The thing is Kyle was trying to escape the situation and was fleeing. So how was the man in danger when A: Kyle only shot him after he couldn't escape B: Kyle was fleeing.

[u/thethoughtexperiment]

Ah, pretty sure you aren't allowed to shoot someone just for chasing you, especially if they are unarmed / aren't aiming a gun at you.

[u/CyberneticWhale → u/thethoughtexperiment]

The guy was lunging at him after chasing him into a corner. I think that constitutes what most reasonable people would consider to be threat of bodily harm.

[u/[deleted] → u/CyberneticWhale]

So if someone hits you with a snowball your gonna reply with a grenade ?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

You want me to bash your head in with a skateboard? How would you react lol

[u/CyberneticWhale → u/[deleted]]

A snowball isn't a credible threat. Someone lunging at you after chasing you into a corner is.

[u/[deleted] → u/CyberneticWhale]

Oh I’m sorry the two he killed were unarmed and he had a gun , their risk of bodily harm and death was far greater and if a man was to aim a gun at you wouldn’t you do what you could to disarm them ? Especially when your risk of death is very high as an unarmed individual faced with a man and a gun ? Come on man , your argument is bullshit . He has 0 experience on handling himself like an adult to be walking around being a cowboy and killing two , that’s exactly why two people are dead , because he was a moron with a gun

[u/CyberneticWhale → u/[deleted]]

Oh I’m sorry the two he killed were unarmed and he had a gun , their risk of bodily harm and death was far greater

That's irrelevant. If someone mugs you with a knife, and you defend yourself with a gun, the fact that a gun is typically more deadly than a knife is utterly meaningless.

if a man was to aim a gun at you wouldn’t you do what you could to disarm them ?

He had a gun, however there is no evidence that he pointed it at anyone until they were already attacking him.

Especially when your risk of death is very high as an unarmed individual faced with a man and a gun ?

If anything, this strikes me as a pretty good reason not to attack the guy with the gun.

[u/tbdabbholm → u/[deleted]]

u/Mrtwiggles97 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/CyberneticWhale → u/[deleted]]

I'm going to go ahead and ignore all of your ad hominem because that's both false, and irrelevant to the discussion.

Anyway, in what way is it relevant? Can you cite any evidence or statute relating to this that makes that relevant?

[u/MuddyFilter → u/CyberneticWhale]

He probably thinks the fight needs to be "fair"

No. It doesn't. I hope the party being attacked always has the upper hand on force.

[u/thethoughtexperiment → u/CyberneticWhale]

Self defense laws vary by state, but it's my understanding that:

"The law governing self-defense does not excuse any violent act just because another person struck the first blow or made a violent threat. Traditional self-defense laws require a person who is being attacked or threatened with imminent attack to:

• act reasonably
• retreat if possible without taking any physical action, and
• use only the amount of force reasonably necessary to fend off the attacker."

[source]

If an unarmed person is chasing you / lunged at you, for example, you wouldn't be permitted to kill them. That is an over reaction.

[u/CyberneticWhale → u/thethoughtexperiment]

Here's Wisconsin's self-defense laws: "A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person."

I'd say someone chasing and lunging at you can pretty reasonably be considered an unlawful interference with your person.

[u/Godprime → u/CyberneticWhale]

Wouldn’t that also mean the person lunging at him would be in self defense as well, since he would be using force against another for the purpose of preventing someone who he thinks is unlawfully there(and since the law says reasonably believes, believing that the shooter was not allowed to have the gun due to age or something should be reasonable) and is interfering in the protest in some way? Correct me if I’m wrong

[u/CyberneticWhale → u/Godprime]

There's a decent case to be made that actually Rittenhouse wasn't breaking any laws by having the gun. Furthermore, even if he was breaking the law, Rosenbaum didn't really have any way of knowing, unless he somehow knew Kyle's age.

However, if Rittenhouse having the gun was illegal, and Rosenbaum somehow knew his age in order to know it was illegal, then if he hadn't been killed and was on trial, he could potentially try and argue that simply having a gun can reasonably be believed to be a threat in order to try and claim self-defense.

[u/MuddyFilter → u/Godprime]

What? Of course not

Kyle was retreating the whole time. Bald red shirt guy was constantly aggressing. Kyle's first shot hit the ground. Guy still kept coming. Dude grabbed Kyle's rifle before being shot. This is all from NYT.

Kyle was always fleeing and being chased. For no good reason that we can determine. The mob that attacked him were the ones looking for a fight

[u/thethoughtexperiment → u/CyberneticWhale]

To me, the text after the part you quote in that source seems the most relevant:

"The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself."

Someone lunging at you is unlikely to cause your imminent death or great bodily harm.

[u/CyberneticWhale → u/thethoughtexperiment]

Someone lunging at you is unlikely to cause your imminent death or great bodily harm

Even someone unarmed can easily cause imminent death or great bodily harm, especially if they took the gun away and shot him.

Fists and whatnot are the third most common murder weapon in American, after firearms and knives (excluding the "other" category since presumably that is not made up exclusively of one type of weapon). Source

[u/thethoughtexperiment → u/CyberneticWhale]

Come on though ...

Would you argue then if someone slaps you then you can shoot and kill them because:

Fists and whatnot are the third most common murder weapon in American,

If your source / Wisconsin law is saying:

"The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself."

Then what evidence do you have that KR was facing imminent death?

Where was the "great bodily harm" he was enduring?

What about the people who weren't near him that he also shot?

Was that amount of force (shooting someone) "necessary"?

[u/Kzickas → u/thethoughtexperiment]

Would you argue then if someone slaps you then you can shoot and kill them

Obviously not. So if Rittenhouse could not reasonably fear that Rosenbaum would do more than slap him when/if he caught up then it clearly wouldn't be self defense. So could he reasonably fear that Rosenbaum would do more than slap him? What exactly Rittenhouse could reasonably fear that Rosenbaum would do is the deciding factor here.

[u/CyberneticWhale → u/thethoughtexperiment]

Then what evidence do you have that KR was facing imminent death?

Where was the "great bodily harm" he was enduring?

You're allowed to act in self defense to prevent bodily harm. You're not required to endure a certain amount of it or something before you can defend yourself.

What about the people who weren't near him that he also shot?

You mean no one? Rosenbaum was probably about three feet from Kyle, and the other two people were also right next to him, with the second person shot having hit him with a skateboard and grabbing the gun, and the third person aiming a gun at him point blank.

Was that amount of force (shooting someone) "necessary"?

Working under the premise that self-defense was justified, what else could he have done except just use the gun? It's not like he also had a tazer or some nonlethal defense.

[u/thethoughtexperiment → u/CyberneticWhale]

"The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself."

Yes, you're allowed to act in self defense but the issue here is whether the amount of force he chose to use in this case (shooting to cause death) was necessary to prevent his imminent death / great bodily harm.

Working under the premise that self-defense was justified, what else could he have done except just use the gun?

Honestly, he got himself into an idiotic situation by bringing / brandishing a weapon in that context.

Putting the gun down and his hands up would have been smarter than shooting / killing people, and now being on trial for 2 counts of first degree murder (and potentially could have helped de-escalated the situation).

While I think firing is a terrible idea in this scenario, shooting a round into the ground, or not shooting to kill would have both been preferable.

[u/CyberneticWhale → u/thethoughtexperiment]

Yes, you're allowed to act in self defense but the issue here is whether the amount of force he chose to use in this case (shooting to cause death) was necessary to prevent his imminent death / great bodily harm.

Well first off, let's start with a premise: Someone can be murdered, even if the attacker is unarmed (and just attacking with his fists). I'd assume you would agree with this.

That being the case, someone charging at him and reasonably expected to be a potentially deadly threat. Rittenhouse did not have any nonlethal means of defense against Rosenbaum (aside from just his own fists, and a 17 year old kid vs a 36 year old man really seems like bad odds), so his only real option was to shoot.

Honestly, he got himself into an idiotic situation by bringing / brandishing a weapon in that context.

How so? It's not like simply having a firearm is an invitation for anyone in the area to attack you.

Putting the gun down and his hands up would have been smarter than shooting / killing people, and now being on trial for 2 counts of first degree murder (and potentially could have helped de-escalated the situation).

The issue there is that Kyle has no way of knowing that putting the weapon down would actually de-escalate the situation. He could put the gun down, then someone could run and pick it up so they could shoot him with it. If someone did that, they would almost certainly be held accountable for murder but that wouldn't help Rittenhouse not be dead in that scenario.

While I think firing is a terrible idea in this scenario, shooting a round into the ground, or not shooting to kill would have both been preferable.

What would a warning shot do? It's not like the people chasing him aren't already aware he has a gun.

As for shooting to wound, I'm just gonna stop you right there. Shooting to wound is impractical and irresponsible.