| coolbeans said:
So I'm going to jump to this. I'm honestly not following by what you mean by "unlawful" within this context, especially since there's no evidence that Rosenbaum was even making a citizen's arrest in this case. The only thing I've audibly heard from him--ironically--is the challenge "shoot me!" So, already you're establishing an ivory-tower standard in both circumstances whereby the mob gets to divine Kyle's deadly intent, despite actions to the contrary, and Kyle has no standing in believing any of these individuals' deadly intent, despite actions in the affirmative. That is unfair, especially in respect to the 2nd shooting. From there, he's heading down the road towards the police. Although I can't verify this (YET), I caught wind that skater boy's GF was livestreaming this and he audibly says "I'm going to the cops." I'm going to say this in no uncertain terms: any reasonable actor ought to determine this as de-escalation. The single instigator who charged Kyle gets downed, Kyle makes no further attempts to kill anyone in the mob like some kind of madman, and it can be assumed he's now turning himself into the police by running towards them. It's pretty simple to see the mob re-escalates this. You can audibly hear some people yelling "get that dude!" and "beat his ass!" despite him literally running towards authorities. No one in this mob gets to establish self-defense when Rittenhouse has consistently followed in the duty to retreat. |
1) "I'm honestly not following by what you mean by "unlawful" within this context": Something that is "unlawful" is something that is expressly forbidden by the law.
2) "especially since there's no evidence that Rosenbaum was even making a citizen's arrest in this case": Whether or not an individual was making a citizen's arrest holds absolutely no bearing on that question, or any other question at hand. I'm also not sure why you are talking about Rosenbaum, as I believe I made it abundantly clear that I am speaking about the circumstances as Rittenhouse flees from that shooting. I am going to ignore large portions of your post because I am not speaking about the Rosenbaum shooting so I don't know why you are bringing that up.
3) "That is unfair, especially in respect to the 2nd shooting.": What specifically about the second shooting are you referring to?
4) "despite him literally running towards authorities.": The authorities were still pretty far away and didn't arrive for several more minutes. More pressing is that he was running away from a homicide. Also, the fact that authorities were some distance away does not remove the danger of this individual and instantaneously remove the right to self-defense of everybody around.
5) "No one in this mob gets to establish self-defense when Rittenhouse has consistently followed in the duty to retreat.": That isn't really how this works, for a few reasons. One is that Wisconsin doesn't have a duty to retreat. Two is that the duty to retreat exists upon the individual acting in self defense. You cannot argue that an individual loses their right to self defense because the person that they are defending themselves against moved away from them, especially when that person has a firearm. Everyone in that crowd has a right to defend themselves from the guy who just shot someone.
6) "he audibly says "I'm going to the cops."": You'll need to back up that claim, and prove that all of the individuals who he had shot were aware of that claim in order for it to have any bearing here.
Again, by my interpretation of events, the individuals in the crowd were acting reasonably to attempt to disarm Rittenhouse as he had just shot someone and did the very guilty looking thing of then sprinting away from the scene. Rittenhouse on the other hand, did not have the right to self-defense, as his actions were inherently an act of provocation (and also were incredibly stupid and dangerous), and the other individuals involved were not acting unlawfully or unreasonably in their pursuit of self-defense.
Last edited by sundin13 - on 04 September 2020
