What are you talking about? The status of each party 'in the moment' is fundamentally crucial in determining fault. You don't just get to arbitrarily determine intent when video evidence contradicts your preconceived notions. He was literally running TOWARDS authorities and away from those who were physically and/or verbally threatening his well-being & life. I have yet to see any video evidence that supports this half-effort narrative of him like you're painting, unless your perspective of open-carry is terribly skewed. Your confidence in that final sentence is only going to sting more when several of these charges are dropped (EDIT: or found not guilty if pros. locks these in all the way to court).
This is so monumentally skewed I'm genuinely unsure you've done anything but watch whatever John Oliver vid has covered this. For someone who's done the smarmy "do u know law?" comment, I'm genuinely curious what you know about open-carry in WI. Because unless you have video evidence of him actually waving it like some kind of loon before being chased by Rosenbaum, using that kind of language for someone who open-carried & held it like you normally do is just sperging out over the sight of a big gun. Even if you stick him with breaking various laws beforehand Rittenhouse does not forfeit his right to self-defense, especially since he committed to de-escalating this situation both times. So, you can't even wax poetic about how Stand Your Ground laws have poisoned our thinking and yada yada.
I'll break it down for you as to why: the unedited footage was thrust on me and I pursued that versus relying on third-party filters with pre-fabricated responses. Try it.
Let me pose you this hypothetical:
You are in a public space. You hear a gunshot and see someone with a gun running away from someone who had just been shot in the head. You think that this is an active shooting scenario, and the context clues lead you to assume that their is reasonable danger to yourself and others in the vicinity. As such, you attempt to neutralize the threat of this individual.
Do they then have the right to murder you?
If so, I believe that the self-defense laws are fundamentally broken. A key to self-defense law is not only that you must reasonably believe that an individual will do you harm, but that this harm is "unlawful". This is why provocation clauses exist. In circumstances like this, it is logical to assume that the harm that is being done to a shooter fleeing the scene of a crime through a crowd is in itself an act of self-defense. I saw nothing in the video after that initial shooting which leads me to believe that any of the victims did anything that fell outside of the bounds of self-defense. Similarly, I believe that a reasonable individual would see fleeing from the scene of a shooting with a gun as being a situation in which individuals would feel the need to lawfully intervene. As such, I do not consider it reasonable to murder someone who was reasonably acting out their legal right to self-defense.
That is also ignoring the fact that an individual may only use lethal force in situations where there is a reasonably belief of again, not simply harm, but death or great bodily harm. I do not believe that this belief is reasonable in this situation. It is simply not a reasonable belief that someone running at, or attempting to disarm a shooter will kill you or do great bodily harm without additional input which then grants them the legal right to utilize a higher level of force in self-defense.
I believed that the extent of Rittenhouse's stupidity was so great that while he may have been acting out of the fear he sincerely held, he was not acting as a reasonable individual in this instance and as such, he loses his right to self-defense in all shootings following the initial shooting.
I'm currently not going to entertain this hypothetical for a few reasons:
1.) I'm utterly unconvinced some of the people who've commented on this have actually accumulated enough data on this event alone. Adding another constructed scenario may have us arguing on two different sets of principles, muddying the waters even more. I'll do some simple analogies but they're able to be more contained than what this could turn into.
2.) The critical nuances found in Kyle's case that you've stripped out is enough to make what you're driving at dis-analogous.
3.) Ending it by begging the question puts me off from bothering.
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.
But in regards to the instigating actions by Rosenbaum, the standard is pretty simple: if you're brandishing a firearm and your assailant continues a crazed pursuit regardless, you're within reason to expect lethal intent. And eyewitness testimony that's claimed he was going for Kyle's gun (around 5:00) intensifies the legitimate fear he's probably dead if Rosenbaum wins that battle. This is further compounded by hearing another gun go off nearby, moments before the 1st shot against Rosenbaum was taken. If you're one of these people who say "muh plastic bag" then congrats: you now have tangible proof to present in court that you're mentally unfit to serve on a jury.
Now, the events preceding Rosenbaum's demise should demonstrate him (EDIT: Kyle) being in the right. After the sole instigating threat is downed, Kyle has the gun back down, goes back over to see R, let someone administer first aid, and call someone on the phone. 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.
And yes, I read both KLXVer and Coolbeans' posts in response to mine. Neither of them are well-reasoned enough to respond to and others have already done a good job countering their terrible, unsubstantiated claims and whataboutism and senseless deflection and various other logical fallacies. (Mostly it just boils down to 'no, you're wrong but I'm not going to offer equally or more compelling counter points to explain myself so I'm just gonna act smug about it')
If you want to give no effort in ascertaining the truth or making a cogent argument: just admit it and be gone then. Crying about me like some pusillanimous bore just makes you look pathetic.
Last edited by coolbeans - on 04 September 2020