Kyle Rittenhouse shooting (Kenosha WI)

[XtremeJibber2001]

Finally something from the defense.

https://www.scribd.com/document/4740273 ... se-8-28-20

I wouldn’t be happy with my lawyer putting out such a detailed narrative. Defense will have little leeway to change its story now if and when more facts are known and witnesses come forward. Unfortunately, Kyle probably doesn’t see that he’s being used as a pawn.

Kyle has a good case for self defense. No concerns there. Common sense says he should have never been there and we know he wasn’t compliant with all WI laws. Ultimately he will be charged, but nothing related to his self defense $02.

[deadheadskier]

I don't understand the most pushed narrative that the first shooting may not have been self defense, but the second two were.

If I'm the prosecutor I'm saying the second two victims witnessed a shooting and heroically tried to disarm Kyle to prevent more deaths.

If the second two victims were cops trying to disarm Kyle would a self defense claim fly? Certainly not. But two civilians attempting to disarm him it's self defense? Why? Because they tried to attack him to disarm him? Are there certain rules of engagement for civilians trying to stop an active shooter? no

People defending Kyle as a hero are disgusting. The real heros are the people who put their life on the line trying to disarm Kyle.

[spanky]

Woah woah woah

While I have called for better police training, I have never said defund the police.

There was a curfew. The looters shouldn't have been there. The militia shouldn't have been there. Even application of the law is how things work in a civilized society.

Young Kyle was there illegally. He was breaking curfew. He was illegally in possession of a gun. He left the scene of a crime.

Even without that, cop camp isn't enough training for a civilian to deescalate a mob scene.

You are on the wrong side of this situation 100%. The fact that the people he shot were bad people does not change that in any way, shape or form.

LOL. Such a shitbird.

Such a madhatter-esque response. You're definitely filling the void.

[XtremeJibber2001]

I don't understand the most pushed narrative that the first shooting may not have been self defense, but the second two were.

If I'm the prosecutor I'm saying the second two victims witnessed a shooting and heroically tried to disarm Kyle to prevent more deaths.

If the second two victims were cops trying to disarm Kyle would a self defense claim fly? Certainly not. But two civilians attempting to disarm him it's self defense? Why? Because they tried to attack him to disarm him? Are there certain rules of engagement for civilians trying to stop an active shooter? no

People defending Kyle as a hero are disgusting. The real heros are the people who put their life on the line trying to disarm Kyle.

For the second two victims it’s really tough. Here we have two people who were being heroic in their minds and this kid who thought he was fighting for his life. I see both angles as logical.

What we don’t know yet is what information the two victims had to justify attacking the shooter. Did they witness the first shooting and know it was a violent act and not self defense? What I found most interesting is the man who’s arm was shot HAD A GUN but chose not to use it .... why?

[deadheadskier]

Could simply be that he didn't have the guts or mindset to use it.

I'm sure there are lots of gun owners who simply can't pull the trigger when danger presents itself. Shooting someone is a very difficult decision to make.

[Highway Star]

I don't understand the most pushed narrative that the first shooting may not have been self defense, but the second two were.

If I'm the prosecutor I'm saying the second two victims witnessed a shooting and heroically tried to disarm Kyle to prevent more deaths.

If the second two victims were cops trying to disarm Kyle would a self defense claim fly? Certainly not. But two civilians attempting to disarm him it's self defense? Why? Because they tried to attack him to disarm him? Are there certain rules of engagement for civilians trying to stop an active shooter? no

People defending Kyle as a hero are disgusting. The real heros are the people who put their life on the line trying to disarm Kyle.

For the second two victims it’s really tough. Here we have two people who were being heroic in their minds and this kid who thought he was fighting for his life. I see both angles as logical.

What we don’t know yet is what information the two victims had to justify attacking the shooter. Did they witness the first shooting and know it was a violent act and not self defense? What I found most interesting is the man who’s arm was shot HAD A GUN but chose not to use it .... why?

This is a ridiculous narrative that disregards multiple facts:

>Rosenbaum repeatedly displayed threatening, dangerous, aggressive, and objectively insane behavior, as seen on multiple videos, was clearly a major or deadly threat
>Rosenbaum instigated the chase of Kyle directly before the shooting, by witness account and video
>Kyle shot at the last possible split second, after another shot was fired and Rosenbaum was on him
>The other man killed was either was friends with Rosenbaum or at least was seen with him while he was engaging in insane behavior.

This is mob violence by criminal psychopaths, plain and simple.

Here is some prelude at the gas station:

https://youtu.be/ts43EskooaA?t=182

Prelude with both of the shooting fatalities together:

https://youtu.be/pbsOIoqcit4?t=182

"Heroes"..............ok buddy, put down the bong.

[Killington_Lover]

Angry mob of violent rioters and marxists..

Good shoot

[Mister Moose]

You couldn't possibly look dumber than defending a civilian militia no matter what their age to defend property other than their own.

These asshats are not professionally trained in engagement of criminals or de-escalation of violence. No matter how good their intentions are of stopping scum looters, they are NOT the answer.

Um, what exactly do you think a militia is? They are the citizenry, not professionally trained. They are groups of people, by definition unrelated to each other and do not own collectively each others property. So yes, a militia will defend property other than their own.

When did I ever say we don't need cops?

And yes, I'm denouncing the clearly UNtrained 17 year old.

I don't support looters. They're committing a crime and should be arrested.

I also don't support civilian militias as the means to stop those crimes; especially 17 year olds.

Don't think all the facts are in yet, but we do know that:

Multiple cities have had ongoing nightly riots for weeks on end.
Multiple businesses have been looted, burned, destroyed.
Police have not intervened in these cases.

If you are a business owner, and your life's work is being destroyed, do you have the right to protect it?

For all those anti 2nd amendment types who in the past said you don't need a gun, the police are there for that, well welcome to 2020. The police are not there. In fact, the police are rarely there in any prior year, but you couldn't comprehend that. Now it is on in full color right in front of the nation.

So why with no police protection, would anyone object to groups of individuals protecting property?

Let's read the 2nd amendment again.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It doesn't say career ex law enforcement types. It doesn't say professional marksman. It doesn't even say license holder. It says the people. The regular folks. The amateurs.

How do you possibly know what training Rittenhouse had? How is that relevant to any legal charges?

DHS will probably argue about whether or not the shooter was well regulated or not. This actually has no bearing. What has bearing is the legitimacy of the shooting. I think this is for the courts, as a finder of fact in the legitimacy of the shooting. Where I do differ is the right of the shooter to be present protecting property (If in fact that's what he was doing) and then to defend himself. Defaming him because of his weight, age, open carrying, or other inconsequential prejudical parameters is just.... just.... just so DHS.

This incident, along with the others recently, brings the concept of a militia in lieu of an absent, impotent police department into present day clarity. It may bring relevance to a dusty 229 year old law. It may bring about a different public view on firearm ownership.

DHS, you need to reconsider the rights of property owners to defend their property (and in other cases their homes). With or without help from others. The tragedy of the situation does not change the reason those laws were written.

Also, for the Barney Fife one bullet or limited size magazine proponents, Rittenhouse had to defend himself 3 times in a short time span. Leaving aside what the evidence shows in court on how justified the shooting was, this shows how in the real world limiting ammunition to a 1 digit number is not an educated position.

[XtremeJibber2001]

I’d say Rittenhouse was trained well based on what I saw. However, he shouldn’t have been there.

[Killington_Lover]

Time for Marshall law. Go out past curfew and get ventilated. I can guarantee if local officials don’t get control of this situation then there will be an overwhelming vote for Trump, and a restoration of law and order. None of us hardworking Americans want to be harassed by mobs of violent socialist conformists

[Highway Star]

..................

[Highway Star]

Long and amazing read:

https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/The ... 5-2362796/

Tactical Analysis:



During the two Engagements Rittenhouse was presented with a series of "shoot/no-shoot" situations. While it is difficult to be certain about the number of shots fired by Rittenhouse in the first Engagement, as near as I can tell he fired his weapon only when cornered or on the verge of being in a close physical contest with assailants larger and apparently stronger than himself. If anything he seems to have been too hesitant to fire in the first encounter. Absent a headshot at extreme close/near contact range (a very low probability shot in intense CQB) Rittenhouse likely would have been overcome by prison-hardened and clearly aggressively disposed Short Bald Subject.


In the close in photos depicting the Second Engagement Rittenhouse can even be seen exhibiting proper trigger discipline when confronted by the "hand-up" fake surrendering Grosskreutz. Having fired on Grosskreutz it would have been a simple matter to finish the job with a second center-mass shot, particularly given that Grosskreutz was still carrying his handgun (had I personally been in such a situation and seen the handgun I likely would have fired at least a quick follow-up and perhaps until the threat was all the way down rather than hopping around with a firearm still in hand). Rittenhouse, however, declines to do so (perhaps he did not even see the handgun) and instead recovers to kneeling and then his feet and departs to the north. At least in the second engagement Rittenhouse's fire discipline is surprisingly controlled given the apparent stress of being pursued and battered by an angry mob.


Rittenhouse prevailed in at least four physical encounters, at least one if not two of which involved contests for control of his weapon by larger, presumably stronger assailants. Rittenhouse's use of a tactical sling would seem to have been of enormous help in permitting him to retain control of his weapon in the physical contest with Huber.
To the extent Rittenhouse made tactical mistakes the most obvious would seem to include:
1. Entering an (Kenosha) environment alone and without apparent support. While Rittenhouse may have been casually associated with some of the groups on the ground it seems to be the case that his association was struck up on his arrival, not a pre-existing one.
2. Allowing himself to become physically isolated and surrounded at the scene of Engagement 1. It is not clear what precipitated the initial conflict with Short Bald Subject, but in this Rittenhouse appears to have been rather unlucky to become entangled in a dispute with one of the more volatile individuals on the scene. This said, it should be entirely foreseeable that volatile individuals would be at the scene of a riot or civil unrest.
3. Failing to remain as situationally aware as possible, particularly to threats behind him, and permitting himself to be repeatedly overtaken from the rear in between Engagements 1 and 2. Prior to going to the ground at the beginning of Engagement 2, Rittenhouse allowed no less than three attacks from the rear which resulted in physical contact. Rittenhouse was lucky that none of these attacks disabled him or rendered him helpless in the face of the pursuing mob. The first battery to the back of Rittenhouse's head, in particular, had the potential to take Rittenhouse out of the fight for good. If, in fact, Huber and Short Bald Subject were associated, it isn't hard to imagine Rittenhouse would have come out badly on the wrong side of Engagement 2 if Huber was the vengeful type.

Legal Effect of Illegal Possession of Firearm on Rittenhouse's Self-Defense Arguments

A number of webytubeintermedia sources make much of Rittenhouse's apparent criminal conduct in bringing an illegally possessed weapon into Wisconsin and staying out past curfew. While criminal acts do have an effect on self-defence arguments in Wisconsin I do not believe they apply here. Specifically, Wisconsin statutes provide:
"A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defence against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defence, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant."
The only seeming effect of illegal action on the defence of excusable homicide is to strengthen the defendant's duty to retreat. Specifically until he or she: "reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant."
In this instance Rittenhouse's amazing restraint, while tactically dangerous, would seem to easily satisfy the additional exhaustion requirement that might be imposed by illegal activity by Rittenhouse.
In fact, among use of force cases I have had any detailed familiarity with, Rittenhouse's is one of the most clear cut in terms of "exhaustion" of alternatives short of the use of deadly force and restraint I have encountered.

Many resources (4chan/NSFW):

https://www.reddit.com/r/polresearch/co ... ttenhouse/

[Highway Star]

Punchline:

[Edit Aug 28:
Amusing aside:
Interview with McGinnis by Detective Cepress:
"McGinnis stated that he had handled many ARs and [Rittenhouse] was not handling the weapon very well."
Based on the videos I've seen Rittenhouse is one of the best weapons handlers under pressure I've ever seen. So much for McGinnis' credibility.]

[Highway Star]

........................

[Highway Star]

https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/The ... #i87443858

So I am accredited in WI to teach CCW and am embarrassed that I didn't know the answer to this, but after a deep dive, here is my best (professional, but NOT legal) opinion on possession of a long gun by someone who is under that age of 18 in Wisconsin:

WI Stat. 948.60 governs possession of a "dangerous weapon" by a person under 18 years of age. "Dangerous Weapon" is defined elsewhere in the statutes, and includes a rifle or shotgun.

Sec. 948.60(3)(c) indicates that the prohibition on possession of a dangerous weapon by those under 18 years of age does not apply unless they are in violation of the specific statutes:

1) Sec 941.28 is the prohibition on possession (by anyone) of a short barreled rifle or short barreled shotgun, UNLESS certain conditions apply, including compliance with NFA/GCA (i.e. if it is papered and tax-paid you're GTG). This exemption is how I am able to legally possess an SBR in WI.

2) Sec. 29.304 details possession by those who are under the age of 16 during hunting activities. It does not apply to persons aged 16-17.

3) 29.593 is a prohibition on hunting activities by those who have not completed a hunter safety class.

Because this, like use of deadly force, is a blanket prohibition, affirmative defense doctrine applies for criminal complaints. So even though it is included in the criminal complaint, Kyle's attorney must only show the following:

1) The rifle he possessed was not an unregistered short barreled rifle, 2) He was aged 16 years or older at the time of infraction, and 3) he was not engaged in hunting activities having not completed a hunter safety course.

Since WI does not currently have a hunting season for Communists, I can't possibly see how there is an infraction here.

Also, I'd like to point out that under IL law anyone over the age of 14 can possess a long gun ("not easily concealed" so I think it is safe to say no SBR/SBS as well as handguns) with a valid FOID card, which you can get at any age and it is highly likely Kyle had one. Given he was legal to possess in IL, and in WI, he could travel over state lines without running afoul the law. Also, there is no law that would preclude transfer of a rifle to Kyle in either IL or WI since he is legally able to possess either place.

I may seek clarification through my legislators from the Legislative Reference Bureau, but right now I can find no case law or statutory references to the contrary of what I've posted here.

Interesting how people on gun forums know more about guns than asshats on reddit or twitter. Huh.