Riots, looting, vandalism, etc.

[Meadmaker]

Open carry is an accomidation for self defense, though. Pretty sure that willfully violating a police curfew to declare yourself law enforcement is a standalone crime.

Scope of intent is a big issue here. If the prosecution shows that he had de facto declared himself a vigilante or provacateur as opposed to simply preparing to defending himself, his self defense claim is null.

That's beyond my legal knowledge. I can't recall any case where similar issues were involved.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I have spent no time whatsoever trying to justify police killings in general. You have clearly mistaken me for someone else.

"Justify" no.

"Talk about" yes.

Black guy shoots white cop, no discussion. No one peep about "Oh but what was the black guys' in mens rea that a reasonable jury might consider his intent..."

 

[angrysoba]

"Justify" no.

"Talk about" yes.

Black guy shoots white cop, no discussion. No one peep about "Oh but what was the black guys' in mens rea that a reasonable jury might consider his intent..."

I know, right. I am always upset about the amount of books people write about Hitler and Stalin. It must mean something bad about the authors, right?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I know, right. I am always upset about the amount of books people write about Hitler and Stalin. It must mean something bad about the authors, right?

If those books were all people taking the hypothetical role of their defense lawyer at the Hague and after writing 500 pages about all the check boxes we had to mark before we could call them guilty, ending with a meek, milquetoast "But I'm not saying they weren't still guilty!" then yeah.

 

[Thermal]

That's beyond my legal knowledge. I can't recall any case where similar issues were involved.

Beyond mine as well. If vigilantism is illegal, and violating police curfew is illegal, seems a short dot-connection to demonstrate that intent though.

 

[angrysoba]

If those books were all people taking the hypothetical role of their defense lawyer at the Hague and after writing 500 pages about all the check boxes we had to mark before we could call them guilty, ending with a meek, milquetoast "But I'm not saying they weren't still guilty!" then yeah.

Huh? I have not once played defence lawyer for cops who killed black people. You should really stop implying I have.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

"Justify" no.

"Talk about" yes.

Black guy shoots white cop, no discussion. No one peep about "Oh but what was the black guys' in mens rea that a reasonable jury might consider his intent..."

There are obviously fundamental, basic realities about what's going on when a citizen shoots a police officer vs. what's going on when a police officer shoots a citizen, which have a lot of explanatory power as to why these discussions tend to be different.

As a consequence of the very nature of the dynamic and the job police do, it is immediately made far more likely that they would have a legitimate basis for shooting someone they're attempting to arrest, and simultaneously far less likely that a citizen would have a legitimate basis to shoot the cops.

I don't understand how anyone could talk about, or expect others to talk about, these two scenarios as though they are remotely equivalent.

"I notice people seem to have a lot more understanding about a doctor cutting someone up with a knife than someone cutting a doctor up with a knife!"

 

[Suddenly]

Scope of intent is a big issue here. If the prosecution shows that he had de facto declared himself a vigilante or provacateur as opposed to simply preparing to defending himself, his self defense claim is null.

His claim to be defending himself is (absent felony murder where intent is irrelevant) always going to be an issue as to what grade of homicide this would be.

Whether it can be used as an affirmative defense is a creature of state law.

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.

(1)  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. 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.

There is some stuff about a duty to retreat in that it can not be considered during a home or car invasion. Which implies it can be considered in other contexts, like this one.

As to provocation:

(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
939.48(2)(a)(a) 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-defense against such attack...

(edited for brevity and to get to the point)

...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.

(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.

(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

(c) might open up a whole can of worms

 

[Andy_Ross]

Oh let's ask Breonna Taylor how that worked out for her.

Or how about Atatiana Jefferson, shot through her bedroom window by a cop in Texas

Police have released body cam footage of the incident, which shows an officer shooting within seconds of seeing her.

The clip shows police searching the perimeter of the residential property, before noticing a figure at the window. After demanding the person put their hands up, an officer then fired a shot through the glass.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50032290

 

[JoeMorgue]

Huh? I have not once played defence lawyer for cops who killed black people. You should really stop implying I have.

*Very slowly*

Then what purpose did the "Oh but what about his state of mind? Oh the jury is suuuuurly going to be interested in that" question serve?

Nobody cares what a jury is going to think about a black guy's state of mind when they kill a cop, and nobody brings it up. Ever.

Everytime a white person kills a black person, what the "jury" is going to think suddenly becomes super important yet never does when black people kill white people.

 

[Elagabalus]

Daily Mail is reporting that he opened fire on Federal officers with an assault style rifle. It was a firefight.

WP, without a link people here might get the impression that you are pulling our legs.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...iot-Prayer-supporter-claims-self-defense.html

Now, was it "really" an "assault rifle"?

Discuss.

ETA:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ack-Lives-Matter-supporters-Times-Square.html

Is a Ford Taurus really a "sedan"?

 

[Brainster]

It just wouldn't have been legal for him to do what he was claiming to have been doing in normal countries.

Like protecting private property? That may be the case, but they would still certainly have a trial, and he would presumably not rot in jail for life for that particular crime (although he might for the shootings).

 

[Brainster]

RIP Michael Forest Reinoehl. May his courage be an example to us all.

I join you in encouraging all Antifa to follow his example. Blaze of glory, man!

 

[Skeptic Tank]

I honestly cannot even begin to wrap my mind around the idea of anyone thinking Rittenhouse did anything remotely wrong. From everything I've seen and am aware of, he was being civic minded and trying to stand up to an incredibly destructive mob full of the worst people our society has to offer. Just look at what has come out about the handful he shot, and it's indicative.

The first guy he shot, it's just come out that he sexually molested 5 different boys ages 9-11 back in 2002. Including full on rape.

These antifa / BLM people are literally beating random strangers, burning people's businesses down, killing people (many bodies have actually been found in the burned down buildings and such), surrounding vehicles of innocent people and intimidating them / scaring them until they hit the gas, then using that as further justification to try to pull them out and kill them.

These are the forces of pure anarchy, and every single one of them should ---- experience a certain scenario.

Rittenhouse should walk. He should be given the key to the city.

 

[Meadmaker]

I honestly cannot even begin to wrap my mind around the idea of anyone thinking Rittenhouse did anything remotely wrong.

Perhaps if your mind were larger or more flexible it could wrap around a wider variety of subjects.

ETA: Whatever ought to happen to Antifa people, it ought not to happen at the hands of heavily armed 17 year olds.

 

[Suddenly]

WP, without a link people here might get the impression that you are pulling our legs.

Mentioning the Daily Mail did that.

I mean

Witnesses Chad Smith and Chase Cutler, who said they were just 150ft away from the gunman, told the Olympian they saw a man open fire and heard 40 or 50 shots from what they believe was a semi-automatic rifle before officers returned fire and shot him dead.

Haywood Jablome declined to make a statement, apparently.

The cops already specified a handgun, so 50 shots before returning fire? Good grief.

The Marshall's statement makes it sound like they shot a guy in a firefight, and the Sheriff sounds like they plugged a guy trying to run away and then found a gun on him.


Best case scenario they knew the guy had a gun and knew how it works. Their decision to arrest him in a way that gave him a sporting chance to open fire seems... iffy even if true.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I honestly cannot even begin to wrap my mind around the idea of anyone thinking Rittenhouse did anything remotely wrong.

Ya, but you also think racism is a virtue.

 

[Ziggurat]

IANAL, but my investiGoogling suggests that it was illegal for him to open carry a weapon in Wisconsin because he is a minor.

Do we agree on that bit?

Also, it seems that open-carrying in Illinois is illegal regardless of age.

Do we agree on that bit?

In which case, he was presumably concealed-carrying when he took it from his home in Illinois. Would that not also be illegal?

First, you aren't paying attention. His lawyer has said he got the rifle in-state. Nobody has provided evidence he brought the gun from home. I pointed this out in the post you responded to, and you just ignored it. Don't do that.

Second, I don't agree that it was illegal for him to open carry. I've seen both arguments made, for example:

Under Wisconsin statutes that say anyone under 18 who "goes armed" with any deadly weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, was not old enough to legally carry the assault-style rifle he had.

But John Monroe, a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases, believes an exception for rifles and shotguns, intended to allow people age 16 and 17 to hunt, could apply.​

So was it a crime for him to carry? I don't know, but I don't assume it was. If it was a crime, he will probably get convicted on that charge. If it wasn't, he probably won't be. I'm content to let the process play out on that front.

 

[Mumbles]

Oh let's ask Breonna Taylor how that worked out for her.

Or John Crawford III, Aiyana Stanley Jones, Philando Castille, Levar Jones...really "Obey instructions" just shows that one has no concern over the issue, and should not be taken as someone who cares whether or not black people are randomly murdered by the state.

 

[Thermal]

First, you aren't paying attention. His lawyer has said he got the rifle in-state. Nobody has provided evidence he brought the gun from home. I pointed this out in the post you responded to, and you just ignored it. Don't do that.

Second, I don't agree that it was illegal for him to open carry. I've seen both arguments made, for example:

Under Wisconsin statutes that say anyone under 18 who "goes armed" with any deadly weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, was not old enough to legally carry the assault-style rifle he had.

But John Monroe, a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases, believes an exception for rifles and shotguns, intended to allow people age 16 and 17 to hunt, could apply.​

So was it a crime for him to carry? I don't know, but I don't assume it was. If it was a crime, he will probably get convicted on that charge. If it wasn't, he probably won't be. I'm content to let the process play out on that front.

...I don't think this was the kind of hunting the law had in mind...