A possible lesson from the Rittenhouse trial I've not seen discussed

Madcap_Magician said:

Did you review the evidence of how he got there? He was alone in the middle of a riot because he had gotten separated from his companions and was trying to find his way back to a safer place. The argument about carrying a loaded firearm meaning he was 'looking for trouble' won't fly on this forum, I think, which is of course full of people carrying loaded firearms, to my knowledge none of whom are looking for trouble.

If he was looking to shoot people engaged in criminal activity, or to pick a fight, why were the only people he shot the ones who were incontrovertibly attacking him?

Click to expand...

I just read up on Wisconsin trial law and I found out that what won't fly on an internet forum is inadmissable evidence. Be it a gun forum or facebook or whatever.

Madcap_Magician said:

And this is my entire problem with the defense. The narrative you're sharing is the prosecutor's story, and the defense has been entirely ineffective in countering it.

Rittenhouse states that he was there to try and help. Was that naive? Yes. Did that reflect a good assessment of the risks vs. benefits of him going? No.

But there's still zero evidence that he was 'looking for trouble' that doesn't come from an evidence-free prejudice that the prosecution is actively trying to stoke - because they have no actual evidence.

Click to expand...

What would evidence Rittenhouse was "looking for trouble" look like to you? To me it's deciding to go to the riot, bringing your AR, lying your ass off about your qualifications as a medic and not having any connections to any of the property or owners he said he was there to protect. And then shooting people. That's not to mention previous statements he made that were ruled inadmissable.

Boattale said:

I just read up on Wisconsin trial law and I found out that what won't fly on an internet forum is inadmissable evidence. Be it a gun forum or facebook or whatever.

Click to expand...

Did you find somewhere in Wisconsin trial law where lawfully carrying a weapon in a place you have the legal right to be constitutes "looking for trouble"?

Boattale said:

What would evidence Rittenhouse was "looking for trouble" look like to you? To me it's deciding to go to the riot, bringing your AR, lying your ass off about your qualifications as a medic and not having any connections to any of the property or owners he said he was there to protect. And then shooting people. That's not to mention previous statements he made that were ruled inadmissable.

Click to expand...

"Looking for trouble" would look like instigating fights, taunting or threatening other people present, or breaking the law - which incidentally is what all four of the people Rittenhouse shot or shot at had just spent several evenings doing. Going to the riot, bringing an AR-15, lying about your medical training all constitutes foolishness, none of which strips you of the right to defend yourself from an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm or constitutes a valid reason to physically assault a person.

Rittenhouse would have saved himself from his current predicament by the simple expedient of avoidance of stupid people, places and things.

Hangingrock said:

Rittenhouse would have saved himself from his current predicament by the simple expedient of avoidance of stupid people, places and things.

Click to expand...

That is 100% true. I think the only person who regrets that more than him is probably his mother.

Rittenhouse was at time I’d the incidents an immature boy. Confused between being a medic and a guardian. He did everything wrong. Not because he was evil. But because he wanted to make sn impression on people. His social media posts show that. He wanted be. Looked up to. He lied about his EMT credentials during the incident because he wanted to impress people. He slung an AR 15 across his chest because he wanted to impress people. He put fires out and gave first aid treatment because he wanted to impress people. He had no training in self defense or firearms. He dove headfirst into a cesspool with no mask or snorkel. He is not evil. He was just emotionally a 17 year who wanted to,I’m-tress people. I knew a youngster like him—me. At 17 I wanted recognition. I joined the Marines where I,learned not to be stupid.

Some people here don't seem to understand that being a dumb kid is not necessarily the same as being a criminal....

bdickens said:

Some people here don't seem to understand that being a dumb kid is not necessarily the same as being a criminal....

Click to expand...

... or being a hero.

upptick said:

Circumstantial evidence is often more compelling and convincing than direct testimony because it reveals state-of-mind or otherwise substantiates physical facts, like footprints in the snow providing compelling (circumstantial) evidence that someone likely had recently walked exactly where the footprints were left. The fact that Rittenhouse voluntarily appeared in the middle of a riot carrying an AR is powerful circumstantial evidence that he was indeed looking for trouble since it reflects a state of mind indicating that he wanted to be prepared for using lethal force and therefore was carrying a loaded firearm. A jury could easily infer from that that he was "looking for trouble," particularly since he had no compelling personal reason for being there in the first place and went way out of his way to arrange for it. In other words, and this part is beyond dispute, the trouble did not come to Rittenhouse per se -- instead, he literally physically transported himself to the trouble itself. If that's not "looking for trouble," what is?

Click to expand...

He wasn't the only one there with an AR, but he was the only one to get into a situation with the convicted pedophile who just got released from a mental institution hours earlier that day. So according to your assessment, if anyone would have gotten into any situation where they needed to defend themselves, it would all be their fault cause they were there?

Seems easy to me to conclude the convicted pedophile who was raising hell the entire night as captured on video and supported by the reporter's testimony that Rosenbaum had more to do with the chain reaction of events than KR's actions that night.

This case should be looked at for what it really was. An irrate POS convicted pedophile acting like an anarchist, just happen to mess with the wrong person that night... and that person even tried to run away from the situation. What is a convicted felon pedophile who just got released from a mental institution doing there? Does he get a pass because he is older than 17? Seems to me he was the one looking for trouble and found it. You have to look at each moment of the entire situation rather than just summarize that he is a stupid kid who shouldn't have been there in the first place and stupid should hurt.

I so enjoy the fractious infighting found on gun and hunting forums and long for the day when an event such as the news of the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor meant all able bodied men enlisted in the armed service.

Superman capes are being sent out to all willing participants.

Like nearly all rolling bot accounts I could find very little information of the interwebs about "@viv___________ PDX Shield Artisan"

In the Rittenhouse legal thread another user said it best:

lsudave said:

The overall intent was clearly to create as much unrest and tension as possible for the entire community... if you chose to leave the house at all, you may well run into conflicts.

Click to expand...

Cities in the United States seem to be at times to be turning into Kiev during the coup. Kenosha has returned to normal but how quickly everyone forgets. I am of the opinion it's simple. The right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed and the right to use deadly force when the circumstance require it in the defense of life, and/or property where and when allowed.

The purpose of property insurance was to protect against unexpected accidental losses, not green light it's very destruction because it is insured. In this time of covert societal upheaval ppl need to understand there are enemy forces out there far ahead of the curve and they use your values and morals and judgement of others against you as their weapon.

armydog said:

So according to your assessment, if anyone would have gotten into any situation where they needed to defend themselves, it would all be their fault cause they were there?

Click to expand...

You're making a straw man argument. This case is decidedly NOT about "anyone needing to defend themselves." It's about one particular person who went way out of his way to place himself in the middle of a riot and who ended up killing some strangers who likely would not have been killed had the teenager with the AR not been on a lark. Obviously, the jury and the public (but apparently not some folks on a gun forum) would view this case very differently if Rittenhouse had been defending his family's home or business. But that's not what happened.

upptick said:

You're making a straw man argument. This case is decidedly NOT about "anyone needing to defend themselves." It's about one particular person who went way out of his way to place himself in the middle of a riot and who ended up killing some strangers who likely would not have been killed had the teenager with the AR not been on a lark. Obviously, the jury (and the public but apparently not some folks on a gun forum) would view this case very differently if Rittenhouse had been defending his family's home or business. But that's not what happened.

Click to expand...

I wonder...

If one of the take aways from all this is that we see less armed "militias" out during protests in the future.

I mean, even if Rittenhouse is found not guilty, he has put himself at great risk and has accumulated significant legal fees. I wonder if that fact alone will quench the fire in the hearts of like minded individuals.

upptick said:

You're making a straw man argument. This case is decidedly NOT about "anyone needing to defend themselves." It's about one particular person who went way out of his way to place himself in the middle of a riot and who ended up killing some strangers who likely would not have been killed had the teenager with the AR not been on a lark. Obviously, the jury and the public (but apparently not some folks on a gun forum) would view this case very differently if Rittenhouse had been defending his family's home or business. But that's not what happened.

Click to expand...

I think your making this out to be a case where someone forfeits their right to self defense cause you don't agree with why they were there. lol

toivo said:

... or being a hero.

Click to expand...

One less repeat child molester, one less wife beater, and one less violent career criminal on the street.

I'd buy him a beer.

Elkins45 said:

What are the lessons to be learned?

Click to expand...

Well, that's an interesting question since you've phrased it to a forum of people who concerned with the legal owning/carrying of firearms (and their legal and moral use as weapons of self defense) by using the actions of a criminal and his criminal use of a firearm.

If there's a lesson to be learned just from that, it's to avoid making stupid life decisions which lead you down the path to burglary, drunk driving, domestic violence, prowling, and who knows how many juvenile arrests.

It's difficult to come up with other "lessons to be learned" which are applicable to otherwise intelligent, moral, and law abiding citizens simply because Gaige Grosskreutz is anything BUT that.

Certainly, we can say things like "don't chase after violent people after they've turned and run away" or "don't assume you know everything about a given violent scenario". But such analogies don't apply here between people like Grosskreutz and us. This is because Grosskreutz does not follow the moral and law abiding life that people like us do. He was actively seeking to commit violent, criminal acts...he was NOT trying to be a "good guy" by going after an "active shooter". His testimony made that abundantly clear.

If Mr. Grosskreutz happened to shoot someone he thought was an active shooter wouldn't he then become an active shooter himself. Since when does participating in a riot and carrying concealed without a permit give one the authority to shoot an "active shooter". Unless of course you were being threatened by someone who just chased you down and pointed a gun at you from a few feet away. There are probably more "active shooters" than fleas on a dogs back during some riots. That was about as lame of a reason for approaching a guy with an AR in a riot as I've ever heard.

Elkins45 said:

What about someone who thought they were stopping a mass shooting in a shopping mall? You’re sort of hitting around the edges of why I asked the initial question: to what extent does “I thought I was preventing more violence” become a valid argument for why you shot someone?

Click to expand...

I'm just addressing this trial, the participants, and their actions. In your scenario you may be a hero and not even prosecuted for your actions. That also might be the situation if you were protecting your family during a riot. I just don't know and it probably depends a lot on state statute, stand your ground, no duty to retreat language, etc.

armydog said:

I think your making this out to be a case where someone forfeits their right to self defense cause you don't agree with why they were there. lol

Click to expand...

The kid definitely has a right to self defense, but he also definitely shouldn't have been there. I would bet that he would stay home if he could do it over again.

upptick said:

You're making a straw man argument.

Click to expand...

You're gaslighting, ad infinitum, you've made your point and we disagree about the drapes on the titanic. I enjoyed reading your comment about going all (Taken - film) or capture the flag style in a sanctioned rescue mission while the city burns Call of Duty style. And while your argument was compelling it does not fit with the facts of this case as you've presented in your scenario. WE do understand what you'd do and the parameters of why you'd do it, if the personal need arose.

Rittenhouse didn't go "way out of his way" he lived there. Rittenhouse wasn't defending the "family's home or business". He didn't kill "some strangers" he was forced to defend himself from those attacking him using deadly force, two died, one was injured. People should not feel they need to be cowed, shelter in place, or submit to marauding international bands of criminals. You see in this country citizens have the simple right to keep and bare arms, they also have the right to use deadly force when they feel that their life is threatened with loss of life or great bodily injury.
The focus should truly be on the witch hunt and complete lack of leadership exercised by the Antaramian family. The buck stops at the top of this garbage heap. Oddly I doubt the DOJ or FBI will bring their considerable investigative skills to bare.

We see KPD Detective Antaramian in court every day, who is he? A quick search reveals "Lead Detective In Rittenhouse Case Has Family Ties To Five Democrat Politicians Including Mayor Of Kenosha, His Uncle" Was this failure in leadership the responsibility of Kenosha Mayor John Antaramian? He is the chief executive of the city, including the Kenosha police department. What about the mayor’s cousin, Kenosha City Attorney, Ed Antaramian? Lead Detective Antaramian is the detective who opted not to record Kenosha PD’s interview with armed rioter Gaige Grosskreutz, the only witness or person of interest where this was done. Kenosha police also opted not to execute a search warrant they had obtained in order to seize Grosskreutz’s phone. Detective Antaramian tried to link Kyle Rittenhouse to the “Kenosha Guard” group, a loose collection of Kenosha citizens who organized to defend businesses during the riots. A completely fabricated and fictious media ploy.

So much stinks about how this situation developed, who the real power brokers and shape-shifters were behind it, the true facts in light of a runaway international media.

Simple fact of the matter is as I stated in another thread Kyle Rittenhouse was the unpredictable, and uncontrollable "wildcard" a law abiding US citizen exercising his 2nd amendment right to keep and bare arms as allowed by Wisconsin law, and he exercised his right of self defense, to use deadly force as need in defense of his own life. Everything else is arguing about the drapes on the titanic. And that ship has sailed.

He also had every legal right to be there unless you can point me to the law that states he had no right to be there?
Come hell or high water I applaud young men and women willing to rise to the task legally, and damn the torpedos.

If I was a Juror, I would find Kyle not guilty as I believe he acted in self defense.
That being said, I still think he's naive and a moron for putting himself into that situation.


RE pointing a gun at another armed individual. Pretty sure it was Missouri where a kid (20 something) played dress up with tactical vest, armor, and a rifle + decided to film other's reactions in a Walmart. A volunteer fireman / CCW holder held the kid at gunpoint till the police arrived arrived and arrested the kid.
https://www.npr.org/2019/08/09/7497...ed-after-causing-panic-at-walmart-in-missouri

I'm not sure what I'd have done in that Walmart situation.

NOT GUILT ALL CHARGES

Fantastic
The right to keep and bear arms
The right to defend oneself
The right to move freely
Fantastic

drobs said:

If I was a Juror, I would find Kyle not guilty as I believe he acted in self defense.
That being said, I still think he's naive and a moron for putting himself into that situation.


RE pointing a gun at another armed individual. Pretty sure it was Missouri where a kid (20 something) played dress up with tactical vest, armor, and a rifle + decided to film other's reactions in a Walmart. A volunteer fireman / CCW holder held the kid at gunpoint till the police arrived arrived and arrested the kid.
https://www.npr.org/2019/08/09/7497...ed-after-causing-panic-at-walmart-in-missouri

I'm not sure what I'd have done in that Walmart situation.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and after that incident Walmart requested (although did not mandate AFAIK) customers not to open carry in their stores.