17 Year-old Blue Lives Matter Activist with AR 15 Charged With Murder After Two Killed at Protest

[Eric]

I’m not really a fan of vigilante justice. I hope justice is served in this case, but working to change the justice system long-term is a much better choice IMHO.

And I'm not really a fan of murdering protestors. As for the justice system, look at how little has changed with it in the last 100 years, this case and the Ahmaud Arbery are prefect examples of that. You call it vigilante justice, I call it justice. As long as these entitled white supremacists have no consequences they won't stop killing people.

 

[Herdfan]

The burden of proof is generally on the prosecution. HOWEVER, when the defense concedes that their client did in fact shoot people to death, now THEY have a burden of proof that it was self-defense.

Which is made so much easier to prove when the prosecution witness admits pointing a gun at him.

 

[SuperMatt]

Which is made so much easier to prove when the prosecution witness admits pointing a gun at him.

The one person who had a gun didn’t die of his injuries. He also pulled his gun AFTER Kyle already killed a man and he (and others) viewed Kyle as the aggressor in an active shooter situation. So, maybe Kyle won’t be convicted of shooting Grosskreutz. But what about the people he DID kill? They were NOT holding weapons. He shot 3 people, 2 fatally. Were all of 3 them mortal threats to him? That’s a pretty high bar to jump over for the defense, IMHO.

Did you intentionally leave out those other details? Shooting a person that survived is the least of Rittenhouse’s worries. If THAT shooting is justified, there are still the other 2 people to deal with, and if pulling a gun is the bar for returning fire, then he should be guilty of murder in the other 2 shootings.

 

[Renzatic]

He also pulled his gun AFTER Kyle already killed a man and he (and others) viewed Kyle as the aggressor in an active shooter situation.

This is a very important point here. He shot the first guy, and for reasons good or ill, fled the scene. As far as the group chasing him afterwards were concerned, he was running away after committing murder.

 

[yaxomoxay]

let’s say they ARE threatened by a single person. They only have a bazooka, so they fire it at the threatening person who’s in a crowd and end up killing a hundred people. Are they innocent of the 99 collateral deaths?

Certainly clear of 1st degree murder. As for negligent manslaughter or manslaughter for the 99 innocents, it’s very possible if the other 99 weren’t doing anything threatening.

They need to look at what happened leading up to the situation. If I keep poking a sleeping bear until it wakes up and instinctually claws at me, and then I shoot it... is the bear to blame? Clearly not.

With all due respect, many of those protesters including the individuals that got tragically shot weren’t sleeping. Even the prosecutor agreed that it was a night of chaos, following nights of chaos, that multiple weapons were present, and that the very first shot of the night wasn’t shot by idiot Rittenhouse.

I think Rittenhouse’s prior actions, bringing a gun to a street protest,

At that point he had the same rights of any other individual as the protest wasn’t sanctioned. From all legal perspectives they were all individuals walking on streets during a curfew. That is, unless mob rule determines who can defend himself and who can’t. .

running around from place to place with it, claiming that he’s wanting a chance to defend against the mob... I don’t think he can use self-defense here.

That’s not how self defense work, the same way that a naked woman that get raped can’t be blamed but has the right to defend herself. Unless he was a direct threat to someone, he has a right of self defense if his life is in danger.

The burden of proof is generally on the prosecution. HOWEVER, when the defense concedes that their client did in fact shoot people to death, now THEY have a burden of proof that it was self-defense.

Well, it goes both ways. The prosecutor will have to demonstrate intent or negligence. The defense will have to counter by demonstrating that the situation had reasonable resolution giving the circumstances.

 

[Renzatic]

Well, it goes both ways. The prosecutor will have to demonstrate intent or negligence. The defense will have to counter by demonstrating that the situation had reasonable resolution giving the circumstances.

By this point, it's fairly to safe to assume that he's not going to face any time for the first killing. From the videos we've seen, it looks like a clear cut case of self defense, and the prosecution hasn't made much of a case illustrating otherwise.

He may still be on the hook for manslaughter and assault charges for the 2nd killing and wounding. He killed someone, panicked, ran, a crowd followed, assuming he murdered someone, and the shit hit the fan. He's partially responsible for that.

 

[yaxomoxay]

But what about the people he DID kill? They were NOT holding weapons. He shot 3 people, 2 fatally. Were all of 3 them mortal threats to him? That’s a pretty high bar to jump over for the defense, IMHO.

That’s partially irrelevant. Mr Rittenhouse had a weapon, attacking someone and trying to disarm someone with a gun that is not a threat (important) might create a case in which lethal force might be necessary. If you’re walking with a gun, and a big dude attacks you with a punch and goes for your gun, you certainly have a right to shoot as the weapon can be used against you.

Did you intentionally leave out those other details? Shooting a person that survived is the least of Rittenhouse’s worries. If THAT shooting is justified, there are still the other 2 people to deal with, and if pulling a gun is the bar for returning fire, then he should be guilty of murder in the other 2 shootings.

No, pulling a gun is not the bar. The bar is a reasonable threat and someone stealing your gun is a reasonable threat.
Mr Rosenbaum followed mr Rittenhouse yelling “I’ll kill you” and apparently lounged for the gun. This after mr Rosenbaum said to Mr Rittenhouse “If I see you alone I’ll kill you”. In addition, a shot was fired when Mr Rittenhouse was running away.

As for the other two individuals that died, one had a blunt object. The other one attacked Mr Rittenhouse. When Mr Rittenhouse shot the other two individuals after he was tripped and while he was on the ground. It might be reasonable that he feared for his life. More importantly, when the individuals reached Mr Rittenhouse, he was running away from the crowd. This is admitted by witnesses and accepted by the prosecution. This is important because while it is possible that they wanted to catch Mr Rittenhouse, there is no right to attack someone after the threat is over and the individual is running away (a piece of info often missed by 2A fans). That is, if someone attacks you at home, once he starts running away, you can’t shoot them as the threat is now over.

 

[yaxomoxay]

By this point, it's fairly to safe to assume that he's not going to face any time for the first killing. From the videos we've seen, it looks like a clear cut case of self defense, and the prosecution hasn't made much of a case illustrating otherwise.

One witness that took pics just admitted that Mr Rosenbaum was angry and had to be held back by other crowd members.

He may still be on the hook for manslaughter and assault charges for the 2nd killing and wounding. He killed someone, panicked, ran, a crowd followed, assuming he murdered someone, and the shit hit the fan. He's partially responsible for that.

It’s possible. The saving grace for him might be that he was running away and wasn’t pointing the gun at anyone until he was made trip.

 

[SuperMatt]

Certainly clear of 1st degree murder. As for negligent manslaughter or manslaughter for the 99 innocents, it’s very possible if the other 99 weren’t doing anything threatening.

So much for a serious discussion.

 

[yaxomoxay]

So much for a serious discussion.

What do you mean?

 

[Renzatic]

This is important because while it is possible that they wanted to catch Mr Rittenhouse, there is no right to attack someone after the threat is over and the individual is running away (a piece of info often missed by 2A fans). That is, if someone attacks you at home, once he starts running away, you can’t shoot them as the threat is now over.

You could basically sum up the Rittenhouse case as "who has the greater right when everyone involved is in the wrong."

An idiot kid hopped up on power fantasies, shepherded by his mom, placed in the midst of a politically charged riot driven by a lot of very angry people choking on their own adrenaline. It was destined to end badly.

 

[yaxomoxay]

You could basically sum up the Rittenhouse case as "who has the greater right when everyone involved is in the wrong."

An idiot kid hopped up on power fantasies, shepherded by his mom, placed in the midst of a politically charged riot. It was destined to end badly.

I do agree with this. Total clusterfuck from the start, on so many angles, including police response and investigation. Now even the prosecution sucks badly.

 

[Renzatic]

What do you mean?

Let's face it. Someone armed with a bazooka firing into a crowd, killing 100 people? There's no way that would earn anything but a 2nd degree murder charge, even if he was threatened by one of the many.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Let's face it. Someone armed with a bazooka firing into a crowd, killing 100 people? There's no way that would earn anything but a 2nd degree murder charge, even if he was threatened by one of the many.

Ok I definitely give you that. Certainly not 1st degree. For 2nd degree it might depend on the “heat of the moment” factor (like 100 people storm your house one points a gun at you and you have about 0.05 seconds to react), but I wouldn’t won’t to be the defense lawyer in a case like that.

 

[Renzatic]

I do agree with this. Total clusterfuck from the start, on so many angles, including police response and investigation. Now even the prosecution sucks badly.

One thing I do find funny is that the people who think Rittenhouse was justified for shooting Grosskreutz and the other are also the same people who side with the McMichaels for shooting Ahmed Arbery.

I guess it all depends upon who's doing the shooting, and who's being shot.

 

[Renzatic]

Ok I definitely give you that. Certainly not 1st degree. For 2nd degree it might depend on the “heat of the moment” factor (like 100 people storm your house one points a gun at you and you have about 0.05 seconds to react), but I wouldn’t won’t to be the defense lawyer in a case like that.

It'd be a clear second degree charge. It wasn't premeditated, but hey, he had a bazooka, he knew what it was for, and how dangerous it was, and shooting it into a crowd to quell a single person would be an act of extreme recklessness.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Where the heck did they find this prosecutor? He’s now dismantling the case by the other prosecutor (Dinger?!?) and the witness is now claiming that the prosecutor is saying the wrong stuff! Jeez.

 

[Renzatic]

Where the heck did they find this prosecutor? He’s now dismantling the case by the other prosecutor (Dinger?!?) and the witness is now claiming that the prosecutor is saying the wrong stuff! Jeez.

Think it's possible the state could be sabotaging its own case?

 

[yaxomoxay]

One thing I do find funny is that the people who think Rittenhouse was justified for shooting Grosskreutz and the other are also the same people who side with the McMichaels for shooting Ahmed Arbery.

I guess it all depends upon who's doing the shooting, and who's being shot.

I might say that Rittenhouse was legally right in shooting, as for Arbery no way. To me that’s a case of murder and I do hope they get the maximum penalty because of their premeditated roadblock.

Problem is that two different cases are clustered together for political reasons.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Think it's possible the state could be sabotaging its own case?

At this point they are just trying to not end up unemployed!!!