The Kenosha shooter's self defense argument and mass shooters

[Yavin4]

So, I've read quite a few posts saying that the 17 year old will get off on self defense. Thinking about it further, if that's true, then couldn't a mass shooter claim the same defense.

Hey, the shooter walked into a school with a gun, and when people tried to take it from him, he fired to protect myself. The Kenosha shooter shot randomly into the crowd.

The Zimmerman self defense argument is a sign of a society lacking civilization.

[BKDem]

1. Zimmerman and the Kenosha shooter were hunting human beings, just like school shooters

To say they were defending themselves is an abomination.

[Amishman]

37. Zimmerman is the best parallel for this

The question will be were those confronted and/or attempting to disarming attackers or were they justified in doing so?

Reposting this from another discussion, it is inaccurate to say the little bastard fired randomly into a crowd. He fired only at individuals who were confronting him, and at very close distance.

He fired seven shots (there are other gunshots on the videos that aren't his).

Four were at his first victim at extremely close range. The first victim had been chasing him and had tried throwing something at him. Not random.

There is a gap of the second pursuit

The fifth shot was at the man who was leaping to disarm him. He missed.

The sixth was at the skateboarder who was also attempting to disarm him. He fatally shot this victim in the chest.

The seventh shot was at a man who as also attempting to stop him. He took off a significant part of the man's arm.

There will be a ton of debate on if these were self defense, or if his presence there even allows a self defense argument - but the shots were not random.

We are headed towards a Martin / Zimmerman esque mess over who is the aggressor, who is allowed to use lethal force, and when. This is going to be extremely ugly and muddled.

[BKDem]

38. Thank you for your analysis.

It gives me a more nuanced take on this. But I continue to think he was there (possibly even recruited to be there) as a vigilante. He wasn’t minding his own business, he was looking for trouble. I don’t think the self defense argument applies by any stretch.

[Amishman]

43. I agree that the situation is as you described

The problem is even then the law might end up shielding him, as it did Zimmerman. The law doesn't make distinctions for a situation like this. WI law even allows for someone who is committing or has just committed a crime to claim self defense in some situations. (statute 939.48(2))).

[drmeow]

47. This is the most depressing thing

I've read in a long time and highlights just how fucked up this country is!

[Kaleva]

2. It's legal to open carry on the streets of Kenosha but illegal to do so in a school.

[dsc]

3. It was not legal for that kid to have that gun

he wasn't 18. I am tired of people justifying this lawbreaking white thug. If he were black no one would be defending him.

[GusBob]

5. Yep he was a criminal involved in an illegal act

Can armed criminals now claim self defense if anyone tries to stop them

[Kaleva]

7. There is some debate about that

"Law in question is this

948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c)

Sounds straight forward? Yup. If this is all there was it would be open and shut an inarguable weapons violation and undermine the rest of his case.

The problem is it isn't that simple, there is a caveat to the law:

This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.


This three referenced laws do not apply here, so section 948.60 probably won't apply to the killer

941.28 is 'Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.'
29.304  Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.
29.593  Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval."

https://democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=13986378

[yardwork]

11. If he were black, the police would have shot him.

This whole thing is sickening. I've never been more ashamed to be a U.S. citizen. The country is rotten.

[Yavin4]

4. That point is moot.

Go to the :25 second mark of the video below, and tell me how would the protestors on the street know that this is an "honest" citizen or a mass shooter? At that point, they do not know. They cannot know. They see a person with a gun on the ground waving it around, pointing, and firing.

He's not simply carrying a gun. He's waving it around at unarmed people.

[Kaleva]

9. You left out the part where he's being chased on the street and not pointing or firing the gun at

[Mister Ed]

16. Being chased AFTER he was seen shooting and killing first victim. n/t

[Kaleva]

18. See post 12

One needs to find out if the protester chasing Rittenhouse had a legal pistol.

[Mister Ed]

19. Important but a separate matter.

As Post 12 says, what caused the first killing will be key.

[Kaleva]

21. I agree.

[Yavin4]

22. How are the protestors on the street supposed to know in real time that his first shooting...

was "justified"? All you know is that this person is running down the street with an automatic weapon waving it around and firing. To them, they were trying to subdue a mass shooter.

If this kid gets off on self defense, then most mass shooters should be released as well.

[Dr. Strange]

40. In that case...

How are the protestors on the street supposed to know in real time that his first shooting was "justified"? All you know is that this person is running down the street with an automatic weapon waving it around and firing. To them, they were trying to subdue a mass shooter.

If you don't know, then get the fuck away, call 911, and let the police deal with it. Don't play George Zimmerman and act like you need to take the law into your own hands.

[Mister Ed]

45. That's where the "good guy with a gun" cliche is shown to be utter bullshit.

There's little room for doubt that the wounded man with the pistol believed he was the good guy with a gun trying to stop the bad guy with a gun. He was chasing an active shooter, and would have had every reason to believe the shooter would kill more people if he weren't stopped quickly.

So, when two people are pointing guns at each other, which one is the good guy with the gun and which is the bad guy with the gun? I would say the good guy is probably the one who hasn't killed anyone yet. But what I feel quite certain of is this:

The cliche that states, "It takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun" is bullshit.

Bullshit.

Bullshit.

[sl8]

26. And before, according to a witness.

The witness quoted in the criminal complaint said that Rosenbaum (victim 1), chased and struggled with Rittenhouse beore he was shot.

I 've seen videos that claim to show Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse, but it wasn't clear to me, at least after a casual viewing. Maybe a more careful viewing would reveal something.

[Mister Ed]

44. Yes. There is video footage showing him being chased before firing his first shots.

What's unknown to almost anyone is what gave rise to that first chase, and that will probably be pivotal in the trial. I saw video posted on DU last Tuesday or Wednesday that showed Rittenhouse being chased across the used-car lot, and an object - possibly a beverage bottle in a plastic bag - being thrown in his direction.

That video also appeared to me to show that Rosenbaum was not near Rittenhouse when he was shot, and was not headed toward Rittenhouse - as further evidenced by the fact that the bullet entered the right side of his skull.

I've searched and searched for that eleven-minute video compilation in the past few days in order to bolster my recollections, but I haven't found it. I think the subject line included the words "you decide". I'm wondering if the post may have been deleted because it also included a horrific view of Rosenbaum's head wound as onlookers struggled desperately to provide first aid.

These details will come out in court. What will not be settled in the trial is the larger question of whether a self-defense argument is nullified in cases such as we've seen in recent years where a person arms himself and then goes out looking for someone to pick a fight with, knowing that once the fight escalates he's free to kill. On the surface, that appears to have been Rittenhouse's M.O.

[GusBob]

6. Open carry may be legal

Pointing and discharging a weapon is a different story

[Kaleva]

8. So if a guy walks into a school armed, you wait till he points and shoots at someone?

[GusBob]

10. No

Guns arent allowed in schools

[Kaleva]

13. Michigan laws are quirky. I can open carry in a school.

"Prohibited Premises
Individuals licensed to carry a concealed pistol by Michigan or another state are prohibited from carrying a concealed pistol or a portable device that uses electro-muscular disruption technology on the following premises:

Please refer to MCL 28.425o for the complete statutory text

Schools or school property but may carry while in a vehicle on school property while dropping off or picking up if a parent or legal guardian....


A pistol is subject to immediate seizure if the CPL holder is carrying a pistol in a prohibited area. The pistol is only subject to seizure if the holder is carrying it concealed, except in casinos. In a casino the pistol is subject to seizure whether carried concealed or exposed."

https://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,4643,7-123-1878_1591_3503_4654-10947--,00.html

I have no desire or intention to ever do so. I don't carry my gun, open or concealed, off of my property unless going to and from a shooting range.

[GusBob]

14. Thats nice Eom

[Hoyt]

12. Had Smerconish CNN on. They had a reporter from NYT (I think) who has spent days

analyzing film.

It does show the person Rittenhouse shot in the arm carrying a pistol. Also, protesters chasing him. I'm not sure what caused the first shooting, and that will be key.

Personally, I'd lock the little police wannabe, white wing militia Prick up just because he showed up at protest with a rifle, wears his cap backwards, and is clearly a POS. But the trial will be interesting.


?strip=all&quality=100&w=1200&h=800&crop=1


One thing for sure, it's time to outlaw gunz at protests.

[Kaleva]

17. A protester armed with a pistol will make this trial a toss up.

Your post deserves its own OP.

[Hoyt]

20. I think it will depend on what happened in first shooting. Anything after that, could be viewed as

protesters trying to stop a murderer. Or, if the Prick was "attacked" first -- and then shot that attacker -- I think the Prick might get off for the shooting part. Now, showing up at a protest, armed, parading around, etc., ought to be crime in itself.

For some reason, I have missed what happened to the first person killed. The other person was trying to stop the armed militia Prick with his skateboard, or the defense will try to make it appear he was attacking the armed loser.

Somebody needs to stop this junk before it gets worse.

[Yavin4]

23. How are the protestors on the street supposed to know what happened in the prior shooting?

To them, he may have been another protestor that got out of control and they were trying to stop him.

You cannot claim self defense when you went into a hostile situation with an assault weapon in a state that's not even your own.

People who want to argue self defense here are arguing for total anarchy. You're giving license to people to agitate a reaction, and then claim self defense.

If this holds true, then everyone should just get assault weapons and be prepared to defend yourself at all times.

[Polybius]

36. Why would they chase a crazy guy with an assault rifle anyway?

It's insanely brave, true. But why? The risks were sky high.

[Hoyt]

39. Look, I don't like Rittenhouse. But, if the first protester attacked Rittenhouse, that could be

a justifiable shooting. I don't know enough about that first shooting to say.

But, if the Prick was attacked and supposedly fired in "self-defense," then ran, his defense team will claim he thought he was being attacked similarly by others, including the guy with a pistol. On the other hand, if Rittenhouse just shot the first guy for no reason other than he could, it would be hard to claim self-defense in the other shootings.

Again, I think carrying a gun to a protest ought to be outlawed immediately. I also think Rittenhouse went looking/hoping for trouble.

[Polybius]

35. Wow, please make this an OP

Most of us had no idea he was armed.

[Hoyt]

41. That was the point Smerconish kept making -- People ought to stop jumping to conclusions before

evidence is in.

I'm certainly not convinced it's self-defense, but I can see how the defense team can make a case. On the other hand, Rittenhouse went looking for trouble, setting this all in motion.

[Eugene]

15. This defense worked in the 1979 Greensboro massacre.

Armed Neo Nazis and Klansmen charged into a "Death to the Klan" march and killed 5 people. They were acquitted while authorities blamed both sides.

Wisconsin's self-defense laws may work differently, but the state, at minimum, will need to prove the Rittenhouse was the aggressor, not just a "fine" person exercising his 2nd Amendment rights.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro_massacre

[louis-t]

24. Remember, when police say "they were out after curfew so they deserved it."

So was Rittenhouse.

[tenderfoot]

25. It figures that some here insist on defending that asshole....

so fucking typical.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

27. The usuals.

[Happy Hoosier]

28. So basically, the argument is...

That if someone arms themselves and places themselves in a situation where a confrontation is likely, then it’s perfectly okay to just fire away in “self-defense.” So this is Alex Jones’ plan to kill protestors in a “defensive way.”

Fuck that.

[Yavin4]

29. Not just protestors. ANY potential hostile environment ANY WHERE.

A non-White, poor neighborhood. A church. Any place where they may be some resistance to you carrying a gun.

[Hoyt]

42. Personally, if someone shows up at a protest armed, they ought to be locked up because they

are looking for trouble, inciting trouble, and will likely find it. Unfortunately, I doubt that's what his trial will hinge on.

[Progressive Jones]

30. Outside Agitator. nt

[ProfessorGAC]

31. A Weak Defense

The best self-defense, in this case, was for this punk TO STAY HOME!
He went looking for trouble with a long gun!
None of this happens if he keeps his dumbass home!

[rockfordfile]

32. There's no self-defense a jury would easily find the pos guilty

Lets talk about the guy would gave his life trying to stop him. He only had a skateboard against a pos a gun. I consider what that right-wing terrorist had a assault weapon. They're using them like terrorist overseas use a AK-47.

[LizBeth]

33. I did a post on Fb about that. Mass shooting mostly by white men, someone rushes to take the gun

and they die doing it, the shooter is really the good guy defending self. Or... 911 plane that went down. Passengers rushing to take him down kills them and really, he was just protecting himself.

[llashram]

34. true, yet

our society is far from civilized nor has it really ever been under a thin veneer of democratic civility. And a society that can continually deny a large minority of its citizens equality and justice under its for entitled whites-only law and continually over 400 hundred years hang, burn alive, shoot men, women and children of colour is far from civilized. Tamir Rice, an 11-year-old shot by police while playing in a park is far from civilized. And let's move on to the First-American nations and their genocide. America HAS NEVER been civilized.

This 17-year-old will walk with maybe a slap on the wrist with his Zimmerman defence. Hell RW evangelicals and RW radio, crowdfunding groups got his defence costs covered. He is now one of their most important cause ce'le'bre'. Trump is probably going to have him visit his incarceration hole when he is found not guilty.

[Takket]

46. self-defense is a crock of shit.......

you can't insert yourself fully armed into a situation where another person could expect or feel threatened by your presence then claim "self-defense"

for self-defense you need to be essentially "minding your own business" before someone becomes a threat to you.

to use an extreme example, don't walk fully armed into an al qaeda training camp yelling "allah sucks!" and expect to claim self defense when they come out and try to shoot you.