A tactical and legal analysis of the Kenosha shootings

a reply to: dragonridr
No, evidence patently says otherwise. He MAY end up with a weapons misdemeanor and that's IT.
You clearly are not bothering to view a damn thing from any legal perspectives yourself and are running on your feelz. Your feelz don't make the laws. If this is how you're going to debate, you're not worth debating with in the first place.

originally posted by: SecretKnowledge
Would everyone here feel the same way if the kid was black?

Shooting four people

What if the kid was black, theres no way he would get the same treatment as this white kid.

And theres the problem

You're damn right I'd feel the same way if he'd been black. Clearly provable self defense is clearly provable self defense. Only a racist jackass would fathom suggesting it's a race privilege to protect ones own life. Enough, GTFOOH.

a reply to: game over man
I really would have thought a white supremacist out there looking to stack up bodies would've shot more than 3 that were attacking him and his victims wouldn't be white.

originally posted by: DeadlyStaringFrog
a reply to: game over man
I really would have thought a white supremacist out there looking to stack up bodies would've shot more than 3 that were attacking him and his victims wouldn't be white.

That's disgusting bro

We don't want that, sometimes these people don't kill so many people.

a reply to: Nyiah

You're damn right I'd feel the same way if he'd been black. Clearly provable self defense is clearly provable self defense. Only a racist jackass would fathom suggesting it's a race privilege to protect ones own life. Enough, GTFOOH.

Im not suggesting anything.
Not only am i not a racist, i was merely posing the question. People do pose questions without an agenda behind them.
You could have left your reply after your first couple of sentences.
The treatment of the kid i was talking about was through the media and justice system. There would absolute carnage/outrage if the shooter was a black kid.
If you see me as a racist for posing that, then that says more about you than me

It's funny how you can tell who read the whole thing every word and who didn't. It's also ironic how we besmirch the kid having a AR15 on scene but the guy now missing a chunk of his arm had a semi automatic Glock. The words of one of the other "protesters" pretty much said the first victim was trying to get the AR15 away from him after chasing him down, he leaned in while grabbing the gun and thats when he got shot. Everything after that is he has this mob after him,it was totally self defense if they would have just followed him he was going towards the cops and they could have got them to arrest him easily enough.

What I don't get is when the police were so far away I could be wrong but it was like they set up a line and just let the protester's got to town. Have seen that tactic before.

originally posted by: KansasGirl

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: game over man
What a waste of time to write all that and the victim shaming is disgusting. It's a mass shooting. Just like all the other white supremacists teenagers who have killed innocent people.

Unless someone isn't involved in these LARP battles at all and just an innocent bystander, I'm going to be hard pressed to call victim shaming.

Anyone involved knows what's going on and whats at stake when you go down to these events. Is it your right? Sure, but personal responsibility comes along with rights. I'm not going to these sh** shows specifically because I don't want to get caught between people who can't control their emotions.

I'm questioning the parents of this kid more than the kid himself. Something tells me they must have been egging on some behavior for him to show up to riots protests with a loaded AR15. Whoever allows or supports their kid doing that is pretty messed up.

The parents may not have known. It is entirely possible they had no idea what he was getting up to.

Possibly.... But I doubt he could get all geared up and out of the house without them knowing.

a reply to: dragonridr

Since the article presents arguments for why his actions are not the root cause of the deaths and he went out of his way to satisfy the legal requirements for a self defense claim, would you care to present something to back up your position?

Something other than “well if he hadn’t been there it wouldn’t have happened,” I mean.

a reply to: Shamrock6

But the “not been there” has merit, especially considering several of these federal laws that were violated.

C. Is the big one to really consider.

Now if he was at the store, grabbed a rifle and decided to defend or had been ordered to the store by his employer to defend it...then he might get a pass. But C is tough one, especially considering the outcome.

You cannot claim self-defense by inserting yourself into a situation that has a reasonable expectation for violence. Intercepting a rioting mob...you can expect violence. Or as later explained on that link, simply holding a gun while doing other things without brandishing or discharging.

Ultimately it is a court decision. Best we can do is speculate. And while the difference of a few months or weeks or whatever between 17 and 18 sounds arbitrary it can really complicate the prosecution if he is tried as an adult...because that 17 doesn’t matter anymore and underaged charges don’t matter...he can self-defense 100%. If he cannot legally benefit from being a minor then being a minor can’t be used to hang him up.

If tried as a minor then any sentence ends on his 18th birthday.

In the end, probably will get off in exchange for losing firearms rights.

a reply to: Ahabstar

The problem with your argument is that to satisfy subsection C, subsection A and subsection B both must be satisfied first.

He is not, so far as I know, in any of the categories listed in subsection B.

As far as the “inserting yourself into a situation” argument: as outlined in the article, he did that, yes. He also went to great lengths to break contact and escape violent confrontation before using force in response. Which gives him a self defense claim standing under state law.


Second edit - am also curious what other “several” of those federal laws he violated?

My husband called ABC to "set them straight" when we heard David Muir (?) state: "The shooter fell to the ground and started shooting at a crowd of protesters!"

never mind that that "crowd of protesters" was trying to do him bodily harm. One hit him with a skateboard, another tried to head stomp him and the one whose heart got blown to bits, he was armed with a handgun (illegally as he was a felon). ...what kind of idiot tries to take a loaded gun away from someone by grabbing the FRONT of it when they are STANDING in front of it.....?

The news has been calling him a "vigilante" and "white supremacist" . NOT balanced and fair reporting, I'd say!

a reply to: new_here

a reply to: Nyiah


I looked at it from a legal perspective and hes going to jail. In fact he has to could you imagine the riots if he doesnt? but that aside the prosecutor has to show his actions caused their death that wont be terribly hard to do. You can argue self defence all you like but it wont fly by a jury. because everyone is going to say well you bring a loaded gun to a protest then you all ready were planning to use it. Hard to argue they were not when they could simply not have brought loaded weopons and still could have used tazers or bats. This wasnt their property the owners didnt ask them to be there they just wanted to feel important. So these need to be special got people killed/

a reply to: dragonridr


It is quite simple really.

He went armed and looking for trouble. He has no excuses for the consequences.

a reply to: Cornczech

Good on your husband for calling them out on their faulty reporting. I have a sense the agenda is not set by them, but having more people weigh in with their disdain has got to help!

a reply to: Fools

Let's also take into consideration the character of the 3 people he shot:

I think that is fair,
but it's also fair to take into the consideration of the shooter...

High school DROP out!
Neighbors described him as derelict...........I think we can all agree on that based on the situation that day.

a reply to: dragonridr

Except the state is going to have to prove that his belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harmwasn’t reasonable.

That’s going to be a wee bit tough to prove when he didn’t shoot until he’d been chased across a parking lot by a man who’d been threatening the “militia” members and already gotten into a fight with them, and that individual was within arm’s reach of him. If he’d stood his ground your argument might have merit. He didn’t, so it doesn’t.

originally posted by: Shamrock6


As far as the “inserting yourself into a situation” argument: as outlined in the article, he did that, yes. He also went to great lengths to break contact and escape violent confrontation before using force in response. Which gives him a self defense claim standing under state law.

Would that still hold up in court? I thought State law meant he wasn't allowed to be in possesion of a firearm without a guardian present due to his age/safety risks.

If State law does allow people to actively insert and illegally arm themselves in highly volatile situations with zero training then claim 'self defence' on taking a couple of steps backwards and claim self defence it seems open to abuse and unfit for purpose. Then again the law is an ass and wouldn't be the first time stupid laws have been put in place.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: dragonridr

Since the article presents arguments for why his actions are not the root cause of the deaths and he went out of his way to satisfy the legal requirements for a self defense claim, would you care to present something to back up your position?

Something other than “well if he hadn’t been there it wouldn’t have happened,” I mean.

I think the Facebook page comments and activity will clearly show the intent.

And the fact that no other armed militia members fired a single shot, will be a factor in that self defense claim.

a reply to: odzeandennz

Which Facebook posts would those be? Link? Were any other militia chased in the manner that rittenhouse was? Link?

a reply to: bastion

I said in the OP that he would catch the weapons charge.

Unless the prosecutor intends to argue that his mere presence was enough provocation to incite his attackers to chase him in the manner that they did, then his presence itself is no more provocation than any other militia member’s was. Beyond that, as explained in the article, his attempt to remove himself from the situation by running away re-establishes his grounds to claim self defense.

originally posted by: odzeandennz

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: dragonridr

Since the article presents arguments for why his actions are not the root cause of the deaths and he went out of his way to satisfy the legal requirements for a self defense claim, would you care to present something to back up your position?

Something other than “well if he hadn’t been there it wouldn’t have happened,” I mean.

I think the Facebook page comments and activity will clearly show the intent.

And the fact that no other armed militia members fired a single shot, will be a factor in that self defense claim.

A good defense attorney would infer that they choose Rittenhour because of his age and wasn't as threatening as the others there. Let make sure we are careful about labeling all of them there as militia as well, my understanding is was a mixture of property owners as well. The account from the OP stated it was uncertain how Rittenhour had got separated from the others.

You can say till the cows come home he wasn't supposed to be there, but at the end of the day, he was being chased and threatened what was he supposed to do let they guy beat the crap out of him or worse. Furthermore, this is a complete 180 from when I first heard the story on the news