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

[Elkins45]

I've not followed it closely but my understanding is that Mr. "byecep" Gaige Grosskreutz (sp?) claimed he was being a good guy and attempting to subdue what he thought was an active shooter when he confronted Rittenhouse with his Glock. I doubt the veracity of that story, but just for the sake of discussion let's pretend he is telling the truth and he thought KR was an active shooter who had just gunned down two innocent people.

Isn't this just one more lesson about how intervening in any sort of violent situation is generally a bad idea when you don't know all the facts if you yourself aren't in immediate danger? I can't really draw a parallel with the recent accidental police killing of Johnny Hurley because it would seem he reacted according to facts as they were and not just was he perceived them.

Assuming GG was acting in good faith according to the situation as he believed it to be. What are the lessons to be learned?

 

[Carl N. Brown]

If an armed guy is running away, don't try to detain or neutralize him.Definitely don't follow.
Note as many identifying details as possible. Be a good witness.
Remember the responding cop who shot the good guy with a gun? Don't be him.

 

[Zerodefect]

Generally speaking, running up to an active shooter and asking for man love, isn't a good idea.

It's how you lose a bicep. I'm sure he's enjoying his tender moments with the prosecutor.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

Yes, it is. Grosskreutz is totally lacking in credibility both from his impeached testimony, his own criminal and associative past, and his general person decision making.

But absolutely you're correct. If you don't know what happened, and there is not an active threat against yourself or a party you know beyond a reasonable doubt is innocent, you can end up in big trouble easily.

Something that has not been brought up in the trial (because the whole thing now pivots on the first encounter between Rittenhouse and Ziminski and Rosenbaum) is that even if Huber and Grosskreutz thought their use of force was justified against Rittenhouse because they had a good faith belief he was a fleeing criminal, Rittenhouse would not lose his right to self defense against them if he had truly acted in self-defense against Rosenbaum, even if they were acting in good faith.

 

[Elkins45]

Yes, it is. Grosskreutz is totally lacking in credibility both from his impeached testimony, his own criminal and associative past, and his general person decision making.

But absolutely you're correct. If you don't know what happened, and there is not an active threat against yourself or a party you know beyond a reasonable doubt is innocent, you can end up in big trouble easily.

Something that has not been brought up in the trial (because the whole thing now pivots on the first encounter between Rittenhouse and Ziminski and Rosenbaum) is that even if Huber and Grosskreutz thought their use of force was justified against Rittenhouse because they had a good faith belief he was a fleeing criminal, Rittenhouse would not lose his right to self defense against them if he had truly acted in self-defense against Rosenbaum, even if they were acting in good faith.

I hadn’t thought about that.

One of the things I remember well from my CCW class is the distinction KY law makes between the decision making process for SELF defense an defense of others. Under KY statutes a person is justified in SELF defense if the circumstances “as he believes them to be” cause him to fear death or serious bodily harm. For defense of others the circumstances “as they actually are” must be sufficient to cause him to fear for that other person’s safety. “I thought he was going to shoot those people” is a valid justification for shooting a guy only if that’s actually what he was going to do.

 

[Ohen Cepel]

Decades ago I went through the CCW class in AZ (when they required that). Was very informative in that one of the county prosecutors was there and he rather clearly stated; if you do this I will try to send you to jail. VS, I will not try to send you to jail for doing this.

His big suggestion was to be a great witness unless you were forced into violence.

Yes, we all want to rush in to take out the bad guy. However, the "bad guy" isn't always clear quickly.

 

[old lady new shooter]

I hadn’t thought about that.

One of the things I remember well from my CCW class is the distinction KY law makes between the decision making process for SELF defense an defense of others. Under KY statutes a person is justified in SELF defense if the circumstances “as he believes them to be” cause him to fear death or serious bodily harm. For defense of others the circumstances “as they actually are” must be sufficient to cause him to fear for that other person’s safety. “I thought he was going to shoot those people” is a valid justification for shooting a guy only if that’s actually what he was going to do.

That's very interesting. I got my CCW here in AZ and now I guess I better go look up defense of others because I might be mixed up with the CA law (where I lived before), my understanding is deadly force in defense of others is OK in any situation where deadly force would be allowed for the person him- or herself.

 

[old lady new shooter]

That's very interesting. I got my CCW here in AZ and now I guess I better go look up defense of others because I might be mixed up with the CA law (where I lived before), my understanding is deadly force in defense of others is OK in any situation where deadly force would be allowed for the person him- or herself.

OK, I found it:

13-406. Justification; defense of a third person

A person is justified in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force against another to protect a third person if:

1. Under the circumstances as a reasonable person would believe them to be, such person would be justified under section 13-404 or 13-405 in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force to protect himself against the unlawful physical force or deadly physical force a reasonable person would believe is threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and

2. A reasonable person would believe that such person’s intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.​

 

[Madcap_Magician]

I hadn’t thought about that.

One of the things I remember well from my CCW class is the distinction KY law makes between the decision making process for SELF defense an defense of others. Under KY statutes a person is justified in SELF defense if the circumstances “as he believes them to be” cause him to fear death or serious bodily harm. For defense of others the circumstances “as they actually are” must be sufficient to cause him to fear for that other person’s safety. “I thought he was going to shoot those people” is a valid justification for shooting a guy only if that’s actually what he was going to do.

Something that boggles my mind about the Rittenhouse case is that the defense let the prosecution tell the only story about the use of force on Rosenbaum. The defense could have literally called whoever is the Kenosha PD's use of force trainer and simply asked them "Is an attacker's attempt to disarm a person justification to use deadly force to prevent the disarm attempt, especially considering the totality of the circumstances of being surrounded by a hostile mob?" and then backed it up with any one of a thousand national trainers who will tell you the same thing. Instead we got to hear ADA Binger tell the jury that "Sometimes you just have to take a beating," and "You lose the right to self-defense if you bring a gun to a fistfight" and go totally unchallenged.

 

[upptick]

I carry for purposes of self-defense and to break contact with a bad guy -- not to close on him. That's the cops job. My job is to get myself and my family to safety. Period. Grosskreutz nearly got his arm blown off trying to make a totally unnecessary intervention, without proper equipment and resources, using stupid tactics, and was lucky he wasn't killed. And this Rittenhouse character was also an idiot as demonstrated by the fact that he had no business being there, and was just out looking for trouble. He sure did find it and he may end up in jail for a long time and for absolutely nothing. As a civilian, If you're placed in a position where you have to use your firearm, it absolutely has to be a "last resort" type situation and you need a lot of good fortune for it turn out in your favor. I don't want to see Rittenhouse rotting away in jail, but if he ends up there it won't be because he was a totally innocent bystander and just some random victim of circumstance.

 

[The Last Outlaw]

I carry for purposes of self-defense and to break contact with a bad guy -- not to close on him. That's the cops job. My job is to get myself and my family to safety. Period. Grosskreutz nearly got his arm blown off trying to make a totally unnecessary intervention, without proper equipment and resources, using stupid tactics, and was lucky he wasn't killed. And this Rittenhouse character was also an idiot as demonstrated by the fact that he had no business being there, and was just out looking for trouble. He sure did find it and he may end up in jail for a long time and for absolutely nothing. As a civilian, If you're placed in a position where you have to use your firearm, it absolutely has to be a "last resort" type situation and you need a lot of good fortune for it turn out in your favor. I don't want to see Rittenhouse rotting away in jail, but if he ends up there it won't be because he was a totally innocent bystander and just some random victim of circumstance.

Very well said. That is my thinking as well.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

And this Rittenhouse character was also an idiot as demonstrated by the fact that he had no business being there, and was just out looking for trouble.

I agree it was foolish of him to be there. There was no compelling personal interest in being there, and the risk to his person in terms of physical safety and legal safety far exceeded any benefit to his community. But at the same time, no one has presented any credible evidence that he was looking for trouble, or in fact that he was doing anything other than trying to help, as he stated, so I would invite you to present any evidence you have of him looking for trouble here.

 

[upptick]

I agree it was foolish of him to be there. There was no compelling personal interest in being there, and the risk to his person in terms of physical safety and legal safety far exceeded any benefit to his community. But at the same time, no one has presented any credible evidence that he was looking for trouble, or in fact that he was doing anything other than trying to help, as he stated, so I would invite you to present any evidence you have of him looking for trouble here.

I have no evidence and am only speculating, based on my experience and my view of the world. If I knew there was a riot happening 20 miles from my house, the last thing I would do is break out my kit and weapons and voluntarily insert myself in the melee unless I knew one of my loved ones was trapped in the middle of it and needed to be extracted. From what I've seen of the trial -- and I've actually watched a fair bit of it -- no such emergency existed for Rittenhouse to have concluded that he needed to intervene. He was a naive teenager, with no proper supervision and no compelling personal interest, who voluntarily placed himself in the middle of violent crowd. Hence, I don't think it's much of a stretch to conclude that "he was looking for trouble." Moreover, the fact that he showed up with an AR provides compelling circumstantial evidence that he was at the very least expecting something bad to happen.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

I have no evidence and am only speculating, based on my experience and my view of the world. If I knew there was a riot happening 20 miles from my house, the last thing I would do is break out my kit and weapons and voluntarily insert myself in the melee unless I knew one of my loved ones was trapped in the middle of it and needed to be extracted. From what I've seen of the trial -- and I've actually watched a fair bit of it -- no such emergency existed for Rittenhouse to have concluded that he needed to intervene. He was a naive teenager, with no proper supervision and no compelling personal interest, who voluntarily placed himself in the middle of violent crowd. Hence, I don't think it's much of a stretch to conclude that "he was looking for trouble." Moreover, the fact that he showed up with an AR provides compelling circumstantial evidence that he was at the very least expecting something bad to happen.

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.

 

[upptick]

[QUOTE="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.[/QUOTE]

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?

 

[DeepSouth]

Being wrong has cost lots of people lots of things, from jobs to freedom to their own lives.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

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?

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?

 

[GEM]

There is the issue of whether he could legally carry a handgun. If I were trying to discredit his motivations, I would argue that an AR with 30 rounds was more than needed for self-defense.

In court debates about weapons bans, antigun judges have made this point that this level of gun is not needed for most SD. It is argued here with the common 5 is enough thread.

If a juror buys that the AR signals more 'blood lust' than SD, is something we can't know unless they talk later. In the Fish trial, some later said the 10mm indicated hostile intent beyond SD.

If Kyle had Punisher logos or those kill them obscenities that a cop had on his AR when he was on trial, do you think that would have been a major negative?

 

[Sistema1927]

I just read this this morning:

"He drove over 40 miles with a gun he possessed illegally. He said he was in Kenosha as a medic but it seems he had an intent to kill. His troubling history is enough to ask: but why was he there? And by he, I mean Grosskreutz." - Allie Beth Stuckey

Grosskruetz is a convicted felon and all around trouble maker, and would be on trial if the political climate wasn't so bad.

 

[GEM]

If Grosskruetz was running after Kyle with an AR and then pointed it or if it were slung, removed it from his back - I wonder how the evaluations of his actions would have proceeded. Interesting what if.

 

[upptick]

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.

Frankly, I would be shocked if hardly anyone in this forum would think it a good idea for a 17 year old to go way out of his way to insert himself into the middle of a riot for no compelling reason and I would imagine most would believe that someone that foolish assumes the risk of anything untoward happening, like getting caught up in the crimes of the rioters. Of course, that doesn't mean Rittenhouse should get thrown in the slammer for the rest of his life. But it most definitely means stupid should hurt at some level.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

Frankly, I would be shocked if hardly anyone in this forum would think it a good idea for a 17 year old to go way out of his way to insert himself into the middle of a riot for no compelling reason and they would likely also believe that someone that foolish assumes the risk of anything untoward happening, like getting caught up in the crimes of the rioters.

Did you read the Rittenhouse thread? The overwhelming majority of people believe that the shootings were justified. A fair number of people go even farther than I do, saying that he did the right thing in going in the first place.

Just because you do something foolish does not mean you give up your right to self defense. Your theory here has no legal basis, and the moral or ethical basis of it is highly arguable. Only deliberate provocation or incitement of another to attack you so that you can claim self defense can do that, which is where the case is in fact hanging right now.

 

[old lady new shooter]

If Kyle had Punisher logos or those kill them obscenities that a cop had on his AR when he was on trial, do you think that would have been a major negative?

Yes I would. But he didn't.

 

[WrongHanded]

My take away is that regardless of how you perceive a situation, pointing a gun at someone does not equal citizens arrest. It's also far from a certain way to subdue someone who is also armed and has just proven they're willing to shoot.

 

[1942bull]

After reflecting on the situation I resolved to follow my own guidance that I have employed for years. Stay away from riots, mobs, big crowds. Etc. if you are not there you cannot get yourself into the fix that Rittenhouse got himself into. If it should happen in spite of my vigilance mt pistol will stay concealed and holstered only to be drawn at the sight of a person with a deadly weapon who seems the be intending to attack me. Rittenhouse actions, good and bad, we’re uncalled for. He did not have any expertise and seems driven by a need to be seen as heroic. He got himself in over his head. The only question is how bad the sentence will be.