As already said, this is likely a scenario where the other party could claim defence of others, so blankall's scenario of two sides believing they are acting justly applies here.
You can have a situation where both parties can claim self defense.
But this isn't one of those scenarios.
Lol? Name a more clear cut case of both parties claiming self-defense than this one.
One kid is attacked by a mentally unwell man resulting in another person believe there was an active shooter.
Wisconsin laws is explicit:
Quote:
A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person's intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person.
This is why a security guard could shoot a school shooter even if the gun isn't aimed at him.
Grosskreutz, with the knowledge that Rittenhouse had shot someone, and was now being labelled an active shooter by the crowd most definitely had the same privilege of self-defense as Rittenhouse enjoyed. Arguing otherwise is nonsense.
And, ignoring that, which would be stupid, he could also claim citizen arrest powers as the Wisconnsin Court of Appeal has already ruled:
Quote:
a private person is privileged to arrest another without a warrant for a criminal offense � if the other, in the presence of the actor, is committing a breach of the peace or, having so committed a breach of the peace, he [or she] is reasonably believed by the actor to be about to renew it
Hearing "active shooter" and having the crowd point at Rittenhouse would easily pass the reasonability test.
The Following User Says Thank You to OptimalTates For This Useful Post:
There actually was. There was two murders and one attempted murder. All three were called justifiable because of a self-defense claim. This is actually where the miscarriage of justice is. The three were essentially rolled up into one charge instead of the charges being broken out independently. Because one was determined to be self defense the jury acquitted on all three, instead of weighing each charge individually.
I actually have no complaint with the acquittal on the third charge. Grosskreutz had a gun, and even though he approached in a non-threatening posture, I can see the concern and going defensive. This was justifiable to some extent, so I have no concern with the jury letting him off here.
The guy with the skateboard, I have major issues with that defense. Even though Calgarypuck's Tony Hawk will tell you he's confident he could kill with his skateboard, I am very confident in saying that the skateboard is not a lethal weapon any more than a hockey stick or a baseball bat. Brandishing any of these towards me would not give me the incentive to draw my weapon and face the potential outcomes. As a CCW holder I know just how much responsibility comes with carrying a gun and the only time you unholster it, except to secure it, is with intent to kill. That is how you are trained and how the NRA trainers are told to explain the choice being made. You pull that gun only with intent to kill. Period. Depending on the state, drawing your weapon can be considered aggravated assault or even assault with a deadly weapon. If you pull it, you do so to kill. This isn't the movies where you get to pull your gun, waive it around, and think there are no consequences (except in this trial).
The other victim, and this guy is a victim, uttered verbal threats. That's it. He chased Rittenhouse and used verbal threats, and for that he lost his life. That is the one that urks me. This never should have resulted in a gun being drawn or a round put down range. Rittenhouse should have roasted for this, but the judge framed things in such away that there was a single glove to fit all three charges, and he made damn sure the glove was not going to fit. This is the one that should have hung the kid.
Political reasons? I think usually when a stupid kid brings a fully loaded AR-15 into a volatile situation and kills two people and attempts to kill a 3rd they have a trial to see if the killer is guilty of a crime/crimes.
The Following User Says Thank You to KootenayFlamesFan For This Useful Post:
No hulk some guy who apparently is more versed in criminology and physics than common law courts and governments. Physics must not apply to Lanny because his beliefs are some sort of force field.
If you don’t think a baseball bat is a deadly weapon you’re being straight up ####ing stupid. No amount of machismo or bravado will strengthen your skull.
But hey, if you’re confident that you are more aware of reality than every judicial system in the western world, play ball! But unlike on the field, it’s more a one strike and your out kind of game.
__________________
No, no…I’m not sloppy, or lazy. This is a sign of the boredom.
The Following User Says Thank You to 81MC For This Useful Post:
Now I am imagining Lanny in this position being so relieved to see a man with a baseball bat coming out of the tunnel knowing he was completely safe lol.
Are we still on the "A skateboard couldn't possibly be a lethal weapon" kick after evidence and previous precedence? Also adding hockey sticks and baseball bats to the list? Jesus.
When flat out wrong, double down I guess? Brutal take.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by yamer
Even though he says he only wanted steak and potatoes, he was aware of all the rapes.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 2Stonedbirds For This Useful Post:
Political reasons? I think usually when a stupid kid brings a fully loaded AR-15 into a volatile situation and kills two people and attempts to kill a 3rd they have a trial to see if the killer is guilty of a crime/crimes.
That's not how the justice system is intended to work. Thankfully.
Prosecutors aren't supposed to go fishing. They are supposed to seek justice. In this case, based on the evidence and record of the events, they should not have even brought charges.
No hulk some guy who apparently is more versed in criminology and physics than common law courts and governments. Physics must not apply to Lanny because his beliefs are some sort of force field.
If you don’t think a baseball bat is a deadly weapon you’re being straight up ####ing stupid. No amount of machismo or bravado will strengthen your skull.
But hey, if you’re confident that you are more aware of reality than every judicial system in the western world, play ball! But unlike on the field, it’s more a one strike and your out kind of game.
It doesn't even need to be deadly. It just needs to be able to cause grievous bodily harm. A weapon isn't even necessary as courts everywhere have determined that hands and feet can meet this.
Well, they do. There's little reason for you to deny it.
Fact: Defence of others is a valid defence under Wisconsin law (same section as self defence)
Fact: Grosskreutz believed Rittenhouse was an active shooter
Fact: Even without testimony from the two deceased individuals, the situation between Rittenhouse and Grosskreutz was clearly one where both believe they were justified, as noted by both individuals under oath.
We can guess what would have happened had Grosskreutz pulled the trigger before Rittenhouse, so there are no "facts" about how things would have played out in that reverse scenario, but we can certainly guess that his defence would have been defence of others, as this is a fairly by-the-book example.
Are we still on the "A skateboard couldn't possibly be a lethal weapon" kick after evidence and previous precedence? Also adding hockey sticks and baseball bats to the list? Jesus.
When flat out wrong, double down I guess? Brutal take.
That's this whole thread.
People here don't consider it a positive sign that this was not a racially motivated white supremacist gunning down peaceful BLM protestors. Why? Because it would prove they were wrong the whole time about the entire situation. Rather than accepting facts, they would prefer to rationalize themselves into anger. They think they deserve the anger, because being angry over injustice makes them feel good about themselves.
Instead, this was a naive kid trying to do some good getting attacked by three violent protestors one of which was crazy. In fact, the world is just slightly better than people in this thread think it is. But that doesn't give them the self satisfaction of being angry and righteous.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to BoLevi For This Useful Post:
People here don't consider it a positive sign that this was not a racially motivated white supremacist gunning down peaceful BLM protestors. Why? Because it would prove they were wrong the whole time about the entire situation. Rather than accepting facts, they would prefer to rationalize themselves into anger. They think they deserve the anger, because being angry over injustice makes them feel good about themselves.
Instead, this was a naive kid trying to do some good getting attacked by three violent protestors one of which was crazy. In fact, the world is just slightly better than people in this thread think it is. But that doesn't give them the self satisfaction of being angry and righteous.
I think that on this forum this is the central misunderstanding. Some people think that brining a gun to a riot is trying to do some good, and others think that it is criminal.
Of course there are some people trying to make this is political as possible but that is the nature of internet discourse unfortunately.
The Following User Says Thank You to TheIronMaiden For This Useful Post:
As already said, this is likely a scenario where the other party could claim defence of others, so blankall's scenario of two sides believing they are acting justly applies here.
That said, the biggest reason that this isn't one of those scenarios is because only one of the people involved were charged with a crime and prosecuted. Grosskreutz has no need to claim any sort of defence, because (thus far), he's innocent in this situation in the eyes of the law.
Yes. Self defence principles apply to defence of others and property. There are many scenarios where both parties might think they are acting justly and end up harming each other. Another good reason not to allow people to carry guns everywhere.
What good can possibly be accomplished by wielding an automatic firearm in front of a mob with no training? Even if we completely leave motive out of it for him there's no possible good that can come of this scenario.
Shameless post right there.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Monahammer For This Useful Post:
Well, they do. There's little reason for you to deny it.
Fact: Defence of others is a valid defence under Wisconsin law (same section as self defence)
Fact: Grosskreutz believed Rittenhouse was an active shooter
Fact: Even without testimony from the two deceased individuals, the situation between Rittenhouse and Grosskreutz was clearly one where both believe they were justified, as noted by both individuals under oath.
We can guess what would have happened had Grosskreutz pulled the trigger before Rittenhouse, so there are no "facts" about how things would have played out in that reverse scenario, but we can certainly guess that his defence would have been defence of others, as this is a fairly by-the-book example.
Wrong.
GG said in his cross examination that the reason he chased KR was because he was worried about KRs safety. He believed that the skateboard he was being attacked with could cause serious head trauma.
What good can possibly be accomplished by wielding an automatic firearm in front of a mob with no training? Even if we completely leave motive out of it for him there's no possible good that can come of this scenario.
Shameless post right there.
It doesn't matter - because it doesn't eliminate his right to not be harmed.
No, just someone who understands how to deal with threatening situations I guess. I can't help it if you guys are dense and don't realize the last thing you want to do is take on an individual with any weapon, and the best course of action is to run, hide, then fight. If pushed into a situation where you have to fight, then make it on your terms. Some dip#### with a skateboard has to get within striking distance to use it as a weapon. If you follow self defense principles you will be prepared to take that action on. Be aware, be cool, be decisive, be aggressive when it matters, use speed, and play dirty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 81MC
No hulk some guy who apparently is more versed in criminology and physics than common law courts and governments. Physics must not apply to Lanny because his beliefs are some sort of force field.
If you don’t think a baseball bat is a deadly weapon you’re being straight up ####ing stupid. No amount of machismo or bravado will strengthen your skull.
But hey, if you’re confident that you are more aware of reality than every judicial system in the western world, play ball! But unlike on the field, it’s more a one strike and your out kind of game.
Yeah none of the stupid #### you're suggesting brah. Just trained in self defense. Know your situation and know how to respond in a way that gives you the best chance of getting away while exposing yourself to the least amount of risk possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds
Are we still on the "A skateboard couldn't possibly be a lethal weapon" kick after evidence and previous precedence? Also adding hockey sticks and baseball bats to the list? Jesus.
When flat out wrong, double down I guess? Brutal take.
Or just recognize that a skateboard is a ####ty weapon. Here's an incident where 10 wannabe tough guys take their skateboards to guy. They paid a pretty good whoopin' on him, but he got out of this alive and with only a short hospital stay. The smart thing would have been to walk away, but like many morons out there, he pushed a bad situation too far and got into an altercation where he had no upper hand. Dumb move on his part. He didn't control the situation and ultimately made himself a victim.
