Kyle Rittenhouse Trial - Update: Acquitted On All Charges

[undercoverbrother]

My god life is cheap in America.

[Nyah]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

My god life is cheap in America.

Yep. Whether people think the scenario above is justified in a legal sense, it's still depressing as hell.

[dobbles]

Man comes to pick up child in shared custody. Woman and lover refuse to produce child. Lover goes and gets gun and proceeds to shoot non violent man dead.

'Murica!

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

You have awful opinions.

Weren’t you banned for a year?

[Krovikan]

Originally Posted by Nyah

Yep. Whether people think the scenario above is justified in a legal sense, it's still depressing as hell.

He brings out and gun, and the guys doesn't GTFO. He fires a very dangerous warning shot, and the guys doesn't GTFO, WTF?

I definitely think this is 2nd degree murder and dangerous discharge of a firearm (probably not in Texas), but, this probably is a Darwin Award for the murdered dude imo.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Krovikan

He brings out and gun, and the guys doesn't GTFO. He fires a very dangerous warning shot, and the guys doesn't GTFO, WTF?

While trying to retrieve his child, who has now been technically kidnapped, he gets shot by one of the kidnappers.

[Fuzz]

How would this have played out if guns weren't around? The gun is just an "easy button" to resolve situations for people who aren't adult enough to figure #### out. What if the other guy had a gun, too? Then there would probably be 2 dead people. No guns? Probably no dead people. But Texas has decided this is preferable, for some baffling reason.

[ResAlien]

But I was told an armed society is a polite society

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Weren’t you banned for a year?

Indeed. I'm abrasive.

[Krovikan]

Originally Posted by Wormius

While trying to retrieve his child, who has now been technically kidnapped, he gets shot by one of the kidnappers.

I would have called the cops.

I've been in a similar situation before, with an abusive ex of my sister's threatening her, my parents, my partner, and I with a knife. I extracted myself and my partner (who was pregnant at the time) and called the cops.


Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Krovikan

I would have called the cops.

I've been in a similar situation before, with an abusive ex of my sister's threatening her, my parents, my partner, and I with a knife. I extracted myself and my partner (who was pregnant at the time) and called the cops.


Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

This is 100% the right move. Firstly, we don't know if the children were there. Secondly, getting into a physical fight with your ex's new partner in front of you children is an awful idea for so many reasons.

If the ex is truly violating the court order and you had to call the cops to enforce it, the courts will take care of it and punish the ex. The wrong move would be to demonstrate that you are a violent person and force your way into someone else's home.

Here's there was also a firearm involved. What if you get into a tussle with the guy carrying the gun, he slips, and then the gun goes off into the house where the kids potentially are? No one was thinking about the kids here.

[Flacker]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

Indeed. I'm abrasive.

You are indeed:

Trolls are people who leave intentionally provocative or offensive messages on the internet in order to get attention, cause trouble or upset someone.

Fits to a tee. Hopefully the mods see it as such.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Flacker

You are indeed:

Trolls are people who leave intentionally provocative or offensive messages on the internet in order to get attention, cause trouble or upset someone.

Fits to a tee. Hopefully the mods see it as such.

Ya I agree. I think connecting the rittenhouse case as a direct causation to this last shooting is trolling and a lot of people are giving that poster the attention they are seeking

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

My god life is cheap in America.

I think the second worst part is how seemingly nonchalant people are there about it.

edit: third worst is how they use “3.15” instead of “3:15”.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by blankall

This is 100% the right move. Firstly, we don't know if the children were there. Secondly, getting into a physical fight with your ex's new partner in front of you children is an awful idea for so many reasons.

If the ex is truly violating the court order and you had to call the cops to enforce it, the courts will take care of it and punish the ex. The wrong move would be to demonstrate that you are a violent person and force your way into someone else's home.

Here's there was also a firearm involved. What if you get into a tussle with the guy carrying the gun, he slips, and then the gun goes off into the house where the kids potentially are? No one was thinking about the kids here.

1) I think this discussion should be moved to a different thread as it has literally nothing to do with Rittenhouse

2) I agree totally with your take here. Everyone acted stupidly and someone died because...

3) American gun culture is sick and all pervasive

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

You have awful opinions.

There was no reason for a firearm to be present. NONE. Castle doctrine is as asinine as every single one of your takes. This could have been easily diffused and turned into a simple domestic dispute for police to handle. Instead some moron grabbed his gun in a non-life threatening situation and it turned into someone dying.

One thing I find really interesting about this discussions is that people who have likely never handled a gun, have never shouldered the responsibility of carrying a weapon, or having to make the hard decision of pulling a weapon, are the ones who are most vocal about who could do what and when. The laws in the United States are a mess because of the absolute paranoia that is so pervasive in the culture down here. The shoot first mentality is disgusting and shows just how intellectually damaged people are by the constant drone of negative news about the nation and who you can't trust. Weapons have no place in the hands of about 75% of the owners in this country. They do not understand the responsibility they wield, nor the totality of their actions.

[OptimalTates]

Texas Penal Code §9.04

The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor’s purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

Texas Penal Code §9.41(a)

A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

Taken together I believe this allows that a person may produce a gun to threaten, but not shoot, a trespasser. From that I can not see anything legally wrong with Mr. Carruth going inside to retrieve his gun while telling Mr. Read to leave.

Texas Penal Code §9.31

(a)A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1)if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31 (Self-defense); and
(2)when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A)to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B)to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b)The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1)knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A)unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B)unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C)was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2)did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3)was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c)A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d)For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

So I believe §9.31(c) is where the crux of the case falls. From the facts (which are far from confirmed), it appears to be Mr. Carruth's residence. Others have said it was Christina Read's and although fewer had said Mr. Read. But presumably it's Mr. Carruth's.

If so, and if Mr. Carruth's statement that Mr. Read's sons were not present, then it would not appear that Mr. Carruth was breaking a law. Once facts are confirmed there's a possibility, though I believe slim, that Mr. Carruth could be engaged in kidnapping had he been harboruing the children of Mr. Read.

The provocation is less clear. Jennifer Read has claimed that this was somehow planned, that they intended to provoke, which could render the self-defense claim moot even if it was otherwise "reasonable". It would be interesting if she has evidence to back up the claim that could convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. I do not know how much Mr. Carruth, a still legally married man, can be held responsible for the provocation of his girlfriend at the time but I would assume very little unless deliberately planned.

[OptimalTates]

In the lawsuit against Mr. Carruth, it was said to be outside Christina Read's place of business.

In the petition for Jennifer Read to receive custody, her affidavit says it was Mr. Carruth's residence.

Probably a work from home situation I guess.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by Krovikan

He brings out and gun, and the guys doesn't GTFO. He fires a very dangerous warning shot, and the guys doesn't GTFO, WTF?

I definitely think this is 2nd degree murder and dangerous discharge of a firearm (probably not in Texas), but, this probably is a Darwin Award for the murdered dude imo.

To me the most perplexing thing about the gun culture in America is the bravado that seems to permeate, whether one is currently armed or not... There's so much more "tough guy" attitude and IMO, it's all underpinned by knowing they have (or can readily access) their pew-pews. As demonstrated in Texas, any sane person would have walked away at the first sight of a firearm... But no, let's get up in the face of the guy with the gun after several warnings, including a shot.

Probably an unpopular opinion, but I think that underlying bravado was the genesis of the entire Rittenhouse ordeal... If he didn't think he could play tough guy with his pew-pew (as most sane, law-abiding people would know), the entire situation unfolds differently... Something about play stupid games...

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by you&me

To me the most perplexing thing about the gun culture in America is the bravado that seems to permeate, whether one is currently armed or not... There's so much more "tough guy" attitude and IMO, it's all underpinned by knowing they have (or can readily access) their pew-pews. As demonstrated in Texas, any sane person would have walked away at the first sight of a firearm... But no, let's get up in the face of the guy with the gun after several warnings, including a shot.

It’s honour culture. Not just a gun thing and not confined to the U.S., though the U.S. is probably the only developed Western country where honour culture persists.