This is continually used as an argument… But it’s a moot point
It reflects on the kind of character Rosenbaum was, though it doesn’t have anything to do with the outcome of the event when it occured.
Kyle had no idea Rosenbaum was a rapist… So it doesn’t mean jack shit.
If Kyle wanted to shoot a child molester he could’ve gone down to a NAMBLA convention… Why this organisation is allowed to exist in the states is beyond me.
Correct(basically, if I understand what you’re saying correctly). What led to him being there is an issue for his parent/s; it’s not a crime.
Hot Chick wears a skirt so short that her lips and cheeks are hanging out. A top so small it just covers her nips. Some Guy forces her into the bar’s bathroom and rapes her. Some Guy raped Hot Chick, even though Hot Chick probably didn’t make the best decision by wearing almost nothing to a bar.
It means a lot of you add that Rosenbaum was released from hospital for a suicide attempt on that day. You can conclude that Rosenbaum was trying to kill himself.
You could… However the vast majority of those who attempt suicide immediately regret the decision afterwards.
I can’t come to any feasible conclusion without having context as I don’t know the guy. I’m certainly not going to mourn his death as he was a child rapist
A suicide attempt is typically a cry for help, and most are unsuccessful. In America, the easiest way to successfully commit suicide is to put a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger. If Rosenbaum really wanted to be dead, chances are he would have died before getting to hospital.
I did not use the correct words. He was released from a mental hospital, not a hospital after unsuccessful attempt. The mental hospital where he was serving his rapes.
So he raped a kid and instead of going to prison to rot… They sent him to a psychiatric institution?
Something doesn’t add up. Unless he was seriously insane, and a highly traumatic upbringing coupled with severe mental illness led to his heinous crimes, I can’t forsee a reason to sentence a child rapist to a psych ward as opposed to prison + mandating chemical castration.
Psychiatric inpatient facilities aren’t nice places, it’s not quite prison; but they can and will take away many basic human rights. It may sound heinous, but it’s necessary to a degree. No bedsheets, no chords, shoelaces, toothbrushes that can be fashioned to make a shiv… Movement may be restricted, no talking about “X,Y or Z” that could set anyone off… they’re perhaps a slight step above prison.
The people who inhabit these facilities aren’t necessarily bad people, but they’re unstable, some are manipulative (BPD/psychopathic subtypes) and unpredictable. Psych wards can be scary places… But I don’t think they house child rapists unless we refer to specific wings catering towards those with serious psychosexual disorders.
Again no idea of what situation he found him self in. But all this info is redundant. As Rittenhouse was not aware of it:
Their criminal records could not have influenced the decision of the shooter as the shooter did not know it.
In the UK he would be guilty as hell. The drove to a riot armed. He had no real business being there. The fact he found himself in danger is 100% of his own making. I get that once there he only really had once choice. 100% agree at that point he should have shot. But he did not have to be there. Worked REALLY hard to be there.
not sure what that has got to do with anything. Their guilt is not a reflection on his innocence.
Almost agree. Except that hot chick goes to a “rape” bar. Where there are 50 attempted rapes a night that the police won;t investigate. And then takes a knife and says she is going their to protect other women.
The likely hood he’d have to shoot someone was very high. Even higher as he was openly armed.
Again once he was there 0 option. Be his decision to go there is questionable. And I can’t believe there is not crime committed.
I’m sure most Americans’ normal behavior would be judged guilty as hell of something serious in the UK. The things I’ve said about your speech controls and the social media police who busy themselves enforcing it would probably land me in the salt mines.
America is a land of reasonable laws surrounding firearms and self-defense. We’ve not lost our way in that regard like so many other countries.
It is relevant to consider the type of people Rittenhouse defended himself against not because it strengthens the verdict, which was rock-solid already, but because it gives useful insight into the character of the people who attacked him and puts the total situation into better perspective for everyone.
It takes someone pretty unhinged to charge at someone armed with a rifle, and we know that Rosenbaum was, indeed, a very unhinged individual. The others who attacked Rittenhouse were engaging in assault like unhinged morons, as they’ve done before.
If my young adult child asked to borrow my rifle to go a half hour down the road to protect a neighboring town from rioters, I’d say no. You can’t borrow my rifle and you shouldn’t go to the nearby riot. Come over and let’s grill steak instead.
If he went anyway and managed to get a rifle some other way, I’d want him to use it should some unhinged morons decide it is his day to die. I’d want him to defend himself against a real threat like that. I’d want him to be judged by reasonable standards in a court of law, ideally without the media, the President, the Vice President, Congressmen and every other know-nothing in sports, Hollywood and the Twitterverse spouting off their ill-willed and uninformed opinions on the subject.
The latter won’t happen, but at least we still have a chance at a fair trial.
To an extent I agree. The criminal records of the deceased were not allowed as evidence in the trial, which means the American legal system agrees with you. However, I think that the moral character of those involved is relevant as you attempt to make a judgment as to who was the likely aggressor and the degree to which their conduct made it clear that they had violent intentions. If Rosenbaum were a happily married father of 2 with a stable job and a history of selfless community service, it would lend credence to the claim that he was perhaps trying to defuse a dangerous situation by disarming (but not injuring) someone whom he perceived as a threat to those around him. On the other hand, the fact that he was a mentally deranged low-life supports the thesis that he was probably on a murderous and/or suicidal rampage. While the need to make this judgment based on character alone is somewhat superseded by the amount of video footage available which removes any doubt about who was the unhinged aggressor, moral character judgments still support the conclusion.
Had Rittenhouse shot three people at random, their moral character would be irrelevant. But these three people all took various actions prior to being shot. We don’t have a perfect accounting of those actions, but moral character judgments allow us to have a better idea of what they did.
I think I’ll work really hard to not end up living in the UK.
Actually, in a self defense case, his innocence is completely dependent on their guilt (or at least on the assessment that he could have reasonably believed them guilty). If someone tries to kill you, you can defend yourself. Proving your innocence requires you to prove that they were actually trying to murder you.
I agree that the traveling argument is basically a nothing burger. They all came there because they knew what was likely to happen. If Kyle hadn’t brought a rifle, he’d probably be dead.
I can only guess as to your take on rape victims: “What was she doing there at that time of night? Why did she wear that short skirt? She crossed state lines to go to that bar. Why did she lead those guys on if she didn’t intend to have sex with them? She had no real business being there. The fact that she found herself in danger is 100% of her own making.”
I had no idea Kenosha was this bad.
What crime would you say Rittenhouse committed?
I honestly have no idea how you say this in good faith. In the USA just over 50 people a day lose their lives to guns. Something is not working. You can argue that “Gun control is not the answer”. But you can not argue that the situation is “reasonable”.
Why is that relevant to the case of self defense? The case for self defense is based on the decision made in that moment - “am I at risk”. Info he did not have is not relevant.
I agree with you here. And here:
Well to an extent. Politicians saying “I want to change the law to make this a crime” is different to JB saying “This make me sad”. Which is wrong on lots of levels.
I think the UK works very hard not to end up like the states.
Their “guilty” of traveling to riot. Nothing else.
How many other people died that night? If Kyle had not brought the rifle he’d have been one more face in the crowd. He was forced to use the rifle because he had it.
Also - if Kyle had not gone to the riot everyone would still be alive. Sure there might be some property damage. And maybe this is European of me. But it is not his job to stop that.
You know what the rape analogy does not work. 1 key reason. No one goes to a bar looking to get raped. Kyle went to riot. He brought a weapon. What did he think was going to happen when he got there? The out come was not just predicable - it was likely.
In the UK several types of man slaughter based on negligence. Possibly even murder. Guys in the UK have gone down for murder after taking weapons to night clubs and then using them in a fight. Under UK law this is premeditated. You have armed yourself and the attended an event which you believed would become violent you are complicit in the violence. Which I know to be different than US law. In which you have the “stand your ground” stance. But yeah in the UK taking a knife to clun if you think there is going to be a fight is murder.
That people would exercise common sense and not attack armed guards.
It was not. Nothing would have happened had a suicidal pedophile(this is not to paint him in a bad light for past actions, but only to show that he was a mentally disturbed person) not chased Rittenhouse and tried to take his weapon. The other two shootings were a result of Rosenbaum’s actions.
What was negligent about Rittenhouse’s actions?
Did they go there TO fight? Rittenhouse did not.
I’m not sure that’s much different from U.S. law. One nightclub vs. an entire town(public property) is different. Rittenhouse didn’t attend an “event.” He attended his city. I doubt he thought it would become violent. I’d imagine he went to discourage such via show of force.
I skimmed this: Homicide: Murder, manslaughter, infanticide and causing or allowing the death or serious injury of a child or vulnerable adult | The Crown Prosecution Service
and don’t see much applicable to Rittenhouse.
(Of course, all of this is ignoring that he possessed a firearm…legal here, but maybe not over there…I don’t know whether that would matter, but I’ll throw this in anyway.) On second look, I really don’t think it matters.
That’s understandable. Not many people have gone down the rabbit hole of lethal force law. I have, and I’ll do my best to explain the basics concisely.
In the USA you have a de-facto right to be left alone physically. If you remain under the mantle of lawful conduct, which Rittenhouse did, you are allowed to respond in a reasonable way to any person who assaults you, which Rittenhouse also did.
Agreed, but it isn’t reasonable applications of lethal force law in the USA.
Yes, you can. That doesn’t mean I’d recommend my son seek out similar situations, but he is giving military service serious consideration on his own. It absolutely does mean that poor decision making doesn’t wash away someone’s right to defend themselves with reasonable force.
Rittenhouse’s use of force was, in fact, remarkably well-measured that evening, given the circumstances he found himself in.
It isn’t and it shouldn’t be in-court, which it wasn’t. But we’re not part of the jury.
My concern lies with prominent know-nothings insisting that this is somehow the wrong verdict, like President Biden and VP Harris. Their recent statements denouncing the verdict suggest that the law ought not be applied, but that we should defer to fictional media narratives fueling anti-social notions of mob justice.
I can respect a person who says “I’d like to change this or that policy to avert such situations in the future”. In fact, I started an entire thread encouraging everyone to make their case for any policy they can name.
That’s not what’s going on right now on this side of the pond mate.
And the vast majority of those 50 deaths occur in places with strict gun control laws more like Europe. If you disregard liberal cities and look at places like Texas, murder rates are much more comparable to Europe.The argument within the United States largely amounts to whether we should try and make Houston more like DC and Chicago.
And they are minoriry gang crimes.
I think it’s important we point out that it’s not just “lawful conduct,” here. If Guy A has weed in his pocket(somewhere that’s illegal, obviously), he doesn’t give up his right to defend himself. It’s not behaving in this manner(taken from the Code of Virginia): 1. In any street, highway, or public building, or while in or on a public conveyance, or while in a public place engages in conduct having a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person or persons at whom, individually, such conduct is directed;
Good point, and our provident jurist @nealdog already reminded us that many lethal force situations materialize in shady situations, often involving innocent people who could have done a whole lot of things differently to avoid the situation they ended up in.
