What should be the correct legal verdict in the Rittenhouse case?

[Samm]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@DougBH

But the only active shooting RIttenhouse had done was to defend himself. If that is true, then Grosskreutz was chasing someone down with a gun because he had defended himself. So any kind of argument rests on the first shooting not being self defense. Otherwise, Rittenhouse can’t risk being shot and killed because Grosskreutz mistook the original situation.

But, as has been pointed out many times, that’s not how it works. Self-defense does not depend on external and unknown facts. It only depends on the state of mind of the defender.

A pursuer is not a defender.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Eagle-Keeper

If I’m on a jury I don’t view wearing something as provoking an attack. Being a Hells Angel shouldn’t mean one can’t act like an adult. Nonetheless, there’s definitely some grey area here.

In the context we’re discussing, provocation is a matter of intent on the part of the actor, not the appropriateness of the response.

It is difficult to imagine that someone would wear an Outlaw cutte into an Angels bar and not intend to provoke a response.

[Samm]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Samm

Don’t think you can waste my time rectifying your ignorance. It’s not going to work.

It’s ok. I already knew you didn’t actually know the law.

You know no such thing. But you have clearly demonstrated that you don’t know the law regarding self defense. For your sake, I hope you never find yourself in front of a court trying to explain why you shot a fleeing man because he scared you.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@DougBH

You are still on your hypothetical defending Grosskreutz, I see. No, I am still on the real case, Rittenhouse. If Grosskreutz mistakenly thought he was going to chase down and kill Rittenhouse because he thought that would somehow defend himself, Rittenhouse would be under no obligation to be killed because of Grosskreutz’s hero dreams.

Yes, I am still discussing my hypothetical.

You are welcome to not discuss my hypothetical, if it makes you uncomfortable. But I am still talking about it.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Samm

You know no such thing. But you have clearly demonstrated that you don’t know the law regarding self defense.

Bluster isn’t going to save you here. Put up or shut up, as they say.

[Samm]

There is not open person here who does not know I am right, including you I suspect.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Samm

There is not open person here who does not know I am right, including you I suspect.

Are you sure about that?

I think there are many people here who could easily imagine a situation in which is was reasonable to fear bodily injury or death from a (temporarily) fleeing man.

[Samm]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Samm

There is not open person here who does not know I am right, including you I suspect.

Are you sure about that?

I think there are many people here who could easily imagine a situation in which is was reasonable to fear bodily injury or death from a (temporarily) fleeing man.

Honestly, I don’t care what you think.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Samm

Honestly, I don’t care what you think.

All evidence is to the contrary.

By all means, feel free to not respond to my posts.

[Samm]

What evidence? Showing you how wrong you are pleases me. It does not mean that I care one iota about you or what you think.

If you want me to stop, you know what to do.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Samm

What evidence? Showing you how wrong you are pleases me. It does not mean that I care one iota about you or what you think.

I understand we’ve all got our coping mechanisms, but this is just silly.

[Samm]

Then you are being silly as well as wrong.

[Eagle-Keeper]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Samm

That does not matter. Only the letter of the law matters. It’s like saying a sexily dressed woman provoked her being raped.

The letter of the law:

A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

The reality though the statement “who provokes an attack” is an interpretive statement. Again using your example if I’m on a jury for me the act of wearing clothing is, no matter how provocative, is no reason to assault another person. Now let’s say the bartender asks you to please leave and you tell him to go ■■■■ himself, then I’m starting to view you as wanting to provoke something. Again for me there would have to be further actions involved.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Eagle-Keeper

The reality though the statement “who provokes an attack” is an interpretive statement. Again using your example if I’m on a jury for me the act of wearing clothing is, no matter how provocative, is no reason to assault another person.

But that’s not my point. The reaction of the Angels isn’t relevant to the law, except in the sense that it provides the necessary reasonable fear.

Provocation isn’t about legitimizing the response - just intending it.

[Eagle-Keeper]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Eagle-Keeper

If I’m on a jury I don’t view wearing something as provoking an attack. Being a Hells Angel shouldn’t mean one can’t act like an adult. Nonetheless, there’s definitely some grey area here.

In the context we’re discussing, provocation is a matter of intent on the part of the actor, not the appropriateness of the response.

It is difficult to imagine that someone would wear an Outlaw cutte into an Angels bar and not intend to provoke a response.

Yes, if someone were to do something like that I would assume that they are likely looking for trouble, nonetheless does that mean that a Hells Angel is legally allowed to assault you?

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Eagle-Keeper

Yes, if someone were to do something like that I would assume that they are likely looking for trouble, nonetheless does that mean that a Hells Angel is legally allowed to assault you?

Of course not. But that’s irrelevant.

You cannot engineer a situation to create a self-defense loophole. That’s the idea of the law.

[WuWei]

@TheDoctorIsIn

running off

There you go. Stop with the counterfactuals.

[WuWei]

@TheDoctorIsIn

You cannot engineer a situation to create a self-defense loophole.

You did.

[Eagle-Keeper]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Eagle-Keeper

Yes, if someone were to do something like that I would assume that they are likely looking for trouble, nonetheless does that mean that a Hells Angel is legally allowed to assault you?

Of course not. But that’s irrelevant.

You cannot engineer a situation to create a self-defense loophole. That’s the idea of the law.

Okay, so I’m on the jury here and I read this:

“A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.”

I would have to conclude, beyond reasonable doubt, that Rittenhouse clearly intended to provoke the three people he shot because he desired to cause them harm or death. Correct?

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@WuWei

You did.

Sure, if you prefer to see it that way.

Fascinating.