Not a lawyer, but I find it highly improbably that section 230 would shield them in this case. It's trivial to think of a scenario where the removal of information constitutes the production of a message, and in that scenario, the information is not itself produced by third parties using a platform, but by the platform itself.

Like, if I write a note that reads: "The President of the United States should morn those that die of COVID." And the note is posted by someone else with "morn those that" removed, they can no longer point to me as the producer of the message. Likewise if video footage is edited to show a different story than reality, the person that did the editing is culpable for the resulting hoax, not the videographer. I think the same applies to editing information produced by multiple other people. The moment you edit information to conform to a certain narrative, you are then the source of that new narrative. In that way, I think Facebook, though they were editing the information available on their platform, are in fact the source of a new narrative that exists in the negative space of their editing.

It would indeed be super interesting to see this argued in court. It would make a really good balance to the free reign that platforms have now to curtail certain messages or information. If they were responsible for the story the surviving information creates, it would make them tread more carefully when censoring users.

Generally speaking the court doesn’t rule on actual situations based on hypotheticals, unless they are creating a bright line rule that would clearly fall apart under plausible scenarios.

They rule based on analogy though, which is how I tried to structure my comment.

Rittenhouse shot and killed 2 people, and shot and injured a third.

Both of the men Rittenhouse killed were unarmed.

I accept that every shot Rittenhouse fired fell within the framework of self-defence under the law. I also accept that he did have a legal right to be in Kenosha.

Whether he had a legal right to be carrying the gun or not is a little more contentious. Although his possession of the gun was in line with the letter of the law, it seems likely from the wording that the exception was intended to apply to minors hunting and is poorly written, rather than an intentional decision to allow 17 year olds to carry AR-15s. Poorly worded laws are read in favour of the defence, which is why the gun charge was dropped. He likely would not have been allowed to buy or possess the gun in his home state.

But whatever the legality, I don't think it's right that a guy can go tooled up to another city, kill two unarmed people, and pose for celebratory photos with white supremacists afterwards.

The flow of information today is too fast to wait for definitive, legal judgements on every case, and balancing free speech, opinion, and commentary against spreading false news and inciting hatred is an incredibly challenging task. In the aftermath of the shooting, it seems Facebook implemented their 'mass shooting' playbook, which is, from my perspective, completely reasonable.

Facebook choosing not to allow praise or support for a killer is, in my opinion, sensible and logical. Once it became clear that the killings were not illegal, then Facebook removed these restrictions. I'm not exactly an ardent defender of Facebook's policies, but in this case, especially given that none of the facts are in contention, I think Facebook did the right thing.

Am I understanding correctly that you believe because the two people attacking him were unarmed, he did not have the right to shoot them? You say you "accept" it was lawful, but it doesn't seem like you believe it should be.

I wonder if two "unarmed" people were attacking you, would you just let them beat you to death? I can't understand this train of thought at all.

One was "unarmed" with a blunt weapon and the other threatened to kill Kyle prior to his attempt to steal his gun. Had Kyle not shot him, he rapidly would've became armed.

I commented elsewhere on 'unarmed' and how it relates to Huber's skateboard.

With regards to your point about Rosenbaum, I don't disagree. But the fact remains that the only weapon in that interaction was Rittenhouse's (unless you count a bag of underpants).

> But the fact remains that the only weapon in that interaction was Rittenhouse's (unless you count a bag of underpants).

What about the 3rd assailant who admitted on the stand to pulling a gun and aiming it prior to being shot, or the man in the mob (that mob was shouting "get him" may I add) who unloaded a magazine into the air during the incident?

Yes, both the men Rittenhouse killed were unarmed.

The third guy, Grosskreutz, did indeed have a handgun, which he drew and pointed at a man who had already killed two people.

Again, I'm not saying that Rittenhouse did not have a justification to fear for his life and limb in those specific circumstances.

But they were circumstances which were created largely by his own decisions (travelling to Kenosha, carrying a weapon, shooting Rosenbaum).

Didn't Grosskreutz travel a further distance to riot then Rittenhouse traveled to prevent the rioting? Or was that one of the other ones?

Grosskreutz shouldn't have had a gun either (his concealed carry permit had expired), but at the end of the day he didn't kill anyone, which sort of sets him apart.

I'm not trying to say that the people Rittenhouse shot at were angels. But none of them killed anyone.

> But none of them killed anyone.

They attempted to kill Kyle, but he defended himself. The reason Kyle wasn't murdered is not due to their sense of morals but instead their incompetence as combatants. It seems the rioters had more experience assaulting women and children and were ill equiped to assault a young man.

> They attempted to kill Kyle, but he defended himself.

Again, not trying to paint these guys as angels, but it does not seem that this is correct:

- the 'mob' chasing Rittenhouse that led eventually to him opening fire on Rosenbaum were shouting 'get him', and may even have shouted 'kill him'. We know that at least one of these people had a gun, but this gun was fired up into the air, rather than at Rittenhouse, and Rosenbaum threw a bag of clothes at Rittenhouse. Yes, Rosenbaum was approaching Rittenhouse, and Rittenhouse was probably scared, but it doesn't look like Rosenbaum was about to kill him.

- Huber's half-hearted hit with the skateboard hardly seems like the kind of force he could have mustered if his intent were to smash Rittenhouse's head in (it also seems from the video as though Huber was already moving away from Rittenhouse by the time Rittenhouse shot him)

- Grosskreutz approached Rittenhouse with his pistol drawn and pointed at Rittenhouse, but did not fire at him, instead opting to try to disarm him. If he'd been trying to kill him, he'd have had the chance to do so.

I think if readers compare our arguments they will be able to come to their own conclusions. I feel I have sufficiently made my case and don't believe I can offer you anything that would change your mind.

To be honest, I'm not sure there are many people left (certainly here on HN) who haven't already looked at the evidence themselves and come to one conclusion or another.

Thanks for the discussion though, always interesting to hear someone else's point of view, even more so when neither of us has any different facts to the other.

Dude what is the matter with you. Did you really just try to rationalize a grown man hitting a child with a skateboard as being done half-heartedly?

Anyone stupid enough to charge someone carrying a weapon is not the kinda person you wanna take a chance being in close proximity with. You expect him to just stand there and take a beating? Or try to talk it out while the mob is threatening to kill him. How much time should he spend analyzing the situation?

Feel free to stand around and get beat down by a mob while you try to explain yourself. I think the rest of us would rather deal with a jury.

Maybe half-hearted was a poor choice of words, but the video clearly shows the skateboard hit, and it is obvious that Huber was capable of swinging much harder and did not.

Maybe children shouldn't have guns. Maybe children shouldn't get themselves into situations where they feel the only way they can survive is to shoot and kill people.

Why would Huber half-heartedly swing the skateboard?

If he believed Kyle was an active shooter why would he "pull" his punches so to speak. If he didn't believe Kyle was an active shooter than he didn't have any reasons to attack and disarm him.

That's a good question, and it's a shame we can't ask him.

My personal opinion is that he wasn't trying to use the skateboard as a weapon, he was trying to use it as a shield, or to give him a bigger surface to push the gun with.

Either that or that the idea came to him too late to swing fully.

Those are both good questions though, and I don't have answers to either.

My takeaway is very different from yours as to where ultimate fault lies.

Maybe enforcement should do their job so children don't have to try to do their job for them.

> Maybe enforcement should do their job so children don't have to try to do their job for them.

Completely agree on this one.

I think that's an overly reductive expression of my opinion, which is perhaps why you're struggling to follow.

I think it is incredibly likely that if Rittenhouse did not have a gun, then the two people he killed would still be alive, and I find it unlikely that Rittenhouse would be dead today.

You are correct that I don't believe that these specific circumstances that led to these deaths should be legal.

I don't believe all attempts to defend oneself are wrong, nor do I believe that it's inherently wrong to use 'unbalanced' force in the context of self-defence (ie: just because someone is unarmed does not mean that you should never use deadly force against them).

My opinion is that he had a gun he shouldn't have had, was in a place he shouldn't have been, causing trouble he shouldn't have been involved in, and killed two people who shouldn't have died.

As it turns out, none of that is illegal.

Let’s say you carry a gun. Someone attempts to rape you. Nobody is likely to die. Your argument says that you should just be raped.

There’s a case (I think it might still be pending) about a drunk guy who hits someone one time and kills them. I’ve seen a video of a kid hitting his friend and killing them. In fact, a lot of people have died from being hit just one time the wrong way.

Even if he weren’t armed, Rosenbaum still chases him down. Rosenbaum’s buddy Zaminski had a gun too. If they’d pinned him down, they might have shot him given all the trouble they went through to ambush him.

Also, Grosskreutz is interesting. He ran down Rittenhouse while pulling a gun. At the same time, he testified he had no reason to believe Rittenhouse had shot anyone.

Mob mentality is crazy. Loads of people have died at the hands of unarmed mobs. Any individual would never hurt anyone else, but together, the mob mentality results in something terrible happens.

That wasn't my argument at all, actually:

> I don't believe all attempts to defend oneself are wrong, nor do I believe that it's inherently wrong to use 'unbalanced' force in the context of self-defence (ie: just because someone is unarmed does not mean that you should never use deadly force against them).

Your other points are all good and interesting - one in particular caught my eye:

> If they’d pinned him down, they might have shot him

That's true, but they might not have. You can't just go around shooting people because you're afraid that their friend might come and shoot you.

> That's true, but they might not have. You can't just go around shooting people because you're afraid that their friend might come and shoot you.

He wasn't worried about that. He was worried about they guy trying to grab the gun in his hands (as proven due to the powder stippling on half of Rosenbaum's hand).

We've got the Joker just released from the mental hospital. He beats up the woman he's supposed to love and He's trying to burn down the city. How much self control will he have toward a complete stranger who is foiling his plans?

You seem to be arguing that there's nothing to fear in this situation.

What other options are there once the situation is inevitable?

> You seem to be arguing that there's nothing to fear in this situation.

This is the second time you're telling me what I'm arguing, and the second time you're wrong.

I absolutely, completely believe that Rittenhouse was in mortal fear for his life when he killed Rosenbaum.

But he should never have had a gun, and he should never have been in that situation.

The last line is just your opinion, and clearly Rittenhouse disagreed. If it's not illegal for me to be somewhere, then I have the right to be there, and I can choose to exercise that right.

Something I've found interesting is that the arguments deployed against Rittenhouse are pretty analogous to victim-blaming in rape cases.

- Rittenhouse did something legal, but risky and potentially foolhardy.

- An external agent intervenes, causing the incident

- "Well, he shouldn't have been there to begin with" vs "Well, she knew that was a bad part of town"

Main differences there would be that he defended himself successfully, so to some, victim and aggressor get flipped.

This is a really interesting point, and I've thought about this a little bit to try and understand why I think these are not analogous.

I would probably think that a potential rape victim who successfully defended him or herself was justified in doing so.

But there is a scale.

You can't go and stand on the sidelines at an orgy, then shoot anyone who looks at you funny. You can't go and shoot someone who offers to buy you a drink on the off-chance they might slip a roofie in it. You can't just turn around and shoot someone who is walking behind you in case they might be a rapist. On the other hand, if you shoot a guy who tries to drag you into his car, that's pretty clearly a sensible defence.

There are grey areas here too. What if a guy runs up behind you and you spin around and shoot, and it turns out you'd left your phone at the bar, and he was trying to catch up and give it to you.

> 'legal, but risky and potentially foolhardy'

This does describe both 'drinking a lot' and 'going with a gun to a riot', but I don't think it does justice to the differences between the behaviours.

Drinking too much, wearing short skirts, etc. does not imply any kind of consideration of consequences. Bringing a gun to a riot DOES. It shows that Rittenhouse was aware of the increased likelihood of violence, and had already decided that he was prepared to respond with deadly force.

Out of interest, with regards to Huber and Grosskreutz, do you believe that they were also justified in trying to defend against what seemed at the time to be an active shooter?

>But there is a scale. ...

Agreed. You're in luck here, as I've actually just rewatched the Fox clip of Grosskreutz's court appearance just before I saw this, and cross referenced it with the NYT visual investigation just to account for selective clipping.

In this case, I would argue that the scale is proportionate. As to why I believe so, lets go over what happened post Rosenbaum.

In the initial confrontation, Rittenhouse retreats, trips and falls to the ground. Huber hits Rittenhouse with a skateboard and gets shot in the chest. Grosskreutz then advances with his gun, then gets shot as well.

Why do I consider this proportionate? First: Rittenhouse made an attempt to retreat. Only after the first physical attack (skateboard) and an attempted disarming, did Rittenhouse fire. After which, as per Grosskreutz's own admission, Rittenhouse did not fire when he backed off with his arms raised. Only after he ~returned to a firing position~ lowered his firearm and advanced did Rittenhouse fire on him as well. As he was armed and advancing with a firearm, I'd consider that a proportional response.

>Out of interest, with regards to Huber and Grosskreutz, do you believe that they were also justified in trying to defend against what seemed at the time to be an active shooter?

Apologies, I'm not too sure of the context before that as I've only personally seen the bit where Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse. However, if Huber and Grosskreutz did believe that they had an active shooter, they might ALSO be justified. Both sides here may have a sufficient justification in this case.

However, in my opinion, and this is contingent on the accuracy of the NYT's report and the above assumption of "active shooter", the only ones who weren't justified, and are thus the root cause, are Rosenbaum, who unilaterally attacked Rittenhouse, and whoever that idiot shooting a pistol into the sky while Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse was.

There's of course more to this, but I'll leave it open for response.

Also, thanks for keeping it civil, it's much appreciated when discussing this sort of controversial topic.

> thanks for keeping it civil

Same!

Just briefly on this:

> Rosenbaum, who unilaterally attacked Rittenhouse

I don't think it's been clearly established why Rosenbaum attacked Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse's testimony on this sounds hollow and unlikely, and the narrative that Rosenbaum was unhinged after getting out of hospital doesn't quite tally with the fact that there were people with him - he wasn't a lone actor here.

It seems incredibly unlikely that there wasn't some sort of verbal provocation from Rittenhouse's side. As I mentioned in another comment, the drone footage shows Rittenhouse pointing his gun at Rosenbaum while Rosenbaum is still 20 feet away from him. To my mind, it's far from certain that this was the first time Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Rosenbaum, but we'll never know.

Now to my main point:

> In this case, I would argue that the scale is proportionate.

If I think to how I personally would have acted in Rittenhouse's position from the moment Rosenbaum threw the bag at him, I think I would probably also have been in a state of adrenaline-fueled panic, and I would have probably made very similar choices.

I don't really have any arguments that Rittenhouse only fired his gun at people he (reasonably, whether rightly or wrongly) believed were attacking him. I do think it's a stretch to think that they were all trying to kill him, particularly Huber (is this further evidence to support my hypothesis above that maybe Rittenhouse escalated the lesser threats of being disarmed or of being detained to threats of deadly force? Hard to say).

To be honest, I think things started to go wrong a lot earlier than that though. He chose to go to a location where he was expecting people to get injured, brought a gun with him, and associated himself with a band of people who believed that they were some kind of private security force.

No-one died that night (or any other night of the unrest) apart from the people Rittenhouse killed, there were no other reported injuries from gunshots, no mob attacks[0], which makes it seem relatively unlikely that anyone would have died if Rittenhouse had not been there, or had not brought his AR-15.

Whatever the ins and outs and the specifics of the case might be, I still think that Facebook were right to err on the side of caution here - technically he may not have committed a crime, but he still killed people, and although the doctrine of 'innocent until proven guilty' holds, his 'innocence' hung on an affirmative defence, which sort of swings it the other way to a certain extent.

[0]: I gather there were some minor injuries to a firefighter and a police officer, but couldn't find details on the circumstances.

>It seems incredibly unlikely that there wasn't some sort of verbal provocation from Rittenhouse's side.

At that time tempers were already flaring nationwide and I find both the above, as well as it's inverse, plausible. Most likely, both sides were clashing, as is oft the case in situations as volatile as this.

Returning to the NYT's video of Rosenbaum, there's a few things to note. One, that he was potentially mentally ill (relevant?), and two, he was directly antagonizing the "militia", sufficiently so that the other protestors felt it necessary to stop him [1].

In the later part, of the same video (note that there's a cut though), Rosenbaum seemingly suddenly pursues[2] and continues chasing. Only after he gets quite close (in my opinion; 18:04 or so), do we hear the first shots. There could be a hypothetical in between to fill in the gap, but given the available evidence that I'd observed, I gave more credence to Rosenbaum ultimately initiating.

>To be honest, I think things started to go wrong a lot earlier than that though. ...

So, I think that while I'd agree with you that yes, the problem started long before the first shot, I would think that it's better to evaluate it at point of firing. Otherwise we'd be chasing this rabbit hole till the end of time.

The protestors and rioters shouldn't have been there earlier as curfews were in place, and the police should have been enforcing law. The side arguments of open carry vs gun ownership and the inherent lethality increase a gun brings to any conflict, all the way to "gun rights". These arguments however are all applicable to the situation but are far more general, and I feel, a too tempting distraction.

I thus divide these into two different questions (or more, if necessary) so they can be addressed piecemeal. 1: At the time of firing, was Rittenhouse justified. 2: All the other bits and bobs about the context of the situation and who should have been there.

For the first, I've continued to make my case above, while for the second (rest?), this comment is long enough as it is, and I'll leave it open for now if you want to pick that one up.

><On facebook's topic ban> This one is a bit more dear an issue to me, being a question of speech rights. But it's also one of those which I haven't come to anything solid. However, picturing myself in that situation, I'd be aghast to have a whole pile of media flaming me and having whatever scant opposition to that narrative literally blocked.

EDIT:

Oops, I missed your line on Rittenhouse's belief in his immediate danger. I think we've already come to the same conclusion in a different thread in which the government, and it's dereliction of it's duty to maintain order is probably the one who should be most at fault (correct me if I've misplaced your position).

[1] https://youtu.be/VpTW2AJE9MQ?t=846 [2] https://youtu.be/VpTW2AJE9MQ?t=1056

> Most likely, both sides were clashing

Agreed.

> two, he was directly antagonizing the "militia"

Again, we see a part of the story here which definitely supports that interpretation. There's also a part of the video you linked to which (I believe) shows the police asking the 'militia' not to point their guns at people[0], which to me suggests that they had been doing this prior to the request from the police. I think it's impossible to know whether Rosenbaum's behaviour was in response to some (perceived?) aggression against him in the first place.

> I gave more credence to Rosenbaum ultimately initiating.

Potentially. However, Rittenhouse is running, with his gun, towards a location where Rosenbaum's 'side' are up to something. Maybe Rosenbaum believes Rittenhouse is going to go and shoot some of the other protestors (or vandals, whatever), and that's why he starts chasing. As you say, it's a long chain back to where the first 'provocation' may have happened. It's clear that the situation developed over the course of the whole day, rather than in the 15 seconds leading up to the killings.

> I'd be aghast to have a whole pile of media flaming me and having whatever scant opposition to that narrative literally blocked

Yes, but at the end of the day, you shot and killed not just one person, but two. The president of the USA was publicly in his corner[1]. I'm not sure I'd say that the opposition to the narrative was blocked, it was just against Facebook's policies. They get slammed when they don't react quickly enough[2], strongly enough[3], etc., and then they get slammed when they do take stronger action, so frankly it's hard to see how they could get it right. I get the free speech implications, but if your only forum for free speech is through Facebook, we have much worse problems in society than whether they allow you to post 'Rittenhouse is a hero' or not.

> the government [...] should be most at fault

That's a pretty accurate summary of my position. Failing to properly maintain order led to the formation of vigilante groups (and it seems these were even encouraged by law enforcement), which ultimately led to the clashes which resulted in Rosenbaum and Huber's deaths.

[0]: https://youtu.be/VpTW2AJE9MQ?t=980 [1]: https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racia... [2]: https://www.politico.eu/article/facebook-content-moderation-... [3]: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-01-15/facebook-tw...

> Out of interest, with regards to Huber and Grosskreutz, do you believe that they were also justified in trying to defend against what seemed at the time to be an active shooter?

Grosskreutz stated outright during the trial that he had no reason to believe Rittenhouse had shot anyone. Despite this, there is video of him pulling his gun while he was chasing Rittenhouse down. Maybe this was just mob mentality Maybe this is because he was associated with violent revolutionary groups to the point that he was invited to speak at their rallies.

If going to a riot with a gun is stupid, chasing a guy with a gun is at least as stupid. The fact that he was running toward where EVERYONE knew the police were lined up makes this even more strange. Why risk your life when you can corral the shooter into the police?

> Grosskreutz stated outright during the trial that he had no reason to believe Rittenhouse had shot anyone

Could you share a link? I could only find part of his testimony where he says that he thought Rittenhouse was an active shooter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bv21bE9PWtE&t=3958s

Have you watched the entire testimony? On cross, he contradicts almost everything he said on direct questioning.

2:11:20 -- Grosskreutz denies he was chasing Rittenhouse.

2:23:30 -- he establishes that when he saw Rittenhouse, he was just helping people

2:27:00 -- he says he believed there was an active shooter, but had no information about who it was and apparently had no way to say why he believed this to be the case.

On the video Grosskreutz was taking with his camera, it is shown that Rittenhouse says that he is going to the police. Grosskreutz claims he though Rittenhouse said "he shot first" even though they sound absolutely nothing alike.

2:30:00 -- he says he was NOT chasing Rittenhouse. Instead, he just happened to be coincidentally pulling his gun while he happened running in the same direction. At the same time, he says he was running that direction because Rittenhouse was. Make of this inconsistency what you will.

2:31:00 -- he sees people mobbing Rittenhouse

2:32:00 -- he says he was concerned about Rittenhouse's safety. This DIRECTLY argues against the idea he believed Rittenhouse was an active shooter.

2:35:00 -- he believed Rittenhouse was in physical danger (even though he just denied seeing jump kick man kick Rittenhouse)

2:36:00 -- he says Huber was slinging his skateboard by the trucks (note: a skateboard is 11 pounds while a baseball bat is only 2 pounds). He says that as a medic, this concerned him. He says he believed Rittenhouse was in danger of head trauma and being seriously hurt. He even claimed in his police report that he told Huber to stop hitting Rittenhouse (though he says in hindsight this was untrue). Once again, there is no reason for concern if he believed Rittenhouse was a dangerous active shooter.

2:37:30 -- he claimed to the police that Rittenhouse just shot him. He completely left out that he had a gun and was advancing and that no shots were fired when he put his hands up.

2:38:30 -- he claims the anesthesia somehow made him forget about the gun while still allowing him to remember everything else with perfect clarity.

2:44:00 -- delving into prosecutorial misconduct where the prosecutors suddenly decided to tell the detectives not to execute a search warrant (they don't want Brady evidence is my read given all the other misconduct allegations).

2:48:00 -- he testifies that EVERYONE who put up their hands and backed off -- even the guy with a club -- do NOT get shot. Once again, this is not what an active shooter does.

2:51:30 -- the point where the prosecution lost case. He contradicts his testimony to the prosecutor in the face of an image of his bicep being vaporized (his word) while his gun is pointed directly at Rittenhouse's head.

Don’t get me wrong, he makes a lot of mistakes, contradicts himself all over the place, and is generally not what I would call a reliable witness by any stretch of the imagination, but I can’t find anywhere where he said that he had no reason to believe Rittenhouse had shot anyone.

I admit though that I’ve only seen the highlights of the cross, which I why I asked for a link.

I might go away and watch the rest of cross this evening.

> My opinion is that he had a gun he shouldn't have had, was in a place he shouldn't have been, causing trouble he shouldn't have been involved in, and killed two people who shouldn't have died.

He had a gun he had a right to have, in a place he had a right to be, at a protest that he had a right to be involved in as much as the protesters, and killed two people rightfully in self defense. What's the problem here? If people don't want to be killed, I would recommend they don't chase down an armed man and imminently threaten his life.

> I would recommend they don't chase down an armed man and imminently threaten his life

I think Rittenhouse had reason to fear for his life, but I don't agree with the statement that they were imminently threatening his life as a fact.

It may be true that Rosenbaum had threatened Rittenhouse's life. But neither Huber nor Grosskreutz had done so.

You may ask whether Grosskreutz pointing his gun at Rittenhouse constitutes threatening his life, and the answer to that is... maybe? But if the fact alone of pointing a gun at someone is threatening someone's life, then we have to rewind and look at whether Rosenbaum had reason to fear for his life.

We have video evidence of Rittenhouse pointing his gun at Rosenbaum while Rosenbaum is still at least 20 feet away.

> My opinion is that he had a gun he shouldn't have had, was in a place he shouldn't have been, causing trouble he shouldn't have been involved in, and killed two people who shouldn't have died. As it turns out, none of that is illegal.

Well put, I disagree only with your last sentence, unless cynical. I think prosecution made a mistake going after intentional homicide charges. All resources and focus should have been on a successful felony gun conviction. Only then should the prosecutor turned to felony murder charges. Even with the jury's finding, the judge should have partially overturned the jury's finding, and found guilty on lesser but included charges to ensure at least a few years of incarceration.

I don't think that judges should be allowed to overrule juries. You can see how many individual opinions there are in this thread - do you think any one of us in isolation should be allowed to make that decision?

The intentional homicide charge was the right thing for the state to do, but I also think it was right he was found not guilty.

Based on the law as it's written, I don't think there's anything that Rittenhouse could actually have been charged with that he could have been found guilty of (except possibly the dismissed curfew violation charge). I just can't reconcile that with the fact that a kid took a gun to a protest and killed two people, which I think almost everyone would agree is not a good outcome for society (although I know there have been discussions about the value of human life around Rosenbaum particularly).

So, that's illegal, for one thing. Judges can overrule the jury in a civil case, and only if they determine that "no reasonable jury could have reached the given verdict". However, that's null here, as this is a Criminal case. The judge should not, and thankfully cannot overrule the jury here, as that's a violation of the accused's 5th amendment rights.

I'd also have to ask. The jury, with more exposure to the evidence than anyone else here found him not guilty. What exceptional case/point would you make to say that would show Rittenhouse's guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". Furthermore, the maximal, and I mean maximal, punishment for the misdemeanor is 9 months, far less than the few years you suggest.

I agree that Kyle was in a place he should not have been. As to causing trouble, I agree with that, thought may others might not. It must also be stated that the people who engaged with him were also in a place they should not have been in and were also in the process of causing some mischief.

All of this just leads me to believe that no one of "good quality" shows up to those events with the idea of causing excess trouble (outside of peacefully demonstrating). How else could it be that the three people who he shot had vast criminal back grounds (which don't apply to his self defense because he did not know about the criminal history when he was shooting them) being that of a child molester and domestic abusers and Kyle himself was on video beating up some girl.

When bad situations happen amongst a crowd of people, the "good quality" people see themselves out and try to leave while the "bad quality" people get hype and try to instigate further.

> Both of the men Rittenhouse killed were unarmed.

Not legally speaking. A skateboard can easily be classified as a deadly weapon. Same as a baseball bat, a big branch or similar stuff.

Not easily.

Wisconsin defines a deadly weapon (actually they use the term 'dangerous weapon') as "any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; any device designed as a weapon [...] or any other device or instrumentality which, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm."

You might say that the skateboard was 'likely to produce great bodily harm in the manner it was used', which I think is plausible, although clearly Huber was not skilled in using his skateboard in this way.

I would point out though that it would be *completely wrong* to say that Huber was 'armed' because he was carrying a skateboard. Although he did hit Rittenhouse with it, it doesn't seem as he was carrying the skateboard as a weapon, it was just an opportunistic usage.

The moment it started being used as a weapon, it became one, afaict. So, just carrying it isn't making it a weapon, but swinging it, is.

That's a fair point. So Huber was not carrying a weapon up until after Rittenhouse had already killed Rosebaum.

That would certainly be a reasonable interpretation. But in the moment he got shot himself, he already used a weapon on rittenhouse.

I would agree that Rittenhouse would be justified to believe that, yes.

Although I would say that the way Huber hit Rittenhouse with the skateboard doesn't really seem as though it's intended to kill or seriously injure, it seems more like he's using it to try to push the assault rifle away from him.

We'll never know, unfortunately.

He tried to hit Rittenhouse in the head with a skateboard. How does that not seem as "intended to kill or seriously injure"?

I don't think you are arguing in good faith.

I think I’ve put quite a lot of time and effort into responding in good faith to everyone who has entered into discussion with me, so I find your comment a bit rude to be honest.

With regards to your specific point, my very next phrase explains what I see in the video instead of an intention to kill or seriously injure.

You might disagree, which is your right, but please don’t accuse me of not arguing in good faith.

He attacked Rittenhouse when Rittenhouse was fallen on the ground surrounded by multiple people running after him and attacking him. The situation was extremely violent: it was during a violent riot that tried to blow up a gas station. At least one of the people attacking him was armed with a handgun and multiple people were armed with baseball bats. At least one of the attackers was a convicted child molester.

It's pretty clear the attacker was part of the attempted beating of Rittenhouse. You wrote it seems like he was just "using it to try to push the assault rifle away from him" to justify the attacker's actions, but you failed to mention the obvious consequence that Rittenhouse would die / be beat up had the attacker succeeded in disarming Rittenhouse.

Everyone can see high quality video footage at 0:15 in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iryQSpxSlrg

> He attacked Rittenhouse

He hit Rittenhouse with his board, sure. Whether it was attack or defence is questionable.

> that tried to blow up a gas station

Can you support this with evidence? I haven’t seen anything that suggests they were trying to blow up the gas station.

> one of the attackers was a convicted child molester

Disgraceful but ultimately irrelevant, unless you think that Rittenhouse knew that and acted on his knowledge.

> attempted beating [… with] the obvious consequence that Rittenhouse would die / be beat up had the attacker succeeded in disarming Rittenhouse.

This is not obvious by a long shot, although it is possible. The police were a few hundred yards down the road, and it is plausible that Rittenhouse would have been held on the ground until police arrived, or marched down to the police, etc.

I have seen the footage and I stand by what I said. If Huber’s intention was to kill or seriously injure Rittenhouse, he would have swung harder and from further away. From 0:14 in your linked video, you can see Huber approaching with his skateboard held at waist height, almost as though he has forgotten he’s carrying it. Others have made a big point about how heavy a skateboard is, but Huber doesn’t leverage any of that weight, by swinging it, he instead sort of jabs with it.

> He hit Rittenhouse with his board, sure. Whether it was attack or defence is questionable.

Rittenhouse was running towards the police and away from the mob. He ran after Rittenhouse to attack him instead of fleeing.

> Disgraceful but ultimately irrelevant, unless you think that Rittenhouse knew that and acted on his knowledge.

> This is not obvious by a long shot, although it is possible. The police were a few hundred yards down the road, and it is plausible that Rittenhouse would have been held on the ground until police arrived, or marched down to the police, etc.

We are not debating Rittenhouse self-defense as that it is obvious from the video footage and the trial. The fact that one of the attackers was a convicted child molester is one of the signals that indicate that the attackers would beat up (and possibly kill) Rittenhouse. Other signals include the fact that there were previous beatings in those riots, that rioters previously attacked police, etc.

You are derailing the conversation and I do not want to repeat myself or extend my time on this. You can see the trial for more information.

> He ran after Rittenhouse to attack him instead of fleeing.

And yet when Rittenhouse turns and shoots Rosenbaum instead of continuing to flee, that's self-defence?

> We are not debating Rittenhouse self-defense [...] You are derailing the conversation and I do not want to repeat myself or extend my time on this.

No, we were debating Facebook's response. I said that I thought it was reasonable for Facebook to act with an abundance of caution around the killing of two unarmed men.

Someone objected to me calling him 'unarmed'. My contention is that although a skateboard can be used as a weapon, that wasn't how Huber used his skateboard.

I'm not sure what I'm 'derailing', or what you think 'the conversation' is, but you're welcome to stop commenting if you don't want to debate further.

“Assault rifle” lol.

"fully semi-automatic military style weapon"

> Facebook choosing not to allow praise or support for a killer is, in my opinion, sensible and logical.

Surely the hard question is "the line drawing". Claiming you support his right to be in a place at a time with a gun and defend himself from attackers who were intent on injuring him... feels extremely reasonable? As though it should be protected.

Far from saying Facebook needs to allow "lol I'm glad those fuckers are dead" posts to stay up but surely advocating for his innocence of any crime is not a thing that should be censored?

> Both of the men Rittenhouse killed were unarmed.

All of the people Rittenhouse shot at were armed. Multiple witnesses including the state's testified to the fact that Rosenbaum, the pedophile screaming the N-word repeatedly that night (and he was white in case you're wondering) who was shot first, was lunging and trying to grab the gun. A person becomes armed when he attempts to take another person's weapon.

The second man shot at, "jump kick man," was using his feet as weapons when he was shot at. When we use even our bodies in a violent manner, they become weapons.

The second man shot was in the act of wielding his skateboard as a weapon, and also grabbed the gun. He became armed when he started using the skateboard as a weapon, and further when he grabbed the gun.

The final person shot was literally armed with an illegally-possessed handgun. He was not shot until he approached Rittenhouse and pointed it at Rittenhouse's head.

All armed.

> Whether he had a legal right to be carrying the gun or not is a little more contentious. Although his possession of the gun was in line with the letter of the law, it seems likely from the wording that the exception was intended to apply to minors hunting and is poorly written, rather than an intentional decision to allow 17 year olds to carry AR-15s. Poorly worded laws are read in favour of the defence, which is why the gun charge was dropped. He likely would not have been allowed to buy or possess the gun in his home state.

It seems to me that banning sixteen and seventeen year olds from possessing sawed-off shotguns and pistols makes sense outside of a hunting context. I personally didn't find the law particularly strangely worded, unless we're going in with the expectation that it will nail a kid.

FWIW, Rittenhouse testified on the stand that he had asked police for advice before his friend bought the rifle, and was told their arrangement complied with the law. That may not be a real legal defense, but I mean, sheesh. Hard to fault anyone who takes pains to comply with the law.

> But whatever the legality, I don't think it's right that a guy can go tooled up to another city, kill two unarmed people, and pose for celebratory photos with white supremacists afterwards.

His father and grandmother live in Kenosha. He had a job there. He had in fact been photographed cleaning graffiti from the walls of a Kenosha high school earlier that same day. It was "his city" as much as anyone else's.

> (and he was white in case you're wondering)

What's been most shocking about the media coverage over this matter, and the incessant, unfounded claims of "white supremacy" on the part of Mr. Rittenhouse, is that without actually saying it, the media has strongly implied to the average normie that Kyle killed black people.

For one example, see https://twitter.com/sarahbeth345/status/1458593872557133825

The meeting was arranged by Lin Wood at the time and he was promptly fired afterward. FYI the 'ok' sign is also used by lots of 'normal' conservatives and even non conservatives. The symbology was invented by 4chan first along with many other campaigns to turn widely used symbols (Pepe) into something associated with nazis. A lot of people who aren't affiliated in any way with nazis still continue to use it because of the original trolling motive and/or they don't know of the association.

Source: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/07/05/kyle-rittenhou...

To preface this, I think Kyle is a wannabe cop and I still think he shouldn't have been there. But the narrative that he's a white supremacist is probably false. The bar incident occurred because it was arranged by Lin Wood who he fired afterward. Also the FBI investigated him and found no connection to white supremacists iirc.

Does defending yourself turn you into a “wannabe cop” when he was there mostly giving first aid and cleaning graffiti? Are people with first aid kits wannabe medics who have no business unless a doctor is present?

He was definitely a wannabe medic. He told people an EMT which he was not, and when it might actually have been useful for him to kick into gear (after he shot Rosenbaum), he instead just stood there and called a friend.

>“After I shoot Mr Rosenbaum, he tried to grab my gun. I was running away. There was a gunshot behind me. After I shot him, I run around the car because I was going to go render first-aid to him,” the teenager said in a recorded TV interview on Monday.

>He added: “I wasn’t able to, because then there was a mob forming and calling for my execution to get him and kill him.”

What did you expect him to do? EMTs are not gods that reverse death, nor was he wrong getting away from a violent crowd. He offered first aid, where did he say he was an EMT?

Did you actually watch the video or read the interview?

Did you?

https://youtu.be/KauhJWPJu2U?t=897

> I don't think it's right that a guy can go tooled up to another city,

His father lives there, it is just a few miles from his legal residence.

Fair point.

I don't think that this was discussed at trial (and probably rightly), but I do question how much he actually visited his father.

It seems as though he lived with his mum and sisters half an hour away from Kenosha.

His mother and sisters were in the courtroom when the verdict was read.

Anyway, I don't argue that the simple fact that he was in Kenosha was wrong. Being exactly where he was, at the time he was, with a weapon...

I don't really know what I want from this. I certainly don't think that the government should pass laws stopping people from travelling, or from being wherever they want to be, but nonetheless, I feel as though the whole thing was avoidable and ended in tragedy for three families, and yes, I include the Rittenhouse family here.

Even though it's been established that Rittenhouse is not guilty of the charges, the rumours about the family history are saddening. I don't believe he went out planning to kill people, I think he was playing policeman, but the fact remains that he killed two people and has to live with that

Plus I'm sure there are civil suits to follow.

"Facebook did the right thing" is the most un-HN thing I have read on HN in years. So while I may not agree or disagree with things you said. It is always good to have some balance on HN.

> Given the weird nature of this case, and how only one viewpoint about it was allowed on social media, I wonder if that constitutes defamation on the part of the social media companies, since they were in practice making an editorial decision that he was bad.

You yourself acknowledge that it is a "viewpoint", or the term more common in law an "opinion". Opinions are protected speech by the first amendment (not section 230) and as such Facebook cannot be liable in any way for promoting one or silencing another.

To be liable for defamation, you would need to be stating false facts with reckless disregard for the truth (or malice, if Rittenhouse counts as a public figure), not just promoting an opinion. This is regardless of section 230 (which might or might not provide them further protection).

is there case law that shows defamation for omitting facts? It sounds like such a precedent could make anyone guilty of defamation if they only cover news when it’s first announced and not when more info comes out about the news.

The policy that the facts must be omitted might be an act of defamation, or, because it was published, libel.

The policy was suposedly that "we will [...] remove content containing praise or support of Rittenhouse", that's not a policy of removing or omitting facts, that's a policy of removing opinions. Facts are neither praise nor support.

Facebook is entitled to only repeat whatever opinions it wants to repeat, by virtue of the first amendment.

Sure, and once it's making it's own opinion dominant, it should no longer be treated as a platform, but a publisher.

I mean, that "distinction" doesn't exist under current law - you can be both, or neither. Facebook is both. Even if you amended the law to create such a distinction though, attempting to place companies under it based on whether or not they moderated based on viewpoint would be a content based restriction on speech, and violate the constitution. The government isn't allowed to punish people (including groups of people such as companies), or remove privileges, based on the content of speech, with very narrow exceptions.

I'd agree with you, but we hold publishers liable to whatever they publish.

My understanding is as follows. As a platform, the rationale for section 230 protections is that you are not the one making the comments, and are thus just a platform for the speech of others. The speaker, and not the platform, is thus the one liable for the speech. Conversely, a publisher, while not the one writing (contributors write, and the publisher publishes), still bears the brunt of the liability.

I thus think it is intuitive (to me at least), that after a degree of control is exercised, this flips into being more like a publisher than a platform, and should be treated as such. The question then becomes where to draw that line.

the only thing 230 does is make it so “platforms” CAN moderate speech and exercise control, without having to take on the legal liability like a newspaper publisher.

Before 230, there was already effectively a distinction in that, if you ran a forum and did absolutely no moderation, you were never liable for the content - but then you also couldn’t remove any content that was vulgar, racist, hateful to other users, etc. which is why section 230 is part of the “Communications Decency Act”. Without it, social media just choose between not moderating anything, and vetting every post (and probably only allowing posts from a small group of verified people and businesses).

LegalEagle has a good rundown: https://youtu.be/eUWIi-Ppe5k?t=4m18s

Are "moderate" and "editorialize" treated equally in 230? I take moderate to mean, delete entirely, silence, ban. I have always assumed maybe incorrectly? that editorializing something such as adding or removing content or context is publishing content?

My understanding is that you could draw a legal distinction under current law with those words, but only if this part falls under the word moderation not the word editorializing:

> that editorializing something such as [...] removing content or context

I suppose it would be permissible to draw a line where you could delete all or none of a users content, but not some, since that does sound content neutral. I don't believe anyone has drawn such a line though in law (and it would be quite the strange line to draw).

I think the argument would be (and I'm not sure how they could prove such a thing) that they were not omitting facts, but actively suppressing facts and allowing the spread of (what ended up to be) misinformation. I'm not a lawyer, of course, and playing Monday morning QB of sorts.

EDIT: Though, I think this only applies to news sources, which they've been ruled to be not as. Though that ruling may be overturned if they actively suppress certain information.

It appears he has a great case against CNN and perhaps even the POTUS. Expect CNN to lose yet another court case for defamation and misinformation with a huge payout.

Social media and corporate news outlets should let the courts do their job. They are constantly wrong and can't even get basic facts right.

It's all about the narrative and the party line backing up the benefactors.

How did they become arbitraters of truth?

This is an interesting conclusion, because as I understand it this is only really true in some states. Wisconsin's self defense law is more permissive than many, and so Rittenhouse probably couldn't have used the same defense as easily in many states.

In other words, it's not "plainly obvious", and this comes down to the context beyond the moments before he shot people. Wisconsin law says you can ignore that context, and that self defense is self defense even if you create the situation that requires deadly force or are the aggressor.

Wisconsin law has exceptions to this, that allowed Rittenhouse to use self defense despite having himself escalated.

This is a bad thing for a few reasons (two people who both shoot each other can legitimately claim self defense, taken not much further and Ahmaud Arbery's killers could claim self defense after he reached for their gun to defend himself), and anything but "obvious".

> This is an interesting conclusion, because as I understand it this is only really true in some states. Wisconsin's self defense law is more permissive than many, and so Rittenhouse probably couldn't have used the same defense as easily in many states.

Let's look at the five rules of self defense as they apply pretty much everywhere in the US. The last one is the big difference in Wisconsin.

* Innocence (was he there to commit a crime or hurt someone) -- Rittenhouse was generally there to help people. The altercation was started because he put out a fire.

* Imminence (was the use of force against him about to be used) -- The video shows Rosenbaum cornering him and lunging. The gunpowder stippling pattern shows that Rosenbaum's hand was on the barrel of the gun too. He shot at Maurice Freedman (jump kick man -- his identity was known to the prosecutors, but they hid his identity) who was in the process of trying to kick his face in with heavy boots. He shot at a guy assaulting him with a skateboard. Finally, he shot someone pointing a gun at his face.

* Proportionality (not excessive force -- in this case, only deadly force can be stopped by deadly force). I don't know of any state where grabbing a gun, pointing a gun, hitting someone with a skateboard (they weigh around 11 pounds -- a baseball bat weights around 2 pounds), or trying to crush someone's face aren't considered deadly force.

* Reasonableness (would any other reasonable person in that situation fear for their life) -- If you were a naive teenager (or even an adult) and an adult said they'd kill you and then waited until you were alone to chase you into a corner, would you be afraid? Would you wonder if you were about to die?

* Avoidance -- this is the different one. Some states have clear stand your ground law. You never have to retreat from a fight if you are defending yourself. Some states have castle doctrine which says you have to retreat on the street, but not in your home or it's curtilage (the frequently used area around the house). Some states say you must retreat first in all situation up until you are completely cornered. 38 states are stand your ground. A few more like California, Illinois, or Oregon have castle doctrine. only a handful in the Northeast have duty to retreat everywhere.

Now, even if there were a duty to retreat, Rittenhouse did this too. He ran away until he was cornered and only then (and with Rosenbaum mid-charge) did he shoot the gun. Likewise, he did not shoot his gun at the others until he'd been hit in the head with a rock and collapsed to the ground a few steps later in the middle of retreating to the safety of the police line.

TL;DR -- This shooting would have been justified even in states with the most strict self-defense laws.

I’m really susprised if they didn’t watch the videos and read about the case. Most people watch video now so is it possible they avoided all videos or they just didn’t believe the videos? Nobody I know didn’t watch the videos.

I linked my friends a youtube video of someone doing a legal analysis after the verdict. After watching, they expressed surprise that the incidents were recorded.

They claimed Rittenhouse shot someone who had their hands up and showed a picture. This was wrong for at least two reasons. First, they deceptively cropped the gun out of the image. Second, the video they refused to play clearly shows (contrary to the implication) that Grosskreutz wasn't shot until later when he pointed his gun.

Likewise, the videos shown on most media networks were very selectively edited to remove any bits that might hint at self defense.

Very few of the "Kyle is a murderer" crowd have seen the actual full-length, unedited videos of what happened.

> Very few of the "Kyle is a murderer" crowd have seen the actual full-length, unedited videos of what happened.

If I can translate, your claim is that they are uninformed, which is plainly a fallacious argument. Just how could you know this? This is kind of an unrelated rant, but it reminds me just a little of Justice Scalia pulling a random and made up statistic out of his hat, something he couldn't possibly know about what most Americans believe that, oh yeah, was patently false, and used it to desecrate the 2nd Amendment, without 2/3rds majority of both houses of congress nor state legislatures, i.e. not the proper self-described way literally writ in the Constitution itself, and in fact beyond the scope of the Supreme Court's domain, effectively turning what Founders intended as a selfless right to fight tyranny into something the Founders debated and explicitly decided against including within the 2nd, a selfish, unimpressive and frankly mostly expressed cowardly, right of defense of self and/or property. It was far better before becoming redundant, as the right of self-defense predates the Constitution by some time, and the decision very uncharacteristic of Scalia, a life-long literal Constitutionalist, raising questions of senility and competence, especially because he died soon after. And it is merely one right among many that had been eroded around that time, including habeas corpus, the 5th and 6th Amendments, at least.

I've watched all the videos. I still think these deaths were felony murders. I think Rittenhouse is a coward like George Zimmerman. I know this is unrelated, but there were several accidental shooting deaths recently, little kids, babies, and the list of mass gun killings is astoundingly deep and still grows. The list of uncontested gun victims is massive. Where are their rights? Does a bunch of people's vane fascination with deadly weapons supersede an innocent person's right to exist? It is a fact that less guns leads to less gun deaths, and we will be much better off as society with what would be far smaller lists of mass punchings, kickings, pokings, stabbings and axings. It'd be more interesting to read about a malcontent that had punched 14 people before being subdued by authorities. We can, actually, outlaw guns, and it would cause less gun deaths and less gun crime, but we can never outlaw fists, and everyone knows you shouldn't hit people.

> We can, actually, outlaw guns, and it would cause less gun deaths and less gun crime

This is a fallacious argument, criminals don’t follow gun laws.

The bias in self-defense cases is very high.

Sure, if a stranger was breaking into your house in the middle of the night and gets shot, there's probably no charges.

Outside of a pretty narrow window, it's likely to go to trial. From there, conviction is extremely likely no matter what. Juries have a definite bias to favor the prosecutor which in my opinion is why so many innocent people have been convicted over the years.

So the massive list of uncontested gun victims is caused by a bunch of people with a vain fascination with deadly weapons? Either: a) this is the same type of fallacy you started out criticizing, or b) it's hyperbole, because "massive" and "bunch" could mean anything and you haven't substantiated it

>Having watched the videos, it was plainly obvious that in each case, Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense.

my understanding is that you can't claim self-defense if you initiated violence yourself. Threatening unarmed people with a gun, pointing it at them is a credible threat of violence that the people have the right to defend themselves from, and that is what they tried to do in particular by chasing that gun wielding moron away. Unfortunately that aspect seems to have been totally overlooked.

>Threatening unarmed people with a gun

a) he never threatened anyone. In fact, he demonstrated better gun safety than, say, a Hollywood actor/producer 3 times his age.

b) how can you claim the crowd was unarmed? Of the 3 people that stuck around to be searched, 2 of them had weapons. A skateboard used as a bludgeon. And a Glock pistol that was drawn from concealment and pointed at his head.

> i just watch those Kenosha videos and see that only those militia gun fetishists are having guns

No, this isn’t a matter for debate — it’s an established fact of the case, agreed to by all parties, that Gaige Grosskreutz was carrying a pistol. He also admitted under oath that Rittenhouse only shot him after he pointed the pistol at him.

it was visibly unarmed crowd that the armed militia was threatening. Few people carrying concealed guns happens everywhere and doesn't change the unarmed nature of the crowd.

>Ah! so that is what responsible gun owner's gun safety looks like - 2 dead 1 wounded

I know you’re being sarcastic, but *yes*, that is responsible gun safety in a scenario where deadly force is required (which is why he was acquitted). Kyle exercised an incredible measure of discipline in his restraint—not shooting wildly into a mob that was overtaking him, only firing on those who were attacking him. Show me a police bodycam video where the officer is equally restrained.

Btw I agree that the so-called-armoror was inexperienced and immature. I can only imagine why a producer would so irresponsibly hire her? Wait..wasn’t the executive producer of that film also the main actor that pointed a gun at a crew member and pulled the trigger?

>Kyle exercised an incredible measure of discipline in his restraint—not shooting wildly into a mob that was overtaking him, only firing on those who were attacking him.

He was an active shooter, and thus a threat to anybody around, and the people tried to defend themselves from that threat. Why those people got denied the right of self-defense and treated as attackers instead? I think it is a total miscarriage of justice that an active shooter successfully claimed self-defense. Not shooting wildly into a mob is really a pretty low, a new low i'd say, bar of responsible gun safety. You seeing laudable restraint and discipline in that is one of the best illustrations of the gun problem in the society.

Self defence is not antisymmetric, as a contrived example suppose two people are independently running away from murderers and bump into each other in the dark (maybe add some extra factor like a gunfire sound starting at the same time) then both would be covered under self defence to use (deadly) force againt what was actually an innocent victim.

Except he never pointed a gun at anybody that wasn’t already threatening/chasing him.

pointing gun isn't necessary. As we know from for example many police shootings mere presence of a gun even at a minimally tense situation is usually already perceived as a threat even by well trained and used to guns people.

> pointing gun isn't necessary.

If you threaten a person with bodily harm, I think it is reasonable to point a gun at them to get them to stop. Would you voluntarily get bashed in the head with a skateboard if you were in that position?

if you're an active shooter in a populated place i think you're extremely lucky to get only slightly bashed in the head as normally much worse things would happen to you.

Again, cause and effect backwards here. He was attacked previous to any trigger pulling.

>Again, cause and effect backwards here.

cause - the guy shoots an unarmed man and just coldly walks away from it. No victim check, no attempt to render first aid, no reporting to and waiting for police and emergency services... nothing what is reasonably expected in the situation of self-defense.

effect - reasonable perception that it is a killer on the lose, a threat to defend from.

This is an argument for justifying the following attacks on Kyle. Kyle acting in self defence does not imply that Huber was not acting in self defence.

Using police are a bad example, because they aren't held to the same standard as non-police. Whether that should be or not is debatable, but it's not debatable that there are clearly different standards. Police are routinely determined justified in killing people based on the possibility of a weapon, those Rittenhouse shot not only had weapons, but showed intent to use them.

i'm not talking about standards. I'm talking about human perception of gun danger and use as an example well established perception of gun danger by the people known to be well accustomed to guns and associated dangers.

>those Rittenhouse shot not only had weapons, but showed intent to use them.

these people were defending themselves and others around from Rittenhouse after he shot an unarmed man and just walked away not checking on the victim, nor waiting for police like one would do in a bona fide self-defense, and that made him to be reasonably perceived as an active shooter that is a threat to anybody around. Thus he created that violent situation of him being a threat and necessitating a defense against him, and he shot the people who were defending themselves and others from him. One shouldn't be able to claim self-defense in such situation.

There doesn't need to be a clear "bad guy" in every situation. Situations can escalate and get out of hand without any individual actors with bad intentions. So it's entirely plausible that the people charging Rittenhouse thought he was a terrorist and wanted to disarm him, and it's entirely plausible that Rittenhouse feared for his life when he shot them. To illustrate my point:

Suppose there are two people at two corners of a dark alleyway. They both hear a gunshot towards the center of the alley and draw their pistols in self-defence. They take a few steps and now see each other holding a gun. Each one raises his gun at the other, thinking that's the shooter. One fires and kills the other. AFAIK it would be justified self-defense

There are a lot more layers to the case than you would originally think. Like an obligation to flee if reasonable to do so etc. Legal Eagle on YT did a great breakdown of it all.

It's not as simple as "can't claim self-defence if you initiated violence yourself".

>Like an obligation to flee if reasonable to do so etc.

If you're targeted personally i suppose. When the violence isn't targeted your running away wouldn't change the situation if there are other people around who can be shot. That reminds about that veteran who attacked the shooter several years ago at the Oregon college - he could have fled i guess, yet he didn't. Did he had an obligation to flee? I don't think anybody there entertained even for a moment such nonsense idea as the shooter's self-defense against the veteran who attacked him and got wounded in that fight. In Kenosha though the shooter shot the guys who tried to stop him (and from any point of view he was the active shooter to be stopped as he didn't stay with his first victim calling/waiting for police and rendering help to the victim as one would do in a true self-defense situation, and as an active shooter he was a threat to everybody, a threat that the people have the right to defend themselves from), and it somehow got successfully sold as self-defense on his part.

Oregon does NOT have a stand your ground law. If that were the only statute, he'd be guilty of murder (showing that such a law is not well thought out). My guess is they have another law (like most states do) that allows coming to the defense of someone else.

"a true self-defense situation", according to who?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

> Legal Eagle on YT did a great breakdown of it all.

I strongly disagree. He left out some very important details from the video. Whether by accident or not, doesn't really matter in this case, IMO. (I know he issued corrections/clarifications in the comments, but most people are not gonna read those)