The German definition of self-defense (“Notwehr”) sounds quite comprehensive to me:

https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__32.html

What makes you think the case would’ve been adjudicated differently in Germany?

Edit: to be clear, certainly bringing a gun to a protest at all is illegal in Germany, so he could presumably be prosecuted for that, but it's not at all clear why he'd have been guilty of murder.

In the UK, aside from guns being highly regulated, taking the gun to a protest would be taken as a sign of intent to use it and the rest of the events would be interpreted in that light.

Of course in the UK he'd be looking at multiple years in prison just for the gun offence, and it's also less likely someone else would be waving a gun around in his direction.

I'm no expert on law, but it seems likely that in a country where publicly carrying a gun at all is illegal, that both Grosskreutz and Rittenhouse would have been able to legitimately claim self-defense had they shot and killed the other, because either could have reasonably assumed (even if incorrectly) that the other was some sort of terrorist or mass shooter.

I don't think so. I think the fact that they had taken a gun along to an event like this in the first place would be taken as pre-meditation, regardless of whether they believed themselves to be in immediate mortal danger when they actually fired the shot.

Although perhaps it would be enough to get it downgraded to manslaughter.

I'd love to hear from a lawyer on this TBH.

> I'd love to hear from a lawyer on this TBH.

Me too! I'm not at all sure I'm right -- but then again, neither are (or should be) the people with hot takes shot from the hip about how obviously he would have been found guilty of murder in enlightened Europe. Thanks for the interesting discussion.

In the UK I assume that taking a gun anywhere would be illegal. So let's use a different analogy. If there was a protest in the UK and someone brought pepper spray, would that be interpreted as a sign to use it? If during that hypothetical protest, there were people jump kicking him and swinging skateboards at him, and he used the pepper spray, would he be charged with battery for bringing the pepper spray in the first place?

> If there was a protest in the UK and someone brought pepper spray, would that be interpreted as a sign to use it?

Pepper spray is also illegal in the UK.

> If during that hypothetical protest, there were people jump kicking him and swinging skateboards at him, and he used the pepper spray, would he be charged with battery for bringing the pepper spray in the first place?

Basically, going prepared with any form of weapon in the UK is illegal.

If you picked up something off the street, a piece of 2x4 that was lying around, that sort of thing, then you're likely to be OK if it's clear you were under attack. But if you're packing weapons ahead of time to go out to an event then you should either not go or expect that you will be charged with a criminal offence if you get involved in any trouble.

Bringing anything anywhere public with the intent of using it as a weapon, even the skateboard, is an offense in the UK. The discourse and social environment is just completely different; despite our own endemic violence issues the UK is simply a less deadly country.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offensive-weapons-kniv...

“any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him or by some other person”.

This case is also weird if you reimagine all of the participants as penguins in Antarctica. Since that didn't happen, it would be a waste of time to speculate what would happen in a completely different scenario.

As far as I can tell that’s not because of a real difference in self defense law, but because of a difference in gun laws. But the gun laws in America are what they are. Many people at this riot were armed: https://vimeo.com/461063053. Listen to all the gun fire at the end of the video.

Judging Rittenhouse as if he was in Germany makes no sense. Watch the video—this wasn’t Germany, it was Iraq. In Germany, the police would never have allowed armed rioters to burn down multiple city blocks over two days.

I'm pretty sure German law would find Rittenhouse acted in self defense, given the facts of the case. The people he killed were attacking him with weapons, one had threatened to kill him, he had a gun pointed at him, he was in reasonable fear for his own life, and he attempted to retreat before resorting to his gun. Remove all the media hoopla and it's not even a little bit unclear - put most people in that situation and they'd find it reasonable to use deadly force to defend yourself.

Meh. Not if you take into account the US constitution and the right to self-defence and bear arms (which makes sense if you think about it). You can't really compare to a European country where you'd get prosecuted simply for carrying a firearm.

Well the laws are different here. The jury decided what they thought given the laws of the state, not what they wanted to rule. That's the way jury trials work. It's not a morality trial, it's a "did he break the law" trial

So if you get assaulted in Germany you're supposed to just let them beat you up without making a move?

Aren't there any acceptable scenarios were lethal self defense can be applied?

I'm not european, but I'm not American either, and the case is weird. In isolation the outcome is correct but take a step back and do you not see what is happening to your country? Weird is an understatement. The entire set and setting for it shouldn't be happening in the first place. But it is.

I am european, but no longer living in Europe (or America) and I can't help but agree.

Kyle Rittenhouse isn't guilty of murder under US law, and the killings have been determined to be self defence. OK then.

But you have a young person being driven to a counter-protest by a parent, picking up a firearm on the way, ostensibly to use the threat of deadly force to help prevent property damage to some businesses as part of some sort of vigilante militia. There is just so much wrong with this picture before we even get to the (inevitable IMHO) tragedy.

>But you have a young person being driven to a counter-protest by a parent

This is where I stopped reading, because you're incorrect about basic facts of the case:

https://news.yahoo.com/kyle-rittenhouses-mother-did-not-1838...

OK, as usual, someone picks up on one of the least important bits to intimate that the whole point must be wrong. Perhaps if you'd read past that you might have been able to address the theme rather than one of the less important parts.

OK great, the mother wasn't involved, TIL. But the rest stands, there is so much wrong with the whole picture leading up to the (inevitable) tragedy.

You were incorrect about the thing which was the thesis of your comment! Not just incorrect but reality was in the exact opposite state as your comment portrayed it!

When a person manages to be wrong so efficiently, why on Earth should they feel entitled to partial credit for supporting arguments to a factually incorrect main idea?

> You were incorrect about the thing which was the thesis of your comment!

Then you misunderstood the thesis of my comment. Who provided the transport was the least part of it.

The main idea is that the picture is pretty damn f'd up when teenage civillians are going armed to protect private property at/from a protest.

That his mother didn't drive him makes it slightly less messed up, but the overall picture of US society it paints is pretty much the same giant WTF as it was before.

But the f'd up part is the property-destroying riots, not the citizens trying to protect the community. Take away the 2nd, there'd be more damage. Take away the 1st, everything would be fine.

> But the f'd up part is the property-destroying riots, not the citizens trying to protect the community.

I disagree. It's all a huge mess. Armed citizens setting themselves up as effective vigilante defence forces is terrible both for the circumstances that lead there, and the action itself. It really looks like a broken society, and is something I'd expect in far less developed countries.

> Take away the 2nd, there'd be more damage

Maybe, but maybe there would be more people alive.

Why is that what’s wrong with the picture, and not the larger issue that rioters were allowed to burn parts of a city to the ground for days? This case is also far from the only violence that took place there.

Indeed. My point of view is as a parent of a 16-year old myself. Kyle's parent needs to be locked up here. She's the guilty party, as the supposed guardian of this child. Kyle, defending himself in that bizarro situation, and given current law in that state, was innocent. But there's no world in which a parent should allow that situation to EVER occur. If we dropped a bunch of armed teenagers in the middle of a riot, we should expect mayhem and death, no matter what their individual politics are. We have a serious problem in this country and it isn't Kyle Rittenhouse.

The world isn’t neatly 18 or under 18. Grown children who were aged adults attacked a teen openly carrying a rifle. The guilty party is the aggressors who decided to lawlessly attack a person with every right to defend themselves. He went to administer first aid and was seen cleaning graffiti. She raised him well.

If you do have a child who is 16, you might understand. They are not ready to make these kinds of decisions. They are unbearably righteous, whether righty or lefty. They will go in and kill and be killed with whatever weapon you provide them. The worst thing you can do is to give them a weapon and put them in a war, unless you DO want death and destruction. For those downvoting me because they believe he is guilty, clearly he was going in with many motivations in mind, but probably thought he was doing the right thing. How can we hold a minor accountable without looking at his guardians? Don't parents hold responsibility for their children?

lol he didn't go to render first aid. He was there to be a tough guy. I agree with the outcome of the trial but let's not actually be naive enought to believe that made up garbage.

There’s video of him doing both

Yes, we are aware. There is more ideology behind this case than just guns, for most people. My perspective: There has been an increase in violent rioting and looting across the country. The city governments are largely complicit in this and refuse to stop it from happening. The police are restricted by the city governments from performing their duty as public defenders. This unlawful behavior — and I don't just mean rioting, but also simple crimes like shoplifting distinct from any protest; cities such as Seattle have declined to prosecute all such crimes for a long while now — has become so ubiquitous as to be obviously trending toward ruination of communities. In brief, small business has already started to leave these areas, and large businesses are shuttering as well. They simply cannot remain open in the face of unchecked crime.

Now, when the state fails to uphold its obligations and the social contract is broken, what happens is that people either flee the area, or they turn to vigilantism. Doing nothing is a privilege few can afford. The people living in these communities do not want to flee. They have tried calling the police, but the police do not come. They have tried voting, but it doesn't work. They hear of another impending riot. They decide to defend their community. This is the setting of the Rittenhouse saga, and many other such sagas soon to come. Yes, it is a 'weird' situation in a first world country, but it is not weird at all in the annals of history. The case resonates emotionally about more than guns — he is either a hero who stood up when no one else would to stop this madness and defended himself from the violent hordes, or he is an instigator who inserted himself into a lawful anti-racism event and joyfully gunned down the peaceful protesters.

Well yes, people shouldn’t have been allowed to burn down a city, loot, and commit violent acts for days on end. Of course that’s weird, this case is really just a small part of it.

Would anyone laugh at anyone attacking someone with a semi automatic gun with a skateboard?

Are you not allowed to shoot someone in Germany if they fire a gun into the air and then point it at you? What about if someone is swinging a blunt object violently at your head? Is there just not such a thing as "self defense" in Germany?

I feel like I sound like one of the right wing sympathizers but I'm honestly just curious how things work over there, are you willing to explain?

You can't shoot someone in the US for swinging something at your head. Otherwise all bar fights would end in gun violence like in a cheesy Western film.

> You can't shoot someone in the US for swinging something at your head.

In every state of which I’ve ever been a resident, responding with lethal force in such a case is in fact legal.

If that something is a deadly weapon sure. If it's fisticuffs and shoving then no it's not unless someone has you on the ground and is pounding away with no sign of letting up. I would say you would need to be beat half to death though or the jury is going to laugh at you.

This is simply false in most states. In short, you can shoot someone dead if you "reasonably believes such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or bodily harm to himself / herself or another". This does in fact include a guy punching you or trying to punch you.

This whole comment shows that you really don’t understand physical violence/haven’t been involved in it. One punch can easily cause physical damage that can ruin lives. One hard shove can crack someone’s head on a concrete curb. These are all things I’ve seen happen. The idea that you could be “beaten half to death” and then have the presence of mind to decide that it’s ok to defend yourself with a weapon is equally absurd.

Depends on what they're swinging, if they are swinging a lead pipe or brick it would absolutely be an act of self defense. Just a fist meh I don't see it happening unless there are multiple assailants attacking you

Not so if the shot down people can also make the case that they feared for their lives because you were carrying a weapon and that is why they pointed a weapon at you in the first place. There is a good reason why only highly trained government forces are allowed to carry a weapon let alone some teenager.

> Not so if the shot down people can also make the case that they feared for their lives

Can you cite the specific German statute or case history that says this? Or is it just what you intuitively expect to be true?

> There is a good reason why only highly trained government forces are allowed to carry a weapon let alone some teenager.

For what it's worth, I wish that were the case in the US too. But whether carrying a gun is illegal is a different question from whether using it in this specific situation makes you also guilty of the additional crime of murder.

If you can read German, then search for the term Putativnotwehr - or Erlaubnistatbestandsirrtum which looks so much more German. It refers to an understandable, but wrong belief to be in a situation that justifies self defense.

It is a valid excuse in penal law, yet it does not apply to civil liabilities. You can still be sued for damages. An official prosecutor told me that you can use it once in your life to beat somebody up. After that, they will not believe you anymore.

However, I completely agree that it does not make sense to judge the Rittenhouse case by German law.

Thanks!

If a hispanic guy being aquitted for defending himself from three white attackers is your best example of white supremacy in action and your reference is from the civil war - maybe take a deep breath and realize the country isn't doing as bad as your peers at facebook claim

Don't forget that one of the attackers had been screaming racial slurs all night...

I'm sorry I've hurt your feelings.

>The US has a long history of letting murderers off the hook when there is a racial component.

Luckily that wasn't the case here so your comment is immaterial, a straw man.

I'm sorry I've hurt your feelings.