Kyle Rittenhouse trial set for early November .

[Double Naught Spy]

At least initially, the defense is claiming he acted in self defense, not because he is psychologically compromised. I can't recall any murder cases where a sociopathic diagnosis was a beneficial defense. Can you?

Interesting that you characterize it as a sociopathic tendency when in similar but different circumstances, folks that travel long distances voluntarily to help others in need against natural (not cultural) threats/crises are considered heroes.

 

[zukiphile]

I know exactly what the word means--I believe he was raised to be one by his parents and was motivated by their own sociopathic tendencies to feel compelled to travel and act as a vigilante to make things right against "undesirables" in society.

I don't see the case for Rittenhouse as a sociopath being supported by the video.

The lad deserves a dope slap from an adult for several decisions he has made, but the pertinent one is how he treated the approach of Grosskreutz. In the midst of a group attack, he allowed Grosskreutz to get within literal spitting distance with a pistol, then let his guard down when Grosskreutz, having first pointed the pistol at Rittenhouse, then put his hand up as if to surrender but retained his pistol.

Someone who was motivated to be there to shoot a bad guy wouldn't wait to be chased by a group, and wouldn't let Grosskreutz back away after having initiated an approach with pistol in hand. That he only shot Grosskreutz once also indicates to me that he wasn't primarily looking for someone to kill. Someone with a vigilante fantasy should be doing more than his defensive minimum to better live out that fantasy.

The next interesting thing in this story may be the cross-examination of Grosskreutz.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I know exactly what the word means--I believe he was raised to be one by his parents and was motivated by their own sociopathic tendencies to feel compelled to travel and act as a vigilante to make things right against "undesirables" in society.

Since you know what the word "sociopathic" means, what is your evidence that his custodial parent was a sociopath? What is your evidence that Kyle felt "compelled" to act as a vigilante?

A disorder of some sort could actually be used in his defense, BTW.

What disorder has Kyle been diagnosed with, and by whom was he diagnosed?

 

[stagpanther]

Originally Posted by stagpanther
I know exactly what the word means--I believe he was raised to be one by his parents and was motivated by their own sociopathic tendencies to feel compelled to travel and act as a vigilante to make things right against "undesirables" in society.
Since you know what the word "sociopathic" means, what is your evidence that his custodial parent was a sociopath? What is your evidence that Kyle felt "compelled" to act as a vigilante?

Quote:
A disorder of some sort could actually be used in his defense, BTW.
What disorder has Kyle been diagnosed with, and by whom was he diagnosed?

After carefully examining a couple YouTube videos and methodically diagnosing a few bits and pieces of internet analysis by others, I decided to self-anoint myself as an expert on when murder is justifiable--just like most everyone else on this thread.

 

[HiBC]

After carefully examining a couple YouTube videos and methodically diagnosing a few bits and pieces of internet analysis by others, I decided to self-anoint myself as an expert on when murder is justifiable--just like most everyone else on this thread.

Murder is not justifiable. Homicide might be.

Along with the Freedom to Keep and Bear Arms,I have some other old fashioned ideas I won't let go of.
I believe in Freedom of Travel.
While I might not choose to go East of the Mississippi....I believe opinions that "KR should not have been there" (so he is guilty) or "KR should not have been armed" (so he is guilty) come from the same place as " YOU should not be allowed to have a gun"
I have another"Old Fashioned Belief" The PRESUMPTION of INNOCENCE UNTIL CONVICTED IN a COURT OF LAW.

Right now,today,as I write this, KR has not been convicted,so I presume him innocent.

I will stand by this statement:

I'm going to do what a lot of people should probably do.

Say this:

"I just don't have enough factual information to offer an opinion."

 

[Metal god]

After carefully examining a couple YouTube videos and methodically diagnosing a few bits and pieces of internet analysis by others, I decided to self-anoint myself as an expert on when murder is justifiable--just like most everyone else on this thread.

Good answer haha

I still think this is about the charges . If he is only charged with 2nd degree murder he walks . The prosecution tried to have a video allowed that had KR sitting in a car watching what he thought was a guy/s shoplifting . KR commented something to the effect he wished he had his gun . There theory is that KR has been looking for a fight and the video shows he has been wanting to use the gun in said fight . Judge said not admissible ( in the link in OP ) Why would that not be relevant ? Simple , actions matter more then thoughts and that day KR believed to have seen shoplifters he called the police and did not intervene . He did what we've been told since 911 ( if you see something say something ) and yet the state would try to use that against him . Could you imagine how full the jails would be if we could be prosecuted for are thoughts .

Ok that said lets talk actions as a few seem to think that him just being there was good enough to be guilty . Lets take that to the next level and use this scenario . What If I just randomly walked up to someone and punch them in the face and and they proceeded to beat the crap out of me and will not stop . Because I started it , do I deserve to die ? Would I be justified in using lethal force to stop my "attacker" ? I concluded in my mind anyway that yes I would but I'd also be guilty of causing the incident in the first place therefore some repercussions and or penalties should be imposed on me . However at no point would it be reasonable for anyone to think I must just sit there and hope the guy stops beating on me because I started it .

Now that's an extreme example of someone actually starting a/the altercation and still having the right to self defense . There may be consequences after but I still had a right NOT TO DIE regardless if I started it . In this case the aggressor never had a chance to throw that first punch because he chased and cornered a man that was openly displaying a firearm . Rosenbeum was unable to carry out his will before being incapacitated ( see I can use big words too lol )

As for free for all's in the streets , Isn't confronting lawlessness the way to stop those things from happening . Wasn't the free for all already happening that night and the nights proceeding ? It's not that I disagree completely with some that look at this differently . It's that I believe there are extenuating circumstances that over ride the basic "he should not have been there argument .

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I know exactly what the word means--I believe he was raised to be one by his parents and was motivated by their own sociopathic tendencies to feel compelled to travel and act as a vigilante to make things right against "undesirables" in society.

"Sociopath" is not a term currently used in medical practice. The correct term is "Antisocial Personality Disorder."

https://www.medicinenet.com/antisocial_personality_disorder/article.htm

Since you have diagnosed Kyle's custodial parent as a sociopath, which of the contributing antisocial behaviors does the custodial parent routinely exhibit?

Since a diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder should not be made until a person is at least 18 years of age, and is then based on a continuum of antisocial behavioral patterns since at least the age of fifteen -- what pattern of antisocial behaviors has Kyle Rittenhouse exhibited since he was fifteen years old?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Ok that said lets talk actions as a few seem to think that him just being there was good enough to be guilty . Lets take that to the next level and use this scenario . What If I just randomly walked up to someone and punch them in the face and and they proceeded to beat the crap out of me and will not stop . Because I started it , do I deserve to die ? Would I be justified in using lethal force to stop my "attacker" ? I concluded in my mind anyway that yes I would but I'd also be guilty of causing the incident in the first place therefore some repercussions and or penalties should be imposed on me . However at no point would it be reasonable for anyone to think I must just sit there and hope the guy stops beating on me because I started it .

Now that's an extreme example of someone actually starting a/the altercation and still having the right to self defense .

Actually, I think in the circumstances you describe you would not have a legal right to use lethal force in self defense. As you stated -- in your hypothetical example, you were the aggressor. That pretty much removes your legal right to then claim "self defense."

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

 

[zukiphile]

Ok that said lets talk actions as a few seem to think that him just being there was good enough to be guilty . Lets take that to the next level and use this scenario . What If I just randomly walked up to someone and punch them in the face and and they proceeded to beat the crap out of me and will not stop . Because I started it , do I deserve to die ?

Possibly.

Would I be justified in using lethal force to stop my "attacker" ?

Probably not.

The concept of voluntary combat arises where a concealed carrier chooses not to employ his firearm, but relies on his fists for defense. A court might find that he consented to combat so that he would not be entitled to then employ deadly force when things turned and he didn't prevail.

The issue you raise is whether someone who initiates a fight is entitled to use deadly force if it doesn't work out in his favor. I can see lots of policy reasons for him not having that right.

 

[stagpanther]

I personally think what he did was the direct result of choosing a path that he knew and self-trained for and knowing it would likely result in a confrontation necessitating the use of of an efficient war firearm. Everything else that led up to the moments of the killings were merely the unpredictable and fluid circumstances that inexorably led him to use his weapon. Does that rise to the level of premeditation? IMO, yes. But that's almost certainly not what is going to happen. My prediction is back room baseball card trading will go on eventually resulting in a "minor" manslaughter charge pled guilty to and let off with very little time if any incarcerated. The role of law enforcement has a stake in this too.

 

[dahermit]

I personally think what he did was the direct result of choosing a path that he knew and self-trained for and knowing it would likely result in a confrontation necessitating the use of of an efficient war firearm.

Hang your shingle out: "Psychological Help 5 Cents."

 

[stagpanther]

Hang your shingle out: "Psychological Help 5 Cents."

Not a bad idea--except I already know-all and can cure-all for free, so that would be a bit redundant.

 

[Metal god]

Actually, I think in the circumstances you describe you would not have a legal right to use lethal force in self defense. As you stated -- in your hypothetical example, you were the aggressor. That pretty much removes your legal right to then claim "self defense."

Ok just so I understand you , it's your belief if a person starts a fight they for fit the ability to defend them selves ? At what point is instigating the fight an instigation ? If I bump you ? If I bump you hard ? step on your foot ? Those all can be instigation to a greater fight .

Maybe my point was not well made , I think I would still need to go to jail but again I also still have a right to live as well so If the guy wont stop after I started it how do I get to legally stay alive ?

 

[zukiphile]

...so If the guy wont stop after I started it how do I get to legally stay alive ?

Answers to that question could include having the foresight to:

1. know that your victim may not know that you don't intend to kill him, and
2. refrain from assaulting people.

At what point is instigating the fight an instigation ? If I bump you ? If I bump you hard ? step on your foot ?

Those are fine questions, but they bear on whether you've started a fight rather than whether you have a right to deadly force in self defense once you've started a fight.

 

[44 AMP]

Ok just so I understand you , it's your belief if a person starts a fight they for fit the ability to defend them selves ?

I think you are mixing together two things the law generally considers separate. Self defense, and the use of deadly force in self defense. And also the difference between moral and legal justification.

If you start the fight, initiate the attack, throw the first punch, then you forfeit the legal right to claim self defense. Now, if things go against you and you have a valid fear for your life, you have the moral right to do what you have to do to survive.

the law does not require you to die, but it does require you to pay the penalty for illegal actions. And, generally speaking starting the fight involves an illegal action, and therefore your legal protection for acts deriving from that is limited. Its the way the law is. Might not be what you feel is right, but its the way the law is.

 

[Metal god]

I think you are mixing together two things the law generally considers separate. Self defense, and the use of deadly force in self defense. And also the difference between moral and legal justification.

If you start the fight, initiate the attack, throw the first punch, then you forfeit the legal right to claim self defense. Now, if things go against you and you have a valid fear for your life, you have the moral right to do what you have to do to survive.

the law does not require you to die, but it does require you to pay the penalty for illegal actions. And, generally speaking starting the fight involves an illegal action, and therefore your legal protection for acts deriving from that is limited. Its the way the law is. Might not be what you feel is right, but its the way the law is.

Well said and I agree completely and has been my point . So you are justified in surviving and will have to pay a price for that survival . Now comes in the charges , is that 2nd degree murder ? I say no or the standard would be knowing any altercation may lead you to kill someone and I can't get there in a basic fight if there is such a thing . A reasonable person does not think any altercation will lead to someone dyeing . Why would there be a right to keep and bear arms if the outcome is most certainly going to be someone dyeing . A reasonable person should know there is that possibility if they discharge there weapon in the direction of another person .

Hmm as I write other posters make more sense , maybe that's why it's always illegal to kill a human and only can be justified by a jury of your piers or the DA I guess .

 

[44 AMP]

maybe that's why it's always illegal to kill a human and only can be justified by a jury of your piers or the DA I guess .

You're close but still not quite spot on. It's a multi-stage process with defined roles after a shooting.

The police investigate, and give their findings to the DA. They can recommend a course of action, but that recommendation has no legal weight. It is the DA who makes the decision to prosecute, or not.

Many, (I'd like to think most) will look at the evidence, and decide if there is a case for prosecution, and if they think they can win it, proceed with charges leading to arrest and trial. At that point it becomes the province of the court and the jury of your peers decision to render.

In most cases where charges don't get filed, its because the DA recognizes it a "good shoot" (within the law in all aspects) and there is nothing to use to build a case otherwise. When the investigation results are less than clear cut, the DA may, or may not take it to trial. Its their decision at that point.

HOWEVER, there ARE DA's who have a policy of taking every self defense case to trial, no matter what the investigation results indicate. When one of those people is the DA, even "good shoots" wind up in court. Which is of course, a waste of the court's time and taxpayer money, but often the DA cares less about that than about "sending a message"...
(personally I always felt that prosecuting someone to "send a message" is one of the more boneheaded things a DA can do. Actual criminals won't get the message and lawful folk don't need to hear it.)

So, if the cops and the DA are smart enough to recognize an obvious "good shoot", and are not driven by any personal agenda, its unlikely to go to court. But if things are not crystal clear, or if there is some level of personal agenda involved it often will go to court, and once there, it becomes the jury's decision if it was justified, or not.

Killing another person is always some level of crime. To claim self defense, one must admit to doing it, but having no other choice. At that point the court decides if your justification is valid and if so, you are not convicted of the crime. They don't say "there was no crime" they say "you are not criminally responsible" or words to that effect.

or, at least that's the way I understand it's supposed to work.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Ok just so I understand you , it's your belief if a person starts a fight they for fit the ability to defend them selves ?

It is my belief that under the law if a person starts a fist fight that person then forfeits the right to use lethal force to end the fight and then claim self-defense.

At what point is instigating the fight an instigation ?

Your example was to walk up to someone and punch them in the face. Now you want to argue that that isn't "instigating" a fight? Under the laws of most (if not all) states that's either aggravated assault or assault and battery, and I would probably be legally justified in pulling a gun and shooting you on the spot for such an unprovoked assault.

But you want to turn it around so that if I -- the victim of the initial assault -- choose to defend myself with martial arts rather than simply shoot you, if I [the victim] am prevailing in the physical combat that YOU initiated, you should have a legal right to shoot and kill me and walk away Scott free?

I don't think the law sees it that way.

We're not talking about "mutual combat" here. Mutual combat is when two guys in a bar get into a verbal altercation, and they agree to step outside and settle it "like men." The laws of most (if not all) states are clear that if the loser in a mutual combat then escalates to using lethal force, he canNOT then claim self-defense. So if self-defense cannot be claimed in a case of mutual combat (where both participants agreed to duke it out), IMHO ther's no way self-defense applies in a case where you are the assailant and I am the victim. If you punch me in the face and I defend myself, that's not mutual combat. I didn't agree to fight you -- you attacked me and I'm defending myself.

 

[Metal god]

But you want to turn it around so that if I -- the victim of the initial assault -- choose to defend myself with martial arts rather than simply shoot you, if I [the victim] am prevailing in the physical combat that YOU initiated, you should have a legal right to shoot and kill me and walk away Scott free?

Yes but really no and I think this is where all the confusion is in this debate . It's not that "I the instigator" now get to kill anyone . It's do I have a right not to die and prevent that with any means I have available ? I think the proper word would be to incapacitate the now aggressor . Nobody is looking to "kill" only to survive . How about this , as long as he doesn't die and just ends up with great bodily injury is it ok if I live lol ?

 

[zukiphile]

It's not that "I the instigator" now get to kill anyone . It's do I have a right not to die and prevent that with any means I have available ? I think the proper word would be to incapacitate the now aggressor .

Why would the law afford you the right to incapacitate your assault victim during your assault?