HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » RE: Rittenhouse, Self Def...

Tue Nov 16, 2021, 12:22 PM

RE: Rittenhouse, Self Defense, and Provocation.

If I'm reading correctly, the following scenario the shooter would be successful in claiming self defense.

1. Police stops driver for undetermined offense.

2. Police approach car with gun at ready, aimed at driver. (See George Floyd videos).

3. Driver has legal, registered firearm on seat next to him.

4. Driver, seeing his life was in danger, unable to retreat as he was sitting in car and could not move out of Policeman's aim or range, picks up gun and kills Policeman.

Legal, self defense in Wisconsin? State has to prove he wasn't self defending?



16 replies, 1497 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Tue Nov 16, 2021, 12:28 PM

1. Some people are arguing "reasonable means to escape death" is firing at unarmed people chasing him

In your case the cops can legally detain people in the shittiest form possible

In the case of KR he can't detain people or point his weapon at them like he did with the unarmed Rosenbaum FIRST, then ran from the unarmed crowd chasing him, then turned around shooting at unarmed Rosenbaum (who KR claimed he knew he was unarmed) while running away.

That's not self defense to me

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 16, 2021, 12:38 PM

6. Here's the issue, though. Under WI law, it is still self-defense.

(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.


So Rittenhouse pointed the gun at Rosenbaum to "deter" him, per his own testimony. Rosenbaum perceived a threat from Rittenhouse and charged, acting in self-defense. Rittenhouse then turned and fled, thus regaining the right to self-defense under subsection b. He fled, and as he was doing so, a third person fired a shot in the air. Rittenhouse stumbled and fell, at which point Rosenbaum attempted to grab the gun. Under WI law, at that point Rittenhouse can legally claim self-defense. By the same token, the following two shootings may also qualify as self-defense, as again, Rittenhouse was attempting to flee, thus regaining the right to self-defense.

This is going to turn on whether or not the prosecution convinced the jury that Rittenhouse went there with the explicit intent to shoot people, thus negating any claim to self-defense as specified in subsection c. Proving intent can be a big hurdle for the prosecution to overcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jedi Guy (Reply #6)

Tue Nov 16, 2021, 12:45 PM

7. Rosenbaum grabbed the gun ***AFTER*** KR turned around with it, that's not self defense. Rosenbauim

... can't grab the gun while KR was running until KR turned back around and pointed it towards those chasing him then fired it knowing they were unarmed, that's what the video showed.

KR could've just kept running away from the crowd

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #7)

Tue Nov 16, 2021, 12:51 PM

9. He tripped nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #7)

Tue Nov 16, 2021, 12:51 PM

10. I was incorrect, Rittenhouse stumbled and fell prior to the second/third shootings.

In the first shooting, Rittenhouse fled and turned when Rosenbaum was nearly on top of him. The point is, he attempted to flee and Rosenbaum pursued. Under WI law, that flips the script and Rosenbaum is now the aggressor, while Rittenhouse is able to claim self-defense.

Again, this is going to turn on intent, as in subsection c.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Tue Nov 16, 2021, 12:30 PM

2. That's why you have to look at it on a case by case basis

and then make the decision whether a self-defense claim is reasonable.

For example, replace police in your example with almost any other individual. Suddenly it's a completely different scenario.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Tue Nov 16, 2021, 12:31 PM

3. I think the parallel fails where there are different expectations for police behavior

Given the different standards around police interactions, it would be much more difficult to successfully argue the threat / life in danger with a uniformed police officer.

Given the recent history of police misconduct though, particularly if the hypothetical person isn't white, this becomes a rather interesting legal scenario.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Tue Nov 16, 2021, 12:31 PM

4. No - not for a uniformed police officer in a marked car

Same story with an unmarked vehicle, lack of lights, and a plain-clothes police officer? Yes... the person could "get away with it" on a self-defense claim.

Of course, the whole spin dies when you notice the difference between a police officer and Rosenbaum

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Tue Nov 16, 2021, 12:33 PM

5. No

No state, to my knowledge, allows you to claim self defense against a uniformed or identified police officer. Every self defense statute I have seen specifically exempts them. Now unidentified cops, possibly. There have been a couple cases where cops no knocked the wrong house, got shot at, and the shooter was acquitted. Texas had a case of this 4-5 years ago if I remember correctly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetroitLegalBeagle (Reply #5)

Tue Nov 16, 2021, 01:07 PM

11. I believe there was one in Arizona a few years ago.

The cops breached the door without identifying themselves as law enforcement, and the homeowner opened up on them with an AR-15. I may be wrong as this is a vague memory, but I think he was acquitted because he reasonably believed it was a home invasion. And having lived in AZ for several years and worked as a police dispatcher, I can buy it. Home invasions were a dime a dozen when I was with the department.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Tue Nov 16, 2021, 12:47 PM

8. I'm not sure. But the US Supreme Court held long ago that the police

can not legally inflict capital punishment on someone simply because they are a fleeing felon. Presumably you have a right to defend yourself from the arbitrary use of force by the police.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Tue Nov 16, 2021, 01:48 PM

12. Is this scenario unlikely in the future?

A man approaches a family while his buddy videotapes him.

The man disparages the family in the strongest terms, insulting Dad, Mom, and even the kids. He remains calm while doing this.

Dad, angry and offended, steps forward towards the man.

The man pulls his gun and shoots Dad dead.

It is all on video, though what the people were saying is unable to be heard. You can only see the confrontation.

Would this be a righteous kill, under the law? Would Dad be the aggressor? Would the race of the family be a factor?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Midnight Writer (Reply #12)

Tue Nov 16, 2021, 01:57 PM

13. Sounds like an unreasonable use of deadly force.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Midnight Writer (Reply #12)

Tue Nov 16, 2021, 01:58 PM

14. Probably not enough

Ignoring the likely testimony of the family, taking a step toward someone isn’t likely to be close to enough.

Now… get dad to threaten you with death… then chase you… then continue even after you turn and point your weapon at him and even run away again? Then… yep… you can probably get away with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Tue Nov 16, 2021, 03:45 PM

15. Did Rittenhouse say he warned Rosenbaum he would shoot if Rosenbaum kept coming?

I think if I were in conflict with a guy and he raised a weapon I would try to deflect the barrel as the alternatives are not very good. The wounded guy, GrossKreutz, stepped back, raised his hands, saw and heard Kyle reset his AR 15, grabbed his gun, moved to his right and take a shot in his arm.....wasn't that the testimony? That's what I saw on the video. Rittenhouse was just blasting away without thinking things through. Scared to death.

If he is acquitted, there will be a country western song about him by Christmas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rgbecker (Original post)

Tue Nov 16, 2021, 04:29 PM

16. Regardless of how any law is written..

 

The chances that the individual who shoots the officer ever gets to trial is fairly low.

First is the fact that they have to be able to retrieve a gun, turn, and shoot a presumably armored officer without being shot dead first. Considering the tactcal advantage the officer has with his gun already drawn and aimed, position, the wall of light, etc....that's a very hard scenario to imagine. Cops who are shot during traffic stops are almost always unsuspecting that anything is going to happen.

Secondly, even if that all plays out the person would still have to survive apprehension by other officers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread