@freemo when you he isn’t guilty of the second killing, however he definitely is guilty of the first one. He is the one who came into the scene, with his gun to confront the protesters. It doesn’t matter the protester tried to break a car, you do not go and confront people with your gun. He was also given a clear warning not to go into the scene, but he went on anyway. That is enough for me to believe he is guilty. Self defense require you not to be the first offender.

@louisrcouture Wait, so your saying if you legally and rightfully have a gun.. it is shouldered and your hand isnt even touching it, and you happen to approach someone to politely talk to them, then they have a right to kill you and you have no right to shoot back....

Cut me a break, thats reaching.

@freemo he went on and shot him when he was still far away.

Maybe in America you can just go around with a gun and that’s not threatning but you didn’t ask whether we thought he would be convicted or but is he org is he not guilty. You asked for my opinion now you get it.

For me, if you come near me, yes you are threatening, especially if you already shot a few seconds ago. And Canada is pretty lax on guns as compared to other non-US places

@louisrcouture @freemo can you type a factual statement by writing "i read that". Or do you have some sort of visual problem?

@louisrcouture Where do you see him shooting someone far away? Three people were shot.. 1) was the first guy who was chasing him, threw stuff at him, and shot him when he got in arms reach and tried assaulting him. 2) was when he was chased by a mob, fell to the ground and multiple people came within arms reach and started assaulting him, he shot that due... #1 and #2 died. 3) was the guy he shot ONLY after he aimed a pistol at him. Prior to that the man approach him with arms raised and he explicitly did not shoot him. But once the person aimed a gun at him he shot.

#3 was admitted to be the case by the person shot, he was the only one of the 3 who lived.

So where do you see him shooting anyone at a distance other than the one person who aimed a gun at him (and in that case he shot non-lethally).

@freemo https://thespacecoastrocket.com/graphic-video-shows-possible-self-defense-motive-in-17-year-old-kenosha-protestor-shooting-killing-2/

@louisrcouture there seem to be a few videos on that link. Which one do you wnat me to watch and at what time-point should i pay attention for whatever relevant detail you are trying to share?

@freemo it’s the middle one

@louisrcouture I think i am clearly missing whatever your trying to highlight. The middle one is simply him interacting with police who praised him for being there and giving him some water. It doesnt even have any violence in it or protesters.

@freemo the police tells him to stay away, that he is a civilian etc, he’s trying to confront them then we hear a gunshot

@louisrcouture They arent telling him to disperse, you can clearly hear the difference between the cop in the distance (addressing a crowd out of camera) telling them to disperse, and the cops that address him which are much clearer, louder and closer. When they are addressing him the cop says "We appreciate you guys, we really do". In fact the argument in court is that the police actually deputized him by explicitly condoning them. They were **not** telling them to disperse.

Likewise the gunshot you heard was in the distance.

You can read more about it at the link below here is a quote:

"Police in Wisconsin "deputized" armed vigilantes during protests against police violence last year, including Kyle Rittenhouse..."

and later int he article (naming a victim from the shooting by name):

In the suit, filed Thursday in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Gaige Grosskreutz, 27, who was shot in his right arm by Rittenhouse, alleges that Kenosha officials enabled a "band of white nationalist vigilantes" during a protest in Kenosha on Aug. 25, 2020.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/wisconsin-police-deputized-armed-vigilantes-enabling-kyle-rittenhouse-shootings-lawsuit-n1281802

@freemo
Speaks for itself
People who arrested dont say they pointed their gun at people sarcastically

In the video, a man wearing yellow pants tells Rittenhouse that the teenager had just pointed a gun at him for standing on a vehicle. Rittenhouse responds in the video, "Yeah I did."
In court, he testified that he had not actually pointed his weapon at the man and said his admission on video was "sarcasm."

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/10/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-wednesday/index.html

@louisrcouture clicked the link, I dont see the video you are talking about. Where is the video?

Was the person whom he supposidly pointed the gun at one of the people shot or is he unrelated to the case at all?

@louisrcouture For that matter was the car he was standing on his own property? Destruction of property (such as standing on someones car with the intent to damage it) is a perfectly acceptable reason to aim a gun at someone anyway. If you are actively destroying someones property you foreit your rights, you get a gun pointed at you and if you dont stop you might even get shot... Moral of the story, dont destroy property that isnt yours intentionally, if you do expect it to be defended.

@freemo and I feel like this is where we disagree.

Yes destroying someone property is wrong, but it’s not a reason to kill someone’s.

It should have been the role of the court to prosecute the guy who destroyed cars. This is more like an extrajudicial killing.

@louisrcouture I think that if someone is destroying property they should get a warning (and was) and if they dont comply shooting is fine.

Again though, was the person he aimed the gun at actually one of the people he shot or was involved int he incident? At worse even if i take your interpretation it was just some unrelated dude he interacted with earlier in the night and is unrelated to the events that unfolded anyway.

The reason i am perfectly ok with someone who is intentionally causing property damage, after being warned, being shot is because in the end the vast majority of criminals get away. I see no reason a victim should have to pay tens of thousands of dollars in damage simply to protect the life of someone engaging in illegal activity. Particularly when such people will almost always get away, so relying on cops or courts means you will almost certainly never see justice.

Moreover even if the courts do handle it often times the people are too poor to pay the cost of the damage they do so the owner is still left with tens of thousands of dollars out of his pocket. That said one would expect if you do shoot such a person that you arent aiming to kill.

All this is moot though because, again, you are talking about a person that never was actually shot by kyle nor had any involvement with the incident anyway.

@freemo wait, then who and how were killed

@louisrcouture in the video i linked you you can see all the people who were shot and killed.. first person was the guy chasing him and throwing stuff at him, who he shot only once he got within arms reach. then a large mob formed that followed him as he fled (at the advice of 911). Second person killed you can see when he falls to the ground fleeing and the mob starts to swat at him as he is ont he floor, he then shoots again killing the second person who was assaulting him. finally around that same time you can see a person run up on him with a handgun whom he then shoots and does not kill but has a bleeding arm.

2 deaths one injured is everyone.

@freemo @louisrcouture
Why did you move to the Netherlands if these are your views? No gun ownership here, absolutely no open carry. Had this happened in the Netherlands he would be incredibly guilty, no question.

And if you really want to kill someone that damages your car, please move back to the USA...

@kingannoy

I moved there because the taxes are spent more responsibly and because i like the people.

And no i dont want yo kill someone for damaging my car, thus why id warn them first and not shoot to kill.

By the way way to go acting like an american and telling an immigrant to go back to their own country ::golf clap::
@louisrcouture

@freemo @louisrcouture
This message came off more confrontational then I'd intended it, sorry about that. To be clear, I absolutely disagree with your views on property damage warranting bodily harm or death.

I'm just wondering how that fits in the context of the almost gun free country you are in now.

@kingannoy
Apology accepted.

The best answer i can give you is that I dont need to agree with everything about a country to love it. There are many things i feel the netherlands does wrong, and lack of sane gun rights is a huge one. That said there are many other things about the netherlands I love and those things are enough for me to accept the short comings.

@louisrcouture

@freemo @louisrcouture
I think the examples you mention are less likely to harm someone in the Netherlands. Intentional property damage is less likely in a more fair society for example. Making it less necessary to arm yourself with a deadly weapon.

In light of that, don't you think that focussing on those improvements, that improve life for everyone, is the better course for a society? Instead of arming everyone?

@kingannoy
Im not sure i would need to pick one or the other. I can promote a more fair society and still promote guns. I dont see a huge need to pick one right over another.

I can say that a society where guns need to be used less to defend yourself is a good goal to have.
@louisrcouture

@freemo @kingannoy in all respects. Couldn’t the things that make Netherlands a better place than the USA, (less violence, in particular), be because of the current policies they implement, such as gun control https://www.businessinsider.com/gun-control-research-how-policies-can-reduce-deaths-2019-8?op=1

@louisrcouture

They **could** be yes.. and at least **some** of their policies likely contribute to that.

But while it **could** be due to their policy on guns I strongly do not beleive it **is**. In fact I think there are a few policies having nothing to do with guns that leads to this and some things that arent policy related at all.

Not policy: The culture of morality that is passed down/taught from generation to generations. Also a lack of taboo around seeking therapy and other mental health

Policy:

1) healthcare that gives them access to therapy (as broken as it is its still better than the USA in this regard)

2) The fact that if you call police they probably wont shoot you, your dog, and your kids for your trouble

3) Cheaper access to education, which in turn leads to better access to jobs above the poverty line

@kingannoy

@kingannoy @freemo @louisrcouture You're a bit harsh about him: protecting your property could get you off the hook in the Netherlands.
https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noodweer_(Nederlands_strafrecht)

@frank87 @louisrcouture @freemo
That doesn't mention property though, only yourself or someone else's safety from (sexual or physical) assault. And it's very clear on proportionality. The defence should be proportional to the attack.

I remember well publicized cases of shoplifters getting punched and burglars beaten with a baseball bat that were under heavy discussion. Very different from getting shot with a automatic rifle in a public space.

@kingannoy

I wont claim to know or interprit dutch law. I will say that shooting without the intent to kill, particularly if warned first, is a perfectly proportional response to intentional property damage.

Stomping on a car can easily cause 10K+ worth of damage. With dutch health insurance a shot to the leg might cost 1/10th of that. Likewise stomping on a car could lead to all sorts of collateral damage, including that car exploding, so the person is defending, indirectly, against potential safety risks just as the person being shot has a risk of having permanent injury.

So yea, seems proportional to me.

@frank87 @louisrcouture

@freemo @kingannoy @louisrcouture I'm with @kingannoy on the proportionality...
Shooting people is not really appreciated by Dutch judges. There should be some serious thread and little alternatives.
(By the way: the health insurance will sue you for hospital costs)

@frank87

I may not know dutch law in any detail but I will say I kinda expect shooting anyone, ever, for any reason (even if they are literally trying to kill you) probably wont fly in a dutch court. The Dutch just dont see a gun for self defense as ever justified.

Obviously I think they are egregiously incorrect. But I'm not a Dutch judge so that makes little difference WRT the law.

@louisrcouture @kingannoy

@freemo @frank87 @louisrcouture
Not totally true. Someone was jumped by two attackers with a knife, in a purse snatching. Using a illegal gun one of the attackers was shot, twice, and killed.

The shooter eventually got charged for illegal possession of a fire arm but the killing was deemed in self defence (noodweerexcess) so justified.
https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bijlmer_noodweer

@freemo @frank87 @louisrcouture
You need to stop believing Hollywood movies.

Any gunshot is potentially lethal and will scar (physically and mentally) and potentially disable you if it isn't. If you think only the hospital costs are what needs to be accounted for you are very wrong.

And if you think you can make a car explode by stomping on it...

@kingannoy

At what point did I say that a gun shot cant be potentially lethal? I said quite the opposite that a non-lethal shot carries with it the risk of death, just as someone destroying a car cars with it the risk of death or injury to those nearby.

As for if a car can explode by stomping on it, yea its exceedingly rare, but it can happen if the damage is extensive enough. During the philly riots I have personally witnessed this happen (a car that was stomped on and overturned exploded here). So yes it can happen.

@frank87 @louisrcouture

@freemo @frank87 @louisrcouture
One is exceedingly rare and then only potentially dangerous.

The other is extremely dangerous, quite likely lethal, likely to miss and hit a bystander, will have lasting consequences for the person (and their loved ones) if you do hit.

So I would say it's not even remotely similar or proportional.

@kingannoy @freemo @frank87 I think something that isn’t mentioned in this debate is how rare are the scenarios of « someone is trying to destroy my car » versus how often are guns related incident such as school shootings, suicides, gun violences etc.

Like is one broken car (that we could collectively have repaid through government and taxes) worse than hundreds of lives that are lost because of laxist gun control laws. (That cannot be brought back)

@louisrcouture

Guns used for protecting life and property are the overwhelming majority of incidents and school shootings and mass shootings in general are a very small percentage relative to that.

As for suicides, I leave that out. A person has a right in my mind to commit suicide and a person commiting suicide with a gun or anything else is their right to do, so in no way would I ever include that in the figures. In fact I'd go so far to say if someone wants to commit suicide they have a right to do so by whatever means they feel is best for then.

Some numbers:

percentage of times a gun is used as defense vs homicide is a whopping 81%

Percentage of people killed by guns in mass shootings (that is defined as 3 or more people so a very loose definition of mass shooting)... <1%

@kingannoy @frank87

@kingannoy @louisrcouture @freemo it does: "eigen of een anders goed" is literary your of somebody else's property.

@frank87 @louisrcouture @freemo
Yes, that is the only mention of property on that page. No mention of the limits of that, except that breaking into someones home doesn't qualify.

And look at this very relevant case:
https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest_Blijf_van_mijn_auto!

Someone kicks a car, the owner gets out of the car, the car-kicker moves to attack the owner but the owner hits first. Does not qualify for "noodweer" has to pay a fine and gets a probationary sentence.

@kingannoy @louisrcouture @freemo It not really like the fight was in defence of the car...
If he really wanted to protect the car, he would have driven away.

@freemo @louisrcouture I think it's perfectly fine to destroy your own property. If you see someone destroying an object that doesn't belong to you, how can you be certain enough that the destroyer doesn't own the object?

@robryk

Sure. The liability is with the person defending it. If you shoot someone destroying their own property then expect to go to jail for shooting an innocent person. If you, however shoot (or threaten to shoot) someone who is destroying someone elses property, and that is true, you are good.

@louisrcouture

@freemo @louisrcouture That interpretation makes injuring-someone-without-a-valid-justification effectively a strict liability crime. This is something that's usually strongly avoided in definitions of any serious crimes (with some infamous exceptions, like felony murder in USA). Even in (some) countries where the self defense justification requires the original attack to be real (and not just the defender to reasonably believe it is real) there is a different "mistaken belief" justification (if you perform an act that is normally a crime, you believe it's justified due to some other legal justification, and you are wrong, your act is not a crime). I know that this is the case in Polish criminal law.

Do you know if mistaken self defense is a valid justification in other jurisdictions?

@robryk

The point im making is, you are right, if you shoot someone for destroying property you better be certain it isnt his property or else you will face jail time.

It doesnt, however, meanyou can never shoot anyone for destroying property even when you know for a fact it isnt his.

@louisrcouture

@freemo @louisrcouture Many jurisdictions go to great lengths to not have any serious strict liability crimes, because in general they create situations where a reasonably person who knows the law might commit a crime without being aware that they're committing a crime. I believe that this is why mistaken self defense is (at least in some places) also a valid justification. You are proposing an expanded (compared to e.g. the one from Poland) notion of self defense that is OTOH narrower on the intent side (mistaken belief is not enough to invoke the justification). I don't really see why _in this particular situation_ strict liability-like semantics are bad, but I do buy that they should be used as rarely as possible. Thus I wonder if any jurisdiction you know of doesn't excuse mistaken self defense.

@robryk

I'm not a lawyer, so I really dont have an answer for you sorry.

@louisrcouture

You may not be a lawyer, yet I bet that you know how to get someone out of a charge of growing weed without state permits. :D Unlike Mike Penc who couldn't get someone out a speeding ticket.

@djatropine444 I probably stand a better chance than most of muddling my way through court if I had to :)

I'm protected from the RAVE ACT then. :D

@freemo @louisrcouture I realized why it's important that mistaken self defense be a valid justification. If someone pretends to attack you with a realistic looking but harmless replica of a weapon you believe that you are in danger, but in fact you aren't. If defending oneself in such situations was not justified, self defense justification would be mostly useless.

I assume that in your proposed world this would still be the case. You also said that defending against property destruction where you are mistaken about its ownership and thus mistaken about legality of the destruction would not be justifiable. Where would you draw the distinction between mistakes that leave the justification valid and ones that invalidate it?

@robryk @freemo @louisrcouture That's why lookalike firearms are illegal too in the Netherlands.

@frank87 @louisrcouture @freemo

A person who threatens you with a fake gun is already doing something illegal (issuing an illegal threat); I don't see how it matters whether they're doing one or two different illegal things. Without the mistake justification harming such a person would still be a crime: for the self defense justification (in the countries I know about) the action you're defending yourself about has to both be illegal, and a real threat (as opposed to a threat you perceive as real).