Jump to content

Carl Spackler

Burnt Ends
  • Posts

    3370
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Carl Spackler

  1. Wow, did that really get published? That's terrible.
  2. Missed it in the sense that I was not watching the trial when that testimony occurred? Correct -- I have watched very, very little of the trial. But I'm taking you at your word that there was testimony by Grosskreutz to that effect, and I have read news accounts indicating that there was testimony to that effect, so I have no doubt that it occurred. But it doesn't change my opinion that the persons Rittenhouse encountered after he shot Rosenbaum had little or no idea of the circumstances of that first shooting or of Rittenhouse's conduct earlier that evening. Why not? Because I understand there was testimony to the effect that AFTER Rittenhouse made that statement in Grosskreutz's presence, Grosskreutz heard other bystanders saying that Rittenhouse had shot someone, which caused Grosskreutz to turn and follow Rittenhouse. So a person in Grosskreutz's position could have easily decided that Rittenhouse was feeding him a line. Also, I don't know about you, but I would tend to doubt a statement about "going to the police" under those circumstances, i.e., armed person jogging/running away from the direction of gunfire with multiple other individuals shouting that he's a shooter. But that's just me. Maybe you're more trusting. Third, any statement that Rittenhouse made to Grosskreutz (or in Grosskreutz's presence) would obviously have no bearing on Huber's state of mind at the time he encountered Rittenhouse. Fourth, the Rosenbaum shooting had just occurred moments before, so how could any of those other individuals have known all the facts relating to it? Again, I want to stress that the foregoing doesn't necessarily mean that Rittenhouse doesn't have a good self-defense argument as to the Huber and Grosskreutz shootings. It's simply my opinion that the persons Rittenhouse shot didn't know the circumstances of the Rosenbaum shooting (which had just happened moments before), nor did they know if Rittenhouse's activities earlier that evening, which (in turn) tends to explain why they were attacking him and/or trying to stop him from fleeing. That's all.
  3. We're getting into the weeds a bit on this, but I'm not sure that most people would have taken Rittenhouse at his word at that particular time and in those particular circumstances. Armed guy fleeing scene after shooting someone says he's going straight to the police. Riiiiiight. I continue to believe that these other victims didn't know much about Rittenhouse other than he was armed and had just shot someone seconds beforehand. As for your point about the skateboard guy, I stated above that, assuming Rittenhouse's shooting of Rosenbaum was lawful, he should also have a legitimate self-defense claim as to the other shootings. I don't believe we disagree on that point. As for the "cornering" issue, see my post above. I wasn't aware of evidence indicating that there were persons around those cars. Assuming that evidence is legit, then it could very well support an argument that Rittenhouse felt cornered. Those persons aren't depicted on the videos I've seen to date, but I'll be the first to acknowledge that I'm not privy to all of the evidence in the case because I haven't been watching the trial.
  4. Ah, good to know. That doesn't come out on the video. Thanks for the clarification/additional information.
  5. Meaning you can use it to power your lawnmower if it runs out of gas.
  6. I think that's a little much. From everything I've seen, the people who attacked or attempted to attack Rittenhouse as he was bugging out didn't know anything except that people on the street were yelling that Rittenhouse had just shot someone and was attempting to flee. I seriously doubt that any of them were aware of the evidence indicating that Rosenbaum had threatened Rittenhouse, thrown an object at Rittenhouse, or chased after Rittenhouse. I'm sure they didn't know of the precise circumstances of the Rosenbaum shooting. And I also am quite confident that none of them knew what activities (putting out fires, etc.) Rittenhouse had engaged in earlier that evening. As far as they knew, Rittenhouse had just shot someone (fatally, as it turned out) and needed to be stopped. I doubt they knew much, if anything, else about him or the situation. That doesn't obviate Rittenhouse's right to defend himself (assuming the initial shooting was justified). Rather, it simply explains the mindset of the persons who attacked Rittenhouse after the initial shooting. IMO, if Rittenhouse's shooting of Rosenbaum was justified as self-defense, then the shootings of the other individuals were almost certainly self-defense as well. BTW, after watching the videos, I can't agree that Rittenhouse was "cornered." After he shot Rosenbaum, he continued on his path and then circled around the parked car. He wasn't "cornered" according to my understanding of that word. But the other stuff, i.e., Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse, Rosenbaum throwing something at him, Rosenbaum yelling at Rittenhouse, etc., does seem to be borne out by the video evidence. Whether or not all of those circumstances taken as a whole created an objectively reasonable fear for life/limb on the part of Rittenhouse is a question the jury will have to decide.
  7. Eh. If people on the streets tried to stop Rittenhouse because they heard he was attempting to "flee a murder," then that's a reasonable reaction (although the wisdom of it would be questionable given that he was armed). That the initial shooting may not have been a "murder" under the law would not matter -- these other people wouldn't have known that at the time. However, if the initial shooting was not unlawful (i.e., privileged by self-defense), Rittenhouse should still have his right of self-defense against the individuals who later attacked him, even if their belief was that he was a fleeing felon. I'm not familiar with the nuances of WI law on self-defense and the provocation exception to it, but I assume that the initial shooting of Rosenbaum, if lawful, would not constitute provocation that would undermine a self-defense assertion in connection with the later shootings. I could be wrong about that, but it seems reasonable.
  8. Yeah, not thinking clearly. Defense wouldn't raise it after a conviction.
  9. If it was in the presence of the jury, it'll be an issue on appeal.
  10. I've seen it happen one time in all my years. The judge was so embarrassed and apologized profusely.
  11. I want to strangle every person who refers to their pets as "furbabies."
  12. Agree. It also strikes me as a very slippery slope from a jurisprudence standpoint.
  13. This is a young man I've known since he was a kid. If you like rootsy rock and roll, you might enjoy this track, which features David Hidalgo on accordian and vocals. Cole's got a lot of talent, and I'll be interested in seeing where he goes in the music world.
  14. After watching that video a few times, I think it's pretty clear he was being chased. (Galactically stupid for an unarmed man to chase an armed man, BTW.) But, for me, the video also undercuts the notion that Rittenhouse was "cornered" at the time he shot Rosenbaum -- Rittenhouse was able to continue running in the same path after he turned and fired, and eventually circled around the parked cars. It will be interesting to see how the self-defense issue plays out with this jury.
  15. Uh . . . did you read the entire phrase? The belief must have been objectively reasonable. That's an objective standard. Take it from the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which recently stated that in order to be entitled to a "perfect" self-defense instruction, a defendant is required "to make an objective threshold showing that (1) he reasonably believed he was preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with his person, and (2) he intentionally used only the force he reasonably believed was necessary to terminate that interference." State v. Johnson, 961 N.W.2d 18, 25 (Wis. 2021) (emphasis added).
  16. 1. You are right. I didn't read your prior post very well. I should have pointed out that the two possibilities you mention aren't the entire gamut of potential outcomes in that situation. Another potential outcome is that you rebuff the stranger's efforts to take the firearm and you maintain control of it. The two possibilities you mentioned are the potential outcomes (in general) IF and only if the stranger succeeds in taking the firearm. Like you, I wouldn't want to relinquish my weapon and risk finding out that the stranger isn't favorably inclined toward me. So I'm doing everything I can to maintain control of the firearm. If it gets to the point where I have a reasonable belief that he intends to do me harm and my efforts to disengage are being thwarted -- then I think I've got a good basis to use deadly force to protect myself. 2. The "extra complexities" and "specific nuances" could be the difference between a viable self-defense claim and a failed one. The particular facts and circumstances matter. Rittenhouse shoots an unarmed Rosenbaum simply because Rosenbaum tries to grab his weapon (no threat, no chase, no cornering, etc.)? Almost certainly not self defense. Rittenhouse shoots Rosenbaum after the latter threatened his life, chased him, threw objects at him, cornered him, and then tried to grab Rittenhouse's weapon? Very good chance it's self-defense. I certainly understand where you're coming from.
  17. Yeah, there was some discussion of that above, and I agree that is an important fact which, combined with the other evidence, may very well support a self-defense finding.
  18. Nope, I think you're mis-reading or misunderstanding what I've posted. Obviously, the particular circumstances are important -- I think we can all agree on that. If a stranger is "attacking" me (as you stated in your post), i.e., he has done or said things prior to attempting to take the gun from me and has adopted an openly hostile attitude toward me, etc., then I would agree that the law allows me to defend myself with deadly force. But if the stranger just tries to take my firearm with no prior threats, no prior indicia of hostility, etc., then I think the law probably requires me to do something less than kill the guy. I think in those circumstances I would maintain possession of my firearm and disengage out of the reach of the other person. (That's why the evidence that Rosenbaum chased and cornered Rittenhouse is critical -- Rittenhouse will argue that he had attempted to disengage but now had nowhere else he could turn, and Rosenbaum was attempting to take his firearm.) You might ask: What if the stranger doesn't allow me to disengage or persists in attempting to take the gun even after I've backed away? Well, now the circumstances have changed, haven't they? Now my basis for employing deadly force is a lot stronger than it was previously. That's why I say that the particular circumstances are important.
  19. Actually, that's not really correct. From what I understand, the self-defense statutes in most states (maybe all) are analyzed according to an objective standard. While the defendant's subjective thoughts and beliefs at the time of the shooting are certainly taken into account, the defendant typically must still satisfy an objective standard, i.e., the defendant's belief that his life was in danger must have been objectively reasonable.
  20. Fair enough. However, while I'm no expert on Wisconsin law, I suspect that self-defense in that state is not a purely subjective standard, as you suggest in your second sentence. Also, I disagree that those are the only two possible options in the hypothetical you posed. There is always the possibility that the person taking the property would simply drop it, fling it aside, etc. You may roll your eyes at that, but legally and factually-speaking, there are other options in that hypothetical. And that's why the other factual evidence relating to what Rosenbaum did before the shooting (e.g., the prior threat, the chasing, etc.) is so critical. That evidence strongly suggests that Rosenbaum was not simply going to drop the weapon or fling it aside. That's why, in my opinion, that other evidence is so important to the self-defense claim. Let me pose a counter-hypothetical to you that is close to the one in your post. You're in a public place. You (legally) have a firearm in your hand. An unarmed acquaintance of yours (not a friend, but not a total unknown) comes up and (stupidly) tries to take the firearm out of your hand. He has never threatened you. He has never done anything to make you or anyone else think he intends to do you harm. Do you think you would have the right to shoot him under those circumstances? Like I said in my first post on this thread, I'm not trying to stir up shit. I'm legitimately trying to understand the evidence relating to Rittenhouse's shooting of Rosenbaum because from what I've been able to read about this case, it appears that most, if not all, of the other charges hinge to some degree on whether that initial shooting was lawful. So I appreciate all the posts that have talked about that evidence.
  21. See my other response. I do think you need evidence of that threat (along with the other evidence that has been mentioned) to go along with the attempt to grab the gun in order to have a viable self-defense argument as to the Rosenbaum shooting. The attempt to grab the gun, just by itself, would not be sufficient, IMO. You need the prior threat, the chasing, the cornering, etc., along with the attempt to grab.
  22. As for your first question: Simply because I think that if all Rosenbaum had done was simply reach for the gun, it would not justify Rittenhouse shooting him. Simply put, you and I (I assume you're a gun owner as I am) do not have a privilege to shoot someone simply because, without more, they attempt to take a gun out of our hands. But when the other facts (the threat, the chasing, the cornering, etc.) are added into the mix along with the reaching for the gun, it becomes much more objectively reasonable to be in fear for one's life. As for your second question: I guess we'll never know for sure, and that's part of the problem. Had he lived, Rosenbaum might say that he merely intended to disarm Rittenhouse for some reason, and that he did not intend to harm him. But when the other facts (prior threat, chasing, etc.) are taken into consideration, it makes it far more likely that Rosenbaum did intend to harm Rittenhouse if Rosenbaum had been able to snatch the firearm. And that, in turn, makes Rittenhouse's claim that he was in fear for life/body far more objectively reasonable. I think you need all of the facts, not merely the attempt to grab the gun, in order to establish a legitimate self-defense claim as to the Rosenbaum shooting. Just my opinion.
  23. Got it. Thanks for explaining what you posted on the previous page. Now I've got a better understanding of the evidence that has been coming in on that part of the incident, and can better understand the assertion of self-defense as to Rosenbaum.
  24. Understood, and I was aware of that aspect of WI self-defense law, and should have mentioned it along with fear for life. Good point.
×
×
  • Create New...