Drake,
”I'll answer that question that according to your apparent worldview, Grosskreutz was completely within his right to try to detain or neutralize someone who had already fired his weapon at Rosenbaum. He was your ‘good guy with a gun’ and his big mistake was that he hesitated and also wasn't sufficiently armed with his own semi-automatic rifle with a high capacity magazine.”
Umm, no.
Grosskreutz pursued Rittenhouse, who intermittently had his rifle shouldered, down a street crowded with rioters, one of whom had just drop-kicked him in the head, and a second clipped him in the neck with the edge of a long skateboard. Rittenhouse was on the ground when approached by Grosskreutz. In close quarters, a long gun is at a disadvantage to a concealed pistol (which Grosskreutz was not legally entitled to possess). He was criminally stupid to pick a fight with someone who had already showed competence in the deadly use of force. Grosskreutz is fortunate not to be dead, and a jury of peers agreed.
”According to my worldview, Grosskreutz shouldn't have gone down there armed, deserved to be arrested for doing so as it should be a gun free zone, and should have let the authorities deal with I'll answer that question that according to your apparent worldview, Grosskreutz was completelAccording to my worldview, Grosskreutz shouldn't have gone down there armed, deserved to be arrested for doing so as it should be a gun free zone, and should have let the authorities deal with Rittenhouse.”[/i].
On this, we agree entirely.
According to my worldview, Grosskreutz shouldn't have gone down there armed, deserved to be arrested for doing so as it should be a gun free zone, and should have let the authorities deal with Rittenhouse.
Rittenhouse was legally entitled to open carry a long gun with a barrel exceeding 16”. Law enforcement had no jurisdiction over him until shots were fired. Following shots, they declined to accept Rittenhouse’s surrender.
”The argument that got Rittenhouse off was that the unarmed Rosenbaum posed enough of a threat walking toward Rittenhouse that he was justified in ending his life. In my worldview, the moral thing to do would have been a tactical retreat by Rittenhouse, which he made no attempt to do.”
If you watch the audio/video, you will hear shots coming from a gun other than the AR-15 that Rittenhouse carried during his engagement with Rosenbaum. They were both hidden from view behind vehicles at the time Rittenhouse fired. The jury determined that Rittenhouse acted rationally given the information available to him, and I agree with them.
”If you saw a guy shoot an unarmed man in the crowd, and you are carrying a firearm Noel, are you going to watch him go or are you going to Judge Dredd the guy before ever finding out what was going on? There's a reason why cops shoot the ‘good guy’ when he's toting a weapon after taking down the actual criminal.”
You seem to have answered your own question. Do not engage in the use of deadly force unless you have a full awareness of what is going on.
”Rittenhouse might have been a good shot, but his tactical awareness was atrocious. Even a cursory reading of Sun Tzu would have indicated that numbers matter. he was completely banking on the entire crowd cowering at his manly image with an eagle soaring over him. Not a great strategy. If more members of the crowd were armed, as you advocate, he would be dead now. And they also would have got off as being justifiably in fear for their lives.”
I totally disagree. Rittenhouse’s tactical awareness was textbook, which is quite an achievement for a minor. If other members of the crowd were either conforming with open carry statues, or as in the case of Grosskreutz, not violating the law, the stakes involved in physical conflict would have been clear. Reasonable people would disengage, which one of Rittenhouse’s assailants was actually video-recorded as doing.