Harvard Law Prof Noah Feldman’s Intellectually Dishonest Take on the Rittenhouse Self-Defense Claim

Kyle Rittenhouse skateboard Huber

Anthony Huber beating Kyle Rittenhouse, who is on the ground, with his skateboard during the riots in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman has written one of the most intellectually dishonest takes on the Rittenhouse shooting to date. He ignores major facts of what happened that night (there’s plenty of video evidence out there, perfesser) in order to craft an argument that claims — given the very real chance that Rittenhouse will be found not guilty of the charges against him — the laws surrounding self-defense, especially where guns are concerned, are somehow broken.

We especially liked his reference to the “unarmed skateboarder.”

In a sensible world, the fact that [Anthony] Huber may have tried to disarm Rittenhouse, who had just shot [Joseph] Rosenbaum, would turn Huber into a martyred hero — not someone who posed a lethal threat to the shooter.

The logic that turns an unarmed skateboarder into someone whom Rittenhouse could shoot in self-defense again hinges on the presence of the shooter’s own gun. A jury could be convinced that Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense when he shot Huber, again because he was afraid that Huber might take his gun and shoot him.

Finally, Rittenhouse shot and injured Gaige Grosskreutz, who approached Rittenhouse while armed with a handgun. This is the only one of the three shootings that should even conceivably be considered as potential self-defense, because Grosskreutz was armed. But if Grosskreutz believed that Rittenhouse was a shooter on a spree — because Rittenhouse had just killed two men — then it also defies common sense to think that Rittenhouse was entitled to shoot him in self-defense just because Grosskreutz was armed. What about Grosskreutz’s right to self-defense?

The upshot is that Rittenhouse’s self-defense arguments may well go to a jury; and it’s not at all impossible that a jury might acquit him, except on the illegal underage possession of firearms charge. If that happens, the law on the books will have more or less been followed. But the gravitational pull of the right to bear arms will have made a mockery of our aspiration for the laws to make common sense. When there are guns involved, common sense goes out the window.

– Noah Feldman in How Guns Twist the Logic of Self-Defense Laws

comments

  1. avatar Just Sayin(OG) says:

    A bleeding liberal bleeding liberalism.
    Ignore the facts, ignore the proof, canonize beliefs.

    1. avatar California Richard says:

      The biggest fact this idiot lawyer seems to ignore is that that Rittenhouse was running to the cops. The blood thirsty zombie hoard wanted to eat his brains before he got to the secure quarantine zone (no zombies allowed). The closer he got to the cops (safety) the more desperate they (the convicted felons/child moslesters) became to kill him. This lawyer has the common sense of Sodom and Gomorrah.

      1. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

        Once he was running away, their actions became attempted citizens’ arrest, not self-defense, so their justification in using force changed accordingly.

        1. avatar Cliff H says:

          The concept of citizen’s arrest does not apply when they are within view of actual police officers.

          The requirement then is to contact the police and have THEM make the arrest on your assertion that you were a witness to the crime.

          Chasing a suspect down the street and attempting to beat or shoot him is not citizen’s arrest, it is vigilantism.

        2. avatar Paul says:

          I don’t think anyone can claim that a citizen’s arrest was ever attempted. The audio in the videos is full of “beat him up” and “get his ass”. I never heard anything that resembled “citizen arrest”. I’m not aware that any of the assailants or would-be assailants ever called the cops to report Kyle’s appearance. No one seems to have made any attempt to get around Kyle, so that he/she might make contact with the police. The mob was intent on stomping Kyle into a mud puddle. Had Kyle reacted in even a slightly less defensive manner, I’m convinced that he would have died that night.

          I will also point out that if any person had actually made an attempt at citizen’s arrest, and succeeded, that individual would have become liable for Kyle’s defense. It’s more than clear that no one on that street would have defended Kyle’s life for even a moment.

          Any citizen’s arrest claims are going to fail, and fail hard.

        3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Any citizen’s arrest claims are going to fail, and fail hard.

          Any “citizen’s arrest” claim is going to be irrelevant, moot, and likely excluded from trial, since no one allegedly attempting to effect a citizen’s arrest is on trial.

          All that matters is how events unfolded from the perspective of the accused, and the determination of whether a) his actions were otherwise lawful, b) he was/was not the initial aggressor (and if he withdrew, if he was), and c) his belief/fear of imminent death or great bodily harm was reasonable, given the specific circumstances, at the moment deadly force was used.

        4. avatar California Richard says:

          “Once he was running away….” toward the cops and away from the mob that was trying to kill him…… FIFY

          “Citizens arrest” is a function of statutory law enforcement. The idea being that the citizen effecting the arrest would deliver the suspect to an executive officer, state probable cause to the officer, then testify to the judiciary. The people who were attempting to effect the “citizens arrest” (as you call it) openly disdain statutory law, law enforcement, the justice system, civil rights, our courts, and our legal system and process in general. They are actively destroying that system which undergirds the legal framework of the “citizen’s arrest”. It was apparent to me they were trying to prevent his arrest, obstruct the legal process, and sought extra legal justice, which makes them a lynch mob….. In this case a lynch mob of armed convicted felons and pedophiles attacking a law abiding juvenile and preventing him from making contact with the police.

      2. avatar Miner49er says:

        “Rittenhouse was running to the cops.“

        Actually he walked right by the cops and ignored an opportunity to seek their help.
        He was just using the cops as a safe base, an attempt to separate himself from those who had witnessed his initial shooting.

        Once he had passed the cops, he put his hands back on his weapon and resumed hunting.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Once he had passed the cops, he put his hands back on his weapon and resumed hunting.

          Lin Wood is going to have a field day with people like you.

          “Hunting”? What hunting? I have never in my life seen someone hunt by running away from the intended prey.

        2. avatar De Facto says:

          Please stop lying. The cops ignored Rittenhouse to go tend to the wounded and told him to get off the street and keep moving. Perhaps you’ve never dealt with keyed up cops holding guns, but one tends not to argue with them if you have an ounce of sense. If he was a fugitive from Justice he wouldn’t have turned himself in peacefully the day after.

          I realize you’re real broken up about the dead pedophile who started all this by attacking Kyle instead of letting him retreat (btw, when I say pedophile I MEAN IT. Rosenbaum “shoot me ni–a” diddled 4 preteen boys for more than a month before being caught), Sk8rBoi the wife beater (convicted of it on more than 6 occasions) and the grozzkreutz the burgler (who will have a lot more difficulty stealing for a living with an injured arm now). Truly great men. Heroes even. /sarc

          If ever there was a moment where a clear contrast between the ordinary citizen and the marxist Burn, Loot & Murder/Antifa crowd was drawn, that was it. The cherry on top is that if the cops had done their jobs none of that would have happened in the first place and Kenosha wouldn’t have burned to begin with.

          Oh, and Miner.. if Kyle had been “hunting” Antifa/Burn Loot and Murder rioters, there would be a lot more bodies, and he would have had way more than 1 mag. Not that I expect logic, facts, or law to penetrate your ideological bubble.

        3. avatar tdiinva says:

          He shot a pedophile, a rapist and a career career criminal who were engaged in the destruction of Kenosha’s business district. Rittenhouse got nto it with the pedophile when he used a fire extinguisher to douse a burning dumpster that Bidens army of misfits, rapists and pedophiles were trying to push into a gas station.

        4. avatar tdiinva says:

          De Facto:

          Movements like Antifa/BLM attract sociopaths and psychopaths. The anonymity allows them to pursue their personal agendas under cover of a mass movement. If you look at the records of members of Biden’s Army you find a disproportionate number of sex offenders, spousal/partner abusers and habitual criminals. I wouldn’t bet against Miner having. a record.

        5. avatar Someone says:

          Hey, it’s the lying miner lying again!

        6. avatar Paul says:

          I’d like to know whether you were born stupid, or if the public education system made you that way. The video clearly shows Kyle attempting to surrender to the authorities on site, and they refused to take his surrender. Kyle was forced to withdraw from the scene, so he voluntarily surrendered to competent authority the following morning.

        7. avatar James M. says:

          The criminal records of the men shot by Kyle Rittenhouse are irrelevant, other than as evidence that they had a history of criminal aggression. It wouldn’t matter if a guy he shot were Charles Manson out for a walk or Saint Luke there to share the Gospel about loving your neighbor.

          All that matters is the ample evidence that these people assaulted Kyle while he was trying to remove himself from the situation. The attackers didn’t engage him while he was aiming at innocents or otherwise breaking the law. In fact, there is no evidence he ever leveled his gun at anyone other than those assaulting him. They attacked him while he was (1) trying to escape a mob intent on harming him because he had extinguished a burning dumpster that they had tried to push under the eaves of a gas station, and then (2 and 3) fleeing from rioters intent on harming him because he had shot one of their number.

          There is no law in Wisconsin or Illinois that allows people to chase a man down and attack him.

    2. avatar silverwarloc says:

      I you can’t argue the facts, you argue the law. If you can’t argue the law, you argue the facts.

      …I’m sure that’s what he is implying.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Pound the facts. If you can’t pound the facts, pound the law. If you can’t pound the law, pound the table – which is exactly what Feldman is doing here.

        1. avatar Just Sayin(OG) says:

          Chip, I’m stealing that. No apologies.

          But I will site “The Chip” every time I use it.

          😎🤙

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          I can’t take credit; I’ve seen it credited to the likes of Alan Dershowitz and Carl Sandburg, but it is an old legal aphorism: If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.

        3. avatar Just Sayin (OG) says:

          And when all else fails, I suppose you tell them to go pound sand.

          😎🤙

        4. avatar Matt Richardson says:

          Dershowitz is QUITE fond of using that one. Even he doesn’t take credit for it, it’s an oldie.

          Always a pleasure to see your name come up Chip. I still haven’t forgotten the book you sent me, and even passed it along to someone else who needed to read it

        5. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Matt, it is good to see/hear from you, my old friend! I’m glad to hear that the book has gone to good use.

        6. avatar Chadwick says:

          I wonder why pounding the table is what lefties do so often? Probably has something to do with their aversion to facts. In other words “if you don’t have facts you better hit things and convey the emotion”

      2. avatar StLpro2A says:

        If you are a Liberal, pound the common sense…..which you know it can’t possibly be.

    3. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      Leftist political dogma often tries to force victims to share the guilt for violence committed against them. A local bank robber who killed a pursuing bank manager tried to make the banker responsible for his own death by arguing he wouldn’t have been killed if he hadn’t been chasing the robber. Feldman tries to make a similar argument that young Rittenhouse wouldn’t have shot people in self defense if he hadn’t been carrying a weapon in the midst of a riot. If he hadn’t put himself in a position to be chased none of this would have happened. Thus, the rioters’ attacks on him were, in part at least, his own fault. That’s like saying a victim attacked a mugger’s fist with his face.

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        If the cops took a stand instead of being stood down by the mayor, the governor and media it never would of got to this point.

        Someday the left will learn a mob can’t be wielded like a precision instrument.

      2. avatar Luke says:

        “Well, what did she EXPECT to happen, going ALONE to a seedy bar in THAT part of town, at THAT hour, wearing a MINISKIRT?”

  2. avatar Darkman says:

    HaaaVaaad Nuff Said…

  3. avatar W says:

    Rosenbaum, an adult male and a convicted sex offender, was chasing Rittenhouse, a minor. That is where the saga starts. Now, if Huber wants to side with the adult felon sex offender who pursued the minor, then that’s on him.

    Harvard is pretty much a joke. They reminded us when they accepted the spelling-challenged Hogg.

    1. avatar tired of it says:

      Rosenbaum died doing what he loved…

      chasing underage boys

      1. avatar former water walker says:

        You win the interwebz!😃😎😏

      2. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

        Nothing can be said today that will top that.

        1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

          Exactly !

      3. avatar Mister Fleas says:

        Too bad those five preadolescent boys Rosenbaum anally raped and otherwise absurd did not have guns.

        1. avatar GS650G says:

          I bet they cheered Kyle on though.

      4. avatar Chadwick says:

        The headstone photoshops practically make themselves.

  4. avatar Don from CT says:

    Guns don’t twist the logic of self defense laws.

    If you as a reasonable person believe that you are at risk of grave bodily injury or death, you have a right to use deadly physical force.

    It doesn’t matter whether that force is your hands and feet, your skateboard, your knife or your rifle.

    1. avatar Chadwick says:

      No it doesn’t change the facts, it merely makes a blunt tool into a precision instrument. Make a self defense decision with a baseball bat and you might have a couple whacks at it, make the same decision with a gun and you might only get one shot. It doesn’t make right into wrong or the other way around. It just makes it more apparent when right is right and wrong is wrong. I’m still saying Kenosha Kyle deserves a presidential medal of freedom.

      1. avatar Paul says:

        I wouldn’t go quite that far. Would you go for a reward of $100,000 for taking garbage off the streets, along with an all-expense paid college education at the state university?

        After all this time, I have little idea how smart the kid is. Wonder whether he’d rather study nuclear physics, or something more mundane like law enforcement?

  5. avatar John Bryan says:

    Easy to make a lifestyle out of being an apologist for Progressive/Statist/Socialist/Communist/Totalitarian scumbags when the trust fund check clears every month – the rest of us “bitter clingers” have to actually produce something of value in order to make a living.

  6. avatar MyPrettyAR15 says:

    It seems the left is doing everything they can to idolize and make a child molester and a couple of ex-cons into some kind of folk heroes. They’re the left wing Johnny Appleseeds, all turning their lives around, innocent and doe eyed. Future generations will look back and laugh at the sheer stupidity of people like Feldman who ignore facts staring them straight in the face.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      Well what do expect when their VP pick Believed ALL THE WOMEN, no matter what, just a few months ago. Now, suddenly she forgot about believing the woman that said Joe Biden raped her, AND CommieLa now says she’s super-duper proud of another finger rapist for…well she doesn’t have to explain it Bigot!

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        And just like that Harris went from “Believe all women” to “Believe all rapists.”

        1. avatar Eric Swalwell says:

          If you don’t want to vote for Biden and Harris in 2020, there are plenty of other write-in candidates you can vote for. FYI I haven’t sexually assaulted anybody.

          ….. in at least 15 years…. AND, I never got caught or outed!

          You aren’t going to get better stats out of a Democrat than that!

          Eric Swalwell 2020

    2. avatar Gordon in MO says:

      Quote: “MyPrettyAR15 says: Future generations will look back and laugh at the sheer stupidity of people like Feldman who ignore facts staring them straight in the face.”

      Remember, the winners write the history.

      If the left wins in November Rittenhouse will be a cold blooded murderer in their history books.

  7. avatar Scooter says:

    I am an unarmed concealed pistol carrier.

    1. avatar Jim Bob says:

      Hands and feet can be deadly waepons. The only truly “unarmed” people are quadriplegics.

      1. avatar Dude says:

        Try explaining that to the Black Knight.

        1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          “None shall pass!”

      2. avatar Josh says:

        Double arm amputees are, literally, unarmed.

      3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        In fact, empty hands and feet are used to kill more people annually than long guns of all types, per FBI UCR statistics.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          In all the years I was in martial arts, I met very few individuals who chose to attain a rank above second-degree black belt. That’s because once you reach a certain level of expertise and rank (depending upon the discipline I’m sure, as I cannot speak for all of them), the Masters who test/promote you are required to report it to local authorities, as you are then considered to be a walking weapon.

          While I didn’t experience this myself, other higher ranking black belts told me so.

        2. avatar GS650G says:

          Remember Karate man bruises on the inside!

        3. avatar You can fool some of the people... says:

          Watching a few to many movies I Haz A Question?

          ” the Masters who test/promote you are required to report it to local authorities ”

          This is false anywhere in the U.S.. In Guam to are required to self-report and (surprise) pay to be registered.

          It looks like your “Masters” where having a bit of fun with you. You should go back there and demand they apologize to you…immediately…or you, I Haz A Question the “walking weapon”, will release your Mutant Ninja technique and deploy your Fists Of Fury!

          Cowabunga Man!

        4. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Um…yeah…I didn’t mention that I ever saw this in a movie, so your argument is invalid. And if you yourself had ever met a third-degree or higher black belt (I’ve met up to a sixth degree during a tournament), you’d know that the level of discipline required to attain the rank includes an attention to integrity and honesty as a way of life. So no, I don’t believe that the people above me were lying to me.

          Geez.

  8. avatar Dude says:

    Let me get this straight. So I can only use my firearm in self-defense when my attacker also has a firearm? I suppose it wouldn’t be fair otherwise. This brings up more questions. What if his gun is in a holster? Do I also have to wait for him to draw it? Should we also make an agreement to stand back to back and walk out ten paces before firing?

    Also, it looks like I’m not allowed to defend myself from someone who mistakes me as a criminal. I guess the flip side of that is I’m allowed to take someone out that’s fighting with someone else as long as I BELIEVE that he’s a criminal. It would be okay for me to kill the wrong guy. Wow, all of this is completely the opposite of what they taught us in the state permit class. I guess everyone needs an Ivy League education to understand the complexities of the the situation. Thanks Mr. Harvard Guy!

    1. avatar What the Hell?! says:

      Dude, exactly. As a CCW you are not to get engaged with something you “assumed” happened. In fact, your first responsibility is to disengage from a potential situation that might endanger your life. The skateboard dude, and Mr. I Got My Arm Shot Off are clearly the aggressors of stupidity. This Harvard puke is no expert on anything other than libtard drivel.

      1. avatar Dude says:

        Thanks for clearing that up. This is all so confusing. Maybe if I could just find one news source, without conflicting arguments, to tell me what to think, life would be easier.

    2. avatar doesky2 says:

      That’s Haaaavvvaaad to you Mr. Deplorable.

  9. avatar Andrew lias says:

    Ask him if he is willing to get beaten with a skateboard and if not why. It shouldn’t be a problem since he will not be harmed from it.

    Also the left wants less police, this is their wish coming true.

    1. avatar Anton Solomyr says:

      ^ while in a defensive supine position on the ground, nonetheless.

      “How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!” –Samuel Adams

      1. avatar Dude says:

        …while surrounded by an angry, violent mob.

    2. avatar California Richard says:

      “Also the left wants less police, this is their wish coming true.”

      No. It’s not that the Left doesn’t want any police. The Left doesn’t want our current police. The police who drove past Rittenhouse to go address the REAL threat. The police, 90% of whom, want an armed citizenry.

      If they had their way, law enforcement agencies would resemble the attitudes and attributes of the Chiefs of Police. 90% of whom DON’T want an armed citizenry and are chosen for their ideological pliability and superficial physical traits.

    3. avatar doesky2 says:

      Everybody with half a brain cell knows why there are numerous examples of Antifa types carrying skateboards in a shoulder-to-shoulder mob.

      It’s their chosen weapon because they won’t be arrested for carrying it unlike some other piece of long wood like a bat.

  10. avatar Geoff says:

    “Arms” is anything that can be wielded by a person for offense or defense.
    Gun, knife, sword, club, spear, bat, tire iron, sticks and stones, wrench, hammer, anything that can inflict injury or death.
    In this case that skateboard becomes a weapon or arms.
    A Law Professor should know that.

  11. avatar General Zod says:

    I invite Mr Feldman to stop a skateboard with his head and report whether or not he felt endangered while being bludgeoned.

  12. avatar Rhodesian says:

    Saying this lawyer is a liar and rosenbaum was a pedo are both anti-Semitic remarks.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      No. They are not. In this case you are actually telling the truth about two individuals. Now if you try to blame all jews for these two, that’s anti Semitic.

      How not to be a bigoted jerk 101.

      1. avatar Har'Vard Junk'Yard says:

        “Saying this lawyer is a liar and rosenbaum was a pedo are both anti-Semitic remarks.”

        Look deeper into what Rhodesian is saying; he is actually claiming Jews are liars and pedophiles.

        The only way his quote can be true, that the remarks are “anti-Semitic”, is if being liars and pedophiles are defining characteristics of being Jewish.

        1. avatar anarchyst says:

          Feldman is merely attempting to defend his tribal member rosenbaum. Small hats stick together, right or wrong…

        2. avatar Rhodesian says:

          If you’ve ever done an advanced search on twitter, it’s pretty incredible what Jewish people will actually call anti-Semitic. That or just read the ADL site.

        3. avatar jwm says:

          As if anarchyst wouldn’t defend his skin head buddies to the last. If, and that’s a mighty big if, what you say about the jews is accurate then maybe it’s because they’ve been surrounded by bigots like you. You even deny the holocaust.

        4. avatar Rhodesian says:

          Why do people default to ad hominem the second someone dares to challenge a commonly accepted narrative? Try an argument other than “BiGoT!”

          By the way humans are tribal (bigoted) by nature, Christians are the only people who accept all races on principle. (Matthew 12:48-50)

          Do a little digging, get out of your comfortable narrative. Explore all sides.

        5. avatar Miner49er says:

          “Christians are the only people who accept all races on principle.“

          Well, the Canaanites and Midianites might disagree with your statement, but I haven’t seen any of them around here in quite some time.

          America’s native citizens seem to have enjoyed a different experience, some thing about having their children beat for learning the old ways and tongue rather than the Christian Bible.

          More recently, the Jewish folks in Europe might disagree as well, regarding the Catholic Church alliance with Hitler and Mussolini.

        6. avatar Rhodesian says:

          Miner,

          The claims you made are all non-issues. Yes, the Church should do what it can to protect itself when it’s under attack from internal and external forces — see Weimar Rep and the modern US for examples.

        7. avatar Ing says:

          The Canaanites and Midianites were slaughtered by the Jews after their exodus from Egypt — more than 1400 years *before* any Christians existed. Miner49er is a historically and religiously illiterate liar.

    2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Well, there it is: the award for Most Inane Comment goes to Rhodesian.

      Saying that someone who is lying is a liar is not antisemitic.
      Saying that someone who molested children is (was) a pedophile is not antisemitic.

      To quote noted scholar and philosopher Rachael Jeantel:

      1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

        This is on my ‘To Read list’…I think the thrust of it is that the witness was not the actual witness?

        https://www.amazon.com/Trayvon-Hoax-Unmasking-Witness-Divided-ebook/dp/B07XSFVL2K/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

        1. avatar Ing says:

          Yep. Haven’t read the book, but there’s a series of articles out there somewhere laying it all out.

          BTW, Benjamin Crump, the attorney at the center of those shenanigans, is also representing the family of George Floyd and the rapist who got shot in Kenosha. That guy has a lot to answer for.

      2. avatar Rhodesian says:

        Friendly fire gents, I’m just warning you so before the ADL gets ahold of this. 🙂

    3. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      I have noticed it’s very common for a criminal who gets caught to run to their religion or skin color as a defensive tactic. Even tho they haven’t stepped into a Temple or a church since they were a child. In fact atheists do this a lot when they are confronted.

      And no I’m not saying every atheist. You key board commandos.

  13. avatar TexasJesse says:

    Book smart doesn’t make you common sense smart..we should go pummel him with skateboards.

  14. avatar d says:

    99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name

  15. avatar tired of it says:

    “…and it’s not at all impossible that a jury might acquit him, except on the illegal underage possession of firearms charge…”

    Schrodinger’s teenager: charged as an adult for being a minor in possession.

    1. avatar AllArms says:

      “Schrodinger’s teenager: charged as an adult for being a minor in possession.”

      I thought of this too, unfortunately not how it works.

      Also, he wasn’t actually violating that law either. But, then again, this “professor” is ignoring every other fact, so why wouldn’t he ignore that one?

  16. avatar Truthsayer says:

    Apparently the good lawyer has never been on the receiving end of an open can of ‘whup-ass’. It ain’t like in the movies. All 3 of the people who got shot could have avoided it… just mind their own f’ing business and leave people (with rifles) alone

  17. avatar G L Smith says:

    I taught my Tang Soo Do students that a weapon is anything that varies in any way from an empty styrofoam cup.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      “a weapon is anything that varies in any way from an empty styrofoam cup.”

      Uhh Hello? That’s a weapon against the ozone! Remember the ozone? How soon we forget. Are you trying to kill us? I suppose next you’re going to tell me that aerosol cans aren’t weapons against the environment.

    2. avatar John Bryan says:

      If only you’d seen what Pai Mei could do with an empty styrofoam cup – “Your so-called exquisite art is only fit for [fatheads!]. Your anger amuses me. Do you believe you are my match?”.

  18. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Intellectually dishonest, indeed. To wit:

    This is the only one of the three shootings that should even conceivably be considered as potential self-defense, because Grosskreutz was armed.

    That’s not how justifiable use of force/deadly force in self-defense statutes work, in pretty much any jurisdiction of which I’m aware – and, in particular, it is not the way that applicable Wisconsin statutes work. Nowhere is the standard/requirement that the attacker be armed. Rather, the standard is reasonable belief/fear of imminent death or great bodily harm (and/or the commission of a forcible felony).

    (Oh, and having a skateboard (i.e. an assault skateboard) swung deliberately at your head is aggravated assault, which is a forcible felony. But I digress.)

    But if Grosskreutz believed that Rittenhouse was a shooter on a spree — because Rittenhouse had just killed two men…

    Right. Because most spree shooters preface their shooting sprees by providing medical aid to their future victims, and then initiate their shooting sprees by fleeing at a run, not once, but multiple times, from a threatening crowd.

    (P.S. Huber is obviously not accused here, but if he had been arrested for unlawful force/use of force, he would need to establish a self-defense claim, and that claim – as Rittenhouse’s claim is – would be subject to a test of reasonableness. And in this case, his use of force/deadly force would not have been reasonable – it would have been a textbook example of what is taught in any good course on use of force/self-defense laws: don’t enter into a third-party situation unless you are 100% certain of the underlying circumstances.)

    …then it also defies common sense to think that Rittenhouse was entitled to shoot him in self-defense just because Grosskreutz was armed. What about Grosskreutz’s right to self-defense?

    That, also, is not how self-defense statutes work. With respect to the charges against Rittenhouse, the reasonableness of Grosskreutz’s belief/fear is not what matters. Rather, all that matters is the reasonableness of Rittenhouse’s belief/fear of imminent death or great bodily harm.

    In the use of deadly force involving Grosskreutz, the initial aggressor was Grosskreutz, and in no way could his use of force be construed to have been done in self-defense. He pursued, approached, and threatened Rittenhouse. None of those actions has any statutory basis for lawfulness.

    Oh, and we have Grosskreutz’s own words, where he admitted that his intent was to kill Rittenhouse, and that he regretted hesitating, thereby not being able to do so. So, we know by his own admission that he was not acting in self-defense.

    1. avatar W says:

      “But if Grosskreutz believed that Rittenhouse was a shooter on a spree — because Rittenhouse had just killed two men…”

      That is an interesting point. However, Rittenhouse knew, for a fact, that he was pursued by Rosenbaum. He also may have believed, reasonably, that he was fired upon. And he knew that he was being chased by a mob, kicked in the head, hit with a skateboard, and charged at by a man with a pistol, who we will call “lefty.” If Rittenhouse is on trial, then Rittenhouse’s frame of mind and perspective is the relevant one. “Lefty” could have believed that Rittenhouse was Charles Manson and it would have little or nothing to do with the reasonableness of Rittenhouse’s actions.

      An intern once told me how impressed he was by a lecture where someone proved that one and one is three. Feldman can argue that it’s three and hope that he impresses his colleagues. But it is still two and many of us are not impressed.

      1. avatar Har'Vard Junk'Yard says:

        “But if Grosskreutz believed that Rittenhouse was a shooter on a spree — because Rittenhouse had just killed two men…”

        It would have been impossible for Grosskreutz to know that the two men were dead. At best he could know they were shot. This is Noah Feldman’s attempt to escalate the situation as to give his dishonest claims more validity.

  19. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    As I have said before. It seems in today’s “higher education”, the more Letters you have the more stupid you become. I look forward to even more white and black Liberals and Leftists supporting the Mulford Act in public. Changing their minds and agreeing with Gov Reagan. The problem with “super educated” people is that they don’t live in places that experience high levels of crime or riots. It would be a good thing if riots came to the most Liberals areas in the country. Its a good start in Seattle and Portland. Only when a Liberal or a Leftist is personally threatened do they see the Conservative side of an issue.

    There is just too much video out there to try and lie about the facts. Your only making yourself look stupid at a minimum. And a flat out liar in the worst.

    Hopefully more Liberals will come out of the closet and say its better to be raped than take another “persons” life. I like honesty. Just like when the Fake Hispanic said “Hell yes we will take your AR15’s and AK 47’s”.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Chris T in KY,

      Friendly reminder: about half of our population actively and happily rejects truth, facts, reason, and logic when their feelings and group membership require it.

      No: I am not kidding and that statement is not hyperbole.

      It has become very clear to me that those people (who actively reject truth, facts, reason, and logic) declare whether or not you are one of them. If you are one of them, by definition everything that you do is okay. If you are not one of them, by definition everything that you do is bad/wrong. Thus, their standard of right and wrong depends on your identity and the identity of the person with whom you are interacting rather than your actions.

      In this particular case Mr. Feldman considers Mr. Rittenhouse a “deplorable” and the three gunshot recipients to be “good guys”. Thus, according to Mr. Feldman, it was wrong for Mr. Rittenhouse to have a rifle (regardless of what he actually did with it) and it was right for all three gunshot recipients to employ any and all means to disarm Mr. Rittenhouse (regardless of what Mr. Rittenhouse actually did with his rifle).

    2. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      …”Only when a Liberal or a Leftist is personally threatened do they see the Conservative side of an issue….”

      @Chris T. I’m not sure the Portland mayor is getting what you are saying. Even after the rioters tried to burn him out he’s still bat-$hit leftist crazy. I mean this guy is at expert level squirrel bait.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        Only when the Seattle mayor had her own home attacked and vandalized, did she order the police to breakup the CHAZ/CHOP autonomous zone. That’s what it takes. Only when a Liberal/ Leftist is personally at risk. Do they suddenly call a cop for help. When before they were spitting the on cops.

        Its now being reported that Antifa/ Leftists, or should I say Democrats, are starting forest fires in California and Oregon. Some have been arrested. And in the more conservative areas people are now starting to open carry guns.

        Drug addicts need to crash and burn before they personally realize they need to change. And having power is a drug to some people. Unfortunately the politician who is a drug addict usually destroys the district they represent. Before they are voted out of office. Usually the just retire with a golden parachute. Paid for by the tax payer.
        These Liberal voters suffer from the same sickness. It seems only when their personal fortunes are destroyed, do they even consider changing their belief system.

        “BLM Leftist Arrested On Suspicion Of Starting Fire In Washington, Armed Groups Meet Outsiders” video 21 min long

        1. avatar Dude says:

          “Its now being reported that Antifa/ Leftists, or should I say Democrats, are starting forest fires in California and Oregon.”

          *Quietly reported. Most of the MSM reporting and pol spin is typical Sky Is Falling CLIMATE CRISIS! Oh and it’s Trump’s fault! Because if only he had signed the Climate Accords and ended fracking, somehow we wouldn’t be having any fires, right? It’s so sad how easily manipulated democrat voters are.

    3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Chris T in KY,

      Continuing on my above comment, our population really is THAT messed up in the head. It is not possible to come to any consensus. And here is why:

      If you are not part of their group, that means you are (in the insightful words of Ben Shapiro) stupid, crazy, and or corrupt and must be suppressed, silenced, neutralized, purged, and/or eliminated.

      Needless to say, you cannot come to any sort of agreement when the other side considers you to be a vial, deplorable, oxygen thief.

      This morning I had breakfast with a friend and asked him how feasible it would be for entities who control core Internet function to “cancel” a “deplorable” website. His response emphasized the notion that the entities who control core Internet function SHOULD “cancel” any “deplorable” website. He offered the example that Alex Jones is batsh!t crazy and should not be allowed to have a voice — equating him with someone trying to disseminate child p0rn which of course should be silenced. (Disclaimer: I have no idea what Alex Jones says or promotes and I don’t care.)

      My friend did not care about the incredible danger of some small unaccountable entity deciding what is and what is not “deplorable”. My friend did not care about depriving people of their human dignity (their voice). And my friend did not care that there is a ginormous difference between someone “spewing crazy ideas” and someone disseminating child p0rn. All he cared about was advancing the ability to “cancel” someone who was not part of his group.

      Our nation — our world — is in serious, grave danger.

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        Keep.a close eye on your “friend “

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Will do.

          In many respects my friend is incredibly thoughtful and charitable which are wonderful qualities. On the down side, feelings and being a member of the group are supreme.

          Adding more “excitement”, my current and future financial well being utterly and totally depends on me staying in his good graces.

          As a result, I am limited in what I can say and how far I can push things.

      2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        “Our nation — our world — is in serious, grave danger.”

        Back in the 1970’s I remember hearing about Liberals who were “spiking trees”. To stop Timber companies from harvesting the wood. Timber workers were injured and nearly killed when the saw exploded upon hitting the steel spike. These same people ten years later were stopping water flow to farmers to keep a one inch fish alive. Adolf Hitler was the environmental leader of his day. He was a vegetarian. He didn’t smoke or drink. He loved animals. But he hated people. Just like the Liberals and the Left do today.

        This has been building for over 40 years now. Elections have consequences. Keep voting for the Liberals/Leftist. And reap what you sow. The Libertarians are only good for butt sex and drug legalization. Which is why they get the support they do. They certainly don’t support killing people to protect private property.

        Everyone was given a warning back in the 1990’s during the Seattle World Trade Organization riots. That is when they “pulled off” their masks.
        And that Is why I retired to a state where the 2A is well supported. Your 1st amendment is gone. The three L’s don’t support it. They support Book Burning in the 21st century.

        You are correct we are in grave danger. And still most people are asleep. But the riots do have “a positive effect” in waking some people up.

  20. avatar john says:

    If Huber was unarmed, how would Feldman have known Huber was a skateboarder?

  21. avatar NORDNEG says:

    “””FREE KYLE”””

  22. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    The logic that turns … [Huber] … into someone whom Rittenhouse could shoot in self-defense … hinges on the presence of the shooter’s own gun.

    No. Wrong. Bzzzzzzzzt.

    That there, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call a gigantic “straw man”.

    Self-defense law is exceedingly simple: you can only employ deadly force in righteous self-defense when an attacker presents a credible, imminent threat of murder or great bodily harm. Whether or not you have a firearm is irrelevant. Whether or not the attacker has a firearm is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is whether the attacker is actively attempting to maim/murder you. If your attacker (which could be multiple people) is actively attempting by any means to maim/murder you, then you can righteously employ force by any means to defend yourself. Period. The End.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      By that strange logic Feldman asserts you can only shoot people armed with a gun or similar offensive weapons.

      I wonder if he thinks a rapists dick is offensive enough for a petite woman to send lead over.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        GS650G,

        I wonder if [Feldman] thinks a rapists dick is offensive enough for a petite woman to send lead over.

        There is a very high likelihood that Feldman and his ilk will condemn using a firearm for self-defense against a rapist: some/many will honestly claim that a woman carrying a firearm for self-defense is equally (if not more) obscene than a man raping a woman.

        They really are that sick in the head.

    2. avatar hawkeye says:

      Just ahead of your full stop, I would add that in most jurisdictions, the threat doesn’t have to be an actual, real threat. That point hinges on your belief regarding the threat, not the fact of the threat–the reasonable man test applies. If a reasonable man believed that specific threat was real and imminent and would result in death or serious injury, then the reasonable man would be justified in his self-defense.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Agreed.

        I often omit that additional detail in order to keep my comments shorter.

        (Disclaimer: I never seem to be able to type brief comments which I consider to be a fault.)

  23. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    When there are guns involved, common sense goes out the window.

    That is the only thing that Mr. Feldman got right — although that statement is not correct in the way that Mr. Feldman intended. Rather, his statement is true in the sense hysterical Progressive people do not apply common sense when firearms are involved. Instead, hysterical Progressive people employ emotion and hysteria.

    1. avatar hawkeye says:

      Good catch.

  24. avatar Wiregrass says:

    I’d like to smack Feldman over the head with a skateboard and see what he thinks about that.

  25. avatar Nobody of importance says:

    I am not a lawyer.
    I don’t live in Wisconsin, so don’t know their laws per se.
    BUT, one “argument” for Kyle that seems applicable is the “mob mentality” reason for self defense.
    It is a force factor; gun, skateboard, pointed stick, or fists amongst a mob attacking a single individual is generally a reason for self defense. I may have overlooked this somewhere and don’t claim (or care) to read/view all the content around the situation. Defending against a mob attack w/o weapons is generally a valid self defense ….to my understanding.

    1. avatar Nobody of importance says:

      Kyle’s defensive is amplified by the FACT there were weapons involved during the mob attacking him.

  26. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    The Marxist’s must make self defense VERBOTEN except by the state along with civilian disarmament for the fairy tale plan to succeed, Eff em.

  27. avatar Bill says:

    The professor written about in this article is a perfect example of why we need to have a purge.

  28. avatar GS650G says:

    If i were to menace Mr. Feldman with a skateboard I bet he would feel threatened. Would I be considered unarmed with a skateboard? It that the same as being unarmed with a featherduster?

    Maybe the dead guy should have respected the weapon and kept his distance. Hero martyr my ass.

  29. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Free Kyle,jail the proscutor and Eff Noah .

  30. avatar Bugei says:

    Pretty darn sure that, given a skateboard and 5 minutes with Herr Professor, he could be convinced that the felon was NOT unarmed.

    1. avatar Paul says:

      5 minutes? It takes less than 5 seconds to cave a head in.

  31. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    In Sacramento California at the Highway Patrol building. My HS class had a filed trip there. One of the things we saw was a display case of nearly 200 items used by criminals to kill people with. And if I remember correctly only ten or twenty of them was a knife and or a gun. If the attackers of Kyle Rittenhouse had succeeded a skateboard could be added to that display of murder weapons.

  32. avatar EpsteinDidNOTKillHimself says:

    That is some truly awesome mental gymnastics.

  33. avatar possum says:

    Kyle charged into the crowd, gunm blazing, clipazine after clipazine. Lucky for the people looting and setting fires that a heroic skateboarder ran up from behind and whacked this nut job in the head. He needed disarmed and antifa members where there, Praise the Lord

  34. avatar Billb says:

    As soon as I saw “harvard” I knew it would be a spewing of leftist indoctrination brain dead non-thinking.

  35. avatar Hannibal says:

    What the dimwitted professor seems to be getting at is citizen’s arrest. The reason that any legal expert will discourage attempts at citizen’s arrest is because, lacking the authority of the state, you cannot be wrong if you’re playing your hand at them. You need to be certain that you are right. The police don’t need to be right to detain or even arrest someone. That’s because when a uniformed police officer attempts to stop you, a reasonable person would assume that they are going to be charged and not beaten to death by a mob.

    I wonder what the professor wrote about the Arbery case. That was allegedly an attempt by two citizens to stop someone they suspected of criminal activity. Like with Rittenhouse, there was no verbalization that they were making an arrest. Is the professor perfectly fine with two white dudes in a pickup truck cutting off a black man and trying to grab him? I sure hope so. Otherwise he might be a hypocrite.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Hannibal,

      This is one of your moist poignant and profound statements that you have ever posted. Kudos to you.

  36. avatar Richard Turner says:

    I must ask why is Noah Feldman a law Professor at Harvard. Watched him during his testimony in front of Congress, he was an arrogant JA then and obviously is still an arrogant JA. It is so disturbing to think that this man is teaching future lawyers and leaders of this nation. What is worse is you can see his arrogance in his face both when he testified and now when he is again proving he is a JA.

    1. avatar DaveL says:

      I must ask why is Noah Feldman a law Professor at Harvard.

      Because he isn’t a good enough lawyer to do estates and trusts.

  37. avatar Ralph says:

    “Harvard Law” is an oxymoron, unlike Feldman who is just a moron.

  38. avatar strych9 says:

    Such an argument isn’t with considering unless the author is willing to conceded that every person attacked with a knife is merely “confronting” an “unarmed chef” or “unarmed whittling enthusiast”.

    “Well, your honor, I was just going to complete this little wooden dinosaur for the disabled kids down at Children’s Hospital. You know, the ones that have cancer? But THEN I was ruthlessly attacked by this attractive crazy woman wielding a fully-semi-attractive miniskirt AND she had a spaghetti strap top too! Being one with keen observation skills I noted that her top concealed boobs! Perky ones too, the ones that “go up”! So at that point, in fear for my own safety I was forced to defend myself with the only tools available; my whittling knife and my penis! Unarmed against concealed boobs and a fully-semi-attractive skirt!

    I’m just a whittling enthusiast Your Honor, and I’m lucky to have survived this horrific attack by a heavily armed criminal. Yeah, she ran away but I had to make sure she didn’t harm or, God forbid, KILL so.eone farther down the road! I mean, my neighbor is over 70. She could easily have put him in the morgue with that assault-outfit! Bare minimum he’d be divorced today if I hadn’t acted so quickly!”

    1. avatar Dude says:

      You left out the most important part of your hypothetical case. Did said attractive woman appear to be a Trump supporter?

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        Obviously. Only a right-wing nut has fully-semi-attractive skirts and assault boobages that go up.

  39. avatar Richard D Cutie says:

    So what if he got his education at Harvard that doesn’t make him a good lawyer!! Especially when his entire opinion or arguments are based on his ideals and self impaled selfrightousness!! Liberal left wing freaks only see things thier way and how dare anyone have a different view on anything!?
    This kid is guilty of being a dumbass for going out there at his age with that rifle……PERIOD!!!! The film shows everything it is what it is. Stupidity being met with deadly force from a kid who had no buisness being out there caught in a deadly situation and he made a choice. Who gives a shit what that Harvard guy says hire a better one from Yale!!

  40. avatar De Facto says:

    I don’t know if anyone has seen it, but liberals have attacked Trump’s picks for Federal Judges because “they’re not from prestigious universities” and saying that any decisions by judges chosen by Trump are suspect/unconstitutional (which would be hilarious if their hypocrisy wasn’t so odious.)

    If this is what I can expect out of a Professor of Law at Harvard.. suddenly I find anyone with credentials from the Ivy league to be highly suspect. Perhaps future conservative justices should be chosen from smaller, more down to earth schools.

  41. avatar IN Dave says:

    The old adage still holds true:”those that can’t do, teach”

  42. avatar DaveL says:

    Remember, he’s a law prof, not a real lawyer.

  43. avatar Debbie W. says:

    The nutty professer’s oderous opinion is so based on his disdain for The Second Amendment. Rest assured no one would have the defense team Kyle has if there was any evidence of guilt. Case Closed.

  44. avatar Larry in Oregon says:

    What’s that saying? Those that can’t do, teach.

  45. avatar Mark Kelly's Diapered Drooling Ventriloquist's Dummy says:

    Noah Feldman aka “Nicholas Nickleby”, the effeminate, literally limpwristed, lisping, Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Haar–Vaaard “expert” on “impeachment” (Russia Hoax), that “Noah Feldman”?

    Every time, every damn time.

  46. avatar If you can’t defend yourself, KISS YOUR ASS GOODBYE! says:

    I would love to see him in that predicament!!!

  47. avatar Dmitri says:

    Another couple of things to consider that will affect the outcome; despite what libs think there is no “illegal” age of possession. In most states, citizens can still ride around with guns in a gun rack publicly displayed in their vehicle regardless of age, as it should be.

    Second, he is a minor. The law cannot try him as an adult excepting certain crimes, I don’t think this occurrence qualifies as one of those crimes, it was self defense.

    So, the prosecution has some serious legal obstacles to overcome. If I was a juror I’d be voting to acquit.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email