Draxil on 22/11/2021 at 19:15
Quote Posted by Starker
If I remember correctly, he testified that the man lunged towards his gun, which warrants maybe a warning, but not shooting someone multiple times. I haven't seen any witnesses talk about wrestling or anything of the like. Of course, if that's true, and the victim indeed engaged the shooter physically and the gun was discharged during the struggle, that would be a completely different scenario.
He was shot from a distance of within 4 feet, according to the medical examiners testimony. In your view, I'm assuming Rittenhouse was required to wait until physical contact from the charging man was made before he used his rifle?
Starker on 22/11/2021 at 19:21
I'm not talking about premeditation, though. I'm talking about overstepping the boundaries of self-defence and using an amount of force that is not proportionate.
I have to admit, I'm not all that familiar with state law in the US, so I'm not talking about applicable law in Wisconsin, but as a general principle, a person can only use as much force as is required to remove a threat, especially in situations that involve a non-lethal threat.
Starker on 22/11/2021 at 19:27
Quote Posted by Draxil
He was shot from a distance of within 4 feet, according to the medical examiners testimony. In your view, I'm assuming Rittenhouse was required to wait until physical contact from the charging man was made before he used his rifle?
No, but how about a warning shot or only wounding the man?
There's a reason why gun control exists in sane countries, instead of allowing just about anyone to have just about any gun without any training.
caffeinatedzombeh on 22/11/2021 at 20:38
Quote Posted by lowenz
Yeah, like considering a skateboard a deadly weapon but an assault rifle a hunt "rifle" 'cause the stupid american naming of the guns :)
Of course the judge is biased, everyone knows that an "assault rifle" is NOT a "rifle" intended for hunting sport so NO, that teenager was NOT allowed to carry and use it. And maybe not to play
vigilante @17 years endangering everyone around him.
...
1) a real
hunting gun (not a war-grade weapon)
It's a semi automatic AR15 chambered in .223... You do realise that's legal to own in Italy don't you?
catbarf on 22/11/2021 at 20:41
Quote Posted by Starker
No, but how about a warning shot
That's negligent discharge of a firearm. You are responsible for every bullet you fire; he was already charged with first-degree reckless endangerment for shooting in a public space where bullets could impact a bystander. If you fire a warning shot, in the eyes of the law you have just employed deadly force, and that may make you the aggressor regardless of what came prior.
If you're pointing a gun at someone and telling them to stay back, and they keep coming, you both know what you're getting into. Any physical struggle will be for control of a deadly weapon. The situation has already escalated to threat of deadly force and it is not necessary to demonstrate that your gun is functional.
(You can easily avoid this escalation by not being the guy patrolling the streets with an open-carry rifle, but that's beside the point)
Quote Posted by Starker
or only wounding the man?
You mean, using deadly force with the express intent to maim? Telling the jury that you didn't
quite feel your life was in danger yet, but you used deadly force anyways? There's a good chance you'll be going to prison, plus facing an open-and-shut civil suit if the guy survives.
Police don't fire warning shots and don't shoot to wound, and self-defense lawyers don't advise it either. You are not justified in use of lethal force until you are reasonably afraid that your life is in imminent danger, and have no reasonable alternatives besides using lethal force to stop the threat as directly and quickly as possible. If you testify that you fired warning shots or shot to wound (or hit them 'just a little' with a baseball bat, it's not a gun-specific thing), you're communicating to the jury that you employed deadly force before use of deadly force was the only option to prevent imminent harm, and it can invalidate a self-defense claim.
Put bluntly: If Rittenhouse shot at any moment before Rosenbaum lunged at him, there'd be no validity to a self-defense claim whatsoever. A person following you, even verbally threatening you, doesn't justify use of deadly force. A person attacking you for control of your gun might.
And I mean, legal implications aside, what does 'only wounding the man' mean? Shooting him just once? Huber was shot once in the chest while trying to take the gun and died immediately. People have been shot more times than Rosenbaum was and still been lucid and active. There's no 'shooting to wound' with a firearm. I get where you're coming from but that's just not how this works.
Quote Posted by Starker
There's a reason why gun control exists in sane countries, instead of allowing just about anyone to have just about any gun without any training.
A teenager shouldn't have been playing vigilante with a rifle straw purchased on his behalf and then open-carried on the street during a protest with already heightened tensions. But while this whole scenario shouldn't have happened, that doesn't have any bearing on justified use of force. You can be actively committing a crime and that doesn't necessarily invalidate a self-defense claim if someone else oversteps the bounds of legitimate use of force. The details matter here; in the future there's a lot of shit I'd like to see changed legally.
Starker on 22/11/2021 at 23:30
Quote Posted by catbarf
That's negligent discharge of a firearm. You are responsible for every bullet you fire; he was already charged with first-degree reckless endangerment for shooting in a public space where bullets could impact a bystander. If you fire a warning shot, in the eyes of the law you have just employed deadly force, and that may make you the aggressor regardless of what came prior.
I would argue that a negligent discharge is still better than killing a person. And it's not like shooting at a person poses any less risk to bystanders? In fact, as you generally can't see through people, isn't there a greater chance that you don't see someone standing behind them at a distance?
Quote Posted by catbarf
If you're pointing a gun at someone and telling them to stay back, and they keep coming, you both know what you're getting into. Any physical struggle will be for control of a deadly weapon. The situation has already escalated to threat of deadly force and it is not necessary to demonstrate that your gun is functional.
(You can easily avoid this escalation by not being the guy patrolling the streets with an open-carry rifle, but that's beside the point)
From everything I read and heard about the incident, it seems that the victim was not in physical contact with the shooter and never laid a hand on the gun. You're welcome to correct me if there's a source that shows otherwise, but I don't think I was wrong when I said that the victim never touched the shooter. Therefore the phrase "struggle for control" is doing a lot of legwork here, given that this is all based on witness testimony and assumed intent. For all we know, the victim might have simply stumbled or moved erratically. Yes, lunging is a scary action, but it's not like killing him was the only option. He could still have moved back and done a warning shot, risk of being charged with negligent discharge notwithstanding.
Quote Posted by catbarf
You mean, using deadly force with the express intent to maim? Telling the jury that you didn't
quite feel your life was in danger yet, but you used deadly force anyways? There's a good chance you'll be going to prison, plus facing an open-and-shut civil suit if the guy survives.
Police don't fire warning shots and don't shoot to wound, and self-defense lawyers don't advise it either. You are not justified in use of lethal force until you are reasonably afraid that your life is in imminent danger, and have no reasonable alternatives besides using lethal force to stop the threat as directly and quickly as possible. If you testify that you fired warning shots or shot to wound (or hit them 'just a little' with a baseball bat, it's not a gun-specific thing), you're communicating to the jury that you employed deadly force before use of deadly force was the only option to prevent imminent harm, and it can invalidate a self-defense claim.
Put bluntly: If Rittenhouse shot at any moment before Rosenbaum lunged at him, there'd be no validity to a self-defense claim whatsoever. A person following you, even verbally threatening you, doesn't justify use of deadly force. A person attacking you for control of your gun might.
And I mean, legal implications aside, what does 'only wounding the man' mean? Shooting him just once? Huber was shot once in the chest while trying to take the gun and died immediately. People have been shot more times than Rosenbaum was and still been lucid and active. There's no 'shooting to wound' with a firearm. I get where you're coming from but that's just not how this works.
You are responsible for every bullet that you fire -- therefore you are obligated to wield deadly force responsibly and not excessively. And I would argue that someone making a lunging motion towards you doesn't warrant pulling the trigger four times. Even one bullet can be deadly, but shooting someone multiple times shows your intent -- at the very least that it wasn't merely an accident. Without getting into legalese and what if scenarios, surely you can see that there is a difference here?
And the police do fire warning shots. Maybe not in the US, but here they absolutely do. And when using deadly force in self-defence, you're generally required to warn the person first, not to mention be in real danger. From what I've read, in the US, police use deadly force very liberally and without much hesitation at the slightest hint of danger, so I'm not sure how well it applies to the situation at hand.
Quote Posted by catbarf
A teenager shouldn't have been playing vigilante with a rifle straw purchased on his behalf and then open-carried on the street during a protest with already heightened tensions. But while this whole scenario shouldn't have happened, that doesn't have any bearing on justified use of force. You can be actively committing a crime and that doesn't necessarily invalidate a self-defense claim if someone else oversteps the bounds of legitimate use of force. The details matter here; in the future there's a lot of shit I'd like to see changed legally.
As I've probably said multiple times in the gun control threads, I see owning a gun as a responsibility first and foremost. In my mind, allowing a kid to be in a situation where they are responsible for the lives of others in that manner is just irresponsible. I would argue that a 17-year-old typically isn't mature enough to decide on what level of force is justified in that kind of situation. And while it might have been technically legal in Wisconsin, I'm not really talking about legality here, but more about what reckless attitudes concerning guns lead to. Illustrated by the fact that in the US most years toddlers kill more people than terrorists and that it's the only developed country where these kinds of things regularly happen.
And, as I've argued multiple times, it's not just increased gun violence that an irresponsible "You get a gun and you get a gun and you get a gun..." policy leads to. The amount of suicides and accidents increase too. It's pointless tragedies one after another day after day: (
https://twitter.com/Well_Regulated_)
catbarf on 23/11/2021 at 02:18
Quote Posted by Starker
I would argue that a negligent discharge is still better than killing a person. And it's not like shooting at a person poses any less risk to bystanders? In fact, as you generally can't see through people, isn't there a greater chance that you don't see someone standing behind them at a distance?
For one thing, that's part of why hollowpoint and frangible ammunition is used for self-defense, as it stops in the first thing it directly hits. More importantly, one of these hypotheticals is firing a shot and risking collateral damage to prevent imminent harm, and the other is firing a shot and risking collateral damage just to show that you're serious. Additionally, you are potentially
escalating the confrontation as now you are using deadly force, and your aggressor may not know whether you're firing warning shots or trying to kill them.
Quote Posted by Starker
From everything I read and heard about the incident, it seems that the victim was not in physical contact with the shooter and never laid a hand on the gun. You're welcome to correct me if there's a source that shows otherwise, but I don't think I was wrong when I said that the victim never touched the shooter. Therefore the phrase "struggle for control" is doing a lot of legwork here, given that this is all based on witness testimony and assumed intent. For all we know, the victim might have simply stumbled or moved erratically. Yes, lunging is a scary action, but it's not like killing him was the only option. He could still have moved back and done a warning shot, risk of being charged with negligent discharge notwithstanding.
I mean, it's not all eyewitness testimony, that's just where the accounts of their initial interaction and a close-range characterization of the shooting come from. (
https://globalnews.ca/video/8362302/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-drone-video-shows-1st-shooting-at-close-range) Drone footage shows Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse through a parking lot at a dead sprint and gaining on him, and he's feet away when Rittenhouse turns and fires. I don't see how you can fit 'could still have moved back and done a warning shot' into that, or make it sound like Rittenhouse was never really threatened because Rosenbaum didn't manage to physically touch him, or that maybe there's a reasonable alternative explanation for Rosenbaum's actions besides trying to attack Rittenhouse.
Quote Posted by Starker
You are responsible for every bullet that you fire -- therefore you are obligated to wield deadly force responsibly and not excessively. And I would argue that someone making a lunging motion towards you doesn't warrant pulling the trigger four times. Even one bullet can be deadly, but shooting someone multiple times shows your intent -- at the very least that it wasn't merely an accident. Without getting into legalese and what if scenarios, surely you can see that there is a difference here?
We've had this conversation before. Nobody is trained or expected to fire a single shot, observe for a few seconds to see what effect it had (since gunshot effects are wildly unpredictable), and then decide whether or not to fire again. If the circumstance does not require firing as many shots as it takes to stop the threat ASAP, it doesn't warrant deadly force at all. The overwhelming majority of self-defense cases involve multiple shots fired; the FBI states that the average gunfight is three rounds. I've seen prosecutors (and media commentators) try the 'he didn't need to fire (x) number of times' angle, but it never holds up in court.
What does matter is whether shots were fired after the target was clearly no longer a threat. But that doesn't appear to be relevant to this case.
Quote Posted by Starker
And the police do fire warning shots. Maybe not in the US, but here they absolutely do.
Your AFOs are instructed not to fire warning shots either, except in very rare circumstances. (
https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/armed-policing/armed-deployment/discharge-of-firearms/) Here's a summary of UK policy on police use of firearms. Amnesty International recommends against the use of warning shots. Scotland explicitly forbids them. These guidelines for use of force I'm describing are not unique to the US. UK police, when confronted with a threat that warrants immediate use of deadly force, will also aim center mass and shoot until the target is no longer a threat. They may not use lethal force anywhere near as frequently as US police, but when they do it's not markedly different.
This idea that responsible self-defense involves warning shots and only pulling the trigger once really doesn't match with law or precedent in the US, or police training in either of our countries. It's just not a reasonable expectation.
Quote Posted by Starker
As I've probably said multiple times in the gun control threads, I see owning a gun as a responsibility first and foremost. In my mind, allowing a kid to be in a situation where they are responsible for the lives of others in that manner is just irresponsible. I would argue that a 17-year-old typically isn't mature enough to decide on what level of force is justified in that kind of situation. And while it might have been technically legal in Wisconsin, I'm not really talking about legality here, but more about what reckless attitudes concerning guns lead to. Illustrated by the fact that in the US most years toddlers kill more people than terrorists and that it's the only developed country where these kinds of things regularly happen.
And, as I've argued multiple times, it's not just increased gun violence that an irresponsible "You get a gun and you get a gun and you get a gun..." policy leads to. The amount of suicides and accidents increase too. It's pointless tragedies one after another day after day: (
https://twitter.com/Well_Regulated_)
I agree with all of this. I think the whole situation is fucked and there are no winners, and I would like to invite everyone celebrating Rittenhouse's 'not guilty' verdict as proof that he did nothing wrong to eat an entire bag of dicks. I think he made a stupid and irresponsible decision to take on the role of vigilante, as did the people who then tried to use force against him (eg Grosskreutz who, in true Good Guy With A Gun fashion, went after what he thought was an active shooter with his illegally-carried handgun, and got justifiably shot), and there's just enough ambiguity in the initial events for charges that require a very high burden of proof to fail. I don't think this would have blown up the way it did if there wasn't an absolute media circus drumming it up as a white supremacist mass shooting against peaceful protesters, and a lot of the takes I'm seeing from the verdict make it sound like people are still operating on that narrative.
Starker on 23/11/2021 at 09:06
Quote Posted by catbarf
For one thing, that's part of why hollowpoint and frangible ammunition is used for self-defense, as it stops in the first thing it directly hits. More importantly, one of these hypotheticals is firing a shot and risking collateral damage to prevent imminent harm, and the other is firing a shot and risking collateral damage just to show that you're serious. Additionally, you are potentially
escalating the confrontation as now you are using deadly force, and your aggressor may not know whether you're firing warning shots or trying to kill them.
More importantly, one of them has a very high risk of someone ending up dead in addition to the risk of collateral harm. Also, shooting at someone to kill is no less of a potential escalation, as other people around you may not know whether you're firing in self-defence or if you're just a murderer. When just about anyone can carry a gun anywhere, there's always a chance of a "good guy with a gun" who is a tad too trigger happy to stop and analyse the situation.
Quote Posted by catbarf
I mean, it's not all eyewitness testimony, that's just where the accounts of their initial interaction and a close-range characterization of the shooting come from. (
https://globalnews.ca/video/8362302/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-drone-video-shows-1st-shooting-at-close-range) Drone footage shows Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse through a parking lot at a dead sprint and gaining on him, and he's feet away when Rittenhouse turns and fires. I don't see how you can fit 'could still have moved back and done a warning shot' into that, or make it sound like Rittenhouse was never really threatened because Rosenbaum didn't manage to physically touch him, or that maybe there's a reasonable alternative explanation for Rosenbaum's actions besides trying to attack Rittenhouse.
Yes, it's not all eyewitness testimony. For example, a forensic pathologist testified that the shots were fired at a downward angle and that the victim was at a horizontal position at the moment, which could be consistent of, say, stumbling or falling rather than trying to grab the gun while still more than a meter away while the shooter had his back turned. At least according to witnesses, the shooter wasn't facing the victim at that moment, but suddenly turned around and shot, so it's not like he even saw the "lunge" happen.
Also, it's not like this moment happened in a vacuum. A warning shot could have been made long before they were that close to each other. Also, a warning doesn't necessarily have to involve bullet. You can verbally warn someone before you shoot.
Quote Posted by catbarf
We've had this conversation before. Nobody is trained or expected to fire a single shot, observe for a few seconds to see what effect it had (since gunshot effects are wildly unpredictable), and then decide whether or not to fire again. If the circumstance does not require firing as many shots as it takes to stop the threat ASAP, it doesn't warrant deadly force at all. The overwhelming majority of self-defense cases involve multiple shots fired; the FBI states that the average gunfight is three rounds. I've seen prosecutors (and media commentators) try the 'he didn't need to fire (x) number of times' angle, but it never holds up in court.
What does matter is whether shots were fired after the target was clearly no longer a threat. But that doesn't appear to be relevant to this case.
Well, I don't know whether Rittenhosue was trained to fire multiple shots. In fact, I have been under the impression he had received no training with firearms at all, especially since he didn't even know things like what kind of ammunition the rifle was loaded with.
This is again where the warning issue comes in. Shooting in self-defence becomes necessary when it is to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. There are steps you can take before it ever comes to that point, such as issuing warnings before a potential assailant comes too close. In that case, even after you do a warning shot or shoot once, you are not in imminent danger. You can also back up or place something between the assailant and you, such as a car, to gain more time. Or you can kick someone away to get more distance, for example.
Quote Posted by catbarf
Your AFOs are instructed not to fire warning shots either, except in very rare circumstances. (
https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/armed-policing/armed-deployment/discharge-of-firearms/) Here's a summary of UK policy on police use of firearms. Amnesty International recommends against the use of warning shots. Scotland explicitly forbids them. These guidelines for use of force I'm describing are not unique to the US. UK police, when confronted with a threat that warrants immediate use of deadly force, will also aim center mass and shoot until the target is no longer a threat. They may not use lethal force anywhere near as frequently as US police, but when they do it's not markedly different.
This idea that responsible self-defense involves warning shots and only pulling the trigger once really doesn't match with law or precedent in the US, or police training in either of our countries. It's just not a reasonable expectation.
Um, here's an excerpt of a court case from my country (my quick and dirty translation below):
Quote:
(
https://www.riigiteataja.ee/kohtulahendite_liigitus.html?jaotus=juur.206106663.206106668.206106720.206108001&kokkuvotted=false&jaotusedVaikimisiAvatud=)
Tulirelva eluohtlikul kasutamisel õigusvastase ründe tõrjumiseks on õigusteoorias esitatud nõue ründajat tulirelva võimalikust kasutamisest eelnevalt hoiatada või teha hoiatuslask ning alles seejärel, ründe jätkumise korral, võib tulistada ründaja pihta. Selline piirang ei kehti vaid juhul, kui pärast hoiatuslasku poleks rünnataval enam võimalik rünnakut tõrjuda.
When using a firearm to fend off an unlawful attack, according to legal theory you are required to either issue a prior warning to the assailant of a possible use of firearm or to make a warning shot, and only after that, if the attack continues, can you shoot at the assailant. Such a limitation doesn't apply only if you would become unable to fend off the attack after the warning shot.
Quote Posted by catbarf
I don't think this would have blown up the way it did if there wasn't an absolute media circus drumming it up as a white supremacist mass shooting against peaceful protesters, and a lot of the takes I'm seeing from the verdict make it sound like people are still operating on that narrative.
Well, if you hang out with Proud Boys and flash an ironic white power sign, it's kind of easy to see how sensationalist media can come to that impression. The shooter was after all, as they say, no angel. But you are right -- taking a gun to a protest and pointing it at protesters is fucked up in and of itself. No need to even bring race into it.
catbarf on 23/11/2021 at 17:03
Quote Posted by Starker
More importantly, one of them has a very high risk of someone ending up dead in addition to the risk of collateral harm. Also, shooting at someone to kill is no less of a potential escalation, as other people around you may not know whether you're firing in self-defence or if you're just a murderer. When just about anyone can carry a gun anywhere, there's always a chance of a "good guy with a gun" who is a tad too trigger happy to stop and analyse the situation.
Right. Which is why any use of deadly force is a last resort, not something you use before it's necessary in the hopes of de-escalation.
I'm not saying that instead of a warning shot you should immediately shoot to kill. I'm saying that a gun shouldn't be used at all until the risk of collateral damage, escalation, etc is outweighed by the need to prevent imminent harm, and a warning shot is no longer appropriate in any case.
That's generally how US law considers it, too. Warning shots can even invalidate self-defense claims, because if the prosecution can convince the jury that your attacker thinks the shot is directed at him, then you've committed assault with a deadly weapon, you've escalated a threatening-but-not-yet-violent confrontation to deadly force,
he's now acting in self-defense, and
you are the aggressor regardless of what came prior. Also, you're now temporarily deaf, everyone around just heard a gunshot and probably doesn't know the context (and you don't have the benefit of a police uniform), and there's an unaimed bullet going somewhere
Guns are not de-escalation tools. I don't know how else to put this. Warning shots are not a reasonable expectation, either legally or practically.
Quote Posted by Starker
Yes, it's not all eyewitness testimony. For example, a forensic pathologist testified that the shots were fired at a downward angle and that the victim was at a horizontal position at the moment, which could be consistent of, say, stumbling or falling rather than trying to grab the gun while still more than a meter away while the shooter had his back turned. At least according to witnesses, the shooter wasn't facing the victim at that moment, but suddenly turned around and shot, so it's not like he even saw the "lunge" happen.
Maybe? The pathologist also testified that it would be consistent with a lunging action, so could go either way. I guess it's possible that he was chasing Rittenhouse through a parking lot, with no apparent explanation besides ill intent, and then tripped at the last second rather than making a deliberate lunge. If we have to speculate like this, that's already enough ambiguity to kill a first-degree murder charge and make the question of justifiable homicide irrelevant.
Quote Posted by Starker
Also, it's not like this moment happened in a vacuum. A warning shot could have been made long before they were that close to each other. Also, a warning doesn't necessarily have to involve bullet. You can verbally warn someone before you shoot.
Rittenhouse testified that at one point he aimed at Rosenbaum to try to scare him off, which I'm inclined to believe is true because it's a stupid thing to testify to. Witnesses say he was shouting 'friendly, friendly, friendly' as he ran. It sounds like warnings were given.
Quote Posted by Starker
Well, I don't know whether Rittenhosue was trained to fire multiple shots. In fact, I have been under the impression he had received no training with firearms at all, especially since he didn't even know things like what kind of ammunition the rifle was loaded with.
This is again where the warning issue comes in. Shooting in self-defence becomes necessary when it is to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. There are steps you can take before it ever comes to that point, such as issuing warnings before a potential assailant comes too close. In that case, even after you do a warning shot or shoot once, you are not in imminent danger. You can also back up or place something between the assailant and you, such as a car, to gain more time. Or you can kick someone away to get more distance, for example.
He wasn't trained. He had no idea what he was doing. My point was that shooting several times is not atypical or indicative of murderous intent. It's deliberate practice for trained shooters and common for untrained ones under stress.
I don't think expecting someone to deliver a kick before they're permitted to use force is reasonable. I've never seen a self-defense claim be invalidated because the shooter didn't try to physically engage their attacker, and nobody would suggest that in the case of, say, a woman shooting a would-be rapist. Putting something between you and them, sure, that's an example of attempting disengagement, but that doesn't seem relevant to this case.
Quote Posted by Starker
Um, here's an excerpt of a court case from my country (my quick and dirty translation below):
I sincerely apologize, I somehow thought you're a UK resident. I must have confused you in my memory with someone else, my bad.
I will confess I'm not familiar with Estonian policing; but while there are developed countries that do warning shots, they're a minority in this day and age. It used to be common practice, but evolving perceptions of risk and efficacy have turned against it. That was really my point.
Starker on 23/11/2021 at 19:32
I think we are just living in different worlds. You're living in a world where having a gun means you either don't shoot at all or fill someone with bullets until they stop moving and there are no gray areas in between, because if you don't do it, you're likely to be killed, because everyone who antagonises you is out to get you and wants you dead, either by beating you to death or killing you with your own gun. Warnings are only red flags that make the attacker even angrier and more reckless. Also, anyone could be going around with a gun and shootings are all over the media constantly, inducing a constant low level of fear and paranoia. Therefore everyone shoots to kill, whether law enforcement or ordinary citizens.
I live in a world where people going around openly brandishing a gun and pointing it at various people would already be major news and the police would be called. Especially at a protest where tensions are already running high. And self-proclaimed militias showing up wouldn't get a pat on the back and the police wouldn't promise to drive protesters toward them. At least I hope they wouldn't. In the US, though, there seems to be a real difference in how things are handled when you look at, say, BLM protests vs the 6. January ransacking of the Capitol.
People who have guns in Estonia generally work in security or law enforcement or belong to the (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_Defence_League) National Defence League. Most of the rest have guns for sport or hunting or self-defence and they use them for that purpose. They don't walk around with them. A lot of people never see a gun in real life until they undergo military service and afterwards maybe only when there are training exercises.
If you want a gun here, there are a series of tests (by your family doctor) whether you are mentally and physically fit to have the gun, the police inspect whether you are able to store them safely, your background gets checked, and you have to pass a theory exam and a physical shooting test to prove you know how to shoot and handle a gun. And even before that you are encouraged to think about whether you really need a gun and what kind of gun is suited for your needs. This all gives people at least a modicum of peace of mind that guns aren't going to be handled recklessly. Sure, accidents and gun homicides/suicides happen, but not anywhere near close the rate they happen in the US.
As for the Kenosha shooter, he never should have gone there with a gun, never should have antagonised protesters by pointing his gun at them, and as a result provoked a situation he wasn't able to handle. At least that we seem to agree on. If you carry a gun, you have an enormous responsibility to avoid escalation and according to everything I read the kid failed. And, in my opinion, if he didn't break the law, then the law should be changed.
For me, the whole situation is a failure of character, not an unfortunate accident, let alone a justifiable shooting. He was eager to brawl before it and showed he had no remorse by (
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/01/14/kyle-rittenhouse-proud-boys-bar/) partying with Proud Boys and taunting the public by posing with them and flashing the "ironic" WP sign. At the very least, it's a disturbing sort of vigilantism where people go take upon themselves to play the police that ends up creating dangerous situations where unarmed people end up being killed. In that sense, it's the same kind of thing as with Trayvon Martin or the recent shooting where three men hunted down and killed a man who was just jogging and minding his own business. And the right wing media predictably celebrated the shooters as heroes and started blaming the victims for anything they could find that they did in the past, to imply they "had it coming".
As for the self-defence stuff, I don't think it's unreasonable to give a verbal warning before shooting someone and to exhaust as many possible alternatives as you reasonably can. Especially when you have a lethal weapon and they don't. A warning shot may escalate the situation, but it may also make the aggressor back off. As may a verbal warning. I have heard of situations where that was enough to end the confrontation without anyone getting killed. And when someone is following you and slowly gaining on you, that's indeed a scary thing, but there are more possibilities than simply turning around and shooting them multiple times without any warning. If saying "back off or I'll shoot" is not enough or if somebody keeps advancing after you do a warning shot, then sure, you had no choice. That's perfectly reasonable self-defence.
