Kyle Rittenhouse goes to trial

[GuessTheAltAccount]

That law then needs to be changed ASAP. Warning shots could save lives if embraced. Why should someone have to wait until it's their own life or their assailant's before alerting one's assailant that one has both a gun and ammunition for the gun?

What do you think happens to a bullet fired as a warning? Where does it go? How does it come to a stop?

If aimed at the ground near the assailant, it should be cushioned rather well by the soil.

[Kathol Rift]

What do you think happens to a bullet fired as a warning? Where does it go? How does it come to a stop?

If aimed at the ground near the assailant, it should be cushioned rather well by the soil.

How many of these encounters do you think take place outdoors in a place with soil? What about apartments, or houses, or literally any indoor encounter?

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Well, just so you know, warning shots are almost universally illegal.

If you are in a position to deliberately fire a warning shot (as opposed to shooting and missing), then you are almost certainly not facing imminent death or great bodily harm (or you would have shot the person attacking you). You may not agree with this, but this has been the practical effect of the reasonable person standard and imminent death/great bodily harm for... I dunno, longer than I've been alive anyway.

The facts are substantively different, and will lead to different results.

That law then needs to be changed ASAP. Warning shots could save lives if embraced. Why should someone have to wait until it's their own life or their assailant's before alerting one's assailant that one has both a gun and ammunition for the gun?

So legalize warning shots addressed "to whom it may concern" that accidentally hit someone?

The harsher crime isn't the shot, it's the fact that you intentionally aimed to not-hit the threat, and ended up hitting some innocent person because of it, intentionally, and from a position where you WERE NOT in such immediate threat of harm so that deadly force (warning-shots or otherwise) were not warranted. A shot you DID NOT NEED TO TAKE, and several people would wish you had not taken. EI: sitting on your hotel balcony making potshots/warning shots at a loud crowd of people attending a concert... with a bump-stock.

Because we all know there's a rules-lawyer who'd LOVE to twist what you are proposing to mean that.

What do you think happens to a bullet fired as a warning? Where does it go? How does it come to a stop?

If aimed at the ground near the assailant, it should be cushioned rather well by the soil.

Fun thing is soviet military would train soldiers to aim low because ricochets not only caused the bullets to literally hamstring you, but would also kick up sharp chunks of asphalt to hamstring you too.

Once forced to prone, such fragments going into your skull tend to be fatal.

I guess the next suggestion is to disperse homeless people with enfilading machine-gun fire like back in the 1920s.
Legalize slaughter under trust while at it.

[Galloism]

I mean, a lot of crimes (or their status as non crimes) hinge on the intent of the person being accused. It's kind of the whole idea behind mens rea.

Yeah, and the principle is that the more criminal and damaging your intent is, the more punishment you should recieve. Here we flip the principle completely on it's head, and reward those with the kind of intention criminal law usually frowns upon and tries to disincentivize while punishing those who're trying to do the least amount of harm.

I understand the logic behind your statement, but I respectfully disagree with it.

The logic that you should shoot through a thick door at someone trying to break it down, instead of waiting to see if the door will hold and thus require no use of force at all, would fall under the same logic. Using lesser force, sooner, without the necessary element of imminence, being somehow "better" than waiting until the necessary element of imminence and then using force directly towards the (presumptive) aggressor.

Basically, if you are in a situation where a warning shot would be "appropriate" (threat but not imminent threat), then you should have fired no shots at all, and firing to kill without that element of imminence would be murder.

[Grinning Dragon]

The other problem with a warning shot is that it's a wasted shot and could be that one shot you would've needed to defend your life.

[Galloism]

So I'm listening to an interview with Thomas Binger about the case.

He did correct the interviewer that the gun didn't go over state lines. He then reasserted that Rittenhouse had absolutely no ties to the community (after revealing this was completely false on cross examination).

He also asserted that existing on the street with an AR-15 is provocative and means you can't claim self defense. He circled back somewhat later and asserted that Rittenhouse went there for political reasons to score a hit against BLM, and he didn't believe he was there to help at all. But then decided to charge reckless homicide and not intentional because there's no premeditation... I'm really lost on how that logic works.

He also suggested - without evidence - that the jury might have ruled differently because they were personally affected by the violence and destruction and thought the fact that they died was no big deal.

He did say Schroeder has yelled at him a lot in court, but out of court, he's very pleasant.

He did say Schroeder was a very intelligent and he wishes he could become as intelligent as him (good luck with that Binger).

Bonus phrase "vigilante justice".

Talking about the direct and cross of Rittenhouse. Said he never saw a cross examination of a defendant have no redirect afterward, which he assumes meant they wanted him off the stand as soon as possible. Claimed the breakdown on the stand was staged and unconvincing, and he thought the jury saw through it (which is funny because of the acquittal, but maybe he thought the jury thought he was faking and then just acquitted him anyway because they hate arsonists or something). He admitted his cross wasn't the best.

Claims some states like Florida have stand your ground laws which means you can kill anyone who comes at you (as a resident of Florida, please let me assure you and Binger that is NOT the law in Florida).

He also repeated the claim that armed people cannot shoot unarmed people.

He also noted during the trial that every time they showed a picture of a body or a wound Rittenhouse turned away from the results, and he argued (I don't get this) that him averting his eyes form the result meant he had no remorse, as he wouldn't confront the results of the actions.

He said he had never had a murder trial where the person accused admitted to killing the people they're being accused of murdering (really? never had a self defense case in your career? ever?).

Binger said he regretted using the term "active shooter", as he was trying to say that was a reasonable inference of the crowd, but that Rittenhouse was not ACTUALLY an active shooter, but it would be reasonable for the crowd to think so.

Binger stated he had an CCW himself.

He admitted that if someone had shot Rittenhouse as he was running towards police, he would not have prosecuted them, because they would reasonably perceive him as an active shooter. He argued the crowd actually used restraint by beating him with a skateboard and kicking him in the face with work boots.

He argues it's impossible for two people to have an equal right to self defense.

He bemoans that the jury instructions do not allow the jury to look at it from the point of view of the "victim" (in this case, he means Gaige Grosskreutz).

(Binger is just wrong here - two people can reasonably act in self defense against each other based on their own individual sets of limited information. This is done in the interests of justice - you can't be expect to read the minds of others.)

He talks about a case where the police shot the good Samaritan who was trying to stop an active shooter. And then states the first rule of the police is "neutralize the threat" which... well, isn't that what Kyle Rittenhouse did when he shot Gaige Grosskreutz in the arm?

Lol, Binger said he thought about not calling Gaige Grosskreutz to the stand at all, as he thought he might be deleterious to the prosecution (editor's note, they were right). Binger said he knew Gaige Grosskreutz and likes him personally (that's really interesting of a reveal).

(Killing an unarmed person again)

Binger said he chuckled at the defense argument that "anyone who had a gun deserved to be killed". I seriously doubt that was the defense argument.

He said he doesn't know why there's so much focus on him, when he's just like every other prosecutor out there (editor's note: THAT'S THE FUCKING PROBLEM).

Note: Binger said that his giving an interview about the case is unethical under Wisconsin Supreme Court rules. I don't know if that's true or not, but he apparently thought it was true, and then did it anyway.

[The Two Jerseys]

So I'm listening to an interview with Thomas Binger about the case.

He did correct the interviewer that the gun didn't go over state lines. He then reasserted that Rittenhouse had absolutely no ties to the community (after revealing this was completely false on cross examination).

He also asserted that existing on the street with an AR-15 is provocative and means you can't claim self defense. He circled back somewhat later and asserted that Rittenhouse went there for political reasons to score a hit against BLM, and he didn't believe he was there to help at all. But then decided to charge reckless homicide and not intentional because there's no premeditation... I'm really lost on how that logic works.

He also suggested - without evidence - that the jury might have ruled differently because they were personally affected by the violence and destruction and thought the fact that they died was no big deal.

He did say Schroeder has yelled at him a lot in court, but out of court, he's very pleasant.

He did say Schroeder was a very intelligent and he wishes he could become as intelligent as him (good luck with that Binger).

Bonus phrase "vigilante justice".

Talking about the direct and cross of Rittenhouse. Said he never saw a cross examination of a defendant have no redirect afterward, which he assumes meant they wanted him off the stand as soon as possible. Claimed the breakdown on the stand was staged and unconvincing, and he thought the jury saw through it (which is funny because of the acquittal, but maybe he thought the jury thought he was faking and then just acquitted him anyway because they hate arsonists or something). He admitted his cross wasn't the best.

Claims some states like Florida have stand your ground laws which means you can kill anyone who comes at you (as a resident of Florida, please let me assure you and Binger that is NOT the law in Florida).

He also repeated the claim that armed people cannot shoot unarmed people.

He also noted during the trial that every time they showed a picture of a body or a wound Rittenhouse turned away from the results, and he argued (I don't get this) that him averting his eyes form the result meant he had no remorse, as he wouldn't confront the results of the actions.

He said he had never had a murder trial where the person accused admitted to killing the people they're being accused of murdering (really? never had a self defense case in your career? ever?).

Binger said he regretted using the term "active shooter", as he was trying to say that was a reasonable inference of the crowd, but that Rittenhouse was not ACTUALLY an active shooter, but it would be reasonable for the crowd to think so.

Binger stated he had an CCW himself.

He admitted that if someone had shot Rittenhouse as he was running towards police, he would not have prosecuted them, because they would reasonably perceive him as an active shooter. He argued the crowd actually used restraint by beating him with a skateboard and kicking him in the face with work boots.

He argues it's impossible for two people to have an equal right to self defense.

He bemoans that the jury instructions do not allow the jury to look at it from the point of view of the "victim" (in this case, he means Gaige Grosskreutz).

(Binger is just wrong here - two people can reasonably act in self defense against each other based on their own individual sets of limited information. This is done in the interests of justice - you can't be expect to read the minds of others.)

He talks about a case where the police shot the good Samaritan who was trying to stop an active shooter. And then states the first rule of the police is "neutralize the threat" which... well, isn't that what Kyle Rittenhouse did when he shot Gaige Grosskreutz in the arm?

Lol, Binger said he thought about not calling Gaige Grosskreutz to the stand at all, as he thought he might be deleterious to the prosecution (editor's note, they were right). Binger said he knew Gaige Grosskreutz and likes him personally (that's really interesting of a reveal).

(Killing an unarmed person again)

Binger said he chuckled at the defense argument that "anyone who had a gun deserved to be killed". I seriously doubt that was the defense argument.

He said he doesn't know why there's so much focus on him, when he's just like every other prosecutor out there (editor's note: THAT'S THE FUCKING PROBLEM).

This is what I hear Binger saying.

Note: Binger said that his giving an interview about the case is unethical under Wisconsin Supreme Court rules. I don't know if that's true or not, but he apparently thought it was true, and then did it anyway.

When your career is already fucked, you might as well double down.

[Fahran]

The other problem with a warning shot is that it's a wasted shot and could be that one shot you would've needed to defend your life.

And it's actually a reckless discharging of your weapon if you're doing it around a crowd. You shouldn't pull the trigger unless you intend to use lethal force to address a threat of lethal force or grievous bodily harm against you.

[American Legionaries]

The other problem with a warning shot is that it's a wasted shot and could be that one shot you would've needed to defend your life.

While technically correct, I think ammunition quantity is often overplayed. The chances of facing a situation won with fifteen rounds, but lost with fourteen is exceedingly rare.

[American Salvation]

Note: Binger said that his giving an interview about the case is unethical under Wisconsin Supreme Court rules. I don't know if that's true or not, but he apparently thought it was true, and then did it anyway.

I do find it funny that Binger acts so brazenly.

[Novus America]

But this is pure speculation.

Yes. Like I expressly said.

We do not know just based on this case alone. It would be better to actually look at cases where a black individual claimed self defense then look at a very similar case when a white person claimed it the speculate what would happen if Rittenhouse were black.

I look forward to seeing the examples you'll provide.

Now if you can find a cases with very similar facts except the person claiming self defense was black but was found guilty instead it might make an interesting comparison. Or perhaps someone could do a detailed study of what percentage of people claiming self defense are convicted, broken down by race. If you have such study I would very much like to see it.

Sure, but why don't you do some work?

I've previously provided a link to one analysis:

The Urban Institute found that in “stand your ground” states, when white shooters kill black people, 34 percent of the resulting homicides are deemed justifiable. Only 3 percent of deaths are ruled justifiable when the shooter is black and the victim is white. Even when black shooters kill black people, those shootings are less likely to be deemed justifiable in a court of law than those involving white shooters who kill white people.

With respect to race, controlling for all other case attributes, the odds a white-on-black homicide is found justified is 281 percent greater than the odds a white-on-white homicide is found justified. By contrast, a black-on-white homicide has barely half the odds of being ruled justifiable relative to white-on-white homicides. Statistically, black-on-black homicides have the same odds of being ruled justifiable as white-on-white homicides.

https://www.urban.org/research/publication/race-justifiable-homicide-and-stand-your-ground-laws/view/full_report

But why this one particular case out of all self defense cases?

Because this was caught on video, and has been given a disproportionate amount of attention.

And if black people are unfairly treated in self defense cases (very likely but I would like more data) why not find a case where the person claiming self defense is black?

You can do that too, sure. Maybe you should use the case of Marissa Alexander? Or Maddesyn George? Or maybe they don't fit, since both were denied the opportunity to even claim self defense during the trial.

Also the response here was bizarrely incoherent.

I think the problem lies with the reader.

If the purpose is to ensure black individuals get a fair trial in self defense cases, how exactly would jailing Rittenhouse achieve it?

Who says it would?

The individuals calling for his head were often saying the justice system discriminates against black people, which very well may be true, but it it is a complete non sequitur to think jailing him achieves it. I found it bizarre some people calling for an end to to mandatory minimum sentencing, ending mass incarceration, etc. wanted him jailed for life and made the two related.

Once you realize that the love for the carceral state is a bipartisan affair, it will be less bizarre. But it is true, too many people want to make exceptions for people they don't like.

I think this comment by a PDA says it well:

As a public defender and a Black woman, I find myself asking now more than ever: “How does the criminal system and mass incarceration continue to expand and worsen despite all these people opposing it?” I’ve come to think it is because everyone is more aligned than we think. We have been educated by the same popular culture — taught to accept the same cruelty as the status quo.

It might seem cliche to blame societal ills on the media, but the relationship between our country’s comfort with mass caging and the depiction of crime and punishment that we see in popular culture seems more than coincidental. Media consumption is what we all have in common. It’s why even my mother, who lives in The Bahamas, often tells me “some people belong under the jail,” or that “some people are just evil, Olayemi.” She, too, has spent years watching Law & Order: SVU.

I see this connection most clearly when I think about the interactions I’ve had with a wide cross-section of actors in the criminal legal system. Regardless of where people fall on the spectrum of support for change, they seem to operate on a shared set of assumptions so embedded in our culture that we hardly notice they exist.

I think about the Queens district attorney, Melinda Katz, who declined to charge an officer who kneeled on the neck of my client, SirCarlyle Arnold, despite stating that she “supported the spirit” of the Say Their Name Reform Bill, which promised New Yorkers an end to the NYPD’s use of illegal choke holds and neck restraints. I think about why Mayor de Blasio condemned the officer who killed George Floyd but refused to have the officer who killed Eric Garner fired or charged.

I think about the many times self-proclaimed progressives have asked me how I can sleep at night representing guilty people, never thinking about the fact that the people I represent are usually profiled, arrested, and incarcerated for crimes of poverty and behavior that simply wouldn’t be criminalized if they weren’t poor people of color.

I think about apparent allies I saw protesting police brutality, tweeting about how no innocent person would refuse the police and only guilty people get a lawyer.

We’re taught to fear and dislike the people caught in the crossfires of the criminal legal system, rather than to fear the system that inflicts pain on them. We are taught there are bad people who were just born bad, who do bad things, and that the only way to keep the good people safe is for police to do whatever they can to lock the bad people away.

So what was the objective of trying to digitally lynch him? How did that relate to the goals people claiming to be racial justice advocates were claiming to advance? How does throwing a white guy who killed two other white guys in jail actually in any way improve things for black people?

That is my issue, I am perfectly fine with discussing if black people get fair treatment in self defense cases, and if not how to ensure they get more fair treatment.

But I fail to see how jailing Rittenhouse would achieve that. And do not see how his case on its own actually is informative, unless we can compare it to a very similar case in which a black person was found guilty. I do not advocate unfairly accusing and jailing white people just because black people are often unfairly accused or jailed. I suppose making the justice system worse for white people would in a way make it more equal, but I fail to see why making it overall worse to make it more equally bad is a good idea.

It's not.

I apologize for not clarifying. I was NOT saying your post bizarrely incoherent, I was referring to the general hysteria over this, on both new media/social media as well as legacy media which sadly with this, as well as downplaying the Waukesha parade attack, the hysteria over the Florida State Guard etc., even the once more respectable legacy media have sunk to Twitter lows. Plus the response by politicians.

That you do not seem to disagree on, the media handling of this was horrific and even the legacy media has gone off the rails on a tribalist crazy train.

And by many groups conflating this with justice for black people (justice for black is a good thing but only tangentially related at best as the outcome of this, either way would not help it) opposition to the current approach to justice (which certainly needs massive improvement) while simultaneously calling for Rittenhouse to be jailed for life before getting the facts and making unsupported claims about him (not good things) made a complete mess that dragged everything down.

I do agree it is often really just “I want the other to suffer” rather than any consistent approach to justice. It has become far more about tearing someone else down rather than raising anyone up.
Can Western society even survive another decade of this?

Now there definitely appears to be a serious issue with the way black people are treated in self defense cases. Thank your for those sources.
And we need to fix that. The issue is the cases cited are still radically different, the Rittenhouse case was unusual in many respects, which makes it a fairly poor comparison to most other self defense cases.

Which is why the use of it was not all that helpful. There are much better cases to look at.

And unfortunately everything associated with the Rittenhouse case is harmed by association with how badly it was handled.

I do hope there is a serious attempt to protect the right of black people to self defense, I am a strong supporter of the right to self defense. And the fact that it seems to be not always fairly applied based on race is a serious problem.

But I fear dragging it into the this particular sewer of a media response hurt the cause rather than helping.

[Grinning Dragon]

The other problem with a warning shot is that it's a wasted shot and could be that one shot you would've needed to defend your life.

While technically correct, I think ammunition quantity is often overplayed. The chances of facing a situation won with fifteen rounds, but lost with fourteen is exceedingly rare.

One can never have too much ammo, especially in fluid situations and with the cost of ammo now a days, yeah a warning shot is a waste of money. I can also count on many hands on the times of getting that wasted shot back in force on force training where that one shot was needed to win the day for that particular group.
Never broadcast your intentions, make the opposing side guess/gamble what your response is going to be.

[Novus America]

The other problem with a warning shot is that it's a wasted shot and could be that one shot you would've needed to defend your life.

Plus they cost valuable time. In self defense cases by their very nature you usually have to make very quick decisions. Even if you are armed and the other person is not, they can usually close the distance between you and them in seconds.
(It is not like that scene with Lancelot running across the field in Monty Python’s Holy Grail) and take your gun.
You often only have time for one shot so the warning shot not only puts others, but also you at risk.

If someone can close close enough to grab your gun, you are screwed even with a gun.

And as was pointed out before, if you have enough time, they threat is not imminent, you probably cannot justify self defense anyways.

Warning shots, shooting people in legs or hands, all that Hollywood stuff is not really applicable to real self defense cases and is generally a bad idea. .

Basically if you are justified in using deadly force, you shoot at the threat’s center of mass, which is likely to be lethal.
And if you are not justified in using deadly force, you generally are not justified in shooting at all.

[Grinning Dragon]

The other problem with a warning shot is that it's a wasted shot and could be that one shot you would've needed to defend your life.

Plus they cost valuable time. In self defense cases by their very nature you usually have to make very quick decisions. Even if you are armed and the other person is not, they can close the distance

Good point. There is also the possibility that one warning shot could have caused a malfunction, such as a fte or ftf and a person would have to take precious time to clear it.
All in all, just as it has been pointed out numerous times here and in every self defense class, a warning shot puts you into legal jeopardy.

[Ragnox]

Y'all still fighting like a month after the conviction?

[Galloism]

Y'all still fighting like a month after the conviction?

You mean acquittal?

[Ifreann]

There are no laws against shouting "I have a gun and ammunition for my gun"

Shouting it doesn't prove one is telling the truth.

Endangering the lives of everyone in the vicinity for the sake of proving that your gun really is loaded would be, to use the technical parlance, a fucking bad idea.

Plus, if you think that this imaginary assailant wouldn't be deterred by pointing a gun at them as the gun might not be loaded, then firing one warning shot doesn't actually prove that the gun is loaded. It proves that it was loaded. It might now be empty.

---

What do you think happens to a bullet fired as a warning? Where does it go? How does it come to a stop?

If aimed at the ground near the assailant, it should be cushioned rather well by the soil.

Or it'll ricochet unpredictably off the asphalt or concrete or a rock, or it'll penetrate through the flooring to hit something downstairs.

---

While technically correct, I think ammunition quantity is often overplayed. The chances of facing a situation won with fifteen rounds, but lost with fourteen is exceedingly rare.

One can never have too much ammo...

Hauling around a 100kg crate of bullets, just in case.

[Novus America]

The other problem with a warning shot is that it's a wasted shot and could be that one shot you would've needed to defend your life.

While technically correct, I think ammunition quantity is often overplayed. The chances of facing a situation won with fifteen rounds, but lost with fourteen is exceedingly rare.

Well it is still better not to waste the shot, sure you hope you do not need all 15, but it is much better to have an additional round you do not need at the time than need an additional one and not have it. Besides not everyone carries a full sized. 40 around.
A lot of people are carrying 5 shot revolvers. Or something like a Ruger LCP.

[Kalaron]

Shouting it doesn't prove one is telling the truth.

Endangering the lives of everyone in the vicinity for the sake of proving that your gun really is loaded would be, to use the technical parlance, a fucking bad idea.

Plus, if you think that this imaginary assailant wouldn't be deterred by pointing a gun at them as the gun might not be loaded, then firing one warning shot doesn't actually prove that the gun is loaded. It proves that it was loaded. It might now be empty.

---

If aimed at the ground near the assailant, it should be cushioned rather well by the soil.

Or it'll ricochet unpredictably off the asphalt or concrete or a rock, or it'll penetrate through the flooring to hit something downstairs.

---

One can never have too much ammo...

Hauling around a 100kg crate of bullets, just in case.

I mean
Fundamentally it would probably scare them away for the same reason that Soldiers are hesitant to continue marching when bullets are flying around but not hitting them. To continue this thought, since an Attacker is a lot less likely to have had training meant to break their natural instinct to flee when threatened, it's likely that, depending on the distance, they would actually flee.
Humans really aren't logical enough in a situation like that to try to reason that you only loaded a single shot, IMO.

Actually, the bigger thing IMO now that I've thought about it for a while is the likelihood that someone would charge you for the weapon gets higher as they get closer, so that'd make it a little hard to justify a warning shot unless the person was some fifteen feet away at least.

[Ifreann]

Endangering the lives of everyone in the vicinity for the sake of proving that your gun really is loaded would be, to use the technical parlance, a fucking bad idea.

Plus, if you think that this imaginary assailant wouldn't be deterred by pointing a gun at them as the gun might not be loaded, then firing one warning shot doesn't actually prove that the gun is loaded. It proves that it was loaded. It might now be empty.

---

Or it'll ricochet unpredictably off the asphalt or concrete or a rock, or it'll penetrate through the flooring to hit something downstairs.

---

Hauling around a 100kg crate of bullets, just in case.

I mean
Fundamentally it would probably scare them away for the same reason that Soldiers are hesitant to continue marching when bullets are flying around but not hitting them. To continue this thought, since an Attacker is a lot less likely to have had training meant to break their natural instinct to flee when threatened, it's likely that, depending on the distance, they would actually flee.
Humans really aren't logical enough in a situation like that to try to reason that you only loaded a single shot, IMO.

Right, no one is ever going to react to being shot at by thinking "Well, I don't know for a fact that they loaded more than one round, so I will continue to assail them". And similarly, no one is ever going to react to having a gun pulled on them by thinking"Well, I don't know for a fact that it's loaded, so I will continue to assail them". This is just not how anyone thinks.

[Salus Maior]

Right, no one is ever going to react to being shot at by thinking "Well, I don't know for a fact that they loaded more than one round, so I will continue to assail them". And similarly, no one is ever going to react to having a gun pulled on them by thinking"Well, I don't know for a fact that it's loaded, so I will continue to assail them". This is just not how anyone thinks.

Well, aside from Rosembaum, Huber, and Gross I guess.

[Seangoli]

What do you think happens to a bullet fired as a warning? Where does it go? How does it come to a stop?

If aimed at the ground near the assailant, it should be cushioned rather well by the soil.

Warning shots are one of the most reckless, dangerous things you can do with a gun, and should absolutely never be performed. The risk to bystanders is increased significantly.

[Ifreann]

Right, no one is ever going to react to being shot at by thinking "Well, I don't know for a fact that they loaded more than one round, so I will continue to assail them". And similarly, no one is ever going to react to having a gun pulled on them by thinking"Well, I don't know for a fact that it's loaded, so I will continue to assail them". This is just not how anyone thinks.

Well, aside from Rosembaum, Huber, and Gross I guess.

There's no reason to believe that Rosenbaum, Huber, or Grosskreutz thought anything remotely like that.

[Seangoli]

I mean
Fundamentally it would probably scare them away for the same reason that Soldiers are hesitant to continue marching when bullets are flying around but not hitting them. To continue this thought, since an Attacker is a lot less likely to have had training meant to break their natural instinct to flee when threatened, it's likely that, depending on the distance, they would actually flee.
Humans really aren't logical enough in a situation like that to try to reason that you only loaded a single shot, IMO.

Right, no one is ever going to react to being shot at by thinking "Well, I don't know for a fact that they loaded more than one round, so I will continue to assail them". And similarly, no one is ever going to react to having a gun pulled on them by thinking"Well, I don't know for a fact that it's loaded, so I will continue to assail them". This is just not how anyone thinks.

Plenty of assailants continue to assail in the face of deadly force.

[Kalaron]

I mean
Fundamentally it would probably scare them away for the same reason that Soldiers are hesitant to continue marching when bullets are flying around but not hitting them. To continue this thought, since an Attacker is a lot less likely to have had training meant to break their natural instinct to flee when threatened, it's likely that, depending on the distance, they would actually flee.
Humans really aren't logical enough in a situation like that to try to reason that you only loaded a single shot, IMO.

Right, no one is ever going to react to being shot at by thinking "Well, I don't know for a fact that they loaded more than one round, so I will continue to assail them". And similarly, no one is ever going to react to having a gun pulled on them by thinking"Well, I don't know for a fact that it's loaded, so I will continue to assail them". This is just not how anyone thinks.

Actually, the second one is sensible enough. It certainly takes a kind of head-strong, lacking-in-caution, does-not-understand-the-consequences-of-their-actions person to do it, though.
Speaking of which, did you know that some young people get smashed-drunk and then go driving? Talk about not understanding the consequences of your actions, or having critically little caution for your own life.

To be ironically topical, Rittenhouse is like, a perfect example of a young person not doing what's obviously safe for them because of head-strong bravado and an unfortunate lack of understanding about how *close* he could come to dying.

I just remembered seeing, btw, a video of some kind of Domestic Dispute where a father was looking for his son. The other man had a rifle of some kind, and only fired after being physically assaulted (thrown away from the door he was in front of) and the Father took another step towards him. So, the presence of the gun (and the implied threat of shooting) was not enough for at least one headstrong Boomer Man. It's an open question whether a warning shot would have worked in that case, but the discahrge would have probably snapped his self-preservation instinct at least a little.