Judge in Rittenhouse case might be a tad biased.

[XsjadoBlayde]

 

[Mister Mumbler]

That happens when you don't have the evidence to prosecute successfully, have a pile of evidence to build a legal defense around unless the defense lawyer is an utter moron, and absolutely cannot drop the case for political reasons.

I mean, I feel the same way, just from the opposite side. Like, they very much don't want to charge him (charitably because they feel he did defend himself properly, but if I'm being honest it's because the people shot and killed were protesting the police/Justice system), but have to due to the fact about how quickly this blew up in social media and the news. A manslaughter charge would be a slam dunk that basically starts and ends with "are you legally able to carry a rifle around in public?" "No." (I mean, apparently there is video of Rittenhouse going "wish I had my rifle to shoot these shoplifters" days before he illegally carries a rifle to a protest and has to shoot his way out), but instead they bring forth murder charges where it's next to impossible to prove intent unless he literally writes a manifesto. Plus, if they really wanted to string him up for murder, do you really think they would have left it in the hands of this buffoon they have running the prosecution? Because they have seemingly gone out of there way to make sure this ends in a mistrial for the defense at every opportunity, long past the point where it can be disregarded as an accident or just bad procedure on their part.

If you feel this is too cynical, keep in mind that the police force I'm most likely to run into where I live is the Mesa PD. Yes, that Mesa PD (warning, link includes man executed on camera).

 

[Mister Mumbler]

A car dealership was torched the day before the shootings so it's less jumping in the cage and playing lion tamer and more trying to tame the lions that roam loosely across the zoo because nobody else is doing anything about em and you were asked by the zebra enclosure to not let em meet the end that the wildebeests met the day before.

Yeah, but...how does that make you suddenly qualified to handle lions? Because you groom cats for a living? If you go to a zoo, and the people there ask you to help corral some lions, that is when you get the fuck out of there before you get mauled by lions, irresponsible zoo be damned. Like, I don't like fire, and neither does the fire department, but they aren't going to be giving me medals and congratulatory handshakes after they need to save me because I thought I was a firefighter because I had a small handheld extinguisher and ran into a building fire, are they?

 

[gorfias]

I wonder how many like this we'll see?

A manslaughter charge would be a slam dunk that basically starts and ends with "are you legally able to carry a rifle around in public?" "No."

I don't think so.
Suppose it is a completely illegal gun. Numbers have been filed off. You have a restraining order from the court stating it is illegal for you to possess a fire arm. Hell, you mugged someone and stole it from him.
Then, on camera, a guy breaks into your home screaming he is going to kill you by kicking you to death with his legally deadly weapon: he is wearing sneakers. If you shoot him with this gun you stole and illegally possess, you might be facing all sorts of criminal charges. Manslaughter, I don't think, would be one of them.

 

[Agema]

Then, all it takes is people at the back of the crowd panicking and going "oh my god, he has a gun and just killed someone" for others operating on this same bullshit mixture of good intentions and wanting to see some excitement/get into some shit that brought Rittenhouse here as they go after someone who they think is a spree shooter.

"Why didn't they rush the guy with a gun? He could only have shot so many of them."
"Why did they rush a guy with a gun? They were asking for trouble!"

Deploy whichever suits your position in the relevant situation.

 

[gorfias]

"Why didn't they rush the guy with a gun? He could only have shot so many of them."
"Why did they rush a guy with a gun? They were asking for trouble!"

Deploy whichever suits your position in the relevant situation.

That is a tragic part of this thing. The last 2 people to get shot may have been bravely facing an armed person they thought had just unlawfully killed someone and were doing the right thing.

 

[Gordon_4]

“With your permission m’lud, I’d like to turn this trial into a circus. Wahey!”
-Paul Merton, unknowingly forseeing the quality of legal proceedings in 2021.

 

[Agema]

That is a tragic part of this thing. The last 2 people to get shot may have been bravely facing an armed person they thought had just unlawfully killed someone and were doing the right thing.

This is one of the reasons I'm skeptical about the public carrying guns. I'm not sure why the first guy fired, but I suspect it was "warning shot" sort of territory, to get attention and stop someone doing something. It was probably part of what scared another guy with a gun to shoot someone. Who later also shot another guy who was potentially trying to subdue the gun-armed guy he thought was a killer, and then shot a third guy who also had a gun, in part because that guy had his got his gun out for self-defence fearing someone was going round shooting people.

So, guns, eh? Hmm.

 

[Mister Mumbler]

I don't think so.
Suppose it is a completely illegal gun. Numbers have been filed off. You have a restraining order from the court stating it is illegal for you to possess a fire arm. Hell, you mugged someone and stole it from him.
Then, on camera, a guy breaks into your home screaming he is going to kill you by kicking you to death with his legally deadly weapon: he is wearing sneakers. If you shoot him with this gun you stole and illegally possess, you might be facing all sorts of criminal charges. Manslaughter, I don't think, would be one of them.

Ok, so I freely admit that this still makes no sense to me. In my mind, the second you pull out a gun or weapon that is illegal/banned, then you have automatically escalated past the point of "reasonable force", due to the weapons in question being banned. Like in your hypothetical, what if, instead of going for the ghost gun, I just hock a grenade at the intruders? Or just go full Tarantino on them and fry them with a flamethrower (yes these examples are ridiculous, I know)? But again, I freely admit that I just don't understand this and have had this pointed out to me a few times now.

That is a tragic part of this thing. The last 2 people to get shot may have been bravely facing an armed person they thought had just unlawfully killed someone and were doing the right thing.

Yeah, like I said before, this whole thing was fucked from top to bottom right from the start.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

"Why didn't they rush the guy with a gun? He could only have shot so many of them."
"Why did they rush a guy with a gun? They were asking for trouble!"

"You should be ready to give your life stopping an active shooter. Unless he's a good ol' boy lookin' to plug some librulz, in which case he is a good guy and you're evil."

 

[EvilRoy]

Ok, so I freely admit that this still makes no sense to me. In my mind, the second you pull out a gun or weapon that is illegal/banned, then you have automatically escalated past the point of "reasonable force", due to the weapons in question being banned. Like in your hypothetical, what if, instead of going for the ghost gun, I just hock a grenade at the intruders? Or just go full Tarantino on them and fry them with a flamethrower (yes these examples are ridiculous, I know)? But again, I freely admit that I just don't understand this and have had this pointed out to me a few times now.

I think you're looking at it from the wrong direction. [Keeping in mind though that I'm looking at this from my understanding of canadian law rather than US law.] The question of reasonable force is a question of "how bad am I allowed to hurt a person who is trying to hurt me", rather than being a question of "what methods am I allowed to use to defend myself".

Some methods are immediately more deadly than others, but we can't write a law that requires a person to run around looking for the "right" weapon in a situation where someone is trying to kill them. Imagine a slasher movie and seeing a person who is not legally allowed to hold sharp objects running around trying to find a rolling pin in the kitchen because they aren't allowed to use a knife to fight off Jason. Or, more directly, if following the law causes you to die because you had no legal method to defend yourself, then the law killed you and we shouldn't be writing laws that do that.

 

[SilentPony]

"You should be ready to give your life stopping an active shooter. Unless he's a good ol' boy lookin' to plug some librulz, in which case he is a good guy and you're evil."

You do have to wonder about the inherent conflict of interest that the people murdered where protesting police brutality and an unfair justice system, and now the justice system gets to judge if that was okay.

Also I read an opinion piece that I thought had an interesting premise, and that's this judge, Shroeder, is basically auditioning to be a Fox news legal analyst/guest, and the more he comes to Rittenhouse's defense, the more Fox news likes him.

 

[Mister Mumbler]

I think you're looking at it from the wrong direction. [Keeping in mind though that I'm looking at this from my understanding of canadian law rather than US law.] The question of reasonable force is a question of "how bad am I allowed to hurt a person who is trying to hurt me", rather than being a question of "what methods am I allowed to use to defend myself".

Some methods are immediately more deadly than others, but we can't write a law that requires a person to run around looking for the "right" weapon in a situation where someone is trying to kill them. Imagine a slasher movie and seeing a person who is not legally allowed to hold sharp objects running around trying to find a rolling pin in the kitchen because they aren't allowed to use a knife to fight off Jason. Or, more directly, if following the law causes you to die because you had no legal method to defend yourself, then the law killed you and we shouldn't be writing laws that do that.

Ok thanks, that really did clear up a lot (and you too @CM156), I appreciate it. Though I will still go on record as not liking it all that much (using illegal weapons to defend yourself). It still feels kind of weird.

 

[Eacaraxe]

This is one of the reasons I'm skeptical about the public carrying guns.

This can be answered by what I'm about to say.

I'm not sure why the first guy fired, but I suspect it was "warning shot" sort of territory, to get attention and stop someone doing something. It was probably part of what scared another guy with a gun to shoot someone. Who later also shot another guy who was potentially trying to subdue the gun-armed guy he thought was a killer, and then shot a third guy who also had a gun, in part because that guy had his got his gun out for self-defence fearing someone was going round shooting people.

There is no such thing as a warning shot, and the idea of it needs to fade from collective consciousness. Shit like this is precisely why.

The notion of self-defense is based upon the perception of the alleged defender, and whether that tracks with what an hypothetical "reasonable person" would perceive in that alleged defender's stead. If any reasonable person would believe themselves in threat of imminent serious harm or death, the use of lethal force in self-defense is justified. Duty to retreat may be imposed based on jurisdiction, but even in jurisdictions that do impose a duty to retreat, if that duty has been fulfilled and the alleged defender still reasonably believes themselves threatened as discussed, lethal force in self-defense is still justified.

A shot fired deliberately off-target is a negligent discharge. The shooter does not, and in most cases cannot, know where the bullet from that "warning shot" will end up. It could end up embedded in a wall or pavement somewhere, or it could end up in a bystander. Or it could end up ricocheting and hitting a bystander anyway. Or it could end up in the skull of someone half a mile away because even bullets fired "up" are still on ballistic trajectories, and unaffected by wind resistance and terminal velocity.

But, that's all academic. What matters is the alleged defender's perception. If they believe themselves to be at immediate risk of serious harm or death, and any reasonable person would in their place, lethal force in self-defense is justified. A "warning shot" could be a miss or it could be a misfire; what is material, is that a shot has been fired, indicating that someone involved is willing to use lethal force, and has the means to do so.

I agree to skepticism of "the public" carrying guns. Insofar as one cannot guarantee the knowledge, experience, judgment, or mental fortitude of each individual carrier. Thus, it's more accurate for me to say I'm skeptical of stupid people carrying guns. Unfortunately, here in the US we make no exceptions for the civil liberties of the stupid, merely that of non-whites. And being that Rittenhouse is both stupid and white, his civil liberties are above reproach.

Make of that what you will.

 

[Seanchaidh]

and unaffected by wind resistance and terminal velocity.

wait, what?

 

[Schadrach]

but the first man shot and killed was not armed, or even attacking Rittenhouse. His only crime was being in the same crowd where someone else fired a gun into the air and being the first person Rittenhouse saw when he panicked and fired his weapon

As I understand it, Rosenbaum got into a confrontation with Rittenhouse because Rittenhouse was putting out a fire and may also have been misidentified as someone else Rosenbaum had been in conflict with earlier. It escalated, Rittenhouse fled, the famous bag was thrown, someone fires a shot, Rittenhouse turns and shoots the guy that's been pursuing him. According to the pathologist report, Rosenbaum was within 4 feet when he was shot, and there's soot at the injury on his hand that suggests he may have been trying to grab the gun when he was shot (at the very least, his hand was very close to or on the barrel when the shot was fired).

He didn't just panic and shoot at someone at random in the crowd, he shot the person within 4 feet of him who had previously confronted him, who he was fleeing from and being pursued by and according to him was trying to take his gun. Something that the victim himself had said he wanted to do previously (though Rittenhouse didn't know that at the time).

A manslaughter charge would be a slam dunk that basically starts and ends with "are you legally able to carry a rifle around in public?" "No." (I mean, apparently there is video of Rittenhouse going "wish I had my rifle to shoot these shoplifters" days before he illegally carries a rifle to a protest and has to shoot his way out), but instead they bring forth murder charges where it's next to impossible to prove intent unless he literally writes a manifesto.

Relevant Wisconsin law (I think): https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/940
Which do you think he should be charged with?

And I think this is the specific defense he's trying to use: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48

@CM156 Feel free to tell me if I'm understanding it wrong.

The notion of self-defense is based upon the perception of the alleged defender, and whether that tracks with what an hypothetical "reasonable person" would perceive in that alleged defender's stead. If any reasonable person would believe themselves in threat of imminent serious harm or death, the use of lethal force in self-defense is justified. Duty to retreat may be imposed based on jurisdiction, but even in jurisdictions that do impose a duty to retreat, if that duty has been fulfilled and the alleged defender still reasonably believes themselves threatened as discussed, lethal force in self-defense is still justified.

...and that's fundamentally the problem. Look at the events from the perspective of Rittenhouse starting from Rittenhouse trying to put out a fire. Rosenbaum comes up, yells at you, starts to escalate. You don't want some guy assaulting you because he's seemingly angry you tried to put out a fire, so you try to flee. Rosenbaum chases you, throws shit at you, then someone shoots a gun. You don't know who exactly, or definitely what they were shooting at, possibly you? You turn, and the guy chasing you is almost in arms reach and seems to be reaching for your gun. In this scenario, would you as a reasonable person believe you are at risk of great bodily harm or death, especially from the person who you've tried to flee, has pursued you, is within 4' of you and seems to be going for your gun?

 

[Seanchaidh]

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

wait, what?

He didn't write it correctly, but I think he means that if you shoot a gun in the air the bullet still travels in a parabolic arch and at a lethal velocity. The bullet is not significantly slowed down by wind resistance, and moves at greater than its terminal velocity on the way back down.

Technically if you fire a bullet perfectly straight up it will use all of its energy going up, and will come back down at only terminal velocity, but that's basically impossible to do without building a special rig to do it.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

View attachment 4875

Ok, so a genuine shower thought I had last night while thinking about this. So I was thinking about how everyone just wants to view this event entirely through the lense of what we saw in videos from the event, of a kid fighting off two people by shooting them, with no further context before or after, when I realized this was the entire problem, because while we have the videos of Rittenhouse shooting the two men in a street, I don't remember seeing video of the first man getting shot and killed. This is important because not only is this the inciting incident that leads to the other two shootings, but the first man shot and killed was not armed, or even attacking Rittenhouse. His only crime was being in the same crowd where someone else fired a gun into the air and being the first person Rittenhouse saw when he panicked and fired his weapon (which was illegal for him to carry, pretty much for this exact reason). Then, all it takes is people at the back of the crowd panicking and going "oh my god, he has a gun and just killed someone" for others operating on this same bullshit mixture of good intentions and wanting to see some excitement/get into some shit that brought Rittenhouse here as they go after someone who they think is a spree shooter.

Rosebaum was attacking Rittenhouse.

From reports (and FBI drone footage) and other angles that night.

Rosebaum grabbed for Kyles weapon. Kyle turned and ran back further into the lot. Rosenbaum pursued. A Gun shot was fires Kyle turns round to look. Sees Rosenbaum has chased him and basically block him in at a dead end. Rosebaum grabs for the gun and Kyle shoots him.

Rosenbaum has also previously said within earshot of Kyle that if he caught Kyle or any-one in that group isolated during the night he would kill them. In other footage Rosenbaum was also heard saying "We should jack the guns from those guys".

So yeh Rosenbaum is on record with various claims that his actions in those moments would be reasonable grounds for Kyle to claim he fear for his life as Rosenbaum had threatened to kill Kyle and co if they were caught Isolated (Which Kyle was) and to jack their guns (Which reports suggest he tried to do with Kyle). So Kyle shot a guy who had expressed intent to kill him and had expressed intent to steal his or the guns of others and was lunging for Kyle and his gun at the time.

Also they went after Rittenhouse after as he was heading towards police line and chose to attack him when he was on the ground. Not the smartest play especially if you're claiming to be trying to disarm him. Normally you'd want to pin them or remove the weapon not jump kick them or KO them with a skateboard.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

In the strictest, most pedantic sense it does, albeit not in a practically meaningful sense, unless you have to zoom in a lot on a particular spot where something smallish is happening. Because it's digital zoom, and digital zoom takes the image as it is and using an algorithm invents what "should" be in between the pixels it actually has. So it necessarily "modifies" the video for playback, and the right response would be to argue that any modification to the video done by the digital zoom is irrelevant in context which it shouldn't be hard to find an expert willing to state so long as the area in question is more than a handful of pixels. Or they could just take the image and zoom without interpolation and let the jury see the grainier resulting footage as what the camera actually saw and see if it still appears to show what is relevant.

I thought the argument was over the fact to footage had been upscaled from SD to HD anyway?

I mean, I feel the same way, just from the opposite side. Like, they very much don't want to charge him (charitably because they feel he did defend himself properly, but if I'm being honest it's because the people shot and killed were protesting the police/Justice system), but have to due to the fact about how quickly this blew up in social media and the news. A manslaughter charge would be a slam dunk that basically starts and ends with "are you legally able to carry a rifle around in public?" "No." (I mean, apparently there is video of Rittenhouse going "wish I had my rifle to shoot these shoplifters" days before he illegally carries a rifle to a protest and has to shoot his way out), but instead they bring forth murder charges where it's next to impossible to prove intent unless he literally writes a manifesto. Plus, if they really wanted to string him up for murder, do you really think they would have left it in the hands of this buffoon they have running the prosecution? Because they have seemingly gone out of there way to make sure this ends in a mistrial for the defense at every opportunity, long past the point where it can be disregarded as an accident or just bad procedure on their part.

If you feel this is too cynical, keep in mind that the police force I'm most likely to run into where I live is the Mesa PD. Yes, that Mesa PD (warning, link includes man executed on camera).

Well yeh, it's political. A number of activist groups think they own and should have the right to own the streets and that was challenged by a 17 year old kid not letting them beat him senseless and steal his gun to contribute to the revolution!!!! or some such BS

Don't think groups think they own the streets? Look at Chaz? Look at all the other different autonomous zones that have tried to be set up and claimed to be sovereign territory succeeded from the USA and independent.

The footage of Kyle saying he'd like to have his rifle to shoot people he suspected were shoplifting was now allowed as evidence because in this case Kyle didn't shoot people shoplifiting. Kyle shot people that were attacking him or threatening him after he had tried to retreat. The entire use of the footage of Kyle saying that was to try and frame Kyle as some radical vigilante who was shooting people on the spot. Same with the comments about him playing Call of Duty. They're trying to frame Kyle as something akin to Big Daddy in Kickass

Also the buffoon is apparently a quite experienced prosecution lawyer who everyone seems pretty baffled with how bad he's doing. Like they didn't give this to the new guy as his 2nd prosecution trial.