Judge in Rittenhouse case might be a tad biased.

[Dwarvenhobble]

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.


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

Under Wisconsin castle doctrine. That's fine.

It comes down to two separate crimes.

The crime of them entering your property illegally
The crime of you owning the illegal weapons.

They're not the same thing being looked at and using the illegal weapons doesn't suddenly negate the crime of the person illegally entering your property and doesn't negate your right to take action to defend yourself.

As a reminder, that guy opened fire on the Police who came to arrest him with claims being put out he did so because he thought the Police were there to Rob him. He's already shot a person and so they knew he was armed.

Moral of the story. Don't take pot shots at police officers from your window.

 

[Trunkage]

As a reminder, that guy opened fire on the Police who came to arrest him with claims being put out he did so because he thought the Police were there to Rob him. He's already shot a person and so they knew he was armed.

Moral of the story. Don't take pot shots at police officers from your window.

We learnt nothing from Waco

 

[gorfias]

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.

They made a movie about a real life incident about a woman with a restraining order on her physically abusive husband. She is lying broken on the ground as her husband is screaming, "I hope she dies!" A cop is aiming a gun at him point blank. The husband moves to kick is wife on the ground with his "shod foot". He was wearing shoes but even sneakers in the US are considered deadly weapons if you are going to kick someone with them. The cop does NOT take the shot. The prostrate women is kicked in the head causing permanent partial paralysis. Had the cop shot, it is completely out of proportion. But it would have been a justified shooting. Today, I think he would have tased the guy. 40 years ago, I don't think they had those devices. But again, proportionality isn't part of the law (ie a guy with gun can shoot someone charging him with a knife).

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.

Hard to know. People have been stabbed to death in these crazy riots. They really are firey but mostly peaceful protests. Kyle really could have been stabbed or beaten to death if unarmed and interfering with the mob. I don't think he would have even dared without arming himself but then what kind of death and destruction could we have expected?

 

[Kwak]

I don't think he would have even dared without arming himself but then what kind of death and destruction could we have expected?

Are you claiming he prevented death and destruction now?

 

[gorfias]

Are you claiming he prevented death and destruction now?

I think that was his a big part of what he wanted to do. I've heard he was rendering aid, telling people he was an EMT. The 1st guy he shot was trying to burn cops alive in their cars pushing en-flamed rolling dumpsters into them (which differs from what I 1st heard: they were trying to get gas stations to explode) while charging people yelling he wanted them to shoot him EDIT and that Kyle wanted to stop this sort of person from killing others and destroying property). You think that unlikely?

 

[Seanchaidh]

As a reminder, that guy opened fire on the Police

According to the police, who routinely lie to serve their own interests, and in direct contradiction to the testimony of other eyewitnesses.

 

[Mister Mumbler]

Ok, so I was going to get back around to all this later, but I'm having trouble sleeping right now, so here's a quickie: @Schadrach, do you want the big ones only or all the weapon charges as well. Plus, counter question. It says right there in that self defense law that self defense is waived when committing criminal activity. Question is, is illegally carrying a firearm underage a criminal activity? Please note that this is not a facetious question; I do not read legalese well, and it says that a person carrying a firearm underage is a "class A misdemeanor"*, is that "criminal"(or at least qualify as such under legalese) or does it have to be a felony?


*948.60 of Wisconsin code.

 

[tstorm823]

I don't remember seeing video of the first man getting shot and killed.

The section you need starts about 17:30.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

“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.

Now I'm just imagining Bogey from Banjo-Kazooie being in charge of the prosecution... Not sure it would be much of a downgrade.

 

[Eacaraxe]

wait, what?

Long story short, it's the Mythbusters thing. That episode about whether or not bullets fired up can still be lethal. It's called "Bullets Fired Up". Unless a firearm is fired at exactly a 90 degree angle from the ground, ballistics aren't affected and the bullet is still lethal because it preserves its spin and falls tip-first. The only way a bullet fired up is non-lethal, is for it to be shot at precisely a 90 degree angle, for it to lose its spin and begin tumbling, therefore slowing as it falls.

Under Wisconsin castle doctrine. That's fine.

This is already a murky case with politics involved, therefore influencing folks' opinions; let's be a bit more precise with language and legal terminology. Castle doctrine only applies to domiciles, personal vehicles, and places of business or employment, and therefore doesn't apply to the Rittenhouse case.

What would apply, even though it's heavily a margin call due to things I'll discuss in a minute, is stand-your-ground -- had Wisconsin had a stand-your-ground law. The issue is, Wisconsin doesn't have one statutorily, though it is a de facto stand-your-ground state via case law. This is where it gets legally murky, because the only circumstance in which a duty to retreat applies is where the individual claiming self-defense was the provocateur. Nominally, Rittenhouse's mere presence at the protests is not enough to constitute provocation; he had to be engaged in some additional affirmative behavior that incited imminent lawless action.

The precise issue with this, is the video evidence shows that even if Rittenhouse was the provocateur he still reasonably satisfied his duty to retreat. Ziminski's shot escalated the conflict to use of deadly force; as I said before, there is no such thing as a warning shot and claims that it was one are immaterial.

And, here's where that "nominally" I said earlier comes in. Every last person there was in violation of curfew, and being in violation of curfew could negate or mitigate Rittenhouse's self-defense claim as he was already engaged in criminal activity at the time of the shooting.

Hence why the asshat judge dismissed the curfew violation charge.

 

[Schadrach]

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

Same mechanism applies, aside from cropping the image when you zoom. Like, it's literally the same process of interpolation, because a digital zoom is at it's core just "crop, then upscale what's left to the old resolution".

According to the police, who routinely lie to serve their own interests, and in direct contradiction to the testimony of other eyewitnesses.

Any video evidence? Police may lie to protect themselves, eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, but the camera sees what it sees.

@Schadrach, do you want the big ones only or all the weapon charges as well.

I think he's trivially guilty of the weapons charges (he's definitely a minor and was definitely in possession of a weapon at the time, and none of the exceptions fit), and that the evidence presented points towards self defense in the shootings. EDIT: Yes, I mean 948.60 as well, here.

Plus, counter question. It says right there in that self defense law that self defense is waived when committing criminal activity. Question is, is illegally carrying a firearm underage a criminal activity? Please note that this is not a facetious question; I do not read legalese well, and it says that a person carrying a firearm underage is a "class A misdemeanor"*, is that "criminal"(or at least qualify as such under legalese) or does it have to be a felony?

I would assume that counts as criminal activity, but I don't think that's the relevant question. You're referring to 939.48(1m)(b)1., right? Or did I miss something?

939.48(1m)(b) states that it is exceptions to 939.48(1m)(ar). As in, 939.48(1) describes a self defense defense, 939.48(1m)(ar) is essentially the castle doctrine (the court isn't allowed to consider whether or not you could have run away if they were unlawfully in or were in the process of breaking in your home, place of business or motor vehicle) and 939.48(1m)(b) says 939.48(1m)(ar) doesn't apply in certain listed conditions, the first of which is that you were engaging in criminal activity.

So putting that all together, if this had happened in Rittenhouse's home, car, or place of business because he was carrying an illegal firearm the court would be allowed to consider whether or not he could have ran away when evaluating his self defense claim. Since it didn't happen in one of those places, they are already allowed to consider whether or not he could have fled (and camera footage shows that he tried to, and was not successful).

@CM156 I know your popular these days, but care to weigh in on my interpretation?

 

[gorfias]

The section you need starts about 17:30.

Amazing, fairly balanced piece coming from the NY Times.
Lots of surplussage that is interesting:

15:25: Woman says this is not Kyle’s community. From what Kyle said on the stand, his mom has primary custody of him. When he does visitation with Dad, he does so at his Dad’s home, which is in that community and can be considered his 2nd residence.

16:30 Kyle says why he is there. To help people. If someone is hurt, he is running into harm’s way (hence why he is carrying a gun).


Scary thought for everyone: anyone wearing so much as sneakers has a deadly weapon on them under US law.

The money shot is J. Rosenbaum rushing at top speed to physically attack Rittenhouse. A gun is not worth a damn if you are not prepared to use it. Rosenbaum could have taken the gun from Rittenhouse and then murdered him with his own gun or had the mob help him do so. Add to that someone did fire a gun just behind Rittenhouse as Kyle turns to see the "lunging" Rosenbaum.

With this on video, I'm not sure how this thing even made it to trial. A prosecutor can be disbarred for bringing a case he knows or should know is false.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Prosecutors crash and burn in Kyle Rittenhouse case, but polarized America doesn't see it (msn.com)

 

[Fallen Soldier]

So how likely does he get acquitted? I’m not following this one much closely.

 

[thebobmaster]

Right now, it's looking like pretty good odds. I'd say almost guaranteed, but the defense and prosecutors seem to be colluding with the judge to see big of a mistrial they can accomplish.

 

[Schadrach]

So how likely does he get acquitted? I’m not following this one much closely.

I'd put odds on guilty of the firearms charge and not guilty on the rest, barring a hung jury.

 

[Eacaraxe]

I'd say almost guaranteed, but the defense and prosecutors seem to be colluding with the judge to see big of a mistrial they can accomplish.

That or the trial's being secretly manipulated by The Onion's writing room.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Hence why the asshat judge dismissed the curfew violation charge.

Probably because everyone being in violation means no-one should get to use it as a gotcha against the other side as the argument can go both ways.

Ok, so I was going to get back around to all this later, but I'm having trouble sleeping right now, so here's a quickie: @Schadrach, do you want the big ones only or all the weapon charges as well. Plus, counter question. It says right there in that self defense law that self defense is waived when committing criminal activity. Question is, is illegally carrying a firearm underage a criminal activity? Please note that this is not a facetious question; I do not read legalese well, and it says that a person carrying a firearm underage is a "class A misdemeanor"*, is that "criminal"(or at least qualify as such under legalese) or does it have to be a felony?


*948.60 of Wisconsin code.

My guess is the criminal activity must be activity which is infringing upon another's rights otherwise being drunk at 18 in the USA in town and being attacked by some-one with a knife and defending yourself would mean you could be charged with assault which would be plain ridiculous.

I'd imagine the law is more interpreted as "You lose the right to claim self defence if you're doing something illegal that is illegal for all not merely age restricted and is violating another's rights"

 

[Eacaraxe]

Probably because everyone being in violation means no-one should get to use it as a gotcha against the other side as the argument can go both ways.

No, it cannot. "Everyone" is not on trial, Kyle Rittenhouse is. And if that charge stood, the burden of proof was on the defense to justify Rittenhouse's presence in violation of lawful order, and thereby committing a criminal offense that could nullify his claim to self-defense. That charge was as cut-and-dried as any could have been, and Schroeder's dismissal of it on grounds of insufficient evidence is probably the biggest instance of legal malpractice in this entire clown show to date.

 

[Gordon_4]

That or the trial's being secretly manipulated by The Onion's writing room.

Dude, the Onion wish they could make this shit up.