Judge in Rittenhouse case might be a tad biased.

[Trunkage]

Gaige was shot when he stopped backing down and pointed a gun at Kyle, per his own testimony. After he'd chased him down, might I add.

Not only that, but as a convicted felon he shouldn't have had a gun in the first place.

So no, all things considered, I'm pretty certain when I say he couldn't have claimed self defense.

Good on the jurors and godspeed to Kyle. And shame on the media. It's been nothing but a circus. I hope they all get sued to oblivion.

After Rittenhouse already shot people? Pull the other one.

 

[TheFinish]

After Rittenhouse already shot people? Pull the other one.

I would, but I'm pretty sure that'd be assault.

But yes, even after Rittenhouse already shot people. He was fleeing towards police lines, Grosskreutz and several others chased him down. If Grosskreutz had shot Rittenhouse immediately after Rosenbaum was killed, you may have a case. But with how things transpired? No. Though even then he'd be guilty of illegally possessing a firearm.

Which should be obvious because the prosecution couldn't put forth a convincing argument with the available evidence.

 

[Revnak]

I feel like there’s a position for “teenager should not have been at riot with gun” that isn’t “and he should die.” He shouldn’t have killed anyone, nobody should’ve killed him, this isn’t hard? Him getting convicted would’ve been with the hope of “less people shoot wildly at riots and protests” and “less teenagers get brought into right wing militias” and our society has decided we should have the most possible of these things. That’s bad, because riots in response to police brutality aren’t going away. At all.

 

[Revnak]

I would, but I'm pretty sure that'd be assault.

But yes, even after Rittenhouse already shot people. He was fleeing towards police lines, Grosskreutz and several others chased him down. If Grosskreutz had shot Rittenhouse immediately after Rosenbaum was killed, you may have a case. But with how things transpired? No. Though even then he'd be guilty of illegally possessing a firearm.

Which should be obvious because the prosecution couldn't put forth a convincing argument with the available evidence.

You mean like everyone there wasn’t supposed to have a firearm, and he as a teenager was most definitely not supposed to have a firearm? Damn, seems like what really matters is whether the judge cares that you weren’t supposed to have a firearm, rather than whether you were supposed to have one.

 

[tstorm823]

Probably because he was on private property for most of the night. Also you then put the onus on the DA and prosecution to apply the law equally to all which means everyone including all the witnesses needing to be charged and the court doesn't have time to deal with that.

a) A curfew doesn't mean "go wherever if you know who own's the place".
b) There is no rule I'm aware of that prosecutors can't charge an individual unless they charge everyone, but I definitely would be in for them charging many of the witnesses as well.

In common cause crimes, everyone engaged in the crime faces the charges that come from that crime. (ie Bank robbery with getaway driver: the driver faces murder charges if a team mate kills someone, even though he never entered the bank). At least in the US. I think from the logic you present, if someone commits arson at a mostly peaceful protest, they all go to prison for arson. Even those opposing the arson and the cause of those initiating the protest. They were all in the protest/riot. Thankfully, I don't think that is how the law works.

You're acting like if someone can be charged with a crime, they are automatically. I don't think everyone involved in the riot should be charged from a practical sense, but they should all have the potential to be charged. Their is no such thing as attending a riot to oppose it. If the Proud Boys start a riot and Antifa starts fighting them, or vice versa, they aren't opposing the riot, they are joining it. If you are a civilian, and there is a riot, get out of the way, you aren't the police.

Admittedly kinda blown away that he didn't even get reckless endangerment.

The charge they pursued was first degree reckless endangerment, which requires a show of blatant disregard for human life. I don't think anything he did justified that charge.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

That some guy who idolizes cops was wandering around pointing his gun at anti-cop protestors, then ended up shooting some of them?

I hope this post is sarcastic.

Disagree.
Imagine a person breaks into a house. The owner of the house attacks them, so the burglar pulls out a gun and shoots. Shouldn't have been there, definitely not self-defense.
Take it back a step: imagine it's trespassing on a farm, and the farmer comes out and points a shotgun at them, so the trespasser shoots them. Shouldn't have been there, definitely not self-defense.
Take it back a step: imagine there's a curfew and someone goes out to riot and brings their gun. While rioting, someone tries to beat them with a skateboard, so they shoot the attacker dead. Shouldn't have been there, definitely not self-defense.

I guarantee you agree with at least the first one above. I don't believe that you think the circumstances are irrelevant in principle, I think you just find his particular circumstances agreeable, and I really don't think you should. All the stuff about being a medic and doing first aid and protecting property does not change the fact that he broke curfew to attend a riot. He wasn't destroying things himself, but his presence still contributed to the violence (before the shooting) because that's how riots work. It's not that black rights activists and sports fans are exceptionally violent; violent people are violent, and any crowd at night is sufficient cover set things on fire and likely get away with it. If you go to a place where rioting is happening, particularly when the police have explicitly told people to stay home, you are a rioter. If you carry a gun, you are a rioter with a gun. Should a rioter with a gun get to claim self-defense if someone tries to fight them while rioting? I don't think so.

Lets say Bob is is constantly antagonizing his neighbour, Alex. One day Bob step toward Alex with a gun in hand, Alex freaks out and think Bob's going to kill him so he lunge toward the gun (because you can't run away from someone with a gun, bullet speed >>> person speed) but he's too slow and Bob shoot and kill him.

Based on what you wrote, Bob could 100% claim this was self defence and get away completely free of any charge. After all, the only things that matter in the case are only the very short time the incident took place, everything else is basically meaningless.

For extra point, a few days before Bob said he wish he had a gun so he could shoot Alex (but the judge doesn't allow this to be admitted in court cause it would be prejudicial).

I meant in this case, it doesn't matter if Kyle shouldn't have been there (aka it was a bad idea to go there with a gun).

Good. Too many people conflated what lead up to the event with the actual shootings. He wasn't on trial for his life for bringing a gun to a protest, he was on trial for killing two people and wounding another. It didn't take very long before I decided it was self-defense. I'm glad the jury wasn't intimidated into making the wrong choice.

Exactly this, the case was really simple. I really don't get how people get so emotional over these things. Yeah, it's not good that 2 people died and that sucks but the law is the law. Unless the video evidence had something clear and contradictory to the witness testimony, it was an easy acquittal. If I was one of the jurors I would've spent most of my time with my earphones in watching TV shows or some shit during deliberations. On my police brutality case that I was a juror, half of us was just bullshitting and joking around during deliberations because the case was simple and this one guy didn't understand anything. We finally got him to agree it wasn't excessive force and he was still thinking the plaintiff was gonna get a ton of money; nope, no excessive force, no money.

 

[tstorm823]

I feel like there’s a position for “teenager should not have been at riot with gun” that isn’t “and he should die.” He shouldn’t have killed anyone, nobody should’ve killed him, this isn’t hard? Him getting convicted would’ve been with the hope of “less people shoot wildly at riots and protests” and “less teenagers get brought into right wing militias” and our society has decided we should have the most possible of these things. That’s bad, because riots in response to police brutality aren’t going away. At all.

I was really close to liking this post, but then I questioned whether you meant "riots in response to police brutality aren't going away" as a description of things or a prescription for things, and now I gotta know how you meant that.

Edit: Unrelated, but undeserving of an entire extra post, I'd like to thank people here for being more reasonable (most of you dramatically more reasonable) than the white, suburban women on my facebook feed calling the verdict disgusting but taking comfort in the idea that (and this is an actual quote) "the streets will handle him".

 

[Mister Mumbler]

If he didn't bring a gun then Rossenbaum would have killed him.

Why would he even attack Kyle to begin with at that point? I posed this question earlier in the thread, but why do you think Kyle of all people was attacked that night, because he was white, going around playing "medic", or carrying around a loaded rifle?

 

[Eacaraxe]

a) A curfew doesn't mean "go wherever if you know who own's the place".
b) There is no rule I'm aware of that prosecutors can't charge an individual unless they charge everyone, but I definitely would be in for them charging many of the witnesses as well.

I handled this pages ago.

You mean...let me check my notes here...

The open, unsecured, curtilage-lacking outdoors lot of a business without clear public/private boundaries, which the general public can access on and off business hours, on which there is not even reasonable expectation of privacy due to aforementioned openness and lack of curtilage? That one?

The one it turns out that no, in fact, Rittenhouse had not been invited to (something entered into evidence by testimony last week)? I mean, even had the shooting happened on that lot in the first place?

The one the cops dispersed Rittenhouse and the other gun-toting whackos from once and barred him from reentry?

And, let me check my notes again...

The later confrontation, which took place in the middle of a city street.

Those?

I mean, the "city street" part of it all rather speaks for itself. Other than that, even had the shooting occurred on the lot Rittenhouse claimed he was invited to (it didn't), the owner of that lot disputes that claim and testified Rittenhouse nor anyone else had been invited. Even then, Rittenhouse had been given a lawful order to disperse and not return to the lot he was never invited to by the cops, which he willfully disregarded. Even then, the shooting still occurred in a location that is the very definition of a public space, because ownership in the definition of a public space is less material than boundary demarcation and access.

You do get points simply for how spectacularly wrong you got every single facet of your argument, down to the minutest detail, though. The only thing sparing Rittenhouse from a criminal trespass charge and therefore nullifying his self-defense claim was...the car lot, by merit of being open to the public at all hours and lacking any form of curtilage, was a public space.

...because the lot exterior is a public space, and therefore whether Rittenhouse had permission to be there is immaterial to the case except for establishing background and a timeline of events. The only way it would have been material to the case, is if Rittenhouse was facing a criminal trespass charge rather than a curfew violation charge. Otherwise, and likely regardless, had the evidence existed, defense almost certainly would have been able to produce call, text, email, or online interaction records to corroborate Nicholas Smith's questionable and contradictory testimony about having been invited to defend the lot -- particularly as Smith's story has changed several times over in the past year, and that he is a conflicted witness.

 

[Revnak]

I was really close to liking this post, but then I questioned whether you meant "riots in response to police brutality aren't going away" as a description of things or a prescription for things, and now I gotta know how you meant that.

I of course mean prescription, nothing about cops will be reformed through more mere conversations about cops killing people. Also I refuse to give a shit about over inflated property values and the leeches who obsess over them.

 

[Revnak]

Why would he even attack Kyle to begin with at that point? I posed this question earlier in the thread, but why do you think Kyle of all people was attacked that night, because he was white, going around playing "medic", or carrying around a loaded rifle?

Medic. People were mad at him for being a medic.

 

[tstorm823]

I of course mean prescription, nothing about cops will be reformed through more mere conversations about cops killing people. Also I refuse to give a shit about over inflated property values and the leeches who obsess over them.

Booooo.

 

[Mister Mumbler]

Medic. People were mad at him for being a medic.

Oh, now I see why the whole "gaming" thing was brought up during the trial.




He should have picked Assault class.

 

[Revnak]

Booooo.

Real estate developers can eat my shit Tstorm.

 

[thebobmaster]

I mentioned this before, and I'll say it again: this is very reminiscent of the OJ Simpson trial to me. Did Rittenhouse's shootings fall under self-defense? Maybe, maybe not. Probably not, even. But the prosecutor screwed the pooch, dropped the ball, however you want to put it, and left room for reasonable doubt for the defense to pounce on.

 

[Fallen Soldier]

It feels like it’s hard to get a guilty verdict out of self defense arguments in court unless the evidence is damning.

 

[Revnak]

It feels like it’s hard to get a guilty verdict out of self defense arguments in court unless the evidence is damning.

Or the defendant isn’t white and a wannabe cop.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

It feels like it’s hard to get a guilty verdict out of self defense arguments in court unless the evidence is damning.

Only if you're a white dude. Anybody else has a hell of a time getting a self defense defense to stick. Helps to be pro-cop.

Was a dude in Portland who had 4 police orgs team up to assassinate him after he shot a right wing dude and was claiming self-defense

 

[gorfias]

Their is no such thing as attending a riot to oppose it.

I really think there is. But, that's me.

 

[Revnak]

I really think there is. But, that's me.

I say this as a pro-riot guy, no there isn’t. If you think there is, you’re really bad at opposing things.