Judge in Rittenhouse case might be a tad biased.

[tstorm823]

The facts were known a year ago to make this self-defense and all new facts turned over by the actual trial have all bolstered the defense. Just let it go already.

If you take the events of that night in a vacuum, the case for self-defense was always obvious. But the part where the shooting happened does not exist in a vacuum, Rittenhouse decided to attend a riot. Rittenhouse decided to be armed at a riot. He created the situation in which he shot people. Ending up involved in criminal activity because you purposely went to a riot is not an accident. It's not coincidentally the wrong place at the wrong time. He should not have been there. He should not have been roleplaying as a guard. He should not have accepted a weapon.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Yeah if you go out looking for a fight, it's murder if you find one and shoot your way out, regardless on whether or not you waited to start losing first. Same as Zimmerman

 

[SilentPony]

If you take the events of that night in a vacuum, the case for self-defense was always obvious. But the part where the shooting happened does not exist in a vacuum, Rittenhouse decided to attend a riot. Rittenhouse decided to be armed at a riot. He created the situation in which he shot people. Ending up involved in criminal activity because you purposely went to a riot is not an accident. It's not coincidentally the wrong place at the wrong time. He should not have been there. He should not have been roleplaying as a guard. He should not have accepted a weapon.

Yeah but remember he was a white kid with a small peepee, how else was he supposed to show how manly he was if not shooting people? Look at things from his perspective, he really wanted to shoot someone.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

If you take the events of that night in a vacuum, the case for self-defense was always obvious. But the part where the shooting happened does not exist in a vacuum, Rittenhouse decided to attend a riot. Rittenhouse decided to be armed at a riot. He created the situation in which he shot people. Ending up involved in criminal activity because you purposely went to a riot is not an accident. It's not coincidentally the wrong place at the wrong time. He should not have been there. He should not have been roleplaying as a guard. He should not have accepted a weapon.

Yes! I am well aware of all of that and agree. Just as everyone else involved also created this situation. Maybe the first stupid thing was a guy trying to kidnap children and getting shot because of it? Followed by the second stupid thing being scumbags(journalists) deciding to run it as racial violence by police. Followed by the third stupid thing of people committing arson and rioting over what scumbags said. A lot of extremely stupid shit happened in order to get us to this incident.

 

[Mister Mumbler]

So lets for about the 3rd or 4th time play debunk the claims in this thread.

So, I know this is rather late, but I still feel it's important, plus it's the reason I posted the earlier threads here. Not only was this very topic already discussed (by me and you, no less), this is still wrong. The relevant law in question is Wisconsin Statute 948.60, Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18. For most of the wording of other, similar statutes, 'adult' usually means parent/legal guardian or someone whom has been given temporary custody (such as grandparents), or someone giving a lesson on firearms (licensed teachers/instructors). In section 3a, it lays out clearly that someone under 18 is allowed to handle a firearm in two specific circumstances: target practice or an instructional course on firearm handling/safety (neither of which apply to Rittenhouse). Now, what's funny is that while you do bring up 941.28, you failed to mention 29.304 or 29.593, which both pertain to hunting, specifically the act of hunting itself (29.304) and the requirement of record of a course completion to obtain a hunting license (29.593). This means that the he was not in compliance with said statutes (as you yourself pointed out, he was not hunting), which means he was illegally carrying the rifle he used to kill two people. This makes the whole self-defense...defense really shaky, due both to him committing a crime while doing so (the illegal weapon), but it could also be argued that the very act of him openly carrying a military style rifle at a protest was a provocative act (and keep in mind, the 'good faith withdraw' only applies to provocation, not to the criminal activity).

 

[Specter Von Baren]

So, I know this is rather late, but I still feel it's important, plus it's the reason I posted the earlier threads here. Not only was this very topic already discussed (by me and you, no less), this is still wrong. The relevant law in question is Wisconsin Statute 948.60, Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18. For most of the wording of other, similar statutes, 'adult' usually means parent/legal guardian or someone whom has been given temporary custody (such as grandparents), or someone giving a lesson on firearms (licensed teachers/instructors). In section 3a, it lays out clearly that someone under 18 is allowed to handle a firearm in two specific circumstances: target practice or an instructional course on firearm handling/safety (neither of which apply to Rittenhouse). Now, what's funny is that while you do bring up 941.28, you failed to mention 29.304 or 29.593, which both pertain to hunting, specifically the act of hunting itself (29.304) and the requirement of record of a course completion to obtain a hunting license (29.593). This means that the he was not in compliance with said statutes (as you yourself pointed out, he was not hunting), which means he was illegally carrying the rifle he used to kill two people. This makes the whole self-defense...defense really shaky, due both to him committing a crime while doing so (the illegal weapon), but it could also be argued that the very act of him openly carrying a military style rifle at a protest was a provocative act (and keep in mind, the 'good faith withdraw' only applies to provocation, not to the criminal activity).

No, it actually doesn't. Having a weapon illegally does not wave your right to self-defense. The state had an open and carry law so just him having it also does not constitute as a provocative act. The key thing, the most important element that torpedoes every single attempt at mental gymnastics since day one is how he was always running away from a fight in every case that he fired his weapon, this means he was always the one trying to deescalate, we even have it recorded on video, Grosskreutz talking with Rittenhouse moments before their altercation and Rittenhouse saying he was going to the police.

 

[Eacaraxe]

This is why I think the claim of "self-defence" is morally (if not necessarily legally in that jurisdiction) unsound.

He ain't being tried in a court of morality.

As Gordon says, I think there's a reasonable chance that the defence will manage to spread enough doubt to get Rittenhouse off.

It's a hell of a lot more than reasonable, by this point.

It beggars belief that the best answer to this is to declare him innocent on all charges of violence...

It's a good thing juries in criminal trials don't declare people innocent, then. What juries declare, is the prosecution failed to make a case the defendant was guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. "Not guilty" is not synonymous to "innocent".

...a moral hazard that facilitates armed militia making themselves self-appointed guardians of the peace, who can intimidate people into obedience because the law could view those who resist them to be shot in "self-defence". That is not the basis of a happy society.

It certainly is not the basis of a happy society. As evidenced by the past five years.

Or the past seven, if you're the sort concerned over matters like cops extrajudicially killing citizens. Or the past twenty-seven, if you're the sort concerned about militia types doing shit like driving vans full of ANFO up to federal buildings. Or the past fifty-seven, if you're the sort concerned over the end of Jim Crow. Or the past hundred fifty-three, if you're the sort concerned over the start of Jim Crow. Or the past hundred sixty, if you're the sort concerned over peculiar institutions...

Shit, Rittenhouse would never have been there if those who work forces weren't the same as those who burn crosses, because there wouldn't have been a damn riot in the first place. You wanna dig up that rabbit hole, I'll bring the goddamn shovel. This ain't new, this ain't unprecedented, and whether Rittenhouse is acquitted or convicted in the big scheme of things ain't changing a damn thing.

And frankly, convicting Rittenhouse will get the right-wing nutjobs vastly angrier than acquitting him. Fueled paranoid delusions are more powerful than deprived paranoid delusions. As I alluded to earlier, Timothy McVeigh didn't bomb the Alfred P. Murrah building because the Waco siege ended peacefully and without loss of further life.

 

[CM156]

The fact that he's 100% guaranteed to go free

Don't count your chickens before they hatch. Juries are notoriously unpredictable.

 

[Dreiko]

Yeah if you go out looking for a fight, it's murder if you find one and shoot your way out, regardless on whether or not you waited to start losing first. Same as Zimmerman

Zimmerman just attacked a kid going home, he didn't attack someone who was also there to cause trouble too. Like, imagine if two Zimmermen shot eachother while both were trying to play batman, not quite the same dynamic right?

 

[Seanchaidh]

Zimmerman just attacked a kid going home, he didn't attack someone who was also there to cause trouble too. Like, imagine if two Zimmermen shot eachother while both were trying to play batman, not quite the same dynamic right?

Why not?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

The fact that he's 100% guaranteed to go free just makes me feel old. We'll do this song and dance and some other dude will actually shoot up a protest and everyone will go "how did it come to this??? This guy craaazy!" queue the camera pan to the free Kyle bumper sticker, *ironic wink* and we start all over again because there's definitely no pattern, no connection. Kyle Rittenhouse was just an average dude in the wrong place at the wrong time, it was all a misunderstanding folks, just like the next and the next after that.

yeh maybe time to start teaching people not to attack armed people because it won't always go their way and they're not entitled to just do what they want and people have to grin and endure whatever.

But it won't happen because people seem to think Kyle is in the wrong for his actions when a convicted felon was trying to take his gun off him having already expressed intent to use it on others but hey I guess it doesn't matter because the convicted felon was "on the right side of history" wanting to burn stuff down and harm people "For the greater Good" so people seem to think he should have absolute authority

Yeah if you go out looking for a fight, it's murder if you find one and shoot your way out, regardless on whether or not you waited to start losing first. Same as Zimmerman

So we ignoring that the others were also looking for a fight and trying their hardest to start one?

Hell the FBI footages shows Kyle rare away from the first person he shot and that person then chased him down and helped isolate him from the others in his group.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

So, I know this is rather late, but I still feel it's important, plus it's the reason I posted the earlier threads here. Not only was this very topic already discussed (by me and you, no less), this is still wrong. The relevant law in question is Wisconsin Statute 948.60, Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18. For most of the wording of other, similar statutes, 'adult' usually means parent/legal guardian or someone whom has been given temporary custody (such as grandparents), or someone giving a lesson on firearms (licensed teachers/instructors). In section 3a, it lays out clearly that someone under 18 is allowed to handle a firearm in two specific circumstances: target practice or an instructional course on firearm handling/safety (neither of which apply to Rittenhouse). Now, what's funny is that while you do bring up 941.28, you failed to mention 29.304 or 29.593, which both pertain to hunting, specifically the act of hunting itself (29.304) and the requirement of record of a course completion to obtain a hunting license (29.593). This means that the he was not in compliance with said statutes (as you yourself pointed out, he was not hunting), which means he was illegally carrying the rifle he used to kill two people. This makes the whole self-defense...defense really shaky, due both to him committing a crime while doing so (the illegal weapon), but it could also be argued that the very act of him openly carrying a military style rifle at a protest was a provocative act (and keep in mind, the 'good faith withdraw' only applies to provocation, not to the criminal activity).

Actually I did go into this the law only states it's specifically illegal to be in possession of the weapon if it's a short barrelled rifle or shotgun.



(2)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
So the owner of the lot is the responsible part even under that law

3(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 .  This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28 .

And just like that the clause there gets him off as the weapon is not violating those laws.

 

[Mister Mumbler]

Actually I did go into this the law only states it's specifically illegal to be in possession of the weapon if it's a short barrelled rifle or shotgun.



(2)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
So the owner of the lot is the responsible part even under that law

3(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 .  This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28 .

And just like that the clause there gets him off as the weapon is not violating those laws.

or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593

Said statutes being "while hunting or getting a hunting license". It is right there.

 

[Mister Mumbler]

No, it actually doesn't. Having a weapon illegally does not wave your right to self-defense. The state had an open and carry law so just him having it also does not constitute as a provocative act. The key thing, the most important element that torpedoes every single attempt at mental gymnastics since day one is how he was always running away from a fight in every case that he fired his weapon, this means he was always the one trying to deescalate, we even have it recorded on video, Grosskreutz talking with Rittenhouse moments before their altercation and Rittenhouse saying he was going to the police.

Yeah, you're right about that first point (I think I remember making this same statement and being corrected earlier as well, my apologies), but my point about the illegal weapon stands*, because why else do you think he was targeted? Was it because he was asking people if they needed a medic, because he was some white doughy faced teenager, or maybe do you think him toting around a high powered rifle had something to do with it? Like, you talk about mental gymnastics about the events after the fact, meanwhile I still can't wrap my head around the type of moron it takes to think giving a kid a rifle to play security was a good idea. Because he flat out should not have been there, at least for his stated purpose, because either A) it really is as dangerous as they say, in which case it's the last place for a kid to be, let alone on his own with a gun (that can be taken away and used to harm others) or B) it wasn't as dangerous as they made it sound, in which case why have a kid with a rifle run security in the first place? This whole thing was fucked from the word 'go'.

EDIT: *...I keep thinking of ways to express this, but gosh I am bad at it...ok, so if it's illegal for him to carry it, he should not have access to or been carrying the gun.

 

[Trunkage]

Just noting some of my last posts here, I misremembered names and thought Rosenbaum was the other guy shot. Sorry

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

But it won't happen because people seem to think Kyle is in the wrong for his actions when a convicted felon was trying to take his gun off him having already expressed intent to use it on others but hey I guess it doesn't matter because the convicted felon was "on the right side of history" wanting to burn stuff down and harm people "For the greater Good" so people seem to think he should have absolute authority

No see they're both fuckheads, and one is now dead and the other should be in prison. And if it had gone the other way that Kyle was dead and the other guy was facing prison charges no one would be upset in the slightest.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

No see they're both fuckheads, and one is now dead and the other should be in prison. And if it had gone the other way that Kyle was dead and the other guy was facing prison charges no one would be upset in the slightest.

Because the other guy started it.

Kyle ended it.
That's why people aren't upset. Hell some of the people in here on about Kyle should go down in other threads like the Dave Chappelle one were all "Talk shit get hit clearly Vito's friend turning up oh so aggressively to stand there with a sign means he deserved to have his head smashed off a concrete fucking pillar and end up with potential brain damage" It's partisan hypocrisy on show and it's hilarious to me because now they're all upset some-one on their fucking side tried to attack a person with malicious intent and got himself shot.

So it's fine to give permanent brain damage for a sign
It's not fine to shoot a person whose threatened to kill you, chased you down, cornered you and is trying to grab your gun off you?

You know the worst part of all this?
I'm going to be the one bringing up how after shooting him Kyle tried to give first aid before being pushed away. Kyle also phoned emergency services to request an ambulance for him. Even after all that shit Kyle tried to help the fucker.

Hell it's probably some of the same people in here who were all "Oh Chaz security did good shooting dead those 'white supremacists' trying to ram raid the centre of Chaz".

 

[Mister Mumbler]

@CM156, as the resident lawyer around here, I was wondering I'd you could clear this up for me. What is the deal with using illegal weapons in defense of yourself? I keep saying what I do because it feels right to me, but I freely admit to being a bit dumb about things. Like, am I allowed to use a hand grenade to fend off home invaders? For a less stupid example, my state in particular outlaws the carrying/use of brass knuckles, but what happens if I crack someone's skull and kill them with a pair defending myself?

EDIT: Isn't the use of an illegal weapon in and of itself excessive force due to it being illegal in the first place?

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

@CM156, as the resident lawyer around here, I was wondering I'd you could clear this up for me. What is the deal with using illegal weapons in defense of yourself? I keep saying what I do because it feels right to me, but I freely admit to being a bit dumb about things. Like, am I allowed to use a hand grenade to fend off home invaders? For a less stupid example, my state in particular outlaws the carrying/use of brass knuckles, but what happens if I crack someone's skull and kill them with a pair defending myself?

EDIT: Isn't the use of an illegal weapon in and of itself excessive force due to it being illegal in the first place?

The answer to pretty much every legal question is "it depends on the state." Depending on the state I feel like the felony murder rule would apply, and most (but not all) states have a version of the felony murder rule.

Basically if someone dies as a result of the felony you committed it can automatically be charged as murder. So if you were committing a felony home invasion and the resident of the home tried to run away from you, tripped, fell, and bashed their head and died that would be considered murder even if you never actually touched them.

I assume that if you kill someone with an illegal weapon if owning that weapon was a felony then the felony murder rule would apply.

Of course it's not really as cut and dry as that since the prosecutor was a lot of leeway in whether they want to charge someone and with what based on what they think they can get a jury to agree with.

Either way, if you're a former felon and you're illegally in possession of a weapon and someone breaks into your house and you kill them in self defense you're almost definitely going back to prison.

 

[Baffle]

Juries are notoriously unpredictable.

Seems a bit of a mad system, that.