Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

[GMDino]

(10-30-2021, 06:11 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: I believe the phrase your looking for is “If your going to pull a weapon on someone, you better be ready to use it.” Much different than what your spouting. Keep your CNN narrative and blind yourself if you want to, that’s ok. You remind me of that female country singer who got cheated on by her boyfriend and now all she does is sing hateful songs about men. 1 person, or even a few, does not and has never represented all. Oh, and you also used the word defend.

No, I meant what I was "spouting".  

 “If your going to pull a weapon on someone, you better be ready to use it.” applies, to me, when you pull your gun and you don't shoot you may get shot.


I was referring to what Bels was saying about how warning shots are frowned upon and the resulting legal connotations that come with that in certain states/situations.

Other than that your response was, um, interesting.

[Dill]

(10-30-2021, 02:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: jj22 Wrote:What are we telling people who want to kill? Go seek trouble, start trouble, and kill and claim self defense.

Dill Wrote:I think the bolded is one of the most interesting questions raised by this case. 

I would disagree. Making that claim works under the assumption that Rittenhouse was there with the intent to kill. Given his attempts to escape the situation, first, the likelihood of that is slim. Unless we see evidence presented in the trial that shows Rittenhouse was there with intent to do harm, that question isn't really being raised by anyone other than those that are trying to convict based on anything other than the actual evidence before us. That's not how the legal system works.

No. No construction of Rittenhouse's intent is required for other militia types to draw JJ's implication from a Rittenhouse acquittal.  

That would signal that there may be no consequences for jumping into a riot with a weapon and shooting anyone who tries to take it away--or anyone your armed (and very unnecessary) presence may provoke to violence. 

So long as the right "actual evidence" is before the court, including your claim you didn't "intend" to kill anyone and were "protecting property" or "helping the police," you are within your rights to rush, armed, into the pandemonium the police are supposedly tasked with sorting out. 

If that's how the legal system works, then that is also why people are now questioning that system.

(10-30-2021, 02:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The problem with brining up cases from different states with very different circumstances is it comes of as trying to muddy the waters and deflect from the current topic. The Alexander situation was a result of a law in Florida that did not allow for warning shots. Warning shots are a controversial topic in self-defense/stand-your-ground discussions. They put bystanders at risk (that bullet is going to go somewhere and isn't going to stop until it hits something) and it can also be argued that if you feel confident enough to fire a warning shot to attempt to end a threat, then the threat may not have been great enough to warrant lethal force in the first place (not saying I agree with this, but it is an argument that has been made).

There was also some poor handling of the case that should never have happened, but the law was as it was. It was a bad law and, IIRC, it was changed because of this case.

Legislators frequently consider cases from different states in writing laws, and courts and lawyers do in interpreting law. They look at what the cases do and do not have in common, as we are doing here when we bring up cases like Zimmerman's and Alexander's. That Alexander initially got 20 years for firing a warning shot rather than killing an attacker, and Zimmerman got off for killing an "attacker" he deliberately confronted, makes these cases useful comparisons in any case of armed do-gooding which results in homicide.

Perhaps we are not addressing the same topic. For me the Rittenhouse case raises general legal and political questions about law, referenced by JJ in this thread's opening post, and which are not closed by simple declarations of what courts must rule given current law and the evidence in this case. 

The "bad law" you reference above is still a bad law in my book, but it was changed somewhat because of political pressure created by public awareness of its consequences.  I.e., laws don't change themselves. Some sector of the voting public discerns a discrepancy between outcomes the law is expected to produce and the outcomes it actually produces. In such cases, that the "law is as it was" begins rather than closes discussion.

And that is why the majority of respondents to this thread are surprised that a 17-year-old can carry a weapon from his state into another, following a report of riots, and then hear that the muddled actions in the videos we see can be interpreted to clearly show "self defense," once factors placing an armed underage perp in a riot are determined to be legally irrelevant.   

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

The anti Rittenhouse position in this thread appears to be the self defense equivalent of a woman being raped "asking for it" by wearing provocative clothing. It's also an interesting, and complete, abdication of personal responsibility. It's like Rittenhouse showing up armed in a state in which this is legal literally compelled the far left rioters to attack him. They had no choice but to initiate violence and Kyle, that crafty devil, knew it. He used their complete lack of agency and free will to set them up so he could murder them. This kid is Lex Luthor Jr.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-30-2021, 10:24 PM)Dill Wrote: And that is why the majority of respondents to this thread are surprised that a 17-year-old can carry a weapon from his state into another, following a report of riots, and then hear that the muddled actions in the videos we see can be interpreted to clearly show "self defense," once factors placing an armed underage perp in a riot are determined to be legally irrelevant.   

This is a demonstrably false statement based on evidence already presented in this thread.  I don't think a logical, impartial, person perusing this thread could say you're arguing from a good faith perspective here.  Again, for a person who claims to cherish a logic and fact based argument your conduct in this thread contains a complete, an suspicious, dearth of both.  Of course, I could be wrong, in which case you'll counter with a logical, fact based post showing this.

Also, I am again compelled to point out your complete lack of condemnation for the people who actually initiated this violent encounter.  Unless you consider them children or otherwise intellectually incapacitated to the point that they are unable to prevent themselves from attacking another human simply because they don't share their politics or positions. Is that the reason?

[Dill]

(10-30-2021, 03:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Because it's been established that the friend purchased the gun in Wisconsin.  His friend has criminally charged because of it.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/10/kyle-rittenhouse-friend-charged-bought-him-gun-kenosha-shooting/6231407002/

A simple Google search could have answered this question for you.

A simple google search tells me that the gun Rittenhouse used to kill two people on Aug. 25 was purchased on May 1 in Wisconsin, for him, by a friend. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/19-year-old-charged-illegally-supplying-gun-kyle-rittenhouse-n1247307

That the gun was purchased in WI in May by a friend does not establish that Rittenhouse did not have possession of it in August, in Illinois, and then carried it across the state line into Kenosha. Is there evidence the friend held it for months and then gave it to him the night of the shooting?  How were R and illegally purchased gun united on Aug. 25? 

(10-30-2021, 03:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As to your position in general, I see a lot of "feels" and not a lot of facts.  A very simple, point by point, explanation of why this is a clear case of self defense has been provided.  Why have you made no attempt to address this?  If your position is that you don't care about the law and just want Kyle punished for not sharing your politics then just say so.

If the bolded doesn't count as a "feel," then I don't know how you are defining that term. Your posts are peppered with devaluations of the character and honesty of people who disagree with you; those are "feels," not facts.

And of course I disagree with your too "simple, point by point explanation of why this is a clear case of self defense." E.g., Bpat is quite right--the man with the pistol, whom R shot in the arm, had as much of a claim to self defense as R had before he shot him.

My "position," as articulated so far, is that there is an issue here to be explored regarding how the law selects which facts are relevant and which not, and this trial offers material for exploring that issue. The law has a "point of view" which favors some political views over others. When viewing "facts" through the prism of stand your ground and open carry laws, it is about as impartial as those police officers who allowed R to pass them with his hands in the air, carrying a long gun, after shots had been fired. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-01-2021, 12:58 AM)Dill Wrote: A simple google search tells me that the gun Rittenhouse used to kill two people on Aug. 25 was purchased on May 1 in Wisconsin, for him, by a friend. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/19-year-old-charged-illegally-supplying-gun-kyle-rittenhouse-n1247307

That the gun was purchased in WI in May by a friend does not establish that Rittenhouse did not have possession of it in August, in Illinois, and then carried it across the state line into Kenosha. Is there evidence the friend held it for months and then gave it to him the night of the shooting?  How were R and illegally purchased gun united on Aug. 25?

Uhm, it's in the link you just quoted.

Prosecutors say Black kept the gun in Wisconsin, and Rittenhouse never possessed it in Illinois, where he lived with his mother and sisters.

If you're going to ignore evidence presented then just let me know now so I can stop wasting my time providing actual facts.

Quote:If the bolded doesn't count as a "feel," then I don't know how you are defining that term. Your posts are peppered with devaluations of the character and honesty of people who disagree with you; those are "feels," not facts.

This comment is as silly as it is inaccurate.  I've literally presented fact after fact regarding the circumstances of this case.  It is telling you have not addressed a single one of them.  Hell, you couldn't even be bothered to read an article you directly requested.

Quote:And of course I disagree with your too "simple, point by point explanation of why this is a clear case of self defense." E.g., Bpat is quite right--the man with the pistol, whom R shot in the arm, had as much of a claim to self defense as R had before he shot him.

Not if he's part of the group that initiated the violence in the first place.  Also, the fact that he initiated the contact with Rittenhouse rather negates a claim of self defense.  Rittenhouse was running away.  He was attempting to get up to resume fleeing when the third person approached him, not the other way around.  You also say you disagree with my, and Bel's, position that this is a clear case of self defense.  However, you have provided absolutely no fact based argument refuting my or Bel's position.

Quote:My "position," as articulated so far, is that there is an issue here to be explored regarding how the law selects which facts are relevant and which not, and this trial offers material for exploring that issue. The law has a "point of view" which favors some political views over others. When viewing "facts" through the prism of stand your ground and open carry laws, it is about as impartial as those police officers who allowed R to pass them with his hands in the air, carrying a long gun, after shots had been fired. 

Yeah, that's been addressed as well, it's yet another thing you apparently chose to ignore.  If you want to argue the morality of the law and not the facts and the law as they actually exist, then just let us all know that.  We'll stop bothering to make a fact based argument and join you in the land of supposition.

As a final note, the law as written states you can defend yourself if you are attacked.  This is a rather simple and direct position that I'd have a very hard time determining how anyone could take issue with.  You apparently want to blame Kyle for the actions of others rather than blame the people who actually initiated the violence.  I, and the law, on the other hand, hold people responsible for their own actions.  I get that you disagree and I don't see how further "debate" will bring our positions any closer.  That being the case, unless you'd like to discuss the actual facts of the incident, I think we can amicably call it a day.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

For those interested in the facts of the case and the applicable law, here's a pretty good AP article.

https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-shootings-homicide-kenosha-jacob-blake-620ad5801a29c986b658f6a74d3f9649

[jj22]

In the opening statement of the Rittenhouse trial, his attorney argues he was justified in shooting the victim carrying a skateboard, since it’s possible to decapitate someone with a skateboard if you decide to use it as a deadly weapon.

The lessons this trial will teach if acquitted.

[jj22]

https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1455594308799717376/photo/1

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-02-2021, 03:21 PM)jj22 Wrote: In the opening statement of the Rittenhouse trial, his attorney argues he was justified in shooting the victim carrying a skateboard, since it’s possible to decapitate someone with a skateboard if you decide to use it as a deadly weapon.

The lessons this trial will teach if acquitted.

A skateboard is absolutely a deadly weapon, you should see some of the horrific injuries I have seen inflicted by someone striking a person with a skateboard.  The decapitate comment is a bridge too far, but defense attorneys frequently engage in that type of hyperbole.

(11-02-2021, 03:26 PM)jj22 Wrote: https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1455594308799717376/photo/1

The first response rather sums it up.

The horror!

On a serious note, being in court all day is insanely boring, take it from a person who has been there several times.  Add in the likelihood that Rittenhouse is probably not sleeping well as he is on trial for his life.  But seriously, this is somehow worth commenting on?

[BigPapaKain]

(11-02-2021, 05:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A skateboard is absolutely a deadly weapon, you should see some of the horrific injuries I have seen inflicted by someone striking a person with a skateboard.  The decapitate comment is a bridge too far, but defense attorneys frequently engage in that type of hyperbole.

Not even someone swinging a skateboard - those trucks are heavy as shit and built SOLID.

Source: when I lost track of my board on a kickflip down some stairs and the ***** bounced back into me; bled like a stuffed pig.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-02-2021, 07:15 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Not even someone swinging a skateboard - those trucks are heavy as shit and built SOLID.

Source: when I lost track of my board on a kickflip down some stairs and the ***** bounced back into me; bled like a stuffed pig.

Absolutely, and by skateboard I meant a fully assembled one, not just the deck.  A good set of trucks can outlast 4-5 decks, if not more.  When I say you'd be sickened by the injuries I've seen caused by them I wasn't exaggerating at all.  People get struck with skateboards all the time out here and the injuries can be severe, and lethal in some cases.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I literally just saw this on twitter after looking at JJ's link of Kyle having the gall to yawn in court.

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1455579165739167752

If this is accurate, and it appears to be, the fact that charges were ever filed in this case is a enormous abuse of the DA's office. Watch it for yourself. I'm sure some people will be not be swayed but it's a new piece of footage that shows the events leading up to the first shooting.

[NATI BENGALS]

(11-02-2021, 07:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I literally just saw this on twitter after looking at JJ's link of Kyle having the gall to yawn in court.

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1455579165739167752

If this is accurate, and it appears to be, the fact that charges were ever filed in this case is a enormous abuse of the DA's office.  Watch it for yourself.  I'm sure some people will be not be swayed but it's a new piece of footage that shows the events leading up to the first shooting.

From my understanding that is what DA offices do? They generally go heavy handed and throw as many charges as possible and see what sticks. Part of the broken system. Goes hand in hand with money helping people stay out of jail while the less fortunate get railroaded when they don't have a team of lawyers.

I'm gonna have to agree to disagree. I think a minor with a rifle, killing people in the middle of the street, in the middle of the night, during a riot, in a state he doesn't live deserves a trial. IDK I'm not a LEO. Doesn't seem like the type of thing to sweep under the rug though.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-02-2021, 08:50 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: From my understanding that is what DA offices do? They generally go heavy handed and throw as many charges as possible and see what sticks. Part of the broken system. Goes hand in hand with money helping people stay out of jail while the less fortunate get railroaded when they don't have a team of lawyers.

You're not wrong that the DA's office tends to overcharge, that is unless you have a "progressive" DA who tends to not charge at all or dramatically undercharge.  This is/was typically done to give the DA's office something to "take back" during plea bargaining discussions.  However, even under those circumstances there should be sufficient evidence to justify the charge.  As explained and illustrated in this thread there is ample evidence that Rittenhouse acted in self defense and virtually nothing that contradicts that. 

Quote:I'm gonna have to agree to disagree. I think a minor with a rifle, killing people in the middle of the street, in the middle of the night, during a riot, in a state he doesn't live deserves a trial. IDK I'm not a LEO. Doesn't seem like the type of thing to sweep under the rug though.

If the evidence supports it, absolutely.  It just doesn't in this case, and it doesn't come close to doing so.  As is common for those who dislike Rittenhouse, you raise a lot of legal irrelevancies.  "Minor with a rifle", irrelevant to a claim of self defense.  "Middle of the night", irrelevant to a claim of self defense.  "During a riot", actually works in Rittenhouse's favor.  "In a state he doesn't live", perhaps the ultimate in irrelevant facts to a claim of self defense in this case.

As I explained several times in this thread, poor judgment is not illegal.  Physically attacking someone for no legal reason is.  I wouldn't go to a predictable riot on my time off and would advise anyone listening not to do so as well.  But simply being present at one is not illegal and shouldn't be.  The crux of this case is who attacked who first and does being attacked as he was justify Rittenhouse's response of using deadly force.  As I have said several time, there's reams of evidence available that completely supports his claim of self defense.  I have not seen one piece of evidence that casts doubt on it.  If you, or anyone else, has access to such evidence I would urge you to share it.

[NATI BENGALS]

(11-02-2021, 09:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're not wrong that the DA's office tends to overcharge, that is unless you have a "progressive" DA who tends to not charge at all or dramatically undercharge.  This is/was typically done to give the DA's office something to "take back" during plea bargaining discussions.  However, even under those circumstances there should be sufficient evidence to justify the charge.  As explained and illustrated in this thread there is ample evidence that Rittenhouse acted in self defense and virtually nothing that contradicts that. 


If the evidence supports it, absolutely.  It just doesn't in this case, and it doesn't come close to doing so.  As is common for those who dislike Rittenhouse, you raise a lot of legal irrelevancies.  "Minor with a rifle", irrelevant to a claim of self defense.  "Middle of the night", irrelevant to a claim of self defense.  "During a riot", actually works in Rittenhouse's favor.  "In a state he doesn't live", perhaps the ultimate in irrelevant facts to a claim of self defense in this case.

As I explained several times in this thread, poor judgment is not illegal.  Physically attacking someone for no legal reason is.  I wouldn't go to a predictable riot on my time off and would advise anyone listening not to do so as well.  But simply being present at one is not illegal and shouldn't be.  The crux of this case is who attacked who first and does being attacked as he was justify Rittenhouse's response of using deadly force.  As I have said several time, there's reams of evidence available that completely supports his claim of self defense.  I have not seen one piece of evidence that casts doubt on it.  If you, or anyone else, has access to such evidence I would urge you to share it.

I just stated all the evidence that does support it. You deem it all irrelevant. But it’s the reason we are where we are. Pretty easy to see why something of this nature would wind up in a court room and for you to be unable to comprehend that it deserves to be there is a little confusing.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-02-2021, 11:01 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I just stated all the evidence that does support it. You deem it all irrelevant. But it’s the reason we are where we are. Pretty easy to see why something of this nature would wind up in a court room and for you to be unable to comprehend that it deserves to be there is a little confusing.

My friend, literally nothing you cited has any bearing on a claim of acting in self defense.  That being said, I am more than prepared for you to explain why any of them detract from Rittenhouse's defense that he was defending himself from people attacking him.

[Belsnickel]

(11-02-2021, 07:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I literally just saw this on twitter after looking at JJ's link of Kyle having the gall to yawn in court.

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1455579165739167752

If this is accurate, and it appears to be, the fact that charges were ever filed in this case is a enormous abuse of the DA's office. Watch it for yourself. I'm sure some people will be not be swayed but it's a new piece of footage that shows the events leading up to the first shooting.

Well, first off, this is one of the reasons I am in full favor of SCOTUS fully investing the 5th Amendment. Constitutionally speaking, there should have been a grand jury delivering those indictments. But that's a whole other conversation.

Second, I am highly skeptical of anything Posobiec is involved in. I mean, we don't know for sure who is yelling about medical or what not. But, that also doesn't matter. We have seen no evidence that Rittenhouse initiated the altercation and this video backs that up. Being present with a firearm doesn't mean you are now open to assault, as much as some people would like that to be the case.

[Belsnickel]

Figured I would bring this over here for a response to prevent continued derailing.

(11-02-2021, 06:00 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Yea, I don't think it's a legal gray area. If we go by the book rather than a moral sense of what is "right" I think acquittal is the correct judgment. The video evidence suggests that the crazy guy chasing him was the beginning of the physical confrontation and, if it wasn't, there's no evidence of anything beforehand. That's self defense, in my opinion.

I think the left's outrage about it is more moral, as many probably believe that walking around a protest with a gun strapped to you could be some form of incitement (similar to that Missouri couple who were arrested for brandishing their guns at protesters.) If people perceive you as a threat, they will naturally act hostile towards you, which I imagine is what happened in this case. 

So, legally, I think it's pretty open and shut, but I do hope this leads to some kind of reform on what it means to brandish a weapon (I'm not counting on it though. That conversation doesn't even seem to be occurring, let alone reaching some sort of resolution). Cuz, in my opinion, it's pretty ****** up that you can bring a gun somewhere and then if people react with hostility towards you implicitly threatening their life ("If you do something I perceive as wrong, who knows, I may shoot you. You better hope I'm not a crazy person!"), you may have grounds to kill them. If Kyle left the gun at home, no one dies and Kyle isn't sitting in jail right now.

Honestly, the last part of your post is why most responsible gun owners favor concealed carry. In most situations, open carry just makes you a target. Military and LE open carry for two reasons. One, a show of force, and two, easier access in a situation where it may be needed. But with that comes an amount of training that far exceeds the amount the general public will ever receive as well as a whole list of policies covering when to draw, shoot, etc.

Meanwhile, there is a part of the firearms industry that is focused on making firearms and holsters that can be carried without anyone knowing they are there. This is used for backups for LE, but it also used by most of us that carry on a regular basis. I go through my day with a Glock 26 at my 4-o'clock, and no one really knows it's there. For when I have to go somewhere it isn't welcome (e.g. work, courthouse, doctor), I have a lockbox for it. I don't advertise I have a firearm with me. I don't put any firearms related stickers on my car, even, because that just advertises that there could be one in the vehicle making you a target for theft.

There is a time and a place for open carry, but those are very few and far between for the civilian populous. If you are carrying to protect yourself, concealed is generally the best way to go. Open carry makes you a target, which is what it did for Rittenhouse. Note, though, just like a woman wearing skimpy clothes doesn't remove their victim status in a sexual assault, open carrying doesn't remove the victim status in an assault. I think that last point is where we are seeing so many on the left having a hard time with their cognitive dissonance on the issue.

[CJD]

(11-03-2021, 08:15 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Figured I would bring this over here for a response to prevent continued derailing.


Honestly, the last part of your post is why most responsible gun owners favor concealed carry. In most situations, open carry just makes you a target. Military and LE open carry for two reasons. One, a show of force, and two, easier access in a situation where it may be needed. But with that comes an amount of training that far exceeds the amount the general public will ever receive as well as a whole list of policies covering when to draw, shoot, etc.

Meanwhile, there is a part of the firearms industry that is focused on making firearms and holsters that can be carried without anyone knowing they are there. This is used for backups for LE, but it also used by most of us that carry on a regular basis. I go through my day with a Glock 26 at my 4-o'clock, and no one really knows it's there. For when I have to go somewhere it isn't welcome (e.g. work, courthouse, doctor), I have a lockbox for it. I don't advertise I have a firearm with me. I don't put any firearms related stickers on my car, even, because that just advertises that there could be one in the vehicle making you a target for theft.

There is a time and a place for open carry, but those are very few and far between for the civilian populous. If you are carrying to protect yourself, concealed is generally the best way to go. Open carry makes you a target, which is what it did for Rittenhouse. Note, though, just like a woman wearing skimpy clothes doesn't remove their victim status in a sexual assault, open carrying doesn't remove the victim status in an assault. I think that last point is where we are seeing so many on the left having a hard time with their cognitive dissonance on the issue.

That all makes sense. I, too, prefer conceal and carry.