Society/Culture Kyle Rittenhouse

[Malifice]

Wouldn't the laws in the USA, Wisconsin in particular be relevant to this case?

I think its a Federal matter as well isnt it?

Didnt I read somewhere he crossed State lines?

 

[ChappyUK]

Ask all the usual RWNJ's flood on here to defend his actions as one.

Rather than have a discussion about the merits of what happened, or humanizing the victims its all 'ANTIFA and BLM' blabbering bullshit and typcial partisan trolling bullshit.

I thought terms like RWNJ, SJW, TDS etc were prohibited on this board? You have banned people for using such terms. Good to see you like to adhere to your own rules.

 

[Malifice]

I thought terms like RWNJ, SJW, TDS etc were prohibited on this board? You have banned people for using such terms. Good to see you like to adhere to your own rules.

Cry me a river.

 

[ChappyUK]

View attachment 1281844

Cry me a river.

Doesnt phase me if you want to come across as a c*ckhead.

 

[Chief]

You have banned people for using such terms.

When?

 

[Malifice]

Does phase me if you want to come across as a c*ckhead.

I can live with that.

 

[sherb]

Does phase me if you want to come across as a c*ckhead.

Doesn't faze.....

 

[scoman]

I think its a Federal matter as well isnt it?

Didnt I read somewhere he crossed State lines?

Pretty sure it's Wisconsin.

Here.is a pretty good summary of the charges Rittenhouse is facing, the burden of proof and the narrow focus of the trial. Chief might also be interested in this.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/11/10/rittenhouse-trial-faq/

 

[Malifice]

Pretty sure it's Wisconsin.

Here.is a pretty good summary of the charges Rittenhouse is facing, the burden of proof and the narrow focus of the trial. Chief might also be interested in this.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/11/10/rittenhouse-trial-faq/

As a Lawyer I can tell you it's very similar to how things work here in Oz (both jurisdictions are Common Law jurisdictions that trace our origins to the UK).

Over here he would get off the serious charges if he can establish that he was 'acting reasonably in self defence of a perceived threat' and the force he used was proportionate to the threat. Should he establish that defence on the balance of probabilities he walks, even if the elements of the murder charge are otherwise proved by the prosecution.

It seems as if in that jurisdiction (Wisconsin or wherever it is) all he needs to do is raise the defence, and then the burden seems to shift to the prosecution to prove he WASNT acting in self defence to the usual higher standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. In effect it seems to add an element to the prosecution case.

That's if Im reading that article correctly.

Importantly also this:

The prosecution must convince the jury that Rittenhouse didn’t act in self-defense. “A jury could decide he can’t invoke the privilege of self-defense because of his own unlawful conduct, or that he provoked the attack on himself,” Findley said.

Kyle Rittenhouse trial: Understanding key legal issues in the contentious case - The Washington Post

And that's the key bit.

For mine:

1) He can invoke the defence of self defence, and the prosecution will have a very hard time proving his force used was not reasonable in the circumstances (angry mob, frightened boy, burning streets, at least one of the mob had a gun etc) and he likely wins the case on this point (defending the homicide charges)...

unless (and this bit is important):

2) The prosecution can prove he only found himself in the situation he was in, and facing the threat he was facing, because of his own stupidity in putting himself in that situation in the first place (i.e. it was his own damn fault he faced the threat he faced that required him to resort to lethal force).

The prosecution will focus on point 2 above. That's where this case lives or dies in my eyes.

 

[eaglespremiers]

As a Lawyer I can tell you it's very similar to how things work here in Oz (both jurisdictions are Common Law jurisdictions that trace our origins to the UK).

Over here he would get off the serious charges if he can establish that he was 'acting reasonably in self defence of a perceived threat' and the force he used was proportionate to the threat. Should he establish that defence on the balance of probabilities he walks, even if the elements of the murder charge are otherwise proved by the prosecution.

It seems as if in that jurisdiction (Wisconsin or wherever it is) all he needs to do is raise the defence, and then the burden seems to shift to the prosecution to prove he WASNT acting in self defence to the usual higher standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. In effect it seems to add an element to the prosecution case.

That's if Im reading that article correctly.

Importantly also this:



Kyle Rittenhouse trial: Understanding key legal issues in the contentious case - The Washington Post

And that's the key bit.

For mine:

1) He can invoke the defence of self defence, and the prosecution will have a very hard time proving his force used was not reasonable in the circumstances (angry mob, frightened boy, burning streets, at least one of the mob had a gun etc) and he likely wins the case on this point (defending the homicide charges)...

unless (and this bit is important):

2) The prosecution can prove he only found himself in the situation he was in, and facing the threat he was facing, because of his own stupidity in putting himself in that situation in the first place (i.e. it was his own damn fault he faced the threat he faced that required him to resort to lethal force).

The prosecution will focus on point 2 above. That's where this case lives or dies in my eyes.

Point 2 is an inaccurate interpretation of the law of provocation.

 

[Malifice]

2 is an inaccurate interpretation of the law of provocation.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

In Wisconsin?

I'm happy to stand corrected. The Yanks have some pretty weird provocation laws and self defence laws (the Castle doctrine etc).

 

[scoman]

As a Lawyer I can tell you it's very similar to how things work here in Oz (both jurisdictions are Common Law jurisdictions that trace our origins to the UK).

Over here he would get off the serious charges if he can establish that he was 'acting reasonably in self defence of a perceived threat' and the force he used was proportionate to the threat. Should he establish that defence on the balance of probabilities he walks, even if the elements of the murder charge are otherwise proved by the prosecution.

It seems as if in that jurisdiction (Wisconsin or wherever it is) all he needs to do is raise the defence, and then the burden seems to shift to the prosecution to prove he WASNT acting in self defence to the usual higher standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. In effect it seems to add an element to the prosecution case.

That's if Im reading that article correctly.

Importantly also this:



Kyle Rittenhouse trial: Understanding key legal issues in the contentious case - The Washington Post

And that's the key bit.

For mine:

1) He can invoke the defence of self defence, and the prosecution will have a very hard time proving his force used was not reasonable in the circumstances (angry mob, frightened boy, burning streets, at least one of the mob had a gun etc) and he likely wins the case on this point (defending the homicide charges)...

unless (and this bit is important):

2) The prosecution can prove he only found himself in the situation he was in, and facing the threat he was facing, because of his own stupidity in putting himself in that situation in the first place (i.e. it was his own damn fault he faced the threat he faced that required him to resort to lethal force).

The prosecution will focus on point 2 above. That's where this case lives or dies in my eyes.

All sounds reasonable, but the prosecution haven't managed to do this very well from what I can tell. They haven't been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was acting in a threatening manner. I don't think so anyway. We will find out soon

 

[scoman]

In Wisconsin?

I'm happy to stand corrected. The Yanks have some pretty weird provocation laws and self defence laws (the Castle doctrine etc).

Read this the other day as well. Talks about a contradiction of sorts in the Wisconsin self defence law.

Opinion | The question that will likely decide Kyle Rittenhouse's fate

Generally, someone who provokes an attack is unable to use self-defense, but Wisconsin law is a little more generous.

www.msnbc.com

 

[Malifice]

All sounds reasonable, but the prosecution haven't managed to do this very well from what I can tell. They haven't been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was acting in a threatening manner.

The argument would go that he placed himself in the situation he found himself in - basically that he caused the reactions of the men who tried to disarm him which lead to him having to shoot them in self defence.

Sort of like trolling the shit out of someone till they lash out, then shooting them in self defence when they do.

 

[Malifice]

Read this the other day as well. Talks about a contradiction of sorts in the Wisconsin self defence law.

Opinion | The question that will likely decide Kyle Rittenhouse's fate

Generally, someone who provokes an attack is unable to use self-defense, but Wisconsin law is a little more generous.

www.msnbc.com

Great link! It has the actual law.

Ill have a read and get back to you.

 

[eaglespremiers]

In Wisconsin?

I'm happy to stand corrected. The Yanks have some pretty weird provocation laws and self defence laws (the Castle doctrine etc).

I'm not going to rehash my comment from earlier in the thread.
The criminal code of Wisconsin states as follows:
"939.48(2) (2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
939.48(2)(a) (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
939.48(2)(b) (b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
939.48(2)(c) (c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense."

Provocation under this statute is predicated on "unlawful conduct".
Rittenhouse's mere presence at the protests/riots does not satisfy this legal requirement.
He is not being charged for being out during a curfew and is no longer being changed for being a minor with a gun.

So what is the "unlawful conduct" that can be claimed?
The prosecution has raised a tenuous argument that Rittenhouse aimed his weapon at a protestor.
This individual that was "threatened" has not provided evidence and, to be honest, their repeated efforts to demonstrate this in the drone footage in the Prosecutor's closing statement just made me nauseous and provided no substance to their allegations (at least not beyond a reasonable doubt).

 

[scoman]

The argument would go that he placed himself in the situation he found himself in - basically that he caused the reactions of the men who tried to disarm him which lead to him having to shoot them in self defence.

Sort of like trolling the sh*t out of someone till they lash out, then shooting them in self defence when they do.

Yes but just having an AR and being there isn't going to cut it. Rosenbaum has been shown to be the attacker in this case, by video and witness accounts. Nobody has come forward (I don't think) to testify that Rittenhouse was acting aggressively. Rittenhouse was playing defence basically.

Now after Rosenbaum is shot everything changes, but at the same time it doesn't. For those who don't quite understand in that moment exactly what has transpired (likely Huber and Grosskruetz) they may have thought they had an 'active shooter' situation. But nothing changes for Rittenhouse, he is still playing defence and tries to make it to the police line. He comes under attack and fights his way out of it. It sucks but at no time is he going to risk losing his weapon. Not to Rosenbaum or his subsequent attackers.

 

[Malifice]

Firstly the Prosecution has to prove he was NOT acting in self defence:

The State must prove by evidence which satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act lawfully in self-defense.

0805.doc (wilawlibrary.gov)

Or alternatively the Prosecution must instead prove

1) He was engaged in unlawful activity 'of a type likely to provoke an attack' a the time of the offending, and
2) that he did not reasonably believe he had exhausted 'every other reasonable means to escape the death or harm' when he killed his victims:

''A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack, and who does provoke an attack, is not allowed to use or threaten force in self-defense against that attack.''

''However, if the attack which follows causes the person reasonably to believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, he or she may lawfully act in self-defense. But the person may not use or threaten force intended or likely to cause death unless he or she reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm''

0815.doc (wilawlibrary.gov)

I reckon under those laws, he gets off.

 

[Malifice]

I'm not going to rehash my comment from earlier in the thread.
The criminal code of Wisconsin states as follows:
"939.48(2) (2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
939.48(2)(a) (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
939.48(2)(b) (b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
939.48(2)(c) (c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense."

Provocation under this statute is predicated on "unlawful conduct".
Rittenhouse's mere presence at the protests/riots does not satisfy this legal requirement.
He is not being charged for being out during a curfew and is no longer being changed for being a minor with a gun.

So what is the "unlawful conduct" that can be claimed?
The prosecution has raised a tenuous argument that Rittenhouse aimed his weapon at a protestor.
This individual that was "threatened" has not provided evidence and, to be honest, their repeated efforts to demonstrate this in the drone footage in the Prosecutor's closing statement just made me nauseous and provided no substance to their allegations (at least not beyond a reasonable doubt).

Posted at the same time but I actually agree now that I've seen the laws.

I reckon he gets off.

 

[scoman]

Firstly the Prosecution has to prove he was NOT acting in self defence:



0805.doc (wilawlibrary.gov)

Or alternatively the Prosecution must instead prove

1) He was engaged in unlawful activity 'of a type likely to provoke an attack' a the time of the offending, and
2) that he did not reasonably believe he had exhausted 'every other reasonable means to escape the death or harm' when he killed his victims:



0815.doc (wilawlibrary.gov)

I reckon under those laws, he gets off.

Agree, I think it's pretty hard to apply those laws to the facts in this case and convict him.

Another thing that I can't reconcile is the notion by some including the prosecutor that he should have engaged in hand to hand combat with Rosenbaum with his rifle potentially accessible to his attacker. Further that he should have surrendered his rifle after the initial shooting. I just can't see why anyone would risk losing their rifle in that situation. It seems to me like an absurd suggestion.

 

[Malifice]

Agree, I think it's pretty hard to apply those laws to the facts in this case and convict him.

Another thing that I can't reconcile is the notion by some including the prosecutor that he should have engaged in hand to hand combat with Rosenbaum with his rifle potentially accessible to his attacker. Further that he should have surrendered his rifle after the initial shooting. I just can't see why anyone would risk losing their rifle in that situation. It seems to me like an absurd suggestion.

No I agree. I reckon he gets off.

I dont think he should, but he will.

 

[RedVest4]

If she inserted herself as a vigilante into a gathering/rally/riot a la "the victim" (that's still not what you are hypothesizing I might add) I would hold exactly the same stance as I do with "the victim".

Lol no you wouldn’t. It’s ok to blame the victim as long as you disagree with his politics in your mind.

 

[RedVest4]

So we agree on these facts:

1) All Anthony likely knew about Kyle was what the crowd were yelling (that there was an active shooter, and Kyle was likely the person)
2) Anthony moved his GF out of harms way and went towards Kyle
3) He attempted to disarm Kyle and hit him with his skateboard
4) Kyle then shot him in the chest with his rifle, killing him

Do you agree that those are the facts?

The only fact there is point 4. The rest is drivel you are making up that doesn’t corroborate with The evidence presented at trial

 

[RedVest4]

Firstly the Prosecution has to prove he was NOT acting in self defence:



0805.doc (wilawlibrary.gov)

Or alternatively the Prosecution must instead prove

1) He was engaged in unlawful activity 'of a type likely to provoke an attack' a the time of the offending, and
2) that he did not reasonably believe he had exhausted 'every other reasonable means to escape the death or harm' when he killed his victims:



0815.doc (wilawlibrary.gov)

I reckon under those laws, he gets off.

Took 32 pages but we got through finally

 

[ChappyUK]

This is insane.

Why would supporters of Rittenhouse riot and why would minorities be blamed us they did riot?

This is just telegraphing what is going to happen.

“We hope it won’t cause violence” one protestor leading anti-Rittenhouse chants through a megaphone told Fox News.

Another woman said if there is violence, it will be from Rittenhouse supporters.

“If he’s acquitted, you’re going to have these idiots [Rittenhouse supporters] out here doing stupid s---,” she said.

The same woman said she worried if there was violence following the verdict, minorities would be characterized as responsible.

"Us Black people that live in Kenosha, us Brown people that live in Kenosha are going to be blamed for that.”