Society/Culture Kyle Rittenhouse

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

It’s pretty clear the most legally accurate result was achieved.

Whether the law or the culture is “good” is probably where the argument lies.

I wouldn't entirely agree as the prosecution can argue the force was not proportional.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

'The law of self-defense holds that a person who is not the aggressor is justified in using deadly force against an adversary when he reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. This is the standard that every state uses to define self-defense.

To determine whether this standard is met, the law looks at five central concepts.

First, the use of force must be proportionate to the force employed by the aggressor.

Second, the use of self-defense is limited to imminent harm.

Third, the person’s assessment of whether he is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury must be reasonable

Fourth, the law does not permit a first aggressor to benefit from a self-defense justification.

Finally, a person has a duty to retreat before using deadly force, as long as it can be done safely. This reaffirms the law’s belief in the sanctity of human life and ensures that deadly force is an option of last resort.

 

[Noidenous]

I wouldn't entirely agree as the prosecution can argue the force was not proportional.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

'The law of self-defense holds that a person who is not the aggressor is justified in using deadly force against an adversary when he reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. This is the standard that every state uses to define self-defense.

To determine whether this standard is met, the law looks at five central concepts.

First, the use of force must be proportionate to the force employed by the aggressor.

Second, the use of self-defense is limited to imminent harm.

Third, the person’s assessment of whether he is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury must be reasonable

Fourth, the law does not permit a first aggressor to benefit from a self-defense justification.

Finally, a person has a duty to retreat before using deadly force, as long as it can be done safely. This reaffirms the law’s belief in the sanctity of human life and ensures that deadly force is an option of last resort.

Yet they didn't make this argument because they don't have an IQ of 50.

 

[Chief]

I wouldn't entirely agree as the prosecution can argue the force was not proportional.

I assume they did, but the jury didn’t agree.

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

No, you are making an absurd assumption that having a song on a phone is proof of bias.

I saw enough from that judge to show he was biased.

 

[Chief]

I saw enough from that judge to show he was biased.

Maybe, but that’s why you have a jury.

 

[scoman]

I wouldn't entirely agree as the prosecution can argue the force was not proportional.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

'The law of self-defense holds that a person who is not the aggressor is justified in using deadly force against an adversary when he reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. This is the standard that every state uses to define self-defense.

To determine whether this standard is met, the law looks at five central concepts.

First, the use of force must be proportionate to the force employed by the aggressor.

Second, the use of self-defense is limited to imminent harm.

Third, the person’s assessment of whether he is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury must be reasonable

Fourth, the law does not permit a first aggressor to benefit from a self-defense justification.

Finally, a person has a duty to retreat before using deadly force, as long as it can be done safely. This reaffirms the law’s belief in the sanctity of human life and ensures that deadly force is an option of last resort.

Read the article. The author seems critical of the verdict, suggests the above set of principles the self defence argument is based on, but does not attempt to explain why he believes they do not apply to Rittenhouse. He isn't making much of an argument at all from what I can tell.

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

Yet they didn't make this argument because they don't have an IQ of 50.

You're assuming the prosecution did a good job.
Not according to some experts,

'Prosecutor Thomas Binger didn't help the state's case, legal experts told USA TODAY.
While White said he "wasn’t impressed at all by the prosecutor," although he also acknowledged he didn’t have access to all the evidence, he did agree with Binger's argument to the jury that “when you talk about self-defense, it has to be proportionate – and using a semi-automatic rifle on someone who’s kicking you or hitting you with a skateboard is not proportionate."
“If anything was going to turn the table, I thought it was going to be that argument, that you can’t bring a gun to a fistfight," White said. "But, in this case, the jury ruled that you could.” '

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

Read the article. The author seems critical of the verdict, suggests the above set of principles the self defence argument is based on, but does not attempt to explain why he believes they do not apply to Rittenhouse. He isn't making much of an argument at all from what I can tell.

Many experts are saying the jury bought the 'self-defence' defence too easily.
We all know jury's can be flawed, eg OJ Simpson jury.
The judge also has an influence on the jury.

 

[scoman]

You're assuming the prosecution did a good job.
Not according to some experts,

'Prosecutor Thomas Binger didn't help the state's case, legal experts told USA TODAY.
While White said he "wasn’t impressed at all by the prosecutor," although he also acknowledged he didn’t have access to all the evidence, he did agree with Binger's argument to the jury that “when you talk about self-defense, it has to be proportionate – and using a semi-automatic rifle on someone who’s kicking you or hitting you with a skateboard is not proportionate."
“If anything was going to turn the table, I thought it was going to be that argument, that you can’t bring a gun to a fistfight," White said. "But, in this case, the jury ruled that you could.” '

I think the reason the jury did reject that argument was that it was a ridiculous argument. Why would anybody engage in a fist fight with an AR15 hanging around their necks? The consequences of losing that fist fight are life changing/ending.
The prosecution arguing he should have used his fists was an overly simplistic suggestion for a much more complex problem.

 

[Noidenous]

You're assuming the prosecution did a good job.
Not according to some experts,

'Prosecutor Thomas Binger didn't help the state's case, legal experts told USA TODAY.
While White said he "wasn’t impressed at all by the prosecutor," although he also acknowledged he didn’t have access to all the evidence, he did agree with Binger's argument to the jury that “when you talk about self-defense, it has to be proportionate – and using a semi-automatic rifle on someone who’s kicking you or hitting you with a skateboard is not proportionate."
“If anything was going to turn the table, I thought it was going to be that argument, that you can’t bring a gun to a fistfight," White said. "But, in this case, the jury ruled that you could.” '

You don't start a fistfight with someone carrying a gun unless you have no other option. Those shot had other options. Simple.

This is what skateboards can do. They are not nerf bats.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

still legal. still melting minds.
thank you.

That's not the point in dispute.

The right to bear arms derives from the second amendment. The open carry laws are separate.

Do you not understand this?

 

[scoman]

I saw enough from that judge to show he was biased.

You saw enough or saw some memes on twitter? Or even a report of some memes on twitter?

 

[BigTacoBandit]

Victims? They where aggressors. They where only told he shot someone (they wouldn't have known it otherwise) and they went after him with intent to do

I don't claim to be a supporter of the NRA and I'm sure that they have just as many money-incentive reasons for that slogan as ideological reasons.
My fascination in this case is purely professional.
I think a carefully thought out rational response in a heated situation is a good policy that will, more times than not, de-escalate a situation and lead you away from serious legal implications.

I agree. My fascination with this case was how quiet the NRA was considering 2 people were both exercising their 2A rights. Both should have left their guns at home.

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

You saw enough or saw some memes on twitter? Or even a report of some memes on twitter?

The cutting off the prosecution and calling them 'brazen', the unusual calling for applause for Veterans Day and not allowing two deceased people to be called victims, the ring tone.

 

[Noidenous]

The cutting off the prosecution and calling them 'brazen', the unusual calling for applause for Veterans Day and not allowing two deceased people to be called victims, the ring tone.

The judge is there to uphold process. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using 'brazen' as an adjective when getting backchatted by a miscreant lawyer attempting to undermine your authority.

How is appreciating Veterans Day any different to that of Anzac Day?

By using the word 'victim', it is assumed there was a crime. Absolutely correct to prevent it. The jury is the arbiter of the crime.

Again with the ring tone. Patriotism is not the negative you are painting it to be.

 

[Jupes]

That's not the point in dispute.

The right to bear arms derives from the second amendment. The open carry laws are separate.

Do you not understand this?

the 2nd amendment isn't the source of american's right to bear arms. it's assumed and inherent which the 2nd amendment protects. anyway it doesn't matter. my original post wasn't about the 2nd A nor open carry laws nor scary black tacticool ars. it was about legally bearing arms and the inability of posters itt to wrap their minds around it. reeeing about the type of gun or carry just reinforces this.

 

[eaglespremiers]

The cutting off the prosecution and calling them 'brazen', the unusual calling for applause for Veterans Day and not allowing two deceased people to be called victims, the ring tone.

Binger and Kraus were completely out of line on several occasions and had the jury been hung I think there was every chance of a mistrial with prejudice. Prosecutor's should care more about the truth and due process than just winning their case. They should be held to a higher standard of care than any other lawyer. But when there is clear evidence of them calling witness who their own detectives describe as completely unreliable and refusing to call key witnesses or lying about jump kick man not being known to authorities (when he clearly was) this calls into question whether justice and law was actually their intention.

And that's not even mentioning Binger attempting to breach the 5th amendment or blatantly ignoring the judge's pre-trial ruling.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

the 2nd amendment isn't the source of american's right to bear arms. it's assumed and inherent which the 2nd amendment protects. anyway it doesn't matter. my original post wasn't about the 2nd A nor open carry laws nor scary black tacticool ars. it was about legally bearing arms and the inability of posters itt to wrap their minds around it. reeeing about the type of gun or carry just reinforces this.

People aren't objecting to the second amendment. It's the open carry that is disturbing, even if it's legal.

 

[Osho]

Binger and Kraus were completely out of line on several occasions and had the jury been hung I think there was every chance of a mistrial with prejudice. Prosecutor's should care more about the truth and due process than just winning their case. They should be held to a higher standard of care than any other lawyer. But when there is clear evidence of them calling witness who their own detectives describe as completely unreliable and refusing to call key witnesses or lying about jump kick man not being known to authorities (when he clearly was) this calls into question whether justice and law was actually their intention.

And that's not even mentioning Binger attempting to breach the 5th amendment or blatantly ignoring the judge's pre-trial ruling.

I believe the judge was originally nominated by the Democrats.

 

[ChappyUK]

People aren't objecting to the second amendment. It's the open carry that is disturbing, even if it's legal.

And your thoughts on Grosskreutz whose weapon was concealled illegally.

I believe the judge was originally nominated by the Democrats.

Shhh! That doesn't fit the narrative but tbh nominations weren't as activist/tribal when he was nominated as they are now.

 

[Present Not Past]

yeah he was legally open carrying an AR15. it's a fine rifle.

And if you’re Black in the US and are carrying a bag of Skittles you can be shot multiple times in the back.

 

[Brad Goodman]

Hopefully he will learn from this rather than sliding into extremism (as he has become something of a poster child). It would appear he was a bee's diaphragm from a lengthy jail term!

Well he has Tucker Carlson in his ear now, so he’s pretty much a lost cause.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/11/20/kyle-rittenhouse-tucker-carlson-documentary-richards

 

[Present Not Past]

The way forward is clear (at least according to Wisconsin open-carry state law).

1. Go to a white nationalist/supremacist/any other far right meet where you know folks will be armed.
2. Be armed yourself with a long-barreled semi-automatic rifle.
3. Announce yourself as being pro-humanitarian or simply BE a person of 'colour' or of 'ethnic' persuasion.
4. When they gun for you, and they will, put as many down as you can.
5. If you still live, claim self defence

The Rittenhouse case shows what can be gotten away with in that particular state if a person had the notion to. I don't think we'll see any 'copycat' actions actually happen going forward, but the case is instructional if you live in that part of the world and its instructions that you need.

SOURCE ON WISCONSIN GUN LAWS: https://gunlawsuits.org/gun-laws/wisconsin/open-carry/

You can only get away with this if you’re White. If you’re Black you’ll probably be gunned down by the Police going to the White Supremacist meeting.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

Why was he chasing him? “To get him, beat him up, hurt him.”

Exactly what 2A is about.

 

[ChappyUK]

And if you’re Black in the US and are carrying a bag of Skittles you can be shot multiple times in the back.

Do you have a link to this story?