Society/Culture Kyle Rittenhouse

[Brick Loosener]

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.

Stopped reading after as a lawyer.

 

[Noire]

Shandog and Mal have threadbanned a few for breaking the below rule.

I questioned why a poster was banned for using TDS and was threadbanned myself.

View attachment 1281886

I'm not allowed to post in the Donald Trump thread they never said why

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

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.

The first bit isn't right. What law do you practice?

There's no balance of probabilities. It's an evidentiary standard that is less than balance of probabilities. Once the Defendant can establish that there is evidence that he acted in self defence, it is for the prosecution to defeat that beyond reasonable doubt.

Likewise your point 2 at the end is wrong. Stupidity isn't the standard. Unlawfulness is. And that can still be defeated in circumstances where events had overtaken the unlawfulness of his being there.

EDIT: I'll try to briefly explain this. I'll use the Pell trial as that is what people are most familiar with.

There are three standards of proof. Actually there are four if you include the Briginshaw standard (Essendon drug saga) but that unnecessarily complicates matters.

1. Evidentiary standard. A party provides evidence of a thing. In Pell, various witnesses gave evidence of George Pell being somewhere other than the sacristy immediately after Mass on the Sundays in question.

2. Balance of probabilities. A party establishes that it is more likely than not that the thing occurred. This is the standard in civil cases. Car accidents. Injuries at work. Etc. It has no application in criminal law.

3. Beyond reasonable doubt. We all know, effectively, what that means.

If a Defendant raises an exculpatory thing in a criminal matter, and provides prima facie evidence for that thing, it falls to the Prosecution to disprove that thing beyond reasonable doubt. This was, in many ways, the central legal point in the Pell case. The majority in the Supreme Court of Appeal ruled that belief in the complainant was enough to defeat matters raised to the evidentiary standard (1. above). They were simply wrong. The Prosecution had raised a number of matters of speculation which might raise a doubt as to, say, Portelli's evidence. "He may have gone off for a smoke." That wasn't defeating evidence that had met the "evidentiary standard" "beyond reasonable doubt". They needed to disprove, beyond reasonable doubt, that Portelli had been with Pell at all material times on the specific Sundays in question. Not only did they not do that, they didn't even try to. That was what gave rise to the legal (as opposed to moral) outrage about the Supreme Court ruling.

So if the Australian law were to apply in the Rittenhouse case, certainly in relation to the second and third shootings (the skateboard guy and the gun guy), you can see in the video that Rittenhouse is running away from them towards the police. He would have to get off. Now I don't pretend to know Wisconsin law, but it appears to be similar.

 

[Achy Blakey Heart]

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.”

They are as bad as each other. This all happened because of riots...not peaceful protests.

Ive never understood how the left can denounce right wing anarchy and yet dilute and condone the same anarchy on their own side.

 

[Achy Blakey Heart]

No I agree. I reckon he gets off.

I dont think he should, but he will.

Have you weighed up all the evidence?

 

[Achy Blakey Heart]

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.

Except that isn't what the evidence suggests. Although i accept it probably fits your political bias and rhetoric. I guess there are still people out there who deny climate change in the face of evidence.

 

[Osho]

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.

A very good post. It has instantly elevated the thread above all the shrill stuff that was going on.

Regarding point 2, my understanding is that prosecution would need to show KR was not supposed to be there, broke some law to get there, or his intention to be there was malevolent.

 

[Balls In]

Let's let the actual court case play out shall we?

 

[Osho]

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.

Was this shown to be the case in court? Having the weapon on its own isn't enough, he needs to be shown waving it around or being threatening with it, thus the importance of the enhanced or pinch and zoom images that were brought into evidence late in the case, possibly showing KR behaving provocatively.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

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.

Mal specialises in labels. Oops sorry for the ad hom.

 

[Big_Birdy]

Currently being reported by multiple sources that the delay in verdict is 10 jurors not guilty, other 2 are also not guilty but concerned about backlash to them and their families (not sure on the validity of these sources, not really sure how they would know?).

I suggest if you see this anywhere, take with a grain of salt

 

[Balls In]

Currently being reported by multiple sources that the delay in verdict is 10 jurors not guilty, other 2 are also not guilty but concerned about backlash to them and their families (not sure on the validity of these sources, not really sure how they would know?).

I suggest if you see this anywhere, take with a grain of salt

Sad state of affairs if true. Idiots taking photos of the jurors, death threats to the judge and threatening more riots.

 

[Chief]

I'm not allowed to post in the Donald Trump thread they never said why

Because your contribution was a Trumpy droning background noise that contributed nothing*.

* Apart from some trashy memes.

 

[Big_Birdy]

Sad state of affairs if true. Idiots taking photos of the jurors, death threats to the judge and threatening more riots.

Its a big if though. I can see how the jurors could feel that way, but not how anyone would actually know that apart from the jurors themselves.

I am calling bullshit

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Its a big if though. I can see how the jurors could feel that way, but not how anyone would actually know that apart from the jurors themselves.

I am calling bullshit

Jurors talk. Not saying the claim is true......although it does ring true.

Just saying that jurors do talk, and those that they talk to talk to others.

 

[Big_Birdy]

Jurors talk. Not saying the claim is true......although it does ring true.

Just saying that jurors do talk, and those that they talk to talk to others.

fair enough

 

[Back One Out]

What was this clown doing in the first place?

He was protecting small businesses from being torched by arsonists.

Literally. He had a fire extinguisher and was attempting to douse fires lit by the BLM rioters when he was attacked.

I was like you: thinking "Who's this f-wit who takes a gun to a BLM protest and shoots people?"

The media reports gave the impression of a young Rambo-style vigilante who travelled hours from interstate and was walking around with his AR-15 and itching to kill someone. But it turns out Kenosha was where his dad lived and very close by to where he lived. A bit like someone from Tweed Heads travelling "interstate" to a protest in Coolangatta. So the media lied about that.

I think there was element of idiotic 'heroism' to his actions, but not necessarily any evil intent. I think he genuinely went there to help protect local businesses because the police and firefighters were not. He probably felt that someone had to do it. Maybe not the wisest decision in retrospect, but he was only a 17 year old kid.

Accused US protest shooter takes stand in murder trial

Alleged teen US protest shooter Kyle Rittenhouse is in court answering charges of killing two men and wounding a third during unrest that erupted in August 2020, after the wounding of a black man by a white Kenosha police officer.

www.abc.net.au

Rittenhouse testified that he saw videos of violence in downtown Kenosha on the day before the shootings, including a brick being thrown at a police officer's head and cars burning in a dealership lot. Rittenhouse said the dealership owner "was happy we were there".

Rittenhouse said he was walking towards a car dealer's lot with a fire extinguisher to put out a blaze when he heard somebody scream, "burn in hell". He responded by saying, "friendly, friendly, friendly" and then began to flee when he saw Mr Rosenbaum and another protester with a gun running towards him. The other protester, Joshua Ziminski, told Rosenbaum: "Get him and kill him."

Rittenhouse said he heard a gunshot directly behind him [Ziminski firing into the air] and, as he turned around, he saw Rosenbaum coming at him with his arms out in front. "I remember his hand on the barrel of my gun..."



Tough situation. What would you do?

Hard for us non-gun owning, non-Americans to appreciate. I think all of us Aussies tend to be biased against American gun owners and assume they're the wrong-doers in these situations. But the American laws and culture are different to ours.

I like to think I wouldn't be there in the first place. Avoid trouble.. But that's the older, wiser, careful me talking... I'm a pacifist and a bit of a pussy. I don't want to kill anyone. But what if you or I were in his shoes...? So let's say you've got a gun and then a crazy man threatened to kill you and actually chased after you when you tried to run. Would you just let him take your gun away from you?

 

[Osho]

Currently being reported by multiple sources that the delay in verdict is 10 jurors not guilty, other 2 are also not guilty but concerned about backlash to them and their families (not sure on the validity of these sources, not really sure how they would know?).

I suggest if you see this anywhere, take with a grain of salt

May I ask the sources?

 

[Achy Blakey Heart]

Apparently multiple threats being made by BLM protesters and the uncle of George Floyd towards the jury in an attempt to force a guilty verdict. Scarin jury members from making lawful decisions is in essence terrorism.
Disgusting. They should be charged.

 

[Big_Birdy]

May I ask the sources?

From what I’ve seen just your sort of Twitter/YouTube style reporters. Nothing reputable

 

[Achy Blakey Heart]

From what I’ve seen just your sort of Twitter/YouTube style reporters. Nothing reputable

Unless it’s left leaning socials reporters hating on right winger then it’s gospel hey.

Ironic

 

[PTizzle]

Apparently multiple threats being made by BLM protesters and the uncle of George Floyd towards the jury in an attempt to force a guilty verdict. Scarin jury members from making lawful decisions is in essence terrorism.
Disgusting. They should be charged.

Source?

 

[Osho]

He was protecting small businesses from being torched by arsonists.

Literally. He had a fire extinguisher and was attempting to douse fires lit by the BLM rioters when he was attacked.

I was like you: thinking "Who's this f-wit who takes a gun to a BLM protest and shoots people?"

The media reports gave the impression of a young Rambo-style vigilante who travelled hours from interstate and was walking around with his AR-15 and itching to kill someone. But it turns out Kenosha was where his dad lived and very close by to where he lived. A bit like someone from Tweed Heads travelling "interstate" to a protest in Coolangatta. So the media lied about that.

I think there was element of idiotic 'heroism' to his actions, but not necessarily any evil intent. I think he genuinely went there to help protect local businesses because the police and firefighters were not. He probably felt that someone had to do it. Maybe not the wisest decision in retrospect, but he was only a 17 year old kid.

Accused US protest shooter takes stand in murder trial

Alleged teen US protest shooter Kyle Rittenhouse is in court answering charges of killing two men and wounding a third during unrest that erupted in August 2020, after the wounding of a black man by a white Kenosha police officer.

www.abc.net.au

Rittenhouse testified that he saw videos of violence in downtown Kenosha on the day before the shootings, including a brick being thrown at a police officer's head and cars burning in a dealership lot. Rittenhouse said the dealership owner "was happy we were there".

Rittenhouse said he was walking towards a car dealer's lot with a fire extinguisher to put out a blaze when he heard somebody scream, "burn in hell". He responded by saying, "friendly, friendly, friendly" and then began to flee when he saw Mr Rosenbaum and another protester with a gun running towards him. The other protester, Joshua Ziminski, told Rosenbaum: "Get him and kill him."

Rittenhouse said he heard a gunshot directly behind him [Ziminski firing into the air] and, as he turned around, he saw Rosenbaum coming at him with his arms out in front. "I remember his hand on the barrel of my gun..."



Tough situation. What would you do?

Hard for us non-gun owning, non-Americans to appreciate. I think all of us Aussies tend to be biased against American gun owners and assume they're the wrong-doers in these situations. But the American laws and culture are different to ours.

I like to think I wouldn't be there in the first place. Avoid trouble.. But that's the older, wiser, more careful me talking... But what if you or I were in his shoes...? So let's say you've got a gun and then a crazy man threatened to kill you and actually chased after you when you tried to run. Would you let him just take your gun away from you?

There are still lots of gun owners in Australia

The prosecution should have made more of the intention of taking a weapon out, as weapon owners by virtue of taking a weapon out publicly can be characterised as being willing to use it, being partway premeditating or planning to use it. The prosecution could have gone through all the painstaking details of preparing the weapon, to create the possibility or probability of presentiment.

Bizarrely, the prosecution aimed a weapon at some of the jury, apparently, with his finger on the
trigger, which I would have thought could be classed as unduly influencing them in some way?

 

[Osho]

Apparently multiple threats being made by BLM protesters and the uncle of George Floyd towards the jury in an attempt to force a guilty verdict. Scarin jury members from making lawful decisions is in essence terrorism.
Disgusting. They should be charged.

I heard on a random podcast the jury is not going to be sequestered, which will open them up to an array of external influences if true. Seems an odd decision from my layperson's perspective.

 

[RookiePick]

Bizarrely, the defence aimed a weapon at some of the jury, apparently, with his finger on the
trigger, which I would have thought could be classed as unduly influencing them in some way?

Prosecution?