Kyle Rittenhouse

[washparkhorn 9973]

36 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

I agree it’s dumb to try to disarm an active shooter carrying his AR in the ready position after he killed someone but it’s not illegal either. 

Some could call it . . . self defense or defense of others.

But definitely dumb. 

[henrygandorf 29225]

41 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

which begs the question if Rosenbaum was still locked up for being a serial child rapist or just not traveled to Kenosha, would anyone have been killed that night?

so your quarrel is with the criminal justice/incarceration system?

if you take the child rapist out, somebody still may die.  if you take the weapon out, pretty good chance all 4 of them go on with their lives.

[henrygandorf 29225]

1 minute ago, elfenix said:

*raises. 

*folds.

[Bevo14 8468]

28 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

It isn't legal to attack someone who shot someone in self defense.

Sweet. Mass murderers know how to play it now. Wait for one person to make you "fear for your life", then self-defense their ass, then you have carte Blanche to mow down anybody that tries to disarm you, unarmed or not.

Edited November 12, 2021 by Bevo14

[Chuckie Finster 23067]

There are two different conversations overlapping.  

I do not doubt Rittenhouse feared for his life.  And, by the letter of the law, it certainly appears that a not guilty conviction is not an unreasonable conclusion.

But common sense just makes this whole situation fucking suck.  There's no doubt that, as a die-hard Astros fan, I could put myself in a situation where I fear for my life in/around Dodger Stadium (for the purposes of this analogy, let's pretend California is open carry).  And there's no doubt that I could put myself in a situation where shooting someone for my own safety is legally justified.  But I don't put myself in that situation, because I'm not a fucking idiot.

All of the evidence (real evidence, not made up stories for the court) confirm that this dude is a POS of the highest order.  I don't think he planned to go murder people that night, but he sure as hell willingly entered a combative situation without the training or mindset needed for the weapon he was carrying.  He got rowdy living his Call of Duty fantasy, shit predictably escalated, and he used the tools he brought along to (in his mind) stay alive.  

I'm not arguing about a verdict.  Most people can see where this is headed.  It just really fucking sucks and was so goddamn preventable. 

Edited November 12, 2021 by Chuckie Finster

[Chooky 13340]

38 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I don't know why.  I don't know why they were burning shit and destroying property.  I guess because they are criminals doing criminal shit?

I have no doubt this was your same sentiment on January 6th.

[Gourmand 7778]

13 minutes ago, Bravo said:

It was a question obviously asking you to quote the exact lie you stated before. A normal person would include the actual lie they referenced.

He knew Rosenbaum was unarmed and did not have a gun. He admits it in his testimony. Yet he lied immediately after to bystanders who asked him why he shot that guy and he told them the guy had a gun. He knew he had crossed a line and shot someone out of a big giant oopsie moment.

Edited November 12, 2021 by Gourmand

[Brian Fantana 6865]

I'd like to offer this post, written by a good friend of mine (different attorney than the juvenile defender I spoke of earlier in the thread, but also with extensive trial experience). Slightly edited for privacy concerns, but without editorial. Also, yeah yeah TLDR fuck you suck my cock.

First off, I'm not an expert or even minimally knowledgeable in WI criminal law, evidence procedure. I can't even tell you which quadrant of WI Kenosha is in. This is all very generally about the way trials work, philosophy, burdens and why we have juries and such. I don't really have any notion of whether this kid (and he was a kid) broke the law. That's what the trial is supposed to be deciding. 

So let's start with that. What a trial is supposed to do. There is a process for obtaining and disclosing evidence, it happens prior to trial. No "new" evidence should come out at trial except in very edge case circumstances. In the criminal context, there is an affirmative burden for disclosure of evidence. 

In a criminal context, the burden is ALWAYS on the government to prove their case. The Defendant isn't even required to present a defense, and at the end of the government's case, they can ask the judge to just grant a directed verdict if they haven't met their burden. It's rarely successful, because the prosecutor knows what they have to prove. There is a roadmap of elements that, if proven, means the person is guilty and get whatever the law says.

The Defendant is given no such roadmap. The Defendant's job is to poke holes in the theory of the case. Some people really don't like this. But the role of the attorney in a criminal trial is to keep the prosecutor honest. Sometimes that means making defenses that feel offensive to the outside world. Sometimes, like math class, it's just making them show their work instead of their conclusions. 

In this "zoomed in photo/video" thing, what I suspect happened was the government disclosed they intended to use the unzoomed video. At trial, they decided to modify the evidence they wanted to present. If they'd done this earlier, the defendant would have made their objection, it would have been briefed and the prosecutor probably gets in it. Instead, the Defendant argued that they hadn't set an adequate foundation for the evidence to come in and the prosecutor wasn't familiar enough with his own evidence to argue it. Defendant should never be presented with unexpected evidence. While this is an edge case (it's the same evidence, presented differently), this is still the prosecutors burden. I was kind of alarmed by this. You don't just get to determine what evidence is given to the jury, but the form and presentation of it as well. The prosecutor tried to change the rules of the game mid-trial and the Defendant called them on it. 

The reporting on this is messy because it's being set out as the judge not knowing how this works, but the honest to god truth is with the exception of maybe 1-2 people reading this, no one here could testify with requisite expertise how the zoom algorithms on the devices work. We can make assumptions. And maybe those are right. Most of the time it's irrelevant. But when we're talking about a murder charge it's important that the jury isn't wondering if a brown pixel was actually a brown "thing", or a computer interpretation of the surrounding colors. 99.9% of the time, it's a distinction without a difference. But if the jury is trying to determine if there is a gun in someone's pocket or the like, you want to make sure they have the actual facts. I'm glad the judge didn't try and say "well, it's close enough." 

Defendants SHOULD get the benefit of all inferences at trial. The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. We shouldn't just be comfortable when we lock someone away, we should be certain. This isn't a football game, it's someone's life. 

The legal reporting on this trial has been atrocious. I do not know anything about this judge. He's probably awful. Most of them all. But every single decision I've seen criticized has been at least arguably correct. The decision not to allow someone to be convicted by trying the sympathies for the "victims" is a good thing. When you're on trial and your defense is self-defense, labeling the dead a victim is a Choice, and a prejudicial one. 

The trial is theatre. Both sides know what evidence is going to be put on, and their job is to present it in a way that is most compelling to the jury. Extreme efforts go into making sure only the intended facts are presented to them. Sometimes this means bad guys go free. Sometimes it means the bad guys who back the defendant get to claim a political victory. That's okay too. Convicting someone for politics is horrible. 

At the end of the day, a substantial number of people believed that this kid left his home, went to a riot with an illegally obtained gun and was looking for trouble. That's almost certainly all true. But it doesn't make it murder. 

I might even be willing to concede that had this kid had enough time, he might have been looking for someone to fight with. From what it appears, he didn't have to find a fight, it found him. 

Now, philosophically I'm not a fan of guns. I am not a fan of the law that allows people to defend property with deadly force either. But those issues aren't on trial here. Whether this kid, when presented with whatever happened that caused him to kill two people, was justified in doing so, is what's on trial. I don't know the answer to that and frankly I'm not going to watch the entire trial to try and find the answer for myself. He may have put himself in a bad situation. He may have even wanted to. But it doesn't change whether or not he was in legitimate fear for his life as a result. That's for the jury to decide.

What I do know is he definitely shouldn't go to jail because the white supremacists chose him as their cause célèbre. 

Now, all that aside, the justice system isn't fair. It's not fair that this kid gets a fair trial because he managed to have a bunch of chuds throw money at his defense. If that hadn't happened, he'd likely be faced with serious charges and a shoe-string defense budget. 

If you end up upset at the verdict here (and he may still be convicted. Nearly every trial has victories that go the Defendant's way and they still lose), please try and channel your anger to the right place. The goal isn't to make sure every well-heeled chud gets convicted when he goes to court. The goal is to make sure everyone gets just as fair of a trial as those who can afford to make it happen. Public defenders shouldn't have tiny budgets and enormous case loads. It shouldn't be permissible (and easy) to craft a hostile jury.

We incarcerate far too many people and we're not safer because of it. There is no world of reform that will result in better conviction rates against the rich and/or white that won't result in disproportionately hurting those that aren't.

If I had the ability to wave my magic wand, I'd want jury reform. I'll post more about that in another post.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

9 minutes ago, Chooky said:

I have no doubt this was your same sentiment on January 6th.

Basically, yes.

I don't think it was like another Pearl Harbor or 9-11.  But I understand the politics of that hyperbole.

[Satchel 6982]

48 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

It is when you witness none of it and just join an angry mob attacking KR for legally exercising his right to self defense. He wasn't actively shooting anyone that Huber or Gaige ever saw.

You don't get to shoot someone based on hearsay without grounds to believe it was an unlawful shooting.

He was brandishing a gun that he was illegally possessing. He had to know that.

[Chooky 13340]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

Basically, yes.

I don't think it was like another Pearl Harbor or 9-11.  But I understand the politics of that hyperbole.

So not "criminals." Got it. Your tolerance for vandalism and destruction is purely based on ideology. 

[elfenix 34749]

14 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

But when we're talking about a murder charge it's important that the jury isn't wondering if a brown pixel was actually a brown "thing", or a computer interpretation of the surrounding colors.

for a bayer sensor (which is pretty much all of them), that's exactly what it is, even in an unzoomed state. 

even a foveon sensor where each pixel can see "full spectrum" that really just means they each see red, green, and blue.  the resulting output of the pixel at that position is still algorithmically determined. 

i know that doesn't address the problem of the prosecutor presenting the evidence in a different form suddenly at trial. 

Edited November 12, 2021 by elfenix

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 minutes ago, Satchel said:

He was brandishing a gun that he was illegally possessing. He had to know that.

Again with the illegal possession.  It is only relevant to whether he is convicted on the minor in possession of deadly weapon charge, a misdemeanor.  His self defense claim does not turn on whether he is 17 years and 8 months old and illegally carrying or 18 and legally carrying.

Say a woman in Kenosha is illegally carrying a pistol in her hand.  Someone attacks her and begins raping her.  She shoots her attacker dead.  She might catch a gun charge, but her illegal possession of a pistol does not in any way vitiate her right to self defense.

 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

4 minutes ago, Chooky said:

So not "criminals." Got it. Your tolerance for vandalism and destruction is purely based on ideology. 

I may have misunderstood.  Yes, criminals.  Just like the people who criminally attacked KR.

[South Austin 53222]

23 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

But common sense just makes this whole situation fucking suck.  There's no doubt that, as a die-hard Astros fan, I could put myself in a situation where I fear for my life in/around Dodger Stadium (for the purposes of this analogy, let's pretend California is open carry).  And there's no doubt that I could put myself in a situation where shooting someone for my own safety is legally justified.  But I don't put myself in that situation, because I'm not a fucking idiot.

Completely agree.  And setting aside Rittenhouse's self-defense defense and whether he should've been in Kenosha in the first place, I hope another lesson learned in all this is that those fuckers he shot were absolute morons to go near him.

Even if I was tempted to leave my home that night and watch from a distance all of the destruction in Kenosha, if I see some kid running down the street with a semi-automatic rifle, I'm staying the fuck away.  I'm not making fun of his haircut.  I'm not saying shit to him.  I'm not going anywhere near him. 

Maybe he has the best intentions to assist law enforcement, provide medical assistance, protect property, or whatever the hell else Rittenhouse says he was there for.  Maybe the gun isn't even loaded, and/or the kid is too much of a chickenshit to actually pull the trigger.  But for all I know, he's had a really bad week, or has some other reason to come unhinged, and I'm not going to be the one to test him.  Because I'm not going to leave my kids fatherless while others debate about whether he was justified in shooting me.

tl;dr version:  Don't bring a knife skateboard to a gun fight.

Edited November 12, 2021 by South Austin

[Satchel 6982]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Again with the illegal possession.  It is only relevant to whether he is convicted on the minor in possession of deadly weapon charge, a misdemeanor.  His self defense claim does not turn on whether he is 17 years and 8 months old and illegally carrying or 18 and legally carrying.

Say a woman in Kenosha is illegally carrying a pistol in her hand.  Someone attacks her and begins raping her.  She shoots her attacker dead.  She might catch a gun charge, but her illegal possession of a pistol does not in any way vitiate her right to self defense.

 

But for his illegal possession of the gun, the two people he shot to death would be alive today.

[henrygandorf 29225]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Again with the illegal possession. 

i think it's more about rittenhouse's state of mind right after the killing.  are you saying that no part of him also thought "shit, i'm not even really supposed to be carrying this weapon" or do you think a 17 year old's brain just went into straight "innocent on account of self-defense" mindset?

3 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Say a woman in Kenosha is illegally carrying a pistol in her hand.  Someone attacks her and begins raping her.  She shoots her attacker dead.  She might catch a gun charge, but her illegal possession of a pistol does not in any way vitiate her right to self defense.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

7 minutes ago, Satchel said:

But for his illegal possession of the gun, the two people he shot to death would be alive today.

But for about a million different things the two people he shot to death would be alive today.  That really isn't a point for convicting someone of murder.

[conVINCEd 21477]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

But for about a million different things the two people he shot to death would be alive today.  That really isn't a point for convicting someone of murder.

So I’m legally allowed to show up at the next MAGA rally wearing a gritty tshirt and shoot anyone who makes me feel threatened?

[henrygandorf 29225]

Just now, conVINCEd said:

So I’m legally allowed to show up at the next MAGA rally wearing a gritty tshirt and shoot anyone who makes me feel threatened?

yes, but it would help if one of them had a skateboard or a criminal past.  you should also wait until somebody threatens you out loud, should take about 30 seconds.

[washparkhorn 9973]

3 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

yes, but it would help if one of them had a skateboard or a criminal past.  you should also wait until somebody threatens you out loud, should take about 30 seconds.

[South Austin 53222]

2 minutes ago, conVINCEd said:

So I’m legally allowed to show up at the next MAGA rally wearing a gritty tshirt and shoot anyone who makes me feel threatened?

Yes.  But to help your future legal defense, clean up some grafitti.  And offer people medical assistance, preferably before you shoot them.  But after is okay, too.

[joe dirt 285]

i, for one, am glad that this kid had his illegally obtained assault rifle handy so he could legally shoot some people while engaging in the illegal act of vigilantism.

 

wait, what?

[Satchel 6982]

9 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

But for about a million different things the two people he shot to death would be alive today.  That really isn't a point for convicting someone of murder.

A “little boy” brought a assault weapon to help him render aid at a protest event. Or so the story goes.

[Fudge Nuggets 19455]

25 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Even if I was tempted to leave my home that night and watch from a distance all of the destruction in Kenosha, if I see some kid running down the street with a semi-automatic rifle, I'm staying the fuck away.  I'm not making fun of his haircut.  I'm not saying shit to him.  I'm not going anywhere near him. 

Sounds like you would be in fear for your life and justified in shooting him.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

33 minutes ago, conVINCEd said:

So I’m legally allowed to show up at the next MAGA rally wearing a gritty tshirt and shoot anyone who makes me feel threatened?

If you are not threatening anyone and they threaten to kill you twice if they catch you alone, chase you where you are cornered, and grab your rifle while lunging at you, yes.

If they swing a skateboard at your head and try and take your gun while you are laying on the ground about a second after someone else kicks you in the head, yes,

If they point a Glock at your head, yes.

Just your subjective belief you feel threatened and nothing else, no.  That's not how the law of self defense works anywhere.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

29 minutes ago, Satchel said:

A “little boy” brought a assault weapon to help him render aid at a protest event. Or so the story goes.

Seems like a wise choice to show up armed when leftist Brown Shirts are out attacking people for putting out fires they started,

[Gourmand 7778]

ICYMI

 

[Chuckie Finster 23067]

11 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

"not threatening anyone"

[Satchel 6982]

8 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Seems like a wise choice to show up armed when leftist Brown Shirts are out attacking people for putting out fires they started,

But he was only there to render aid. Why else would a little boy have his mommy drive him across state lines with a big ass assault weapon?

[Satchel 6982]

Just now, Chuckie Finster said:

The bandaids are in his pocket. You just can’t see them.

[washparkhorn 9973]

7 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

ICYMI

 

Captive audience. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

11 minutes ago, Satchel said:

But he was only there to render aid. Why else would a little boy have his mommy drive him across state lines with a big ass assault weapon?

Still parroting that bullshit.  The gun never left WI.  Even the state says that.

It is nice to see liberals care about borders for a change.

[South Austin 53222]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Still parroting that bullshit.  The gun never left WI.  Even the state says that.

And his mommy didn’t drive him. He rode his bicycle.

[washparkhorn 9973]

30 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Just your subjective belief you feel threatened and nothing else, no.  That's not how the law of self defense works anywhere.

Cite?

What controls in a claim of self-defense is whether the killer reasonably perceived that he was being threatened with an unlawful imminent deadly force attack.  One doesn't need to be correct in that perception; one merely needs to be reasonable in that perception.

The issue in this case is whether the killer was the initial aggressor, which, if proven, would prevent the use self-defense by the shooter.  

Edited November 12, 2021 by washparkhorn

[DigglerontheHoof 21551]

1 hour ago, conVINCEd said:

So I’m legally allowed to show up at the next MAGA rally wearing a gritty tshirt and shoot anyone who makes me feel threatened?

Works for me. 

[workswithseed 2204]

5 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

You're such a pussy. Honestly, the biggest fucking pussy. I'm so glad I don't have to go through life being such a fucking coward.

You're the one crying. 

[David Dennison 19537]

1 hour ago, conVINCEd said:

So I’m legally allowed to show up at the next MAGA rally wearing a gritty tshirt and shoot anyone who makes me feel threatened?

Does Secret Service let you pack heat at a rally where a former president is in attendance? 

[Satchel 6982]

12 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Still parroting that bullshit.  The gun never left WI.  Even the state says that.

It is nice to see liberals care about borders for a change.

So, he picked the gun up at the Rite Aid while shopping for first aid supplies?

[Carl Spackler 3615]

2 hours ago, Incredulity said:

multiple witnesses testified to him yelling, "I catch any of you guys alone tonight I'm going to fucking kill you"

Was the testimony that Rosenbaum yelled this directly at Rittenhouse?  Or in Rittenhouse's presence?

Or was the testimony that Rosenbaum was just yelling this in general?

[Incredulity 11876]

3 minutes ago, Carl Spackler said:

Was the testimony that Rosenbaum yelled this directly at Rittenhouse?  Or in Rittenhouse's presence?

Or was the testimony that Rosenbaum was just yelling this in general?

I would say the testimony was Rosenbaum yelled it multiple times at groups of people Rittenhouse was part of.  
 

I don’t recall testimony that there was singular communication between KR and Rosenbaum.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

8 minutes ago, Carl Spackler said:

Was the testimony that Rosenbaum yelled this directly at Rittenhouse?  Or in Rittenhouse's presence?

Or was the testimony that Rosenbaum was just yelling this in general?

Multiple people testified that Rosenbaum twice told Kyle and his group that if he caught any of them alone that night that he would kill them.

[Anastasis 23717]

 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

24 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Cite?

What controls in a claim of self-defense is whether the killer reasonably perceived that he was being threatened with an unlawful imminent deadly force attack.  One doesn't need to be correct in that perception; one merely needs to be reasonable in that perception.

The issue in this case is whether the killer was the initial aggressor, which, if proven, would prevent the use self-defense by the shooter.  

You see that part "reasonable" -- that means you cannot just feel threatened.  Lots of people feel threatened.  The test is not your subjective own subjective belief you were threatened.  The test is your perception of the threat must be reasonable under the circumstances.  And unreasonable perception of a threat -- like going to attack someone who is merely walking down the street open carrying a rifle -- does not get you there.

[RomaVicta 30580]

35 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Still parroting that bullshit.  The gun never left WI.  Even the state says that.

It is nice to see liberals care about borders for a change.

What in this picture suggests he is there to "help" anyone. This is combat patrol cosplay with real bullets. 

There is no enemy present. There is a mix of protesters, rioters, and vandals mostly furious at the low value law enforcement places on black life. There is no reason for a combat patrol such as we see here. If there were, why aren't the police or the National Guard doing it?

His presence here is provocative. By all appearances, it's intended to be so.

But people have the right to open carry guns! Even military rifles!

And here we see why that's a terrible idea. Only the ability to walk with a military weapon makes this person willing to appear in this place. Willing? Eager is more accurate. 

Do the characters in the photo give any appearance of wanting to render aid? Put out fires? No, their primary presentation is as gunmen walking in a place where white gunmen have roused fury. 

Rittenhouse fufills his cosplay dreams. He got to shoot some bad guys. It's a symptom of this sick society.

Should he be convicted of murder? What do I know? I'm not sure that's the most important thing going on here. We have heavily armed citizens showing up at political events often to intimidate their own politcal opposites.

That the law in some places allows this shows how far off the tracks our violent, gun-obsessed mythology has taken us. We've got degenerates passing laws to protect gunmen then celebrating a trigger-happy teen.

The law should not be protecting the vigilantes pictured above no matter how goofy Johnny Sack's worldview is about good guys with guns killing bad guys with guns.

It's fucking nuts. It's out of control. 

Oh look, some more good citizens patrolling the streets looking to render aid!

Thank God these guys are in the building guarding against fires!

E'erybody out exercising their rights and lookin' to help folks out!

All with such good trigger finger discipline just like in the movies!

Although black people have more to complain about regarding rights and oppression than lily white me or brave Johnny Sack. They've also come out on the shit end of our violent mythology more than anybody else as well except for maybe the Indians.

Focusing on the details of Rittenhouse's case feels like a big distraction from what his actions really say about this country and our laws.

Edited November 12, 2021 by RomaVicta

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Serious question: Did Kyle have any self-defense right that night, in your mind, given the context you are referring to (i.e., bringing a gun to a volatile situation, etc.)? In other words, is your contention that no matter what happened, Kyle lost the right to defend himself the moment he arrived?

If that is your argument, then that is contrary to the law. If that isn't your argument, then your "context" is irrelevant.

Roma -- he was putting out fires.  And rendering medical aid.  He only shouldered his weapon when attacked for putting out a fire by a crazy unstable felon who previously threatened to kill him and chased him down.

[David Dennison 19537]

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

You see that part "reasonable" -- that means you cannot just feel threatened.  Lots of people feel threatened.  The test is not your subjective own subjective belief you were threatened.  The test is your perception of the threat must be reasonable under the circumstances.  And unreasonable perception of a threat -- like going to attack someone who is merely walking down the street open carrying a rifle -- does not get you there.

It is not unreasonable to feel threatened by a private citizen walking down the street open carrying an assault rifle.

[Chuckie Finster 23067]

9 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Serious question: Did Kyle have any self-defense right that night, in your mind, given the context you are referring to (i.e., bringing a gun to a volatile situation, etc.)? In other words, is your contention that no matter what happened, Kyle lost the right to defend himself the moment he arrived?

Legally?  Sure, that's why he's gonna walk.

Logically?  He knew what he was getting into.  

Edited November 12, 2021 by Chuckie Finster

[Incredulity 11876]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It is not unreasonable to feel threatened by a private citizen walking down the street open carrying an assault rifle.

Is it not unreasonable to feel threatened by people who are throwing rocks at you?

Multiple people testified that Rosenbaum was throwing rocks at Rittenhouse and others.  No one shot at him.

[Covri 6368]

6 hours ago, brakeman said:

wow.