Kyle Rittenhouse - The Truth in 11 Minutes

[BreatheUT]

Law 101: Castle Law doesn't apply to someone defending cars when the vandals aren't armed. Shooting them is the crime.

I guess we'll find out huh?

 

[NorthDallas40]

I guess we'll find out huh?

Not really. Nobody is touting Rittenhouse killed to defend property the defense is clearly pointing out Rittenhouse killed in self defense. As usual MP is “winning” a stupid ass argument nobody else is having

 

[BreatheUT]

And I'm fairly certain it has been established by video, multiple other witnesses, and the guy that pointed his gun at Rittenhouse that he only shot people that were actively attacking him.

Video evidence doesn't matter. You don't see what you think you see on video. People are entitled to their own facts using hearsay and changing the understanding of the video. The good guys we're the original law breakers.

 

[BreatheUT]

Not really. Nobody is touting Rittenhouse killed to defend property the defense is clearly pointing out Rittenhouse killed in self defense. As usual MP is “winning” a stupid ass argument nobody else is having

That's why I only highlighted the last sentence. The rest of it was a waste of time.

 

[ButchPlz]

Video evidence doesn't matter. You don't see what you think you see on video. People are entitled to their own facts using hearsay and changing the understanding of the video. The good guys we're the original law breakers.

I wish I was sheltered enough to walk through life that stupid.

 

[Rickyvol77]

"But McGinniss also appeared to boost the prosecution's case when he said he had a sense that something bad could happen that night because of all the guns in the area. The prosecutor also elicited testimony from McGinniss and Balch that affirmed Rosenbaum was not armed that night and did not actually hurt anyone."

He was using a skateboard as the weapon genius

 

[NorthDallas40]

He was using a skateboard as the weapon genius

Actually he was using a skateboard to perform his own suicide/euthanasia a difference without distinction maybe.

 

[Rickyvol77]

Never punched a girl. Never known ANY guy who has punched a girl. Fair to say, I believe, that Rittenhouse has mental issues.

He hit a girl who assaulted his sister and hit him in the head. stupid teenage stuff? Yea so what. At least he wasn’t a child molester or a communist. You trying to justify the assault of Rittenhouse is ridiculous

 

[Rickyvol77]

The "cornered him" phrase again... where y'all coming up with this? Rittenhouse was never cornered. If you believe otherwise, link it.

The video was pretty clear he was

 

[RockyTop85]

Any data on what % of cases that are brought to grand juries result in indictments? Seems to be designed to have a very high rate.

I know the FISA cases were astronomically successful though the counter claim was that they only bring cases that are rock solid.

I don’t have any data. I used to read Chattanoogan
.com publication of the grand jury no-bills and true-bills every week. I would estimate that maybe 3-5% of defendants had all their cases no-billed. That’s probably being generous.

 

[Sea Ray]

The solution is two fold.

First, Rittenhouse provoked confrontation. It's why he was there. So he bears at least some criminal culpability for going out of his way (far out of his way) to create his own need to use deadly force.

Second, those who then took the bait as it were and confronted or threatened him also bear some criminal responsibility for what happened.

But the latter does not justify the former.

Had a BLM protestor from Detroit shown up with a rifle to register his dissatisfaction with what was going on and ended up shooting several folks I guarantee you a lot of the people here would view this differently.

You're confusing facts with opinion. I would think a LawGator would know better. Bolded above is not a fact, it's opinion.

All that is secondary to the main point: If someone is attacking you and threatening to kill you, you're justified to use whatever force necessary to defend yourself

 

[lawgator1]

You're confusing facts with opinion. I would think a LawGator would know better. Bolded above is not a fact, it's opinion.

All that is secondary to the main point: If someone is attacking you and threatening to kill you, you're justified to use whatever force necessary to defend yourself

As I said, it is a reasonable inference that it was his intent to provoke confrontation and that he did in fact find what he was looking for.

You all need to separate your political agendas from the legal ones.

 

[NorthDallas40]

As I said, it is a reasonable inference that it was his intent to provoke confrontation and that he did in fact find what he was looking for.

You all need to separate your political agendas from the legal ones.

That’s rich as hell considering the source

 

[BreatheUT]

As I said, it is a reasonable inference that it was his intent to provoke confrontation and that he did in fact find what he was looking for.

You all need to separate your political agendas from the legal ones.

When you're dealing with the legal system "feelings" shouldn't matter. Only the facts Champ.

We all know Rittenhouse should've been there as a "helper", but this is what happens when law enforcement refuses to do their job. Civilians step in. Last summer was a law enforcement failure of epic proportions. We can go into the many reasons why.

 

[ButchPlz]

 

[volinbham]

As I said, it is a reasonable inference that it was his intent to provoke confrontation and that he did in fact find what he was looking for.

You all need to separate your political agendas from the legal ones.

you are trying to apply charges where the evidence doesn't support them - you are asking the jury to "reasonably" infer that Rittenhouse intended to provoke confrontation and therefore deserves a finding a guilt for some inferred intent to provoke confrontation. All this beyond a reasonable doubt. as noted repeatedly - if this were the legal standard then a huge chunk of those attending the events that night would be guilty.

seems you are the one unable to separate a political agenda from the law.

 

[Vollifer1949]

As I said, it is a reasonable inference that it was his intent to provoke confrontation and that he did in fact find what he was looking for.

You all need to separate your political agendas from the legal ones.

If some of the lefty hot takes on the Rittenhouse trial seem confusing, understand they think left-wing stormtroopers and rioters have an absolute right to occupy and destroy any territory they please, and if there are injuries when you oppose them, it's on YOU. This is the core logic of terrorism: our cause is righteous, our demands must be granted, and if you force us to hurt you or destroy your property to get what we want, it's YOUR fault. You can stop the violence at any time by submitting. The ball is in YOUR court. Needless to say, the Left does not think anyone but themselves has any such intrinsic right to occupy and destroy. They believe they have a monopoly on righteous political violence. Only THEY should be given "space to destroy." Put another way, the Left thinks it has a unique and absolute right to nullify the social contract. They reserve the right to decide the System isn't working, society is unjust, their demands cannot be refused, and the authorities must stand back while they use force. That's one of the reason left-wing protests leave so much trash and filth behind, even when they aren't violent. They're checking out of the social contract for an afternoon, so they don't have to clean up after themselves. Here's the thing about the social contract, though: it only holds up if the government does its part, and the duty of the government is to prevent violence and vandalism, to protect private property and keep the streets open. Citizens must defend themselves if the State will not. The last thing a healthy society needs is criminals, predators, and totalitarians thinking they have a sea of soft targets to choose from when the State stands down, and they can make their own laws when officials decide not to enforce the law against them. Totalitarians think your personal safety and the integrity of your property are gifts from the State, and if the State is unable or unwilling to protect you, the correct response is to passively and meekly step back while rioters and thugs have their way. That's one reason the totalitarian Left despises the 2nd Amendment and gun rights. They're a bold refutation of the idea that citizens must surrender their lives and property to the mercy of the State. 2A gives you the right, and implicitly the duty, to defend yourself. The unhealthiest takes on Rittenhouse assert he needed to justify his presence to the left-wing thugs who seized power over the area, as if they were the new law and he needed to apply for a passport with them before entering their territory. Rittenhouse was an American visiting an American city, not a West German trying to get into East Berlin. Law-abiding citizens are not "responsible" for what lawless thugs decide to do when they walk down a public street. Thugs don't have a "right" to "occupy" ANYTHING.





https://twitter.com/Doc_0/status/1458786047953932292

 

[hog88]

As I said, it is a reasonable inference that it was his intent to provoke confrontation and that he did in fact find what he was looking for.

You all need to separate your political agendas from the legal ones.

The exact same argument goes for the guys he shot.

 

[0nelilreb]

He was using a skateboard as the weapon genius

Monty is either choosing to ignore or just blacked out during all the riots and why so many of them where carrying around skateboards . How many videos did we watch where people whacked others in the head and beat them during that time with skateboards .

 

[lawgator1]

When you're dealing with the legal system "feelings" shouldn't matter. Only the facts Champ.

We all know Rittenhouse should've been there as a "helper", but this is what happens when law enforcement refuses to do their job. Civilians step in. Last summer was a law enforcement failure of epic proportions. We can go into the many reasons why.

You are engaging in your second point exactly what you said you should not do in the first.

 

[vols4sure]

So "reasonable inference" that he was looking for confrontation = criminal culpability even though there is no evidence that he initiated a confrontation?

As I said, it is a reasonable inference that it was his intent to provoke confrontation and that he did in fact find what he was looking for.

You all need to separate your political agendas from the legal ones.

you are trying to apply charges where the evidence doesn't support them - you are asking the jury to "reasonably" infer that Rittenhouse intended to provoke confrontation and therefore deserves a finding a guilt for some inferred intent to provoke confrontation. All this beyond a reasonable doubt. as noted repeatedly - if this were the legal standard then a huge chunk of those attending the events that night would be guilty.

seems you are the one unable to separate a political agenda from the law.

Waiting........?

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Waiting........?

LG is busy with his filing cabinet at the moment.
Plus, he has to go out to get coffee for the office personnel.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.
(1)  A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
(1m) 
939.48(1m)(a)(a) In this subsection:
1. “Dwelling" has the meaning given in s. 895.07 (1) (h).
2. “Place of business" means a business that the actor owns or operates.
(ar) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies:
1. The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.
(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:
1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity at the time.
2. The person against whom the force was used was a public safety worker, as defined in s. 941.375 (1) (b), who entered or attempted to enter the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business in the performance of his or her official duties. This subdivision applies only if at least one of the following applies:
a. The public safety worker identified himself or herself to the actor before the force described in par. (ar) was used by the actor.
b. The actor knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business was a public safety worker.
(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(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.
(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.
(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.


No case law research, but this could be problematic for defense.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

If some of the lefty hot takes on the Rittenhouse trial seem confusing, understand they think left-wing stormtroopers and rioters have an absolute right to occupy and destroy any territory they please, and if there are injuries when you oppose them, it's on YOU. This is the core logic of terrorism: our cause is righteous, our demands must be granted, and if you force us to hurt you or destroy your property to get what we want, it's YOUR fault. You can stop the violence at any time by submitting. The ball is in YOUR court. Needless to say, the Left does not think anyone but themselves has any such intrinsic right to occupy and destroy. They believe they have a monopoly on righteous political violence. Only THEY should be given "space to destroy." Put another way, the Left thinks it has a unique and absolute right to nullify the social contract. They reserve the right to decide the System isn't working, society is unjust, their demands cannot be refused, and the authorities must stand back while they use force. That's one of the reason left-wing protests leave so much trash and filth behind, even when they aren't violent. They're checking out of the social contract for an afternoon, so they don't have to clean up after themselves. Here's the thing about the social contract, though: it only holds up if the government does its part, and the duty of the government is to prevent violence and vandalism, to protect private property and keep the streets open. Citizens must defend themselves if the State will not. The last thing a healthy society needs is criminals, predators, and totalitarians thinking they have a sea of soft targets to choose from when the State stands down, and they can make their own laws when officials decide not to enforce the law against them. Totalitarians think your personal safety and the integrity of your property are gifts from the State, and if the State is unable or unwilling to protect you, the correct response is to passively and meekly step back while rioters and thugs have their way. That's one reason the totalitarian Left despises the 2nd Amendment and gun rights. They're a bold refutation of the idea that citizens must surrender their lives and property to the mercy of the State. 2A gives you the right, and implicitly the duty, to defend yourself. The unhealthiest takes on Rittenhouse assert he needed to justify his presence to the left-wing thugs who seized power over the area, as if they were the new law and he needed to apply for a passport with them before entering their territory. Rittenhouse was an American visiting an American city, not a West German trying to get into East Berlin. Law-abiding citizens are not "responsible" for what lawless thugs decide to do when they walk down a public street. Thugs don't have a "right" to "occupy" ANYTHING.

Holy Crap ..... you don't get more correct than this post. Best post of the day.

 

[C-south]

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.
(1)  A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
(1m) 
939.48(1m)(a)(a) In this subsection:
1. “Dwelling" has the meaning given in s. 895.07 (1) (h).
2. “Place of business" means a business that the actor owns or operates.
(ar) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies:
1. The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.
(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:
1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity at the time.
2. The person against whom the force was used was a public safety worker, as defined in s. 941.375 (1) (b), who entered or attempted to enter the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business in the performance of his or her official duties. This subdivision applies only if at least one of the following applies:
a. The public safety worker identified himself or herself to the actor before the force described in par. (ar) was used by the actor.
b. The actor knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business was a public safety worker.
(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(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.
(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.
(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.


No case law research, but this could be problematic for defense.

So he was there to loot, riot, vandalize, assault, commit robbery, and shot someone trying trying to stop him from committing a crime?