Kyle Rittenhouse - The Truth in 11 Minutes

[ClearwaterVol]

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.

What a myopic view of things you have.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

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

He was committing a crime by possessing a firearm. He's admitted that.

 

[hog88]

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.

If the CJ system was interested in justice the state would pay for the defense. Whatever the prosecutor budgets for the case the defense gets the same amount of money.

 

[C-south]

He was committing a crime by possessing a firearm. He's admitted that.

Lol. You’re really reaching. I’m sure an applicable example would be more like if a criminal goes to rob a store, points the gun at the clerk, the clerk pulls a gun on him, the criminal shoots the clerk then attempts to claim self defense. If the clerk had shot the criminal and didn’t have permit or even had the gun illegally I highly doubt they would be charged with murder.

 

[volinbham]

He was committing a crime by possessing a firearm. He's admitted that.

seems a stretch to say you aren't entitled to self-defense for that particular illegal behavior.

 

[MontyPython]

He was using a skateboard as the weapon genius

Rosenbaum didn't have the skateboard, genius. Huber had the skateboard.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

seems a stretch to say you aren't entitled to self-defense for that particular illegal behavior.

Lol. You’re really reaching. I’m sure an applicable example would be more like if a criminal goes to rob a store, points the gun at the clerk, the clerk pulls a gun on him, the criminal shoots the clerk then attempts to claim self defense. If the clerk had shot the criminal and didn’t have permit or even had the gun illegally I highly doubt they would be charged with murder.

C-South - That is not how the legislature wrote the statute. You would be asking for a liberal interpretation to interpret it in that manner. You could certainly be correct, I just found the language interesting.

Both - He doesn't lose the defense altogether. He loses the presumption which raises the bar on what he will have to show.

 

[volinbham]

C-South - That is not how the legislature wrote the statute. You would be asking for a liberal interpretation to interpret it in that manner. You could certainly be correct, I just found the language interesting.

Both - He doesn't lose the defense altogether. He loses the presumption which raises the bar on what he will have to show.

If someone has weed on them in a state where it's illegal they technically meet the "committing a crime" but it's hard to imagine that would render their right to self defense waived.

 

[ButchPlz]

If someone has weed on them in a state where it's illegal they technically meet the "committing a crime" but it's hard to imagine that would render their right to self defense waived.

I guess we can just go start executing druggies for fun now.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

If someone has weed on them in a state where it's illegal they technically meet the "committing a crime" but it's hard to imagine that would render their right to self defense waived.

Driving drunk, in many states, renders your carry worthless.

 

[hog88]

Driving drunk, in many states, renders your carry worthless.

That's an apples to orangutans comparison to this situation.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

That's an apples to orangutans comparison to this situation.

So was his example. Just providing a real world example. But you be you.

 

[vols4sure]

seems a stretch to say you aren't entitled to self-defense for that particular illegal behavior.

As i read it, he is still entitled to claim self defense. The issue would be whether the court "shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm." If it is found he was "engaged in a criminal activity," the court cannot presume his reasonable belief. My question would be whether a misdemeanor gun charge is considered "engaged in criminal activity" in this scenario under Wisconsin law. That is where legal research would be needed and may have already been decided by the court. I am sure the presumption issue would be in the jury instructions.

 

[volinbham]

Driving drunk, in many states, renders your carry worthless.

Yet if someone attacked you I doubt that would remove your self defense right.

My example is more relevant because the crime is illegal possession of something as the sole crime. In one case it's a weapon, in the other a controlled substance. You added a second crime (drunk driving) which creates the illegal possession crime and even there I doubt it means your self defense rights are challenged.

 

[hog88]

So was his example. Just providing a real world example. But you be you.

No, his example is relevant. Yours is completely irrelevant since possession of a firearm while intoxicated is illegal in all 50 states whether a person has a carry permit or not.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

No, his example is relevant. Yours is completely irrelevant since possession of a firearm while intoxicated is illegal in all 50 states whether a person has a carry permit or not.

I don't know that it is illegal in all 50 states.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Yet if someone attacked you I doubt that would remove your self defense right.

My example is more relevant because the crime is illegal possession of something as the sole crime. In one case it's a weapon, in the other a controlled substance. You added a second crime (drunk driving) which creates the illegal possession crime and even there I doubt it means your self defense rights are challenged.

one crime, possession of weed
one crime, dui

each crime could theoretically remove the right you had to do something otherwise.

 

[hog88]

I don't know that it is illegal in all 50 states.

It is.

 

[volinbham]

one crime, possession of weed
one crime, dui

each crime could theoretically remove the right you had to do something otherwise.

removing the right to carry is miles away from removing some rights to self defense claims

they are independent events (carry vs self defense) - if they weren't we'd just use the same laws for all circumstances

 

[hog88]

one crime, possession of weed
one crime, dui

each crime could theoretically remove the right you had to do something otherwise.

2 crimes with the DUI.

 

[RockyTop85]

He was committing a crime by possessing a firearm. He's admitted that.

He did attempt to retreat, so I think he still gets the self defense instruction.

 

[n_huffhines]

PTSD eh? I wonder if the GIRL Rittenhouse punched in the face suffers the same.

Video shows Kenosha shooter Kyle Rittenhouse punching a girl: report

It does look like him but if it were him we would know for sure. There were witnesses to the punch. Somebody from his HS would have said it's him.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

It is.

Last I heard Oregon and Washington had no drunk law relating to carry rights.

 

[Caculator]

I don't know that it is illegal in all 50 states.

Liberals have to pretend not to know things

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Liberals have to pretend not to know things

Unlike you trump fans, I try to stay away from blanket statements of fact when I am not sure of the answer. But keep on pretending you know things when you don't.