Kyle Rittenhouse - The Truth in 11 Minutes

[NCFisher]

A couple of things: every teenager is an an observable idiot, every single one: there is no need to quality every Rittenhouse comment with the acknowledgement. The bigger idiots are the adult men who assaulted & battered a person with a gun.

Rittenhouse did not recklessly handle his rifle, nor shoot anyone who had not threatened him with harm and pursued him, tried to take his weapon which was his defense against them, or had not directly attacked him or threatened him with a gun. So, I disagree with comments that he's not guilty of murder but otherwise bears some nebulous responsibility; he doesn't. There is no evidence he threatened anyone and was therefore complicit in his own need to defend himself.

More people are murdered via battery with hands & feet each year than those killed with long guns (shotguns and rifles), which is why hands and feet are listed in the FBI UCR as weapons. "Unarmed" as reason for not responding with an auxiliary weapon (gun, knife) is the bleating, sophistic agenda of adult "idiots" trying to bend fact and law into alternate reality.

In 2020/2021, we witnessed a collapse of law and order not seen in our life times, and that includes the 60s/70s when at least the majority of both political parties understood government's fundamental reason for existing is to protect the life, liberty and property of the citizenry. Today, one party uses these violent leftists as advance shock troops. Their presidential candidate cannot bother to make a statement against the violence for three months and when he does, it's an oblique 'damn, I really hate doing this for optics sake' reference to violence generally. I observed in 2015/2016 as Antifa, BLM, and leftist groups were violently shutting down conservative speakers on campus and attacking counter protesters, then Trump supporters, that at some point these people were going to defend themselves. And they did, starting to show up with their own protective gear and clubs.

That's what happens when government doesn't fulfill its core responsibility; leave people no resort except to protect themselves and they will. The 'idiots' are those governors and mayors who stood by and made that necessary, indulged and emboldened more of the same. Frankly, I'm surprised protective citizen groups didn't appear all over the map; they have that right when government fails their responsibility just as surely as blacks exercised that right in the century following the Civil War.

 

[RockyTop85]

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.

I think you could fix a lot of the problems with the criminal legal system by ending the war on drugs and all of the petty laws, like criminalizing seat belt violations, that cropped up as a means of letting cops interact with you without consent.

Less stupid work for prosecutors, less stupid prosecutors, less stupid cops, less stupid people in jail, less stupid state-funded defense attorneys, less stupid judges.

A less bloated system would produce more focus on serious crimes by smarter people, and would produce a better system. IMO.

 

[KB5252]

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.

The guy announced his intentions to kill Ritt, he then chased Ritt, cornered him and reached for his weapon. Ritt did not discharge his weapon until Rose grabbed for his weapon.

He heard a gun shut from behind him as he again attempted to retreat. He was being chased and the was assaulted by another group, one swinging a weapon at him.... I don't think it unreasonable to believe his life was in danger at that moment. Enough to me the statutes you listed anyway. The witness testimony pretty much satisfies the elements needed wouldn't it?

 

[volinbham]

I think you could fix a lot of the problems with the criminal legal system by ending the war on drugs and all of the petty laws, like criminalizing seat belt violations, that cropped up as a means of letting cops interact with you without consent.

Less stupid work for prosecutors, less stupid prosecutors, less stupid cops, less stupid people in jail, less stupid state-funded defense attorneys, less stupid judges.

A less bloated system would produce more focus on serious crimes by smarter people, and would produce a better system. IMO.

100% agree

 

[hog88]

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

You may be correct and if so I’m surprised.

 

[0nelilreb]

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

That’s interesting to think about actually , if say I steal a loaf of bread to feed my family and three guys off the street see me do it , chase me down and start hitting me with clubs, pulls a pistol and beats me with a skateboard .. I no longer have the right to defend myself against them . Interesting indeed

 

[Hoosier_Vol]

LeBron James mocks Kyle Rittenhouse's breakdown in court

 

[ClearwaterVol]

That’s interesting to think about actually , if say I steal a loaf of bread to feed my family and three guys off the street see me do it , chase me down and start hitting me with clubs, pulls a pistol and beats me with a skateboard .. I no longer have the right to defend myself against them . Interesting indeed

That is not what the law I quoted says. It says you are not entitled to presumption of self defense meaning the prosecution's bar for conviction has been lowered.

 

[ButchPlz]

LeBron James mocks Kyle Rittenhouse's breakdown in court

I think people ought to ignore that literal human trafficker/slave driver.

 

[RockyTop85]

That’s interesting to think about actually , if say I steal a loaf of bread to feed my family and three guys off the street see me do it , chase me down and start hitting me with clubs, pulls a pistol and beats me with a skateboard .. I no longer have the right to defend myself against them . Interesting indeed

That’s not what the statute says. I’m not criticizing you because I lazily said the same thing at least once in this thread and I’m supposed to know this stuff and have actually watched a trial where this was an issue.

The presumption that it cites to is that you have no duty to retreat. So what it says is you have to exercise any opportunity to retreat before defending yourself.

I think he still gets the self-defense jury instruction in this case because he did try to retreat first. The jury then gets to decide whether his efforts to retreat were sufficient.

That’s what happened in the case I watched. Defense attorneys convinced the judge (but not the jury) that defendant attempted to retreat because he was backing away, so they got the instruction. It’s not a WI case, but the TN statute is similar.

Edit: Here’s the negated presumption:
(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:

So then the jury has to consider whether he has sufficiently exercised his opportunity to retreat and whether the force was proportional to the threat, whereas if he were not illegally possessing the firearm those things would be presumed. It just shifts the burden to him rather than the state.

 

[KB5252]

That is not what the law I quoted says. It says you are not entitled to presumption of self defense meaning the prosecution's bar for conviction has been lowered.

If a felon prohibited from owning a gun, guns down someone who is assaulting him does that automatically make him guilty of murder? Is he not entitled to defend himself?

He may be guilty of a crime, but not murder right?

 

[0nelilreb]

That’s not what the statute says. I’m not criticizing you because I lazily said the same thing at least once in this thread and I’m supposed to know this stuff and have actually watched a trial where this was an issue.

The presumption that it cites to is that you have no duty to retreat. So what it says is you have to exercise any opportunity to retreat before defending yourself.

I think he still gets the self-defense jury instruction in this case because he did try to retreat first. The jury then gets to decide whether his efforts to retreat were sufficient.

That’s what happened in the case I watched. Defense attorneys convinced the judge (but not the jury) that defendant attempted to retreat because he was backing away, so they got the instruction. It’s not a WI case, but the TN statute is similar.

I believe and have since I saw all the videos that KR retreating , trying to get away and only applying the force that was needed to stop the threat at the moment before getting up to run to the police is what will be the difference here . For me , it’s hard to prove he had intent to purposely kill or do harm to others around the situation after seeing the videos

 

[0nelilreb]

That is not what the law I quoted says. It says you are not entitled to presumption of self defense meaning the prosecution's bar for conviction has been lowered.

So the word presumption is the key in a case like that ? I don’t know and trying to understand why it would raise my chances of a conviction because of the other three deciding they should take the law into their own hands with me and my loaf bread caper

 

[ClearwaterVol]

That’s not what the statute says. I’m not criticizing you because I lazily said the same thing at least once in this thread and I’m supposed to know this stuff and have actually watched a trial where this was an issue.

The presumption that it cites to is that you have no duty to retreat. So what it says is you have to exercise any opportunity to retreat before defending yourself.

I think he still gets the self-defense jury instruction in this case because he did try to retreat first. The jury then gets to decide whether his efforts to retreat were sufficient.

That’s what happened in the case I watched. Defense attorneys convinced the judge (but not the jury) that defendant attempted to retreat because he was backing away, so they got the instruction. It’s not a WI case, but the TN statute is similar.

Edit: Here’s the negated presumption:
(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:

So then the jury has to consider whether he has sufficiently exercised his opportunity to retreat and whether the force was proportional to the threat, whereas if he were not illegally possessing the firearm those things would be presumed. It just shifts the burden to him rather than the state.

Yes. Thank you for your effort. I didn't want to type very much.

 

[RockyTop85]

So the word presumption is the key in a case like that ? I don’t know and trying to understand why it would raise my chances of a conviction because of the other three deciding they should take the law into their own hands with me and my loaf bread caper

Some defenses are up to the prosecutor to disprove. Some defenses are up to the defendant to prove.

Self defense is in between.

If you were committing a crime when you used the force that you’re now claiming was self defense, then you now have to prove that there was no opportunity to retreat and that your force was proportional to the threat. So whether or not Rosenbaum and the other two were going to use deadly force on Rittenhouse.

If you weren’t committing a crime, the prosecutor has to disprove those things.

 

[0nelilreb]

Some defenses are up to the prosecutor to disprove. Some defenses are up to the defendant to prove.

Self defense is in between.

If you were committing a crime when you used the force that you’re now claiming was self defense, then you now have to prove that there was no opportunity to retreat and that your force was proportional to the threat. So whether or not Rosenbaum and the other two were going to use deadly force on Rittenhouse.

If you weren’t committing a crime, the prosecutor has to disprove those things.

That makes sense , thank you

 

[NCFisher]

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.

That would be subject to the intent of the law. Under 18 possession of firearms is a class A misdemeanor in WI. Was the law's intent a blanket declaration that misdemeanor violations nullify a person's right to defend themselves in any instance? Or does it presuppose the law to apply to instance in which the violator is committing an offense against another person and precipitated the self-defense? Can I have a kilo of coke at home but shoot an attacker at a convenient store, or a person bludgeoning my wife in the living room, and be convicted of murder/manslaughter based simply on the fact that I have committed an unrelated crime and thus have no right of defense? That'd be a pretty shitey precedent.

Edit: No message necessary, replying to post(s) on prior page(s).

 

[Orangeslice13]

My son moved near there to East Ridge from Oklahoma. He loves it but he’s looking for somewhere to metal detect for Civil War relics.

I’ll tag you later in another place

 

[lawgator1]

Waiting........?

Yes, juries are routinely instructed that they may draw inferences from the record. It literally happens every day, in every single trial. The jury hears the evidence and from the full force and effect of it (that's a quote) infers facts, including intent. That is human nature.

If it were otherwise, if a Defendant took the stand and said "I did not intend x," then no matter how strong the evidence to the contrary, the jury could never convict for a specific intent crime.

The evidence here was that this young man expressed a desire to insinuate himself into the situation. He armed himself. He traveled at least some distance to do so. He did not have a personal stake in what was going in, i.e. he did not have property at risk and was not protecting any particular person. He appeared excited to be part of the event/riot/protest, whatever word you want to use.

And he shot three people.

A reasonable inference is that he went there hoping for a confrontation that would allow him to shoot people with whom he disagreed. A jury could easily come to that conclusion.

The counter from the defense is that the actions of the persons shot were an intervening cause of his reaction. A jury could easily make that inference as well.

Consider Person 1 in traffic who is cut off. He is armed. He follows Person 2 who cut him off for 10 miles and then walks up, gun in hand, to complain. Person 2 is startled, acts aggressively and pulls out his own gun, causing Person 1 to fire, killing him.

A jury could reasonably conclude that Person 1 sought a confrontation with Person 2 and bears criminal liability of some kind for the death of Person 2.

 

[C-south]

Yes, juries are routinely instructed that they may draw inferences from the record. It literally happens every day, in every single trial. The jury hears the evidence and from the full force and effect of it (that's a quote) infers facts, including intent. That is human nature.

If it were otherwise, if a Defendant took the stand and said "I did not intend x," then no matter how strong the evidence to the contrary, the jury could never convict for a specific intent crime.

The evidence here was that this young man expressed a desire to insinuate himself into the situation. He armed himself. He traveled at least some distance to do so. He did not have a personal stake in what was going in, i.e. he did not have property at risk and was not protecting any particular person. He appeared excited to be part of the event/riot/protest, whatever word you want to use.

And he shot three people.

A reasonable inference is that he went there hoping for a confrontation that would allow him to shoot people with whom he disagreed. A jury could easily come to that conclusion.

The counter from the defense is that the actions of the persons shot were an intervening cause of his reaction. A jury could easily make that inference as well.

Consider Person 1 in traffic who is cut off. He is armed. He follows Person 2 who cut him off for 10 miles and then walks up, gun in hand, to complain. Person 2 is startled, acts aggressively and pulls out his own gun, causing Person 1 to fire, killing him.

A jury could reasonably conclude that Person 1 sought a confrontation with Person 2 and bears criminal liability of some kind for the death of Person 2.

lol

 

[lawgator1]

lol

I've been doing this 25 years. You saying I'm wrong?

 

[C-south]

I've been doing this 25 years. You saying I'm wrong?

Absolutely. You should be disbarred.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Absolutely. You should be disbarred.

BooYah !!

 

[Sea Ray]

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.

"A reasonable inference" is not a fact. Were I on the jury, I wouldn't get into inferences. My judgment would settle on this question: was he in fear for his life? If the answer is yes, then he's justified to defend himself. Let this be a lesson to all the other would be thugs out there: be careful threatening someone's life. That someone just may be armed. Trayvon Martin would have been well served to have heeded my warning

 

[NCFisher]

Yes, juries are routinely instructed that they may draw inferences from the record. It literally happens every day, in every single trial. The jury hears the evidence and from the full force and effect of it (that's a quote) infers facts, including intent. That is human nature.

If it were otherwise, if a Defendant took the stand and said "I did not intend x," then no matter how strong the evidence to the contrary, the jury could never convict for a specific intent crime.

The evidence here was that this young man expressed a desire to insinuate himself into the situation. He armed himself. He traveled at least some distance to do so. He did not have a personal stake in what was going in, i.e. he did not have property at risk and was not protecting any particular person. He appeared excited to be part of the event/riot/protest, whatever word you want to use.

And he shot three people.

A reasonable inference is that he went there hoping for a confrontation that would allow him to shoot people with whom he disagreed. A jury could easily come to that conclusion.

The counter from the defense is that the actions of the persons shot were an intervening cause of his reaction. A jury could easily make that inference as well.

Consider Person 1 in traffic who is cut off. He is armed. He follows Person 2 who cut him off for 10 miles and then walks up, gun in hand, to complain. Person 2 is startled, acts aggressively and pulls out his own gun, causing Person 1 to fire, killing him.

A jury could reasonably conclude that Person 1 sought a confrontation with Person 2 and bears criminal liability of some kind for the death of Person 2.

Neither Ritt nor Person 2 in your traffic example committed threat or violence against the other person(s). Ritt expressly attempted to retreat, run from - avoid - having to use his weapon. Your Person 1, whatever his intent, demonstrated a credible threat by following someone ten miles and then approaching Person 2 with gun in hand. He took a defensive action in the same manner those pursuing, assaulting and battering Ritt did.

Analogy fail.