Kyle Rittenhouse - The Truth in 11 Minutes

[RockyTop85]

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).

It varies by jurisdiction:

State v. Johnson, 2020 WI App 55 - Wis: Court of Appeals, 2nd Dist. 2020 - Google Scholar

[10] We do not find that the castle doctrine may be found inapplicable any time a homeowner has illegal material in his residence at the time of an unlawful and forcible entry by another. While the language could be read that way, and seemingly has in a few jurisdictions, we do not do so here. Construing similar language contained in Stand Your Ground statutes, some courts have denied the statute's protection to any defendant who was engaged in criminal activity without regard to any nexus between that activity and the reason for the use of force. See, e.g., Dorsey v. State, 74 So. 3d 521, 527 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011) (defendant barred from firearm possession could not invoke Stand Your Ground law); Dawkins v. State, 2011 OK CR 1, ¶11, 252 P.3d 214 (noting that "possession of illegal drugs on the premises" would preclude application of Stand Your Ground law).

I think these statutes are all based on updates to the model penal code that were written in the late ‘90s to preclude the situation in which a robber shoots a resisting victim and pleads self-defense. Whether or not courts are willing to find that less egregious situations satisfy the criminal conduct depends on whether they’re conservative judges, unwilling to stray from the text of the law, or liberal judges willing to delve into the morass of looking at statutory intent.

I couldn’t find a directly on-point Wisconsin law, but this was the third case I found and I didn’t go further.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

What the heck is this prosecutor doing? Sounds like he wants to put words in the mouth of a defense witness hoping he agrees in the way he phrases his sentences of questions.

 

[lawgator1]

"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

A perfectly reasonable inference for you to draw.

But not the only one that could reasonably be drawn.

 

[Ttucke11]

He's not guilty of murder. If you want to charge him with something else, fine, but this case should've been tossed before ever going to trial.

 

[Sea Ray]

A perfectly reasonable inference for you to draw.

But not the only one that could reasonably be drawn.

I think that's the crux of it. Whether he hated blacks or had it coming is not relevant. Losing your life is losing your life

 

[Sea Ray]

What the heck is this prosecutor doing? Sounds like he wants to put words in the mouth of a defense witness hoping he agrees in the way he phrases his sentences of questions.

Folks use this tactic all the time on the internet and it's weak

 

[lawgator1]

I think that's the crux of it. Whether he hated blacks or had it coming is not relevant. Losing your life is losing your life

If i were the prosecution I'd make it more about just him wanting to be involved to promote whatever agenda he had. Let the jury decide what the agenda is. Could be specific "He hates black people rioters." Could be general "He hates rioters."

Either way its the same point: he went there "looking for trouble." The argument is that if you do that and provoke the very response you sought, then it is disingenuous to claim you were only defending yourself. Up to the jury to decide whether that is correct or whether, even if it is, the actions of the persons shot sufficiently intervened to make his actions lawful and justified.

 

[VolStrom]

How come EL isn't here giving us her learned commentary about this trial? I thought a prominent trial would be right up our legal eagles alley, and they would be gleefully responding to show us their brilliant legal minds.

 

[NCFisher]

"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

Sea - I'd qualify that a bit further as 'did the defendant have a rational or justifiable fear of injury or death?' Otherwise, we're left with a justification - used by police and civilian alike - to whack people based upon emotion, ignorance, or malice not tempered by logic or law. I generally agree with your intent, though.

(And that's not an invitation for the anti-police brigade to hijack the thread.)

 

[BreatheUT]

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.

I'm not going to lie, this was so long and didn't have any paragraphs that I wasn't going to read it. Then I saw the likes and others quoting it.

Terrific read.

 

[DynaLo]

So much misinformation in this thread so here’s what’s been stated and shown by video during the trial. ( ) are added to distinguish those involved.

Rosenbaum (he’s the pedo) threatened the group Kyle Rittenhouse was standing with twice. Once by announcing if I catch you alone I’ll kill you and once by announcing he’d kill them and cut their hearts out. Rosenbaum was in possession of a silver connector chain he’d removed from a flatbed trailer he torched for part of the night.
Rosenbaum came out from behind the cars to chase Kyle, lunged at him and actually had his hand on the end of the barrel of the rifle when Kyle shot. Soot and GSR on Rosenbaum’s hand as shown by the ME prove this.

While running towards the police, Kyle was hit in the back of the head by a large rock which knocks off hit ball cap. Huber (the abuser) also runs up and hits him in the back head/neck area with the skateboard.
Kyle ran a several more steps, stumbled, fell down and the guy in boots jumps up and kicks Kyle in the face. Kyle fires 2 shots upwards at him, both miss.

Huber immediately comes back in and then hits Kyle, while he’s still on the ground, in the head with his skateboard while grabbing his rifle and trying to pull it away from Kyle. Kyle fires one shot hitting Huber in the left side of his chest.

Grosskreutz has already pulled his .40 cal Glock 27 from his waistband, at the small of his back, while chasing Kyle down the street as shown on video from behind Grosskreutz. As Huber is hitting Kyle with his skateboard Grosskreutz runs up on them with his Glock pointed at Kyle and only moves back and towards his right side after Huber is shot. He raises both of his hands with the Glock in his right hand and Kyle is seen lowering his rifle. Grosskreutz then takes steps towards Kyle with the chambered Glock pointed at Kyle’s head and Kyle raises the rifle and fires one shot.

The whole event from Kyle getting ambushed until his last shot fired at Grosskreutz all happened within just a couple of minutes.
The actual 2 events of gunfire were fast. Four shots discharged at Rosenbaum happened in under one second. The four shots fired down the street by Kyle, while on the ground, happened in around 6-7 seconds total.

 

[volinbham]

If i were the prosecution I'd make it more about just him wanting to be involved to promote whatever agenda he had. Let the jury decide what the agenda is. Could be specific "He hates black people rioters." Could be general "He hates rioters."

Either way its the same point: he went there "looking for trouble." The argument is that if you do that and provoke the very response you sought, then it is disingenuous to claim you were only defending yourself. Up to the jury to decide whether that is correct or whether, even if it is, the actions of the persons shot sufficiently intervened to make his actions lawful and justified.

you still have to present evidence he went there looking for trouble. you also have to counter that he took a medic kit with him (he was trained to use it) and was actively removing graffiti - both run counter to his intent to provoke confrontation.

what specific evidence has established that he went there looking for trouble other than he was armed?

 

[NCFisher]

It varies by jurisdiction:

State v. Johnson, 2020 WI App 55 - Wis: Court of Appeals, 2nd Dist. 2020 - Google Scholar

[10] We do not find that the castle doctrine may be found inapplicable any time a homeowner has illegal material in his residence at the time of an unlawful and forcible entry by another. While the language could be read that way, and seemingly has in a few jurisdictions, we do not do so here. Construing similar language contained in Stand Your Ground statutes, some courts have denied the statute's protection to any defendant who was engaged in criminal activity without regard to any nexus between that activity and the reason for the use of force. See, e.g., Dorsey v. State, 74 So. 3d 521, 527 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011) (defendant barred from firearm possession could not invoke Stand Your Ground law); Dawkins v. State, 2011 OK CR 1, ¶11, 252 P.3d 214 (noting that "possession of illegal drugs on the premises" would preclude application of Stand Your Ground law).

I think these statutes are all based on updates to the model penal code that were written in the late ‘90s to preclude the situation in which a robber shoots a resisting victim and pleads self-defense. Whether or not courts are willing to find that less egregious situations satisfy the criminal conduct depends on whether they’re conservative judges, unwilling to stray from the text of the law, or liberal judges willing to delve into the morass of looking at statutory intent.

I couldn’t find a directly on-point Wisconsin law, but this was the third case I found and I didn’t go further.

Yes, that makes more sense than assuming a person who has or is committing a criminal act of any degree, waives right to self-defense.
I had not read your later post re: a nexus with castle doctrine and CV's post on the WI statute.

 

[PEPPERJAX]

How come EL isn't here giving us her learned commentary about this trial? I thought a prominent trial would be right up our legal eagles alley, and they would be gleefully responding to show us their brilliant legal minds.

Of course, I can get a hell of a good look at a T-Bone steak by sticking my head up a bull's ass, but I'd rather take the butcher's word for it.

 

[ButchPlz]

 

[VolStrom]

I've sat on 4 different jury's in my life, but it's been 20+ years since the last one. I'd love to sit on a jury on a case like this.

 

[BreatheUT]

I've sat on 4 different jury's in my life, but it's been 20+ years since the last one. I'd love to sit on a jury on a case like this.

My better half just came off a case the lasted over two weeks.

 

[DynaLo]

I've sat on 4 different jury's in my life, but it's been 20+ years since the last one. I'd love to sit on a jury on a case like this.

They’ll never allow anyone with ANY actual firearms knowledge and experience to sit on a jury in a case like this.

 

[GAVol]

If i were the prosecution I'd make it more about just him wanting to be involved to promote whatever agenda he had. Let the jury decide what the agenda is. Could be specific "He hates black people rioters." Could be general "He hates rioters."

Either way its the same point: he went there "looking for trouble." The argument is that if you do that and provoke the very response you sought, then it is disingenuous to claim you were only defending yourself. Up to the jury to decide whether that is correct or whether, even if it is, the actions of the persons shot sufficiently intervened to make his actions lawful and justified.

Even if he was looking for trouble, how does that eliminate his right to defend himself against others that are obviously also looking for trouble? Even if he was stupid, that doesn't mean he should stand there and get beaten or shot.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

I've sat on 4 different jury's in my life, but it's been 20+ years since the last one. I'd love to sit on a jury on a case like this.

I got on a jury & then got on another one like 6 months later. The others in the room on my 2nd go around thought I had experience in being there. They elected me to be the head juror. I was lost like a newborn baby bird .... just like Slo Joe Biden is right now..

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Even if he was looking for trouble, how does that eliminate his right to defend himself against others that are obviously also looking for trouble? Even if he was stupid, that doesn't mean he should stand there and get beaten or shot.

*Bingo !! Winner Winner.

 

[SamRebel35]

So much misinformation in this thread so here’s what’s been stated and shown by video during the trial. ( ) are added to distinguish those involved.

Rosenbaum (he’s the pedo) threatened the group Kyle Rittenhouse was standing with twice. Once by announcing if I catch you alone I’ll kill you and once by announcing he’d kill them and cut their hearts out. Rosenbaum was in possession of a silver connector chain he’d removed from a flatbed trailer he torched for part of the night.
Rosenbaum came out from behind the cars to chase Kyle, lunged at him and actually had his hand on the end of the barrel of the rifle when Kyle shot. Soot and GSR on Rosenbaum’s hand as shown by the ME prove this.

While running towards the police, Kyle was hit in the back of the head by a large rock which knocks off hit ball cap. Huber (the abuser) also runs up and hits him in the back head/neck area with the skateboard.
Kyle ran a several more steps, stumbled, fell down and the guy in boots jumps up and kicks Kyle in the face. Kyle fires 2 shots upwards at him, both miss.

Huber immediately comes back in and then hits Kyle, while he’s still on the ground, in the head with his skateboard while grabbing his rifle and trying to pull it away from Kyle. Kyle fires one shot hitting Huber in the left side of his chest.

Grosskreutz has already pulled his .40 cal Glock 27 from his waistband, at the small of his back, while chasing Kyle down the street as shown on video from behind Grosskreutz. As Huber is hitting Kyle with his skateboard Grosskreutz runs up on them with his Glock pointed at Kyle and only moves back and towards his right side after Huber is shot. He raises both of his hands with the Glock in his right hand and Kyle is seen lowering his rifle. Grosskreutz then takes steps towards Kyle with the chambered Glock pointed at Kyle’s head and Kyle raises the rifle and fires one shot.

The whole event from Kyle getting ambushed until his last shot fired at Grosskreutz all happened within just a couple of minutes.
The actual 2 events of gunfire were fast. Four shots discharged at Rosenbaum happened in under one second. The four shots fired down the street by Kyle, while on the ground, happened in around 6-7 seconds total.

So all three of the people at one point had a gun in their hands, right? Hard to convince me Ritt's life was not in danger.

 

[Jxn Vol]

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

I know plenty of idiots that have been in their positions longer than that.

 

[VolStrom]

*Bingo !! Winner Winner.

Yeah, I got to be the jury forman on one the jury's I was on also. I'm a natural tyrant like Hog so I was okay with that.

 

[vols4sure]

you still have to present evidence he went there looking for trouble. you also have to counter that he took a medic kit with him (he was trained to use it) and was actively removing graffiti - both run counter to his intent to provoke confrontation.

what specific evidence has established that he went there looking for trouble other than he was armed?

Even if it was assumed as fact that Rittenhouse did go looking for a "confrontation," lawgator has not explained how that impacts the case without evidence that he did in fact provoke the confrontation. I don't see anything in the statute saying a person is not entitled to self defense when they merely go somewhere "looking for trouble."