The mere crowd itself could be threatening and could cause death...then a break...then rotten claiming he was threatened by the crowd coming toward him, but he acknowledged under oath he saw NO WEAPONS OF ANY KIND.

SO crowds are threatening and can scare people to shoot because they need to defend themselves.

The protestors were not on trial, a man who killed two unarmed people was.

why would you travel to put yourself there

The whole gun fantasy of killing in self-defense is extraordinary dangerous.

I will a grant that in rare cases a gun might aid in self-defense. I will grant that in rare cases it might justify killing someone.

But those scenarios are rare and unfortunate and tragic. But popular gun mythology celebrates that situation. There's a lot of drama in it so Hollywood loves it as does the media.

And people being people, if it's such a compelling moment, some people will seek it out. So much of the drama and moral tension comes from the need for self-defense coming to you, not you to it.

But people being people....

It's been the standard for quite some time.

Anybody here want to let someone attack them with a skateboard and claim you're not in fear of being seriously injured? Anyone?

yet traveled across state lines with the intention of putting his sorry ass into the middle of a shitstorm.

That makes assaulting him legal? That negates his right to self defense? The law disagrees.

Your flawed argument is no different than telling a rape victim they should have stayed home and not went to that club with such a short skirt.

Are you trying to sell us that Kyle R. is the victim and not the goddam provocateur and murderious shooter?

... go around assaulting their rapist first ?!

That's a fucked up analogy

It would still not negate the self defense claim after KR began to retreat, which is clearly shown on video.


The analogy, in case it was not clear, is that putting yourself into a situation in which you may be assaulted does not mean you are culpable for your own assault. It's victim blaming.

... DAs REALLY screwed up in that trial leaving that point out

like in TM trial the DA's didn't call Zimmerman the aggressor.

ZMan didn't "retreat" from his threat either

KR did not fire on people running away. All three men were advancing on him when shot. There is video, have you seen it?

... watched the same video, I know we did ...

Rosenbaum was able to get near his barrel cause KR turned around and pointed it at him then fired the damn thing while running away.

If KR was NOT running away then AFTER KR pointed his weapon at RB then he wasn't retreating was he?!

Watch the video from the beginning ... NOT ... just Rosenbaum chasing KR which is what FAUX mostly shows.

He turned and fired while fleeing from a man who threatened to kill him. That's legal self defense.

... that KR pointed his weapon first !!

If it happened, it didn't matter according to Wisconsin law as soon as KR retreated. At the moment he retreated and Rosenbaum gave chase he would have regained the right to claim self defense.

You might disagree with the law, but it's still the law that must be followed to get a conviction.

After he retreated and was about to be caught, he turned and defended himself, legally. This is all on video tape.

... law says KR could use LETHAL FORCE after starting the altercation by brandishing his weapon.

KR would have to be clearly in danger of dying is what WI law says and "about to be caught" is not clearly about to die

I think you should take another look at WI law. He needed to be in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury. Even if he had brandished the weapon thus starting the altercation, WI law clearly gives him the right to self defense as soon as he stops and retreats. The moment he retreats and Rosenbaum advances on him (after threatening to kill him), Rosenbaum becomes the aggressor and Rittenhouse regains his right to defend himself with force. Despite what the prosecutor said, Rittenhouse was under no legal obligation to take his beating.

... every active shooter in Wisconsin the legal way out even if they're not chased.

If Rosenberg caught up with him and grabbed him then I think one could argue a failed retreat, KR is literally using the Zimmerman defense of I was scared for my life while being armed with a firearm in the other person with their fist

Except KR head was never slammed through the ground as Zimmerman claims, KR's defense is weaker than Zimmerman's in this case even if he was caught.

but to turn around and start firing into a crowd of people that is not armed because KR thought he was "about to get caught" is not retreating.

Not even close, I think that's where the prosecutor failed miserably and the judge was a dumbass

Now one in Wisconsin can brandish a weapon run away turn around and start shooting at people thinking they were about to get caught and that would be a viable defense for the active shooter

That he had to continue retreating. That is simply not true under WI law. He was under no legal obligation to allow Rosenbaum to strike or grab him before using force to protect himself.

If you are fleeing someone chasing you, who has threatened to kill you, you do not have to wait to be assaulted or injured, you must only be in reasonable fear of harm. This is the law in every state in the US.

... still in the process of retreating when he brandished his weapon again.

There's no DTR cases where the defendant can say they reengaged to defend themselves cause they were "about to get caught."

They would've had to been caught first !!!

All the DA had to do is look at what cases that judge had decided on duty to retreat before KRs case... They didn't, they weren't into this cause.

Is not based in law or the facts of the case. Again, you are under no legal obligation in any state in the US to allow the person chasing you to grab, strike, or assault you in any way before using self defense. The legal threshold is a reasonable fear of death or injury, full stop. Even in states that require retreat if possible allow for this. You're simply, demonstrably, wrong.

Is that any onlooker would have seen a punk who gunned one man down fleeing his crime, and my hat is off to a man who, with no more than a skateboard to hand, attempts to apprehend a fleeing felon who brandishes a firearm. That is a sense of civic duty, and a degree of personal courage, I hope I could display in such a circumstance.

The belief the punk was a murderous felon was quite reasonable for any person in the crowd who heard the shots and saw a body on the ground.

It may well be that the relevant law in that state is so poorly constructed that it required a jury to acquit, but that does alter the fact, which is that a punk with dreams of killing a man journeyed to a place he hoped would provide him some excuse, and found what he was looking for.

The verdict was a hideous injustice, for all that it may be a lawful one.

That Mr. Huber reasonably believed KR had committed a crime and was a danger to himself or others when he assaulted him with a skateboard. Even if that belief was based on false information. Notice that the man seen on tape kicking KR in the head at the same time Huber was swinging his skateboard has not been charged with assault.

That does not mean that Rittenhouse did not also have a reasonable fear for his safety when Huber attacked him.

The thing dissolves into a mist, in which the position taken depends on whether one approves of protests against police excesses or approves of punks and thugs who arrogate to themselves the right to enforce the law. The punk had no reason to be there, and any threat he faced he sought out and contrived.

Should depend on the law and the evidence. The reason Kyle was down there does not legally matter. As soon as Rosenbaum threatened him and gave chase he had a legal right to self defense.

I personally think he's a moron who put himself in a bad situation. But so did the men he shot, especially Rosenbaum who wasn't even there for political/social reasons and was simply a violent criminal who stumbled upon a chance to get violent. The entire night was a series of bad choices by all involved. But at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is what the law on the books in the state of Wisconsin says.

And this instance is one where the law is an ass.

He did not need to shoot, he shot because it was his fantasy come true. It's a damned shame Mr. Huber didn't manage to brain him, and that Mr. Grosskreutz didn't pull the trigger the moment he had his piece out.

And we both know that in most instances, persons adopting the view the punk ought to walk do so because they are in agreement with gunning down black and leftist protesters, or so fanatic about their possession of firearms, and their liberty to brandish them, that they are blind to any consequences of their fetish.

Your opinion is based in hatred of the political "other" and not the law and facts. Which is sad.

I recommend it. Sometimes uncomfortable, but always bracing.

not a legal/law website.

Values and opinions are not informed by a literal reading of the law. The law once held that black people and women were property. Such a view (even when it was supported by law) was wrong then and wrong now. Rittenhouse is a terrorist despite what (one interpretation) of the law found. And judges and juries have often nullified the laws, and if required could've done so here - but were clearly on the racist cry baby's side from the beginning.

Liberals valued the rule of law and did not support convictions not based in the law.

Jury nullification means acquitting when the law says convict. It NEVER means convicting when the law says acquit, ever. To do so is a miscarriage of justice.

the law throughout American history often was/is unjust.

Judges and juries have often simply done whatever they wanted, and could've done so here, which would've been to deliver actual justice. And it would've not really been nullification but simply a more just interpretation.

The authorities and the judge from the beginning showed favoritism and led the jury down that path.

however I doubt the judge/jury would've viewed them favorably, being perceived (whether they were or not is inconsequential) as supporters of BLM.

Agree about Shittenhouse's thought process. He went down there to 'do battle with the left/antifa/BLM' and was an aggressor in the entire situation. The police/authorities were on his side from the beginning, as they are generally on the side of RW militia types, which Rittenhouse clearly is.

Recall that there was a similar situation in Portland, involving antifa activist Michael Reinoehl - who claimed he shot a far-right protester in self defense. Reinoehl then went on the run and was later gunned down in cold blood (IMO, based on what I've seen) by US Marshalls, who never gave him a chance to surrender and have due process. Law Enforcement in this country is fundamentally right wing and racist, and until we reform them, as well as the entire criminal justice system, there really will be no justice in America, as the forces of oppression will always resist reform.

Is on camera lying in wait for his victim. It was cold blooded murder. He claimed his victim tried to stab someone, despite not having a knife on him. The two cases have nothing in common. Try again...

because Reineohl never got due process and was executed by US Marshalls (which Trump called 'retribution') as witnesses attest and as well as investigations by NYT/WaPo also found.

For a violent murderer who choose to attempt and shoot it out with the police trying to apprehend him.

What a way to get the jurors on your side - was the prosecution secretly working for the defense?

And the first shooting was “something something plastic bag/reached for his gun something something.”

... reacted.

He was literally not retreating running away from the shooting at unarmed people, that's all kinds of screwed up.

What they see in the mirror

Stand your Ground is relatively new but that didn't apply in this case.

if you killed someone and claimed self-defense, you had to actually show that you legitimately believed your life was in danger. Just saying so generally didn’t cut it. For instance if I’m 6’0 230 lbs and my 5’4, 120 lb wife was beating me and I shot her dead, the authorities would arrest me for murder even if I said I feared for my life.

has been watered down, way way down. Years ago i doubt a skateboard would have been justification. And in the Zimmerman case, it was Trayon "armed with a sidewalk."

Or serious bodily injury has been the standard in most jurisdictions for some time. Sidewalks, skateboards and fists are all capable.

or an Ar-15? Yes, I think I'd rather have a sidewalk than a pistol.

A firearm is certainly a more effective weapon. So would a bat, a knife or any number of other items. None of which means a skateboard isn't easily capable of severely injuring someone or even killing them or that someone in possession of a firearm must not use it when his attacker has an inferior weapon.

It is hard to explain to people how the situation changes dynamically in many self-defense situations.

[In most states] you can't have the claim of innocence if you start a fight. But if you abandon the conflict and retreat, then you regain your innocence. If the target of your attack then pursues you and threatens you with death or great bodily harm your right to self defense is restored.

You write in your post #70:

WI law clearly gives him the right to self defense as soon as he stops and retreats. The moment he retreats and Rosenbaum advances on him (after threatening to kill him), Rosenbaum becomes the aggressor and Rittenhouse regains his right to defend himself with force

into "I'm a whiny little pissant playing dress-up and just shit myself"

The key to the Rittenhouse case is his being chased. The law skews hard in favor of the one trying to flee.

We will see this shortly in the Arbery case. The fact that the three dirtbags chased their victim is going to ensure a guilty verdict there.

We'll see if it plays out that way in Georgia.

If you read into the evidence and laws, a lot of high profile jury decisions make a lot more sense than the popular narrative would suggest. (That being said you still do get some shockers once in a while, Casey Anthony being a notable example)

All three guilty.

I remember the ominous feeling that crept over me when that movie and philosophy came out during the Reagan era.

Goes back much farther than Dirty Harry. Especially the ones at play in the most recent cases being discussed.

We were not in Vietnam when Reagan was president.

n/t

They are a cancer. It's time to deliver a dose of some much needed chemo.

Last edited Wed Nov 24, 2021, 06:28 PM - Edit history (1)

And one struck KR with a skateboard to the head.

The Rittenhouse case isn't the best case to argue against self-defense laws as they're written today.

But I think everyone should support their State Legislature modifying State Laws regarding open carry, guns at protests and self defense laws itself.

For example, some States don't even require a "duty to retreat" for self defense.

The little shit went looking to kill and got his wish.

If the skateboard blow HAD killed KR...

Huber would have ALSO had a legitimate right to "self-defense" and deserved acquittal.

The letter of the Law suggests that KR, Huber and Grosskreuz ALL had the right to self-defense.

Which makes Wisconsin law on the subject something of a circle-jerk.

Personally, I do not think the punk deserved a right to self-defense after shooting a man he did not have to shoot.

I've been in some tight scrapes, and would not be surprised if you have too, so I expect we both understand the difference between what a man can do and what he needs to do.

And it's best not to get me started on the idiocy of Mr. Grosskreuz --- if you take out a gun, be ready to pull the trigger. If you can get the thing out in the face of a man who's got one in his hands already, that is a sign of some deity's favor, and insults same if you do not take advantage to the fullest of such Heaven-sent opportunity.

Anyone with a gun in public is a 9-1-1 call waiting to happen.

We need to restrict public firearm carry NOT expand it...

State legislatures can do this.

How about a "no-carry" exception for all protests and demonstrations? No good can come from being armed in a charged environment.

Anywhere it is legal to discharge that firearm or on private property with the consent of the owner. Which makes a lot of sense compared to Wisconsin's anywhere, anytime which in my opinion directly caused this mess.

Stand your ground, either by case law for statute, is the majority rule in the US.

and wanted a form a self-defense.

Like one one of his victims did.

It was legal to open carry a rifle. No machine guns were involved. Unlicensed concealed carry of a handgun would have also been illegal.

An AR-15 is not a machine gun. It is a semi-automatic rifle.

Where does he fall in?...How about someone named George Washington? Do you know who he was?

A guy from Illinois who could really write..."Four Score and Seven Years Ago.." Do you know who wrote that?

See the U.S. Constitution...something called...Bill of Rights...trial by jury?

Is that correct? Or am I making that up?

Who the hell made that up?....Some fool?..Stupid fool?

These fools that made up the Constitution couldn't have done anything right?...

Were they really that smart in creating a set of laws..that would last a while?

Really?....



for a small nation to become a great nation, you got to be kidding?...

And....did this nation admit people from other nations seeking freedom, justice and life.........................
.

..................LIKE MY GRANDPARENTS WHO CAME HERE IN 1910?...WHAT WAS THE REQUIREMENT TO GET IN?

....................TO BE ABLE TO READ A LANGUAGE..(ANY LANGUAGE)... (do you get the picture?)

fuck them