What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Kyle Rittenhouse Trial: Defense Rests. Resisting the urge to go full HT and just purge this crapshow of a thread. (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.
John123 said:
A world where self defense is recognized.   I think our justice system would be far worse if anyone who killed someone in self defense was arrested.  I think this homeowner acted reasonably.  What do you think?

https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-homeowner-shoots-home-intruders-sheriff
Click to expand...
I recognize self defense, but I'm under the impression a jury usually decides what qualifies.  Do you really think it's normal for police to let someone who just shot 3 people just walk away from the scene without being detained?

 
John123 said:
A world where self defense is recognized.   I think our justice system would be far worse if anyone who killed someone in self defense was arrested.
Click to expand...
Self defense is recognized. Buy just because someone argues they only shot someone out of self defense that doesn't make it so. Seems that we would want to err on the side of arresting folks if they shoot someone and then let the courts sort out the facts

 
dkp993 said:
I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t even play one on TV. So what I’m asking might be ignorant if so please excuse my ignorance and hold my hand through the answer.  Legally speaking how do, you or how can you, separate the intent from the action. Specifically here them setting aside the illegality of him even carrying a gun into that scene.  It seems to me it’s all tied together and I don’t really understand how one thing can be set aside especially if that one thing inflamed (or even caused) the action.  
Click to expand...
yes, this is where I get stuck too.

 
-fish- said:
It also may have a bearing on the burden of proof for the self-defense claim.   As I understand it, Wisconsin shifts the burden of proof to the state for self-defense claims, but not where the self-defense occurs in the context of a criminal activity.   The gun charge and the curfew charge may both play into that.   
Click to expand...
Yeah this issue sounds pretty complicated and very jurisdiction specific. 

 
Dickies said:
I recognize self defense, but I'm under the impression a jury usually decides what qualifies.  Do you really think it's normal for police to let someone who just shot 3 people just walk away from the scene without being detained?
Click to expand...
I just gave you an example of exactly that.  I asked for you to comment on that case.  Interesting that you chose not to.

 
John123 said:
I just gave you an example of exactly that.  I asked for you to comment on that case.  Interesting that you chose not to.
Click to expand...
I honestly overlooked that there was a link in your post.  I see a big difference between a home invasion shooting and what Rittenhouse did, but I would still expect the person in the case you linked to be arrested and taken in for questioning before being released without charges filed.

 
bigbottom said:
Regarding the burden of proof on self-defense, I don’t think we’ve settled on a definitive answer in the ongoing discussion here. It’s a huge issue. Jon found a jury charge stating that the prosecution bears the burden of proof to show that the elements of self-defense are not present, but that instruction was for self-defense that did not involve deadly force. Would be very interested to see the Wisconsin pattern jury charge on set-defense involving deadly force. 
Click to expand...
The various self-defense instructions are here: https://wilawlibrary.gov/jury/criminal/subjectindex.html#1557  (trying to link directly to the index section on self-defense)

PRIVILEGE: SELF-DEFENSE: FORCE INTENDED OR LIKELY TO CAUSE DEATH OR GREAT BODILY HARM: https://wilawlibrary.gov/jury/files/criminal/0805.pdf

This is the instruction for provocation: https://wilawlibrary.gov/jury/files/criminal/0815.pdf

Agree this is a key issue, most likely the heart of the case - and one that is nuanced.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Smile
Reactions: Zow
Zow said:
Yes, provided the lesser included offenses were part of the charging document (which likely can be amended up to the moment the trial starts and maybe even then during) and were included in the jury instructions with their specific elements listed. 

In other words, the jury can if the judge gives them the option to. The jury can't just unilaterally say, "we acquit Rittenhouse of murder but find him guilty of a hate crime or disorderly" conduct or some other charge not put before them. 
Click to expand...
Or what he said. Sorry. Back to my civil cases.

 
  • Laughing
Reactions: Zow
dkp993 said:
I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t even play one on TV. So what I’m asking might be ignorant if so please excuse my ignorance and hold my hand through the answer.  Legally speaking how do, you or how can you, separate the intent from the action. Specifically here them setting aside the illegality of him even carrying a gun into that scene.  It seems to me it’s all tied together and I don’t really understand how one thing can be set aside especially if that one thing inflamed (or even caused) the action.  
Click to expand...
I asked this very question in the Martin thread when that was going on :hifive:

The answer we got in that verdict was essentially only having one person to believe (the other was dead).  The question you and I ask becomes irrelevant because there's only one person left alive to tell their side, so the question moves from ours to "do you believe he/she really felt their life was in danger in that moment?"

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
Legit question. If you don’t wanna answer them just say so.  But spare me the stupid sho schtick part because you posted a thread in a political forum and then whine about about people talking politics in it. 
Click to expand...
I tend to meet people where they are....it's a flaw of mine.  I have no problem talking about the politics of it.  If you go back and read what I was responding too, it was the "left" vs "right" nature of it which is completely irrelevant and not politics as much as this "sides" crap you guys like to engage in.  You want to talk political implications have at it.  I'll just scroll by along with the board cop stuff to the parts interesting to me.

 
-fish- said:
It also may have a bearing on the burden of proof for the self-defense claim.   As I understand it, Wisconsin shifts the burden of proof to the state for self-defense claims, but not where the self-defense occurs in the context of a criminal activity.   The gun charge and the curfew charge may both play into that.   
Click to expand...
How was him carrying the gun illegal?  It's my understanding he didn't bring it across state lines.

 
CletiusMaximus said:
The various self-defense instructions are here: https://wilawlibrary.gov/jury/criminal/subjectindex.html#1557  (trying to link directly to the index section on self-defense)

PRIVILEGE: SELF-DEFENSE: FORCE INTENDED OR LIKELY TO CAUSE DEATH OR GREAT BODILY HARM: https://wilawlibrary.gov/jury/files/criminal/0805.pdf

This is the instruction for provocation: https://wilawlibrary.gov/jury/files/criminal/0815.pdf

Agree this is a key issue, most likely the heart of the case - and one that is nuanced.
Click to expand...
A guy who is in an open-carry state, who is guarding businesses that have been torched for three straight nights.... Being triggered by the sight of an AR-15 doesn't make it a provocation.  Otherwise eliminate open-carry.

 
BTW - I watched that whole night unfold on Facebook livestream.  The guy I was watching was right in the middle of it all night long.  He's actually the one who applied the tourniquet to the guy who got his arm blown off.  The protesters were provoking the armed guys protecting the gas station.  It was pretty one sided.  You could argue that the first guy who was shot and killed - maybe that was excessive use of force.  But he was chasing Rittenhouse and he did throw something at him.  And I believe Rittenhouse also heard a gun shot during the chase so in his mind he may have thought it came from the guy chasing him.  The other two shootings were both entirely justified.  Rittenhouse was being chased and was knocked down by a crowd of angry people.  textbook definition of fearing for your life and acting in self defense.  All of it could have been avoided if the police were allowed to do their job.  The whole idea of standing down while protesters burn a community was so idiotic.  I knew as that night was unfolding that there would be people dead, which is why I watched it until about 2 in the morning.

 
Zow said:
This really isn't political. I strongly encourage all to realize this. 
Click to expand...
How is it not political?  There are two very different camps with completely different views on how government should handle the situation. 

One camp sees Rittenhouse as a kid trying to prevent his community from being burnt to ground who was unjustifiably attacked and had to use deadly force to defend himself.  This camp believes it is tragic that this kid is facing trial.  

The second camp believe Rittenhouse injected himself into a violent situation and his presence alone provoked the attack.  They see it as a mass shooting who should spend the rest of his life in prison.  

The basic fundamental right to defend oneself is under assault by these overzealous prosecutions.  Anti-gun politics also is a key component.  This case is bleeding politics with social media flooded with hatred towards Rittenhousr including death threats. 

 
In this very thread there are more than "two camps"....the largest one being the "this is a nightmare and I don't really know how this is going to go" camp.  :shrug:  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ekbeats said:
How was him carrying the gun illegal?  It's my understanding he didn't bring it across state lines.
Click to expand...
You have to be 18 to possess a gun except for hunting.  And he was not hunting.  The issue I have with it is if they are going to consider him a minor for possession then you need to try him as a minor for the other charges. 

 
jon_mx said:
You have to be 18 to possess a gun except for hunting.  And he was not hunting.  The issue I have with it is if they are going to consider him a minor for possession then you need to try him as a minor for the other charges. 
Click to expand...
Even so, bust him for having a gun and being underage.  That doesn't mean he can't use it in self defense if he's threatened.

 
The Commish said:
In this very thread there are more than "two camps"....the largest one being the "this is a nightmare and I don't really know how this is going to go" camp.  :shrug:  
Click to expand...
Did I say there weren't?  But those are the two camps which form a large part of the base on both sides. I would guess about half the population are in those. 

 
bigbottom said:
He’ll likely be convicted of a Class A misdemeanor for unlawful weapons possession. 
Click to expand...
Yeah I was just saying that I don't think the outcome of this trial would represent "justice prevailing".   I think none of the possible outcomes will really fit "the crime" because there isn't really a criminal charge for the "crime".  Same as with Zimmerman. 

whoknew said:
How are we so sure he will be acquitted? Is it not going to be up to the jury to determine whether he behaved reasonably? 
Click to expand...
I have no idea how often in real life the 12 Angry Men scenario actually plays out.   There was always talk about this with the Zimmerman jury but I think he had three (of six) not guilty votes from the get go so that could be a bit of urban legend.  Anyway, with X number of jurors presumably being somewhat diverse I think it would be difficult to not have someone on the jury that would dig in to self defense with the facts that I generally hear or read being tossed around.  Of course the "facts" we toss around and the facts actually presented at a trial might not resemble each other very much.  And maybe I have also seen too many movies.

 
jon_mx said:
Did I say there weren't?  But those are the two camps which form a large part of the base on both sides. I would guess about half the population are in those. 
Click to expand...
When you write the below comment and then go on to focus on ONLY those two groups in your comments, in normal every day english speak/norms it's assumed that it's political BECAUSE of the two groups etc.  If that's not what you mean, then clarify.  That's how it reads :shrug:  

jon_mx said:
How is it not political?  There are two very different camps with completely different views on how government should handle the situation. 
Click to expand...
I only pointed out that the two different camps you are talking about and claiming are a 'large part' of the bases of 'both sides' aren't in the majority in this forum, but you do you jon.  Why you do this stuff is beyond me.  I'm going to say that today 3/10/2021) 2/3rds of the country doesn't even have this on their radar much less half the population is on one of these "sides" of yours.

 
The one piece we don't have video on is the point Rosenbaum (victim #1)singled out Rittenhouse to chase.  We see Rosenbaum earlier yelling at armed guys to 'shoot me n-word, shoot me n-word'.  We see Rosenbaum later pushing a flaming dumpster towards the gas station.  There is video of Ridenhouse running with a fire extinguisher. It is possible  that the fire extinguisher is  what triggered Rosenbaum.  Would that change anyone's opinion?

 
jon_mx said:
You have to be 18 to possess a gun except for hunting.  And he was not hunting.  The issue I have with it is if they are going to consider him a minor for possession then you need to try him as a minor for the other charges. 
Click to expand...
Not always, minors get charged with murder in Illinois.

 
The Commish said:
I asked this very question in the Martin thread when that was going on :hifive:

The answer we got in that verdict was essentially only having one person to believe (the other was dead).  The question you and I ask becomes irrelevant because there's only one person left alive to tell their side, so the question moves from ours to "do you believe he/she really felt their life was in danger in that moment?"
Click to expand...
I know people are naturally going to compare these cases, but I don't see this one as being at all similar to the Zimmerman case in the sense that we actually have direct video evidence in this one and don't have to rely on the defendant's word.  That's a pretty massive difference. 

 
The Commish said:
When you write the below comment and then go on to focus on ONLY those two groups in your comments, in normal every day english speak/norms it's assumed that it's political BECAUSE of the two groups etc.  If that's not what you mean, then clarify.  That's how it reads :shrug:  

I only pointed out that the two different camps you are talking about and claiming are a 'large part' of the bases of 'both sides' aren't in the majority in this forum, but you do you jon.  Why you do this stuff is beyond me.  I'm going to say that today 3/10/2021) 2/3rds of the country doesn't even have this on their radar much less half the population is on one of these "sides" of yours.
Click to expand...
This country is very much divided.  You can ignore it or you can discuss it.  I think it is important to understand what those positions.  In this case I think the left is the more extreme irrational side.  On the voter fraud case it is the other way around. 

 
John123 said:
Even so, bust him for having a gun and being underage.  That doesn't mean he can't use it in self defense if he's threatened.
Click to expand...
that kind of glosses over why there are age limits for guns.  teenagers brains are not yet fully developed; they are prone to making rash, risky decisions.

Also, he was violating curfew being there.  Big deal, the rioters were too, right?  But had he obeyed the curfew, he wouldn't be out playing vigilante and maybe these other guys don't get shot.

 
jon_mx said:
In this case I think the left is the more extreme irrational side.  On the voter fraud case it is the other way around. 
Click to expand...
But I think this is exactly @The Commish’s point.  I’m not left. I don’t think should have been there.  This doesn’t have to be left or right.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dkp993 said:
But I think this is exactly @The Commish’s point.  I’m not left. I don’t think should have been there.  This doesn’t have to be left or right.  
Click to expand...
Most people don't think it was wise to be there.  The difference that overwhelmingly divided between left and right lines is if he had the right to defend himself regardless.  

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I know people are naturally going to compare these cases, but I don't see this one as being at all similar to the Zimmerman case in the sense that we actually have direct video evidence in this one and don't have to rely on the defendant's word.  That's a pretty massive difference. 
Click to expand...
Yeah...I haven't seen any of the videos.  I'll take your word for it.  The whole thing's on video?  Even if it is all on video, we are still left trying to interpret what the dead people were thinking in the moment.  So while not exactly the same, there are some similarities.  All I'm saying, is where the circumstances are similar in this case, I hope we send a different message than we did in the Martin case.  I'm all for being able to defend one's self.  I am also all for people being held accountable for their actions.  Him being able to defend himself in the situation might absolve him from "murder" like charges, but it shouldn't absolve him for putting himself in a situation that caused him to take another life.  How that gets balanced, I don't know.  But for me, "getting off scott free" doesn't seem like a reasonable outcome.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
Most people don't think it was wise to be there.  The difference that overwhelmingly divided between left and right lines is if he had the right to defend himself regardless.  
Click to expand...
I don't think you will find anyone arguing he didn't have the right to defend himself.

 
moleculo said:
that kind of glosses over why there are age limits for guns.  teenagers brains are not yet fully developed; they are prone to making rash, risky decisions.

Also, he was violating curfew being there.  Big deal, the rioters were too, right?  But had he obeyed the curfew, he wouldn't be out playing vigilante and maybe these other guys don't get shot.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you can pick and choose on charging curfew, I get your point.

 
The Commish said:
Yeah...I haven't seen any of the videos.  I'll take your word for it.  The whole thing's on video?  Even if it is all on video, we are still left trying to interpret what the dead people were thinking in the moment.  So while not exactly the same, there are some similarities.  All I'm saying, is where the circumstances are similar in this case, I hope we send a different message than we did in the Martin case.  I'm all for being able to defend one's self.  I am also all for people being held accountable for their actions.  Him being able to defend himself in the situation might absolve him from "murder" like charges, but it shouldn't absolve him for putting himself in a situation that caused him to take another life.  How that gets balanced, I don't know.  But for me, "getting off scott free" doesn't seem like a reasonable outcome.
Click to expand...
What if he were 18? Would you still think he should be charged with something?  Why can’t someone defend their property and carry a weapon in an open carry state?

 
FairWarning said:
I don’t think you can pick and choose on charging curfew, I get your point.
Click to expand...
It is a weird argument.  Sure if Rittenhouse could have stayed home, but the real instigator was Rosenbaum.  If he stayed home, nobody would have been shot either. 

 
moleculo said:
it seems some of the interpretations of self defense, or if that is an appropriate defense in this case, are in dispute.
Click to expand...
I posted a link with video of each shooting.  I'd love your input on how any of them does not qualify as self defense. 

 
moleculo said:
ekbeats said:
What if he were 18? Would you still think he should be charged with something?  Why can’t someone defend their property and carry a weapon in an open carry state?
Click to expand...
what if it wasn't his property?
Click to expand...
Right, this is a confusing part of the story for me.  He brought the gun to protect somebody else's property, but he had no legal right to actually use the gun to protect that person's property.  

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
McCarthy and McConnell Wanted ‘Son of a B*tch’ Trump Out of Politics After Jan. 6 Riot,
2 3
Replies
124
Views
3K
ignatiusjreilly
ignatiusjreilly
GordonGekko
How NYC Bodega Clerk Jose Alba's "Self Defense" Became Political Persecution ( 7/10/22 2:12 PST)
2
Replies
97
Views
2K
parasaurolophus
parasaurolophus
Max Power
Every branch of the U.S. military is struggling to meet its 2022 recruiting goals
3 4 5
Replies
203
Views
6K
Max Power
Max Power

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top