Which Party is Most Responsible for the Violent Protests? (1 Viewer)

[jon_mx]

I'd like to point out, that Florida has very WEAK gun laws.  Essentially, everything that happens prior to the individual feeling scared for their life is wiped away as soon as they feel scared for their life.  To be honest, I have no idea why the laws even exist as written.  If I'm to believe what's written in this thread, Wisconsin is worse?  That's remarkable to me.  It's interesting to me to watch the attempt to frame this as "wholesome kid who was just trying to help his community" vs "white supremacists coming across state lines...."  Actually, it's not interesting.  It's horrifying for a myriad of reasons but the most important being people consuming the "media" that would portray this in either way.  Anyone paying attention to either narrative being spun out of the media is part of the problem IMO.  Based on the local account I read and what's been picked up by BBC it seems that the fair narrative here is "Kid goes to help local area and makes stupid mistake in arming himself, gets into a situation he isn't trained to navigate and shoots people".  

I can give the benefit of the doubt regarding the kid's intentions.  I think there's an argument where he thought he was going to be able to "help".  I also think it was immature to believe he could do anything positive by injecting himself into a hostile situation with a gun.  That was a gross miscalculation on his part that seems to be nullified by the current laws in that state.  As a result he's going to walk.  From a legal perspective this seems cut/dry.  From a moral perspective it's all kinds of ###### up, and I doubt we'll have honest discussion about that here.

The kid is not overly bright, but there is zero evidence to suggest he had anything but good intentions in showing up.

I don't know what you consider an honest discussion about the morals.  You have already stated it is cut and dry, which i fail to see how that is.   There is a good moral case to make for sticking up for keeping peaceful protests peaceful.  The kids day up to that point included cleaning up graffiti, help putting out a dumpster fire, standing watch over a guys business that had been vandelized the night before, and carrying around a first aid kit in case he needed to assist someone.  That sounds overall pretty damn morally responsible.  

 

[The Commish]

The bold is not true. 

Ok, thanks.....just going by what I've read here.  What's the law exactly then?  If true, that's good news IMO.  Here in Florida it's absolutely true.

 

[Hov34]

and I'm not a conservative or a Trump voter either, brother, I'm just sick of the partisan hypocrisy and melodramatic outrage we've gotten to these days. Every issue has to be turned into some kind of tribal us vs them grandstanding crusade, with neither side interested in any evidence or opinion that doesn't dehumanize and vilify the other, and neither side is willing to engage in even the slightest bit of self reflection and consideration of the possibility that they might not be the infallible, all-knowing arbiters of truth and righteousness in the world.

Welcome to the Politics Forum.  Enjoy your stay!

 

[jon_mx]

Ok, thanks.....just going by what I've read here.  What's the law exactly then?  If true, that's good news IMO.  Here in Florida it's absolutely true.

An excerpt from Wisconsin Law 938.48

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.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Ok, thanks.....just going by what I've read here.  What's the law exactly then?  If true, that's good news IMO.  Here in Florida it's absolutely true.

Basically your previous actions can be vacated(for lack of a better term) if you showed a clear retreat. 

So you cant just go start beating somebody and then if you start losing the fight you bust out a pistol and shoot him. 

However if you start running away down the street and he pursues you, the fact that you started the fight is no longer relevant. 

 

[spodog]

It was a whitey shooting a whitey.  Not much national interest in this case.

 Nothingburger.

Tremendous national interest in this case.      Yes, Kyle and all 4 of his attackers were white, but this case is already and will continue to receive tremendous national attention.    We are already seeing attempts to push this story into oblivion by segments of the media, but it will have a light on it for a long time to come. 

 

[spodog]

I'd like to point out, that Florida has very WEAK gun laws.  Essentially, everything that happens prior to the individual feeling scared for their life is wiped away as soon as they feel scared for their life.  To be honest, I have no idea why the laws even exist as written.  If I'm to believe what's written in this thread, Wisconsin is worse?  That's remarkable to me.  It's interesting to me to watch the attempt to frame this as "wholesome kid who was just trying to help his community" vs "white supremacists coming across state lines...."  Actually, it's not interesting.  It's horrifying for a myriad of reasons but the most important being people consuming the "media" that would portray this in either way.  Anyone paying attention to either narrative being spun out of the media is part of the problem IMO.  Based on the local account I read and what's been picked up by BBC it seems that the fair narrative here is "Kid goes to help local area and makes stupid mistake in arming himself, gets into a situation he isn't trained to navigate and shoots people".  

I can give the benefit of the doubt regarding the kid's intentions.  I think there's an argument where he thought he was going to be able to "help".  I also think it was immature to believe he could do anything positive by injecting himself into a hostile situation with a gun.  That was a gross miscalculation on his part that seems to be nullified by the current laws in that state.  As a result he's going to walk.  From a legal perspective this seems cut/dry.  From a moral perspective it's all kinds of ###### up, and I doubt we'll have honest discussion about that here.

This individuals was not a lone ranger.    There were dozens (maybe more?) of individuals who volunteered to put themselves in this same situation on that same night.    Some were armed, some were not.     There won't be a national discussion about the others that were there and possibly prevented a store or a vehicle from being destroyed due to the deterrent effect they had against the rioters, but he was not alone. 

 

[Summer Wheat]

Tremendous national interest in this case.      Yes, Kyle and all 4 of his attackers were white, but this case is already and will continue to receive tremendous national attention.    We are already seeing attempts to push this story into oblivion by segments of the media, but it will have a light on it for a long time to come. 

There is some interest given it happened during a protest. Had he shot a couple of black dudes it would have been a huge story for the news outlets.

 

[The Commish]

This individuals was not a lone ranger.    There were dozens (maybe more?) of individuals who volunteered to put themselves in this same situation on that same night.    Some were armed, some were not.     There won't be a national discussion about the others that were there and possibly prevented a store or a vehicle from being destroyed due to the deterrent effect they had against the rioters, but he was not alone. 

Didn't say he was.  We are talking about him though, right?  That's who the people in this thread seem to want to talk about.  Personally, the whole thing was screwed up and there are many who displayed poor judgement.  I have no problem whatsoever saying that.  Lots of misguided people and poor decision makers on that night.  We can talk about any/all of them if you like.

 

[spodog]

I think painting these vigilantes as heroes protecting the community is as reckless as saying robbers and arsonists are peaceful protesting. Neither should be there. Being a responsible gun owner doesn’t include loading your weapon and taking it to a large gathering- especially one as tense and emotional as we’ve seen.

The below was from two pages back, but I'll bring it forward here since it is continuing to be ignored.    There is a reason that when a witness is sworn in to testify in court they are asked to swear to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".     The whole truth sometimes is the story:

----------

Recall that this happened on Tuesday night the 25th.    The Blake shooting occurred on the 23rd.    On the night of Monday 24th, mayhem reigned in Kenosha, and at least 30 businesses, owned by individuals of all political views and races, were destroyed, burned, looted, etc.     The other victims in this sequence of events were business owners and property owners along 22nd Avenue and other parts of uptown Kenosha.   Some of them recognized the same chaos was going to start up again on Tuesday night.    They also knew the sheriff's office and the local police were indicating they would be outnumbered and they wouldn't have the manpower to protect every business if rioting started again on Tues night.     Some of these business owners put out their own call for local militia leaders and other volunteers to assist them in protecting their property and their livelihood, because going it alone as a business owner vs the rioters typically doesn't end well.  

RIttenhouse received a request, along with others, to voluntarily go stand guard at a business. 

He and others opted to answer this call and put himself in harm's way, to do what he felt was a duty or an obligation.    It seems very likely he went to stand guard with an intent to protect.    It is a valid viewpoint to view this as moral, regardless of whether you yourself would do the same. 

Others, like the reporters, arrived with an intent to report and inform.    

Those of you who are defending the crowd or individuals within the crowd that traveled to that street with the sole intent of destroying, burning, looting, rioting or harming are challenged to come up with arguments as to how these individuals were acting morally.

------

Bottom line: 

- putting the vigilante label on them attempts to paint them

- It is not necessarily reckless to cite that many, and maybe all, of those that stood guard on 22nd street, did so with sound intentions

- declaring that "neither should be there" is just an opinion.

Maybe if you visit with Robbie Orvis, Kenosha resident (1st link), or Brandon Morris, the black basketball coach who lived a block from where this happened, or Pamela Moniz, the business owner whose business was destroyed and burnt the night before this incident, you'd have a different perspective. 

 

[Stoneworker]

The potential self-defense acquittal seems pretty straightforward...but still don't see how Rittenhouse walks on the misdemeanor underage possession charge.***

The Chicago Tribune article had pretty good rationale why he would be legally able to use an otherwise illegally possessed weapon once he was attacked, but can't see how that voids the law still applying to events prior to that.

Last I read the defense team was preparing some type of arcane militia defense applying to teenagers...but that seems quite weak IMHO.

*** I'm no lawyer just from a layman's perspective.

 

[Possum]

Those are all points well taken, and we will see how it plays out. I think painting these vigilantes as heroes protecting the community is as reckless as saying robbers and arsonists are peaceful protesting. Neither should be there. Being a responsible gun owner doesn’t include loading your weapon and taking it to a large gathering- especially one as tense and emotional as we’ve seen. There was a time when you’d hear “militia” and you’d think Oklahoma City, now they’re patriots defending our communities from liberal democrats. 
You may be right and the charges get dismissed, there may be exceptions and a difficult burden of proof. I think there’s a chance he gets convicted of some crimes here as well.
Reading his lawyers statement, he says on multiple occasions that Kyle “received information that such and such a business needed protection.” Where is this information coming from? Is this responding to a credible threat to the community or simply going where the action is? 

Lawyers statement  if it hasn’t been posted. 
 

I guess my point here is that I don’t think having armed militias showing up here should be legal nor are they helping anything. I don’t think a “protestor” should be able to show up larping with a helmet and shield. I don’t think a “proud boy” who shows up with taped hands for fighting should be allowed. This is turning into “gangs of New York” only they have guns. 

this stuff is all  and I'm right there with you. I don't want groups of concerned citizens on the streets carrying guns either and think that's just a recipe for bad stuff to happen.

problem is, if protesters are going to be allowed to burn and destroy businesses and property and nothing much is going to happen from an official standpoint to stop that, then you're going to see responses like this from people who are concerned about that destruction happening for various reasons. I know that not all the protesters are violent, but that distinction needs to go out the window once arson and destruction start happening, and at that point those protests need to be shut down for the night by the authorities to send the message that behavior is not allowed. 

and while I agree Rittenhouse carrying a rifle was a bad idea, the guy who got shot in the arm - Gaige Grosskreutz - was also packing a gun of his own to the protest which photos and video show that he pulled on Rittenhouse after he had fallen down. But I've barely even heard his name mentioned in the media's discussion of guns at protests and haven't heard anybody calling him an armed person who had no business being there and wanting him investigated. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

and while I agree Rittenhouse carrying a rifle was a bad idea, the guy who got shot in the arm - Gaige Grosskreutz - was also packing a gun of his own to the protest which photos and video show that he pulled on Rittenhouse after he had fallen down. But I've barely even heard his name mentioned in the media's discussion of guns at protests and haven't heard anybody calling him an armed person who had no business being there and wanting him investigated. 

For the record, I think that guy should have stayed home or, at the very least, not brought a gun to the riot.  I'm guessing he's second-guessing his decisions that night as well now that his arm is probably useless for life.

 

[The Commish]

Basically your previous actions can be vacated(for lack of a better term) if you showed a clear retreat. 

So you cant just go start beating somebody and then if you start losing the fight you bust out a pistol and shoot him. 

However if you start running away down the street and he pursues you, the fact that you started the fight is no longer relevant. 

Ok, thanks.  This is a second version I've heard here.  Honestly, I don't know the answer.  If that's true, that's significantly better than what's been established here in Florida.  In your view, how does this thing play out based on your understanding?

 

[The Commish]

An excerpt from Wisconsin Law 938.48

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.

Thanks....this is SIGNIFICANTLY different than the precedent set under Florida law.  Much more thoughtful here.  And clearly cut/dry does not apply here.  It's not.  I can see reasonable arguments made on either side.  

 

[dkp993]

Maybe if you visit with Robbie Orvis, Kenosha resident (1st link), or Brandon Morris, the black basketball coach who lived a block from where this happened, or Pamela Moniz, the business owner whose business was destroyed and burnt the night before this incident, you'd have a different perspective. 

Nope, wouldn’t change a thing for me.  Even then I would not want to encourage a world where we are OK with our 17yr old kids picking up assault rifles of their own validation with no training or supervision and trying to play cop.   Still can’t even begin to grasp how some people are OK with this.  

 

[parasaurolophus]

Ok, thanks.  This is a second version I've heard here.  Honestly, I don't know the answer.  If that's true, that's significantly better than what's been established here in Florida.  In your view, how does this thing play out based on your understanding?

I think he gets convicted of the gun possession and thats it. I just dont see how you convince 12 people he wasnt acting in self defense when videos showing he was running away from people prior to both incidents. 

When you have to argue that he wasnt running away from a molotov cocktail in the first video it was just a different fireball and that gunshot before was only harmlessly fired in the air and the angry guy only was trying to disarm him, your case is toast. 

 

[jon_mx]

I think he gets convicted of the gun possession and thats it. I just dont see how you convince 12 people he wasnt acting in self defense when videos showing he was running away from people prior to both incidents. 

When you have to argue that he wasnt running away from a molotov cocktail in the first video it was just a different fireball and that gunshot before was only harmlessly fired in the air and the angry guy only was trying to disarm him, your case is toast. 

Wisconsin has exception for long rifles for 16 and 17 year old which were geared for hunting, but several lawyers who practice Wisconsin law believes he can avoid conviction on it.  Probably his biggest obstacle is if he keeps the current judge.  

 

[The Commish]

I think he gets convicted of the gun possession and thats it. I just dont see how you convince 12 people he wasnt acting in self defense when videos showing he was running away from people prior to both incidents. 

When you have to argue that he wasnt running away from a molotov cocktail in the first video it was just a different fireball and that gunshot before was only harmlessly fired in the air and the angry guy only was trying to disarm him, your case is toast. 

I wasn't aware that there were two incidents even.  I tuned out on this thread for a good while when all the "he's completely to blame" and "he's completely innocent" stuff started and all I've read is from BBC.  Incidentally, BBC is reporting he was being "chased" because people were saying he had shot someone else and they were trying to catch him.  Has that been confirmed?  Is that one of the "running away" incidents you refer to hear?  If so, what was the other incident he was running from?  While it might not be in the "stand your ground" portion of Wisconsin law, is there anything that speaks to chasing a person because you believe it's in your personal safety or the safety of others to do so?

 

[CletiusMaximus]

For his sake, I hope this 17 year old boy gets himself a real criminal defense lawyer, preferably a good local experienced defense lawyer who knows the judge and prosecutor and can bring some sense to the process.  If my son faced life in prison, I would not want an out of state, non-criminal, celebrity lawyer, seemingly focused on politics and social media, defending him.  I would be particularly suspicious of a lawyer with significant skeletons in his closet like the Pierce Bainbridge firm has.  I guess we'll know more  later this month. The prosecutor (Thomas Binger) is ambitious, having run for DA in a nearby city (Racine) a few years ago.  He will not want to lose a high-profile case like this one.  The difficulty is that, while the great majority of these cases don't go to trial (probably 95% or more settle short of trial), that becomes very difficult when a high profile lawyer has drawn a line in the sand publicly.

For what its worth, here are the six charges:

1

940.02(1)1st-Degree Reckless Homicide Felony B

Modifier: 939.63(1)(b) Use of a Dangerous Weapon

2

941.30(1)1st-Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety Felony F

Modifier:939.63(1)(b) Use of a Dangerous Weapon

3

940.01(1)(a)1st-Degree Intentional Homicide Felony A

Modifier:939.63(1)(b) Use of a Dangerous Weapon

4

940.01(1)(a)Attempt 1st-Degree Intentional Homicide Felony A

Modifier:939.63(1)(b) Use of a Dangerous Weapon

5

941.30(1)1st-Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety Felony F

Modifier:939.63(1)(b) Use of a Dangerous Weapon

6

948.60(2)(a) Possess Dangerous Weapon-Person < 18Misd. A

Anyone can sign up for a free account on Wisconsin's court access website and follow along -- Kenosha County Case Number 2020CF000983 State of Wisconsin vs. Kyle H. Rittenhouse

 

[jon_mx]

Thanks....this is SIGNIFICANTLY different than the precedent set under Florida law.  Much more thoughtful here.  And clearly cut/dry does not apply here.  It's not.  I can see reasonable arguments made on either side.  

Here is a video with a very prominent lawyer who has a practice in Wisconsin who explains why the provocation exception will not apply (go to the 7:45 mark).  According to him, the only way it applies is if the prosecution can prove that Kyle went there with the intent to provoke violence and kill.  

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

White supremacy is 'most lethal threat' to the US, DHS draft assessment says

White supremacists will remain the most "persistent and lethal threat" in the United States through 2021, according to Department of Homeland Security.

Additionally, one of the report's "key take-aways" is that "Russia probably will be the primary covert foreign influence actor and purveyor of disinformation and misinformation in the Homeland."

 

[Sinn Fein]

Frat Party

 

[jon_mx]

For his sake, I hope this 17 year old boy gets himself a real criminal defense lawyer, preferably a good local experienced defense lawyer who knows the judge and prosecutor and can bring some sense to the process.  If my son faced life in prison, I would not want an out of state, non-criminal, celebrity lawyer, seemingly focused on politics and social media, defending him.  I would be particularly suspicious of a lawyer with significant skeletons in his closet like the Pierce Bainbridge firm has.  I guess we'll know more  later this month. The prosecutor (Thomas Binger) is ambitious, having run for DA in a nearby city (Racine) a few years ago.  He will not want to lose a high-profile case like this one.  The difficulty is that, while the great majority of these cases don't go to trial (probably 95% or more settle short of trial), that becomes very difficult when a high profile lawyer has drawn a line in the sand publicly.

For what its worth, here are the six charges:

Anyone can sign up for a free account on Wisconsin's court access website and follow along -- Kenosha County Case Number 2020CF000983 State of Wisconsin vs. Kyle H. Rittenhouse

I agree, his current representation has failed him.  No one showed up and his initial hearing and he is stuck in jail another month in Illinois without any bail.  He really needs to fight extradition.  The bad thing about Wisconsin is there is no bond, you have to put up the entire bail amount.  $10 million bail would mean $10 million dollars, while in Illinois you can at least get out on bond.  Even a good out of state attorney should be hiring some good local lawyers who already understand Wisconsin laws and precedence and also understand the local political landscape.  

 

[spodog]

I wasn't aware that there were two incidents even.  I tuned out on this thread . . . 

It was really a single, elongated event, with the two shooting volleys within 1.5 to 2 blocks of each other.    

BBC's offices are over 3,900 miles from Kenosha.   Maybe 10 minutes listening to the first hand account from the primary individual that was within feet of the first occurrence will help you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGb3Qv4_gZI

 

[spodog]

I agree, his current representation has failed him.  No one showed up and his initial hearing and he is stuck in jail another month in Illinois without any bail.   

Not sure I'd jump to this conclusion.    There are a multitude of good reasons that both Rittenhouse and his attorney's may want him  to remain in IL for as long as possible.    They already are working with the courts to keep him there rather than allowing IL to immediately surrender him to WI authorities.     As long as he in IL, this is one more point of leverage in the pre-trial maneuvers. 

 Even a good out of state attorney should be hiring some good local lawyers who already understand Wisconsin laws and precedence and also understand the local political landscape. 

This is already underway. 

John Pierce and Lin Wood are handling the media relations nightmares and internet lynching that is underway.

Local attorney Jennifer Snyder is on board (for now).   K Lawson Pedigo has signed on to focus on building criminal defense team, which likely will indeed include a local WI criminal defense attorney.    

 

[spodog]

Also: 

"Court officials tell CBS 58 Rittenhouse has hired Attorney Andrew Calderon, who is based in Los Angeles"

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

RIttenhouse received a request, along with others, to voluntarily go stand guard at a business. 

He and others opted to answer this call and put himself in harm's way, to do what he felt was a duty or an obligation.    It seems very likely he went to stand guard with an intent to protect.    It is a valid viewpoint to view this as moral, regardless of whether you yourself would do the same. 

Was that before or after he beat up a girl. Feel free to keep defending him as some sort of hero though.

He shouldn't have been there, let alone with a gun. No one should go on to the streets with a gun, period. Including the guy who got shot in the arm and every other person who thinks storming a state capital or showing up to a protest with a freaking firearm is a good idea. 

 

[Sinn Fein]

Shockingly honest answer from Majority Leader McConnell:

.

@senatemajldr McConnell, asked if he has empathy for Kyle Rittenhouse, the teenager charged with killing two individuals in Kenosha: "The answer is no."

 

[parasaurolophus]

chasing a person because you believe it's in your personal safety or the safety of others to do so?

I hope not since this doesnt seem like a good thing to put into law.

I realize there might be situations where we wouldn't want to charge somebody for doing so, but putting it into law seems really dumb. I think there was a church shooting a while back where somebody got in their car and chased the church shooter and originally it was reported that this person took down the shooter, but that turned out to not be true. If it was though, seems like that would still be illegal, but cant imagine that getting prosecuted. 

 

[The Commish]

I hope not since this doesnt seem like a good thing to put into law.

I realize there might be situations where we wouldn't want to charge somebody for doing so, but putting it into law seems really dumb. I think there was a church shooting a while back where somebody got in their car and chased the church shooter and originally it was reported that this person took down the shooter, but that turned out to not be true. If it was though, seems like that would still be illegal, but cant imagine that getting prosecuted. 

I'm asking the question...I thought it was rather logical given the fact we have in some of our laws that it's a good thing to put into law you can shoot them because you felt it was in your best interest or the interest of others.  From my POV, that's a bizarre place to draw the line.  "No, you can't chase them down to protect others, but yes you can shoot them" seems off to me.

 

[jon_mx]

Was that before or after he beat up a girl. Feel free to keep defending him as some sort of hero though.

He shouldn't have been there, let alone with a gun. No one should go on to the streets with a gun, period. Including the guy who got shot in the arm and every other person who thinks storming a state capital or showing up to a protest with a freaking firearm is a good idea. 

Some grown women was beating up his little sister.   I hope you now will take a second to look up the extensive criminal records of the guys he shot.  

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Not sure I'd jump to this conclusion.    There are a multitude of good reasons that both Rittenhouse and his attorney's may want him  to remain in IL for as long as possible.    They already are working with the courts to keep him there rather than allowing IL to immediately surrender him to WI authorities.     As long as he in IL, this is one more point of leverage in the pre-trial maneuvers. 

This is already underway. 

John Pierce and Lin Wood are handling the media relations nightmares and internet lynching that is underway.

Local attorney Jennifer Snyder is on board (for now).   K Lawson Pedigo has signed on to focus on building criminal defense team, which likely will indeed include a local WI criminal defense attorney.    

Not sure, but I think @jon_mx point is that an aggressive defense would have sought  reasonable release terms in Illinois, where the courts will accept posting of a bond (typically, 10% of the bail amount) rather than letting him sit in jail for a full month or longer while the extradition process proceeds.  The $2mil bail set in Wisconsin has not been challenged, so its not set in stone.  If he's been out on bail/bond for a while during the extradition proceedings, and behaved well, that would give his lawyers a decent argument in later proceedings in Wisconsin for a smaller bail amount.  Whether he fights extradition or not is a more complex issue than I can comment on, but he definitely wants to be out of jail, at home, not locked up while the proceeding moves forward.

 

[The Commish]

It was really a single, elongated event, with the two shooting volleys within 1.5 to 2 blocks of each other.    

BBC's offices are over 3,900 miles from Kenosha.   Maybe 10 minutes listening to the first hand account from the primary individual that was within feet of the first occurrence will help you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGb3Qv4_gZI

BBC offices here in the US were on location.  They have several videos of things that were happening live on their websites and BBC America....FYI.  They were there so I don't know why you think location of their headquarters has to do with it.  What I am suppose to take from a Daily Caller employee interpretation of the events?  Honestly, I'd rather see the events themselves than take another person's interpretation/account of what happened.  If those don't exist, fine.  This really does nothing to help me with my questions.

 

[spodog]

BBC offices here in the US were on location.  They have several videos of things that were happening live on their websites and BBC America....FYI.  They were there so I don't know why you think location of their headquarters has to do with it.  What I am suppose to take from a Daily Caller employee interpretation of the events?  Honestly, I'd rather see the events themselves than take another person's interpretation/account of what happened.  If those don't exist, fine.  This really does nothing to help me with my questions.

As you watch unedited videos of the night, of which there are many,  you will see R McGinnis, the videographer in the youtube interview I provided on ALL of them that show the first attack on Rittenhouse.    McGinnis is literally feet from both Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum when Rosenbaum goes down, and takes his shirt off to attempt to render aid to Rosenbaum.  McGinnis has already given his statements to police,  and will likely be called as a sworn witness in the case if it goes to trial.

 The videos clearly show that McGinnis was the closest person to the initial event. 

 So it seems that his statements and testimony will be good enough for a court of law but don't meet your criteria?

 

[parasaurolophus]

I'm asking the question...I thought it was rather logical given the fact we have in some of our laws that it's a good thing to put into law you can shoot them because you felt it was in your best interest or the interest of others.  From my POV, that's a bizarre place to draw the line.  "No, you can't chase them down to protect others, but yes you can shoot them" seems off to me.

Even if we assume that chasing down somebody fleeing is a fair comparison, doesnt mean it cancels Rittenhouse's defense.

Lets say Rittenhouse never gets a shot off and they beat the hell out of him. What argument do you think their attorneys would make?

What if Rittenhouse's victims survived and Rittenhouse got acquitted? Does that mean that they are automatically guilty of assault then?

It isn't a math equation. There are times in this world when bad things happen, even based on terrible judgment, and neither party is a criminal.  

 

[spodog]

Not sure, but I think @jon_mx point is that an aggressive defense would have sought  reasonable release terms in Illinois, where the courts will accept posting of a bond (typically, 10% of the bail amount) rather than letting him sit in jail for a full month or longer while the extradition process proceeds.  The $2mil bail set in Wisconsin has not been challenged, so its not set in stone.  If he's been out on bail/bond for a while during the extradition proceedings, and behaved well, that would give his lawyers a decent argument in later proceedings in Wisconsin for a smaller bail amount.  Whether he fights extradition or not is a more complex issue than I can comment on, but he definitely wants to be out of jail, at home, not locked up while the proceeding moves forward.

These are good points, but I am imagining that his defense team is working on their tactics for both pre-trial motions and trial prep, so will trust they know what they are doing. 

 

[jon_mx]

These are good points, but I am imagining that his defense team is working on their tactics for both pre-trial motions and trial prep, so will trust they know what they are doing. 

This link I provided earlier is a lawyer who addresses why he is concerned with Kyle's legal representation.  I am sure you could argue might have personal motives, but he comes across as knowledgeable and sincere.  

 

[spodog]

This link I provided earlier is a lawyer who addresses why he is concerned with Kyle's legal representation.  I am sure you could argue might have personal motives, but he comes across as knowledgeable and sincere.  

Meh.   There are all kinds of attorneys jumping onto YouTube with their opinions on this case.    Some are doing it to drum up business, some are plants, some have an axe to grind in the political swamp that is 2020, others simply want to educate.      In my view, none of it is tasteful.   Attorney's don't belong on YouTube, trying cases they have no role in on social media, it's just bad form.    I don't think any of us would want physicians or surgeons who aren't treating us babbling on YouTube about whether our actual surgeon is doing a good job removing a tumor from our body.     I think it's bad form for these attorney's to do this, but the cat is out of the bag on this practice at this stage.  

 

[jon_mx]

Meh.   There are all kinds of attorneys jumping onto YouTube with their opinions on this case.    Some are doing it to drum up business, some are plants, some have an axe to grind in the political swamp that is 2020, others simply want to educate.      In my view, none of it is tasteful.   Attorney's don't belong on YouTube, trying cases they have no role in on social media, it's just bad form.    I don't think any of us would want physicians or surgeons who aren't treating us babbling on YouTube about whether our actual surgeon is doing a good job removing a tumor from our body.     I think it's bad form for these attorney's to do this, but the cat is out of the bag on this practice at this stage.  

Cable outlets like CNN has been doing it for years.  At least now there are diverse opinions out there. If you are just looking for someone to support your viewpoint, you can find it.  If you are looking for good points and wanting to learn, you can find that too.  

 

[spodog]

Was that before or after he beat up a girl. Feel free to keep defending him as some sort of hero though.

He shouldn't have been there, let alone with a gun. No one should go on to the streets with a gun, period. Including the guy who got shot in the arm and every other person who thinks storming a state capital or showing up to a protest with a freaking firearm is a good idea. 

Yes, saw that.    Hey, I also heard when he was in third grade that he missed touching third base as he came to home plate in a kickball game and then lied about it.   I'm sure we will see an article on Slate about that shortly. 

I've not said the kid was a hero, but he certainly will be made out to be a vigilante, a white neo-nazi and a million other things by uninformed speculators on the internet.   Many with an agenda will attempt to paint him in a certain light to further their own aims.  Your post is a great example. 

Have already said all this, but will repeat.    He put himself in harm's way.   He was mis-directed in his intent to attempt to defend a business that night.   He also rendered aid to the rioters during the course of the night, used a fire extinguisher to subdue a dumpster fire set by rioters.    Ultimately, he was attacked because he wasn't willing to stand aside and let rioting take it's natural course, and he was forced to defend himself.      

The evening was a tragedy on many levels, but this 17 year old kid was neither the instigator nor the villain in the story. 

 

[The Commish]

Even if we assume that chasing down somebody fleeing is a fair comparison, doesnt mean it cancels Rittenhouse's defense.

Lets say Rittenhouse never gets a shot off and they beat the hell out of him. What argument do you think their attorneys would make?

What if Rittenhouse's victims survived and Rittenhouse got acquitted? Does that mean that they are automatically guilty of assault then?

It isn't a math equation. There are times in this world when bad things happen, even based on terrible judgment, and neither party is a criminal.  

Well, you're changing the subject to something I wasn't talking about.  I  wasn't making comparisons.  Not sure why we're doing they hypo thing now.  I was wondering if there was something in Wisconsin law that allowed for people to chase others down if they felt it was in the best interest of themselves and/or others.  Criminality is merely a function of the law, again, something else I wasn't even talking about.  I'm definitely more interested in the judgement/morality/personal responsibility of these things.  That seems to be the root of most of these events these days, yet few people talk about those aspects.  

 

[msommer]

Is there at least agreement that a 17 year old is not legally allowed to open carry in Wisconsin?

 

[The Commish]

As you watch unedited videos of the night, of which there are many,  you will see R McGinnis, the videographer in the youtube interview I provided on ALL of them that show the first attack on Rittenhouse.    McGinnis is literally feet from both Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum when Rosenbaum goes down, and takes his shirt off to attempt to render aid to Rosenbaum.  McGinnis has already given his statements to police,  and will likely be called as a sworn witness in the case if it goes to trial.

 The videos clearly show that McGinnis was the closest person to the initial event. 

 So it seems that his statements and testimony will be good enough for a court of law but don't meet your criteria?

Then there are some..cool.  That's what I'd want to see.  Not sure why that's so difficult.  What exactly is "my criteria" here other than seeing the video for myself?  I'll always take footage of the event over a person's version of the event.  Always.

 

[The Commish]

Is there at least agreement that a 17 year old is not legally allowed to open carry in Wisconsin?

apparently not...thought I read something up thread about hunting exemptions or something...if that's the defense, my reactionary question is "what was he hunting in the middle of a riot?"  That seems like a can of worms no one would want to open up.

 

[msommer]

apparently not...thought I read something up thread about hunting exemptions or something...if that's the defense, my reactionary question is "what was he hunting in the middle of a riot?"  That seems like a can of worms no one would want to open up.

That's insane. It seems he at least had three "hunting" accidents that night. That's even worse than **** Cheney

 

[parasaurolophus]

Well, you're changing the subject to something I wasn't talking about.  I  wasn't making comparisons.  Not sure why we're doing they hypo thing now.  I was wondering if there was something in Wisconsin law that allowed for people to chase others down if they felt it was in the best interest of themselves and/or others.  Criminality is merely a function of the law, again, something else I wasn't even talking about.  I'm definitely more interested in the judgement/morality/personal responsibility of these things.  That seems to be the root of most of these events these days, yet few people talk about those aspects.  

We, as a society, typically consider chasing people down as beyond the scope of self defense morally and legally. 

I dont believe it is written into law anywhere that would be ok for ordinary citizens to do.

 

[spodog]

Then there are some..cool.  That's what I'd want to see.  Not sure why that's so difficult.  What exactly is "my criteria" here other than seeing the video for myself?  I'll always take footage of the event over a person's version of the event.  Always.

link

5 Hours, 40 Minutes of Raw Video from Kenosha from that evening.    If you tune to the 3:57:30 mark and let it run for a few minutes, you'll have one view of the initial skirmish, with the convicted pedophile chasing and attacking Rittenhouse in a parking lot.    You'll have to put up with 60 seconds or so of peaceful protesters smashing car windows in the lot before the scene unfolds.   

There is at least one other camera angle from a cell phone across the street out there as well. 

This guys video doesn't show the 2nd, 3rd and 4th attackers going after Rittenhouse in the street, but many others do. 

You'll see Richie McGinnis (the videographer) clearly in this video, an eyewitness to the event, helping to load Rosenbaum into the back of an SUV and riding with him as the car leaves.   His view of the sequence of events that started this is basically a first person view of the entire thing. 

 

[jon_mx]

We, as a society, typically consider chasing people down as beyond the scope of self defense morally and legally. 

I dont believe it is written into law anywhere that would be ok for ordinary citizens to do.

When the facts aren't on our side, we should speculate if the convicted child molester who was viciously shouting at Rittenhouse to "shoot me n-word, shoot me n-word" was only doing what he though was in Rittenhouse best interest when he was chasing him down trying to grab his weapon.  No way he wanted to hurt anyone.  

 

[The Commish]

We, as a society, typically consider chasing people down as beyond the scope of self defense morally and legally. 

I dont believe it is written into law anywhere that would be ok for ordinary citizens to do.

Really?  The kid of a friend of mine died at UNCC going after a shooter and he's considered a hero.  Many say he saved lives.  Was the guy that chased down the shooter at that Texas (I think?) church frowned upon?  I honestly can't think of an incident in this country where we'd consider chasing down a person who we believed to be getting ready to hurt others in a negative light.  

Was out perusing a myriad of these videos on youtube (big mistake on my part) and multiple of them have the guys chasing this kid down as saying he shot someone else.  Of course I am not defending those other guys and I have no way of knowing what they were thinking for certain.  I personally wouldn't do it, but it seems logical that an argument could be made that they thought he had shot someone and they were trying to stop him.  Again, we will never know what was running through their heads for sure, but it's not a huge stretch to present that as one of the possible scenarios especially with their commentary on those videos.

Anyway, I think I am still in the "see what comes out at trial" camp.  I'm not admonishing the kid for being anything other than a stupid decision maker at this point.  He made some poor decisions that got him into a situation where he shot two other people dead.  For me, there's more to it than "legality", but that seems to be as deep as any want to go, so I'll bow out and let all the supposition and pretending we knew what ANY of them were thinking be left to the mind readers.