Rittenhouse - innocent or guilty?

[Jon]

He never should have gone to the riot in the first place. He went because he wanted to "help". That is why they are calling him a vigilante, because he was prepared (had his gun) to take justice into his own hands.

He did want to help. But his gun was for self protection and not for shooting rioters who loot, or cause destruction. I think that is an important difference.

There is also the question of whether you should or should not do something. If there is a protest that could turn violent, should you not go? It would be so easy to quash most of your legal rights if you fear everything. Was it wise or unwise to take a gun? Considering that he might have been killed without it, I will let you ponder on that one.

Jon, you are assuming that there are any rational people left. Things are so bad that even the formerly rational people are suffering from cognitive dissonance and struggling to justify their hypocritical positions.

I think how rational someone behaves is not solely determined by their age. Else how do you explain the rioters causing destruction to their own neighbourhood. They are adults, right?

Having said that, I do agree, rational people seem to be dropping in numbers!

 

[Jon]

If not Rittenhouse then who? The police were polarized by politics.

I agree. If people don't see the police doing what they are paid to do, they will start taking things into their own hands. If someone starts smashing up your car and the police just stand by watching, you are likely to intervene.

 

[Jon]

I'm with Doc on this. Kyle was wrong to be there but that doesn't make him guilty of murder.

@Pat Hartman Unless I am mistaken, you are with me on one part and Doc on another part. Doc thinks Kyle is guilty of murder, you don't and nor do I. You think he was wrong to be there, like Doc, while I say wrong is subjective and not necessarily illegal. Furthermore, a wrong of being somewhere you shouldn't be is lesser than wrong of attempted murder.

 

[Jon]

You have again overstepped the issue. You are conflating "self defense" and "presence at a riot."

There is no conflation here Doc. Instead, it is extending your perspective to a logical conclusion. I connected the dots. Let me explain...

If you believe that an armed journalist is allowed to be there, because they have a legitimate purpose, it follows that you think they have a right to self defence. Part of your argument is suggesting Kyle is guilty BECAUSE he had no legitimate right to be there. You suggest it here:

As to the specifics of whether he is innocent or guilty, I have to admit to mixed feelings. The reason is that he used "vigilante mentality" as an excuse to be in a dangerous situation. In general, the law says that if you take a gun to a bank robbery, there is a chance that the guards will be armed and will draw weapons. Therefore, even if you never actually fired your weapon, if anyone dies in that robbery, you can be accused of murder. The logic being that a reasonable person would have recognized the danger of possibly lethal violence and would therefore have totally avoided the situation.

Consequently, if you believe that he could be accused of murder for being at a dangerous location, you are saying he is not entitled to the right of self defence. If it was self defence, it would not be murder. Your argument is specifically about his legitimate right to be there and you state it clearly.

Later, you say this:

You ask if he had the right to defend himself. In GENERAL, yes. But what if he went there with the intent to bait a domestic terrorist.

So on the one hand, you suggest he could be guilty of murder due to no legitimate reason for being there. But next, you suggest sometimes he has a right to self defence.

I say you always have a right to self defence, whether you are a journalist with a reason, or a vigilante being attacked by a mob. The exception would be if you were trying to take someone else's life first.

The issue we are talking about is someone running away, retreating.

Of the five (Kyle, three shooting victims, and the putative journalist), only one had a potentially peaceful intent.

Where is the evidence that Kyle did not have peaceful intent? Do all Americans who carry have violent intent?

Once we have the moment where Kyle felt at risk for his life, he had the right of self-defense. However, since he was not a uniformed officer but rather represented a rogue element, the OTHER guys ALSO had the right of self-defense.

Let me understand you on this point. So someone who is about to murder you has the right to self defence? Let us agree to disagree on that one. If you have the right to use lethal force against the other person for self defence, the aggressor doesn't have the right to self defence. It is baked into the definition.

Wikipedia agrees with me in their Self-defence entry:

A person who was the initial aggressor cannot claim self-defense as a justification unless they abandon the combat or the other party has responded with excessive force.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(United_States)

Edit: You can debate the excessive force part.

It also says this:

When the use of deadly force is involved in a self-defense claim, the person must also reasonably believe that their use of deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's infliction of great bodily harm or death.

I believe it applies to all aggressors in this case.

He went out looking for trouble and found it

What evidence do you have that he was looking for trouble, rather than trying to help put out fires, provide first-aid etc?

IF that had not been a riot, he would have been guilty of premeditated murder of a random victim.

Is someone trying to kill you a victim or the aggressor? Are you guilty of murder if someone tries to kill you in the street because you carry?

Jon, your two "black people in peril" examples are also obfuscation. When it is one victim against many perpetrators, yes - self-defense is allowed. This wasn't a black vs white crime. This wasn't the KKK against a minority. This wasn't a mob against a disabled person. All that kind of question does is obscure the issue.

Doc, you have missed my point on this one. There is no obfuscation at all. Instead, I am pointing out that some people will take one side of the argument because of their race, gender or political persuasion. Therefore, I am providing an alternative angle because the law should be the same regardless of these issues, right? It helps people to see the same essential issue but removing their own prejudices in the process.

You keep on asking me what is wrong here. I am reminded of the old question for which the answer is "I may not know much about art, but I know what I like when I see it." Well, in this case, my gut is telling me that Kyle did wrong, self-defense or not, based on his actions leading up to the two deaths. I might not be a lawyer, but I know wrong-doing when I see it.

Doc, I get the impression you think Karl was up to mischief, wanting "some action", perhaps wanting to shoot people. Is that the case?

 

[AccessBlaster]

Tulsi Gabbard on Kyle Rittenhouse, only if the Repubs had her integrity.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1458792879871213569

 

[AccessBlaster]

Remember Ashli Babbitt?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Jon, this debate is going to be a a case of agreeing to disagree, perhaps.

At the bottom line, there is this: IF a person has been overheard / recorded as saying "I'm going out tonight to kill an ANTIFA protester" - and then takes a loaded rifle with him - and travels to where an ANTIFA protester can be found - and kills that protester... to me that is premeditated murder. The fact that the ANTIFA persons appear to have attacked Kyle first is the part that makes me hesitate from making it an absolute statement. Kyle's actions seem DANGEROUSLY close to actions that, absent that self-defense situation, WOULD have earned a Murder One conviction.

The "self-defense" argument has to be tested against this scenario: Suppose that an unarmed man drives the getaway car at a bank robbery. The others in his crew are armed and enter the bank. A guard is sufficiently obscured, has a clear shot. He draws his weapon, commands them to surrender. The robbers do not and lift their weapons towards the guard. That guard kills the robber who lifted his gun. (A) Can the other robbers now shoot back at the guards, claiming self-defense? (B)The other robbers run out to the car and try to escape, but are caught without further loss of life. Who gets charged with what?

(A) In general, the robbers cannot use a self-defense argument.

(B) Every one of the robbers including the driver who was NEVER in the bank and NEVER had a gun will be charged with first-degree murder of their accomplice even though he was actually shot by a guard.

You keep on pulling out that self-defense question and try to avoid what had happened earlier. But if you are going to discuss criminal penalties, you ARE allowed to examine events leading up to the deaths. They didn't happen in a vacuum.

Kyle went where he went, fully ready to participate in mayhem. The hypothetical robbers went somewhere to commit mayhem. Events leading up to actions CAN and usually ARE considered in trials. Which is why I have resisted splitting things at the point of the shooting as an act of self-defense. To misquote the bard, the past is prologue.

One last comment: I had not heard anything about the mayor's call for people to protect property. If that can be shown to be true AND can be shown that Kyle was responding to that call, then it is not out of bounds that the mayor could be arrested for Conspiracy to Commit Murder. If he did ask to protect property but didn't actually deputize anyone, then there is a due-process violation pending somewhere as well.

 

[Jon]

Want another example of blatant fake news propaganda from the left wing media? Here is the newscaster saying that Rittenhouse shot Grosskreutz when his hands were raised, failing to accept his surrender. Yet Grosskreutz admitted he wasn't shot when his hands were raised. MSNBC are lying to their viewers. Yet if the viewers saw the real court footage, they don't really care about the truth. They only want to hear a version that fits their preconceived "truth".

Here is Grosskreutz confirming he wasn't shot when his hands were up, and only after he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse:

Is this slander and can Rittenhouse sue MSNBC for this obvious deception?

 

[Steve R.]

At the approximate 4:30 minute mark, Hannity presents a montage of film clips from "left" wing media that demonstrate that theses misinformation outlets are hyperbolicly spewing "left" wing propaganda as a means to "convict" Rittenhouse by gaslighting the public. For the "left" facts, the presumption of innocence, and due-process are obsolete constructs that are now irrelevant in our legal process. Coincidentally, Hannity briefly touched on some breaking news topics that would apply to the "Election Do-Over!!!" thread.

Hannity blasts media, left for claiming racism while 'vilifying' Rittenhouse and judge

In his Opening Monologue on Friday, Sean Hannity called out the media and the political left for unduly vilifying defendant Kyle Rittenhouse and Kenosha County Judge Bruce Schroeder

www.foxnews.com

 

[AccessBlaster]

This case was never about Kyle Rittenhouse it's always been a referendum on the use of force and gun control. The left will say the use of force is the domain of the police. Meanwhile, they systematically work to dismantle the police through defunding. this is a strawman holding a red herring.

Hopefully, Kyle will be acquitted based on the lack of evidence and an unprofessional performance by the prosecution. The problem is the mob has documented the jury and will intimidate anyone who goes against the mob. It's a modern-day Klu Kux Klan but inverse.

 

[Jon]

My prediction is a hung jury because:

a) Half the jury are probably Democrats, and we know the narrative is that Rittenhouse is guilty.

b) People go in and regardless of how exonerating the evidence, they just cannot shift from their initial position, which has been formed by propaganda.

c) It has nothing to do with justice. Instead, it represents a proxy for civil war between one segment of the country verses others, Left verses Right.

I've only looked at two different left-wing outlets, namely ABC and MSNBC. One is saying Rittenhouse shot while Grosskreutz was surrendering with his hands up (i.e. lied), and the other is letting Grosskreutz state he did not point his gun at Rittenhouse - the opposite of his testimony - go completely unchallenged.

I am unaware what CNN etc are saying.

If you have to lie to your viewers to support your narrative, if the prosecution has to play dirty in order to win, nearly triggering a mistrial, then we know that your position is on the wrong side of justice.

Interestingly, I came up with another scenario which could be considered analogous for the use of self defence case. Imagine Trump's Proud boys are invading the Capitol building. "Where's Nancy? Let's cranium her! If I catch her, I will kill her!" She escapes out the back of the building, and starts running down the street. She trips, falls to the ground, and three Trump criminals converge on her. One drop kicks her in the face. The next hits her in the head with a weighty skateboard. The third points his gun at her. She shoots all three dead.

The following day, Nancy is seen carried on the shoulders of BLM rioters as they march down the street, paraded as a hero.

I had a little fun with that one.

 

[Steve R.]

Kyle Rittenhouse jury can consider lesser charges, judge says

Prosecutors in Kyle Rittenhouse’s murder trial pushed on Friday for the jury to be able to consider some lesser charges after acknowledging the teen could be acquitted of the most serious charge he…

nypost.com

Allowing the jury to find Rittenhouse guilty of lesser charges raises some significant concerns related to equal justice.
How many of those looting and rioting were arrested and convicted of crimes?

Consider this, the FBI is expending significant manpower and resources going through film footage and bank records to locate and arrest those involved in the January 6, 2021 patriotic rally. Has the Kenosha police department made a similar effort to identify and arrest those involved in looting and rioting? If not, it seems that it would be unjust to only convict one person (Rittenhouse) while everyone else goes free.

500 Wisconsin National Guard Troops on Standby for Rittenhouse Verdict

Tony Evers has placed 500 Wisconsin National Guard troops on standby for the expected verdict in Kyle Rittenhouse's trial next week.

www.breitbart.com

This raises the potential that looting and rioting will resume. Should those criminal activities resume, will the Kenosha police department actually arrest those who are involved. If not, that would make a mockery of the legal system since out of all the people openly committing criminal acts, Rittenouse (if found guilty of any charges) would be the only one suffering a legal consequence.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Else how do you explain the rioters causing destruction to their own neighbourhood. They are adults, right?

I'm pretty sure that a lot of riots are instigated by outside agitators so technically it isn't their neighborhood they are destroying. My daughter was in DC on Jan 6th to hear Trump's speech and offer support. All morning long, there were men moving through the crowd trying to start a riot. We now know that they were FBI. They certainly weren't MAGA people. People who pick up their trash in a crowd are not the kind of people who start or even participate in riots. Even the lame-stream media was impressed by how little mess the attendees at Trump's speech that infamous morning left behind.

My prediction is a hung jury because:

I thought that might be an outcome for the George Floyd fiasco. I was wrong. A jury convicted an innocent man of murder because they found him so dislikable they were willing to overlook facts, plus they were afraid of the mob and because the President and VP both said he was guilty. I think the mob will win again here. When the President of the United States says you're guilty with no evidence presented, how can he be wrong?

 

[Jon]

I'm pretty sure that a lot of riots are instigated by outside agitators so technically it isn't their neighborhood they are destroying.

I'm sure there were plenty of outside agitators, but also locals. I'm not sure if the 3 who were shot were locals or not.

I thought there was lots of reasonable doubt in the George Floyd case. Yet I think it goes to show that you just cannot overcome a show trial with significant witness intimidation. Even one of the experts called in the case had his home vandalised. I'm sure that information filters through to the jurors.

This case has less of the furore of the George Floyd case, but because it was a BLM riot, the hate for Rittenhouse is there. So, that puts jurors at risk.

CNN is stating that Rittenhouse knew Rosenbaum was unarmed. Does anyone have footage that confirms this? I cannot trust the left-wing media, so need to see it for myself. The article that states this is here: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/10/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-wednesday/index.html

Wikipedia states the same thing, but the reference is back to CNN! All the other references I see are back to CNN. Is CNN perpetuating an untruth (heaven forbid!) and everybody is just repeating the lie? The articles headline states he knew he was unarmed but there is no link to evidence that supports the claim.

I only ask because how can someone know if someone else is armed or not?

 

[AccessBlaster]

All morning long, there were men moving through the crowd trying to start a riot. We now know that they were FBI.

Ray Epps was one of those instigator who has NOT been charged with any crimes even though he said we must go into the capital on the 5th and 6th. Without the FBI help they may not have been a Jan 6th event.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Why would they charge him? The FBI sent him there to cause trouble. Some was caused, stupid tourists followed the mob into the Capitol and are now being held as political prisoners and charged with serious crimes when all they did was walk through an open door and take selfies.

Defund the FBI. They are the problem, not the local police.

 

[Isaac]

@Jon , not even a question, nor was there prior to trial. Not a hero nor a murderer. Most people who weren't sure before are pretty sure now. Only the tiniest contingent are still pretending at this point

 

[AccessBlaster]

 

[Isaac]

As to the specifics of whether he is innocent or guilty, I have to admit to mixed feelings. The reason is that he used "vigilante mentality" as an excuse to be in a dangerous situation. In general, the law says that if you take a gun to a bank robbery, there is a chance that the guards will be armed and will draw weapons. Therefore, even if you never actually fired your weapon, if anyone dies in that robbery, you can be accused of murder. The logic being that a reasonable person would have recognized the danger of possibly lethal violence and would therefore have totally avoided the situation.

Having said that, the people in the ANTIFA crowd were ALSO a part of a mob rather than some official peace-keeping force. Which means that they should ALSO have realized that going armed to such an event invited potentially lethal violence. And therefore, I have that conflict that suggests they ALSO screwed the pooch pretty badly, logic-wise. If confronted about the insane situation that both sides felt the need to be armed and that as a result, someone died, I am tempted to say, "Well, what did you EXPECT to happen?" Whether we are talking about people armed with firearms or whether this is 200 years ago and they have torches and pitchforks, armed conflict is going to result in injuries and possible death.

I will add that this prosecutor comes as close as I have ever seen to an unscrupulous idiot lawyer looking to lose his license. He started to introduce a line of questioning regarding Rittenhouse's initial silence - which is constitutionally protected. Rittenhouse (with legal advice) is EXPRESSLY allowed to keep silent until he is ready and IT IS NOT LEGAL to infer ANYTHING by his silence. He also tried to introduce other issues into evidence even though instructed otherwise by the judge. To the point that the judge cleared out the jury and really excoriated the state's attorney. The defense is seeking a "mistrial with prejudice" which would forever terminate criminal charges. That state's attorney, through his misconduct, has put the judge in an untenable position.

Pretty much agree with you.
But a couple points

First, to me vigilanteism is more like going out to get (punish, catch) someone for something. It is not a term that properly applies to everyone who simply is present to protect property or defend innocents... in fact, that is more like being a concerned citizen... although I wholeheartedly agree with [pretty much everyone] that Rittenhouse was NOT a good candidate for that, obviously. But, that's the category he was in, or at least that's closer to it.

Secondly, the robbery example is fine, but that's just felony murder...has little to do with being a negation of the defense of 'self defense'.

Liberals have made much about him "lying"about being an EMT, but, he actually did have advanced training in similar things, I'd say he honestly believed..he might be able to help someone.
The previous day he'd devoted time to clean up the ruins from the last night's rioting.

This wasn't a violent vigilante.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The bank robbery example was to convey the issue of "expectations" of a given act that potentially could be violent. And I qualified that in a later post by asking if the robbers had the right to claim self-defense if the bank guard drew a weapon and aimed it at them. Or what about instead of a guard, we have a uniformed police officer on a detail job? If HE draws the weapon and aims it (and issues a "drop your weapons" command), do they have the right to claim self defense?

A concerned citizen holds the mayor's feet to the fire (or the police chief's feet) for not having adequate protection to stop the riot. A vigilante takes a gun someplace where violence is expected, but the vigilante didn't bother to get deputized. A non-violent vigilante is a vigilante who was too blind or dumb to find a target in all that mess.

This whole mess derives from the simple fact that order is breaking down due to the extremes of polarization in our society.