Rittenhouse - innocent or guilty?

[Pat Hartman]

I'm really glad the judge banned MSNBC from the courtroom because they had their reporter following the Jury van and he got caught. How many days had he been doing that and not gotten caught?

I hope the lawyer who helped the Covington kids called Rittenhouse today. Maybe he'll end up as a millionaire also. There are certainly any number of news outlets and prominent people to sue starting with Biden. To her credit, a reporter asked Biden if he stood by his earlier statements about Rittenhouse and of course got the PC reply of I stand by the jury system. The Constitution guarantees that we are innocent until proven guilty but apparently only if you are a Clinton or a Biden. And then there's GoFundMe who cancelled Kyles fund raising effort. Sue them too. How dare they?

I have to say, I was convinced that this jury would cave the same as the last one did and convict the kid just because they were afraid of the mob. They showed great courage by not caving to the mob.

 

[moke123]

And then there's GoFundMe who cancelled Kyles fund raising effort. Sue them too. How dare they?

It's against their TOS, so good luck with that.

I think Kyle isn't done with lawyers. Just ask OJ.

 

[Isaac]

As I stated a day or three ago (and, apparently, 67,000,000 posts ago on this incredibly popular thread!), it was just a clear not guilty.
It's hard to see how anyone misunderstands this from a legal perspective.

1. He had the right to self defense if he believed it was necessary to protect himself.
2. If a person says I will kill you, then chases you 2 blocks, the "believe it was necessary" was obviously fulfilled
3. Self defense (as a defense against homicide) can be negated only if you provoke or create the direct, limited, thing that created that specific scene where your life was in danger. Not just being in the area unnecessarily!! Which people go to dangerous areas of town all the time.

Saying that Kyle case qualifies for negation of self defense by #3 is the most ridiculous stretch in the world. It's a limited context and the mere fact that you went to a bad part of town where bad things were happening and were seen carrying and that's it - isn't even remotely, near, anything like fulfilling that, not in a million years. (Even if it HAD - which it doesn't come remotely close to doing - Kyle STILL fulfilled the duty to retreat after provocation, and only fire after giving a decent "retreating" effort)....And this "retreating after a provocation" would have ALSO fulfilled his requirement to use lethal force, according to the law. I mean this case is so open and shut it's not even controversial.

It would mean that nobody, ever, could enter a bad part of town on a corner known for 24/7 drugs and violence while carrying. If they did, they'd have to let themselves be murdered, even if the moment when they finally got threatened was totally unprovoked by them, 0 %.

Did he use bad judgment and shouldn't have been there? Of course.

The mistake comes from the people on this thread claiming that that bad judgment and "shouldn't have been there", has anything whatsoever to do with his legal right to defend his life against an unprovoked attack. People: It has nothing to do with the case.

I can make a bad decision at noon and still defend my life at 8 PM. Really! ... I can, and you can too.
If my bad decision equals the immediate provocation that made someone lunge at me, then I can't necessarily defend with lethal force....Unless I give a decent effort at retreating, first.

Not only is this an open and shut case, but the self defense laws applied here seem like pretty reasonable common sense to me, too.

I do have one other point, that I will honestly and humbly admit the "other side" has brought to my attention about how this could lead to a rather ridiculous result of 2 opposing people both having the legal right to shoot each other as whoever shoots first--(Grosskreutz & Rittenhouse)--and I agree it needs some looking at, but again, has no bearing on this trial's outcome. I might bring this up more in another post.

 

[NauticalGent]

I think Kyle isn't done with lawyers. Just ask OJ.

OJ should have been put away for murder. All in all, in his case justice was served.

 

[Isaac]

Put another way, perhaps even more simple for the general US populace to understand:

Does every single person who goes to a bad part of town where unrest is occurring with a gun on their belt deserve to have zero legal right to defend their life from that point on - no matter what happens? A wish for "guilty" is a "Yes" to that question.

Imagine a world that insane, where merely being near OTHER PEOPLE who are behaving as criminals, and carrying a gun for protection, actually deprives YOU of your right to defend your life. What an absolutely ridiculous world to want...That would be the definition of "mob rule".
The mob does what they want, and if you go near them and they try to kill you, and you fight back, you're guilty.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Isaac, as I tried to point out in my earlier posts, I was frozen in a state of balance. Both sides had the constitutional right of free travel. Both sides had the right of free association. Neither side had a duty to be there, but they were not barred from being there. Both sides were unwise to go to a place of potential major conflict. From a criminal standpoint of motive, means, opportunity: Both sides had political motives. Both sides obtained weapons (means). Both sides voluntarily traveled to a place where their political enemies were expected to be. (Opportunity). They were so much in balance that from a blame viewpoint, EITHER SIDE could equally have been the provocateur that led to the showdown. I had to say that NOTHING was clear in that convoluted situation. From a legal viewpoint, that lack of clarity suggests that a Not Guilty verdict was warranted on a criminal trial where the standard is "beyond reasonable doubt."

 

[Isaac]

Isaac, as I tried to point out in my earlier posts, I was frozen in a state of balance. Both sides had the constitutional right of free travel. Both sides had the right of free association. Neither side had a duty to be there, but they were not barred from being there. Both sides were unwise to go to a place of potential major conflict. From a criminal standpoint of motive, means, opportunity: Both sides had political motives. Both sides obtained weapons (means). Both sides voluntarily traveled to a place where their political enemies were expected to be. (Opportunity). They were so much in balance that from a blame viewpoint, EITHER SIDE could equally have been the provocateur that led to the showdown. I had to say that NOTHING was clear in that convoluted situation. From a legal viewpoint, that lack of clarity suggests that a Not Guilty verdict was warranted on a criminal trial where the standard is "beyond reasonable doubt."

I can appreciate your well-balanced framing of the situation, Doc - I do see what you mean.
It's just that, to my understanding, the legal method of resolving the case is much more limited.
A man's life was in danger, and it was put in danger by another individual he had not directly provoked in that limited context, and he had the full right of self defense.

All of the rest of your elements of blame, generically speaking, are worth talking about as a society for sure. I just don't think they have any bearing on the legal questions surrounding the shooting.

If the question was, let's talk about blame from a common-sense perspective, let's talk about blame from a whose actions made more or less sense, or let's talk about blame as in "what would I have taught my child to do?" --- that's where I think your points are especially well suited for.

Of course, many of the people rioting were absolute criminals for their behavior that night, and Rittenhouse (and his parents if they had any influence over the decision to go) was an absolute fool for what he did.

But when it comes to the only 2 things that matter to this case - Was it homicide, or was it self defense, I see it more clearly, as the rest of it is not what we use legally to determine if a person has the right to use lethal force.

I think we SHOULD talk about the other stuff - what bothers me is the equating "Rittenhouse made a very poor decision which put him in harm's way", to "And he didn't have the right to defend his life when it came down to it" --- I think THAT conclusion is very dangerous, and harms us all.

Let's face it, and using an analogy that liberals ought to like: If "using your best judgment" was the requirement to be able to use lethal force against someone, then a woman walking down the street wearing no clothes except lingerie at night should be blamed for any attack against her - and not allowed to kill her attacker, right? Because that's pretty bad judgment!

But we don't want to use that standard. In fact, I believe liberals call it "blaming the victim" - even though in many cases, if not most, the victim actually has used very poor judgment, without which, they wouldn't have been victimized.

If we switch to that standard, then we've turned the criminals into victims and the victim into a criminal

 

[Jon]

What a fantastic result. I was so nervous watching while they were reading out the verdicts!

@Isaac I agree with everything you said, except for perhaps one thing: he had bad judgement going there. I think most people would agree with you.

I have a slightly different take. If you decide to go into the military and get your leg blown off, in hindsight you might think it was bad judgement to join the military. But was it really? We have risks throughout our life. You get married and end up in divorce. Was that a good idea to get married? Costs a fortune when you split and you know the odds of divorce are almost 50:50. Essentially, you lead the type of life you want to lead. Kyle was unfortunate in that he got involved in a highly improbable spat that becomes a political tug of war between Left and Right. You can't blame Kyle for that, and especially for someone looking through the eyes of a 17 year old. It was utterly unpredictable.

Did you know you are more likely to die in a car accident driving to vote than altering the outcome of a presidential election? I've mentioned that before on this forum. Does that mean you want to stay at home rather than drive to a voting booth? [Side issue: mail in ballots...lets not go there!] I hope you see my point.

 

[Jon]

The whole thing was a series of dominos. Kyle got a message asking for help. He decides to go. He takes protection. He gets separated. Someone attacks him. He defends himself legally. Then more attack. And so on. Next, it turns into a media frenzy and political trial. Yet he was not the first domino. That started back when the mayor decides to let the city burn. What followed was a series of chaotic cause and effects, where Kyle was sucked into the vortex of happenstance.

I'm so pleased for the kid.

 

[Isaac]

What a fantastic result. I was so nervous watching while they were reading out the verdicts!

@Isaac I agree with everything you said, except for perhaps one thing: he had bad judgement going there. I think most people would agree with you.

I have a slightly different take. If you decide to go into the military and get your leg blown off, in hindsight you might think it was bad judgement to join the military. But was it really? We have risks throughout our life. You get married and end up in divorce. Was that a good idea to get married? Costs a fortune when you split and you know the odds of divorce are almost 50:50. Essentially, you lead the type of life you want to lead. Kyle was unfortunate in that he got involved in a highly improbable spat that becomes a political tug of war between Left and Right. You can't blame Kyle for that, and especially for someone looking through the eyes of a 17 year old. It was utterly unpredictable.

Did you know you are more likely to die in a car accident driving to vote than altering the outcome of a presidential election? I've mentioned that before on this forum. Does that mean you want to stay at home rather than drive to a voting booth? [Side issue: mail in ballots...lets not go there!] I hope you see my point.

Yes I understand what you mean Jon. And I can narrow my comments even more. If it had been a mature, 30 year old man, with a totally concealed loaded handgun under his T-shirt on his belt, I would not say that that was bad judgment at all. I think it is totally legitimate for a citizen legally holding a firearm to go to an area where there is trouble and see if they can be of some legitimate assistance.

This is especially true since black lives matters rioters have inflicted grievous injury and even murdered people who were defending their shops last summer. It is totally legitimate for a good person (of any color, but who is not a criminal) to go to those places and see if there is any innocent person like that needs defending.

It's mostly just because of his age and immaturity and the fact that he chose to carry a visible rifle, I would say just because of those 3 things, and those only, I'm calling it bad judgment. So even my criticism of him is ... quite narrowly-defined. If that makes us even yet a little closer here!

I agree. I'm very happy for the verdict. The idea that a 17 year old was going to go to prison for defending his life while being chased by a criminal, at least to begin with, was absolutely sickening to me..

For anyone who wants to make a law that says "you can't walk around in an area of unrest carrying a rifle", I would be open to having that discussion, although I might not agree with it. But that's where they should have stuck to. They shouldn't have taken it so far in this totally sickening misapplication of the law to persecute this kid.

And can you believe, this whole thing we're talking about is in the context of a place where it was the other people who were actually acting criminal? So many have lost sight of this, and it's so silly.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I can appreciate your well-balanced framing of the situation, Doc - I do see what you mean.
It's just that, to my understanding, the legal method of resolving the case is much more limited.
A man's life was in danger, and it was put in danger by another individual he had not directly provoked in that limited context, and he had the full right of self defense.

The point there is that if either side had done LESS (i.e. the events leading up to their presence had NOT been in balance), then the other side would have been guilty of premeditated murder. Or, apparently, first-degree intentional homicide in Wisconsin's terms - 'cause that's how he was charged. If Kyle's actions had been unilateral, every element was there for the maximum criminal charge. That's why I was so ambiguous.

A point that was made was that Kyle had been invited there to defend something - but the person who invited him was not a public official as far as I can tell. So the invitation had no legal standing. I had been looking for factors that would have changed the balance somehow, but found nothing at all that would change the extraordinary balance of "rights vs. wrongs" that I saw there.

Just for comparison, the Ahmaud Arbery case is clearer - in that those country yokels went looking for someone to shoot and Arbery had every right to run away from them. There, the yokels inflicted death on what would have been a property crime AND they were not deputized so had no right to do anything about his attempt to flee from danger. Fleeing from a cop is, of course, unlawful flight - but fleeing from a bigoted yokel? Not at all illegal.

 

[Isaac]

Yes. Under my various philosophies here, the Arbery case is clear. They need to be in prison

 

[Pat Hartman]

It's against their TOS, so good luck with that.

That defense would work if GoFundMe applied it consistently.

Notice the Prosecution didn't even charge the guy that was wounded with possession of an illegal weapon. I guess that is OK if your politics are "correct". The prosecution also withheld the name of the man trying to kick Kyle even though they included an endangerment charge against Kyle for defending himself. If they had identified him, someone might have asked why he hadn't been charged with assault. Also notice that none of the people protesting under the Jury room window and threatening violence if they didn't convict got charged with jury tampering. Hypocrisy reigns. This was a bull**** trial but the jurors were not cowed by the mob.

The mistake comes from the people on this thread claiming that that bad judgment and "shouldn't have been there", has anything whatsoever to do with his legal right to defend his life against an unprovoked attack. People: It has nothing to do with the case.

I'm not sure that anyone thought he was guilty as charged except maybe Doc, only that the prosecutor might have found a crime that could stick. But of course, that wouldn't fit the narrative so they had to go all in with murder.

 

[Jon]

I don't think the case had anything to do with why someone was there. It was all to do with if you can protect yourself if attacked. It hinged on this question: What is a reasonable level of force that you can use in self defence? His age was irrelevant, although the state wanted to make it relevant by lying about the length of his gun and so saying it was illegal. The state line was irrelevant since it had no legal bearing on the case. His motive for being there was irrelevant, since he had every right to be there.

The prosecution tried to bring provocation into it, but there was none. I've thought about this and it cannot just be provocation. It must be a reasonable level and type of provocation. For example, if you were a Klu Klux Klan member and you saw a black man waking in your hood, attacking him is not reasonable, even if you feel provoked by his presence.

Justice was done and the Left just can't accept it, all the way up to the president. It just goes to show that the way of thinking by the Left verses the Right is on such a different plane that they can never meet with reason. It will only ever be about the race card. [Edit: The media and politicians take the most blame, since they feed narratives to the Democrat voter.]

 

[Jon]

t's mostly just because of his age and immaturity and the fact that he chose to carry a visible rifle, I would say just because of those 3 things, and those only, I'm calling it bad judgment. So even my criticism of him is ... quite narrowly-defined. If that makes us even yet a little closer here!

I fully understand what you are saying @Isaac. I think the visible rifle thing is just that he doesn't have a handgun. But also, a visible rifle acts as more of a deterrent in my view. Only idiots would attack someone with a rifle, and in this case, there were four of them. Three were injured and one escaped with his life. Kyle was relatively unscathed.

For his immaturity and age aspect, we don't know anything about his level of maturity. We only know about his age. For all we know, he is very mature for his age. We could argue about relative immaturity between people of different ages, but he was on the verge of being technically an adult. But we could go around in circles on this one.

There doesn't seem to be masses of criticism for all the other people with rifles who were there. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, giving 20:20 vision. But no one could have predicted that Kyle would have been chased and attacked by four people whilst he was armed with an rifle. It is a bit like a survivorship bias, where in history those who did an act get to tell their story. Likewise here, Kyle becomes a story because something extremely rare happened to him, and then he was made an example of by the Left.

And can you believe, this whole thing we're talking about is in the context of a place where it was the other people who were actually acting criminal? So many have lost sight of this, and it's so silly.

Four convicts attacked Kyle. Also, notice none of the Left wing media are talking about the fact that the rioters were there a day or two earlier with rifles. That bit gets ignored because inconvenient facts get swept under the carpet.

 

[Pat Hartman]

even if you feel provoked by his presence

The snowflakes of the world would disagree. Our colleges and high schools are training our children to react this way by giving them "safe" spaces.

There doesn't seem to be masses of criticism for all the other people with rifles who were there.

Don't forget the guy Kyle wounded was carrying an unlicensed firearm. I guess that was OK though.

 

[Jon]

I came up with a theory, which on first inspection may seem daft, but think about it and it is not all together that outlandish.

My understanding is that Rosenbaum came out of a mental institution following an attempted suicide. Maybe someone can confirm if that is right or not. Then, during the riot, he was confronting the armed repeatedly shouting, "Shoot me! Shoot me!" Maybe he wanted to be shot! He tried to take his own life before the riot, he asked armed people to shoot him, and then he chases an armed person who shot him. Is it a question that Kyle gave him what he wanted and that in fact Rosenbaum wanted to provoke him into shooting?

 

[Jon]

The snowflakes of the world would disagree. Our colleges and high schools are training our children to react this way by giving them "safe" spaces.

It happens when delicate snowflakes are protected from being crushed. They end up seeking out potential micro-aggressions and can see nothing but danger.

 

[Steve R.]

The Rittenhouse case raises an overwhelming number of issues. First, the abysmal performance of the prosecution. Did the prosecution believe that, given the current mania of Wokeness sweeping the nation, that a conviction would be "automatic". That the jurors would mindlessly vote to convict?

This also raises concerns with the media that was screaming for conviction. The media screaming for conviction apparently believed that the prosecution was irrelevant factor. The only relevant factor for the media was that Rittenhouse had a gun and killed two people. For them that was proof of Rittenhouse's guilt. Issues such as self-defense ant the right to possess a gun were blatantly ignored. To the extent they weren't ignored, the media claimed that it is now time to "rethink" the concept self-defense and the Second Amendment.

The media also disingenuously totally ignored that the mob was inciting violence. So it is OK, if you are a member of a (left wing) mob to commit mayhem, but if you are an individual protecting yourself you can be charged with a crime.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biden calls for calm but says Rittenhouse 'not guilty' verdict leaves him 'angry and concerned'

President Biden called on Americans to protest “peacefully” and follow the law following the jury's verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial.

www.foxnews.com

Harris: Rittenhouse verdict shows there is 'a lot more work to do' on criminal justice equity

Vice President Kamala Harris says the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict shows we have "a lot more to do" to make the criminal justice system "equitable."

www.foxnews.com

The comments by Biden and Harris are deplorable. It seems that for both Biden and Harris, when a jury verdict does not match their political agenda, then that verdict is somehow inappropriate. Consider that Harris was a prosecutor and also raised money to bail left-wing rioters out-of-jail. But as a former prosecutor Harris should have complemented the jury for its findings. Also, see below, that Biden poisoned the legal process by advocating, without facts, that Rittenhouse was a "White Supremacist".

WATCH: Joe Biden Labels Kyle Rittenhouse a ‘White Supremacist’ in September 2020 | Sean Hannity

President Joe Biden found himself embroiled in another controversy Friday after Kyle Rittenhouse was cleared of all charges; raising questions...

hannity.com

So Biden, now President of the US and the top political leader, aggressively put his thumb on the scales of justice as an attempt to "force" a guilty verdict before the trial even began.

The Governor of Wisconsin (Tony Evers) another top political leader, not to be outdone with left wing political insanity. His remarks totally ignored the aggressive actions Huber, Rosenbaum, and Grosskreutz’s against Rittenhouse. Furthermore, Evers was apparently absent from sending in law enforcement to protect the people of Kenosha from mob violence. On the verdict, Evers even made various repulsive remarks. That the Rittenhouse's trial has "reopened wounds that have not yet fully healed" and that "No ruling today changes our reality in Wisconsin that we have work to do toward equity, accountability, and justice that communities across our state are demanding and deserve.” Evers was underming the jury's findings. The government has a responsibility to protect peoples lives and property from mob violence, not endorse mob violence.

News - Isanti County Local Business Dealz

Miami-Dade police say Canadian police recovered Jorge “JoJo” Morales in good health and unharmed. His father and grandmother are being held. Go to Source Author:

isanti.localbusinessdealz.com

To make a conclusionary summation, the top US political leaders aggressively sought to manipulate the judicial system to find Rittenhouse guilty. Having failed in that disgusting manipulation, they then undermined the jury's findings. An obvious implication, the top US political leaders are seeking to use the legal system for political persecution to implement left-wing political objectives. Essentially an attempt to implement Soviet style "show trials" were people are guilty based on politics, not actual crimes.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Kyle Rittenhouse has given everyone a "use of force" template for dealing with mobs in open carry states and the left are not happy.

1. Keep the muzzle pointed down.
2. Keep your finger out of the trigger guard.
3. Aid victims
4. Retreat when necessary.
5. Fire when threatened with physical harm, not property.
5b. Contact law enforcement after firing your weapon.

Pretty simple.