Page 4 of 45 [ 709 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 45  Next

TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,017
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

28 Oct 2021, 12:00 pm

Brictoria wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
The prosecution is arguing the FBI surveillance plane video shows Rittenhouse armed with a rife chasing unarmed Rosenbaum before the incident, so Rittenhouse provoked the incident, and cannot claim self-defense.

I saw mention of the "newly disovered" footage a few days ago from a member of the defence team, on who it had been sprung at the last minute (I can't find the video at present where it was discussed)... Seperately, "Armed with a rifle" doesn't specify how he carried it (in hand\slung over shoulder while carrying a fire extinguisher\etc.) so it's difficult to determine what affect this may have on the trial.

It muddies the water for Rittenhouse.

Remember, Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum FOUR TIMES, and once in his back, in supposed self-defense.

Rosenbaum was unarmed.

So, it seems like a claim of self-defense was already sketchy.


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,193
Location: Seattle-ish

28 Oct 2021, 2:00 pm

TheRobotLives wrote:
It muddies the water for Rittenhouse.

Remember, Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum FOUR TIMES, and once in his back, in supposed self-defense.

Rosenbaum was unarmed.

So, it seems like a claim of self-defense was already sketchy.


The things you seem to think matter, don't.

Four times is actually on the low end for a defensive shooting, things happen fast, and you're not required to shoot, pause to check if it worked, then shoot again, you shoot until the threat is stopped, no matter how many times it takes. With a 30 round magazine and a semiautomatic action, he could have really lit Rosenbaum up, but didn't, the shooting was actually pretty restrained.

As to being shot in the back, also matters less than you think, it's not uncommon at all for someone to get twisted up in the chaos of a close range encounter and catch one in the back, or try to turn away from the gun when they realize they're actually being shot, or even for a ricochet to hit their back, it happens in police shootings all the time and isn't really meaningful unless all the shots are in the back.

Rosenbaum being unarmed also doesn't mean he didn't pose a deadly threat at the time he was shot, he's seen as the aggressor on video, chasing and cornering KR and attempting to grab his rifle, all of which can contribute to the legal requirement that KR felt in reasonable fear of death or great harm to use lethal force. KR is also on the small side, which does play a role in these determinations, a slightly built woman is allowed to defend herself with a firearm against a much larger man, for example.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,017
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

28 Oct 2021, 2:46 pm

Dox47 wrote:
The things you seem to think matter, don't.

Rosenbaum appears to make a taunting motion of possibly grabbing for Rittenhouse's rifle, or as the prosecution says of pushing it away.

Does this motion justify deadly force?

This seems like a bad police encounter , "Police: suspect made a motion and I thought he was going for my gun, so I killed him".

Secondly, four shots seems like overkill to stop *the motion* (which is apparently the threat).

Likely, after the first shot, there was no motion, no threat.

I don't understand the threat. Rittenhouse has a strapped rifle pointed at unarmed Rosenbaum and is somehow justified in shooting him four times, so he won't make a motion near him?


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 26,479
Location: Long Island, New York

28 Oct 2021, 3:18 pm

Dox47 wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
This was unusual consideration given. The odds of a mistrial had the word “victim” been allowed seems minute.


No, it's actually not, it's a common ruling in criminal defense trials:

https://reason.com/2021/10/27/giving-ky ... a-scandal/

Quote:
Andrew Fleischman, an Atlanta attorney at Ross & Pines LLC who specializes in appeals, tells Reason the request is fairly "boilerplate," and the decision to grant it is "not necessarily a sign of favor." The Kenosha News reported earlier this month that disallowing the term "victim" is Schroeder's "standard practice in criminal cases and is not unique to his handling of the Rittenhouse case." Anecdotally, other defense attorneys have weighed in that in their respective jurisdictions, it is perfectly common to disallow the term "victim." The Chicago Tribune explained that such rulings were "not uncommon in self-defense cases where there is a dispute over who bears responsibility."

Links in the piece.

ASPartOfMe wrote:
Yes unsupported, that is why I put it in an off topic box and said first thing it was about personal feelings. A person can want to help a business by washing graffiti and come to the scene with the hope of being attacked so he can shoot some rioters or more likely threaten them. His trying to run away does not disprove play hero intent. Getting into an actual situation is different.

When I mentioned teams it was not about you personally.


I understand it's not about me, but the mind reading annoys me, you don't know what he was thinking and have no way of knowing, and I find people projecting their own beliefs onto others to be an irritating fallacy with this case in particular. Why would a person who just wants to shoot people show up with a med kit and a spend the day cleaning graffiti first? Such a person could easily have taken pot shots from a building or from a distance and gotten away with it in the confusion and chaos of the riot, rather than standing guard at a business and hoping someone attacked them. The evidence doesn't fit your conclusion, so I suspect you're bending the evidence to fit a predetermined narrative.

I was not speculating he just wanted to randomly shoot rioters but to play hero by creating a situation wherby he has to shoot in self defence or more likely to scare rioters. If the latter was the intent his running away when chased might make sense in that he was not expecting that reaction. Taking potshots at people from 100 or so feet away is not heroic.

As far as the judge not allowing “victim” on a regular basis all it might suggest is not bias in this particular case but in self defense cases in general.

We have a they said, they said situation. My source said striking “victim” is unusual yours say it is not uncommon. ????.

Off Topic
Since the subject of the rioters being where they don’t belong was brought up.

In reviewing the case the term “white teenager” kept on being brought up, the implication being Rittenhouse’s motive was racist. It fits a narrative but there is a problem. Based on the pictures of the people I have seen of the people he shot they were white.

The words psycho and playing hero have been used to describe Rittenhouse they may well be used to describe the people he shot.

FYI Grosskreutz like Rittenhouse traveled a long way to engage in the riots, Huber and Rosenbaum were Kenosha residents.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,383

28 Oct 2021, 5:41 pm

It seems rather odd that those backing Rittenhouse see no issue with a minor crossing state borders illegally armed supposedly entering a protest (what they call a riot)?

But they do have an issue with Gaige Grosskreutz travelling to Kenosha? Grosskreutz is a paramedic and was also there to render support to anyone injured during the protest.

It's interesting and relevant that Gaige is filing a seperate federal lawsuit against the Wisconsin authorities for deputizing a roving militia to 'protect property' and 'assist in maintaining order.'Grosskreutz says the coordination between authorities and armed citizens like Rittenhouse deprived the protestors of their constitutional right to freedom of speech, endangering them during the demonstration.

The lawsuit also alleges that the police treated Rittenhouse the way they did because he was white, and makes a valid point that if an armed Black man had offered to patrol the protest, "he most likely would have been shot dead." (No need to second guess this one, in the history of the United States police have never deputized armed black men to police the streets during a protest).

One (perhaps) positive outcome of this investigation might be why Kenosha police were turning a blind eye to the local armed Kenosha militia roaming the streets, a group whom Rittenhouse was involved with. Again seems strange Judge Bruce Schroeder is unwilling to include this rather important information in the court case?



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,408
Location: Melbourne, Australia

28 Oct 2021, 7:49 pm

Here's why people shot by Kyle Rittenhouse can be called "rioters," "looters" and "arsonists" – but not "victims" at trial

Quote:
A Wisconsin judge presiding over the upcoming trial of Kyle Rittenhouse has ruled that prosecutors cannot refer to the three people shot by the teenager last summer as "victims." However, the defense may refer to them as "arsonists," "looters," or "rioters" if they can prove they participated in those activities.

Kenosha County Circuit Court Judge Bruce Schroeder made the decision Monday at a pretrial hearing where the parties debated several issues ahead of next week's trial, including permissible terminology, witness accounts and evidence. Schroeder said he wouldn't prevent the defense from calling those who were shot such language if the defense can produce evidence to back up the claims.

Prosecutor Thomas Binger reportedly called the decision by Judge Bruce Schroeder "a double standard."

However, barring the term "victim" at trial is not necessarily the norm but varies from courtroom to courtroom at the judge's discretion, according to Keith Findley, a professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School.

Findley explained the judge is differentiating the facts of the case from the questions the jury must answer. Since Rittenhouse is claiming he acted in self-defense, the question is not who shot three people, killing two of them, but rather if Rittenhouse was justified in defending himself out of fear of bodily harm. If his lawyers can show he had reason to believe the men were each engaged in activities such as looting, rioting and arson at the time, that could sway the jury to accept Rittenhouse's defense.

Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-rules-explained/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&linkId=137804538


_________________
Quote:
"We count on the space of trust that confidentiality provides. When someone breaches that trust, we are all worse off for it." - Hillary Clinton

Quote:
"Sometimes I think that this is an era when sanity has become controversial." - Thomas Sowell


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,408
Location: Melbourne, Australia

28 Oct 2021, 8:37 pm

A former prosecutor explaining the reason why the term "victim" is not being permitted, yet the terms "rioters", "looters", and "arsonists" are:


_________________
Quote:
"We count on the space of trust that confidentiality provides. When someone breaches that trust, we are all worse off for it." - Hillary Clinton

Quote:
"Sometimes I think that this is an era when sanity has become controversial." - Thomas Sowell


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,193
Location: Seattle-ish

28 Oct 2021, 10:33 pm

ASPartOfMe wrote:
I was not speculating he just wanted to randomly shoot rioters but to play hero by creating a situation wherby he has to shoot in self defence or more likely to scare rioters.


Again though, if that were his goal, why show up early to clean graffiti, carry a med kit, and guard a stationary point rather than doing something more active if his whole goal was to provoke some sort of "heroic" confrontation? What is your evidence for these speculations about his motive?

ASPartOfMe wrote:
As far as the judge not allowing “victim” on a regular basis all it might suggest is not bias in this particular case but in self defense cases in general.


It's not bias, it's a common precaution in cases where the responsibility for an action has not been determined yet, in order to avoid prejudicing the jury. If a guy jumped out of the bushes and rushed me with a knife and I shot him, would you say he was my "victim"? In that situation, I would have been the victim of his attack, but I foiled it by shooting him, but if it went to court, neither of us would be described as the victim of the other until a ruling of who was responsible was made.

ASPartOfMe wrote:
We have a they said, they said situation. My source said striking “victim” is unusual yours say it is not uncommon. ????.


I'm not a lawyer, but it makes sense whether it's standard practice or not, it is a loaded word to use before responsibility for an incident has been determined, like people prematurely using the word murder before a killing has been adjudicated as unlawful, also a common error.

ASPartOfMe wrote:
Off Topic
Since the subject of the rioters being where they don’t belong was brought up.

In reviewing the case the term “white teenager” kept on being brought up, the implication being Rittenhouse’s motive was racist. It fits a narrative but there is a problem. Based on the pictures of the people I have seen of the people he shot they were white.

The words psycho and playing hero have been used to describe Rittenhouse they may well be used to describe the people he shot.

FYI Grosskreutz like Rittenhouse traveled a long way to engage in the riots, Huber and Rosenbaum were Kenosha residents.


Like I mentioned to another member, too many liberals these days have a set of cookie cutter terms they just throw out there regardless of whether or not they're really applicable to the situation, "white supremacist" or other racially loaded claims just being a voguish one at the moment. Hell, they even try to do it to non white people these days, they'll call them "white adjacent", or "non-white soldiers in the cause of white supremacy", things like that. In my opinion, that behavior is a good indication that a person or news outlet is not to be taken seriously in the future.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,193
Location: Seattle-ish

28 Oct 2021, 11:01 pm

cyberdad wrote:
It seems rather odd that those backing Rittenhouse see no issue with a minor crossing state borders illegally armed supposedly entering a protest (what they call a riot)?


It actually was a riot, just look at the videos that have been posted approximately a million times over the multiple threads on this incident you've participated in, and no, I'm not particularly exercised about a 17 year old carrying a rifle, state line or not, because it's just not that big of a deal. This may blow your mind, but it's not uncommon in America for kids younger than that to have their own .22s, and in rural areas, regularly carry them around for pest control and impromptu plinking. IIRC, my late father got his first BB gun at 8 and his .22 at 12, and that was completely normal and unremarkable, and still is in certain parts of the country.

cyberdad wrote:
But they do have an issue with Gaige Grosskreutz travelling to Kenosha? Grosskreutz is a paramedic and was also there to render support to anyone injured during the protest.


I believe he's a street medic, not a paramedic, though if you have a source for the claim I'd be happy to read it.

cyberdad wrote:
It's interesting and relevant that Gaige is filing a seperate federal lawsuit against the Wisconsin authorities for deputizing a roving militia to 'protect property' and 'assist in maintaining order.'Grosskreutz says the coordination between authorities and armed citizens like Rittenhouse deprived the protestors of their constitutional right to freedom of speech, endangering them during the demonstration.


Well, good luck with that, there was no deputizing, just some individual cops tossing water bottles and giving some words of support, and none of the armed citizens did anything to suppress speech, only to prevent property damage.

cyberdad wrote:
The lawsuit also alleges that the police treated Rittenhouse the way they did because he was white, and makes a valid point that if an armed Black man had offered to patrol the protest, "he most likely would have been shot dead." (No need to second guess this one, in the history of the United States police have never deputized armed black men to police the streets during a protest).


Even dumber than the previous point, and it was pretty dumb, we had tons of armed black protestors last year, and the only ones to get shot were other members of their group because they didn't know how to handle their weapons and negligently discharged them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_Fucki ... _Coalition

Image

Image

You should also do your homework on how many black people the police actually kill, in 2019 they only killed 13 unarmed black men nation wide according to the Washington Post database, generally considered the most comprehensive on the subject, not exactly the holocaust presented by progressive activists and their enablers.

cyberdad wrote:
One (perhaps) positive outcome of this investigation might be why Kenosha police were turning a blind eye to the local armed Kenosha militia roaming the streets, a group whom Rittenhouse was involved with. Again seems strange Judge Bruce Schroeder is unwilling to include this rather important information in the court case?


Open carry is legal in Wisconsin, there was no illegal activity to turn a blind eye to.

Maybe come back when you have something that isn't actually disinformative to add?


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,408
Location: Melbourne, Australia

28 Oct 2021, 11:56 pm

Dox47 wrote:
I believe he's a street medic, not a paramedic, though if you have a source for the claim I'd be happy to read it.


Was this the person who was shot in the arm, and who was carrying a handgun (I don't know if he was openly carrying it prior to the events, or carrying it in a concealed manner).

Off Topic
I went to confirm I was thinking of the correct person and came across this as the first entry on DDG for his name:
Quote:
Gaige Grosskreutz, the Black Lives Matter activist shot with gun in hand by Kyle Rittenhouse, was arrested for prowling behind the West Allis Police Department a few days before the shooting, according to newly obtained records received by Wisconsin Right Now through an open records request. The police report accuses him of “lurking” in an area where police keep their private vehicles, videotaping them. The ticket is still open and comes before the court Feb. 3.

[...]

But what’s Grosskreutz been up to? We obtained police reports that give a fuller picture of Grosskreutz than the glowing articles in many media outlets. The reports have not been previously reported.

“Gaige had no reasons to be there and had no vehicle in the lot. He was previously detained for prowling in the same area and released,” the report says in the prowling case. “Gaige appeared to be video taping personal vehicles in the rear police parking lot. Gaige made clear his anti law enforcement views. Gaige was arrested for prowling, booked, cited and released.”

Earlier that summer, he was also investigated in a Facebook threats case, but the victim, who had organized an event to paint over letters in a “defund the police” mural outside Milwaukee City Hall, decided not to press charges, according to West Allis Police reports.

Source: https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/2021/01/04/gaige-grosskreutz-arrested/

The "prowling" arrest claim above appears to be accurate:
https://www.kenoshacountyeye.com/gaige.pdf


_________________
Quote:
"We count on the space of trust that confidentiality provides. When someone breaches that trust, we are all worse off for it." - Hillary Clinton

Quote:
"Sometimes I think that this is an era when sanity has become controversial." - Thomas Sowell


DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,267
Location: Northern California

29 Oct 2021, 4:52 am

Dox47 wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
The more I dug into the case, the more complex I realized it was.


Yes and no, the self defense claim is fairly straightforward, the only iffy part is the start of the incident involving Rosenbaum, but I'm fairly confident that is going to be ruled justified based on the video and other video of Rosenbaum aggressively provoking other people that night. I think it's going to come down to the fact that KR was actively fleeing at the point of all 3 shootings, even the most restrictive states allow lethal self defense when cornered, nothing else really matters. Given his age and inexperience, it's actually pretty remarkable that KR only shot the people who directly attacked him, that he held fire on Grossenkreutz even though he had a pistol in his hand until Grossenkreutz made a move first, and that all 3 had previous criminal records (which doesn't make them guilty but provides insight into their character and lack of impulse control).

People just want to project their own politics onto this and can't get past the fact that it's not illegal to walk around with a slung rifle, aside from a potential minor in possession charge here due to the age of KR at the time.

DW_a_mom wrote:
What I am solid on: KR should have stayed home, and no one needed to die.


The same could be said of everyone present that night.


A little off topic, and I've lost a lot of the details I knew last summer, but I do recall this being one of the news stories I delved into together with my most politically conservative friend. Breaking down stories together was something we were doing when we saw completely opposite characterizations by media deemed to be politically right v. left. We both ended up being able to see the inappropriately narrowed corners where each side was drawing arguments, but also agreeing that nearly every person on the scene acted in ways we felt contributed to the escalation. I can't remember who it was, but I think one of those shot struck me as really carrying the least blame; I'm just not sure anymore.

Maybe it's because my friend and I are both moms, but the point we kept going back to was that KR, as a minor, is the one who never should have been there, period. You can't stop legal adults from acting like idiots, but someone should have stopped the 17 year old.

Once it was clear the case was being handled by the justice system, and realizing how many people contributed to the outcome, we felt it appropriate to stop trying to reach any conclusion on guilt and innocence. But both of us found ourselves frustrated with attempts to make martyrs or heroes out of any of the people there, and both of us found ourselves concerned for KR as a teen whose brain isn't yet fully formed. The messages he's getting, the people in his ear ... its all messed up.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,383

29 Oct 2021, 5:29 am

DW_a_mom wrote:
But both of us found ourselves frustrated with attempts to make martyrs or heroes out of any of the people there, and both of us found ourselves concerned for KR as a teen whose brain isn't yet fully formed. The messages he's getting, the people in his ear ... its all messed up.


It's a pity you and your friend don't work in the US justice system then. A lot of 17 year old boys don't get the considerations that KR got.

Image



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,193
Location: Seattle-ish

29 Oct 2021, 6:40 am

cyberdad wrote:
It's a pity you and your friend don't work in the US justice system then. A lot of 17 year old boys don't get the considerations that KR got.

Image


He's being tried as an adult, and not in New Jersey...


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 26,479
Location: Long Island, New York

29 Oct 2021, 10:09 am

Dox47 wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
I was not speculating he just wanted to randomly shoot rioters but to play hero by creating a situation wherby he has to shoot in self defence or more likely to scare rioters.


Again though, if that were his goal, why show up early to clean graffiti, carry a med kit, and guard a stationary point rather than doing something more active if his whole goal was to provoke some sort of "heroic" confrontation? What is your evidence for these speculations about his motive?



To show not only is he a hero but what a good wonderful guy he is?

Dox47 wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
As far as the judge not allowing “victim” on a regular basis all it might suggest is not bias in this particular case but in self defense cases in general.


It's not bias, it's a common precaution in cases where the responsibility for an action has not been determined yet, in order to avoid prejudicing the jury. If a guy jumped out of the bushes and rushed me with a knife and I shot him, would you say he was my "victim"? In that situation, I would have been the victim of his attack, but I foiled it by shooting him, but if it went to court, neither of us would be described as the victim of the other until a ruling of who was responsible was made.
As mentioned in the video above it is not uncommon for defense lawyers to make the motion, but how often is it granted?

ASPartOfMe wrote:
We have a they said, they said situation. My source said striking “victim” is unusual yours say it is not uncommon. ????.


I'm not a lawyer, but it makes sense whether it's standard practice or not, it is a loaded word to use before responsibility for an incident has been determined, like people prematurely using the word murder before a killing has been adjudicated as unlawful, also a common error.

Obviously, I am no lawyer either

Off Topic
Since the subject of the rioters being where they don’t belong was brought up.

In reviewing the case the term “white teenager” kept on being brought up, the implication being Rittenhouse’s motive was racist. It fits a narrative but there is a problem. Based on the pictures of the people I have seen of the people he shot they were white.

The words psycho and playing hero have been used to describe Rittenhouse they may well be used to describe the people he shot.

FYI Grosskreutz like Rittenhouse traveled a long way to engage in the riots, Huber and Rosenbaum were Kenosha residents.

Dox47 wrote:
Hell, they even try to do it to non white people these days, they'll call them "white adjacent", or "non-white soldiers in the cause of white supremacy", things like that. In my opinion, that behavior is a good indication that a person or news outlet is not to be taken seriously in the future.

As a Jewish person, I find the term "white adjacent" potentially very damaging, the anti-whatever group is being labeled white adjacent, and racist. And considering they are always talking about identity, "my lived truth", etc, they have no compunction about deciding these matters for us.

Whether Jews are white is a whole different thread


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,017
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

29 Oct 2021, 12:39 pm

Rittenhouse is charged with curfew violation and possession of a firearm by a minor.

These can be used to invalidate his self-defense claim.

Wisconsin law generally does not permit legal self-defense claims when a person is engaging in illegal activity.

"Whether or not Rittenhouse was engaged in unlawful activity when he fired shots could also add a complication to his invocation of self defense. The defense is generally not available to people involved in illegal activity that could provoke an attack — except if their lives are threatened, but then the person claiming it must show they "exhausted every other means of escape," before resorting to deadly force"
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/cri ... 549233002/


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 23,383

29 Oct 2021, 6:27 pm

Rittenhouse's intent is being conveniently re-written by his defense team.

Just a question how well they can sell the narrative and cancel all the eyewitness testimony