Rittenhouse/Kenosha Shooting Split

[Angra Mainyu]

If that is the law, it looks like a pretty bad one: A person on the run would have to choose between getting killed and breaking the law. The rational choice would almost certainly be to break the law and shoot, which might or might not get him killed years later, depending on the punishment for shooting back and of course whether he actually gets caught. There is still a question as to whether that's a morally acceptable choice, of course: maybe it would be rational but immoral to shoot back, yet permissible but irrational not to! However, there probably are plenty of cases that do not fall into that category because it's not immoral to shoot back - e.g., at least, most of the cases in which the violence that was initiated did not amount to something for which he deserves to be executed.

The point is, and has been shown by the prosecution's line of questioning, that KR knew quite clearly he was putting himself into a dangerous situation which reduces significantly his ability to claim self defense.

You can't climb into a WWF wrestling ring and then cry unfair when get your ass beat.

That is not the point I was commenting on (and by the way, you can go - for example - into a dangerous neighborhood and then sue if you get your ass beat, so there is no general principle that you can't cry unfair after putting yourself in danger; but still not the point I was commenting on. And no, the dangerous neighborhood is not meant as an analogy to Rittenhouse case, but rather a reply to the WWF wrestling analogy).

 

[marc]

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

 

[Jarhyn]

It's obviously a defense tactic to make him more sympathetic to the jury.

We've already established that employing trial tactics does not change whether he is innocent or guilty.

What we haven't established is whether, on this particular question, Rittenhouse has somehow been dishonest or deceptive. But the pearl-clutching hysteria continues.

The timing makes it fairly self evident.

Makes what self evident? That it's a trial tactic? I disagree.

Previously, Rittenhouse expressed strong admiration for abs aspirations to become a police officer. That’s a pretty big career switch with interesting timing.

When I was 17, I was seriously deciding between information technology, psychology, and law degrees. I sought advice from people I knew who were already in one of those courses. One of the responses I got was "those three things are very different". True though that was, I was interested in all three.

In any case, so what? Let's say he started an online course with the sole purpose of garnering jury sympathy. I would do the same if I were innocent and thought it would help.

And you would do it if you thought you’d be found guilty. I am certain that Rite house has not one single doubt that he is 100% innocent. That’s the scary part.

Most 17 year olds hold many different abs perhaps conflicting career abs life aspirations. Rittenhouse’s is just ….very conveniently timed.

I somehow think that actions taken in suspicious time frames and used as the basis for claims might serve better by assuming bad faith.

The situations are few and far between where anyone ever established the basis of a claim in a period AFTER that claim would have been germane to the context of the original event, could ever be demonstrates as in good faith.

I hazard that it is beyond reasonable doubt whenever someone does such a thing to accept good faith in the claim. If the claim is made, it should be evidence only if bad faith.

It's a reverse Tinkerbell in that the only way it would have been true is if he had not mentioned it.

 

[SLD]

Well, I'm late to this, but I am going to stick my neck out and say he gets off on self defense. The whole situation was fucked up from the beginning. I think his mother should be on the stand. He never should've been there with a weapon. He wanted to show he was a tough guy with a gun. And now 2 are dead and a third wounded. what a shit show. He's an example of what happens when we glorify gun culture in this country so much.

But as a legal point, none of that matters. The case turns on narrow issues of self defense at the time of the shooting. I see him getting off. The judge may even throw it out without letting it go to a jury.

Yes, that is the defense's tactic. But actual self defense really doesn't apply here. He crossed a police line illegally armed and in violation of curfew. He had many opportunities to leave. He did so to join a fight. You cannot argue self defense if you willingly join into the fight. You have to have "clean hands" to claim self defense.

I'm sure the prosecutor will explain this in the closing statements. Whether that will be compelling to the jury or not is anyone's guess.

Well, no. Violating the police line and the curfew do not mean you lose your right to self defense. You only lose that if you intend to commit a violent act. You say he was looking for a fight. You have to prove that specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt. But what is the specific evidence for that? Did he say something to that effect before the shooting? Not that I’ve heard. Was he pointing the weapon at someone before all of this happened? Apparently not.

The other problem is that once the prosecution starts to argue that, they open the door to the others propensity for violent acts. Two of them at least have criminal pasts involving gun crimes, domestic violence, and sexual offense with a minor. That can come out if the prosecution isn’t careful. That coming out will not help the prosecution.

sorry. I think he’s a stupid little fuck. His parents are even worse. But he’s not going to be found guilty of murder. He’ll get off in self defense.

 

[ZiprHead]

Well, I'm late to this, but I am going to stick my neck out and say he gets off on self defense. The whole situation was fucked up from the beginning. I think his mother should be on the stand. He never should've been there with a weapon. He wanted to show he was a tough guy with a gun. And now 2 are dead and a third wounded. what a shit show. He's an example of what happens when we glorify gun culture in this country so much.

But as a legal point, none of that matters. The case turns on narrow issues of self defense at the time of the shooting. I see him getting off. The judge may even throw it out without letting it go to a jury.

Yes, that is the defense's tactic. But actual self defense really doesn't apply here. He crossed a police line illegally armed and in violation of curfew. He had many opportunities to leave. He did so to join a fight. You cannot argue self defense if you willingly join into the fight. You have to have "clean hands" to claim self defense.

I'm sure the prosecutor will explain this in the closing statements. Whether that will be compelling to the jury or not is anyone's guess.

Well, no. Violating the police line and the curfew do not mean you lose your right to self defense. You only lose that if you intend to commit a violent act. You say he was looking for a fight. You have to prove that specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt. But what is the specific evidence for that? Did he say something to that effect before the shooting? Not that I’ve heard. Was he pointing the weapon at someone before all of this happened? Apparently not.

Yes, he did. He pointed his weapon at someone sitting on a car in the used car lot.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This is where Rittenhouse worked part-time as a lifeguard. The YMCA is in Illinois and 24 miles rom Kenosha, closer to Antioch Illinois than Kenosha.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Well, I'm late to this, but I am going to stick my neck out and say he gets off on self defense. The whole situation was fucked up from the beginning. I think his mother should be on the stand. He never should've been there with a weapon. He wanted to show he was a tough guy with a gun. And now 2 are dead and a third wounded. what a shit show. He's an example of what happens when we glorify gun culture in this country so much.

But as a legal point, none of that matters. The case turns on narrow issues of self defense at the time of the shooting. I see him getting off. The judge may even throw it out without letting it go to a jury.

Yes, that is the defense's tactic. But actual self defense really doesn't apply here. He crossed a police line illegally armed and in violation of curfew. He had many opportunities to leave. He did so to join a fight. You cannot argue self defense if you willingly join into the fight. You have to have "clean hands" to claim self defense.

I'm sure the prosecutor will explain this in the closing statements. Whether that will be compelling to the jury or not is anyone's guess.

Well, no. Violating the police line and the curfew do not mean you lose your right to self defense. You only lose that if you intend to commit a violent act.

I am unsure this is the only exception. But let's go with it tentatively.

You say he was looking for a fight. You have to prove that specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt. But what is the specific evidence for that? Did he say something to that effect before the shooting? Not that I’ve heard.

A video of him has been posted where he was observing people (possibly looters and others) coming out of a CVS in which he said he wished he had his gun. In other words, implying he was willing to shoot people at large who, while they may have been committing misdemeanors, ought not be shot and killed, especially by a 17 year old with an illegally obtained rifle. I only saw the video once and perhaps I am wrong on some details. I recommend seeing the video yourself to make your own assessment, but essentially it does answer your question about what he said before the shooting.

Was he pointing the weapon at someone before all of this happened? Apparently not.

ZiprHead has answered this question.

The other problem is that once the prosecution starts to argue that, they open the door to the others propensity for violent acts. Two of them at least have criminal pasts involving gun crimes, domestic violence, and sexual offense with a minor. That can come out if the prosecution isn’t careful. That coming out will not help the prosecution.

I don't think this is only a problem for the prosecution. It's a problem for anyone arguing about self-defense one way or the other in the Rittenhouse case. Rosenbaum appears to have been a loose cannon with a ton of problems. He had just been in the hospital for a suicide attempt and when they released him, they put some deodorant, soap, underwear etc in a clear plastic bag. He is alleged to have thrown the bag at KR. Not a big deal. He is alleged to have chased KR which is a bigger deal. Some of the details are sketchy. I will add that KR ought not have been in that situation. He bears partial responsibility for being there, not because he knew he was putting himself into a dangerous situation--that's a bad way to say it--but instead, because he was okay with ending people's lives on the other side of the political fence disproportionately to their offenses and as he had that immoral assessment of persons and wanted to be a "hero," he chose to roam the streets with his illegally obtained gun. What is more--when the crowd challenged him after he shot Rosenbaum he told them that Rosenbaum had a gun. More lies. Upon seeing no gun at all by the person who was shot, seeing KR as an active shooter who is making stuff up and associating with boogaloo boys, running around with a dangerous weapon, it isn't completely unreasonable for people in the crowd to next try to disarm him, violently even.

sorry. I think he’s a stupid little fuck. His parents are even worse. But he’s not going to be found guilty of murder. He’ll get off in self defense.

I agree with you on both counts. While I am very unsure he is deserving of self-defense, there are enough people out there who are going to support him over that. I have not been focusing on calling him a murderer, even though one poster here is screaming that I want him to be mega super guilty and that I am clutching pearls. Instead, I am showing KR isn't honest, KR's motivations were not 100% pure, and he was reckless. To the extent he was reckless and devalued human life, regardless of his personal hero narrative, he is undeserving of self-defense claims. That means, I deduce he ought not have a self-defense defense for particular criminal charges related to recklessness and the devaluation of human life...but that other charges unrelated to recklessness and unrelated to devaluation of human life may have a self-defense defense or may not be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

[blastula]

This is where Rittenhouse worked part-time as a lifeguard. The YMCA is in Illinois and 24 miles rom Kenosha, closer to Antioch Illinois than Kenosha.
View attachment 36038

And?

 

[thebeave]

This is where Rittenhouse worked part-time as a lifeguard. The YMCA is in Illinois and 24 miles rom Kenosha, closer to Antioch Illinois than Kenosha.
View attachment 36038

And?

Well, if you look at the picture closely, you will only see white people which just goes to show that KR is a white supremecist. Seems pretty obvious to me. And, IIRC the numbers on the back wall are racist dog whistles.

 

[Toni]

And you would do it if you thought you’d be found guilty.

Probably, unless I had accepted guilt and was willing to pay the price.

But the point is, in either case, as we both agree, the use of trial tactics don't reflect on guilt or innocence.

I did not offer an example that noted your guilt or your innocence. While it cannot be taken as proof of guilt, such a conveniently timed enrollment does look more convenient than sincere.

 

[Toni]

If that is the law, it looks like a pretty bad one: A person on the run would have to choose between getting killed and breaking the law. The rational choice would almost certainly be to break the law and shoot, which might or might not get him killed years later, depending on the punishment for shooting back and of course whether he actually gets caught. There is still a question as to whether that's a morally acceptable choice, of course: maybe it would be rational but immoral to shoot back, yet permissible but irrational not to! However, there probably are plenty of cases that do not fall into that category because it's not immoral to shoot back - e.g., at least, most of the cases in which the violence that was initiated did not amount to something for which he deserves to be executed.

The point is, and has been shown by the prosecution's line of questioning, that KR knew quite clearly he was putting himself into a dangerous situation which reduces significantly his ability to claim self defense.

You can't climb into a WWF wrestling ring and then cry unfair when get your ass beat.

That is not the point I was commenting on (and by the way, you can go - for example - into a dangerous neighborhood and then sue if you get your ass beat, so there is no general principle that you can't cry unfair after putting yourself in danger; but still not the point I was commenting on. And no, the dangerous neighborhood is not meant as an analogy to Rittenhouse case, but rather a reply to the WWF wrestling analogy).

Rittenhouse wasn't just going into a situation where he expected he might be in danger--he was actively seeking out a dangerous situation so that he could prove himself to be a hero. By shooting bad guys.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, I'm late to this, but I am going to stick my neck out and say he gets off on self defense. The whole situation was fucked up from the beginning. I think his mother should be on the stand. He never should've been there with a weapon. He wanted to show he was a tough guy with a gun. And now 2 are dead and a third wounded. what a shit show. He's an example of what happens when we glorify gun culture in this country so much.

But as a legal point, none of that matters. The case turns on narrow issues of self defense at the time of the shooting. I see him getting off. The judge may even throw it out without letting it go to a jury.

Yes, that is the defense's tactic. But actual self defense really doesn't apply here. He crossed a police line illegally armed and in violation of curfew. He had many opportunities to leave. He did so to join a fight. You cannot argue self defense if you willingly join into the fight. You have to have "clean hands" to claim self defense.

I'm sure the prosecutor will explain this in the closing statements. Whether that will be compelling to the jury or not is anyone's guess.

Well, no. Violating the police line and the curfew do not mean you lose your right to self defense. You only lose that if you intend to commit a violent act. You say he was looking for a fight. You have to prove that specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt. But what is the specific evidence for that? Did he say something to that effect before the shooting? Not that I’ve heard. Was he pointing the weapon at someone before all of this happened? Apparently not.

The other problem is that once the prosecution starts to argue that, they open the door to the others propensity for violent acts. Two of them at least have criminal pasts involving gun crimes, domestic violence, and sexual offense with a minor. That can come out if the prosecution isn’t careful. That coming out will not help the prosecution.

sorry. I think he’s a stupid little fuck. His parents are even worse. But he’s not going to be found guilty of murder. He’ll get off in self defense.

I find it hard to argue "self-defense" when openly carrying an AR-15. I remember being at a Police Firing Range for a project and in a small trailer with probably two to three dozen armed cops with holstered guns. I have nothing to worry about, but I'm nervous as all fuck because that is a lot of guns. I remember cross country running in the woods and me and the person I'm running with pass a guy walking by with a rifle, he is presumably hunting. That fact didn't not make me nervous about that gun as we are allowed 0 seconds of time between perceiving a good guy with a gun becoming a bad guy with a gun.

These self defense laws are insane, and these Rittenhouse and Zimmerman cases make it near impossible to provide a decent self-defense law that provides cover for not straight cases of self-defense while not providing cover for people that seek out these situations solely because they are armed and know they are protected by the law.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This is where Rittenhouse worked part-time as a lifeguard. The YMCA is in Illinois and 24 miles rom Kenosha, closer to Antioch Illinois than Kenosha.
View attachment 36038

And?

Well, if you look at the picture closely, you will only see white people which just goes to show that KR is a white supremecist. Seems pretty obvious to me. And, IIRC the numbers on the back wall are racist dog whistles.

Typical conservative humor.

But nice try.

No, I wouldn't call that working as an EMT. Would you? Will you answer this question or try to make it personal about me instead?

 

[blastula]

Don, what does its location have to do with anything?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Don, what does its location have to do with anything?

Conservatives are saying he worked in Kenosha as a lifeguard. He didn't. I found a report that also says he worked as a lifeguard at another place, closer to Kenosha since I posted that. I am not sure he even was there due to the pandemic...it is documented that it affected the YMCA job. In both cases of lifeguard jobs, he wasn't an EMT. And also, neither was in Kenosha, though the second less documented one is quite a bit closer to Kenosha. Still not there.

I mean, I live in a location. I work in another location. I have family and especially in-laws in other locations, some of which are neighboring towns and some of which are further out, some of my biologically related family is in another state and in other countries. I don't claim I am a member of the community where I work and I certainly wouldn't claim I am a member of a community that is 7 miles away. I also wouldn't claim I am a member of a community of a town that is neighboring to my "town," merely because I have relatives there.

To try to make some kind of analogy here: If I was a dishwasher in Brooklyn, I wouldn't claim to be a restaurant owner in Westchester county.

 

[none]

this is a live broadcast.??.. I don't quite understand how tvu works just yet but this is one of their feeds I guess.. not quite sure.

Watch Live: Kyle Rittenhouse Murder Trial

Opening statements for the upcoming murder trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, 18, is scheduled to begin Tuesday, Nov. 2 in Kenosha County, Wisconsin. The case has landed in a cultural fissure and became a cause célèbre among the political right.

lawandcrime.com

 

[blastula]

Don, what does its location have to do with anything?

Conservatives are saying he worked in Kenosha as a lifeguard. He didn't. I found a report that also says he worked as a lifeguard at another place, closer to Kenosha since I posted that.

He worked at a pool in Pleasant Prairie In Kenosha County, less than 10 mi. from the shooting location. He worked there the day before the shooting. He was staying at his friend's house in WI on the day of the shooting. That house in WI is where his gun had always been kept, not in IL.

His home was in Antioch, IL which is near the border of WI, and just 20 mi. from Kenosha. This whole "he crossed state lines" line was always a dumb canard, and people are still saying it.

I am not sure he even was there due to the pandemic...it is documented that it affected the YMCA job. In both cases of lifeguard jobs, he wasn't an EMT.

Whether he was an EMT isn't a mystery. He admitted in court that he had lied about it.

And also, neither was in Kenosha, though the second less documented one is quite a bit closer to Kenosha. Still not there.

I mean, I live in a location. I work in another location. I have family and especially in-laws in other locations, some of which are neighboring towns and some of which are further out, some of my biologically related family is in another state and in other countries. I don't claim I am a member of the community where I work and I certainly wouldn't claim I am a member of a community that is 7 miles away. I also wouldn't claim I am a member of a community of a town that is neighboring to my "town," merely because I have relatives there.

To try to make some kind of analogy here: If I was a dishwasher in Brooklyn, I wouldn't claim to be a restaurant owner in Westchester county.

He did say it was his community. Maybe it's a SLIGHT stretch for him to say it, but it's probably not worth much thought compared to other issues.

 

[Elixir]

That little fucker wasn’t there because he thought TJ Max needed his protection. He armed up and went to a protest in another State hoping to shoot someone.
I sincerely hope someone feels threatened by his mere presence after this corrupt judge lets him off, and returns the favor.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Don, what does its location have to do with anything?

Conservatives are saying he worked in Kenosha as a lifeguard. He didn't. I found a report that also says he worked as a lifeguard at another place, closer to Kenosha since I posted that. I am not sure he even was there due to the pandemic...it is documented that it affected the YMCA job. In both cases of lifeguard jobs, he wasn't an EMT. And also, neither was in Kenosha, though the second less documented one is quite a bit closer to Kenosha. Still not there.

This article says the YMCA confirmed he worked there and was furloughed March 2020. Doesn't say what he did there. He claims to be a Certified Lifeguard which means CPR and what not. I haven't seen that debunked... yet.

He claims he was a EMT Cadet for the Antioch FD.