Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

[canpakes]

Up front apologies for not knowing as I haven’t had the chance to watch any part of the trial, but are there separate charges against Rittenhouse per victim, or just a single comprehensive charge regarding self defense?

ETA: found them, here:

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles ... house-face

[Tinfoilhat]

Great video that's helps explains that if you’re going to riot burn and loot for 3 nights, there's a chance you're going to be confronted with violence. Don't fxxxin complain when you get shot by a guy who was in fear for his life.
https://youtu.be/4oUGOnDFPBE

Yes, of course, it is all us and them to you. "Hey, liberals, you did stupid stuff, and now you're dead. Too bad, so sad. Congratulations, Kyle Rittenhouse! You answered Trump's call to be violent with liberals, and now you are going to get away with it, as I, fellow Trumpian," think you rightly should."

Yadda yadda wank wank.

Hey, I agree with you that rioting is not a good idea. I agree that charging a guy who has a loaded AR-15 is stupid.

But so, too, is being a young and dumb and full of cum little creep bully who gets off on being part of the armed Trump brigade and looks to kill liBruLZ.

If you think anyone here looks like a hero or a victim, then you're the one with a problem.

I never said Kyle was a hero. He should've never went to riot by himself. He shouldn't of put himself in a position to be surrounded by a bunch of idiots that are violent arsonist. Is he young and dumb? Absolutely! He felt that AR15 was going to make him invincible. Did the gun bring unwanted attention toward him, yes! But, none of gives the guys that got shot the right to attack Kyle. It was a fxxxin riot!! Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Question for you, sir. Let's say you're in your car and you know there's a riot 6 blocks away and you want to see what's happening. So you decide to drive five blocks just on the outskirts of the riot to see if you can catch a safe glimpse of what's happening. We'll, you drive five blocks and come to find out you made a mistake because when you turned the corner the rioters were directly infront of you. They surround your car, they start kicking the glass in, beating your drivers window with skateboards. They're so many you can't get out. They're cussing, yelling and saying they're going to fxxk you up. Finally, your drivers window shatters into a million pieces and you can feel the breath of a couple of the rioters on your face. You're in fear for your life. The only way for you to escape is to turn your car into a deadly weapon and potentially kill a couple of rioters by running them over. Do you run them over with your car? Or do you accept the fact that you shouldn't of been curious in the first place and you're an idiot for putting yourself in danger, and then let the rioters do what they want to you and just sit there in your car?

[ajax18]

I should think that everyone who has some common sense does not want to encourage teenagers to travel around playing vigilante with deadly weapons.

If that's the case, then elect public officials who are willing to change the statute. But don't press charges against someone if you already know that's not what the law says and you're grabbing at straws to find some possible criminal penalty. This prosecutor should be disbarred.

It seems to me that you might just relish the idea of Kyle seeking to kill people, succeeding in doing it, and getting off Scott free. Are you looking forward to your turn to kill people and get away with it?

Kyle was using his weapon as a deterrent. Would you agree that most people with any kind of common sense wouldn't try to attack someone holding an AR 15 (which was clearly visible due to it's length which is what the law was about)?

Kyle regrets going to Kenosha. I certainly wouldn't relish having to kill people in an attempt to protect my property or my life. Given that we're no longer allowed to protect our property and that the police can't do much either, perhaps the only option is to not put businesses in the inner city or carve out a better country with more just laws.

[Kishkumen]

Question for you, sir. Let's say you're in your car and you know there's a riot 6 blocks away and you want to see what's happening. So you decide to drive five blocks just on the outskirts of the riot to see if you can catch a safe glimpse of what's happening. We'll, you drive five blocks and come to find out you made a mistake because when you turned the corner the rioters were directly infront of you. They surround your car, they start kicking the glass in, beating your drivers window with skateboards. They're so many you can't get out. They're cussing, yelling and saying they're going to fxxk you up. Finally, your drivers window shatters into a million pieces and you can feel the breath of a couple of the rioters on your face. You're in fear for your life. The only way for you to escape is to turn your car into a deadly weapon and potentially kill a couple of rioters by running them over. Do you run them over with your car? Or do you accept the fact that you shouldn't of been curious in the first place and you're an idiot for putting yourself in danger, and then let the rioters do what they want to you and just sit there in your car?

First, this has nothing to do with what Kyle Rittenhouse was up to. Nothing at all. He was not there for the sake of curiosity. Not looking to keep his distance from the trouble. He had a history of courting physical conflict with people who disagreed with his politics, verbally threatening them, etc. It would be foolish to believe that he was some kind of naif wandering into this situation with a loaded AR-15 just in case. He was there hoping to be a big man who gave those liberals what he felt they deserved.

Secondly, I hope I would never be so stupid as to go into one of these situations thinking that my car was a safe zone. Anyone who has watched even a modicum of television should be aware that that would be a bad idea. Would I think that the person in this situation deserved to die because they were so stupid as to drive into a riot zone? Of course not. But, honestly, I would do what I could in the situation to get the hell out of there. Unfortunately for Kyle, he is not that unwise person. The totality of the evidence, including the stuff they will not let into the trial for technical legal reasons, suggests he knew exactly what he was doing and what he hoped to be able to do. I would say that he got exactly what he wanted, and the law will not hold him accountable, unfortunately.

That said, I would prefer that we live according to the law and under a system of laws rather than turn over our security, such that it is, to self-appointed vigilantes like Kyle Rittenhouse.

[Kishkumen]

If that's the case, then elect public officials who are willing to change the statute. But don't press charges against someone if you already know that's not what the law says and you're grabbing at straws to find some possible criminal penalty. This prosecutor should be disbarred.

I don't live in Wisconsin.

I am not this prosecutor.

I am not defending the prosecutor.

Maybe he should be "disbarred," but I doubt he will be, and I have no opinion on that. Am I weeping tears of sympathy that Kyle is being pressured? No. I think at the very least he should be put through the psychological wringer for being a murderous little brown shirt thug.

Kyle was using his weapon as a deterrent.

Kyle was looking to kill the people he thought deserved to be killed.

Would you agree that most people with any kind of common sense wouldn't try to attack someone holding an AR 15 (which was clearly visible due to it's length which is what the law was about)?

Yes, I agree that people with common sense who are using it do not attack a guy brandishing an AR-15. I have said that several times now. Do you think I should say it several more times? Would that help?

Kyle regrets going to Kenosha.

Sure he regrets it now that he sees his little murderous bully fantasies have real consequences. I am really happy that this little creep is squirming in this trial. It is the least he should be put through. Until he was on trial, he was happy to be a white supremacist hero of the day and flash white power signs with a dumb grin on his face. He is a putrid little pustule of a piece of garbage.

I certainly wouldn't relish having to kill people in an attempt to protect my property or my life.

Kyle went out to shoot people with a deadly weapon to protect other people's property. That's entirely different.

Given that we're no longer allowed to protect our property and that the police can't do much either, perhaps the only option is to not put businesses in the inner city or carve out a better country with more just laws.

The law is always imperfect. As everyone should be able to see. It can never cover every situation adequately. It is not covering this situation to everyone's satisfaction certainly. But the rule of law is infinitely better than living in a totalitarian state or in a world of vigilante justice. Be happy with an imperfect system because I can assure you it can be so much worse.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Given that we're no longer allowed to protect our property and that the police can't do much either, perhaps the only option is to not put businesses in the inner city or carve out a better country with more just laws.

You’re literally allowed to protect your property:

Louisiana's Castle Doctrine

In Louisiana deadly force is legal when preventing immediate death or serious bodily injury in one's home, vehicle or place of work. Non-deadly force must be deemed reasonable under the circumstances

Let me know if I have the wrong state and I’ll c&p the appropriate snippet.

- Doc

[Res Ipsa]

Having read the statute a couple of days ago, I'm not surprised. As it reads today, the statute is a mess.

I understand that people on the left don't agree with the law as it is written. But that was the law when the prosecutor pressed charges. It hasn't changed. Why would the prosecutor press charges when he knows or at least should know that the law was not violated? Is there any penalty for a prosecutor bringing a charge that should never have been brought? There's certainly plenty of damage done when a prosecutor brings charges against innocent people.

My opinion that the law was poorly written has nothing to do with whether I like what it says or my politics. As I said upthread, the law as originally enacted was clear and made sense: it was not legal for an under 18 to open carry with specified exceptions. One was for over 16s to hunt as long as they followed the hunting laws and used a long barrel shotgun or rifle.

The problem is with the amendments made about five years ago. If the legislature intended to make open carry legal in all situations for over 16s, it could easily have done so. Heck, I could write you the amendment that would clearly do that in five minutes.

But what it actually did was change a few words here and a few words there in a bunch of statutes, and it’s not clear at all that they intended to legalize open carry for all 16s and older for all long guns. All of the original exceptions are still there, which wouldn’t be needed if that were the cases. And the specific hunting exception is completely unclear.

I haven’t looked for any legislative history, but it may have been perfectly reasonable to conclude that there was no intent to lower the age for open carry to 16. I’m not the prosecutor and I don’t know his thinking process.

You’re acting all shocked and self righteous, but this kind of thing happens more than you suspect. You’re only seeing it because it’s a high profile case involving a white kid.

[Res Ipsa]

Given that we're no longer allowed to protect our property and that the police can't do much either, perhaps the only option is to not put businesses in the inner city or carve out a better country with more just laws.

You’re literally allowed to protect your property:

Louisiana's Castle Doctrine

In Louisiana deadly force is legal when preventing immediate death or serious bodily injury in one's home, vehicle or place of work. Non-deadly force must be deemed reasonable under the circumstances

Let me know if I have the wrong state and I’ll c&p the appropriate snippet.

- Doc

Doc, I don’t think that says that one can defend property with deadly force.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

You’re literally allowed to protect your property:



Let me know if I have the wrong state and I’ll c&p the appropriate snippet.

- Doc

Doc, I don’t think that says that one can defend property with deadly force.

Hrm. I thought it was implied since, say, a home invasion robbery or car jacking would be common stand your ground scenarios. I’ll cop to being wrong unless I can find something to bolster the idea, but as I’m typing this out I have this thought:

Wouldn’t it be reasonable that you’re at your place of business, a mob shows up and starts destroying your crap, you yell at them to go away, but they rush toward you - wouldn’t you be justified in fearing for your life so you smoke a fool, they disperse, and you avoid prison?

eta:

A homicide is justifiable when committed by a person who was lawfully inside a dwelling, business, or motor vehicle when the conflict began against a person who attempts to make or has made an unlawful entry into such places, and the person committing the homicide reasonably believes that using deadly force is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle

So, let’s say you’re a, I dunno, gun dealer and some guys come in, pull out their weapons, and state, “Give me your guns and no one will get hurt!” Wouldn’t shooting them be justifiable? I guess where I’m getting hung up is even if their intent is to simply take your stuff, you don’t know that, and if you fear for your life given the nature of their crime you’re dovered under the castle doctrine, no?

- Doc

[canpakes]

Would you agree that most people with any kind of common sense wouldn't try to attack someone holding an AR 15 (which was clearly visible due to it's length which is what the law was about)?

Yes, I agree that people with common sense who are using it do not attack a guy brandishing an AR-15. I have said that several times now. Do you think I should say it several more times? Would that help?

As well, a similar point can be made that most people with common sense wouldn’t choose to drive to other towns outside their own in order to purposefully attend a riot, and then open carry a long gun while doing so.

Meanwhile, all across America, there are instructors leading classes in schools about the options students can use when confronted with an active shooter situation. One of those options is rushing the shooter.

https://www.keranews.org/2019-09-06/fir ... ol-shooter

Folks like Rittenhouse want to pretend that they can’t be confused for ‘a bad guy with a gun’, then when the confusion erupts, they want to be exempt from any consequences that result from it.