Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

[Res Ipsa]

Ajax, your intuition about English common law are exactly backwards. Originally, life was sacrosanct and only the king had the power to take a life. When faced with a threat, you had an affirmative duty to retreat rather than use deadly force to defend yourself.

Weren't people hung for theft in the middle ages. The Anglo Saxon chronicle complains that William the Conqueror gouged out the eyes of any man caught hunting deer on the kings land. What was the penalty for theft in colonial America? When did imprisonment begin?

Ajax, you keep hopping around from subject. We’re not talking about the conditions under which the state can use deadly force against individuals. We’re talking about whether there was a historically recognized right of a private individual, not acting on behalf of the state, to use deadly force on a private individual to protect his stuff, as opposed to his life. You keep claiming that there must have been such a right, but you don’t seem willing to learn the actual history.

[Res Ipsa]

In Seattle, three police cars were torched, not by BLM, but by a white woman identified as an anarchist. She was hunted down, arrested, and prosecuted. As she should have been.

Of course she was hunted down and prosecuted. There's a two tiered justice system in Seattle dependent upon race and political affiliation. Show me a case where BLM protesters were hunted down, arrested, and prosecuted for the damage they caused this summer.

Show me which BLM protester caused damage and we can both check. Until you were furnished with the details of the Seattle arsonist, I’m sure you would have considered the torched police cars in the category of damage caused by BLM.

[Res Ipsa]

Indeed yes. But only the king had the power to sentence someone to death - a power that he could delegate to judges he appointed, and who acted in his name.

That is interesting. Maybe you're right. Perhaps people in the middle ages weren't allowed to defend their property by deadly force. Perhaps my intuition was just wrong. It sure didn't seem that way when I watch historical movies.

Learn from that.

[Res Ipsa]

This is getting serious, breitbart is down.

Res Ipsa do you agree with the prosecution that Kyle Rittenhouse forfeited the right to self defense when he came to the rally armed?

As I read the statute, one can lose the self-defense privilege under Wisconsin through provocation. Here is the relevant language:

939.48(2) (2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:

939.48(2)(a) (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.

939.48(2)(b) (b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.

939.48(2)(c) (c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

I am not familiar enough with the trial testimony to apply the statute to Rittenhouse. If I recall correctly, he shot three different people. How the law applies may be different in each situation.

[Jersey Girl]

Verdict watch. I despise this part of a trial. Still...going to record my own predictions here.

Not guilty on all counts.

And we'll just see how that goes...

[Jersey Girl]

This is getting serious, breitbart is down.

Res Ipsa do you agree with the prosecution that Kyle Rittenhouse forfeited the right to self defense when he came to the rally armed?

I'm not RI, but my answer to the question is, no.

[Jersey Girl]

I want to take a shot at this. No pun intended I assure you.

As I read the statute, one can lose the self-defense privilege under Wisconsin through provocation. Here is the relevant language:

939.48(2) (2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:

939.48(2)(a) (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.

He put out a dumpster fire. Literally. I will address escape/withdrawal below.

939.48(2)(b) (b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.

I suppose in one case, you can say that he withdrew. In the remaining two cases, he had no way to withdraw nor means to escape until after he fired the shots because he was surrounded.

939.48(2)(c) (c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

I don't think the evidence supports this. Others may disagree.

[ajax18]

This is getting serious, breitbart is down.

Res Ipsa do you agree with the prosecution that Kyle Rittenhouse forfeited the right to self defense when he came to the rally armed?

As I read the statute, one can lose the self-defense privilege under Wisconsin through provocation. Here is the relevant language:

939.48(2) (2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:

939.48(2)(a) (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.

939.48(2)(b) (b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.

939.48(2)(c) (c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

I am not familiar enough with the trial testimony to apply the statute to Rittenhouse. If I recall correctly, he shot three different people. How the law applies may be different in each situation.

Are you saying it was unlawful for Rittenhouse to have the gun there? I thought the judge already ruled it was legal. What exactly are you saying Rittenhouse did to provoke the attack?

On November 11, 2021, Kenosha witness Frank “Drew” Hernandez testified and claimed Joseph Rosenbaum charged Rittenhouse prior to being shot.

He indicated that Rosenbaum “[attempted] to throw a bag at [Rittenhouse],” and he made clear that he was not sure what was in the bag.



Hernandez said Rittenhouse turned around after the bag was thrown and that “Rosenbaum is lunging toward him and Kyle fires.”

On November 10, 2021, Rittenhouse testified that he was running to put out a fire when Rosenbaum allegedly ambushed him. Rittenhouse claimed one man, Joshua Ziminski, allegedly walked toward him with a pistol while Rosenbaum closed in on his right side.

Rittenhouse indicated he began running in an effort to escape the situation.

Reuters reported that witness Richie McGinniss testified Rosenbaum said “F*ck you” and lunged for Rittenhouse’s rifle before Rittenhouse shot him.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021 ... fense-gun/

[Res Ipsa]

Ajax, no, I specifically said I didn’t know enough about the testimony at trial to apply the section of the law I quoted. I read that the prosecution introduced drone footage that purportedly showed Rittenhouse pointing the rifle at various protestors. Whether that constitutes provocation will be up to the jury. I haven’t seen the drone footage or read or heard any other testimony about alleged provocation. But if what he was doing was aiming the rifle at protestors as they passed by, I’d call that provocation under the statute if I were sitting on the jury.

[K Graham]

In a perfect world...

Facebook_IMG_1637102999511.jpg