Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

[Binger]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Binger]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[K Graham]

Something that hasn't been touched on in the big gun debate is the use of semi-automatic weapons.

Rittenhouse used an AR15 which fired one round but then three consecutive rounds within a second. I guess I'm wrong, but I thought three round burst firing was illegal in semi-auto rifles?

Anyway, point being, it was the second round of firing the killed Rosenbaum. Had he used a hand gun Rosenbaum's suicide would have been a failed attempt. But watching the video and hearing the sequential shots, it seems the three round burst was fired within a second, all three shots hitting him in in very different locations. One grazed his head, another hit his hand and the "killshot" went through the back of his shoulder blade. So in the heat of the moment with adrenaline at full throttle, Kyle Rittenhouse basically hit him once in the pelvis, but then sprayed him with a three burst shots.

Seems like a great way for gun control advocates to use this to argue for banning these types of weapons. I mean really, they're designed for one purpose, and that is to kill human beings. To kill a maximum number of humans within a minimal timeframe. What place does something like this have in society, I mean really?

[Jersey Girl]

Is he being charged for violating curfew?

It doesn’t matter whether he’s charged with a crime based on curfew violation. Rittenhouse claims he’s entitled to invoke the self defense privilege. The state is entitled to present evidence that Rittenhouse isn’t entitled to invoke the privilege. The state doesn’t have to prove him guilty of crime — it just has show that Rittenhouse didn’t have a right to be where he was.

Got it!

Nah...I don't got it.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Is he being charged for violating curfew?

It doesn’t matter whether he’s charged with a crime based on curfew violation. Rittenhouse claims he’s entitled to invoke the self defense privilege. The state is entitled to present evidence that Rittenhouse isn’t entitled to invoke the privilege. The state doesn’t have to prove him guilty of crime — it just has show that Rittenhouse didn’t have a right to be where he was.

Well. From googles: judge dismissed it because the state didn’t prove it was a lawful order, which the aclu also said was legally invalid

It’s a nice gambit by the prosecution. I don’t know if a citation-level infraction negates the right to assembly. <- I literally have no clue. I’m left wondering how they screwed up by not producing the curfew order, either by the sheriff or county, but instead just brought in a LEO to testify there was a lawful order. I can see why the judge wouldn’t care for that, since the curfew’s legality itself was being challenged by the ACLU.

- Doc

[doubtingthomas]

The state doesn’t have to prove him guilty of crime — it just has show that Rittenhouse didn’t have a right to be where he was.

Yes exactly.

[Jersey Girl]

The state doesn’t have to prove him guilty of crime — it just has show that Rittenhouse didn’t have a right to be where he was.

Yes exactly.

Why didn't he have a right to be there??

[Binger]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[doubtingthomas]

I’ve watched the videos of how quickly and efficiently Rittenhouse killed the two men.

Quickly and efficiently? That means Rittenhouse wasn't panicking. Not what I expect for a young man (with no experience or special training) who is fearing for his life.

[doubtingthomas]

Exactly what exactly? You mean, if we had just said that Mr. Rittenhouse was a minor who was out after the curfew that he would not be able to defend himself?

No, but it doesn't help his self-defense claim. According to the self-defense laws in Wisconsin

As long as the individual using deadly force in self-defense has the legal right to be in the location, didn’t provoke the confrontation, and the other party continues to be the aggressor, then the individual is allowed to use deadly force against the other party.
https://www.wicriminaldefense.com/blog/ ... ense-laws/

And he pointed his gun at protestors. How is pointing a gun not provoking a confrontation?