Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

[Binger]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[doubtingthomas]

if we had just said that Mr. Rittenhouse was a minor

He killed them "quickly and efficiently". Rittenhouse wasn't panicking, and he probably didn't fear for his life.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

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.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/202 ... 209656002/

A Kenosha County judge on Friday dismissed more than two dozen tickets issued to protesters last year for being out past a curfew issued during demonstrations and violence that followed the police shooting of Jacob Blake.

Kenosha County Sheriff David Beth had declared the curfew Aug. 23, which was modified and extended over nine days. Protesters who failed to leave the areas of unrest were cited for refusing to obey an emergency order, which carries a $200 fine.

But Circuit Judge Jason Rossell, in response to numerous challenges by defendants, agreed Beth never had the authority to declare the curfew, at least not under the state's emergency management law. The statute limits that power to the governor or local government, such as the Kenosha Common Council or County Board, which must adopt an ordinance or resolution that a state of emergency exits.

I’m guessing Judge Schroeder was aware of this ruling. If he was then it’d make sense why he didn’t accept the LEO’s testimony as evidence of a lawful curfew order existing.

- Doc

[Binger]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[doubtingthomas]

I’m guessing Judge Schroeder was aware of this ruling. If he was then it’d make sense why he didn’t accept the LEO’s testimony as evidence of a lawful curfew order existing.

- Doc

I don't care what the Jesus fearing judge thinks. I am just pointing out the Winsconsin self-defense laws.

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/

So three questions.
1. Did he have the legal right to be there?
2. Did he provoke the confrontation by pointing a gun at the protestors?
3. Did the protestors threaten to kill him?

[doubtingthomas]

Would you be willing to be a witness in court and say this to a jury? We do not have any witness testimony that this happened so we made a picture of it, but it looks like the picture we made was done with software that says very explicitly in the product description that it is not suitable for evidence. So, what do you say? Would you be willing to say to the jury that Kyle pointed the gun at the people that he shot, other than when he was murdering them?

I have to read more, but Rittenhouse pointed his gun at someone in a car, and he said two weeks before he was going to shoot protestors. The guy was obviously a serious threat.

[Binger]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Binger]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Res Ipsa]

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.

It’s kinda brain breaking. The idea is that the prosecution’s decision not to charge the defendant with a crime doesn’t waive its ability to prosecute the charges it decides to pursue. The prosecutor doesn’t have to charge R with a crime in order to prove something that negates a defense.

In R’s case, was he on private property without permission of the owner? If so, the prosecutor can argue he has no right to be where he was. He doesn’t have to charge him with criminal trespass to argue that R didn’t have the right to be on private property without permission.

[Gadianton]

2. Did he provoke the confrontation by pointing a gun at the protestors?

Well, not the protestors that he killed, right? He pointed the gun at other protesters. And even after he killed one person, unless he specifically threatened the others in the crowd that went after him, his previous killing was not a threat against them.

So if you hijack an airline and kill a passenger, but then other passengers rush you in order to stop you after that, then you are allowed to kill them in self-defense since you hadn't specifically threatened them.

but I thought three round burst firing was illegal in semi-auto rifles?

I believe what you're thinking of is a burst feature in an otherwise semi-auto mode, where you can hold the trigger and fire a few rounds in full-auto mode. I think the point of that is to stop yourself from running out of ammo in full auto.