Rittenhouse trial to start soon, Judge is laying out rules.

[pmv]

Opinion | Kyle Rittenhouse's not guilty verdict has dangerous legal implications

Rittenhouse's lawyer called him a hero, and his expert witness contended aggression is indistinguishable from self-defense. We have normalized the absurd.

www.nbcnews.com

This seems like a central point - the very act of carrying a gun gives you an excuse to use it.

Not surprisingly, use-of-force experts typically testify in officer-involved shootings, and this use-of-force theory comes from police training. Police are trained that there is no such thing as an unarmed encounter, given that an officer carries a gun. At the hearing, Rittenhouse’s expert stated that “the firearm is a potential weapon for both parties.” Under this reasoning, Rittenhouse’s decision to arm himself theoretically arms anyone who advances on Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse having a gun gave him a right to kill that, unarmed, he would not have. Will we accept such reasoning, extending the privileges we give police officers at trial to armed civilians like Rittenhouse? This trajectory takes us to a very dystopian destination.

 

[Maxima1]

We only have Kyle's word that Rosenbaum attempted to disarm him (Kyle has shown a propensity to lie) and no definitive proof Rosenbaum actually touched the rifle, only that one of his hands was close to the muzzle at some point.

Your bias is showing. We have video of it being close before first shot, evidence that his hands indeed were close (soot/burns)/gunshot injury to fingers consistent with that interpretation, and McGinnis testimony.

“Well, he said ‘fuck you’ and then he reached for the weapon.” -- McGinnis

Exactly, people assume he’s an active shooter and now they are attempting to stop the threat. Maybe not a wise choice, but understandable.

Haha, no, they acted with a similar mindset as the McMichaels. They were relying on hearsay and ignored all the evidence that suggested it was just a shooting incident (e.g. time passage; Kyle running towards the cop lights; people not scattering but actually surrounding more and more and screaming that he shot someone). Gaige, himself, did not see him as an active shooter. Not only did he go up to talk to Kyle, he also expressed concern about Jump Kick Man and Huber using the skateboard. Huber acted irrational being the false imprisonment convict he was. And no surprise Jump Kick Man had a mile long rap sheet.

https://ww3.lawschool.cornell.edu/research/JLPP/upload/Robbins-final-2.pdf

. In Wisconsin, a citizen can arrest only for felonies and breaches of the peace so long as that citizen has personally witnessed the crime.64 Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin all agree that a felony committed in the arrestor's presence is sufficient for arrest and that the arrestor bears the burden of correctness.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1457992897182281729

"Detain" him with both hands occupied.

Grosskreutz pointing a pistol at Rittenhouse is an imminent threat, but Rittenhouse pointing an AR-15 at Grosskreutz and others is not an imminent threat.

Gaige advances on someone running away from a mob. Who the aggressor is is painfully obvious. Grosskreutz wanted a revenge kill. His testimony has more holes than swiss cheese. He says he doesn't know what he was going to do after "hands up, don't shoot" and never would think of actually using the gun.

in that moment i felt that i i had to do something to try and prevent myself from being being killed or being shot or killed and so i decided that the best course of action would be to close the distance between the defendant and i and then you know from there i i don't know i mean if try and win it anthony had just tried wrestling the gun detaining the defendants i i i don't know because i never had an opportunity um i do know though i was never trying to kill the defendant that was never never something that i was trying to do in that moment i was trying to preserve my own life but doing so while also taking the life of another is not something that i'm capable or comfortable in doing that goes against almost a lifelong ethical code that i've lived by in in regards to in regards to medicine

Gaige's friend confirmed Gaige was a split second away from killing Rittenhouse. Says when he saw Gaige in hospital, Gaige said "his only regret was not killing the kid and hesitating to pull the gun before emptying the entire mag into him."

Funny how the usual respect and praise given to those who rush in to interfere with or stop the active shooter doesn't apply here, no?

Because it was clear it wasn't an active shooter situation??? While Gaige pretends he thought he was an active shooter, he did not see it that way.

So you are saying if someone posts the desire to kill X and X shows up dead 4 months later that post isn't evidence??
That's what happened in this case thanks to the judge

LIttlebinger couldn't show that Kyle felt that way with all the video of that night, so bringing that video in is more prejudicial than probative. Is it really that hard to understand? All what he had was Yellow Pants, which just showed Kyle not wanting to get into an argument with him about his accusation, and Yellow Pants motions with the rifle down.

Two days before he said that he wish he had his gun to kill rioters. Two days later he kills rioters. Hmm...

You want to claim he set up the Ziminski/Rosenbaum ambush? What was the vigilante provocation that set off Rosenbaum?

Oh heaven forbid that I take issue with a "juvenile" who decides to become a vigilante, arms himself with an assault rifle and intentionally puts himself (and obviously others) in danger. It seems that your "us vs them" is gun-totting vigilantes versus the people they shoot. In both cases, you side with the people doing the killing. That hardly seems like integrity to me. How about a little empathy for the real victims who died?
"The rule of law cannot persist if you are corrupt and only care about your group." Really? Well, right back at you!

It's not provocation to open carry in Wisconsin.

Guilty or innocent on the part of Rittenhouse as an individual, this case highlights what's wrong with open carry. People openly carrying firearms is a provocative act. Whether it provoked these victims to fear or anger, we'll never know, but one thing is clear: had Rittenhouse not been allowed to openly carry an assault rifle, none of this would ever have happened.

Open carry seems more scary, but I wonder if it's really worse than concealed carry in these situations. With a handgun, someone can get into a confrontation with the person carrying and not know that they are armed. Other than Kyle, I don't know of any other incident like it.

 

[HurleyBird]

His trial should start soon.

https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/local/criminal-case-against-man-who-allegedly-purchased-gun-kyle-rittenhouse-used-in-fatal-shootings-delayed/article_acb37702-e60f-5e8c-be38-67fa0e56871b.html

It's a dead trial walking given dismissal of the possession charge against Rittenhouse.

 

[ivwshane]

I like how the state of mind for one person is relevant but not the state of mind for another. You gotta love the inconsistency in righty logic.

 

[Vic]

Are we supposed to ignore the fact that the existence of "a situation where one will have to kill in "self-defense" is the root of the problem?

Follow a couple of simple rules and you can avoid being killed by someone who is acting in self defense. First, don't be out rioting, looting or otherwise causing damage to persons or property. Second, should you choose to engage in these acts, don't be stupid enough to attack an armed individual who is clearly attempting to defend against such actions.

None of your "simple rules" are the laws of this country.
First, rioting and looting are not capital crimes, and none of the persons shot by Rittenhouse were convicted of those acts. In fact, one was there in a role similar to what Rittenhouse was doing.
Second, that armed individual was not protecting against anything, and he certainly was not upholding the law. Remove your bias, and it could be argued that the mistake made that night was that the crowd tried to disarm the active shooter, instead of actively exercising their own right to self-defense. But I guess they didn't have any according to you.

Finally, neither you nor Rittenhouse are the police, nor do you have any such rights or powers to enforce the law, especially as you clearly have no respect for rights or legal due process. IMO it's just as much self-defense to stop you over-compensating little pricks from your wannabe cop BS, brandishing and threatening people for your political nonsense, than the other way around.

So kindly don't threaten me with your 'simple rules.'

 

[Paratus]

Heaven forbid that the "juvenile" be capable of surviving a lynch mob.

show me evidence of a “lynch mob”. At most you have video of Rosenbaum running at KR before being killed (note who died and who was not injured here) and then people trying to stop what appeared to be an active shooter.

Tell me why you side with the assailants that night?

I don’t side with vigilantes nor extrajudicial killings. Maybe ask yourself why you do.

If you listen to the prosecutor, you would think the lynch mob a bunch of heroes stopping a crime before it even occurs.

Your bias is showing. Provide proof any of these the three men shot were rioting / looting / committing arson

Then show me where the legal system says the punishment is death by vigilantes

We have a strong parallel to that man's argument.
Are the men in Georgia who killed Aubery, are they actually heroes doing the right thing by chasing someone down in violence?

of course not so why are supporting the vigilantes in this case?

God damn, the Democrat position in this topic is beyond fucked up.

Less so than yours which is little better than South Parks “he’s coming right at me” defense to shooting someone to death.

In both cases I side with the victim being a ttacked. I implore you all to find some integrity and do the same.

No in one case you side with victim and against the vigilantes (Arbary case) and in the other you side with the vigilante over the victims (Rittenhouse case).

If the only thing that matters is "us vs them", Rittenhouse is guilty to you because he was not part of the mob looting, rioting, and setting fires...

Here’s the thing. You don’t even know what sparked the confrontation between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum. Do you understand if Rittenhouse was the aggressor he can’t claim self-defense?
We only have Rittenhouse’s account because he shot the other guy who he got into the altercation with.


The 36-year-old crossed paths with Rittenhouse in a used-car lot as Rittenhouse brandished an AR-15-style rifle. Rosenbaum, meanwhile, was unarmed and carried a plastic bag containing a toothbrush, toothpaste, socks, deodorant and some papers.


According to Rittenhouse's lawyers, Rosenbaum approached Rittenhouse and attempted to "engage" him. Afraid, Rittenhouse took off running and Rosenbaum gave chase. Videos of the incident show that Rosenbaum eventually threw the plastic bag he was carrying at Rittenhouse, who responded by firing four shots at the man.

IF THAT is how you determined good guy from bad guy instead of watching the video and seeing who chased who....

You want to know who the good guys were? The other two shooting victims. Both of whom thought they were stopping an active shooter.

If the third guy who was armed had shot and killed Rittenhouse then what you would have heard from the press was about how the underaged shooter had talked about wanting to kill looters, driven illegally to the protest, acquired an assault rifle, lied about being a medic and then gunned down 2 protestors before being stopped by a good guy with a gun which all the conservatives would have pointed out as a reason to conceal carry.

Then as a nation we have already surrendered reason for madness. The rule of law cannot persist if you are corrupt and only care about your group.

Lack of reason is exactly what you are pushing for. Armed vigilantes taking the law into their own hand and the last guy standing is legally in the clear.[/quote][/I]

 

[EduCat]

Did you know that his father and other family members live in Kenosha and he visits friends there frequently and that Kenosha is less than 20 miles from his mothers home in Illinois? His rifle was at a friends house in Kenosha and never left the State. Go through the thread a little harder next time.

Yea I saw the twitter of him and his buddies walking around their local cvs or something strapped lmao. Who gives a shit where he lives and where the rifle originated at. He had to go pick it up to bring it to the protest, right? Whether it goes from IL to the protest or from his buddies house to the protest is irrelevant imo. The question is did he intend to use that AR defensively or was he thinking about bringing the heat down on some protestors? I think it's the latter, while you think it's the former. There are so many weapons you could choose for self defense, especially allowing you to be more mobile and tactical amidst chaos. At the very least, he brought the AR to intimidate people.

And I'll be honest I just recently found out about the whole dealership situation I thought for some reason it was just random cars. This kid was up on the roof, going to do what exactly? Shoot people as they break car windows? lol he was straight up playing irl COD warzone. Seems like the mob was chasing him because he shot someone dead and was trying to run away. Are people allowed to shoot someone in the head and then just walk away? lmao. He had no authority in Kenosha, he was just a 17 year old bully.

Anyways regardless yall are dumb as hell for celebrating this kid. He was reckless as fuck and got real lucky that night and with this trial. Valkenheiser judge guy was pretty crazy to watch too.

 

[Paratus]

I for one am totally cool with the precedence this case has set in regards to showing up at large gatherings where lawlessness is taking place and being given carte blanche to take out whatever trash is deemed necessary.

The next time Trump's Army tries to storm the castle they might want to watch their six. Some people are even saying that beating on cops and trying to overthrow our government won't be as easy next time? Who knew.

It sure does seem that in both cases (civil rights protest & insurrection) liberals involved need to arm themselves and be ready to shoot first at the first sign of danger and claim self-defense. That’s what conservatives want and this ruling says they are going to get it.

 

[Amol S.]

So according to Double Jeapordy, KR can no longer be tried. Does that mean if KR was to go on Fox News, and start talking about how he think White Supremacy is great to him, and how he felt great killing the three Anti White Supremsist intentionally, no one can retry him even if he said that?

 

[nickqt]

So according to Double Jeapordy, KR can no longer be tried. Does that mean if KR was to go on Fox News, and start talking about how he think White Supremacy is great to him, and how he felt great killing the three Anti White Supremsist intentionally, no one can retry him even if he said that?

I mean, you answered your own question with your very first sentence.

 

[Amol S.]

I mean, you answered your own question with your very first sentence.

In that situation, can the family members of the victims and/or the FCC sue or ask to revoke the broadcasting license of Fox News for promoting domestic terrorism?

 

[Maxima1]

If those three men went to the protest to cause trouble and commit crimes - THAT"S for law enforcement to determine and act upon - Not some pimply faced immature teenager with behavioral issues, character flaws, and a penchant for violence with no identification of any civil authority and no training in the chaotic situation of riot control. It's amazing how many people are ok with this type of person playing "cop". Are you one of them?

What was the vigilante provocation by Kyle, again? Rosenbaum ambushed and attacked him over stupid shit (probably agitation over putting out the fires; he's seen upset after the dumpster fire is put out) and maybe from perceiving Kyle as a "you-won't-do-shit-motherfucker" babyface.

Did they file this new motion because the video destroyed the entire narrative they were pushing that we all told you did not make any sense but which you bought into anyway?

lol Apparently the 12 jurors must have came to the conclusion you couldn't see Kyle pointing the rifle at Ziminski either. It was a lie from the prosecution that originated from a lying, fascist cop.

Saw that earlier. Basically, "We didn't know that video was there so we couldn't construct a narrative to fit it". It's even more shameful the judge entertained the whole "Apple's algorithms puts thing in Videos" bullshit.

It's shameful the judge allowed that crap in, which was the sole reason for the provocation instruction. Methinks the prosecution purposely hid the higher resolution video, so the defense couldn't outline as easily what was actually happening in the video.

And I don't think the prosecution played that video up enough during trial.

The point was never really about the video/image but to get the provocation instructions over the lie of "seeing" Kyle point the rifle at Ziminski.

 

[nickqt]

In that situation, can the family members of the victims and/or the FCC sue or ask to revoke the broadcasting license of Fox News for promoting domestic terrorism?

They could ask to be made the King and Queen of Flatland, but they'd just be ignored. Same as asking for Fox News broadcast license to be revoked. Both are equally as delusional.

Best they could do would be a civil litigation case but it wouldn't involve criminal law so it'd just be money, and as far as I know, Rittenhouse isn't worth anything anyway.

 

[Greenman]

So according to Double Jeapordy, KR can no longer be tried. Does that mean if KR was to go on Fox News, and start talking about how he think White Supremacy is great to him, and how he felt great killing the three Anti White Supremsist intentionally, no one can retry him even if he said that?

Nope. He was tried and found not guilty. He can't be tried for the same crime a second time. That's the law, and it's a good one. Though if he said something that stupid I'm sure there is some other charge they could find to put him away for a couple of years.
Remember OJ's book about how he killed two people?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

So according to Double Jeapordy, KR can no longer be tried. Does that mean if KR was to go on Fox News, and start talking about how he think White Supremacy is great to him, and how he felt great killing the three Anti White Supremsist intentionally, no one can retry him even if he said that?

He could potentially get tried for perjury if he says something that contradicts his trial testimony in a significant way, but otherwise he can't be prosecuted again.

What's more likely to happen is that he will file defamation lawsuits against Biden, various news outlets, celebrities, and others that tried to demonize him as a white supremacist and that could have caused tremendous injury by influencing members of the jury and by encouraging others to try to influence the jury.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

They refuse to accept the evidence of the kid fantasizing about doing this...

Likewise...you seem to refuse to accept all of the evidence of Rittenhouse being attacked. Did you notice in the videos that Rittenhouse wasn't chasing down the people he shot at, but rather that they were chasing him, jump kicking him and hitting him with a skateboard?

The one and only reason people got shot that night is because Kyle Rittenhouse wanted to go shoot people.

Are you saying that his desire to shoot people gave him magical powers that made a convicted pedophile (who had said he would kill him and others earlier) chase him and that made Huber hit him with a skateboard and Grosskreutz point a gun at him?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

His attorney just said on live tv that Kyle and Mama June are leaving the state.

We need a "Kyle's Law", so everyone is notified if he moves into your neighborhood.

Kyle will only kill you if you verbally threaten to kill him and chase after him, point a gun at him, jump kick him, or hit him in the head with a skateboard. I'd feel safer having Kyle and his rifle move in next door just in case a crowd of BLM self-proclaimed "anti-racists" protestors (who are, in actuality, deeply devout racists) tried to burn down my town or demand that all white people abandon their homes. We have much more to fear from an angelic convicted pedophile like Rosenbaum or a racist BLM Movement activist moving into the neighborhood.

 

[conehead433]

"Kyle Rittenhouse Awarded AR-15 for 'Defense of Gun Rights' Following Acquittal"

 

[ch33zw1z]

Kyle will only kill you if you verbally threaten to kill him and chase after him, point a gun at him, jump kick him, or hit him in the head with a skateboard. I'd feel safer having Kyle and his rifle move in next door just in case a crowd of BLM self-proclaimed "anti-racists" protestors (who are, in actuality, deeply devout racists) tried to burn down my town or demand that all white people abandon their homes. We have much more to fear from an angelic convicted pedophile like Rosenbaum or a racist BLM Movement activist moving into the neighborhood.

Yes, yes, those who dare fight against systemic racism are the real racists.

 

[dlerious]

This was your original post I replied to.


Again "YOUR UNDERSTANDING" is that this 17 year old kid who drove his car without a license across state lines with body armor in the trunk, to pick up his gun at his friend's house from a safe that was somehow just unlocked, that same friend being the one who helped him with that straw purchase, to go to a Rally where he LIED about being a MEDIC, isn't LYING about where the gun was? Does your UNDERSTANDING seem to come from a rational/reasoned place?

Again, I'm not arguing he did or didn't cross state lines with the gun. But you seem to somehow have an "UNDERSTANDING" based on the sole word of a liar and the liars culpable friend.

Where's the evidence that the gun did cross state lines? If a cop pulls someone over for speeding and they say they weren't, can he arrest them for a murder they didn't commit because they lied about speeding? I'll bet you believe everything Gaige Grosskreutz said even though he lied about drinking before his 2nd DUI arrest - which surprisingly was dismissed days before the trial started.

 

[dlerious]

Yes, yes, those who dare fight against systemic racism are the real racists.

Those people in the Lucas Zanin video in the lot where Rosenbaum was shot were fighting against systemic racism? Jumping on cars and hitting the cars with weapons?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Those people in the Lucas Zanin video in the lot where Rosenbaum was shot were fighting against systemic racism? Jumping on cars and hitting the cars with weapons?

Nobody said it would be pretty.

 

[conehead433]

Where are the courts going to draw the line? Is self defense going to be able to be used if you just kill someone walking down the street because you felt your life was threatened. If I was walking down the street and saw that either George Zimmerman or Kyle Rittenhouse was going to cross my path I would feel in danger for my life because they are both mental jobs. So pull out and gun and shoot them before they pull out a gun and shoot you. Claim that your life was in danger for reasons. Welcome to the Wild, Wild, West.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Where are the courts going to draw the line? Is self defense going to be able to be used if you just kill someone walking down the street because you felt your life was threatened. If I was walking down the street and saw that either George Zimmerman or Kyle Rittenhouse was going to cross my path I would feel in danger for my life because they are both mental jobs. So pull out and gun and shoot them before they pull out a gun and shoot you. Claim that your life was in danger for reasons. Welcome to the Wild, Wild, West.

It's pretty crazy how gun nuts and violence oriented our society is. I'm sure this is exactly what the founding fathers had it mind.

What this verdict does it create a precedent for mercenary and vigilante actors to behave the way they see fit with little to no consequence. Hell, the police may even help you do it.

 

[Viper1j]

And this bitch says... :"But , but Kyle!"

https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article255942312.html

‘Justice was gotten’: KC officer found guilty in 2019 fatal shooting of Black man

A Kansas City police detective was found guilty of manslaughter in the 2019 killing of a Black man who was fatally shot in his own backyard.

Jackson County Circuit Court Judge J. Dale Youngs announced his decision Friday afternoon.

Eric DeValkenaere, 43, was charged with first-degree involuntary manslaughter and armed criminal action in the Dec. 3, 2019, shooting of Cameron Lamb. He was convicted of second-degree involuntary manslaughter and armed criminal action.

As people left the courtroom, family and friends of Lamb hugged and cried. Many cheered.

One woman, when she heard the verdict cried, “God is good.”

DeValkenaere’s family declined to comment, as did his defense attorney Molly Hastings.

Jason Johnson, president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, which provided financial support for DeValkenaere’s legal defense, said the organization was shocked and disappointed.

“Jackson County Prosecutor Jean Peters Baker’s politically-motivated prosecution sets a dangerous precedent,” he said in a statement. “Police officers are not above the law but they are entitled to be held to the same standard as all citizens, not one based on political expediency.”

The detective was the first white Kansas City police officer in 80 years to face a criminal trial in the shooting death of a Black man.

“Justice was gotten today,” said Jackson County Prosecutor Jean Peters Baker.

During the bench trial which started Nov. 8, prosecutors and defense attorneys painted starkly different pictures of DeValkenaere and the actions that transpired nearly two years ago.

Lamb, 26, was shot after officers investigating a crash reported a red pickup chasing a purple Ford Mustang. Officers in a police helicopter spotted the truck driven by Lamb and followed the vehicle.

Prosecutors said there was no evidence that anyone had dialed 911, that anyone was hurt or that a crime had taken place when DeValkenaere and another detective arrived at Lamb’s home at 4154 College Ave.

Lamb was fatally wounded as he was backing a pickup into his garage, prosecutors alleged, saying it took DeValkenaere nine seconds from the time he walked from the front of the residence to the back of the house before he opened fire on Lamb.


DeValkenaere’s conduct was “reckless,” action prosecutors said, and violated the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

“The state of Missouri finds it absolutely unreasonable that he did this with a loaded gun,” said assistant prosecutor Dion Sankar. “We find it unreasonable because there was no reason to enter the private residence with a gun, because there was no pressing reason pressing him to move. That was his choice.”

During the trial, prosecutors also alleged the crime scene was staged and evidence was planted.

At the time that DeValkenaere shot Lamb, he was not armed and the gun that police said he had with him was actually inside of a staircase near the garage, prosecutors said.

DeValkenaere testified that moments before the shooting, he saw Lamb reach with his left hand for a handgun from his waistband and point towards his partner Troy Schwalm.


“My focus moves from that weapon to the center of his chest,” DeValkenaere said. “I bring my weapon and drive it towards him. And as I acquire the front sight, I discharge a round to his center mass.”

DeValkenaere said he had a duty to protect Schwalm.

He also denied planting evidence, having any other officer alter evidence or change their report of the shooting.

Defense attorney Dawn Parsons said that DeValkenaere was given no choice when he shot Lamb.

She also said DeValkenaere and Schwalm did not need a search warrant, probable cause or consent to go on the property to investigate saying under “the totality of the circumstances, they can do that.”


“Eric did what any reasonable officer would do,” she said. “He shot Mr. Lamb to save Troy’s life.”

Steven Ijames, a retired assistant Springfield police chief and expert on police practices, testified that DeValkenaere had “reasonable suspicion” and acted appropriately when he walked into the backyard of the residence to investigate a possible crime.

Lamb’s name, along with other Black men killed by Kansas City police officers, was evoked last year throughout racial justice protests in Kansas City.