Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

[pipistrelle]

This shitheel went to Kenosha all horny to shoot someone, then he did.

Repeatedly.

[Kriselda Gray]

I can not believe someone here at FB defends that shitty punk killer

I don't think I've seen him post in any other thread or about any other topic.

[Estiveo]

I can not believe someone here at FB defends that shitty punk killer

I don't think I've seen him post in any other thread or about any other topic.

Well, when you've got a kink for defending cherubic, baby-faced, spree-killers on a platform that reviles them, your options are somewhat limited.

[Kriselda Gray]

I can not believe someone here at FB defends that shitty punk killer

I don't think I've seen him post in any other thread or about any other topic.

Well, when you've got a kink for defending cherubic, baby-faced, spree-killers on a platform that reviles them, your options are somewhat limited.

Granted

[bill_g]

I'm not uncertain anders has this thread on alert so he can quickly defend Babyface.

[Dave from down under]

Anyone seen Anders in the same room as killer Kyle?

[Estiveo]

No, but Anders is far too articulate to ever be confused for that microcephalic homunculus.

[pipistrelle]

I can not believe someone here at FB defends that shitty punk killer

I don't think I've seen him post in any other thread or about any other topic.

Sometimes. Not often.

2023-12-03 08.35.43.jpeg (67.42 KiB) Viewed 19871 times

[andersweinstein]

Meanwhile, in the incidents in question, it looks like he was attacked without provocation and tried to flee before shooting. So it doesn't matter if his motives for going to Kenosha were impure. He didn't behave like someone who wanted to shoot anyone.

He went to a volatile situation with a gun. If you carry a gun that's proof right there that he intended to shoot someone.
Why carry a gun if you don't intend to use it?

Gaige Grosskreutz went to the volatile situation with a gun (to act as a medic, no less). Josh Ziminski who fired the first shot went to the volatile situation with a gun. There were many other armed people on both sides there that night who didn't shoot anyone. On other nights there were protestors in Kenosha openly carrying AR's. And we've seen this in other places such as Garrett Foster, the man shot by Daniel Perry in Austin (who was convicted in spite of his self-defense claim).

It seems plenty of people believe they need self-defense going into a dangerous situation. Or maybe they carry it to be intimidating. I don't think it's good. But it does not seem a reliable inference to say anyone who carries a gun into these situations intends to shoot someone.

[raison de arizona]

Not everyone does, but Rittenhouse did. He was on tape just the week before fantasizing about shooting looters with his AR.

[andersweinstein]

I personally think it was jury nullification, but what do I know?

One thing I am curious about is the scope of any waiver of attorney-client privilege between Rittenhouse and his counsel. All that stuff his attorney said about coaching him in the script - what he said to Rittenhouse and what Rittenhouse said to him - would ordinarily be privileged. Unless Rittenhouse waived the privilege - either expressly or by operation of law (by accusing the lawyer in a formal proceeding of ineffective assistance of counsel, for example) - we shouldn’t be hearing from the lawyer about their trial prep. I mean, even if Rittenhouse called his lawyer an incompetent piece of crap in his whine-fest about his childhood (which I haven’t read and don’t plan to), I doubt that would waive the privilege.

So I’m curious.

Sorry for any confusion, it was NOT from his lawyer. It is from David Hancock the family advisor and spokesman. Hancock was the security consultant who had worked for Linn Wood then had a falling outwith him and took over managing the Rittenhouse affairs after they dumped grifting lawyers Pierce and Wood. Hancock was managing almost everything for the family so has intimate knowledge of every detail. But not a lawyer for the family.

Hancock has now had a falling out with Rittenhouse and is trashing him continually on his Twitter feed.

[andersweinstein]

Sure I think he had fantasies of himself as a combat medic and thought it was cool to use this military terminology and so on. He mouthed off about shooting looters outside CVS, while just sitting in the car. All this stuff would be prejudicial.

You call it prejudicial, I call it 'state of mind', and I don't think either of us are attorneys, so we can chalk it up to a difference of opinion but let's discuss.

This is actually kind of my point, in fact. A combat medic's job is not to confront, not to defend others (except the patients in their care), and definitely effin' not to think about posting snipers on rooftops. But even when confronted with evidence that Kyle's fascination was not to think of himself as a combat medic but to PRESENT the idea that he was a combat medic to cover darker impulses that he was the shooting protagonist in a video game, you look for and defend the more palatable answer.

Yes, I do give you credit for posting the article, I'll grant you that. I just think you're married to this idea that doesn't let in a scintilla of evidence that Kyle may actually have had bad intentions.

I would say it depends on what exactly the bad intentions were. If he enjoyed fantasizing about himself as a military medic -- "I need cover!" he shouted self-importantly up at the roof when handing off his rifle to try to give aid to a wounded protestor -- or if he got off on walking around with a gun, well, so what? It still looks to me on the evidence that he hadn't done anything illegal when he was attacked without provocation by a bad guy. Since he was the victim of that particular attack, not the aggressor, and he tried manifestly to flee, the only major question I see is whether the attack on him (and the subsequent ones) amounted to a deadly force threat.

But suppose he did go there hoping to shoot someone. That would be bad! But it still doesn't show the verdict was wrong. First, of course because there may not have been good evidence for this in the trial, so the verdict could still be correct on the evidence. But even more, think about the odd situation: To acquit him, the jury must have judged that he was in a situation where it would have been objectively reasonable to use one's weapon in self-defense. I claim there was plenty of evidence supporting this judgment.

So you'd have to argue this was a situation where someone had good reason to shoot in self-defense, but ACTUALLY shot for a different motive, simply because he wanted to. Which is not impossible. But once you find, as the jury apparently did, that it was a reasonable self-defense situation, that seems very hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted from a different motive. For one thing (I keep saying this) he was manifestly trying to FLEE the attacks on him and only shot at the last minute and only at people who attacked him, so not behaving like someone who wanted to shoot someone.

So maybe that would make it like a case I sketched where a Proud Boy goes with evil intentions, "looking for trouble", but winds up attacked for a different reason, and still has the right to self-defense against that particular attack.

I keep coming back to the fact that there was no justification for Rosenbaum's attack on Rittenhouse. I think the preponderance of evidence shows he ran ahead and hid behind a car and jumped him as he was headed to put out a fire, after having earlier threatened to kill him. Maybe JR attacked a kid who was there out of bad motives. KR could still have the right to defend himself from that particular attack.

[Dave from down under]

Killer Kyle was the bad guy looking for an opportunity to use his gun.

The other vigilantes there could see that.

Why do you refuse to?

[RVInit]

Killer Kyle was the bad guy looking for an opportunity to use his gun.

The other vigilantes there could see that.

Why do you refuse to?

The one that took it upon himself to babysit Kyle did so because of his fear of what kind of trouble Kyle would get himself into. Kyle was not in danger of getting killed that night until he killed someone else first. After that, several people chased him not because they would have chased him anyway, but only because he had already killed an unarmed person. The danger Kyle presented to others panned out. Maybe not exactly the way he had fantasized about it, but no matter.

He will likely come to a bad end. His own lawyers were fearful of what he would do in court. How do you trust someone like that with a weapon of war?

[neonzx]

The one that took it upon himself to babysit Kyle did so because of his fear of what kind of trouble Kyle would get himself into. Kyle was not in danger of getting killed that night until he killed someone else first. After that, several people chased him not because they would have chased him anyway, but only because he had already killed an unarmed person. The danger Kyle presented to others panned out. Maybe not exactly the way he had fantasized about it, but no matter.

He will likely come to a bad end. His own lawyers were fearful of what he would do in court. How do you trust someone like that with a weapon of war?

Anders will be along shorty to correct you.

Hey, I kinda got roasted here mildly defending Kyle early. Because he was just a kid doing stupid kid stuff.

At his age today, he has to own what he did.

[Maybenaut]

I personally think it was jury nullification, but what do I know?

One thing I am curious about is the scope of any waiver of attorney-client privilege between Rittenhouse and his counsel. All that stuff his attorney said about coaching him in the script - what he said to Rittenhouse and what Rittenhouse said to him - would ordinarily be privileged. Unless Rittenhouse waived the privilege - either expressly or by operation of law (by accusing the lawyer in a formal proceeding of ineffective assistance of counsel, for example) - we shouldn’t be hearing from the lawyer about their trial prep. I mean, even if Rittenhouse called his lawyer an incompetent piece of crap in his whine-fest about his childhood (which I haven’t read and don’t plan to), I doubt that would waive the privilege.

So I’m curious.

Sorry for any confusion, it was NOT from his lawyer. It is from David Hancock the family advisor and spokesman. Hancock was the security consultant who had worked for Linn Wood then had a falling outwith him and took over managing the Rittenhouse affairs after they dumped grifting lawyers Pierce and Wood. Hancock was managing almost everything for the family so has intimate knowledge of every detail. But not a lawyer for the family.

Hancock has now had a falling out with Rittenhouse and is trashing him continually on his Twitter feed.

I’m not sure that means the communications aren’t privileged. He was present for the trial prep with the attorneys. Non-lawyers participating as a jury consultant or a consultant assisting a defendant in how to behave in front of the jury are generally covered by the privilege. Dude ought to keep his mouth shut.

[Dave from down under]

Dude might be regretting helping Kyle get away with murders..

[andersweinstein]

Kyle was not in danger of getting killed that night until he killed someone else first. After that, several people chased him not because they would have chased him anyway, but only because he had already killed an unarmed person. The danger Kyle presented to others panned out. Maybe not exactly the way he had fantasized about it, but no matter.

What about that first attack? I've been saying a jury could quite reasonably conclude on the evidence that it was an enitrely unprovoked attack by a bad guy who one could reasonably fear intended to do him harm. I assume the jury must have accepted that. We know Rosenbaum was the last charge they reached a verdict on (they dated the verdict sheets as they reached decisions throughout the nearly 4 days of deliberations.)

I agree that his inexperience led to the debacle, but mainly because he was dumb enough to go down the road to the burning car without backup and so let himself get attacked.

I would put the blame on the state of WI for allowing open carry of firearms. Also their civil hunting regulations effectively only put restrictions on youth possession of long-barreled guns under 16, deciding long ago (1984) that 16 was old enough to possess a rifle and go hunting alone. Their criminal law on minor firearm possession just incorporated those hunting regs by reference, and it does not seem like anyone really noticed the consequences.

[andersweinstein]

I’m not sure that means the communications aren’t privileged. [Hancock] was present for the trial prep with the attorneys. Non-lawyers participating as a jury consultant or a consultant assisting a defendant in how to behave in front of the jury are generally covered by the privilege. Dude ought to keep his mouth shut.

What remedy is there for breaches of attorney-client privilege by a non-lawyer? A civil suit?

[Dave from down under]

Anyone can sue anyone for anything

But Killer Kyle might be busy trying to avoid civil damages for his murderous rampage.

He might also not want public dispositions concerning his acting lessons being available to those that are trying to hold him accountable for his evil acts.

[Dave from down under]

Ps 16 year olds shouldn’t be hunting humans.,

[Frater I*I]

Ps 16 year olds shouldn’t be hunting humans.,

No, that's for 18 year olds in the military....

[sad-cafe]

Killer Kyle was the bad guy looking for an opportunity to use his gun.

The other vigilantes there could see that.

Why do you refuse to?

maybe he is the killer himself?

[sad-cafe]

Sure I think he had fantasies of himself as a combat medic and thought it was cool to use this military terminology and so on. He mouthed off about shooting looters outside CVS, while just sitting in the car. All this stuff would be prejudicial.

You call it prejudicial, I call it 'state of mind', and I don't think either of us are attorneys, so we can chalk it up to a difference of opinion but let's discuss.

This is actually kind of my point, in fact. A combat medic's job is not to confront, not to defend others (except the patients in their care), and definitely effin' not to think about posting snipers on rooftops. But even when confronted with evidence that Kyle's fascination was not to think of himself as a combat medic but to PRESENT the idea that he was a combat medic to cover darker impulses that he was the shooting protagonist in a video game, you look for and defend the more palatable answer.

Yes, I do give you credit for posting the article, I'll grant you that. I just think you're married to this idea that doesn't let in a scintilla of evidence that Kyle may actually have had bad intentions.

I would say it depends on what exactly the bad intentions were. If he enjoyed fantasizing about himself as a military medic -- "I need cover!" he shouted self-importantly up at the roof when handing off his rifle to try to give aid to a wounded protestor -- or if he got off on walking around with a gun, well, so what? It still looks to me on the evidence that he hadn't done anything illegal when he was attacked without provocation by a bad guy. Since he was the victim of that particular attack, not the aggressor, and he tried manifestly to flee, the only major question I see is whether the attack on him (and the subsequent ones) amounted to a deadly force threat.

But suppose he did go there hoping to shoot someone. That would be bad! But it still doesn't show the verdict was wrong. First, of course because there may not have been good evidence for this in the trial, so the verdict could still be correct on the evidence. But even more, think about the odd situation: To acquit him, the jury must have judged that he was in a situation where it would have been objectively reasonable to use one's weapon in self-defense. I claim there was plenty of evidence supporting this judgment.

So you'd have to argue this was a situation where someone had good reason to shoot in self-defense, but ACTUALLY shot for a different motive, simply because he wanted to. Which is not impossible. But once you find, as the jury apparently did, that it was a reasonable self-defense situation, that seems very hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted from a different motive. For one thing (I keep saying this) he was manifestly trying to FLEE the attacks on him and only shot at the last minute and only at people who attacked him, so not behaving like someone who wanted to shoot someone.

So maybe that would make it like a case I sketched where a Proud Boy goes with evil intentions, "looking for trouble", but winds up attacked for a different reason, and still has the right to self-defense against that particular attack.

I keep coming back to the fact that there was no justification for Rosenbaum's attack on Rittenhouse. I think the preponderance of evidence shows he ran ahead and hid behind a car and jumped him as he was headed to put out a fire, after having earlier threatened to kill him. Maybe JR attacked a kid who was there out of bad motives. KR could still have the right to defend himself from that particular attack.

he did not live there-he had no business there-his mommy drove him there

he went hunting

wtf do you NOT get

[Dave from down under]

Killer Kyle was hunting Rossenbaum…

Else why was Kyle following Rossenbaum??
(And if you believe Kyle you are a fool or complicit.. and I don’t think you are a fool)