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

[Patagoniagirl]

Anderes, your thoughts about this?

I started draft response, but I think folks will be relieved to know I haven't posted it. I appreciate you wanting to engage with me. I'm just not sure how we can make progress on the differences without basically going round in circles. Possibly there are one or two areas where it might be possible to clear up some miscommunications, though.

It just appears.to me that many here are providing professional commentary and you are playing Ring Around the Rosey.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

Any one else here think Rittenhouse is a budding sociopath?

[andersweinstein]

Did you just call Rittenhouse the victim?

I 'm not in Schroeder's court.

Translation: Yes.

You know it's my judgement that the preponderance of evidence supports the thesis that Rittenhouse was the victim of a wholly unprovoked attack by Rosenbaum with some sort of support by Ziminski. I certainly do believe that myself.

[raison de arizona]

[raison de arizona]

Did I miss something here? He's talking about pinch-zoom, right? WTF?

Yep.

And the judge actually pulled a 'well, yes we have been doing stuff like this all trial, but now that the defense objects I am going to no longer allow it unless you bring in an expert to explain how zoom works on an apple device'.

To be fair, I've seen so many flat earthers and other conspiracy theorists building their case off not understanding digital artifacts, so I can kinda see the need for some degree of validation, but I think that needs to be on a case by case basis, not requiring an expert witness to explain digital zoom.

Horse's mouth:

[neeneko]

Did I miss something here? He's talking about pinch-zoom, right? WTF?

Ok, now I am trying to figure out how something is permitted.. the defendant was sitting right there when they were going over this, and knows full well they are not allowed to zoom, and now he is milking that by saying he can not make things out.

Shouldn't the person on the stand not be present for these kinds of discussions? Kinda gives him an unfair advantage...

[LM K]

As long as his behavior was lawful, I don't think this should be a consideration. It smacks of victim blaming.

Did you just call Rittenhouse the victim?

I 'm not in Schroeder's court. But I was talking about the argument in general. Even on the assumption that the defense theory is 100% true and all his actions prior to the chase were lawful, the argument would still blame him for creating a risk of violence and that seems weird. Under that hypothesis, it would be blaming the victim.

Knock it off. You know you're calling Rittenhouse a victim.

1. Based on interpretation of law regarding 17 year olds possessing AK-47s, Rittenhouse was in possession of a gun he likely couldn't, by law, have. Thus, he was breaking the law at the time of the shootings. (I'm not interested in more argument about 17 year olds and an AK-47.)

2. The issue of provocation is key to this case.

3. YOU have been victim blaming for months. Fuck, you claimed that killing Rosenbaum was morally a good thing. You've asserted that those shot whom have criminal histories and/or mental illnesses should be perceived automatically be perceived as a threat to Rittenhouse.

And you've ignored that those shot were very likely attempting to defend themselves. Grosskreutz was particularly persuasive about needing to defend himself from a guy who just shot two people. The other two shot can't tell us what they thought ... Rittenhouse killed them.

[tek]

Needs a specialist in enlarged zibits!

But seriously, this judge is a piece of work.

[LM K]

Anderes, your thoughts about this?

I started draft response, but I think folks will be relieved to know I haven't posted it. I appreciate you wanting to engage with me. I'm just not sure how we can make progress on the differences without basically going round in circles. Possibly there are one or two areas where it might be possible to clear up some miscommunications, though.

I clarified how your multiple incorrect comments were incorrect.

Thus, you must agree that Rittenhouse was mouthing off multiple times. And that Balch believed Rittenhouse to be too immature and inexperienced to be left alone that night. And that the vigilantes were purposely provoking protesters with their verbal aggression.

[Dave from down under]

Any one else here think Rittenhouse is a budding sociopath?

Full blown sociopath...

he's already killed twice, and maimed one, as far as we know.

[andersweinstein]

2. The issue of provocation is key to this case.

From what I can see, it is not that crucial under WI law. Under WI law, even if he provoked the attack, he could still act in self-defense against a death/bodily harm attack. He just gets a slightly higher burden of showing he's exhausted all alternatives, which he can argue applies in this case. That section on provocation has been posted many times in this topic and I am just going by the language there to say that.

So, no, even if he were the provoker, I don't think it majorly undermines his case -- IF the jurors go by the letter of WI law.

If I have something wrong about that law I'm happy to learn it. I could imagine it swaying the jury if he provoked. They might fall back on folk morality rather than sticking to the letter of WI law.

3. YOU have been victim blaming for months. Fuck, you claimed that killing Rosenbaum was morally a good thing.

I have never said that and would never say that. I said I thought he bears the responsibility for his own death.

I did opine that I thought Rosenbaum was a morally worse person than Rittenhouse. I said that because he once assaulted 5 boys between the ages of 9 and 11 including forced oral and anal sex, and also couldn't restrain himself from battering a woman who loved him, and, finally, attacked this kid who exercised poor judgement in going there but otherwise had not behaved badly toward him that we know of.

Yes, I think Rosenbaum is the bad guy we should be blaming. If he hadn't attacked, there'd be no loss of life.

You've asserted that those shot whom have criminal histories and/or mental illnesses should be perceived automatically be perceived as a threat to Rittenhouse.

No.

And you've ignored that those shot were very likely attempting to defend themselves. Grosskreutz was particularly persuasive about needing to defend himself from a guy who just shot two people. The other two shot can't tell us what they thought ... Rittenhouse killed them.

The later shootings could be a tragic situation where two people each have a rational basis for attacking each other. It doesn't look to me like it is relevant to the case what the other people thought or whether they were justified or not. They are not on trial for their behavior. The question for the jury will be whether Rittenhouse reasonably believed he faced a threat of death/serious bodily harm and whether the force used was necessary to eliminate that threat. Other people's beliefs don't come up anywhere in those questions.

[Dave from down under]

Liar

[raison de arizona]

From what I can see, it is not that crucial under WI law. Under WI law, even if he provoked the attack, he could still act in self-defense against a death/bodily harm attack. He just gets a slightly higher burden of showing he's exhausted all alternatives, which he can argue applies in this case. That section on provocation has been posted many times in this topic and I am just going by the language there to say that.

Rosenbaum was armed with -checks notes- a plastic bag. Which he had already thrown. Where was the fear of death coming from? Rosenbaum wasn't a big guy at 5'4". Also, the kill shot was into Rosenbaum's back after he was already down on the ground from the first two shots. How did he continue to pose a threat of death face down, bleeding on the ground?


Assumptions...

[Uninformed]

It is indisputable that UK law can be confusing and contradictory and that the courts/trials can stagger ones belief, but this to me is truly farcical.

[Dave from down under]

Rosenbaum was shot twice -checks notes- while unarmed with a shattered hip while face down on the ground bleeding. Where was the fear of death coming from?

Answer: Kyle with his M&P15.

[andersweinstein]

From what I can see, it is not that crucial under WI law. Under WI law, even if he provoked the attack, he could still act in self-defense against a death/bodily harm attack. He just gets a slightly higher burden of showing he's exhausted all alternatives, which he can argue applies in this case. That section on provocation has been posted many times in this topic and I am just going by the language there to say that.

Rosenbaum was armed with -checks notes- a plastic bag. Which he had already thrown. Where was the fear of death coming from? Rosenbaum wasn't a big guy at 5'4". Also, the kill shot was into Rosenbaum's back after he was already down on the ground from the first two shots. How did he continue to pose a threat of death face down, bleeding on the ground?

Of course that's a crucial issue in the case: Whether he reasonably believed he faced threat of death/serious bodily harm and force used was necessary to eliminate threat.

What I said was that the question of whether he provoked the attack or not doesn't look to be crucial according to WI law. It's relevant because it affects his burden. But it's not like he loses the privilege of self-defense if he provoked, if law is followed.

[Dave from down under]

Reasonable force doesn't including shooting someone unarmed, nor someone lying on the ground after you already had shot them.

[raison de arizona]

More good news, I pre-watched the video for you just in case, and Toobin (somehow) manages to keep it in his pants, SFW!

CNN's Toobin: 'Good news' for Rittenhouse is he's 'not on trial for being an idiot'

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said Kyle Rittenhouse, the teen standing trial for multiple felonies following a shooting in Kenosha, Wis., last year, is fortunate it is not crime in America to "be an idiot."

"What kind of idiot 17-year-old gets a giant gun and goes to a riot? He has no license, he has no training, he thinks he's going to scrub graffiti off with his AR-15? I mean, the stupidity of this. What could possibly go wrong? Well a lot went wrong," Toobin said Wednesday during CNN's coverage of the Rittenhouse murder trial, which is taking place this week. "The good news for Kyle Rittenhouse is that he's not on trial for being an idiot, he's on trial for homicide."

"This is a tough case for the prosecution because it does seem like he has a plausible case of self defense," Toobin said during his analysis. "If it were illegal to be an idiot the [jails] would be even more crowded than they are now.

Homicide "is a different matter," Toobin said, and Rittenhouse "may have a case."

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/5810 ... g-an-idiot

[Maybenaut]

2. The issue of provocation is key to this case.

From what I can see, it is not that crucial under WI law. Under WI law, even if he provoked the attack, he could still act in self-defense against a death/bodily harm attack. He just gets a slightly higher burden of showing he's exhausted all alternatives, which he can argue applies in this case. That section on provocation has been posted many times in this topic and I am just going by the language there to say that.

I think you’re confusing burdens of proof with elements of the defense of self-defense. The burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense of self-defense did not exist. With respect to provocation as it relates to losing the right to claim self-defense, I believe the burden is on the prosecution to prove that he provoked the attack by engaging in unlawful conduct, and that there were other unexhausted reasonable means of escape.

So, no, even if he were the provoker, I don't think it majorly undermines his case -- IF the jurors go by the letter of WI law.

As I said, the burden with respect to all of this is on the government. They very well may get there.

If I have something wrong about that law I'm happy to learn it. I could imagine it swaying the jury if he provoked. They might fall back on folk morality rather than sticking to the letter of WI law.

I doubt that it will come down to “folk morality.” They jury will be instructed with respect to all of this.

3. YOU have been victim blaming for months. Fuck, you claimed that killing Rosenbaum was morally a good thing.

I have never said that and would never say that. I said I thought he bears the responsibility for his own death.

I did opine that I thought Rosenbaum was a morally worse person than Rittenhouse. I said that because he once assaulted 5 boys between the ages of 9 and 11 including forced oral and anal sex, and also couldn't restrain himself from battering a woman who loved him, and, finally, attacked this kid who exercised poor judgement in going there but otherwise had not behaved badly toward him that we know of.

Yes, I think Rosenbaum is the bad guy we should be blaming. If he hadn't attacked, there'd be no loss of life.

You've asserted that those shot whom have criminal histories and/or mental illnesses should be perceived automatically be perceived as a threat to Rittenhouse.

No.

And you've ignored that those shot were very likely attempting to defend themselves. Grosskreutz was particularly persuasive about needing to defend himself from a guy who just shot two people. The other two shot can't tell us what they thought ... Rittenhouse killed them.

The later shootings could be a tragic situation where two people each have a rational basis for attacking each other. It doesn't look to me like it is relevant to the case what the other people thought or whether they were justified or not. They are not on trial for their behavior. The question for the jury will be whether Rittenhouse reasonably believed he faced a threat of death/serious bodily harm and whether the force used was necessary to eliminate that threat. Other people's beliefs don't come up anywhere.

[andersweinstein]

2. The issue of provocation is key to this case.

From what I can see, it is not that crucial under WI law. Under WI law, even if he provoked the attack, he could still act in self-defense against a death/bodily harm attack. He just gets a slightly higher burden of showing he's exhausted all alternatives, which he can argue applies in this case. That section on provocation has been posted many times in this topic and I am just going by the language there to say that.

I think you’re confusing burdens of proof with elements of the defense of self-defense. The burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense of self-defense did not exist. With respect to provocation as it relates to losing the right to claim self-defense, I believe the burden is on the prosecution to prove that he provoked the attack by engaging in unlawful conduct, that there were other unexhausted reasonable means of escape.

So, no, even if he were the provoker, I don't think it majorly undermines his case -- IF the jurors go by the letter of WI law.

As I said, the burden with respect to all of this is on the government. They very well may get there.

Ah, it was a mistake to use the word "burden" in an everyday sense in this context. I was not talking about the burden of proof which is the prosecution's (I was not confused about that). I only meant provokers have an additional requirement to meet before they can exercise lawful self-defense under this law. If you are a provoker, you can only exercise self-defense against death/bodily harm attacks (not lesser attacks) and only if you have exhausted all other alternatives [or you have withdrawn in good faith from the fight and given adequate notice thereof]

So, for example, as I understand the consequence of this: innocent people have no duty to retreat according to statements around this law, but a provoker would have to attempt an available retreat before they could exercise self defense.

So I need a better word for that extra requirement you have to meet in the case where you are a provoker.

[raison de arizona]

Moar about pinch zoom involving Apple "artificial intelligence" and "logarithms."
(video straightens out after 10 seconds)

[Maybenaut]

From what I can see, it is not that crucial under WI law. Under WI law, even if he provoked the attack, he could still act in self-defense against a death/bodily harm attack. He just gets a slightly higher burden of showing he's exhausted all alternatives, which he can argue applies in this case. That section on provocation has been posted many times in this topic and I am just going by the language there to say that.

I think you’re confusing burdens of proof with elements of the defense of self-defense. The burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense of self-defense did not exist. With respect to provocation as it relates to losing the right to claim self-defense, I believe the burden is on the prosecution to prove that he provoked the attack by engaging in unlawful conduct, that there were other unexhausted reasonable means of escape.

So, no, even if he were the provoker, I don't think it majorly undermines his case -- IF the jurors go by the letter of WI law.

As I said, the burden with respect to all of this is on the government. They very well may get there.

Ah, it was a mistake to use the word "burden" in an everyday sense in this context. I was not talking about the burden of proof which is the prosecution (I was not confused about that). I only meant provokers have an additional requirement to meet before they can exercise lawful self-defense under this law. If you are a provoker, you can only exercise self-defense against death/bodily harm attacks (not lesser attacks) and only if you have exhausted all other alternatives [or you have withdrawn in good faith from the fight and given adequate notice thereof]

So, for example, as I understand the consequence of this: innocent people have no duty to retreat according to statements around this law, but a provoker would have to attempt an available retreat before they could exercise self defense.

So I need a better word for that extra requirement you have to meet in the case where you are a provoker.

The word you’re looking for is “element.”

[Maybenaut]

Ah, it was a mistake to use the word "burden" in an everyday sense in this context. I was not talking about the burden of proof which is the prosecution (I was not confused about that). I only meant provokers have an additional requirement to meet before they can exercise lawful self-defense under this law. If you are a provoker, you can only exercise self-defense against death/bodily harm attacks (not lesser attacks) and only if you have exhausted all other alternatives [or you have withdrawn in good faith from the fight and given adequate notice thereof]

So, for example, as I understand the consequence of this: innocent people have no duty to retreat according to statements around this law, but a provoker would have to attempt an available retreat before they could exercise self defense.

So I need a better word for that extra requirement you have to meet in the case where you are a provoker.

The word you’re looking for is “element.” ETA: But to clarify, it’s not a requirement “you have to meet in the case where you are the provoker.” Once there is “some evidence” of self-defense (and it can be introduced by either side), the defendant is entitled to an instruction on the elements of the defense. If there is some evidence that the defendant provoked the attack, the government bears the additional burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a reasonable means of escape and the defendant didn’t take it. The jury instruction will spell all of this out so they know that the burden never shifts to the defense.

ETA: I apologize for the double post — I hit the quote button rather than the edit button.

[RVInit]

I can see why the jury might be snoozing, but honestly, the prosecutor is getting in some good punches if he can wrap it up during closing and if he has a strong rebuttal case. The defendant's answers to prosecutor questions are ridiculous and unbelievable. He refuses to answer any question where the answer shows him to be a cold blooded killer. He's lucky I'm not on his jury because he comes across as having no remorse whatsoever, he still thinks what happened is perfectly OK except for the part where he might be held accountable, and his fake crying really speaks volumes. He tried to cry again during prosecution questioning, but couldn't quite get there. It was a farce.

[andersweinstein]

So I need a better word for that extra requirement you have to meet in the case where you are a provoker.

The word you’re looking for is “element.”

Thank you.