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

[bill_g]

Bill - you could claim self defence…

I'm claiming a senior moment. It's Friday here. I deserve it.

[Gregg]

I'd say it denotes someone who is in the midst of a single ongoing process of deliberately shooting multiple people. ...

You're right the label is irrelevant. It came from the idea that the individuals who ran at KR were justified because disarming an active shooter.

No goddammit

Its a person,
with a gun,
who has shot at someone
who still has the gun
and might be shooting at someone else.

Until a shooter is disarmed, he is an active shooter.

I used the term i
blah blah blah ...

I'm sorry, but you I'm almost at the point where I tell you to phuck all the way off.

YOU ARE DISMISSED....

[Gregg]

Okay, I can't just leave that there.

First, I have to say, as much as I want this guy to be convicted, I have to tell you, if I could be seated on the jury and at trial they presented exactly what I know now, I'd vote to acquit. I'd hate to do it but I cannot be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he wasn't afraid for his life and was reacting in some fight or flee reflex.

He's a little pussy for not keeping his cool.
He's a little fascist because I think he went hunting for some ANTIFA and got in over his head.
He's kind of an asshole with his whole attitude since the RWNJ made a quasi celebrity out of him..

But I have a doubt, so nothing I have seen so far convinces me he murdered anyone.

I might be more inclined to listen to arguments for a crime less than murder, but you know, if wiener dogs could fly and all etc...


But dude, you are being obtuse. If you're that fucking stupid I wonder who ties your shoes and if you not I wonder if you're trying to be an asshole or is just a pure natural talent. We have aired many valid opinions on what might happen in court, several people much more qualified than either of us have opined on the valid and various points of law and the nuance of the charges and even a local expert on the particulars of Wisconsin Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Its been an interesting topic, and as I said I am so looking for a way for the little shit to be guilty but I myself don't see it. So if you had even tried to act like you were trying to contribute thoughts germane to the issues at hand, I actually agree with you more than you know.

But jeezusphucktardsaltines you are so (insert some phrase here that evokes pounding a head against a wall until the wall understands, which is beyond my capacity and/or vocabulary) its like trying to argue with Orley Taitz.

You don't know. I don't know. But you don't know worse than me, because you are convinced you know.

Phuck, someone pour me a drink...

[RVInit]

There's a feature on this board that you can set so that a person's post shows up as a listing that you can't read unless you deliberately click on it to open it.

Ummmm.....guess what I did. I think I will enjoy this thread more from here on out.

[busterbunker]

I will never enjoy this thread, with or without the thinly-veiled white supremacist alibi bullshit.

If I were on a jury, I'd vote to convict. The stupid white punk with his stupid gun had no fucking purpose being there in the first place. That's intent. That's why I will never do jury duty. Fuck the courts.

Are there any black people on this forum? I got a big problem with some thugs who invaded and are shooting up my neighborhood. Mostly thugs shooting thugs but some innocent kids get hit. In the big picture, it's early-stage gentrification, similar to cancer, but everybody suffers. Except the rich.

Two nice black ladies in my building moved out. One of them had some guns, but she knew better than to go downstairs and go Kyle Littledick herself. She's black. The thugs are black. My political friends are mostly black, but they got a beef with the Asians, and that's another problem. I gotta figure out how to sort this out. I just want to mind my own business and get some fucking sleep.

[Uninformed]

From a foreign perspective; I also believe that Rittenhouse is “morally” guilty of the unnecessary deaths and injuries. Manslaughter not murder? I don’t know. To me it’s a(nother) sad result of the widespread acceptance of the ownership of guns and the consequent readiness to use them.

Busterbunker, I hope things improve for you.

[busterbunker]

Thanks man. When you're in the middle of the shit, it's whole different story. Best possible outcome might be all the bad guys shoot each other? I give up.

This topic is all about race. That shit is complicated. POP QUIZ: Say the name of the man who the Kenosha police shot. If you can't remember, see how long it takes you to look it up.

[Suranis]

I admit I haven't been keeping up with this at all, but from the little I see, the stupid brat stole his moms gun becasue the white supremacist sites he was reading told him that Antifa were pussies and wearing his big dick in full view would cause them to be afraid & steer clear of him. And then he got a mind fuck when he got jumped and they got in his stupid face, and in his head was a million hours of FOX telling him he was about to be killed and eaten by the black hordes. I don't think he was deliberately following the dude but I can really understand why the dude thought Rittenhouse was following him.

Ya, I'd aquit the moron for Murder too. Manslaughter would be a no brainer. And this kid really is a moron, hyped up by people filling his ass with fear and lies. They should be on the dock too.

[Maybenaut]

One of the questions in voir dire in the military (and I assume elsewhere, but can’t say for sure because I’ve never practiced law outside the military) is: “If you had to vote right now, would you vote to convict?” Any answer other than “No” would get you tossed from the jury.

[fierceredpanda]

I admit I haven't been keeping up with this at all, but from the little I see, the stupid brat stole his moms gun becasue the white supremacist sites he was reading told him that Antifa were pussies and wearing his big dick in full view would cause them to be afraid steer clear of him, and then he got a mind fuck when he got jumped and they got in his stupid face, and in his head was a million hours of FOX telling him he was about to be killed and eaten by the black hordes. I don't think he was deliberately following the dude but I can really understand why the dude thought Rittenhouse was following him.

Ya, I'd aquit the moron for Murder too. Manslaughter would be a no brainer. And this kid really is a moron, hyped up by people filling his ass with fear and lies. They should be on the dock too.

Wisconsin doesn't have a manslaughter statute. We have 1st- and 2nd-degree intentional homicide (analogous to 1st- and 2nd-degree murder elsewhere), and 1st- and 2nd-degree reckless homicide (analogous to other jurisdictions' voluntary and involuntary manslaughter). RIttenhouse has been charged with counts from both columns. However, I actually tend too agree with your gist. I think it's possible that Rittenhouse is acquitted of intentional homicide. I very much doubt he will be acquitted of reckless homicide. Competent defense counsel (which he has now) could well be able to create reasonable doubt as to his intent to kill, which is a tough burden for the state to carry. But I don't see the state having a hard time demonstrating that his conduct was criminally reckless.

[fierceredpanda]

One of the questions in voir dire in the military (and I assume elsewhere, but can’t say for sure because I’ve never practiced law outside the military) is: “If you had to vote right now, would you vote to convict?” Any answer other than “No” would get you tossed from the jury.

That question gets asked a lot in criminal cases. Confident prosecutors do it to remind the jury of the burden of proof and make a show of how eager they are to embrace it (which is a line a lot of prosecutors use in their openings as well). And if the prosecutor doesn't ask it, the defense attorney does to try to weed out the "well if you're sitting at the defense table, you must be guilty of something" types.

[RVInit]

Thanks man. When you're in the middle of the shit, it's whole different story. Best possible outcome might be all the bad guys shoot each other? I give up.

This topic is all about race. That shit is complicated. POP QUIZ: Say the name of the man who the Kenosha police shot. If you can't remember, see how long it takes you to look it up.

Exactly.

And I apologize for the use of the word enjoyment, it was a thoughtless and poor way to describe my reading of this forum. I should have been more succinct and careful about simply stating that my reading of this forum from here on out will not be bothered by having to read postings from the troll.

[neeneko]

First, I have to say, as much as I want this guy to be convicted, I have to tell you, if I could be seated on the jury and at trial they presented exactly what I know now, I'd vote to acquit. I'd hate to do it but I cannot be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he wasn't afraid for his life and was reacting in some fight or flee reflex.

He's a little pussy for not keeping his cool.
He's a little fascist because I think he went hunting for some ANTIFA and got in over his head.
He's kind of an asshole with his whole attitude since the RWNJ made a quasi celebrity out of him..

But I have a doubt, so nothing I have seen so far convinces me he murdered anyone.

I am kind a with you on this, but I have a big caveat in that I really do not know how the law handles this kind of mess, so jury instructions would make a huge difference for me. This might even be a hole or conflict in the law. How do you handle situations where, because of incomplete information, both sides in a conflict can potentially claim self defense. This might be a case where self defense and stand your ground are in conflict... the shooter, who was allowed to open carry, believed he was in danger from the protesters. The protesters, who were unarmed, believed they were in danger from the shooter. This seems like a situation where something in the general direction of manslaughter or negligent homicide would come in, and I could see convicting him on some variant of that since, regardless of his original intent, he killed 3 people...but it would depend on how the law handles cases where the person believed they were in danger, used deadly force, but in fact were not or were otherwise preventing lawful activity.. which if the protesters felt they were in danger, disarming a shooter could fall under.

So this strikes me as a technicality heavy case, since so much of the ground truth is gonna be lost.

[andersweinstein]

First, I have to say, as much as I want this guy to be convicted, I have to tell you, if I could be seated on the jury and at trial they presented exactly what I know now, I'd vote to acquit. I'd hate to do it but I cannot be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he wasn't afraid for his life and was reacting in some fight or flee reflex.

He's a little pussy for not keeping his cool.
He's a little fascist because I think he went hunting for some ANTIFA and got in over his head.
He's kind of an asshole with his whole attitude since the RWNJ made a quasi celebrity out of him..

But I have a doubt, so nothing I have seen so far convinces me he murdered anyone.

I might be more inclined to listen to arguments for a crime less than murder, but you know, if wiener dogs could fly and all etc...

Well there is an option called "imperfect self defense (unnecessary defensive force)" for when you act out of a genuine belief the force was necessary for self-defense (more accurately, in WI, the state has not proved beyond reasonable doubt you did NOT) but your belief is judged unreasonable in the circumstances. That looks to be lesser offense of second degree intentional homicide in WI. That's still quite serious but avoids mandatory life without parole.

I found these sample WI jury instructions for FIRST DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE: SELF DEFENSE: SECOND DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE which have a lot more detail:

https://wilawlibrary.gov/jury/files/criminal/1014.pdf

I can't imagine this would not be an option given to the jury in this case. It looks like a very possible outcome to me.

[pipistrelle]

One of the trillion reasons open carry is a bad idea.

[bill_g]

Oh, don't exaggerate. It's only one of a million reasons.

[andersweinstein]

Wisconsin doesn't have a manslaughter statute. We have 1st- and 2nd-degree intentional homicide (analogous to 1st- and 2nd-degree murder elsewhere), and 1st- and 2nd-degree reckless homicide (analogous to other jurisdictions' voluntary and involuntary manslaughter). RIttenhouse has been charged with counts from both columns. However, I actually tend too agree with your gist. I think it's possible that Rittenhouse is acquitted of intentional homicide. I very much doubt he will be acquitted of reckless homicide. Competent defense counsel (which he has now) could well be able to create reasonable doubt as to his intent to kill, which is a tough burden for the state to carry. But I don't see the state having a hard time demonstrating that his conduct was criminally reckless.

I wonder if you know anything about this: My understanding is that perfect self-defense is a defense against first degree reckless homicide: if you act in reasonable self-defense, it is not acting with utter disregard for human life.

But I haven't been able to find out if imperfect self-defense is available when the charge is *reckless* homicide. I had assumed imperfect self-defense would have to mitigate to a lesser offense, probably second degree reckless homicide. But then I turned up this:

http://www.wisconsinappeals.net/on-poin ... -homicide/

That reports an appeals court decision affirming that imperfect self defense is NOT a mitigation against first degree reckless homicde. It also includes a lone comment arguing very persuasively that that was a mistake.

I'm interested because it has always looked to me like imperfect self-defense is a very possible thing for a jury to find in this case. They could find that he genuinely believed his life was in danger (or state did not meet burden of proving otherwise) but this was unreasonable (given unarmed attackers, say). So this seems like a very fine point, but could affect his prospects on the reckless homicide charge.

[fierceredpanda]

Yes, imperfect self-defense is a defense in that it reduces the severity of the crime from first-degree intentional homicide to second-degree. The instruction you linked to is the correct jury instruction. The statutory authority for that is found in the first-degree intentional homicide statute at 940.01(2):

(2)  Mitigating circumstances. The following are affirmative defenses to prosecution under this section which mitigate the offense to 2nd-degree intentional homicide under s. 940.05:
(a) Adequate provocation. Death was caused under the influence of adequate provocation as defined in s. 939.44.
(b) Unnecessary defensive force. Death was caused because the actor believed he or she or another was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that the force used was necessary to defend the endangered person, if either belief was unreasonable.
(c) Prevention of felony. Death was caused because the actor believed that the force used was necessary in the exercise of the privilege to prevent or terminate the commission of a felony, if that belief was unreasonable.
(d) Coercion; necessity. Death was caused in the exercise of a privilege under s. 939.45 (1).

"Unnecessary defensive force" is another way of saying imperfect self-defense. Note that all sub (2) defenses are merely mitigating. They reduce the charge from a Class A felony (carrying a mandatory life sentence) to a Class B felony (which carries a maximum penalty of 60 years imprisonment).

[bob]

One of the questions in voir dire in the military (and I assume elsewhere, but can’t say for sure because I’ve never practiced law outside the military) is: “If you had to vote right now, would you vote to convict?” Any answer other than “No” would get you tossed from the jury.

I was on voir dire and defense counsel asked, "Does anyone believe my client is not guilty?'

I was the only person to raise a hand.

I knew what counsel was doing, and counsel and I had a nice chat (in front of the rest of the rest of the jury pool) about presumption of innocence and burden of proof.

I was one of the first people dismissed by the prosecutor.

[Gregg]

I admit I haven't been keeping up with this at all, but from the little I see, the stupid brat stole his moms gun becasue the white supremacist sites he was reading told him that Antifa were pussies and wearing his big dick in full view would cause them to be afraid steer clear of him, and then he got a mind fuck when he got jumped and they got in his stupid face, and in his head was a million hours of FOX telling him he was about to be killed and eaten by the black hordes. I don't think he was deliberately following the dude but I can really understand why the dude thought Rittenhouse was following him.

Ya, I'd aquit the moron for Murder too. Manslaughter would be a no brainer. And this kid really is a moron, hyped up by people filling his ass with fear and lies. They should be on the dock too.

[Gregg]

Oh, don't exaggerate. It's only one of a million reasons.

I only have one.

Some people should not be allowed to carry a firearm in public.
Many of the people whop want to carry a firearm in public are in the above group.
Most of them have a legal right to do so, at least until they kill someone.

That is not a good set of facts.

[RVInit]

Oh, don't exaggerate. It's only one of a million reasons.

I only have one.

Some people should not be allowed to carry a firearm in public.
Many of the people whop want to carry a firearm in public are in the above group.
Most of them have a legal right to do so, at least until they kill someone.

That is not a good set of facts.

I also believe there are many reasons open carry is a bad idea. I fully support the second amendment just as much as I support every other amendment. I think people who call themselves "2nd amendment people" are automatically problematic. Why identify a specific amendment and elevate that one so high that your very identity is wrapped up in it.

One big problem with open carry is that if an armed person feels threatened by someone who yells at them and throws an empty plastic bag in their direction, what is that person going to do to protect themselves? Are they going to lay down their weapon and put themselves on equal footing with the scary bag throwing guy? No, they are going to use the gun against the scary bag throwing guy who yelled at them. That is a huge problem. It's pure insanity to allow this kind of behavior in a civilized society. Open carry is an open invitation for armed people to shoot unarmed people. Given the fact that they have the gun at the ready for protection, they are going to use it at the slightest feeling of being threatened. It's almost a given.

[Dave from down under]

And that is the reason for open carry…

To threaten others
And
To kill others easily

Ps. Fire arm in public place here = arrest.

[somerset]

Two nice black ladies in my building moved out. One of them had some guns, but she knew better than to go downstairs and go Kyle Littledick herself. She's black. The thugs are black. My political friends are mostly black, but they got a beef with the Asians, and that's another problem. I gotta figure out how to sort this out. I just want to mind my own business and get some fucking sleep.

Racism isn't a just white person's disease.

[busterbunker]

RVInit:
>And I apologize for the use of the word enjoyment....

No need to apologize. I got what you were saying. I don't split hairs over words.

When it comes to enjoyment, Kyle Littledick went up to Kenosha for one singular purpose: to have some fun. Shoot his gun in his little video game.

somerset:
>Racism isn't a just white person's disease.

No argument there. You're preaching to the choir. But if you look close, you'll often find some white gloves pulling the internecine strings.

I'm trying to fathom a script, a alternate-universe thing, where a nazi gets shot by the cops and all the nazi and kkk guys come together to peacefully protest aka burn the village. Then a black guy wearing muslim garb wades into the riot, grinning ear to ear. He plugs a couple of nazis with his AK-47 and waves to the friendly cops as he walks home. He gets busted, thanks to his stupid mom, but gets millions of $gofundme and skates on a self-defense plea.

Help me out here.