Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
cambridgeshire canary

Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty on all charges

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Indy said:

Actually this could open up a can of worms, if by travelling fully armed twenty miles into an inflamed situation, for no reason shooting three people dead and claiming self defence, then if you shoot three police officers aiming their guns at you can claim self defence too? How’s that different? You’re under threat for your life!

I find the whole thing very distasteful and for me I can’t get past his intention, he went there looking for trouble and three people died.

Your police would be strawmen because there are special factors to be noted when interacting with the police. For example, the police can issue commands such as 'let me see your hands' which may not be appropriate from a non-policeman but is certainly advisable to obey when dealing with American police.

A lot of posters make the mistake of thinking it is very easy to succeed with a plea of self-defence. Without evidence it is actually quite difficult and not a very good line of defence against prosecution because it admits that you have pulled the trigger. In the Rittenhouse case, the defendant was very lucky that there was so much video evidence available as it showed Rittenhouse being chased by the mob while trying to reach police lines, hit behind the head with a skateboard that knocked him to the ground and was then kicked in the head by another assailant. We also heard the first shots in this incident were fired from a gun from the mob, not from Rittenhouse and Gauzzman pulled out a gun and pointed it at Rittenhouse's head with the intention, and he said this in his testimony, of killing Rittenhouse. There was so much evidence that the mob intended to kill Kyle that self-defence was the correct outcome.

The media that lied about this case are gong to get sued big time. just as nick Sandman sued the media for millions, and I hope Joe Biden gets sued for describing Kyle Rittenhouse a white supremacist after the not guilty verdict was released.

This is the same joe Biden who has made no comment on Daryl Brooks who just used an SUV vehicle to murder five people and injure scores including Children at a Christmas parade. An incident that is quickly disappearing from the mainstream media. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Not least the Arbery case, where the jury is now considering its verdict. But for clarity's sake it needs to be stressed that the legal interpretation of self-defence we are talking about, in the Rittenhouse and the Arbery cases, is not that of self-defence claimed by someone who is threatened by the armed instigators of the confrontation and shoots to defend themselves.

The question concerns the armed instigators of the confrontation claiming self-defence after their victim is aggressive or even fights back, and they then shoot to kill.

As we have seen in both cases, the interpretation of the law is that the armed instigator who finds the tables have been turned on them in this way does not need to prove they had a genuine fear for their life to justify shooting. On the contrary, as the defendants' lawyer in the Arbery case has said, the prosecution has to prove the shooter didn't fear for his life. Which is as near to an impossibility as you can get, and great news for vigilantes.

Them apples is oranges, or in other words 'strawman'.

The people (all with criminal history, one of which was a Minor Attracted Person. Go woke community for that new description to a p**o!) that Rittenhouse shot in Kenosha were rioters that were there purely to commit arson, destroy property and intimidate people until they got 'their way'. They all ganged up and showed physical aggression towards him, with Grosekreutz pointing a gun at his head while he was on the ground.

The douche bags in the Arbery case were suspicious of him for no reason, hunted him down while he was on his own and shot him (the complete opposite of what happened to Rittenhouse). Their right to call it self defense was rightly overlooked by the jury and they were convicted of murder.

But please, as a good leftist, don't let the truth get in the way of your virtue signaling.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

Your police would be strawmen because there are special factors to be noted when interacting with the police. For example, the police can issue commands such as 'let me see your hands' which may not be appropriate from a non-policeman but is certainly advisable to obey when dealing with American police.

A lot of posters make the mistake of thinking it is very easy to succeed with a plea of self-defence. Without evidence it is actually quite difficult and not a very good line of defence against prosecution because it admits that you have pulled the trigger. In the Rittenhouse case, the defendant was very lucky that there was so much video evidence available as it showed Rittenhouse being chased by the mob while trying to reach police lines, hit behind the head with a skateboard that knocked him to the ground and was then kicked in the head by another assailant. We also heard the first shots in this incident were fired from a gun from the mob, not from Rittenhouse and Gauzzman pulled out a gun and pointed it at Rittenhouse's head with the intention, and he said this in his testimony, of killing Rittenhouse. There was so much evidence that the mob intended to kill Kyle that self-defence was the correct outcome.

The media that lied about this case are gong to get sued big time. just as nick Sandman sued the media for millions, and I hope Joe Biden gets sued for describing Kyle Rittenhouse a white supremacist after the not guilty verdict was released.

This is the same joe Biden who has made no comment on Daryl Brooks who just used an SUV vehicle to murder five people and injure scores including Children at a Christmas parade. An incident that is quickly disappearing from the mainstream media. 

Again if he’d not gone there with a gun he’d not been in that situation to kill three people, so he had no right to be there and should have been considered a rioter himself! He had no good reason to take a semi automatic rifle into that situation.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Indy said:

Again if he’d not gone there with a gun he’d not been in that situation to kill three people, so he had no right to be there and should have been considered a rioter himself! He had no good reason to take a semi automatic rifle into that situation.

Again, if the three Rittenhouse shot hadn't gone to loot, riot and 'mostly' peacefully protest they wouldn't have got shot.

 

 

Edited by Iwans Big Toe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Iwans Big Toe said:

Again, if the three Rittenhouse shot hadn't gone to loot, riot and 'mostly' peacefully protest they wouldn't have got shot.

 

 

Exactly. And if Jacob Blake hadn't confronted the police with a knife, the Antifa crowd wouldn't have turned up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Iwans Big Toe said:

Again, if the three Rittenhouse shot hadn't gone to loot, riot and 'mostly' peacefully protest they wouldn't have got shot.

 

 

Provide your evidence that the three people he shot were looters and rioters rather than protesters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, horsefly said:

Provide your evidence that the three people he shot were looters and rioters rather than protesters. 

Well it's now a matter of public record that the judge ruled that they could be referred to as rioters and looters as that's what they were there to do that night. If that's not enough evidence for you, nothing ever will be.

BATMAN BACK IN. FORGOT TO DROP THE MIC. GIF - LegoBatman ...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Iwans Big Toe said:

Well it's now a matter of public record that the judge ruled that they could be referred to as rioters and looters as that's what they were there to do that night. If that's not enough evidence for you, nothing ever will be.

BATMAN BACK IN. FORGOT TO DROP THE MIC. GIF - LegoBatman ...

 

 

As expected no answer. So where is your evidence that those individuals were rioters? The fact that the right-wing judge (controversially) allowed them to be referred to as such does not provide ANY proof that they were so. If he had allowed them to be referred to as aliens would that have made them actual aliens? You really need to think before you make a fool of yourself every time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Iwans Big Toe said:

Well it's now a matter of public record that the judge ruled that they could be referred to as rioters and looters as that's what they were there to do that night. If that's not enough evidence for you, nothing ever will be.

BATMAN BACK IN. FORGOT TO DROP THE MIC. GIF - LegoBatman ...

 

 

That is a lie. The judge said they could be called rioters or looters only if the defence proved they were such. And the only one left alive has never been charged with any such offence. Of the two who were killed one was unarmed and the other was carrying a skateboard.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

Your police would be strawmen because there are special factors to be noted when interacting with the police. For example, the police can issue commands such as 'let me see your hands' which may not be appropriate from a non-policeman but is certainly advisable to obey when dealing with American police.

A lot of posters make the mistake of thinking it is very easy to succeed with a plea of self-defence. Without evidence it is actually quite difficult and not a very good line of defence against prosecution because it admits that you have pulled the trigger. In the Rittenhouse case, the defendant was very lucky that there was so much video evidence available as it showed Rittenhouse being chased by the mob while trying to reach police lines, hit behind the head with a skateboard that knocked him to the ground and was then kicked in the head by another assailant. We also heard the first shots in this incident were fired from a gun from the mob, not from Rittenhouse and Gauzzman pulled out a gun and pointed it at Rittenhouse's head with the intention, and he said this in his testimony, of killing Rittenhouse. There was so much evidence that the mob intended to kill Kyle that self-defence was the correct outcome.

The media that lied about this case are gong to get sued big time. just as nick Sandman sued the media for millions, and I hope Joe Biden gets sued for describing Kyle Rittenhouse a white supremacist after the not guilty verdict was released.

This is the same joe Biden who has made no comment on Daryl Brooks who just used an SUV vehicle to murder five people and injure scores including Children at a Christmas parade. An incident that is quickly disappearing from the mainstream media. 

You haven't read all the posts on the subject RTB.

It wasn't a matter of self defence. The judge said the case was based on the law in Wisconsin that all the jury had to consider was whether, at the moment he shot people, did Riitenhouse feel he was in imminent danger.

That isn't a law, that is a get out of jail free card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

You haven't read all the posts on the subject RTB.

It wasn't a matter of self defence. The judge said the case was based on the law in Wisconsin that all the jury had to consider was whether, at the moment he shot people, did Riitenhouse feel he was in imminent danger.

That isn't a law, that is a get out of jail free card.

It's not simply a get out of jail free card, given that it was shown in evidence that all three were threatening to varying degrees and even supported by the testimony of the sole-survivor under cross-examimation (arguably the key element that destroyed the prosecution case). Had he shot them when they were unarmed and not demonstrably a threat according to other witnesses then he would have been convicted. 

Edited by littleyellowbirdie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, horsefly said:

As expected no answer. So where is your evidence that those individuals were rioters? The fact that the right-wing judge (controversially) allowed them to be referred to as such does not provide ANY proof that they were so. If he had allowed them to be referred to as aliens would that have made them actual aliens? You really need to think before you make a fool of yourself every time.

Like I said, if you are not willing to accept that the judge ruled that they could be referred to as rioters and looters as that's what they were there to do that night, there is no point continuing the debate because you are being obtuse.

Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Iwans Big Toe said:

Like I said, if you are not willing to accept that the judge ruled that they could be referred to as rioters and looters as that's what they were there to do that night, there is no point continuing the debate because you are being obtuse.

Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to ...

hahaha! You completely ignored Purple's FACTUAL destruction of your claim, and still don't know the difference between someone SAYING something to be the case, and it ACTUALLY being the case. But at least you found a quote that applies to your ignorance perfectly. So very dumb!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's not simply a get out of jail free card, given that it was shown in evidence that all three were threatening to varying degrees and even supported by the testimony of the sole-survivor under cross-examimation (arguably the key element that destroyed the prosecution case). Had he shot them when they were unarmed and not demonstrably a threat according to other witnesses then he would have been convicted. 

That is not correct. I am not going to keep explaining if you don't understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

That is a lie. The judge said they could be called rioters or looters only if the defence proved they were such. And the only one left alive has never been charged with any such offence. Of the two who were killed one was unarmed and the other was carrying a skateboard.

Would imagine the guy carrying the skateboard was not going to do a half pike or some other skateboard trick

More likely he was that worked up and ready to crack Rittenhouse’s head open

i know what my response would be and think you would do the same given the situation 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, daly said:

Would imagine the guy carrying the skateboard was not going to do a half pike or some other skateboard trick

More likely he was that worked up and ready to crack Rittenhouse’s head open

i know what my response would be and think you would do the same given the situation 

 

 

Brilliant, take a skateboard to a gun fight! 😂👍

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Indy said:

Brilliant, take a skateboard to a gun fight! 😂👍

And that's probably the most sensible thing she's said so far!!! You couldn't make it up.

In future I'm going to carry a gun with me, and if I see a skateboarder I'll shoot him dead. I'm sure the judge will understand that a man armed with a skateboard is a clear threat to life, and quite clearly only on the streets to loot and riot.

Edited by horsefly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, daly said:

The same skateboarder who went to prison twice for strangling his brother 

Twice, for strangling his brother, what with silly string? 😂

Sorry but your just justifying shooting someone, there’s no justification for shooting anyone! If he hadn’t gone there with a semi automatic rifle and inflaming the situation he wouldn’t have shot anyone. He had no good reason to be there end off!

He will kill again mark my words, he went there with intent to use force and deadly if necessary otherwise he’d never took that rifle into a situation he knew it might be used.

As I’ve said I have no issue with the judgment, he was cleared in the court, I don’t agree with it, he certainly is guilty of man slaughter at the very least! But I can’t see how anyone can actually try to defend a 17 year old with an illegal weapon in his hands who traveled 20 miles into a inflamed situation and killed three people. Just don’t get any justification or understand why other than to live out a computer game scenario for real!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

You haven't read all the posts on the subject RTB.

It wasn't a matter of self defence. The judge said the case was based on the law in Wisconsin that all the jury had to consider was whether, at the moment he shot people, did Riitenhouse feel he was in imminent danger.

That isn't a law, that is a get out of jail free card.

 

21 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's not simply a get out of jail free card, given that it was shown in evidence that all three were threatening to varying degrees and even supported by the testimony of the sole-survivor under cross-examimation (arguably the key element that destroyed the prosecution case). Had he shot them when they were unarmed and not demonstrably a threat according to other witnesses then he would have been convicted. 

 

16 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

That is not correct. I am not going to keep explaining if you don't understand.

If self defence was a 'get out of jail free card' in Wisconsin law, then it would simply be a matter of claiming self-defence to get an acquittal, which is simply not true. There is a bar for a plausible argument of self-defence and that bar is to have a credible argument for why the people you killed may have been perceived to be a threat to your life at the time. 

Unlike UK law, however, there is no stipulation of reasonable force in any pre-emptive measure. Under Wisconsin law, shooting somebody is an acceptable response to being attacked in any way where you might finish up dead; it does not require that the other person have a gun. 

To underline the point that there is a minimum bar for a successful self-defence argument, here's an example of a conviction for intentional homicide at a mall shooting in Wisconsin where self-defence did not feature in the defence argument and a conviction was secured. It should go without saying that, if it was a get out of jail free card, the defence would have argued it anyway and succeeded. 

https://eu.postcrescent.com/story/news/2021/11/10/fox-river-mall-shooting-dezman-ellis-convicted-homicide-charge/6341208001/
 

 

Edited by littleyellowbirdie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

 

 

If self defence was a 'get out of jail free card' in Wisconsin law, then it would simply be a matter of claiming self-defence to get an acquittal, which is simply not true. There is a bar for a plausible argument of self-defence and that bar is to have a credible argument for why the people you killed may have been perceived to be a threat to your life at the time. 

Unlike UK law, however, there is no stiputlation of reasonable force in any pre-emptive measure. Under Wisconsin law, shooting somebody is an acceptable response to being attacked in any way where you might finish up dead; it does not require that the other person have a gun. 

To underline the point that there is a minimum bar for a successful self-defence argument, here's an example of a conviction for intentional homicide at a mall shooting in Wisconsin where self-defence did not feature in the defence argument and a conviction was secured. It should go without saying that, if it was a get out of jail free card, the defence would have argued it anyway and succeeded. 

https://eu.postcrescent.com/story/news/2021/11/10/fox-river-mall-shooting-dezman-ellis-convicted-homicide-charge/6341208001/
 

 

Based on what you have posted that case has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about. Which is where the armed person who starts the confrontation and threatens someone then finds their intended victim becomes aggressive in return and tries to defend themselves, in some cases by grabbing the gun. That prompts the gunman to shoot to kill, and then claim self-defence.

In this case there is no suggestion the victim did anything aggressive towards the gunman once the latter produced his weapon and fired::

Ellis told Frausto, "I will shoot this place up, I will kill you," then displayed a gun before opening fire at Frausto, the complaint says. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PurpleCanary said:

Based on what you have posted that case has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about. Which is where the armed person who starts the confrontation and threatens someone then finds their intended victim becomes aggressive in return and tries to defend themselves, in some cases by grabbing the gun. That prompts the gunman to shoot to kill, and then claim self-defence.

In this case there is no suggestion the victim did anything aggressive towards the gunman once the latter produced his weapon and fired::

Ellis told Frausto, "I will shoot this place up, I will kill you," then displayed a gun before opening fire at Frausto, the complaint says. .

So you agree that self-defence can't be used to get out of any homicide charge in Wisconsin and there is a bar that has to be met to successfully use it as a defence; it is not a get out of jail free card. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

So you agree that self-defence can't be used to get out of any homicide charge in Wisconsin and there is a bar that has to be met to successfully use it as a defence; it is not a get out of jail free card. 

I am going out now. Try reading and understanding all my posts (it is not that many) on the subject and if you then want to ask a sensible question (while acknowledging your latest example was entirely irrelevent to the discussion) I will see if it is worth answering.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I am going out now. Try reading and understanding all my posts (it is not that many) on the subject and if you then want to ask a sensible question (while acknowledging your latest example was entirely irrelevent to the discussion) I will see if it is worth answering.

I have no questions to ask about your opinions on the case. My point here is very specific: Self-defence is not a get out of jail free card because there is a bar to meet to convince a jury that it applies. This is true, as evidenced by this and many other convictions for murder in Wisconsin where self-defence didn't feature as a reason for acquittal.

Specifically in the Rittenhouse case, if the jury had decided that they considered the self-defence argument unreasonable, Rittenhouse would have been convicted of murder. You and Keelan's grandad are simply wrong in presenting self-defense as a 'get out of jail free card' as I have demonstrated. 

Edited by littleyellowbirdie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, daly said:

The same skateboarder who went to prison twice for strangling his brother 

So Rittenhouse psychically knew this man had "strangled" his brother twice, or are we simply to assume that all skateboarders have strangled their brothers twice and therefore can be shot? FFS!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

You and Keelan's grandad are simply wrong in presenting self-defense as a 'get out of jail free card' as I have demonstrated. 

You have yet again ignored the point made time and time again that the Judge in this PARTICULAR case directed the jury that all they had to be convinced of was that Rittenhouse FELT he was in danger of his life. Given that it would be impossible for the jury (or anyone) to contradict Rittenhouse's claim that he did indeed feel like that, KG's point that this amounted to a get-out-of-jail-free card is entirely accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I have no questions to ask about your opinions on the case. My point here is very specific: Self-defence is not a get out of jail free card because there is a bar to meet to convince a jury that it applies. This is true, as evidenced by this and many other convictions for murder in Wisconsin where self-defence didn't feature as a reason for acquittal.

Specifically in the Rittenhouse case, if the jury had decided that they considered the self-defence argument unreasonable, Rittenhouse would have been convicted of murder. You and Keelan's grandad are simply wrong in presenting self-defense as a 'get out of jail free card' as I have demonstrated. 

Not so my friend. It wasn't self defence because there is a scale of self defence. Necessary force etc. It was about the state of Rittenhouse's mind at the time. Was he in imminent danger. The word danger would depend on what the alleged attacker was planning on doing. But it still came down to Rittenhouse, despite every other piece of evidence presented on his intent, telling the court he believed he was in danger. It doesn't even matter that he was illegally carrying an assault weapon.

Jurisprudence at its narrowest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The actual instructions to the jury are online, as is the wisconsin criminal code.  Paragraph 939.48 spoears to be the relevant part.

I guess it's up to individual posters if they want to go to them to substantiate or refute assertions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does make you wonder that if any of the three shot by Rittenhouse had actually shot and killed him first that they would and could of claimed the same defense - especially the last - stopping an active and dangerous 'active shooter' in self defense!

Just shows how inept and mindless this law is.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...