Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty on all charges

[Indy 3,300]

21 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Sorry, I tapped quote on the wrong person. Was meant for kg. 

No worries.

[Fen Canary 828]

8 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

This has been fun. I got into this because I knew the similar Arbery case was coming to a conclusion and tried to see if the Rittenhouse case could offer guidance as to the Georgia trial. And looking at the two has been instructive, and puzzling.  Where we seem to be at is this:

A defendant who kills and then claims self-defence needs only to say they felt in fear of being killed themselves. And for the circumstances of the incident to be such as to make that claim plausible. But plausible to whom? To the defendant, in their mind, acting in extreme circumstances, or plausible to an objective observer?

The prosecution, by contrast, has a far higher bar to surmount to disprove self-defence. It has to prove beyond reasonable doubt a negative that is in someone’s mind - that the defendant didn’t fear for their life. As near impossible as it can get, legally. Its only valid attack is to say the circumstances didn’t make the claim plausible, with plausible being an elastic term.

As I understand it this interpretation applies to simple cases where someone is threatened – say as with a homeowner who shoots dead burglars who have broken in – but also to the Rittenhouse and Arbery cases, where the threatening armed aggressor finds their unarmed victim fights back to defend themselves in some way, and particularly by trying to grab the aggressor’s gun.

Not only is the interpretation the same, that the armed aggressor who has started the confrontation can then claim they feared for their life, and so were justified in killing their intended victim, but there is also no legal duty on them to back away from the confrontation as soon as they see their victim trying to turn the tables on them. They are entitled to keep the confrontation going, and that cannot be held against them in court.

On the face of it, morally speaking, that is totally crazy. That the same defence and level of proof or disproof should be available to someone justifiably defending themselves and perhaps their family, but also available to someone whose original aggressive actions – and their refusal then to defuse the situation by backing down - have caused the unnecessary death of their intended victim.

I imagine, leaving morality aside, the legal problem is drafting an interpretation that could clearly differentiate between what one might loosely term justified and unjustified self-defence.

The other, specific, puzzling aspect concerns the verdicts by the juries as far as Rittenhouse shooting dead the unarmed Rosenbaum and Travis McMichael killing the unarmed Arbery. The basic facts seem very similar. In both cases the defendants said they feared for their life because their intended victim was trying to grab their gun. If one of those defences was plausible the other would seem equally so.

Yet Rittenhouse was acquitted and McMichael was found guilty. In the latter case there was the argument that McMichael claimed to be making a citizen’s arrest when he had no legal right to, and so the self-defence claim was invalid anyway. And no two juries are the same, but it is hard to avoid the feeling that in these cases the two very different backgrounds played a part, with different moral judgments being made both on the respective victims and the respective killers.
 

There’s a big difference in that the Arbery case involved the defendants chasing the innocent victim and shooting him despite outnumbering him. The Rittenhouse case involved the defendant being outnumbered and chased first by two men, one of which had threatened to kill him if he caught him alone and the other firing a gun in the air during the chase, second shooting he was being physically attacked whilst on the ground, and in the third he had a gun pointed at his head when he fired.

Whilst they both used self defence as their defence, they still have to prove to a jury that they had reason to believe they were in danger. 3 men chasing an unarmed man down the street can’t really claim to be in fear for their lives, while a man chased by an armed mob realistically can. This to me is the big difference between the cases, and why I think both verdicts are the correct ones 

[Fen Canary 828]

7 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

You are correct. We can argue about this forever.

As an example. Chris Kyle, the "American Sniper" is revered in many quarters for what he did in Iraq. Others find him a cold killer after what, he alleges himself, he did to looters in New Orleans during Katrina.

From reading about him, I have an opinion of a man who enjoyed shooting people. Because he could. Not who they were but just where they were at the time. Clint Eastwood obviously thinks the man is a charming, brave patriot who was angered by attacks on the US.

 

The yanks are a strange breed though. Being a good sniper in Iraq doesn’t give you the right to shoot people who pose no threat to you or others, whatever they’re doing. You’re right he probably just saw it as sport, a truly dangerous individual 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,550]

On 27/11/2021 at 19:22, Fen Canary said:

Being a good sniper in Iraq doesn’t give you the right to shoot people who pose no threat to you or others, whatever they’re doing. You’re right he probably just saw it as sport, a truly dangerous individual 

Just to clarify, Chris Kyle was a law-abiding US citizen and veteran soldier who died as the victim of a soldier with PTSD who Kyle was involved in helping after being honourably discharged; Chris Kyle was never on trial for anything and definitely doesn't deserve to be a subject of scrutiny alongside cases like Kyle Rittenhouse. 

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

On 27/11/2021 at 19:17, Fen Canary said:

There’s a big difference in that the Arbery case involved the defendants chasing the innocent victim and shooting him despite outnumbering him. The Rittenhouse case involved the defendant being outnumbered and chased first by two men, one of which had threatened to kill him if he caught him alone and the other firing a gun in the air during the chase, second shooting he was being physically attacked whilst on the ground, and in the third he had a gun pointed at his head when he fired.

Whilst they both used self defence as their defence, they still have to prove to a jury that they had reason to believe they were in danger. 3 men chasing an unarmed man down the street can’t really claim to be in fear for their lives, while a man chased by an armed mob realistically can. This to me is the big difference between the cases, and why I think both verdicts are the correct ones 

You have ignored the fundamental point I was making, which was that in the case of Rittenhouse shooting Rosenbaum and McMichael shooting Arbery the key facts - on which the defence of self-defence was based - were very similar. In both cases the defendants said they feared for their life because their intended unarmed victim was trying to grab their gun.

Yes, some of the surrounding circumstances were different but not the two deadly confrontations, which were in essence the same, with no obvious difference in the validity or otherwise of the defendants' claimed fear for their lives.

[RobJames 881]

It cannot be acceptable in law that it is defensible to shoot somebody, solely on the basis of what you might perceive as a threat to your life. In the first case the judge misdirected the jury. As if it were to be allowed, then it would be the defendant judging him/her self, not the jury.  Whereas in other states, as with Georgia and the UK, it is for the jury to decide what is reasonable grounds. Not the defendant, nor the judge.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

4 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Just to clarify, Chris Kyle was a law-abiding US citizen and veteran soldier who died as the victim of a soldier with PTSD who Kyle was involved in helping after being honourably discharged; Chris Kyle was never on trial for anything and definitely doesn't deserve to be a subject of scrutiny alongside cases like Kyle Rittenhouse. 

Once again, we are in an area of perception and opinion. Kyle himself admitted to shooting between 20 and 30 people in New Orleans during the aftermath of Katrina. He told his mates he climbed to the top of the Superdome and shot people carrying weapons.

There has never been any proof of this. He said he punched Jesse Ventura after Ventura is supposed to have benn disrespectful about a Seal who had been killed. Ventura says this never happened. And in fact won a defamation case regarding it.

He said he had killed two carjackers at a gas station. That the Penatagon had told the police to let him go because he was a war hero. None of it happened. He made it up.

He even said he had found WMD's in Iraq. But was told to cover it up because they were German, implying the Germans had supplied Iraq. There were none found.

Are we getting a picture here of someone who had finished with the military but was still living the life in his mind? So is that why he was never on trial? Because it didn't happen?

Hero he might have been in the military but he was one hell of a mixed up chap out of it.

 

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

On 26/11/2021 at 20:47, horsefly said:

We shouldn't forget either that Rittenhouse was in breach of a City 8pm curfew that evening (another reason why he should not have been there).

If Groskreutz, Jojo and the other one had been adhering to the curfew, they wouldn't have got shot would they?

[7HAR1980 102]

This is sure to trigger some on here!😉

[horsefly 4,300]

10 hours ago, Iwans Big Toe said:

If Groskreutz, Jojo and the other one had been adhering to the curfew, they wouldn't have got shot would they?

Hahahaha! I took you 7 days to come up with that "scintilating" response!

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

On 24/11/2021 at 17:53, Indy said:

That’s where it’s very grey, as in reality he’s not there protecting his property, he had no contract with an6 businesses to be there as a guard and as such had no right to be there in the first place. So he himself is in the same category as the rest a “rioter”.

Exactly, the car showroom in question had not requested assistance, so RIttenhouse's presence there was not required.

This was so obviously a show trial with a preordained outcome, and it made a mockery of any notion of justice. You know that's coming when there's desperate media scrabbling into the backgrounds of the victims as a justification.

[7HAR1980 102]

https://insiderpaper.com/facebook-lifts-ban-on-search-results-praise-for-kyle-rittenhouse/

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

3 hours ago, 7HAR1980 said:

https://insiderpaper.com/facebook-lifts-ban-on-search-results-praise-for-kyle-rittenhouse/

And? Is this meant to be the final proof you have been looking for?

How could Meta keep him or his supporters banned if he was cleared of the charges? Democracy doesn't work that way.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

Not to mention that Rittenhouse asked for his social media to be deleted before the trial.

[7HAR1980 102]

6 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

And? Is this meant to be the final proof you have been looking for?

How could Meta keep him or his supporters banned if he was cleared of the charges? Democracy doesn't work that way.

Final proof? I didn't need any. The jury has spoken! 

[7HAR1980 102]

1 hour ago, TheGunnShow said:

Not to mention that Rittenhouse asked for his social media to be deleted before the trial.

An intelligent thing to do with all the leftist trolls out there.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

That means nothing. Fact is, Rittenhouse himself asked for the profile to be deleted, so the absence of his profile is nothing to do with anything nefarious on the part of social media.

[The Real Buh 3,432]

Hi everyone, Buh here.

didn’t Kyle Rittenhouse kill a child abuser? Is that why the hard left peeps on here are so outraged?

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

11 hours ago, The Real Buh said:

Hi everyone, Buh here.

didn’t Kyle Rittenhouse kill a child abuser? Is that why the hard left peeps on here are so outraged?

He shot dead a person who was convicted of abusing a minor, a skate boarder with mental issues and seriously injured an unharmed guy who was offering medical assistance. The fact those on the right hold him in high regard shows the mental capacity of those idiots. Letting off an 18 year old who armed himself with a sub machine gun and shot dead people he knew nothing about brings America closer to the civil war those on the racist right so hope for..

Edited December 3, 2021 by Kenny Foggo

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

On 29/11/2021 at 09:14, PurpleCanary said:

You have ignored the fundamental point I was making, which was that in the case of Rittenhouse shooting Rosenbaum and McMichael shooting Arbery the key facts - on which the defence of self-defence was based - were very similar. In both cases the defendants said they feared for their life because their intended unarmed victim was trying to grab their gun.

Yes, some of the surrounding circumstances were different but not the two deadly confrontations, which were in essence the same, with no obvious difference in the validity or otherwise of the defendants' claimed fear for their lives.

Then the takeaway from this is that a defendant fearing for his life is not sufficient on it's own to secure a result. And that it takes a whole bunch of other factors to be take into account for the self-defence argument to succeed. Which is why we have two cases with two different sets of facts and two different outcomes.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

On 29/11/2021 at 09:31, RobJames said:

It cannot be acceptable in law that it is defensible to shoot somebody, solely on the basis of what you might perceive as a threat to your life. In the first case the judge misdirected the jury. As if it were to be allowed, then it would be the defendant judging him/her self, not the jury.  Whereas in other states, as with Georgia and the UK, it is for the jury to decide what is reasonable grounds. Not the defendant, nor the judge.

You are correct that it is defensible to shoot somebody, solely on the basis of what you might perceive as a threat to your life. Which is why all the other factors were taken into consideration. The only mis-direction is the echo chamber pinging around inside your head that refuses to accept the ruling.

[The Real Buh 3,432]

9 hours ago, Kenny Foggo said:

He shot dead a person who was convicted of abusing a minor, a skate boarder with mental issues and seriously injured an unharmed guy who was offering medical assistance. The fact those on the right hold him in high regard shows the mental capacity of those idiots. Letting off an 18 year old who armed himself with a sub machine gun and shot dead people he knew nothing about brings America closer to the civil war those on the racist right so hope for..

He was a skater boy

he liked to touch little boys

he caught a bullet and people sad

Now there’s an epic trial

the whole thing is pretty vile

he did a kick flip and it was rad

 

[Herman 9,768]

 

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

3 hours ago, The Real Buh said:

He was a skater boy

he liked to touch little boys

he caught a bullet and people sad

Now there’s an epic trial

the whole thing is pretty vile

he did a kick flip and it was rad

 

All I know is its not good when people idolise and think its good, that an 18 year can shoot dead people, regardless of history or character, with a sub machine gun during a riot and get away with it.

He is a poster boy for the far right that believe white people are under attack and crave violence. 

Edited December 4, 2021 by Kenny Foggo

[The Real Buh 3,432]

1 hour ago, Kenny Foggo said:

All I know is its not good when people idolise and think its good, that an 18 year can shoot dead people, regardless of history or character, with a sub machine gun during a riot and get away with it.

He is a poster boy for the far right that believe white people are under attack and crave violence. 

P3D0philes vs white supremecists

who will win?

there’s only one way to find out…

FIIIIIGHT!!! 
 

[Herman 9,768]

Did the lad check their legal status before he shot them?

 

Edited December 4, 2021 by Herman

[The Real Buh 3,432]

5 minutes ago, Herman said:

Did the lad check their legal status before he shot them?

 

I just assume that all “activists”, left and right wing have a hard drive that needs a serious check.

I don’t have much sympathy for literally the dregs of human society, political activists.

[Yellow Fever 3,788]

All I know is that Rittenhouse is an inadequate human being, a fantasist vigilante and that if he had turned up in this country (or in fact almost anywhere else) with his gun the police would likely have shot him dead & nobody would of blinked least of all those on the 'right'.

Edited December 4, 2021 by Yellow Fever

[A Load of Squit 5,167]

 

 

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

On 02/12/2021 at 10:20, horsefly said:

Hahahaha! I took you 7 days to come up with that "scintilating" response!

Sorry I didn't respond to you sooner. Unfortunately you are not the centre of my universe. I know, shocking that I should prioritse other things above responding to your insightful commentary on how the USA could be a better country.

So let's get back to it, if Groskreutz, Jojo and the other one had been adhering to the curfew, they wouldn't have got shot would they?