Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
cambridgeshire canary

Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty on all charges

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, TheGunnShow said:

The textbook case of "the law is an a-s-s" or, if we're being more charitable, a decision that is as the letter of the law, but probably not the spirit of the law. Let's face it, anyone who travels twenty miles to ostensibly protect a car showroom but was told not to, then basically stirred s-h-i-t and fired "in self-defence" when they reacted, then fake-cried in the courtroom, was not there for noble purposes.

When some say "but he shot a paedophile", that's irrelevant unless he caught the paedo in flagranti.

Somebody who worked in the town, and whose family lived there you mean?

The first man shot earlier in the day had threatened to kill those defending peoples property if he caught them on their own, and then chased one of those people later that evening when he did catch them alone along with a man armed with a gun he fired during the chase.

The second man shot was assaulting the defendant at the time, and the third was pointing a gun at him when he was shot. The defendant had repeatedly shouted “friendly” before he was attacked and fired the rifle, and the third man shot said the defendant didn’t shoot him when he drew his gun, only when he aimed it at his head. At what point is any of this not self defence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Unless they need to defend themselves against the likes of Rittenhouse armed with AR-15s. And there-in lies the fundamental reason why Rittenhouse should not have been there toting an illegal military weapon, as the Police requested. After this judgement every protester has a reason to arm themselves to protect themselves from vigilantes like Rittenhouse, and now they have the further legal justification for shooting anyone that raises a weapon in their direction. Utter madness!

I believe the riots started before the kid arrived there, therefore if those peaceful protesters were armed he was well within his rights to arm himself surely? 

Share this post


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

Somebody who worked in the town, and whose family lived there you mean?

The first man shot earlier in the day had threatened to kill those defending peoples property if he caught them on their own, and then chased one of those people later that evening when he did catch them alone along with a man armed with a gun he fired during the chase.

The second man shot was assaulting the defendant at the time, and the third was pointing a gun at him when he was shot. The defendant had repeatedly shouted “friendly” before he was attacked and fired the rifle, and the third man shot said the defendant didn’t shoot him when he drew his gun, only when he aimed it at his head. At what point is any of this not self defence?

Except he primarily lived with his mother in Antioch and came down from there, picking up a gun from a different place. The car dealership that he ostensibly came to protect did NOT ask for assistance.

Kenosha car dealer denies he asked gunmen to protect his business (jsonline.com)

He didn't have to be there in the first place.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Somebody who worked in the town, and whose family lived there you mean?

The first man shot earlier in the day had threatened to kill those defending peoples property if he caught them on their own, and then chased one of those people later that evening when he did catch them alone along with a man armed with a gun he fired during the chase.

The second man shot was assaulting the defendant at the time, and the third was pointing a gun at him when he was shot. The defendant had repeatedly shouted “friendly” before he was attacked and fired the rifle, and the third man shot said the defendant didn’t shoot him when he drew his gun, only when he aimed it at his head. At what point is any of this not self defence?

He did not work there he was a student elsewhere. His estranged father lived there. Not his family. If the first man did say those words. The boy did not know who was chasing him as he was facing forward. If he was there to defend property, why did he not stand guard at the property?  Why was he roaming the streets armed? Why point his gun at a protester? He claimed he was carrying the gun as he knew it would be dangerous. Why not then stay away? he had gone looking for trouble. He was armed, the victims were not. This is not self defence

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

I believe the riots started before the kid arrived there, therefore if those peaceful protesters were armed he was well within his rights to arm himself surely? 

You seem to have missed my point completely. This judgement has basically confirmed that either side in a protest, whether it is BLM "defending" themselves against white supremacist "protesters" or white supremacists "defending" themselves against BLM "protesters" (and any other examples of a dispute you can think of), should turn up fully armed to defend themselves from being shot by those they disagree with. And if they happen to feel inclined to want to shoot someone all they need to do is claim they were being threatened by the person they intend to kill (whether they be armed with a gun or a skateboard or any other "threat"). As I said, utter madness.

Share this post


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

As ever, you can't deal with a substantive argument so resort to your standard snowflake whining about "pedantry". Try looking the word up so you can use it with it's proper meaning. The points I made are "substantive" (look that up too) points about legal process which you have not got an answer to.

If there has been an error in law, failure of process etc there will be grounds for appeal,  presumably the papers are being prepared as we speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/11/2021 at 10:18, PurpleCanary said:

Two points. He was 17 at the time. And under Wisconsin law if the defendant claims self-defence, as was the case here, the onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self-defence rather than the defendant having to prove it was.

I have read some more on this, and it doesn't get better. This is not just the interpretation of the law in Wisconsin. Many states have the same interpretation, and some controlled by Republicans want to expand  the interpretation  to make the self-defence defence  easier to justify in more cases.

But as to the here and now in Wisconsin, in order to justify the kind of defence that Rittenhouse put up it is only necessary to submit enough evidence that that’s plausible. Not believable beyond a reasonable doubt but plausible. And people who perceive a threat to their life don’t have a duty to run away. Such laws are designed to give armed citizens the flexibility to shoot first and ask questions — or be challenged on their decision in a courtroom — later.

But with the challenge in a courtroom easily answered in most cases by claiming fear for one's life. Which is relevant to a case elsewhere in the US where three white men with a shotgun acting as vigilantes chased down a black jogger and when the latter tried to grab the gun was shot dead. And the vigilantes' defence is that they feared for their lives even though they had chased the jogger and it was their gun they were threatening him with. The mind boggles.

I came across this apposite quote from an admittedly partisan anti-gun law spokesman, who said the Wisconsin verdict was a sign "that extreme gun culture has rotted out our collective soul. Only in America can a 17-year-old grab an assault weapon . . . provoke a fight, kill two people and injure another and pay no consequences. Our fealty to firearms has managed to make sparing human life a sign of weakness.”

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I know is that this whole saga - the prosecution, the defense, the trial and the US 'gun' laws has simply brought the US globally into a sense of disrepute - disbelief even that this state of events is acceptable in a civilized society.

These crazy laws have to changed for the safety of everyone in the US.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

All I know is that this whole saga - the prosecution, the defense, the trial and the US 'gun' laws has simply brought the US globally into a sense of disrepute - disbelief even that this state of events is acceptable in a civilized society.

These crazy laws have to changed for the safety of everyone in the US.

Yep, that just about sums it up

Share this post


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

I have read some more on this, and it doesn't get better. This is not just the interpretation of the law in Wisconsin. Many states have the same interpretation, and some controlled by Republicans want to expand  the interpretation  to make the self-defence defence  easier to justify in more cases.

But as to the here and now in Wisconsin, in order to justify the kind of defence that Rittenhouse put up it is only necessary to submit enough evidence that that’s plausible. Not believable beyond a reasonable doubt but plausible. And people who perceive a threat to their life don’t have a duty to run away. Such laws are designed to give armed citizens the flexibility to shoot first and ask questions — or be challenged on their decision in a courtroom — later.

But with the challenge in a courtroom easily answered in most cases by claiming fear for one's life. Which is relevant to a case elsewhere in the US where three white men with a shotgun acting as vigilantes chased down a black jogger and when the latter tried to grab the gun was shot dead. And the vigilantes' defence is that they feared for their lives even though they had chased the jogger and it was their gun they were threatening him with. The mind boggles.

I came across this apposite quote from an admittedly partisan anti-gun law spokesman, who said the Wisconsin verdict was a sign "that extreme gun culture has rotted out our collective soul. Only in America can a 17-year-old grab an assault weapon . . . provoke a fight, kill two people and injure another and pay no consequences. Our fealty to firearms has managed to make sparing human life a sign of weakness.”

Thanks, very helpful. What I find odd in this, as you have described,  is that the "states" appear to essentially exercise some control over legal interpretation rather than that being exercised and evolving through Judicial interpretations and caselaw. 

Share this post


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

All I know is that this whole saga - the prosecution, the defense, the trial and the US 'gun' laws has simply brought the US globally into a sense of disrepute - disbelief even that this state of events is acceptable in a civilized society.

These crazy laws have to changed for the safety of everyone in the US.

Totally normal country.👀

 

Share this post


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

All I know is that this whole saga - the prosecution, the defense, the trial and the US 'gun' laws has simply brought the US globally into a sense of disrepute - disbelief even that this state of events is acceptable in a civilized society.

These crazy laws have to changed for the safety of everyone in the US.

The word I'd use is "sh!thole". A health system that means the poor are screwed, with no statutory maternity leave, ludicrous gun laws, an antiquated electoral model that needs radical reform with a bloated military at the expense of many an issue that would improve the welfare of their citizens.

Glad I'm not there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

Meanwhile, the unarmed Trayvon Martin wasn't around to comment.

Very sadly, and countless others (virtually all black of course). If the three men standing trial for killing the unarmed jogger Ahmaud Arbery get off on their claim they killed him in self defense, then the US will be convulsed by riots.

Edited by horsefly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even Rittenhouse's attorney says he is "sickened" by right-wingers trying to exploit his client's "celebrity".

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/kyle-rittenhouse-verdict-live-attorney-says-he-is-overwhelmed-with-death-threats/ar-AAQST3b?ocid=msedgntp

Kyle Rittenhouse's attorney calls Trump Jr an ‘idiot’ for offering the teen free guns

 

Kyle Rittenhouse’s attorney Mark Richards criticised Trump Jr and other Republicans trying to profit on the recent verdict.

Richards said he was unhappy with Republican party members such as Paul Gosar, Matt Gaetz and Madison Cawthorn offering Rittenhouse an internship.

“They’re raising money on it and you have all these Republican congressmen saying come work for me,” Rittenhouse’s attorney told Insider. “They want to trade on his celebrity and I think it’s disgusting.

Richards also called out Trump Jr. for tweeting about a gun rights organisation wanting to award Rittenhouse with another AR-15 in a now-deleted tweet.

“He’s an idiot,” Richards said. “I don’t have to expand on that because it speaks for itself.”

 

Share this post


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

Thanks, very helpful. What I find odd in this, as you have described,  is that the "states" appear to essentially exercise some control over legal interpretation rather than that being exercised and evolving through Judicial interpretations and caselaw. 

I am no expert, but I do know justice in the US is much more political, with senior judges for example being political appointees. I came across this in the Washington Post:

“States are making it easier to use lethal force and have it be justified under the law,” said Eric Ruben, a law professor at Southern Methodist University’s Dedman School of Law who has written extensively on Second Amendment rights and the evolving law on self-defense.

In Rittenhouse’s case, Ruben said, “classic principles of self-defense may have justified his use of deadly force. But if this had happened in Florida, for example, there would have been a question whether it was even legal to prosecute Rittenhouse.”

That’s because Florida is among several states that grant immunity from prosecution for self-defense and have expanded the list of threats against which people are permitted to use deadly force. Most states allow citizens to use force to defend themselves against rape or other serious felonies, but now some Republican-controlled states are pushing to expand that right to other crimes, such as threats against property.

In Florida, for example, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) proposed earlier this year to broaden the state’s “stand your ground” law to allow people to shoot looters or anyone whose “criminal mischief” threatens a business. The legislature did not approve the measure.

“America has tolerated violence more than other places throughout its history,” said Ruben, “but some of these recent changes are hard to find in the American legal tradition.”

Stand-your-ground laws, derided by opponents as “shoot first” laws, were promoted in the early 2000s by the National Rifle Association and the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council as a way to ease the legal burden on gun-carrying Americans who feel threatened in public settings.

But opponents of the laws cite research showing that in most cases where defendants claimed they were just standing their ground against a threat, they could have safely retreated. That conclusion led an American Bar Association report to recommend that states revert to laws that require people to avoid confrontation if they can do so safely.

The last bits in red seem particularly significant to me. In my earlier post I noted that there is no duty (in Wisconsin at least) on someone who feels threatened (Rittenhouse in this case) to run away. In other words, they won't be seen as to blame if they don't defuse the situation by retreating.

I haven't studied what happened in detail but if you have gone armed to a town as a vigilante when warned not to, and posing as someone there to provide medical assistance when you are not qualified to do so, then I guess your frame of mind will not allow the notion of retreat.

Edited by PurpleCanary
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

This would be the same judge who refused to let the defence mention that the first man shot was a convicted child molester, and the second had convictions for strangulation, suffocation and false imprisonment? Sounds like he was fairly even handed to me 

That statement is as equally prejudiced as Rittenhouse's actions. I hate child molesters and would rather they weren't free to walk the streets but using the pro Rittenhouse defence some of you have used, a judge set a tariff for this man to be freed.

And I doubt Rittenhouse knew that at the time of shooting. And I find it disgusting that someone who is culpably breaking the law then cries foul and wished the law to help him.

As I said earlier, anything illegal Rittenhouse was doing like ignoring a curfew, carrying a weapon illegally and firing that weapon in a public place was to be ignored by Wisconsin law. The only matter for consideration was did he think he was in imminent danger.

We will never know the answer to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

 

We will never know the answer to that.

The jury decided that he was. All else is verbage.

Share this post


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

The jury decided that he was. All else is verbage.

Wrong. The jury were instructed to accept this boys claim that he felt his life was in danger. Not whether it actually was. That was where the judges' guidance was flawed. It cannot be for the defendent to set what is reasonable. If so, every murder charge would be quashed by the accused saying he/she felt threatened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, ricardo said:

The jury decided that he was. All else is verbage.

I don't doubt that what was widely said when Dreyfus was found guilty.

Share this post


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

I don't doubt that what was widely said when Dreyfus was found guilty.

Birmingham six, Guildford four, Stockwell six, Oval four, Stephen Kiszko, Barry George........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The utter absurdity of the Rittenhouse decision can perhaps best be understood by considering its implications for the legal right to self defence.

Imagine you (unarmed) are confronted by a threatening individual pointing an AR-15 in your direction. You, quite rightly, have the legal right to defend yourself from this threat by seeking to disarm the gun bearer using whatever means are available to you. No moral or legal problems arise from the right to self-defence in that scenario. However, qua the Rittenhouse judgement, the very second you attempt to defend yourself from the gunman, you confer on him the de facto "right" to shoot you dead, as he can simply claim he felt threatened by your attempt to disarm him. Thus, the so-called "right to self-defence" actually renders you more vulnerable than simply doing nothing and praying that the gunman threatening you won't pull the trigger. That reality is utterly absurd and immoral. In any rational legal system, your right to self defence can not result in the perpetrator of the threat being given de facto legal licence to shoot you dead.

Share this post


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

The jury decided that he was. All else is verbage.

You missed the point. We will never know if he believed he was in imminent danger. And unfortunately, that is all the law was asking. No other evidence was deemed relevant. That became the verbage. He is never going to say otherwise is he.

 

Share this post


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

You missed the point. We will never know if he believed he was in imminent danger. And unfortunately, that is all the law was asking. No other evidence was deemed relevant. That became the verbage. He is never going to say otherwise is he.

 

Err no. That is exactly the point, it is irrelevant what we or anybody else think, it is what the jury decide having heard the evidence. Everything else is pointless commentary.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ricardo said:

Err no. That is exactly the point, it is irrelevant what we or anybody else think, it is what the jury decide having heard the evidence. Everything else is pointless commentary.

Yes but as I said, the jury was instructed to decide on one point. Whether at the moment he shot three people, did he believe he was in imminent danger.

Under that system, he could have posted on Facebook that he was going there to kill people. That evidence would not have any bearing on the decision.

The case was so narrow that Sutcliffe and West would have got off.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Err no. That is exactly the point, it is irrelevant what we or anybody else think, it is what the jury decide having heard the evidence. Everything else is pointless commentary.

Err... you've clearly never heard of the notions of jurisprudence and the discussion of case law, or the idea of a mistrial etc, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/11/2021 at 14:56, Yellow Fever said:

Let start with why do they need 'assault' rifles?

My own experience of the US is handguns in the car glove compartment and some go in for hunting.

But assault rifles - surely no need (who are they going to fight?) and removing these would at a stroke limit some of the worst 'active' shooter incidents and the weak minded fantasists.

Yes, it would be interesting to pull this apart and analyse why there is a mindset that sees people feeling they need to carry weapons. It is a massive subject though and I'm sure there are hundreds of studies out there that we can only begin to skim the surface.

I do think it is too late to try to disarm America, unfortunately. There's so many guns in circulation, it's a prosperous business and gun culture runs deep through America from historical beginnings until today. We probably need some input from any Yanks tuning into the Pinkun forum to explain it all.

Why do they need assault rifles? Surely, they don't. Perhaps those who own them see themselves in a war situation, in which you need to own the very best weaponry otherwise the other guy will have some more powerful than you have. So the first question to ask is - is there a war going on over the pond, if so what is the war being fought over and who are the protagonists and what can be done about it?

How about handguns in the glove compartment? That seems like a defensive measure as you're less likely to be a target of criminals if they know you have a weapon. It also means you can defend yourself if your assailant is carrying. This probably explains why over here knife crime is worse than gun crime as it is rarer to be facing a gun attack than a knife attack. So there might be a good case for getting rid of handguns?

Other factors to be taken into consideration? Generally longer prison sentences in US means offenders are more likely to take measures to avoid re-arrest such as having a gun to shoot there way out. Rampant illegal drug culture with high earnings possible for those taking the biggest risks. Outside the big cities the US has a largely rural mid-West where citizens maybe far from law enforcement officers and see self-defensive measures as being a useful deterrence. And as I mentioned before, the glorification of weapons and criminality in popular culture.

Just a few thoughts on what is necessary to tackle the mindset that says we must own a weapon or two, which then leads to Kenosha and similar incidents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/11/2021 at 09:45, Van wink said:

It is a frightening prospect that this could be seen as a licence for future vigilante groups feeling that they are not constrained by the rule of law

Very sadly, VW, it looks like your prophesy has come to pass in Waukesha.

Share this post


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

Err... you've clearly never heard of the notions of jurisprudence and the discussion of case law, or the idea of a mistrial etc, etc.

This isn't a discussion of case law though, it's a discussion of a case that has been heard and the defendant acquitted of all charges. There was no mistrial called and his acquittal means future prosecution is ruled out. 

Generally, American justice and democratic processes are a mess, but the wider questions of the consequences of domestic occurrences like this are America's problem. 

Edited by littleyellowbirdie

Share this post


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

This isn't a discussion of case law though, it's a discussion of a case that has been heard and the defendant acquitted of all charges. There was no mistrial called and his acquittal means future prosecution is ruled out. 

Generally, American justice and democratic processes are a mess, but the wider questions of the consequences of domestic occurrences like this are America's problem. 

Who the hell do you think you are telling people what they are allowed to discuss? I think you'll find we still live in a free country. Many contributors have raised the wider issues that arise for the US justice system in relation to this particular judgement. If you're not interested in those issues don't comment on them, it's very simple.

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...