Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
cambridgeshire canary

Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty on all charges

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, horsefly said:

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.

Blooming heck, did you just make a positive comment about the UK while making your straw man argument? I think I need a lie down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/11/2021 at 11:15, PurpleCanary said:

I haven't got into this because others have made any arguments I might have had. But this seems a valid concern, not least because, as I posted, under Wisconsin law someone, such as a gun-totting vigilante, claiming self-defence is assumed to be innocent unless the prosecution can prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.

What I assume this comes from is a frontier mentality from a time long ago when home-owners might face all kinds of threats and could not rely on outside help to protect them. Quite outdated now. And the whole of US gun law is based on the entirely anachronistic idea that the possession of weapons is necessary for the creation of an armed militia.

Seriously you wrote this?

It is no frontier mentality that claiming self-defence is assumed to be innocent unless the prosecution can prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. It is a core principle of western justice that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Therefore the burden of proof always fall on the prosecution. In the Rittenhouse case, the prosecution's star witness, the third guy who got shot and whose name I forget, admitted on oath that he pulled a gun on Rittenhouse and pointed it at his head with the intention to murder him. Hardly surprising that the jury decided decided all the not guilty verdicts given the evidence. 

Hopefully, Rittenhouse will now do a Nick Sandman and sue the **** off the media starting with CNN. 

Share this post


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

Seriously you wrote this?

It is no frontier mentality that claiming self-defence is assumed to be innocent unless the prosecution can prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. It is a core principle of western justice that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Therefore the burden of proof always fall on the prosecution. In the Rittenhouse case, the prosecution's star witness, the third guy who got shot and whose name I forget, admitted on oath that he pulled a gun on Rittenhouse and pointed it at his head with the intention to murder him. Hardly surprising that the jury decided decided all the not guilty verdicts given the evidence. 

Hopefully, Rittenhouse will now do a Nick Sandman and sue the **** off the media starting with CNN. 

But as in the original OJ case, it is also possible for the relatives of those shot to take a civil case against Rittenhouse.

Share this post


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

"And you asked 'who the hell do  you think you are', which is not a statement, twit." 

Oh dear! With each post you make you demonstrate your complete ignorance of how the English language works. Sadly you now demonstrate your inability to recognise  a rhetorical question expressing an ironic statement. My actual words were "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". Often I adopt the convention of using an exclamation mark to signal a rhetorical question to avoid misaphrehension by those who are a bit thick. I clearly made a mistake thinking that no one could be so thick as not to understand its rhetorical nature given the context of this particular sentence. Since you struggle so much to understand English, let me state the meaning of my sentence in its simplest form so that even you might grasp its meaning: It is not for you to tell others what they allowed to discuss.

"Because it's not a discussion of case law; it's discussion of a specific case."

Still you persist in in denying the fact that the discussion on this thread has ranged over the implications that this particular case has had for the legal interpretation of "self-defence" in other cases. Indeed, so much is it established in law that a particular case has relevance to case law and application of precedent to other cases that judges will explicitly state when their interpretation of particular concepts in certain cases are not to be counted as laying down a legal precedent.

 

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.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.

Exactly Purple! That's the point I was making in an earlier post when I said the Rittenhouse judgement renders the legal right to self defence useless, because the second one seeks to defend oneself against an aggressor it defacto confers on them the right to shoot you dead in their own "self-defence". 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes 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.

Totally agree Indy.

Indeed anybody who happened to see any armed vigilante in the street it seems could simply shoot them as they can (legally) claim they are in fear of their life. No questions asked. Total madness.

Clearly their law needs clarification and/or the judges direction at least questioned.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes 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.

Spot on Indy! It is literally the law of the Wild West; shoot first in self-defence is the message it conveys. The rational thing for any protester to do now is go armed to the teeth to the protest and shoot anyone else they might deem a threat before they shoot you. When that becomes the rational course of action then you know your legal system is f*ucked. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes 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.

Precisely, it was so dangerous that the only people who died were the ones he shot.

Share this post


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

I'm pleased the other sad Wisconsin thread vanished.

Indeed! blatantly racist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 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.

Some of the answers to the questions you quite rightly raise might be in the relevant statutes. As far as I can tell you can't raise self defence if you go looking  for trouble; act in response to the lawful actions of another; or you are engaged in criminal or otherwise unlawful acts yourself  but as I am not a wisconsin based lawyer I am not sure I can say anymore on the matter

Relevant statute appears to be here but I may be wrong.

https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2019/chapter-939/section-939-48/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Some of the answers to the questions you quite rightly raise might be in the relevant statutes. As far as I can tell you can't raise self defence if you go looking  for trouble; act in response to the lawful actions of another; or you are engaged in criminal or otherwise unlawful acts yourself  but as I am not a wisconsin based lawyer I am not sure I can say anymore on the matter

Relevant statute appears to be here but I may be wrong.

https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2019/chapter-939/section-939-48/

 

But the judge made the defense's case quite clear for them BB by telling them that all the jury had to consider was did Rittenhouse think he was in imminent danger at the time he fired.

Share this post


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

But the judge made the defense's case quite clear for them BB by telling them that all the jury had to consider was did Rittenhouse think he was in imminent danger at the time he fired.

Indeed KG! Which is why this particular case has such relevance to case law (as every news commentator in the US realises). As Purple pointed out, the Arbery jury is considering its verdict, and if they follow the same line as the Rittenhouse case three armed men attacking an unarmed black jogger will walk free on the grounds they felt threatened by Arbery attempting to defend himself against their attack.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52623151

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

But the judge made the defense's case quite clear for them BB by telling them that all the jury had to consider was did Rittenhouse think he was in imminent danger at the time he fired.

I didn't follow the trial (and i haven't qualified for the American Bar) so can't really comment on the case itself.  I posted as Indy's comments made me curious, so I thought I'd look it up a bit and share what I found.

If that really is all the judge said I would find that a bit odd, but as I said I can't really comment and haven't heard or read the directions given

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Some of the answers to the questions you quite rightly raise might be in the relevant statutes. As far as I can tell you can't raise self defence if you go looking  for trouble; act in response to the lawful actions of another; or you are engaged in criminal or otherwise unlawful acts yourself  but as I am not a wisconsin based lawyer I am not sure I can say anymore on the matter

Relevant statute appears to be here but I may be wrong.

https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2019/chapter-939/section-939-48/

 

Thanks BB, lots of grey areas and the paragraph that states even unlawful arrest you can’t use as self defence sums up my question.

The entire statement doesn’t actually say anything about a person travelling into a hostile situation with no reason, carrying a semi automatic rifle with the cause to do harm! Which to me is a massive under sight to the entire event!

Share this post


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

Thanks BB, lots of grey areas and the paragraph that states even unlawful arrest you can’t use as self defence sums up my question.

The entire statement doesn’t actually say anything about a person travelling into a hostile situation with no reason, carrying a semi automatic rifle with the cause to do harm! Which to me is a massive under sight to the entire event!

Combine the judges directions that the defence were allowed to call the men killed by Rittenhouse "Rioters" rather than protesters, and his advice to the jury that they only needed to believe that Rittenhouse felt threatened by the men he shot, then the "not guilty" outcome of the trial was little more than a formality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

Some of the answers to the questions you quite rightly raise might be in the relevant statutes. As far as I can tell you can't raise self defence if you go looking  for trouble; act in response to the lawful actions of another; or you are engaged in criminal or otherwise unlawful acts yourself  but as I am not a wisconsin based lawyer I am not sure I can say anymore on the matter

Relevant statute appears to be here but I may be wrong.

https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2019/chapter-939/section-939-48/

 

 I think the key paragraph is this, with the key phase being 'engages in unlawful conduct':

A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.

In Rittenhouse's case the argument from the defence almost certainly was that being an armed vigilante was not of itself illegal. Provocative but not illegal. And in the Arbery case the three armed vigilantes are claiming they were making a legal citizen's arrest. So from that it seems they were entitled to claim self-defence. And even if they were not, they still would still have the 'feared for their lives' get-out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Combine the judges directions that the defence were allowed to call the men killed by Rittenhouse "Rioters" rather than protesters, and his advice to the jury that they only needed to believe that Rittenhouse felt threatened by the men he shot, then the "not guilty" outcome of the trial was little more than a formality.

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”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 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”.

Very good point. As you, myself, and others have pointed out, the outcome of this trial gives carte blanche to any vigilante to turn up at any protest armed with military weaponry and shoot anyone he deems to be a threat. It is utter madness when the most rational advice you can give a protester is to arm themselves with an equal amount of weaponry and shoot first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 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.

All three in the Arbery case have just been found guilty, but it was a much more clearcut case than Rittenhouse. It would have been absurd if they had been acquitted.

Share this post


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

Indeed! blatantly racist.

How is it blatantly racist to express the FACTS 

THE KILLER is jailed Black rapist

Can you imagine how the BBC would have had a field day had the killer been a White guy

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, daly said:

How is it blatantly racist to express the FACTS 

THE KILLER is jailed Black rapist

Can you imagine how the BBC would have had a field day had the killer been a White guy

 

They would not have described him as a "WHITE" rapist and neither would you. You're a racist plain and simple.

Edited by horsefly

Share this post


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

All three in the Arbery case have just been found guilty, but it was a much more clearcut case than Rittenhouse. It would have been absurd if they had been acquitted.

Thank God for that! All hell would have broken loose if they had been acquitted. It will now be interesting to see what the US makes of the "self defence" claims in these two cases.

Share this post


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

Thank God for that! All hell would have broken loose if they had been acquitted. It will now be interesting to see what the US makes of the "self defence" claims in these two cases.

Worth pointing out for those who haven't followed the case that for months the local prosecutors refused to do anything, apart from blaming Arbery for his own death and defending the killers. It was only when a damning video emerged that they were charged.

Share this post


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

Worth pointing out for those who haven't followed the case that for months the local prosecutors refused to do anything, apart from blaming Arbery for his own death and defending the killers. It was only when a damning video emerged that they were charged.

Indeed! That video footage was awful to watch but absolutely crucial to the prosecution. It was literally like watching an old-fashioned lynching; utterly horrific. 

Share this post


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

They would not have described him as a "WHITE" rapist and neither would you. You're a racist plain and simple.

This is how the media described the atrocious behaviour of the white cop

Video shows white cop kneeling on neck of unarmed black man who appears to die under arrest

Facts Facts

I am far from a racist but the facts speak for themselves 

Don’t defend bastards like that man

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

This is how the media described the atrocious behaviour of the white cop

Video shows white cop kneeling on neck of unarmed black man who appears to die under arrest

Facts Facts

I am far from a racist but the facts speak for themselves 

Don’t defend bastards like that man

 

 

 

 

 

 

Disgraceful! Where have I defended him or the evil act he perpetrated? You really are an appalling individual. Do tell us what the fact about this man's colour "speaks". Why is it any more relevant than his height, weight, or hat size? What this man did was absolutely dispicable, but no one has provided any evidence or even suggested that it was a racially motivated crime, thus your focus on his colour is racist.

The example you give is precisely a case in which there were well founded allegations (proven in court) that the perpetrator of the crime was motivated by racist feelings, hence it is entirely relevant to the reporting of the case to identify his colour. Use your brain woman!

 

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...