Rittenhouse… likely not guilty.

LV426 said:
Everyone thought James Fields would be acquitted for running over Heather Heyer with his car, a case with many, many similarities to this one...Fields' defense was that he felt threatened by the crowd, so that's why he drove into them.

Kyle also felt threatened by the crowd, which is why he fired into it before anyone tried to disarm him.

An active shooter does not have the right to self-defense.
Click to expand...

He is going to say he thought one of those guys he shot had a gun pointed at him.
 
Concart said:
BULL. SHIT. Stop defending a murderer. He was not assualted. Every single person there can claim self defense because this little fucking scumbag had just killed someone and not relinquished his weapon. He was on the phone. Did he call 911? Nope. He called his buddy. And he didn't attempt to turn himself in. He walked right past the cops and went home. Your defense of this is disgusting. Period. Full stop.
Click to expand...
My position is identical to Jarod’s. A real lawyer.
Jarod said:
I'm guessing Rittenhouse will get acquitted, and frankly he probably should get acquitted based on the state of the law. It's going to be hard for a jury to conclusively decide, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he wasn't acting in self defense. The fact that he was a smooth-brained white-supremacist-military-fetishist-small-Dick-energy-LARPer is relevant to the story and how he should be treated by society going forward, but jurors may decide it isn't relevant (assuming they even get to hear about it).

I could be wrong and part of me hopes that I am, but part of me also hopes that if the law provides that he's entitled to claim self-defense under the circumstances he successfully claimed it. The law has the same effect whether popular or not, and the way to fix it is to fix the law, not to twist it so that someone gets wrongfully convicted, even if that person is an inveterate fucknut. 
Click to expand...
 
Jarod said:
He is going to say he thought one of those guys he shot had a gun pointed at him.
Click to expand...

And I am going to say tough shit. YOU made the decision bring a weapon you are not allowed to possess to an area that is a tinder box. You are responsible for your own actions. He killed two unarmed individuals. You cannot put assault someone and then claim self defense when they fight back. To the group that chased him down he was an active shooter with a lethal weapon. That's on him.
 
Jarod said:
He is going to say he thought one of those guys he shot had a gun pointed at him.
Click to expand...

Well, for him to do that he's gonna have to take the stand.

If he foolishly does, which I think he will, the prosecution is going to tear him apart on cross...and they'll get the last word on his testimony, leaving that in the minds of the jurors.

I don't believe Kyle has the capability of holding it together on the stand...but I think his lawyers think he's sympathetic, so they may run the ultimate gamble.

But my experience has always been that the defense doesn't put the defendant on the stand, and it's a really dumb strategy to do so.

So Kyle's lawyers will say he felt threatened, but the prosecution can just say "well, if he really felt that threatened, why didn't he swear it on the stand?"
 
Jarod said:
I'm guessing Rittenhouse will get acquitted, and frankly he probably should get acquitted based on the state of the law. It's going to be hard for a jury to conclusively decide, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he wasn't acting in self defense.
Click to expand...

^Getting ready to cry like a baby.

Jarod said:
The fact that he was a smooth-brained white-supremacist-military-fetishist-small-Dick-energy-LARPer is relevant to the story and how he should be treated by society going forward, but jurors may decide it isn't relevant (assuming they even get to hear about it).
Click to expand...

No sad sack, those aren't facts. Those are the shrill rants of a triggered leftist loon lacking any self awareness or connection to reality and the facts. :palm:

Jarod said:
I could be wrong ....
Click to expand...

We're quite used to that. :thumbsup:
 
NiftyNiblick said:
If he gets acquitted, he'll merely face non-judicial justice.
Every gang banger in the mid-west knows his face and his idiot mother's, too.
He won't be around long.
Click to expand...

Fascist promoting criminal thuggery. This douchebag is the poster moron for the Democratic Party of Lying Jackasses.
you-are-the-stupidest-asshole-victoria-franklin.gif

stupid-rhoc.gif
 
LV426 said:
Well, for him to do that he's gonna have to take the stand.

If he foolishly does, which I think he will, the prosecution is going to tear him apart on cross...and they'll get the last word on his testimony, leaving that in the minds of the jurors.

I don't believe Kyle has the capability of holding it together on the stand...but I think his lawyers think he's sympathetic, so they may run the ultimate gamble.

But my experience has always been that the defense doesn't put the defendant on the stand, and it's a really dumb strategy to do so.

So Kyle's lawyers will say he felt threatened, but the prosecution can just say "well, if he really felt that threatened, why didn't he swear it on the stand?"
Click to expand...

You make very good points, we will see what happens. I was just reading the Wisconsin Statute on Self Defense and its not as bad as I thought. If the gun charge stands.. I dont think he has a right to claim self defense.

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.
(1)  A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.


(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:
1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity at the time.
 
Jarod said:
You make very good points, we will see what happens. I was just reading the Wisconsin Statute on Self Defense and its not as bad as I thought. If the gun charge stands.. I dont think he has a right to claim self defense.

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.
(1)  A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.


(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:
1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity at the time.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he was an active shooter at the time those people were trying to disarm him...and I think many jurors can relate to the threat of an active shooter since we see those active shooters almost every week.

I also read that the gun he was carrying wasn't even his...it was a gun someone up there gave him. But I don't know if that is true or not...it sounds like a rumor. I always understood that his mommy gave him the gun when she dropped him off at the fascist get-together, but if he got the gun from someone else, then that makes this whole thing way worse for him (and for whomever gave him the gun).
 
This boils down to the first guy that Kyle shot and if that was self defense . If is was the the othe two shootings were also self defense. I think he may get convicted of some weapons change though.
 
ExpressLane said:
This boils down to the first guy that Kyle shot and if that was self defense
Click to expand...

The only way to prove it was self-defense is for Kyle to take the stand and testify, which his lawyers SHOULD NOT DO because he doesn't have the character or fortitude to keep it together during cross.

He would need to convince the jury that he felt his life was being threatened by a guy holding a skateboard.

He is NOT a sympathetic defendant, and letting the prosecution have the last word in his testimony will guarantee a guilty verdict.

Kyle should have taken a plea deal; had he done that, he probably would be released by the time he's 35.

But taking this to trial and putting all faith in the jury to view him as sympathetic is risking life sentences and no parole.

I think in the end, he's going to face the same sentence James Fields faced...20 to life.
 
anonymoose said:
Rosenbaum had been discharged that day from a psychiatric hospital after a suicide attempt. He suffered from bipolar disorder and spent the majority of his adult life in jail for sexual conduct with children when he was 18.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemima...ha-hes-not-part-of-a-militia/?sh=3941814c429f
Click to expand...

So it's okay to shoot him. LOL at you. You are allowed to use deadly force only if you reasonably believe that deadly force will be used against you. Rosenbaum was armed with a plastic bag. At the very least, this is negligent homicide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top