Seeing we always need to get out of our echo chamber - here's how nazi adjacent white nationalist Tucker Fishsticks is covering the controversy - providing crucial balance from both sides. Apparently the Fake US news media convinced the whole world the victims were black Great insights from GG, a man who complains about the fake news media every day, yet is paid to appear on Fishsticks show - which is clearly the only non-fake news on television. Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald slams the media for spinning a false narrative about Kyle Rittenhouse that misled the world pic.twitter.com/afRyq9mYdS— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) November 20, 2021
@xtomx no doubt like you, i get exasperated with people who claim what "the law" is without any reference/analysis of the precedents. But without access to lexis I am a bit hampered as to how "provocation" is interpreted under Wisconsin law? Do you have any thoughts on this? I have found a criminal law professor or two who have articulated the 5 point test, and one is you have to come to justification with clean hands. But I really do wonder what has been found to qualify? Obviously questions of fact are up the jury, but I wonder if a different judge might have directed the jury better. I know the prosecutor made these points in closing, but of course I don't have access to his legal submissions to the judge on this aspect.
Oh well.....All is good then. (If that charade could not be more absurd....) "I’m not a racist person. I support the BLM movement," Kyle Rittenhouse, who was recently acquitted for murder, told Tucker Carlson. https://t.co/v7F0Loid9g— The Hill (@thehill) November 21, 2021
If that person is indiscriminately shooting people they are not entitled to self defense. It's not that difficult of a concept to understand. The 2nd and 3rd victims didn't even see what happened between Rosenbaum and Rittenhouse and it looks like they made an assumption he was actively shooting people. But you can't ignore the point of view of the other person. In this case, given Rosenbaum's state of mind and now what we know of his mental health issues, he could have very easily gotten his gun and shot him. Don't forget Rittenhouse wasn't even the first one to fire a shot during that chase. I don't know how one can ignore that. It's a shitty situation no doubt, but one that should be handled through legislation.
That's mostly what I've been saying. Policy needs to change first. In Rittenhouse's case, if it was illegal for one to open carry (or conceal carry) in that situation, perhaps he makes a different decision that night. If he doesn't, then he is clearly breaking the law in his first act of showing up armed and then you can at least charge him with some count of homicide. You have to give him a chance to make that decision. That's why I think it's BS that he got away with the charge of carrying a gun while underage. He clearly broke the law there and the intent wasn't hunting. But you could not prove his intent that night was to kill. There was no such evidence. In your example of Proud Boys vs Anti-Proud Boys militias, someone has to do something physically threatening for that to happen. I will repeat, Rittenhouse's case is very specific in the sense that he was clearly trying to avoid confrontation by running away from physical confrontation. He even keeps running when he is hit in the back of the head before he falls. Doesn't turn around and shoot. I truly doubt that was his grand plan that evening to setup someone so he could kill...but I also wouldn't put my hand on fire for him. In 2020 we've actually had countless incidents of militias armed to the teeth (mostly on the right but also militia supporting BLM as I've posted before) out in theses protests with plenty of verbal wars and nothing like that happened. Perhaps we were lucky or perhaps most are still not that irresponsible.
Intent is always just inferred from physical actions Taking a weapon to a protest exhibits at least some evidence of such intent. Otherwise why take a lethal weapon? In general I agree about the need for statutory reform. Of course it won't happen. But it ought to because it is hardly great for law enforcement that people come to protests tooled up. That is actually in conflict with the constitutional right to protest. There is no right to violence. Again this is where I differ but my experience on the Pistorius case shows lay people struggle with what intention means. When you sleep with a gun beside your bed, that actually shows planning, foresight and intention (in the right circumstance). Same as when you go to a protest tooled up, If you ask me, the issue is actually not to do with his intent, which he clearly demonstrated, but with the conflict in US jurisprudence. On the one hand you have the 1A right to protest, but on the other hand a 2A guy can take a gun to a protest to intimidate. Then, given shooting culture in the US you arrive in a situation where everyone thinks they are acting in self defence but actually Rittenhouse caused that. . The trouble is politicians and right wing media continue to incite. Thanks for the thoughtful post.
Remember the protests involved setting businesses on fire. People need to stop getting triggered by people exercising their second amendment right. Just ignore the fvckers. If you do not attack them, they can't claim self defense.
I was actually doing some research on this topic a few months ago, for a criminal law course I designed (criminal law definitely not being my area of experience). Not surprisingly, the reported cases are all over the place on this issue, which highlights the problem I have with the verdict. There was one case that may have had bearing on the case in Kenosha. State v. Coleman, 181 Wis. 2d 364, 514 N.W.2d 421 (Wis Ct. App. 1993) stated the victims prior bad acts (and, in this case criminal convictions) were not relevant, as the defendant did not know of them. I would argue that the judge in the Kenosha case by not allowing the three people shot to be called "victims" (which the judge called a "very, very loaded term"), but allowing the defense to call the three people shot "looters" and "arsonists" was in violation of this, as none had been convicted of looting (a specific criminal offense in Wisconsin, the judge stating the defense had to show the people shot were "engaged" in that activity-which is not the legal standard for those terms) and the defendant did not know what the people he shot had been doing prior to the incidents. As an aside, I was speaking with a friend of mine who practiced in Milwaukee and he mentioned he had been in front of Judge Schroeder many times in Kenosha County and the guy is an absolute loon.
Again, you have the worst take on the case. The protests may have included some people setting some businesses on fire. That is a crime and the police should arrest the perpetrators. That was not the basis for the protest. Also, so what if "the protests involved setting businesses on fire"? That is not justification for shooting people. "Business fires" are not MORE important than human life. Once again, there is no second amendment right to parade around the streets in a volatile situation cosplaying some sort of faux army man. We have been through this already. "Open carry" is a statutory privilege, not a Constitutional Right. "Just ignore the fvckers" is not a very good response, if the victims felt threatened for their lives by the kid cospalying some sort of faux army man armed with an AR-15. If they felt threatened, don't they have the "right" to attempt to defend themselves from that direct and real threat? That self-defense may involve attempting to disarm the individual armed with the AR-15, thus diffusing the situation. His actions may have been within with statutory rights (although that is debatable), but those actions could also be seen as reckless in the eyes of the law and threatening to the people around him. The fact that they were not in this particular case seems to me to be concerning. Finally, your use of the word "triggered" is particularly concerning.
Taking a weapon to a protest (or anywhere for that matter) obviously seems to imply that you are willing to use it under certain conditions. Since in Wisconsin it doesn't seem to be a crime to open carry during protests (which may evolve into a riot), it seems obvious to me that the intent, or willingness to use it under a self defense situation, becomes irrelevant in the court of law. At that point you have to judge the case as it was in this trial, in the context of how the physical confrontation evolved and escalated. I'd imagine someone can even plan to proactively kill someone in a protest but before they can execute their plan, they get into a situation where self defense is justified. The plan doesn't become an act until it's executed. I would have been more convinced of Rittenhouse's guilt had we seen him act reckless with his gun threatening people and therefore escalating the situation himself. At that point, the other person is fully entitled to feel threatened and act in defense to which I'd imagine Rittenhouse wouldn't be able to so easily claim self defense. The argument for him being the instigator here is the rifle around his neck and him putting out fires...none of which is illegal. Yeah, it antagonizes the protesters, but hey, you shouldn't be setting the city on fire. Out of curiosity, one of the guys setting the fire to the dumpster and pushing it I think towards the gas station was openly holding a hand gun while doing it. Incidentally he was also the guy who shot in the air when Rittenhouse was running from Rosenbaum. Why take a gun to a protest ? I guess it can be from legitimate self defense reasons (3rd victim as an example) or as it seem to be common with some in the US in these situations, to feel like you are "keeping the order".
Well, wouldn't the "plan to proactively kill someone" mean there was the relevant mens rea for "murder/first degree intentional homicide." Of course, there can be intervening events or activities. How do you know he did not act recklessly? Trial by "viral" video is a pretty scary way to run a case. Perhaps (and likely), the people he ended up shooting felt that their lives were in danger from the "him being the instigator here... [by] the rifle around his neck." Aren't they entitled to act in self-defense, by, say, trying to disarm the instigator? The legality of that action may or may not be relevant when discussing the applicability and rationality of that fear, but it "not being illegal" is not dispositive as to their fear. That makes no sense. As the Defendant was not attending "the protest," there was no need for him to have a gun for "legitimate self defense reasons." He was going to the protest for a specific reason, a reason he admitted, to allegedly "protect" a business that he had no interest (financial, familial, business) in protecting. This is the job of the police, not 17 year old cosplayers.
It does not have to be "indiscriminately shooting people." That is not the standard. It may not be a "difficult concept to understand," but you have demonstrated repeatedly that you do not understand it. Why is the "state of mind" of the person he shot and killed relevant? If it is relevant, how can it be measured and tested, since is, well, dead at the hands of the defendant? There is so much wrong with this. If the 2nd and 3rd victims did not see what happened, what is the relevance to bring it up? You cannot know the point of view of "the other person," if the other person is dead. In this case, the defendant did not know Rosenbaum's "state of mind," you do not know Rosenbaum's "state of mind," and you have absolutely nothing to support that he would have "easily gotten his gun." That is pure conjecture. You have no knowledge as to whether Rosenbaum would have "shot him" (meaning the defendant, I presume). There is no evidence to support this contention. It is not relevant to the situation. Nobody shot at the defendant, did they? That would be a potential situation that might raise to self-defense.
No disrespect but what you have posted here just isn't a legal argument - as @xtomx largely broke down Especially you seem to switch from intention of Rittenhaus (mens rea) to actions of Rittenhaus (actus reus) to intentions of 3rd parties which aren't even relevant.
I mean in the end, the person who demonstrated foresight and planning to shoot people, and then shot 3 people, was Kyle Rittenhouse and not anyone else.
Interesting I agree this was one of the most egregious aspects of the Judge's take on trial procedure.
People should not loot businesses and people should not shoot people trying to loot businesses. Don't get me wrong I personally would not get involved in trying to stop a crime, some crazy fvckers like Rittenhouse want to play cowboy that is on them. I will walk away from a crime scene, so yeah I am not shooting any one to stop a crime, but some other people will.