BLM/Police Reform protests

The evidence (in this case video + witness accounts) would need to support the plan.

I don't. But there is no clear evidence of it. The videos provided shows enough information to provide a self defense case. As you know, in self defense cases, the onus is on the prosecution to prove without a doubt that the defendant did not act in self defense.

It's also pretty scary that the media concentrated on the political side of the case instead of trying to dissect the videos which were readably available after the incident and the legal aspect based on Wisconsin laws.

It seems to me that victim's #2 and #3 would have had a case for self defense had they happened to kill Rittenhouse. Although victim #2 reportedly ran 2 blocks away to confront him. I mean, if it's me, and I feel that my life is in danger in a situation like this, I am running away from such danger. Isn't that what you would do ? It looks like they wanted to be heroes for the community by containing an active shooter situation even if they didn't even see what happened. If this is the case, just like we don't want civilians acting like vigilantes, do we want civilians acting like law enforcement and killing people they didn't even see committing the crime ? I mean, in certain situations it's not hard to deduce that someone is indiscriminately killing people. That's why I've said it before, for victims #2 and #3 it's easy to see what prompted their actions, but that doesn't negate Rittenhouse's point of view. He was already attacked by one person and now he has a mob chasing him down the road trying to physically attack him.

I agree he had no business being there. But from a legal perspective that's irrelevant as he wasn't breaking any law ... except for the underage carrying a gun part.

 

I haven't expressed that one can lose self defense rights even if they are not indiscriminately shooting people. So point taken. But I do understand that. For example, if Rittenhouse shoots victim #3 again to kill him after the victim clearly backs off and presents no threat anymore, then he is not entitled to self defense.

I am only mentioning this as a reply to the point if the victims also had a right to defend themselves in this case.

- 3rd victim we know his state of mind because he survived and testified.
- 2nd victim the only other reason I can think of other than acting like a hero IMO would be if he had family and friends out there he had an interest in protecting. Although his girlfriend did not mention that.
- Rosenbaum's motive just seems irrelevant since he did not seem to be in any danger when he started chasing the defendant.

It's relevant because according to witness testimony, he said that he would kill any of the armed militia if he caught them any of them alone and Rittenhouse was there to hear it. That clearly plays a role in the mind of the defendant. How does it not ?

Mortal verbal threat => Chase => Reach for the gun. ... the whole context shows that Rittenhouse does not have to know what's Rosenbaum's intentions are once he physically puts a hand on his rifle. It's at least reasonable for him to believe he is in danger. None of us are stupid enough to be in Rittenhouse's place, but if you say you wouldn't feel threatened in that same situation, you're a much better and braver person than most.

I believe you're wrong in your last statement. One does not have to shoot someone to present deadly danger. The law also says mortal danger and threat of serious bodily injury for a self defense case. Which actually is from what I hear very helpful for domestic abuse victims.

 

I only mentioned intention of 3rd parties as a reply to a comment on what their rights were in that situation. Except for Rosenbaum in which yes, it seems like him vocalizing his intentions through verbal threat may have played a role into what happened.

 

Oh, no no no no no...

1462898596509106180 is not a valid tweet id

I can't possibly imagine something bad happening with this. No, sir...

 

I have not been one to join the perpetual chorus of people calling for Greene’s expulsion solely because of the futility of needing 2/3 vote. But, my God @GOPLeader, is this really what your caucus is going to stand for and tolerate? Let’s take this to the voters in 2022 and see. pic.twitter.com/chKuzygD56

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) November 22, 2021

 

To me this is the heart of the case - especially the "can't see the wood for the trees" policy type issues.

There's clear evidence of planning and foresight - but unfortunately the Judge excluded the best bits on a propensity basis. I get why that was, but in this case I think it was an incorrect ruling because the planning build up reveals why he went there, and what his intention was. i.e. a key issue at trial.

I argue that prior evidence goes to the most important issue at trial - namely that he does not come to self defence with clean hands. (required for self defence).

I don't believe the car yard nonsense. I believe he went there for the military cosplay with fantasies of shooting people. This is reinforced by his interactions with law enforcement. He expressly adopts the posture of a vigilante or irregular militia member who is going to enforce the law with his weapon.

Even if we then accept that things then got out of hand and he subjectively believed his life was in imminent danger, the subsequent victims were clearly justified in attacking him - believing him to be an active shooter.

So you now have an OK Corral shootout law, where everyone can attack/shoot everyone else in self defense

It can't be correct

 

Yeah - reminds me a lot of Cormack McCarthy's writing.

 

Again, this is the Treyvon Martin defense. Those who think Zimmerman is in the right think the conflict started when the first punch was thrown, not when Zimmerman started to follow Martin, or when Zimmerman got out of his car. Zimmerman initiated the confrontation well prior to the first punch being thrown. Just like Rittenhouse initiated the confrontation when he brought and displayed a weapon as a civilian in a tense environment, based on gun violence.

 

Pod Save America had good discussion on this in the broader context today

It's really worrying how this kind of violence is being celebrated. GOP congress people even invited KR to intern after he killed 3 people. They don't care if people die, if their followers become killers, or get shot dead (insurrection).

It's a very bad situation.

 

Not there. That is suburbs bordering on the exburbs. If it happens, I would have expected in Brookfield or Menomonee Falls or one of the northeastern burbs, or even in Kenosha. Waukesha doesn't seem right.

 

They're not really 'questioning' it. It's classic whataboutism from an authoritarian regime.

 

Yes, although I think there's some real differences--the prosecution in Rittenhouse wasn't good, but you could argue that Zimmerman prosecutors were even worse. Zimmerman's version of events didn't match the forensic evidence very well. He claimed he shot Martin while the former was straddled on top of him & pounding his head against the sidewalk, but Martin's body was found like 10 feet from the sidewalk.

 

I agree, but giving the CCP any kind of credence is not the way to get there.