Kyle Rittenhouse's so-called victim just admitted under oath that KR shot him self-defense

a reply to: seagull

I meant "prove his innocence" in absolute sarcasm.

Its a big problem with trials like this.

KR was charged on Aug 27 2020. 2 days after the night in question. His trial started Nov 2021, over a year since.

Every armchair legal analysis, camera angle, possibility and opinion has been discussed across all media and is extremely politicized.

In MSM, the facts have been clouded, the law perverted and minds made up.

No fair trial is possible with this long of a delay.

Thus I made the comment.

a reply to: JinMI

that's what I figured.

a reply to: JBurns

You are throwing out totally hypothetical situations, and when you don’t get the answers you want, attempt to deflect and muddy the waters as much as possible to avoid admitting your arguments simply aren’t relevant to KRs case.

I'm not looking for answers.
I'm examining the legal definition of self defense, that provides for all kinds of scenarios, the outcomes of which are all finally dependent on the jury's interpretation of the mindset of the individuals involved. In conclusion, it's not enough to just claim self defense, the jury has to agree.

If you don't like my posts, scroll right on by, brother.

I don't care if you agree with me or not. I'm used to posters who just want to bully me by chastising me and criticizing the validity of my contribution to ATS thread's.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I'm used to posters who just want to bully me by chastising me and criticizing the validity of my contribution to ATS thread's.

Oh yes, you're oh so fragile of a victim.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I don’t dislike your posts, merely your attempts to conflate hypothetical situations with KR’s case and unique circumstances.

I also do not seek to “bully” you, nor should pointing out the law be considered. You are generally a good ATSer, no question there. But why do you let all objectivity fly out the window over something as petty as politics? It doesn’t make sense.

The beauty of having video and concretely established facts in a court of law is supposed to mean we no longer have to wonder, opine or pontificate on this cases circumstances. We have all the facts now.

By posting them in response to the KR case, it makes it appear as though you are arguing that KR should only be convicted because another person in another state with another set of circumstances may also be convicted. If I am mistaken, kindly show me where this is not the case.

I apologize if my post can be made out as a personal attack on you. I only meant to challenge your argument and not you as an individual

a reply to: JBurns

it makes it appear as though you are arguing that KR should only be convicted because another person in another state with another set of circumstances may also be convicted.

A claim of self defense is a claim of self defense in any state...you know, inalienable rights and all.

It doesn't matter what state the stabby meth head shoplifter was in, I'm sure there are plenty of crazed meth heads in Wisconsin. The point is, that crazed shoplifter could easily claim that he was in fear for his life. Why wouldn't that defense fly in any state, including Wisconsin? Because a jury wouldn't be sympathetic and would reject his self defense claim. Because a jury decides, case by case, what is self defense.

The prosecution, in this case, is trying to convince the jury to reject Rittenhouse's self defense claim. The defense is trying to invoke the jury's sympathy for each time Rittenhouse pulled the trigger on his long gun.

I know that your mind is made up, but the jury still has yet to decide on each and every count placed before them. It's all hindsight now.

And, in case you haven't noticed, Rittenhouse isn't just some random kid, he's a famous poster boy for far right militia type vigilante activism. The whole world is watching and the whole country and every state will be effected by the outcome of this trial. How vigilantism is employed through activism after this trial will play out in countless scenarios across the country.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I'm used to posters who just want to bully me by chastising me and criticizing the validity of my contribution to ATS thread's.

Oh yes, you're oh so fragile of a victim.

I most certainly am not.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JBurns

You are throwing out totally hypothetical situations, and when you don’t get the answers you want, attempt to deflect and muddy the waters as much as possible to avoid admitting your arguments simply aren’t relevant to KRs case.

I'm not looking for answers.
I'm examining the legal definition of self defense, that provides for all kinds of scenarios, the outcomes of which are all finally dependent on the jury's interpretation of the mindset of the individuals involved. In conclusion, it's not enough to just claim self defense, the jury has to agree.

If you don't like my posts, scroll right on by, brother.

I don't care if you agree with me or not. I'm used to posters who just want to bully me by chastising me and criticizing the validity of my contribution to ATS thread's.

I'd recommend watching some videos by this gentleman, Massad Ayoob. He explains in detail the legal considerations and all facets of what constitutes "deadly force", when "deadly force" is justified, and evaluation criteria that go into trial juries.

I would pay particular attention to his discussions around mob/group intimidation and pursuit, and how such a scenario can tilt the scale towards use of deadly force.

Put that in context into the events we saw in Kenosha that night. Think about the multiple individuals pursuing Rittenhouse, SOME among that group attacking him, and the fact that Rittenhouse ONLY shot 3 of the group that was surrounding him. He did this with IMO incredible discretion and selectivity. He could've unloaded his magazines and put down a number of others that were surrounding and threatening him. He only shot the ones that charged him and physically threatened/assaulted him, either by grabbing/pushing Rittenhouse, brandishing a firearm or coking back a skateboard to pummel him.

If you look back at the footage (I haven't watched in a while but recollect it mostly), once Rittenhouse eliminated those attacking him, he pauses to look around for more attackers, with the rifle unslung, charged and ready to fire, but not pointing at any people. The remaining rioters, in probably the smartest decisions of their lives, put up their hands to gesture they weren't a threat, and backed off.

My intuition tells me that the facts above, when considered along how Rittenhouse tried to flee/retreat, and only used deadly force against those physically assaulting him or pointing a weapon at him, are going to be pretty significant in the verdict. We will see.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Keep in mind there's some 800 number help lines available 24 hours.

Help is just one phone call away 😃

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The stabby meth head example isn’t the same thing though.

In that case, agents of a shopkeeper enjoy a privilege known as investigative detention which private citizens making an arrest do not. Merchants privilege or shopkeepers privilege enables them to briefly detain someone without making an arrest for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not a theft did actually occur. Unlike a private citizen, if a shopkeeper or their agent detains someone who was factually not shoplifting, they do not face charges or torts relating to false arrest or unlawful detention.

You could apply this example to KRs case if 1) they had actually attempted to arrest him and 2) the arrest was lawful. If both of those statements are not true, then the claim won’t hold up.

In the case you posit, it wouldn’t apply because the shoplifter is attempting to use deadly force to prevent a lawful arrest. There was also no objective reason to suspect they were attempting anything other than a detention or arrest. No threats were made, no one put him on the ground and starting beating him with objects, no reason at all to think it was anything but an arrest. You have no right to resist arrest, under any circumstances, even when it is a private citizen or shopkeeper making the arrest. The key is, you must inform the person they are under arrest and a reasonable person must be able to draw the same conclusions under the circumstances and in the case of a private citizen You Must Be Correct in the basis for the arrest.

Rosenbaum threatened KRs life and then created conditions by which he could follow through. Finally, he actually attempted to carry out the threats he had made.

You are right though, it is the jury who will decide. But any objective analysis of this case (and not based on another case somewhere else) shows KR is likely to be acquitted of the most serious charges against him. Remember, KR has already been found not guilty of violating the curfew by the judge.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I'm used to posters who just want to bully me by chastising me and criticizing the validity of my contribution to ATS thread's.

Oh yes, you're oh so fragile of a victim.

I most certainly am not.

Agreed. So stop playing the victim.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

He's pretty good. One thing is that you have to become familiar with your local laws as well. Pennsylvania had a "duty to retreat" law for a while. That one always pissed me off. If I think I'm facing a threat, I always try to find a defensible position. Under that law I would have had to abandon it to show that I tried to flee. That's not always good if the bad guy has a gun. When I first took training to be an armed guard, the instructor asked who lived in a house where all of the family slept upstairs? Several of us raised our hands. We were told that because of the way the law was written at that time (1991) if somebody broke in and you went downstairs to confront them, you were no longer covered by self defense. Thankfully that law has been changed.

One of the places that I used to work was a shelter for battered and abused spouses and their children. It was literally a hide out for them. The people there had a verified threat against them. That's why my employer had all of the training. After I left there I kept current on it up until a few years ago.

a reply to: JBurns
I think a gun charge too, is pretty much out, the judge said was not going to rule on it, but would instruct the jury.

I saw this on Tim Pool, I recall something like that on Friday, but I guess I missed the relevance.

a reply to: vonclod

What I noticed was yesterday the Prosecutor was requesting that the Judge tell the Jury that they could find Rittenhouse guilty of lesser charges, in his instructions to the Jury. That worries me. There has already been people taking pictures of the Jurors and threatening the Judge. I'm concerned that the Jury may find him guilty of a lesser charge as a compromise.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: vonclod

What I noticed was yesterday the Prosecutor was requesting that the Judge tell the Jury that they could find Rittenhouse guilty of lesser charges, in his instructions to the Jury. That worries me. There has already been people taking pictures of the Jurors and threatening the Judge. I'm concerned that the Jury may find him guilty of a lesser charge as a compromise.

Yes, it means Binger knows the case is weak(must of known from the start), but like you say, it opens other doors, the jury might be more comfortable with.

An iron fist should be used on threats, or any picture taking of the jury.

a reply to: vonclod
The Judge hasn't instructed the Jury yet. He may not put that in the instructions. In my opinion no other charges should be considered other than what Rittenhouse was originally charged with. If the Prosecution can't prove them, they shouldn't have brought charges.

a reply to: JIMC5499

I am very confused as to why they agreed to the waiver that permits consideration of lesser charges. The judge did explain it quite well though, and told KR that without them it was an all or nothing (go for broke) proposition. Kyle personally consented as did his defense attorneys, so I have to believe it was the right call.

One thing is certain, he has a top notch team and the judge has been appropriately pro-defendant. There aren’t many good judges like this left, I shutter to imagine a world with a bunch of ideologue millennials on the bench. I truly hope we can splinter off by then.

a reply to: vonclod

Agreed!

The law supposedly prohibiting possession of the firearm is poorly written and difficult to understand how it applies. As the judge said, it’s no law at all. He is the first reasonable person KR has encountered since the police and DA rushed to judgement and filed charges

It looks as good as it can look for Kyle. I was much more worried about the Zimmerman case, which ended up turning out about how I think it should have.

Our ability to protect our homes and property from violent extremists is at stake. If they successfully wipe out self defense along with defund/demoralize police, I expect far greater numbers of masked anonymous vigilantes will start popping up. Can’t blame people who are naturally fed up with the mayhem and lawlessness.

a reply to: projectvxn

The Communist MSNBC and CNN crowd are counting on a show trial. Moreover, they are seeking a Stalinist purge of anybody who isn't politically aligned with them. Recall for a moment that the same people are claiming that our societies are racist. They wish to impose the collective responsibility as a tool of oppression and not justice. If someone is consistent on that issue or displays common sense, they would hold the Mayors to account for letting the civil unrest unfold.

Also, the left-wing propaganda outlet's behaviour wasn't challenging for people to foresee. At some point, their narrative concerning a future incident would wrongfully condemn someone. The only reason such a media witch hunt didn't happen previously is that Derek Chauvin openly murdered George Floyd. But the red flags in the so-called media coverage of Floyd's murder stood out to anyone who was paying attention.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

I haven't really been following the trial.
That being said, IDK if that this confession alone would sway me if I was on the jury. I mean, Rittenhouse did just shoot someone in the head. Then you had these guys, probably thinking they were the good guys, chasing him down. The guy with the gun didn't shoot Rittenhouse. Why not? Maybe he thought he could hold him at gun point till the cops came or to do a citizens' arrest.

Clearly, both parties thought they were the good guys with guns.

Even if you were interviewed for the jury, you would have never made it on the jury. Dismissed for cause as they say, according to what you said in that reply.