Jury selection begins tomorrow in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse who shot three people, killing two of them during riots following a police shooing in Kenosha, Wisconsin, last year. That means we’re all going to be inundated with a rehashing of not only what happened that night, but also with lots of legal hot takes — intellectually honest or not — on the use of armed self-defense and what the law really says.
Rittenhouse and his attorneys are, obviously, claiming the shootings were acts of self-defense. That’s in no small part due to the extensive video evidence that shows the 17-year-old was defending himself from attackers each time he pulled the trigger of his rifle that night.
In their framing of the upcoming trial, mainstream media outlets are — gently — preparing their readers for the fact that much of the law is on Rittenhouse’s side.
The experienced journalists at the eminently credible Associated Press are acknowledging the evidentiary hill prosecutors have to climb. In an article titled Legal experts see strong self-defense claim for Rittenhouse they note that . . .
Legal experts say under Wisconsin law he has a strong case. What’s less clear is whether prosecutors will be able to persuade the jury that Rittenhouse created a deadly situation by showing up in Kenosha with an AR-style semiautomatic rifle — and that in doing so he forfeited his claim to self-defense. …
Rittenhouse’s attorneys say he came to Kenosha not to hurt anyone but to protect businesses from damage and looting. And they say the people he shot left him no choice.
They’re expected to highlight Rosenbaum’s pursuit of Rittenhouse, and Huber and Grosskreutz subsequently coming at him. The defense has said Rosenbaum and Huber tried to wrest Rittenhouse’s rifle away, leading Rittenhouse to fear he would be shot with his own weapon.
As for whether he should have been in Kenosha at all . . .
Under self-defense law and precedent, Rittenhouse’s motives for being in Kenosha are irrelevant to whether he had a legal right to shoot when threatened, some legal experts say. What matters is what happened in the minutes surrounding the shooting, Branca said.
“If I had a 17-year-old-son, I would not encourage him to engage in this kind of behavior. But poor judgment is not a crime,” said Branca, who thinks Rittenhouse has a strong case for self-defense.
The culture warriors at the New York Times, however, after acknowledging the statutes involved, want their readers to know the trial will be about more than just the law.
“It’s a battle of the narratives,” said Steven Wright, a law professor at the University of Wisconsin. “People will either see this as a young man who came across state lines with a weapon intending to do trouble, or people will come with the belief that he came here with a medical kit and attempted to defend the law and defend people.” …
Mary D. M. Fan, a law professor at the University of Washington, said that while the trial would focus on the definition of self-defense, it would also be about the Second Amendment, race, politics and the role of free speech.
“Let’s be real — why is this such a polarizing case?” she said. “It’s also a referendum on fiercely different views on protests that have rocked this nation.”
In addition to the facts of the case and the law, the outcome could turn on whether a jury is willing to risk the possibility of more violence should Rittenhouse be acquitted. It only takes one juror.
Kyle Rittenhouse should never have been charged to begin with. He was being attacked by these ANTIFA and BLM thugs. This is an example of prosecutorial overreach.
I think it was also an abuse of prosecutorial authority to strike against Trump. Proof the leftists will try every trick imaginable and will not hesitate to hurt everyone possible to accomplish their seditious objectives.
The prosecutor in this trial is well known for using his position in the system to push a narrative at the expense of justice from what I’ve read and heard by people with either direct knowledge of his work or folks that are familiar with his previous tactics and efforts. He has done everything he can short of standing on a corner with a bullhorn yelling, “Kyle is a vicious murder that was looking to shoot people!” in regards to this trial.
He has used several media platforms to push lies and disinformation about Kyle’s past and intent the evening of the defensive gun use. Hell, I actually watched a commercial that was created by a group working to spread disinformation about the Rittenhouse case on my local TV channel that was part of this campaign of lies. I’m an hour away from Kenosha and would have no effect on this case in any way. It was disgusting and I wondered why this commercial was being aired in my community and to what purpose other than to create a false narrative of guilt and intent.
The lead attorney for Kyle (Robert Barnes) has made public statements on several occasions regarding the ethics of the prosecution and their media blitz of misinformation. He is considering personally suing the Kenosha prosecutor for his actions leading up to this case IF I recall correctly. He is also a critic of Lynn Wood who initially represented Kyle and essentially (according to Barnes) stole millions from the original public donations for Kyle’s defense. Lets not forget that Wood is or at least was for a while, the lead defense attorney for several of the J6 defendants. We know how that’s turned out. Wood was fired by most of those folks after he effectively skipped out on them as well.
The prosecution will gladly hang this kid’s character and send him to prison for life to cover for the lack of responsibility, support and accountability that the governor, mayor of Kenosha and BLM/Antifa rioters hold in this case.
This is another great example of the “system” trying to blame the little guy for their culpability and failure.
Greed is a helluva drug.
Coke’s better and, in the long run, cheaper.
IF the prosecutore in this debacle actually DID post such things on the media in that area where the jury pool is drwn, it could be a basis for a claim of salting the jury pool ahead of trial, and thus nullifying any verdict. This DA is as crooked as any I’ve ever read about.
***EDIT***
Per current, new information about the people involved in this case, Robert Barnes is out. He was never lead council in this case-my error in statement and belief. Apologize to you all for that.
According to him, promises that were guaranteed to him as to who could be involved in jury selection, who was in control of the money that was being used for Kyle’s defense and who was ultimately in charge of the case, Mr. Barnes feels he was let down, lied to and essentially deceived by the group as a whole. (Rittenhouse not included)
Barnes says that people that were originally involved in this fiasco are still in control of things from behind the curtain and so the lawyer that is leading this case is in fact, financially beholden to these other people and thus, they actually control the Defense Team.
I think this is bad for Kyle. Not because I think Robert Barnes is the second coming of Judicial Christ, but because it appears that the inept individuals that were originally driving Kyle’s defense are still essentially in charge. Kyle is being represented in a self defense trial where the people hired to represent him have little or no experience with self defense law apparently. Not good.
The defense team is currently handing the prosecution its ass. There’s no evidence they are financially “beholden” to anyone and the family are the ones in charge now that the loser grifter Lin Wood is out of the way.
To Matthew A Carberry
I’m glad the prosecution is doing well. They’ve been given lots of information and strategy recommendations as to how to approach this trial from the various individuals involved in the gathering of evidence, jury selection, case law and self defense application.
According to what I’ve seen in a video, Mr. Barnes shared a portion of his concerns with the defense strategy teams motivations and ethics as well as how the Rittenhouse family is being cared for. There is an opinion floating around that the family is in fact, not “in charge” at this time.
We’ll see I suppose. I hope he’s acquitted.
In what states are you licensed to practice law?
Busybeef, Same ones you are. I’ve been in law enforcement my entire life. You?
I am licensed in two states and DC. I completely agree with Walter Beverly.
Thank you, Paul.
Walter nailed it. But what do I know, I’m only licensed in one state.
Thank you, KJ
The process is the punishment anymore.
Smash the state.
“People will either see this. . .”
Some people will only see this as a white kid who didn’t get shot by police.
Prayers have been prayed; FREE KYLE !!!
I pray the young man is FULLY acquitted and is able to put this behind him and move on with the rest of his life. Thanks for posting this update.
He should be celebrated for removing Antifools. And removing 90% of a child molesters arm! Free Kyle!!!
Yes I think the good Lord let that one live so his arm will be a perfect example for others to follow, not to mention a pain and inconvenience for the rest of his miserable life. Such a befitting punishment indeed. 👍😆
And give him back his gun! He may need it.
So 12 decide what the rest of the “common sense” world already recognizes and the “nut jobs” break crazy, burn shit, loot a Walmart, couple of people die, a few hundred are injured… Just another day in the neighborhood but good news, Winter’s coming, those assholes don’t opperate well in cold weather and most warm weather cities won’t tolerate their bullshit…
Timing of all this may have been planned for the reasons you’ve identified. If so ; BRILLIANT !!!
Madd, “Most warm weather cities…” Translation; “Southern cities.” If that’s what you meant some southern cities will, or would, tolerate that conduct. But, try that shit in our smaller towns and medium sized cities. The anarchists would soon discover what bullets are for.
“If that’s what you meant some southern cities will, or would, tolerate that conduct.”
Like, Atlanta, Georgia…
As I said “MOST” will not, meaning “SOME” will… Two different statements with the “exact” same meaning…
Common sense isn’t so common lately.
I resemble that remark.
😀
You’re absolutely right. Any display and/or use of common sense means you qualify for superhuman strength and wisdom far surpassing that of Superman in the past.
surpassing that of Superman in the past.
You mean the one who fought for “truth, justice and the American way” as opposed to the new and improved Superman with the Bi son that fights for “truth, social justice and a better tomorrow” through bowing down to the world..
I know that you are supposed to be 18(or be with a responsible adult) to cross the Ca border to Az. I do not know what the state laws are there, or if it is a federal law. He may have some trouble having his AR in another state, but that is about the only thing they can make a big deal of – neither should be felonies, especially since he was a minor at the time.
Of course, the authorities would love to blame an adult for interstate transport since Kyle would basically get a slap on the wrist, being a minor.
That is my opinion, I am not a lawyer, play one on TV, movies, on or off Broadway, and I don’t stay in expensive motel/hotels.
“I know that you are supposed to be 18(or be with a responsible adult) to cross the Ca border to Az.”
Crossing the state line its self does not have an age specific significance unless its specifically forbidden in law or in furtherance of a violation of law.
He was 17 at the time!
The rifle he used was lawfully purchased IN WISCINSIN and never left that atate. He did NOT “cross state lines” bringing a rifle. This has been well documented.
Further, the law in Wisconsin with which he hs cnarged for “underage possesioin” of the rifle is very confusing, and may get tossed by this judge as vague ambiguous, etc. and thus unenforceable. A creful reading of it, and its multiple revisioins over a very few years, provides a strong and plain carve-out/exception for those 16 or 17 to posses a rifle in puboic lawfully. The law does declare”dangerous weapons’ cannot be possessed those under 18 but then elsehwere in that same section of Wisconsin law plainy defines “dangerous weapon”, and Kyle’s rifle is NOT a “dangrous weapon” per those desctiptioins. Stupid DA probably laid this charge agsint kyle without reading The WHOLEStATUE as enacted and revised. It should be a cakewalk to convince a reasonably intelligent jury that this charge is bogus. The judge almost decided to declare, based on a reading of the law in question, that Kyle did NOT violate it, and thus dismiss this charge wiht prejudice.
Dirty DA wants this charge to stick as an illogical excuse to remove his reight to defense with that weapon… on the vague assertion that he never should have had it in the first place, nd that had he upheld that law, he never could have been armed in order to fire that weapon agasint his three most egregious heclers. Tiwsted DA shold find himself out of a job and behind bars when this circus leaves town.
Hmmm… no, the rifle he had was illegally purchased in a “straw purchase” and he was illegally in possession of it, because he was underage for possession.
Rittenhouse supplied cash to his friend 19 year old Dominic Black to purchase a rifle for him because Rittenhouse knew he was underage and not able to do so. Black drove the 300 miles to a hardware store in upper Wisconsin to buy the Smith & Wesson M & P 15 rifle and supplied it to Rittenhouse knowing him to be underage. Black was arrested and charged for the “straw purchase”, and two counts of intentionally giving a dangerous weapon to a person under age 18, causing death.
Rittenhouse stored the rifle at Black’s stepfather’s house in Kenosha. About four months later Rittenhouse used the rifle in self-defense at the age of 17 in Kenosha. Rittenhous, by carrying a rifle he knew he could not legally posses, and intentionally took the rifle into the Kenosha protest area knowing he was carrying the rifle in furtherance of a violation of law (a crime, the straw purchase and conspiracy and possessing the rifle).
and even if the judge tosses the possession, there is still the “straw purchase” to deal with which is illegal in its self
Hmmm… no, the rifle he had was illegally purchased in a “straw purchase” and he was illegally in possession of it, because he was underage for possession.
Any evidence? I didn’t think so.
Not a chance that this is entered as evidence. The question of whether he could legally own the gun is what is ambiguous. If the law claiming he cannot own the gun is not enforceable the entire purchase is inadmissible. No lawyer of whatever competence is going to let that evidence enter.
I don’t think there is an age restriction for possession, only for purchase. Kyle needs a jury trial, and the persecutor better understand “jury nullification”, because he is likely to see it.
In this case, I often hear it arguments about how “he went looking for trouble” because he knowingly went to a place where people might get angry at his presence, or because he brought a rifle with him.
Those arguments need to stop. Right. Now. Because all those arguments boil down to is that “group A” aren’t really allowed to defend themselves against “group B”. If a person from the first group ends up needing too defend himself, he doesn’t have the right to do so, because he ought to have avoided trouble. If he has the means to defend himself, then he’s not allowed to do so because that means he went with evil intent. In other words, group B has a right to claim public spaces and deny access to group A using violence, and group A has no right to respond in kind. It is precisely the sort of argument that was routinely mustered against any black person who dared to stand up to racist mobs.
The “He went looking for trouble” canard is right up there with “she shouldn’t have been wearing a mini-skirt” canard. It’s placing the blame on the person who did not initiate the attack.
Bingo!
Yep. My thoughts exactly.
I don’t think he should have gone there (I also don’t think he went looking for trouble.)
I believe he has a slam-dunk self-defense case and should not have been prosecuted.
There is nothing inconsistent holding those two positions.
If you want to confront a mob, be my guest. Just know what can happen to you afterward. If you’re A-OK with that, then have at it.
I don’t think he should have gone there
The “victims”… Huber was a known offender of domestic violence and a rapist; Rosenbaum had sexually abused children; Grosskreutz had been arrested on suspicion of multiple crimes, including felony burglary, and all three victims were convicted felons. Guess none of THEM should have been there either… The rapist and the scumbag who sexually abused kids got what the courts should have given them when they were convicted… “Lefty” should have just minded his own business..
Look, you want to go marching into the middle of a mob with your AR, I’m not gonna stop you. It’s real easy to sit back and have a 17-year-old do your dirty work isn’t it? He’s 18 now, guess that makes it better. Rittenhouse knew the background of none of the people he shot. You didn’t either until they were shot. So using that as justification makes no sense, unless you want to live in a Minority Report kind of society.
I guarantee you that you would rather be sitting here typing comments than sitting in a courtroom facing a greater than zero chance of going to prison for years. We don’t live in the country as you and I would like it to be. We live in a country full of a-hole prosecutors and ignorant citizens who hate gun owners. I carry a gun every single day. I will defend my life, my family, my house, I will even defend a stranger’s life if, God forbid, we are in the same deadly circumstances together. I will not drive to another state to defend someone’s ash heap car lot, the owner of which who even said – I didn’t ask anyone to defend my property, it was razed the night before, there was nothing to defend.
Not sure what part of “I believe he has a slam-dunk self-defense case” you don’t understand.
Col Travis, the only problem with your posts is that he did not “march into the middle of a demonstration carrying his AR15. He has the right to self defense and may by law use what is available to him. Are you trying to tell me that I have to know the background of someone I may have to shoot to defend myself. I say that is LUDICRIOUS.
Col Travis, I regret to inform you that he was not “protecting protecting property.” His defense is that he was defending himself against being attacked by the “peaceful demonstrators”.
Walter E Beverly III – you are mixing up two arguments.
He went there to defend the property of a stranger, who did not ask anyone for help because much or all his property was destroyed. I never said that is why he is on trial. It has nothing to do with his trial. But would he be at a trial if he didn’t go? No.
Why he went to Kenosha has nothing to do with whether Rittenhouse has a valid self-defense case. To me, it is clearly a case of valid self-defense. The only thing that matters now are the circumstances of when Rittenhouse believed his life was in danger.
Hell yes, he has the right to defend himself. I don’t think he should have been prosecuted. He also had the choice of not going to Kenosha, correct? Just because we can do things, does that mean we must always act? Would you let your 17-year-old do that? That’s water under the bridge. The fact is that he is on trial and why he went does not matter.
My entire reason for making this comment was to point out that it is idiotic to claim anyone who thinks he should not have gone also means that he deserved what he got. That’s BS. He didn’t deserve any of this, he didn’t deserve to be prosecuted. But the United States we live in is not the one we would wish it to be, correct? We have jackasses who prosecute for political reasons.
As long as you understand that, then you do whatever you want within the boundaries of the law. I hope you never have face a similar situation.
Walter E Beverly III – I never said he was on trial for protecting private property. Why he went to Kenosha has nothing to do with his trial. Did he HAVE to go to Kenosha? No. He was a 17-year-old kid who wasn’t thinking things through very clearly and now is facing a greater than zero chance of going to prison much or all of his life.
If you disagree and think he should have gone, fine. Then you also need to realize that he is on trial because we don’t live in the America you and I would like – we live in the America that we have, which each year is producing more and more jackass prosecutors bringing charges for political reasons. You and I think Rittenhouse shouldn’t have been charged. But guess what? He was charged. There are plenty people in power right now who don’t give a $#!% what we think. If you know the risks and you go to a BLM riot, armed and greatly outnumbered, then don’t be shocked by anything that happens – even if you do everything by the letter of the law.
Given all that, why would you go out of your way to put yourself in harm’s way? My argument is not that he had no right to defend himself. Of course he has a right to defend his life. My point is: think before you act. The riot didn’t come to him like the McCloskeys. He went to the riot. He tried to do what the freaking police wouldn’t even do. And he didn’t go to protect his property of his family’s property or his friend’s property. Is that smart? Look what happened. To me it was dumb. Thank God he wasn’t killed. I read so many people who never bother to ask themselves – is this what I would do? Is this what I’d let my 17-year-old son do? Lots of people defending the act of defending his life (reasonably so, thank goodness.) Little or no thought given to why he went there. Other than – well, it’s a free country and we can’t let this happen, etc. And when you point out the real risk in that, it’s ignored. Tell Rittenhouse to ignore it. Put yourself in his shoes.
All that is separate from this trial. He’s on trial and he should be acquitted.
Also, I never said that you need to know the background of anyone before defending your life.
They weren’t victims. They were rioters.
They weren’t victims.
Please readjust your sarcasm meter
Sorry, I didn’t think that comment went through, for some reason it was delayed because it wasn’t showing for me after I hit the post button.
I do not believe you understand twhere “there” is that he went to.
He started out the evening helping to guard a friend’s local business that had been attacked and damaged the night before in similar ioting. He was armed, yes, legally, and also legal to be in that cinditin on private propertyw with owner’s permission, wich he had. (and thans foryuor help).
When the rioters showed up, AGAIN they lit a loaded wheeled dumpster and were pushing it toward the wooden buidilng housing the business. Kyle attempted to divert the dumpster to prevent it rtorching the buildling These creeps, I believe the first two who got shot later were part of that dirty little crew, left off their action with the dumpster and, observing Kyle was armed, made moves as if to sassault him (still on the private peropty) and take his rifle. That meant the creeps would have had lethal weapons in their hands, and Kule would have none. He faced perhaps three optionis. fire right then and there, stopping the attempted felony arson of an occupied building, let them tke his rifle, or flee. He fled, hopeing to maintain possession of his rifl,e and to avoid being the victim of the gang attempting the arson. As he fled, he tripped, and one after another the three whom he shot gave direct and focused attack, trying to take his rifle, and/or destroy HIM. The video footage availble and which WILL be shown thejury, plainl shows Kyle’s amazing restraint, and skill at arms, as he waited to the point of no return, raised the rifle fired one round, saw he had hit and that the attack was thus broken off, and fled again, only to be overtaien again. Also there were three OTHER putative attackers who came at him, each in their own time, made s if to assault Kyle, at which point he riase his rifle plainlh showing he was ready and willing to fire, but in their turns, each one made an informed decision to curtail the attack, withdrew, and moved on.Kyle did NOT fire on any of these. He demosntrated amazing handling skills and judgement and restraint.. ONLY firing as in each case the attacker crossed the point of no withdrawal and continued to press, he fired one round only and seeing that round had caused the attcker to cease his aggression toward him, lowered the rifle and moved away.
THIS 1 year old young man demonstrated FAR BETTER restrain,t judgement, and skill at arms than probably 90% of cops out there. I remember an incident in NYC where a man ws prime suspect in a shotting, had fled into the streets for cover and safely, and was confronted by I think it ws six cops. When those cops opened fire, NINE innocent bystanders/passersby were hit buthe coppers’ bullets. the suspected murderer ws NOT HIT by any of their runds. A few dozen runds in total were fired, never hitting the suspect and DID hit innocent,s none in total. Their tally was cops no hits, suspect, gone, nd collateral dmage hitting nine innocents.
Kyle’s performnce was three violent attckers (two with lethal weapon,s one handgun naother a heavy long skateboard) three rounds only fired, all three hit the attacker and no one else, and no other rounds fired. All three attackers hit ended their aggression.. two permananently, the third severely injured. Has ThAT ONE been charged with his lethal force attack. Nope. How about with assault with a deadly weapo? Nope. But the man who s forced to defent himself against a lethal force attacker is now charged with attempted murder?
He MUST be cquitted. All counts.
Not sure what part of “I believe he has a slam-dunk self-defense case” you don’t understand.
Fuks your point? How do YOU know I have NEVER been in that chair OR anything else about me for that matter… Pointing out the fact that everyone the kid shot was/is a scumbag is hardly contrary to your narrative maybe reading comprehension is not YOUR strong suit… OBTW: I’ve never sent ANYONE to do anything for me, I’m man enough to take care of my own business..
I’m laughing. The kid is a scumbag? Where did I say that? Oh that’s right. I never said it nor implied it. Here’s an idea: read what I actually write and don’t invent what I write.
If you want to go defend a stranger’s property in a different state than you live in, cough up millions for a defense, risk the rest of your life in prison, I am not going to stop you. I’m not even gonna call you a scumbag. And if your case is valid self-defense, I’ll be one of the many people sitting at home (like you are with Rittenhouse) saying – hope he wins.
Why don’t you man up and plop you and your rifle in the middle of a BLM riot somewhere? Go do it and stop talking about it
I’m laughing. The kid is a scumbag? Where did I say that? Oh that’s right.
Just as I suspected your reading comprehension is on the level of a three year old… Where the fuk do you get “Pointing out the fact that everyone the KID SHOT was/is a scumbag” equates to ME saying YOU called the KID a scumbag (or me calling the kid a scumbag for that matter)? As for the rest of your “assumptions”? Once again you know nothing about who or what I am or what I’ve done in the last 72 years…
“Go do it and stop talking about it”?
Must have missed any assertions YOU say I’m “talking about” concerning doing battle with BLM…
You actually sound like VladDacian trying to reinvent itself again or are you so desperate for attention that you need to skew words to get a response? That’s just sad… Luck with that…
MADDMAXX – I did misread you, my apologies. You and I both agree Rittenhouse shouldn’t be in this courtroom. Why don’t we just end it with that?
Tionico: I do not believe you understand twhere “there” is that he went to. (your words)= Now pay attention to how this works
(my response to YOU) And I don’t believe YOU understand the post… The FIRST sentence (“I don’t think he should have gone there”) was taken from the post to which I was responding, that is NOT my belief… I know exactly where “THERE” was AND why… If you had bothered to read the entire post you would have understood that I basically said the same thing YOU did only I was not so long winded about it… Some of ya’ll (yeah I know that has been declared a “racist” term) need to engage your brain before you put your mouth or (in this case) typing finger in gear… Having to explain “everything” takes a lot of the enjoyment out of this…
Is this a game of some sort? Is there somebody keeping score?
The arguments against him that I’ve read have been:
“He shouldn’t have been there”
He went to a dangerous place while armed (as if being armed while going into a dangerous place is a bad idea). Which is a deliberate misdirection. He had a right to be where he was, and he had a right to be armed.
The rioters burning and looting businesses shouldn’t have been there. Nor should they have attacked a man armed with an AR-15.
the three attackers who got shot by their intended victim perhaps now have a toucn more sidom on such patters as they did that night. Two are dead. wnd will NEVER have to make that decisin again. They played their best card and lost, bigly and permanenthy. the third whois yet breating, has a severely damaged arm for his troubles.. but at least he is not dead. I suspect HE will not be repeating this performance of bad judgement. Proll thought the kid was a wimp and a pushover, perhaps armed with Ddd’s Nice Gun all for show and thus does not know how to handle it.
There were three other thug attackers during that same portion of time and space. Each one, as he approached Kyle with obvious evil intent, observed Kyle to raise his rifle toward them in defense, made an informed decision to leave off their unprovoked attack in time to signal that to Kyle, who imediatle lwoerd his rifle and did NOT fire. such restaint is a rarity. All three are yet lving, noe ar mamimed, at least not by Kyle’s hand.
I have thought a real fine move for the defense would be to have located one or two of these men and have them testify as to Kyl’ees exccelent gun handing skills, and his very disciplined handliing of this weapon. and his restraint to leave off his obvious readiness to fire if they continued to press. Six men walked away fron Kyle “SHootem on sight”RRittenhaus They could also spend a bit of time exl=plaing to the jury what theirintent was, until confronted by the rifle, business end first. And the charaacter of the whole circm=umstance unfolding that night.
“If he has the means to defend himself, then he’s not allowed to do so because that means he went with evil intent.”
Which is exactly why that argument will not die.
One of these days maybe people will recognize the three-fold purpose of propaganda and demagoguery. Or not.
Regardless, it’s not meant to be a rational argument. That fact that it’s not logical is literally the point of the “argument”.
In that regard it’s “assault weapon”esque [ab]use of language. It’s sloganeering with multiple purposes. To preach to the faithful, castigate and bait the unfaithful and confuse the observer.
Bastardization of language and thought are not designed to advance logic. They’re designed to destroy logic. But that leads back to a two year old discussion here on Nietzsche that I’m not rehashing since no one understood it.
Which is also why responding to trolls isn’t just a waste of time but also counter-productive but… that’s been falling on deaf ears for six years too so forget I said anything.
Again, it’s not meant to make sense. It’s meant for you to chase your tail trying to make sense of it. Just ignore it.
And in the meantime, since I bothered to find the free PDF copy, I’ll post this again in case anyone here actually bothers to read useful shit:
https://archive.org/details/TheRapeOfTheMind1961/mode/2up?view=theater
> The Media Prepare Their Readers for a Possible Kyle Rittenhouse Acquittal
So … they inform their readers of things?
What the fuck even is this narrative?
I think Toggle Switch Jones may be along soon to respond to your query.
Walter E Beverly III said,
“Kyle Rittenhouse should never have been charged to begin with. He was being attacked by these ANTIFA and BLM thugs. This is an example of prosecutorial overreach.”
Yes indeed!
Just let us know when they’re going to read the verdict so we can batten down the hatches ahead of time.
Free Kyle!
“What’s less clear is whether prosecutors will be able to persuade the jury that Rittenhouse created a deadly situation by showing up in Kenosha with an AR-style semiautomatic rifle — and that in doing so he forfeited his claim to self-defense.”
How do these people feel about bad things happening to underage girls dressed inappropriately? Victim blame much?
If these “prosecutors” prevail, it will kill the right to self defense. This kid did not in any way provoke these thugs. He has the absolute right to self defense.
That’s right, he does have a right to self defense and based upon that alone if there were nothing else which shows it was not self defense he’s going to be acquitted on that matter.
But, waiting in the wings someplace is the fact that Kyle Rittenhouse was unlawfully in possession of the rifle to begin with because he was underage, a rifle procured in an unlawful “straw purchase”.
Basically, if proven, Rittenhouse and friend conspired to commit a crime; Rittenhouse supplied cash to his friend 19 year old Dominic Black to purchase a rifle for him because Rittenhouse knew he was underage and not able to do so. Black drove the 300 miles to a hardware store in upper Wisconsin to buy the Smith & Wesson M & P 15 rifle and supplied it to Rittenhouse knowing him to be underage. Black was arrested and charged for the “straw purchase”, and two counts of intentionally giving a dangerous weapon to a person under age 18, causing death.
Rittenhouse stored the rifle at Black’s stepfather’s house in Kenosha. About four months later Rittenhouse used the rifle in self-defense at the age of 17 in Kenosha. Rittenhous, by carrying a rifle he knew he could not legally posses, and intentionally took the rifle into the Kenosha protest area knowing he was carrying the rifle in furtherance of a violation of law (a crime, the straw purchase and conspiracy and possessing the rifle).
So there is this other issue hanging out there too, and this whole thing is not going to go away simply because he gets acquired on self-defense.
“acquired” should be “acquitted”
That it is a “straw purchase” is irrelevant to a self defense claim. “Straw purchase” is a FEDERAL Offense. That he brought it to Kenosha still does NOT preclude his right to self defense.
There is a lot of ambiguity about that law, it was poorly written and Rittenhouse’s attorney made a good case why that illegal weapons charge should be thrown out. The judge hasn’t ruled on that yet. Read Andrew Branca’s take on this, he is the only one I know of who has explained the entire thing in detail, and he includes video of the proceedings.
The fact that that the prosecutor is making a big deal about that illegal weapons charge is a sign that his case sucks. It’s not the only sign, the prosecutor is making a lot of dumb arguments, which indicate he knows his case is weak.
read the entire Wisconsin statute, every paragrah and sectio. Pubicaly availbel go find it. There is a clear exception for those 16 and 17 to be in possession of rifles and shotguns lawfully. It is ‘dangerous weapons” those 16 and 17 cannot possess in pubic. The statue clarly defines “dangerous weapos” and that definitnion does NOT include f rifles and shotguns. Trhe rifle was ourchased lawfuly IN Wisconsin, stored in Wisconsin, was not actually Kyle’s but his friends, and lawfuly loaned to Kyle. No sraw purchase. Straw purchase definition includes the buying of a firearm for some who is prohibited the use or possession of them. Buying it for yuor friend is NOT straw purchase. BATF are aware of the provenance of the rifle he was carrying that night and have not pressed charges. They would have it they could but this is NOT a straw buy.
@ Walter E Beverly III
‘That it is a “straw purchase” is irrelevant to a self defense claim. “Straw purchase” is a FEDERAL Offense. That he brought it to Kenosha still does NOT preclude his right to self defense.’
and I never said it did preclude his right to self defense. That’s not the issue with this. If you are in possession of a firearm that was illegally purchased by you, if you use that firearm in valid self defense even though the self defense was valid you were still in possession of an illegally purchased firearm. The gun does not become “legally” purchased just because you used it in self-defense.
Although a “Straw purchase” is federal in the broader sense its also a state level offense that’s just called something else. If it was illegal in the state for him to purchase while underage, and he did through a straw purchase its still illegal in the state for what ever they call it. If the rifle was illegally purchased it does not matter what the other law says for possession at his age or how ambiguous people think it is, possession use in self defense and purchase are two different things and if he did a straw purchase then he was still in possession of an illegally purchased rifle at both state and federal levels.
This still remains to be dealt with. They have already arrested the 19 year old friend that did the straw purchase for him, and charged him. Do not think for one second that when this self-defense trial is over they will not proceed with charges for the possession of an illegally purchased weapon. If it was illegally purchased through the straw purchase he was in illegal possession.
.30 cal Booger, You implied it with your statement. Not to mention, that a state cannot press Federal Charges in a state court. The gun was not purchased in Wisconsin. Therefore the charge is bogus on it’s face. And that “charge” can only be heard in a FEDERAL COURT.
A technicality: It could be argued that it wasn’t a straw purchase since Rittenhouse didn’t take permanent possession of the firearm. Not really any different than my buying a rifle for my under 18 niece/nephew and allowing them to use it while keeping it at my home.
Booger, waiting in the wings somewhere waits 2A, saying the law which pretends his possession was “illegal”, is itself blatantly unconstitutional. I suspect in a case as clear as this the prosecutor will be prevailed upon to drop the charges rather than approach the SCOTUS with such a shiny and appealing (sympathetic) defendant.
I pity the poor saps who get jury selection on this one. They’ll have to go into hiding, especially if their verdict doesn’t fit the “mainstream” narrative.
No, all they have to do is take a Kyle Rittenhouse self defense course.
If nothing else, if (and probably when) Kyle is acquitted the salt mining will be pretty epic. |3
If Kyle was antifa and the people he shot were Trump voters/proud boys/Republicans, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
So is anyone taking bets on what stores are going to be looted and/ burned to the ground in the event of an acquittal? I’m betting the local government will be doubled up on their security details and pulling resources out of the neighborhoods to protect politically connected businesses and individuals.
White people involved across the board. No looting expected either way.
I wouldn’t bet the farm on it.
There are plenty of idiots out there that think this whole thing is about black lives mattering and that The Hero Kyle Rittenhouse, so far from shooting three lily-white communist criminals in self-defense, is a murderer who hunted down innocent black babies.
If he gets acquitted (as he should), I’d bet money that somebody’s going to stage some violence over it.
*I* would say it will be interesting to watch and see, since both predictions seem reasonable to me. Maybe just a teensy bit of looting and burning?
if I make it right, there will be a LOT of folks jusst like Kyle volunteering to tplay Rooftop VietNamese riflemen to protect the town. The rioters won’t have an opening large enough to sneak through..
The prosecution will probably subpoena Trump and then try to blame the whole thing on him when they realize their case is failing…
NAILED IT !!! (LOL)
Unless they can pack the jury with 12 loony lefties, there’s no way he’s getting convicted on murder — maybe a gun charge. One white guy shoots 3 other white guys, and the prosecution going to claim race had something to do with it? What are they going to say? He brought the rifle to a BLM protest hoping to shoot Black people, but it turned out to be a bunch of white people using it as an excuse to riot. Rittenhouse decided since took the time to come, he had to shoot somebody and started firing on white guys instead? The only racism I saw was Rosenbaum screaming “Come at me, nig***!” earlier in the evening. Since he’s taken the room temperature challenge, Rosenbaum can’t explain how a white guy calling people nig***s supports the Black community.
Well, if Larry Elder is “the black face of white supremacy,” as we were recently told, then a child-raping, roid-raging, racist-epithet-slinging, redheaded manlet most certainly can be the white face of black lives that matter.
While I wish him the best at his trial, he is, like George Zimmerman, the village idiot. They put their life’s and liberty on the line for a bunch of losers that abandoned them as soon as things looked bad. In Kyle’s case, the locals got, and are getting, the police protection they VOTED FOR! Good for them! Why should anyone deny them the right to “enjoy” the results of their votes?
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”
Kyle’s self defense was mostly peaceful. If it wasn’t, there would have been a lot more Antifooks lying on the ground.
When did it become illegal to gun violent SS storm troopers down in the street?
2020.
Don’t we love the hypocrisy of the left? The concept that”the defendants shouldn’t have been where he was and therefore his claim of self defense is invalid” has a LONG and deeply racist history in the US. And yet the same people who see racism under every bush will happily use that argument, and see no problem with it.
Let’s be honest: if Rittenhouse was a leftist who had gone to a Trump rally and then defended himself under IDENTICAL circumstances (not that that would have happened), he wouldn’t even have been charged. This is about the left actively supporting offensive political violence but only when its their people killing ours. Flip the script and suddenly it’s a national issue
Media preparing the public all right… Firing them up for the inevitable riots that will follow the not guilty verdicts.
“eminently credible Associated Press” That’s the funniest thing since “Tishaura”
Yup. I caught that oxymoron too. The AP are populated these days by all manner of morons.. including oxy morons.
The other thing going for Kyle is that the prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Kyle was NOT acting in self defense. The defense has no burden of proof; all it has to do is poke holes in the prosecutor’s case.And there are a lot of holes that can be poked.
the prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Kyle was NOT acting in self defense.
That’s going to be difficult if they allow the defense to show the videos… Every one shows Rittenhouse trying to retreat as asshole number one pursued him throwing shit at him until he couldn’t, he was still trying to retreat when asshole number two assaulted him with a skateboard and asshole number three simply screwed up and drew down on the kid as he was still trying to recover and retreat… Final score Rittenhouse three, Assholes 0… Just keep the kid off the stand and don’t give asshole number four (the Prosecutor) a shot at getting the kid to say something that CAN be used to misconstrue his intent…
Best strategy yet.
Go to law school. You have the makings of an extremely good lawyer.
I did but a really fukked up piece of shit divorce lawyer (hers) soured me on the profession as a whole… and I dropped out early third year…
While, I think Kyle is innocent of any crimes after looking at all the videos last year. Just to state some of the mistakes made that night and questions. Why did the group disperse and leave if they were there to defend a property? They should have stayed as a group. Strength in numbers to cover each others backs. The group had no leadership and training. Kyle decided to stay behind after the group he was with dispersed from the area. Kyle did not have any backup from the group after this. Kyle was surrounded by looters, rioters, and some violent criminals with intent on doing wrong that night and most of days before this. The group of individuals he was with should be footing some of his legal bills.
My little nephews simply can’t wait until somebody starts selling a Kyle Rittenhouse action figure. I’ll buy them a little Kyle and everything they market as accessories. With any luck they’ll even put out a Gaige Grosskreutz action figure with an exploding arm. While they are at it maybe they could market Mark and Pat McCloskey action figures also.
Huntmaster,
“With any luck they’ll even put out a Gaige Grosskreutz action figure with an exploding arm.”
Oh . my . gosh ! That is one of the funniest things I have read in a long time! My eyes almost teared up I was laughing so hard. I have not laughed that hard in probably three years!
I tip my hat to you fine sir.
I’ll be in line behind you.
Huntmaster,
And the premium version of the Gaige Grosskreutz action figure with exploding arm will also have a sound feature–after the arm explodes the action figure will play an audio recording of Gaige’s voice screaming (like a little girl), “Medic! Medic!”
The charges don’t fit so you must acquit.
There won’t be any riots. They have already forgotten. There might be a small disorderly gathering, but it will last one night at most. Either way, watch the video. Kyle tries to flee after being forced to defend himself in the middle of a mob (which none of you hypocrites criticizing him for being in the middle of would ever understand and reap the benefits of everyone who did it before him) and during the flee, is attacked. When trying to stand back up and run he see’s over 6 people coming at him, one with a gun. He did the right thing that anyone who values their life would do. Defended himself. It’s all within 10 seconds of the video after he fell to the ground. They saw a weak and easy target so those behind him started rushing in. As soon as he gathered himself and started looking around, he spotted those that were previously in his blind spot. Some of them froze and some chose to continue their attack. They deserve what they got.
Kyle is innocent. Always has been, always will be. If people in commie states like CA understood this more, they would still have their rights. The fight for freedom is constant. It’s not a “sign here’ desk job, and if you think it can be, you are the reason we have no privacy, we are losing personal freedoms, and why our entire worlds governments are growing so violently beyond peoples control.
Like a bunch of hyenas packing up on a young lone lion. How did that work out for them?
Very, very true and equally well-stated.
“There won’t be any riots. They have already forgotten.”
they don’t need to remember anything to have a riot. they’ll just riot.
There won’t be any riots. They have already forgotten.”
“They” may have forgotten but this has nothing to do with “they”… What happens when the verdict is read depends on what the Shot Callers (aka: Instigators) are under orders to do and how much money the anti-gunners are willing to put into the aftermath… Headline: “Blood crazed killer goes berzerk MURDERS two severely wounds third smirks as he is acquitted on ALL charges”… Result: Shot callers roll out a group of paid
“peaceful demonstrators”, a few local Antifa and Burn Loot Murder jump in and it’s on…
I don’t think Kyle showed very good judgement in choosing to enter a situation which was arguably not his, but as the Judge stated, bad judgement is not a crime. Such judgement is one of the hallmarks of youth, especially in our late teens. THAT FACT NOT WITHSTANDING, this is a really clear cut case of self defense, and his case is only strengthened by his repeated attempts at withdrawal, and the mob’s subsequent pursuit of him. In my state, even if was the initial aggressor, his attempt at withdrawal re-qualifies him for the claim of self-defense, because the role of aggressor now shifts to the second party.
I’m not an attorney, I don’t play one on TV, and I didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but If I were Kyle, I’d be most concerned about the misdemeanor charge. The rest are practically a gimme.
Is that Rachel Levine next to Kyle?
“ Tionico November 1, 2021 At 04:33
read the entire Wisconsin statute, every paragrah and sectio. Pubicaly availbel go find it. There is a clear exception for those 16 and 17 to be in possession of rifles and shotguns lawfully. It is ‘dangerous weapons” those 16 and 17 cannot possess in pubic. The statue clarly defines “dangerous weapos” and that definitnion does NOT include f rifles and shotguns. Trhe rifle was ourchased lawfuly IN Wisconsin, stored in Wisconsin, was not actually Kyle’s but his friends, and lawfuly loaned to Kyle. No sraw purchase. Straw purchase definition includes the buying of a firearm for some who is prohibited the use or possession of them. Buying it for yuor friend is NOT straw purchase. BATF are aware of the provenance of the rifle he was carrying that night and have not pressed charges. They would have it they could but this is NOT a straw buy.”
I’m going to have to agree with this entirely.
GRA,
“Straw purchase definition includes the buying of a firearm for some who is prohibited the use or possession of them.”
That is incorrect. It does not matter whether the purchaser or recipient of the firearm is a “prohibited person”.
According to the federal government: if John Doe gives Bob Smith money and then Bob Smith uses that money to purchases a firearm and delivers it to John Doe, that is a straw purchase–regardless of whether or not either person has any criminal record.
There is a fairly recent case where an uncle (who has no criminal record) gave money to his nephew (who has no criminal record) to purchase a firearm for the uncle. Somehow our beloved ATF caught wind of that and successfully prosecuted the nephew and/or the uncle for a straw purchase.
With respect to Kyle Rittenhouse, it all boils down to whether or not Kyle gave money to his friend to purchase the rifle on Kyle’s behalf. If the prosecution can prove that, Kyle and his friend are facing serious legal jeopardy.
Not in this trial, he isn’t charged with that crime and no evidence pursuant to that crime has been entered. The fact that is the case is pretty good evidence the Prosecution doesn’t think there’s a charge to be made. They are starting jury selection, the “straw purchaee” nonsense will have no bearing on the case. The judge isn’t in the mood to let the Prosecution throw yet another theory of the crime into the mix.
Exactly. Even a bad lawyer would have the ability to prevent any of these ‘federal’ offenses from being introduced as evidence.
This is easy. Republicans are bad and AR-15s are bad. Democrats are good as are BLM and ANTIFA. Therefore, if Rittenhouse is found guilty, it’ll be proof that I was right all along. OTOH, if Rittenhouse is found not-guilty, it’ll be proof that the Judicial system in America is racist and just as bad as Republicans and AR-15s.
All I had to do was decide the outcome before hand and then everything that happens after is just proof I was right to begin with.
😀
“In addition to the facts of the case and the law, the outcome could turn on whether a jury is willing to risk the possibility of more violence should Rittenhouse be acquitted. It only takes one juror.”
What about the possibility of more violence if he is convicted? The message sent is “Don’t dare defend yourself from mob violence.” It’s a free pass for Burn, Loot, Murder.
Why Kyle Rittenhouse Deserves Your Support
https://www.culturcidal.com/p/why-kyle-rittenhouse-deserves-your
The judge presiding over the highly anticipated Kyle Rittenhouse homicide trial recently criticized what he called a “vast amount” of “irresponsible and sloppy journalism” covering the events surrounding the case.
While speaking with potential jurors during the jury selection process on Monday, Kenosha County Circuit Court Judge Bruce Schroeder said that those selected for the task may need to disregard much of what they have heard in the media about the case.
“This case has become very political. It was involved in the politics of the last election year,” Schroeder said in the court session, adding, “To this day, you can go out and read things from all across the political spectrum about this case, most of which is written by people who know nothing.”
Judge Schroeder ruled that the men Rittenhouse fatally shot or wounded on Aug. 25, 2020, in Kenosha, Wisconsin, can’t be referred to as “victims” by prosecutors — but can be called “rioters” and “looters.”
I know that you are supposed to be 18(or be with a responsible adult) to cross the Ca border to Az. I do not know what the state laws are there, or if it is a federal law. He may have some trouble having his AR in another state, but that is about the only thing they can make a big deal of – neither should be felonies, especially since he was a minor at the time.
Of course, the authorities would love to blame an adult for interstate transport since Kyle would basically get a slap on the wrist, being a minor.
That is my opinion, I am not a lawyer, play one on TV, movies, on or off Broadway, and I don’t stay in expensive motel/hotels.
Comments are closed.