Jeff Neslund, a Chicago-based civil rights attorney and a former prosecutor with the Cook County state’s attorney’s office, said the website “is dangerous for prosecutors” attempting to secure a conviction in the pending trial, because it has the potential to taint a jury pool.
“You’re going to have a lot of people who want to be on this jury to help this kid because they have an agenda, so prosecutors will have a tougher time to do their homework to flush those people out,” he said. “But if someone says they never saw the website, what are you going to do? Check their browser history?”
[John Pierce, a Los Angeles-based attorney for Rittenhouse] Pierce defended the site, saying “the notion of a fair trial was blown out of the water” when celebrities and political figures used the case to portray Rittenhouse “as a mass murderer and white supremacist.”
“All we are doing is defending his reputation and telling the truth,” Pierce said. “He has a constitutional right to that. There’s nothing wrong or inappropriate to it.”
If you click on the link to the website — which WaPo provides — you don't get to what I'd call a "merchandise site." It looks like a somber presentation of the facts of the case. It does have links across the top of that page and one of them is labeled "store." If you click on that, you get to a page that says, "We're making some adjustments." According to WaPo, the website had "more than 30 apparel items and accessories emblazoned with the logo 'Free Kyle' and a slogan, 'Self-defense is a right, not a privilege.'"
Posts
231 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 231 of 231Zach said "Again, everybody: read the statute.
Defending your home or place of business is the best defense on the board. It wasn't his home or place of business, so no dice."
You are focusing all over the place but where the actual legal issues and facts lie. Kyle's body was under assault, not a residence or place of business, when he first employed deadly force.
Honestly (you are being honest, right?) you can't just pick and choose words out of a statute and then apply any everyday meaning and conjecture you like to make legal pronouncements.
Zach, continuing to claim that Rittenhouse committed a misdemeanor in not dispersing, even though Rittenhouse has not been charged with such a thing.
Even though the charging document makes zero such claims.
If he was at an unlawful assembly, why didn't police arrest him at the scene earlier in the evening? There were lots of "unlawfully assembled" people then! Why didn't the police arrest him when they intercepted him on the street and told him to turn back? (Back, by the way, to the fateful location of the first shooting). Why isn't the prosecutor charging him with "failure to disperse"? Hmm...
Zach has failed the free will test.
Zach, let's be clear. Do you seriously mean that under WI law, a man doing nothing but "standing in the street" between a KKK mob and a Black family in its residence would be "provoking" attack? Do you seriously mean that under WI law, a firefighting crew called to the fire that resulted when the mob got through to the Black residence ought to be arrested for trying to put the fire out, so long as an "unlawful assembly" was called?
Granting, for the nonce, that you do mean both things, can't you see that the mob also deserves punishment? Has there, in fact, been any attempt to punish the mob in the Rittenhouse case? Yes, the mob here wasn't KKK, and they were attacking a business and not a home, but per your own arguments that makes zero difference.
I can't imagine any WI jury (or any WI judge, for that matter) acquiescing to the matter in my first graf. The distinction between people trying to help and people trying to hurt is clear to most of us, if not to you.
Also Zach is on full display with his ignorance about weapons. Uses the word "brandishes" like he knows what that means.
A long gun like an AR-15 is typically open carry given its size and shape. The shoulder sling is the typical and favored carry style. Holding the weapon at its barrel as Kyle did was not "brandishing." It was the responsible way of holding a long gun in a sling, to keep it controlled and prevent it from bouncing off his body as he moved. To brandish a weapon is, in legal terms, to threaten someone with it, which he did not do.
(Kyle wasn't charged with "brandishing" or "criminal threats" either! More imaginary crimes!)
Anyone who believes Kyle committed an offense by "crossing state lines" with a firearm should alert the prosecutor. The Criminal Complaint makes no such allegation. The misdemeanor charge of possession of a weapon by a minor does not impair Kyle's self-defense claim. (Here's Why Kyle Rittenhouse, Eric Zorn, 9-3-20, Chicago Tribune.)
It seems it didn't take much to "provoke" Joseph Rosenbaum. He "confronted armed men shortly before he was killed, shouting "Shoot me, N...a'" (Kenosha Shooting Victim Seen in Video,8-28-20, New York Post.) If we're to believe the Washington Post, he was a bipolar meth user who had "hit town" just that day, having been released from a Minneapolis hospital, to which he had been admitted for a suicide attempt. He had spent considerable time in incarceration, for offenses perhaps better left unspecified here ( A Mentally Ill Man, A Heavily Armed Teenager, and the Night Kenosha Burned, 10-3-20, Washington Post.)
The defense video compilation shows that numerous "protesters" were armed. I mentioned earlier that Joshua Ziminski has been arrested for firing the shot that prompted Kyle to turn and confront Rosenbaum. He is quoted as saying this was a "warning shot." Does this mean the next round would have been aimed at Kyle, had he continued running?
Michele, if you would just read the statute, you would find that the right to self defense also includes a right to protect others whose lives are in danger, under pretty much the same restrictions as protecting your own. It still doesn't apply here, though, because Rittenhouse was standing around an empty business that didn't belong to him.
I can't answer the question about firefighters, because they are presumably operating under the authority of the same government that issued the order to disperse. Maybe you can find a case where a city prosecuted one of its own firefighters for stopping a fire during a riot and share it with us. It still wouldn't be relevant here, though, because Rittenhouse was not a firefighter.
Zach really is a clown. He reads the ancient english riot act, and other irrelevent law but can't be bothered reading anything about self defence in the relevant state. If he did he would not be beclowning himself as a poor concern troll https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8L7JQ-KXzWg&t=43s&pbjreload=101
I have posted links to both the law of self defense and the law of unlawful assembly for Wisconsin. Neither one is surprising, and both are consistent with the generalizations I made before posting them.
He blandished the gun..until threatened.
"Liberals"--the stupidest people on the planet--have been trying to outlaw self-defense for decades, the theory being serfs not having rights. If your life is just an extension of The State, how can you argue the right to defend it?
Self-defense is more than a right, it's a duty.
Narr
Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six
Gosh I hate to feed the troll -- I originally thought "Zach" was a good faith but stupid commenter -- but here's the statute he quotes:
An "unlawful assembly" is an assembly which consists of 3 or more persons and which causes such a disturbance of public order that it is reasonable to believe that the assembly will cause injury to persons or damage to property unless it is immediately dispersed.
Was Rittenhouse part of such an assembly? No, the people who attacked him were. The rioters were causing "a disturbance of public order" likely to cause "injury to persons or damage to property", not Rittenhouse -- he was defending property against threats of such injury. (If Rittenhouse and other defenders were ordered by appropriate authority to disperse, I haven't heard about that, and I have seen no evidence to support such an order for them to disperse. I don't see any evidence that such an order directed to the defenders would have been valid).
"Zach" quotes a statute that says: An "unlawful assembly" includes "an assembly of persons who assemble for the purpose of blocking or obstructing the lawful use by any other person, or persons of any private or public thoroughfares, property or of any positions of access or exit to or from any private or public building, or dwelling place, or any portion thereof and which assembly does in fact so block or obstruct the lawful use by any other person, or persons of any such private or public thoroughfares, property or any position of access or exit to or from any private or public building, or dwelling place, or any portion thereof."
Clearly Rittenhouse was not part of any assembly for such purposes. The people that attacked him were part of such an assembly.
Please, all reasonable Althouse commenters: Stop feeding this troll.
Zach:
Unfortunately, he was in the middle of a riot after it had been declared an unlawful assembly. Therefore, he was engaged in unlawful conduct. That cuts off certain defenses.
No. Stop right there. Wrong.
First, taken at face value, legally being in a place the instant before that area has been declared the location of an unlawful assembly doesn't make the person who happens to be there guilty of unlawful conduct the moment after the declaration has been made.
A person is not a place. Conduct is not a place. If his conduct wasn't illegal before the declaration, then it can't be afterwards.
The castle doctrine only applies to his own home or place of business. And inviting an attack so that you can respond with deadly force puts you squarely in 939.48(2)(c).
That might be relevant if the castle doctrine was being invoked by the defense. It isn't, because it is completely irrelevant to the situation.
The castle doctrine only declares that there are some locations from which no further retreat is required to avoid a confrontation.
And you keep invoking "inviting" an attack without once telling us what conduct he engaged in that was of such a nature as to provoke a defensible attack upon him. Fighting words? Threats of violence?
If you can't tell us why those who attacked him were justified in doing so, then "inviting an attack" is a claim wholly without evidence.
But, at danger of repeating myself, Rittenhouse was not protecting his dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business. So if he tries to defend himself using your argument, he will go to jail.
All the defense has to show (presuming a fair trial) is that a) he didn't provoke the attack, and b) the attacker posed imminent bodily harm.
That's why it's called "self defense", not "property defense."
There are countries where the castle doctrine does not exist, or where self defense is invokable only if you are already dead. England comes to mind.
Your notions would wash there. They won't in any jurisdiction in the US (assuming a fair trial), no matter how many facts you ignore, nor how mercilessly torture law and precedent.
Hey, Zach. Google "Fuck Around And Find Out".
Well, let's demolish Zach point by point.
An "unlawful assembly" is an assembly which consists of 3 or more persons and which causes such a disturbance of public order that it is reasonable to believe that the assembly will cause injury to persons or damage to property unless it is immediately dispersed.
Kyle was not part of an unlawful assemnbly. He was on private property, with other citizens acting as the militia since the state failed in it's primary duty to stop riots. None of them were causing disturbance, including Kyle.
(2) An "unlawful assembly" includes an assembly of persons who assemble for the purpose of blocking or obstructing the lawful use by any other person, or persons of any private or public thoroughfares, property or of any positions of access or exit to or from any private or public building, or dwelling place, or any portion thereof and which assembly does in fact so block or obstruct the lawful use by any other person, or persons of any such private or public thoroughfares, property or any position of access or exit to or from any private or public building, or dwelling place, or any portion thereof.
Again, does not apply to Kyle. All that applies to the rioters.
(3) Whoever intentionally fails or refuses to withdraw from an unlawful assembly which the person knows has been ordered to disperse is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
Applies to the rioters- especially including the ones assaulting Kyle who were shot. Again, Kyle was not part of an unlawful assembly- the rioters were. But---going further
When did this mythical order to disperse happen? The governor of Wisconsin didn't order it. The mayor of Kenosha didn't order it. In fact, according to most reports- they accommodated the rioters. AFAIK, there's no video of police or any other competent authority getting on a bullhorn and ordering the rioters "You must disperse!" In fact, that action seems to have been deliberately not taken to avoid antagonizing the rioters. They were allowed to run free and terrorize citizens and destroy property. SO if there was no dispersal order, Kyle can't have broken the law by refusing to disperse- from a riot he wasn't part of.
"It still doesn't apply here, though, because Rittenhouse was standing around an empty business that didn't belong to him."
-- This is incorrect. The first shooting happened after a group of men chased Rittenhouse. The kid *ran* from them. He attempted to put as much distance between them as possible. He was in full retreat. Then, the first person, the child rapist, threw something at him -- something not dangerous. Rittenhouse turned, checked that what was thrown at him was not dangerous, and KEPT running. Then, some idiot in the crowd, fired a shot while the child rapist was running at him shouting "FUCK YOU." That idiot in the crowd who fired the shot? That forced Rittenhouse to turn around; he couldn't tell where the shot came from, only that he didn't shoot that first shot, and *someone was now shooting at him and the child rapist was trying to grab his gun.* The child rapist then received several lethal shots; the journalist on the scene who observed stated Rittenhouse did not shoot until the child rapist was at melee with him and grabbing for the gun. That's a clean self defense shoot.
The fake medic and woman beater who chased him and got shot also both received justified shoots. The scene again is Rittenhouse running, but being over taken by the mob. The first guy who manages to hit Rittenhouse and knock him down, the reason we don't know anything about him is Rittenhouse covers him with the gun from the ground, and the guy backs off and runs. Rittenhouse *doesn't shoot him.* The skateboarding woman beater attempts to bludgeon the kid on the ground using a lethal improvised weapon and aiming for the kid's head. He gets shot.
The Fake Medic tries to outdraw the kid, but Rittenhouse *covers him.* He doesn't shoot. He sees the Fake Medic put his hands up, still holding his gun, and doesn't shoot. Then, the Fake Medic acts like a villain in an 80s action movie, and tries to point his weapon at the kid. The kid shoots as the Fake Medic has gone from false surrender to attempted murder. The other assailant behind the Fake Medic keeps his hands up and backs away, and does not get shot.
The kid may have made a mistake in going there, but every single shooting was justified.
"That couple in St. Louis, who stood on their front porch with (possibly inoperative) guns when people who had broken into their community seemed to threaten their home, are also being prosecuted."
-- We know one of the one guns was inoperative, because the prosecutor ordered the lab or police department to make the gun capable of firing. This blatant evidence tampering SHOULD have caused the case to be thrown out and the prosecutor/attorney who ordered it to be disbarred and the technicians/officers/whoever who acquiesced to the blatant evidence tampering to be canned too. But, that is not what happened.
I have said, out loud, "My right to defend myself is unbounded, and, being of sound mind, I am the only relevant judge of whether I am defending myself or not." You would not believe—or maybe you would—the level of freakout such an obvious fact engenders.
@Paul Snively, thanks for your support, friend, but the sad reality is that you may, in fact, be judged later by people evaluating whether your use of lethal force was justified or not. The people weren’t there, they didn’t experience what you went through, and they’ve had days or weeks to consider alternatives to the action you took while you had seconds. I recommend a good concealed carry class — the kind where they go over all the relevant laws and case law for your state and run through actual scenarios. Here is one from the class I took:
You are in a convenience store with your minor child, armed with a concealed weapon. A man comes in, goes to the counter, pulls out a gun, sticks it in the clerk’s face, and demands money. Do you pull your gun and intervene?
Answer: No. You quickly move yourself and your kid to the most defensible position you can find, tell your child to be very quiet, and get out your own weapon. Use your cell phone to call 911 if there’s time and you can do it with your non-dominant hand and without alerting the armed robber(s). Whether the robber shoots the clerk or not, you do nothing unless the robber turns towards you. If he does then apply lethal force to protect yourself and your child. Legally, you are not obligated to help the clerk, and bad things can happen if you attempt to intervene — the robber might have an accomplice who sees you and shoots you, or a second armed citizen (or a cop entering the store) might see you approaching the counter with a gun drawn, assume you’re an accomplice, and shoot you both.
Some time ago Althouse had a post centered around a female Asian restaurant owner who had been storing extra supplies in her home. Four burglars, at least two armed with handguns, broke in late at night with the apparent intent of stealing some of those supplies. A video camera, some sort of nanny cam, recorded the break in. It also recorded the moment when the petite Asian woman burst out of the bedroom with her own handgun blazing. The four “heroes” scramble out of the house to get away from the woman, and she follows them to the door, gun still blazing away. I had the sense that Althouse was “You go, girl!” but IMAO the woman should not have left her bedroom. What if one of the armed home intruders saw her before she saw him and returned fire from close range? What if she wounded one of them after he exited the house? Under Virginia law once they are running away they are no longer a threat, you are not allowed to apply lethal force, and the wounded man has the right to sue her into pauperdom. What if one of her missed shots enters an adjacent house and kills a neighbor? What if if police, responding to a 911 call for home invasion in progress, saw a person standing in the door shooting and wrongly concluded that she was one of the perpetrators. When she hears the police yelling to put down the gun, will she realize they’re yelling at her?
My point being that training, especially scenario training, training in clearing stoppages, training to shoot straight under stress, is something one never gets enough of. Also a really good class will also teach you how to deal with the police in the aftermath.
But, yes about the freak outs. When one old acquaintance learned I had a CHP he was horrified. “I hope you’re not carrying one now!” “Here? Of course not.” Was I telling the truth? Would I advertise, even to him, that I have a gun on my person? The point of “concealed” is concealment.
"If Rittenhouse didn't defend himself - the other guy would be on trial for killing him."
-- Doubtful, as no one would know who killed him, and no one would turn him over, because why would they turn over their antifa team mate who killed a white supremacist terrorist?
It is hard not to think Zach isn’t just trolling when he writes “read the statute.” I read the statute for unlawful assembly. Zach simply asserts Rittenhouse was unlawfully assembling without providing evidence as it relates to the statute on unlawful assembly. Then, based on that assertion, Zach points to another statute that he claims says you can’t defend yourself if in the process of committing another illegal act. And that’s an odd argument, because if true, it could be used by Rittenhiuse’s lawyers to claim those who were shot forfeited their lives by also participating in the unlawful assembly. Fortunately, Althouse regular commenters don’t fall for Zach’s deeply flawed logic.
Zack most likely falls into either one or all of the following categories: a disbarred lawyer, a bar stool lawyer or a jail house lawyer.
"George Floyd was doped up on fentynal (sp?) - and there is footage of him saying he could not breathe before the officers tried to subdue him.
Now - I'm not saying the officers should have subdued him like they did - but it really throws off the media-D meme."
There was no reason Officer Chauvin needed to keep his knee on Floyd's neck for nearly nine minutes, other than intent to inflict pain. His torture of Floyd turned into manslaughter.
"Given the level of jury nullification that takes place in courtrooms all over this country complaining about Kyle is pretty rich."
What level is that? I am in favor of jurors knowing their power to refuse to convict a defendant if they believe the law or the penalty are unfair, but I do not think jury nullification is common "all over this country."
There was no reason Officer Chauvin needed to keep his knee on Floyd's neck for nearly nine minutes, other than intent to inflict pain. His torture of Floyd turned into manslaughter.
Floyd had an adverse reaction to a fentanyl overdose. His movement was restricted for his and other people's safety. There was no evidence that his death was precipitated by the restriction, which was sustained until medical help arrived.
The kid may have made a mistake in going there, but every single shooting was justified.
When others kneeled, Rittenhouse stood with people who needed his help (think KKK occupation of businesses, invasion of neighborhoods, setting property on fire). His actions in self-defense against violent, marauding protesters was notable for its measured response to a liberal and progressive provocation.
Zach said, in another missed opportunity to address the relevant point: "Michele, if you would just read the statute, you would find that the right to self defense also includes a right to protect others whose lives are in danger, under pretty much the same restrictions as protecting your own. It still doesn't apply here, though, because Rittenhouse was standing around an empty business that didn't belong to him."
IT DOESNT MATTER WHERE KYLE WAS STANDING OR WALKING OR RUNNING. What matters is whether or not he was attacked and in grave physical danger before he himself employed deadly force. His claim to self-defense does NOT rest on the idea that he was defending property or defending another person when he fired his weapon. Why do you keep dragging in those irrelevant situations/statutes?
And nothing that you've mentioned or that video has revealed shows any justification for those who began to attack him. Therefore, he was entitled to defend himself from death or serious bodily injury.
Zach said...
But, at danger of repeating myself, Rittenhouse was not protecting his dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business. So if he tries to defend himself using your argument, he will go to jail.
If Kyle had shot people for trying to burn down a business, that would not be self defense. Correct.
He didn't do that. Anyone claiming that he did that, or that that is his defense, is beating up a straw man.
Kyle helped put out a fire
People attacked him for putting out the fire.
he defended himself from those attacks.
Other people attacked him for defending himself the first time.
He defended himself from those attacks.
In ALL those cases, Kyle had committed no crime (it's not a crime to put out arson, self defense is not a crime), people attacked him, and he defended himself.
That's pretty much the Platonic ideal of self defense.
No honest jury would convict. No honest DA would charge the case.
"The misdemeanor charge of possession of a weapon by a minor" is an invalid charge that will be thrown out of court, and not get to a jury.
Here's all the gory details: https://gregquark.blogspot.com/2020/09/wi-law-about-16-17-year-olds-carry.html
Short version: The way the law is written, it is entirely lawful for a 16 - 17 year old to open carry a rifle or shotgun in the Sate of Wisconsin. The title of the law says differently. But when the title conflicts with the words of the law, the words win
I like how Zack is assuming, apparently, that only Kyle was guilty here. Apparently it was no crime to attack Rittenhouse during a riot. Leftist rioters can commit crimes, with impunity, and Zack holds that it is illegal to defend yourself against them, but it's not illegal for them to attack anyone.
Rittenhouse has a clear "equal protection" argument here. If it's a crime to be there at a riot, why is he the only one prosecuted? Where is the evidence that suggests that he is being treated the same as all the rioters? Since there is none, he will be let go because it's unconstitutional to selectively enforce the laws.
"Leftist rioters can commit crimes, with impunity..."
That appears to be so.
No open-minded person could watch the videos of the three shootings and fail to find that Rittenhouse acted justifiably to defend himself. It's that simple.
Post a Comment