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:
1 – 200 of 231 Newer› Newest»BLM and Antifa opened a merch store to celebrate burning down neighborhoods, peacefully. I wonder if Minneapolis business owners have thought about suing them for every penny?
"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 just like every other jury pool?
A highly rated comment over there is: "Imagine what would have happened if ISIS had opened a store to celebrate its murders. The victims should swoop down NOW and grab every blood-soaked penny. This act in support of terrorism is an outrage."
Because using a gun to protect your life from people who want to kill you IS EXACTLY LIKE killing innocent people as an act of terrorism.
Fucking idiot. Probably voted for Biden.
Consider the source...
Demagoguery Delights in Delusions.
Self defense is a NATURAL right. It cannot be taken away by legislation, much less by a lefty extremist prosecutor sealing to make a name for himself.
Why not sell T-shirts?
It worked for Mao and Che.
The kid deserves a medal.
I hope Trump pardons him and gives him one.
Watching the press turn pro-prosecution for political reasons is always instructive. Certainly, after all the publicity about this case, an argument that this one website taints the jury pool ought to be laughed out of court.
The new era. Left media and the tech oligarchy present a certain definition of events. Fight back. When the comments at the WaPo show that the Left understands we will enforce one set of rules, not elite privilege vs. deplorable, then we'll be making progress.
"Resist." Can be used ironically, or with full metal jacket.
Funny - we never hear about the agenda of the left.
This kid killed a racist antifa and someone who wanted to kill him. Rittenhouse, according to his actions, footage and police reports, was there to defend property from antifa goons, he ended up defending himself.
Antfa brownshirt goons have merchandise. Leftist politicians and media elites buy it.
If the corrupt left could - the corrupt left would taint the jury pool.
That's how the soviet leftwing mob rolls.
How is OJ Simpson's book selling?
I'm fairly certain that the "free Mumia" t-shirts sprouted on the streets of North Philly (where I was attending college) before the Abu Jamal's trial. Does it make a difference that they were cranked out independently? Or maybe not by the defendant or his defense team? Or that, it being 1981 and all, there was no website involved? Why does a website (with, GASP, a "store!") threaten the integrity of the jury pool or the chances of a fair trial more than a rally or a march or leaflets or t-shirts or murals? That defense lawyer makes a great point in a succinct manner. More than I can say for the muddled, highly-rated comment.
If Rittenhouse didn't defend himself - the other guy would be on trial for killing him. And some leftwing DA would go easy on him..
Like in Denver.
"If the corrupt left could..."
Could? Is there even a sliver of a chance they won't try? We just had an election and their morals (such as they are) when it comes to following the rules are clear for everybody to see.
Whatever it takes- the ends justify the means. FYTW.
Prosecutorial power is already vast and unrestrained. The life and death decisions these people make are completely discretionary and almost always made in secret. Except every so often a case gets publicized enough so that review by the electorate is possible. The Rittenhouse case is a good example. Rittenhouse provides a tiny bit of accountability to people not use to it.
All these complaints are about accountability...
Prosecutorial power is already vast and unrestrained. The life and death decisions these people make are completely discretionary and almost always made in secret. Except every so often a case gets publicized enough so that review by the electorate is possible. The Rittenhouse case is a good example. Rittenhouse provides a tiny bit of accountability to people not use to it.
All these complaints are about accountability...
Google Mumia Abu-Jamal
Thanks WaPo(D) - for the link to donate to Rittenhouse.
Will do so!
>>Jeff Neslund, a Chicago-based civil rights attorney and a former prosecutor with the Cook County state’s attorney’s office, said (Rittenhouse's) website “is dangerous for prosecutors...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."<<
Read Democratic Underground and Daily Kos, Mr. Neslund; you'll feel a lot better about the great agenda website danger for the Rittenhouse prosecutors.
Isis has an extensive online presence... where do they think all of those English terrorists got their black flags.
@I'm not sure.
Well, yes. If the corrupt left "could" = ... and they can... so they do.
Hey everyone - pitch in 5 or 10 bucks to Rittenhouse defense fund. And two middle fingers to WaPoo(D) and leftwing Antifa brownshirts everywhere.
The victims [sic] should swoop down NOW and grab every blood-soaked penny, as they would have done if they'd managed to murder Rittenhouse in Kenosha.
As if the Wapo itself isn't "merchandise site" selling advertising and political influence, and by the deceptive wording of this and other Rittenhouse stories tainting the jury pool.
Our professional class of narrative creators and tenders are slipping. Trying to fix this kid as the villain is just bad story-telling. May these imagineers get further fucked by the digital age in 2021, and may they continue to squander what remains of their credibility and prestige, so that in a few years all who still admire them regret it. Worse than a blatant propaganda press is one that still has its reputation as a vigorous and free press.
"If Rittenhouse didn't defend himself - the other guy would be on trial for killing him."
There would have never been any charges in the first place.
'No reasonable prosecutor, etc.'
If Rittenhouse is convicted and the conviction stands, his ‘victims’ can use existing laws to prevent him from profiting, but there’s an important distinction between defense funds and profit made by offenders from criminal acts.
Most leftists murderers smart enough to retool themselves as victims of society get posh academic jobs because they were criminals, not in spite of it. Look at all the tenured Weather Underground scum.
cc: OJ Simpson
It's not like you can't buy ISIS merch online if that's what you want.
Blogger madAsHell said...
Google Mumia Abu-Jamal
Better, Duck or Bing him.
Friends don't encourage friends to use Google.
John Henry
I hope Rittnhouse is hawking branded medical kits. Nothing says racist homocidal maniac like a man with a med kit.
Blogger BidenFamilyTaxPayerFundedCrackPipe said...
Thanks WaPo(D) - for the link to donate to Rittenhouse.
Will do so!
Do you mean this link?
https://www.freekyleusa.com/
John Henry
“The right or wrong of a situation depends entirely on whose Ox is getting gored. My Ox is sacred, yours is negotiable.”
Dad. Being facetious. I think.
John Henry - yes. Also linked above in Ann's post.
One, two, many Kyle Rittenhouses.
Narr
Yes, another chance for Trump to do some good
another chance for Trump to do some good
I don't think Trump can pardon Kyle Rittenhouse, if that's what you mean. I could be wrong.
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.
He says that like it is a bad thing. Bottom rail on top.
What Brian McKim and/or Traci Skene said...
Damn!! I hate being second!!
I’m always struck by how oblivious people are to who fired at whom first, as that one fact is highly pertinent to his guilt or innocence, assuming one is consistent about their opinion on whether or not any civilians should have been “armed” on the streets that night. Right?
The victims should swoop down NOW and grab every blood-soaked penny.
The (intended) victim is getting his cut of the sales. The perpetrators have already been paid in full.
Kyle helped those 3 clowns enter the Darwin "Pantheon of Fools" Hall of fame. Chasing after a person armed with an AR-15 demonstrates olympic class assholery. As Gunny would say "Ya hate yourself bitch".
Kyle just chlorinated the gene pool.
Bob, IANAL. I would like to see Trump use whatever pardon or other powers he has for good in cases like this, or Snowden, or Assange.
Narr
I learn all my law here at Althouse
Aside: I don't trust his defense team.
After all the video made public clearly showing Kyle acted in self defense, his lawyer said he was not seeking bond; the safest place for Kyle was in jail. I bet he and his mother were thrilled.
....und was bedeutet Rittenhouse auf English??
It's a character from central casting!!
Even if we forgive Rittenhouse the mortal sin of trying to sell something, he's still shirking his sacred obligation to make it easier for the state to prosecute him. In which the Post has always been a believer.
Wow! Spell check did not flag the Deutsch!
Don't tell CNN.
As Althouse says,the description as a “merchandise site” is bogus. Since it’s also inflammatory I conclude it is deliberately misleading.
It's not exactly the same thing (perhaps not even close some would say) but this reminds me of the argument over collegiate athletics and the student-athletes not being allowed to make money from it. To keep the system pure, that's the part this reminds me of. Other people can profit off Rittenhouse, the Washington Post, for example, in writing this article, to help sell newspapers and advertising space, but not the defendant himself supposedly. Because somehow that taints the process of justice.
I am also amused by the supposition that people will want to get on the jury to help Rittenhouse. I think it's true that he has plenty of supporters, I'm not sure there's that many who are hoping to end up on his jury, but then whenever I think of juries, I think of the OJ trial and the months that jury was sequestered. Which I'm thinking this one probably will be as well.
The entire media establishment labeled this kid a racist murderer. They took no time to look at the situation, explore the facts or even consider the possibility his motive and actions were proper.
But one small site standing up against all of that must be treated as a danger to the entire criminal justice system? What garbage.
I have instructed self defense, shoot/no shoot and every other flavor of the legal use of weapons to military, police and civilians. He should be acquitted on clear grounds of self defense for the shootings. He has a problem with the charge of carrying while underage, but after the abuse he has received he should walk even if convicted of that.
Cordially,
Jim Hanson
(Who does not miss the cold of Madison all that much)
Wait, the lying liars who always lie at WaPo have ..... lied?
I was so hoping this year would be different.
"Imagine what would have happened if ISIS had opened a store to celebrate its murders. The victims should swoop down NOW and grab every blood-soaked penny. This act in support of terrorism is an outrage."
Why stop with Rittenhouse? Why not confiscate all the pennies from all the deplorables? They are all terrorists, after all. Aren't they?
Joe Biden should make that executive order #1. (Unless Xi Jinping has other things he wants done first. Obviously, Xi gets first call.)
"Imagine what would have happened if ISIS had opened a store to celebrate its murders."
Leftists would buy up everything?
Why was Kyle's GoFundMe shut down?
Bob, IANAL. I would like to see Trump use whatever pardon or other powers he has for good in cases like this, or Snowden, or Assange.
IANAL either. And I agree with you on all of the above.
But I think Trump can only pardon people on federal charges. I could be wrong about that. Somebody here who is a lawyer could probably tell us more.
I think if Trump could pardon Rittenhouse he'd have done it already.
water is damp, there was a proposal to open up an islamic state club, at my alma mater, that would look awkward on the transcript,
Aside: I don't trust his defense team.
Holy SHIT!! I never thought of that.....these people swoop in with free-bad-legal-advocacy, and then promote the issue in the newspaper. I hope you're wrong.
Ya' know.......Later on in life, I really came to appreciate my high-school civics teacher. I still remember his name, Warren Averill. He must have been the only Republican in the building.
He was really quite the character. I started keeping a journal of his cliches......"You'd think it was rape at high noon on the steps of the White House!!"....."You can't sow a silk purse out of sow's ear!".....by the end of my senior year, I had an entire 2-1/2 pages of quotes. I wish I could remember more of the quotes!!
To be honest, I think he noticed my note-taking, and cranked up the showmanship. By the end of the semester, even the girls were keeping a journal of his quotes.
Wait... the disgraced and seditious Comey can get a six-figure book deal...but Rittenhouse can't sell stuff to help offset his huge legal expenses?
Help me out...
I can't help but think the kid would be better served by hiring lawyers who are more focused on the lawyering.
He has a reasonable self defense argument with one major flaw: he didn't have to be in the middle of a riot, and he didn't have to bring a gun. So being a "second amendment hero" is playing up the weak spot in his defense.
Friends don't encourage friends to use Google.
This blog is google.
I remember the Treyvon Martin family selling merchandise after he was sent to his just rewards. I believe the family even fought over the proceeds. So, as someone said, it all depends on whose ox is being gored. If it is self-defense against BLM then it is not a noble cause and must be prosecuted. And the defendant is not allowed to fund-raise for his defense. If a killing is in support of BLM then it is a noble cause and does not have to adhere to any rules or laws, and all of Hollywood should be required to have fundraisers for the killer.
"Why was Kyle's GoFundMe shut down?"
Because these prog companies decide which causes are worthy and which aren't.
If you're not in the 'fuck Trump' camp then you can't raise money on their platform.
Never bring a skateboard to a gun fight.
I saw video on Twitter of the Rittenhouse incident the night it happened, before there was any media editorializing. Self-defense seemed obvious.
"I can't help but think the kid would be better served by hiring lawyers who are more focused on the lawyering."
I know what you mean, but. The filthy Commie scum who run the legal system in Wisconsin set his bail at two million dollars. Obviously, he is a political prisoner. And his lawyers managed to raise that sum, and get him out of jail. Let's see some fucking liberal-ass Public Defender do that.
My Norton overrides it with a scare page claiming its a scam site before giving me the opportunity to continue. Never seen anything like it. Tech companies' crusade to censor all dissident political thought is becoming oppressive.
"I saw video on Twitter of the Rittenhouse incident the night it happened, before there was any media editorializing. Self-defense seemed obvious."
Yeah, I was kind of surprised that the NYT published videos on their site that made it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted in self-defense. Really, there's nothing on his site that wasn't on NYT already.
and creole obama asked for his extradition,
https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/01/chicago-teachers-union-leader-demands-schools-stay-shut-while-vacationing-in-caribbean/
"I remember the Treyvon Martin family selling merchandise after he was sent to his just rewards. I believe the family even fought over the proceeds."
Sounds like the King™ family...they learned from the best.
The WaPO commenter, who literally sees no distinction between Rittenhouse and ISIS, is a serious danger to any "Deplorable" xe comes in contact with. Xe may not be in a position to do much damage, but if xe is, watch out!
Lately, I've been thinking about the Jews in Germany in the late 1920s-30s. I imagine many of them, successful middle class citizens of an advanced Western European democracy dismissed the rhetoric of HItler the way most of us still do Antifa/ BLM's strident anti-white sentiments. Even when CDC's ethicists openly promote guidelines that deny COVID vaccines to the 65 and older population (which admittedly at greater risk of death and hospitalization) because it includes too many white people. Or the way we shrug at the reality that anyone saying "White Lives Matter, too" is labeled racist and financially ruined for life.
Or the way we accept that Kyle Rittenhouse is on trial for murder, but had his would-be killers succeeded, they would not be.
"He has a reasonable self defense argument with one major flaw: he didn't have to be in the middle of a riot..."
He wasn't in the middle of a riot. The riot started up and came to him.
Self defense seems obvious in the video, because the video takes the circumstances as given: he's being attacked despite constantly retreating.
But the circumstances aren't given: it was the middle of a riot where people had a duty to disperse. He did not live in the area, and it wasn't his property he was protecting.
Self defense laws vary, and I am not a lawyer, but I understand it is much harder to argue when the "self defense" scenario arises from your own illegal actions. And if I were on a jury, the very first question I would ask is whether the defendant was truly a victim of circumstance or was simply spoiling for a fight that went bad.
Holding him up a second amendment hero is arguing that he *should* have traveled to the riot and brought a weapon to protect other people's property (who didn't ask him to do it). It's highlighting the part that is going to be the most problematic for the defense.
Do rioters get to be in a middle of a riot?
why do rioters, looters and arsonists get a pass? Oh right - they hate Trump, or something.
What difference does it make that he was in the vicinity of a riot? The people attacking him were too. Also, it seems a little silly to excuse rioters for being there but heap scorn on people being there to defend property against rioting.
I don't share the strange belief that people are not allowed to defend communities from riots.
He wasn't in the middle of a riot. The riot started up and came to him.
It wasn't in his hometown. He had to catch a ride to get there. And the whole reason he went there was because there was going to be a riot that night. We might as well acknowledge that, because it's not like the prosecution isn't going to notice.
Look at it this way: if the whole thing played out the same way, but Rittenhouse was in front of his home and only got his gun after the riot arrived, the defense would certainly play that up. But it didn't happen that way, which complicates his argument.
Zach made a point (twice, in the same post) of the fact that Mr. Rittenhouse was helping to protect property that wasn't his. Is it a bad thing to help others, now?
"Lately, I've been thinking about the Jews in Germany in the late 1920s-30s. I imagine many of them, successful middle class citizens of an advanced Western European democracy dismissed the rhetoric of HItler the way most of us still do Antifa/ BLM's strident anti-white sentiments."
And yet Jews still vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.
The same people who work every day to take away their second amendment right to self-defense.
Go figure.
What difference does it make that he was in the vicinity of a riot?
It's an unlawful assembly, and he was unlawfully assembling.
Which means that he wasn't separate from the riot. He was in fact rioting. He just had a different agenda from other rioters.
And showing up to a place where there's going to be a big fight while packing heat sounds like you're spoiling for a fight. Which is going to come into play when your plan is to argue self defense.
Again, I am not a lawyer. But from everything I've heard, self defense is much more complicated to argue when it arises from circumstances where you are committing a crime.
"you don't get to what I'd call a "merchandise site.""
IOW, the description is prog propaganda.
"It looks like a somber presentation of the facts of the case."
IOW, it looks like resistance to the media assault.
Zach made a point (twice, in the same post) of the fact that Mr. Rittenhouse was helping to protect property that wasn't his. Is it a bad thing to help others, now?
YES!
Rittenhouse is going to want to argue that he was simply acting as a medic, offering help to all, when a bunch of thugs jumped him.
The prosecution is going to want to argue that Rittenhouse traveled to an area he had no legal right to be in, in hopes of starting a fight with other rioters.
You're making the prosecution's argument!
"It wasn't in his hometown."
People aren't allowed out of their hometowns?
"He had to catch a ride to get there."
None of the rioters there that night got a ride?
"And the whole reason he went there was because there was going to be a riot that night."
No, that's only part of the reason. The rest of it is that he wanted to help protect against damage caused by rioters.
"We might as well acknowledge that, because it's not like the prosecution isn't going to notice."
Ok- fine. Why do you think that's a problem for Mr. Rittenhouse?
For the liar left:
Did Kyle cross state lines with a firearm?
No. Kyle did NOT cross state lines with a firearm. The State of Illinois declined to charge Kyle because he possessed the firearm only in Wisconsin.
Is Kyle a White Supremacist?
No. Categorically False. There is ZERO evidence to support this outrageous claim. Kyle is a patriotic American who bravely tried to defend his community.
Did Kyle’s mom drive Kyle to Kenosha that night?
No. Kyle spent the night at a friends house in Kenosha the night before. Reports that imply Wendy dropped Kyle off the night of the incident are 100% false.
Did Kyle try and evade police?
No. Kyle is seen in multiple videos walking towards the police with his arms raised to surrender. Kyle turned himself in at the police station shortly after the incident.
Learn More About Kyle's Case
Did Kyle go to Kenosha to commit violence?
No. Kyle went to Kenosha to provide medical aid and help protect private property from further destruction at the request of a local business owner.
Did Kyle have an illegal gun?
No. Kyle was carrying a legal semi-automatic, AR-15 style long-barrel rifle. As a 17-year-old, Kyle was legally entitled to open-carry the firearm under Wisconsin law.
Zach - Rittenhouse was there to defend property.
You know -the property that left-wing Antifa brown-shirts like to torch.
Arson is illegal.
Did you know arson is illegal, Zach?
In Denver, NBC affiliate 9 news hired an antifa thug with a gun - and that antifa thug with a gun shot a vet in daylight.
All A-ok!
"The prosecution is going to want to argue that Rittenhouse traveled to an area he had no legal right to be in, in hopes of starting a fight with other rioters.
There was no riot when he got to Kenosha- the riot started later. He had no legal right to be there? That's an interesting analysis. How do you figure? And how do you know what he hoped to do? Did he tell you, or is that what you are imagining he wanted?
"Which means that he wasn't separate from the riot. He was in fact rioting. He just had a different agenda from other rioters."
An absurd false equivalence. Defending property from rioting and destroying property while rioting are not the same actions.
B. An Estimator of Jury Accuracy (pg 8)
+!-++!-++!-+% 2(344#(%('(%(/(/%54((2(46222ˆ1if 1ˆˆˆ( ,,)0.5(12(1) if(1)/21ˆ0.5(1)if(1)/2.f
"The prosecution is going to want to argue that Rittenhouse traveled to an area he had no legal right to be in, in hopes of starting a fight with other rioters."
"An area he had no legal right to be in"? Are you saying that Kyle Rittenhouse was in the US illegally? Hadn't heard that one.
Listen To Freeman, Zach.
Ok- fine. Why do you think that's a problem for Mr. Rittenhouse?
Because he might be barred from making a self defense argument at all.
Or he could be allowed to give a self defense argument, with the following hypothetical instructions to the jury:
"You must decide Mr. Rittenhouse's reasons for being in Kenosha that night. If you decide that he was there to act as a medic, as the defense has argued, you may consider his argument of self defense. If you decide that he traveled there in order to start a fight with other rioters, as the prosecution has argued, then the self defense argument is invalid."
The Minutemen summoned by Paul Revere came from miles around to stand their ground at Lexington. British troops of the line were coming to confiscate their gun powder and the colonials hastened to gather at the site of the gunpowder storage facility to forestall any attempt at confiscation. They didn't want a fight and it was their intention to avoid provoking one. But they came armed because they understood what the British were capable of. They understood that they might be required to defend their property, and themselves. And so they did.
You see what I'm getting at.
A lifeguard? Doesn't look like any lifeguard I've seen.
Kyle was being chased. He had a right to defend himself. Even if that other guy had not fired his gun (supposedly) into the air Kyle had a right to shoot people chasing him. The first one he shot was a pedophile CONVICTED of anally raping two eleven year old boys and forcing at least three more boys ages nine and under to perform oral sex on him. The question should not be if Kyle had a right to shoot him. It should be why a violent rapist of boys was EVER allowed out of prison?
"An area he had no legal right to be in"? Are you saying that Kyle Rittenhouse was in the US illegally? Hadn't heard that one.
It was a riot! Everyone there was required to disperse! That's what an unlawful assembly means!
"If you decide that he traveled there in order to start a fight with other rioters...
"Other rioters"? Mr. Rittenhouse was not a rioter. You need to do a better job of choosing the words you use.
Zach:
I have a distinct memory of reading that Rittenhouse had worked all day at his regular job, which was in Kenosha. If so, saying he went out of his way to go to a riot is simply false. Of course, the way the press and the web work these days, any information favorable to a Trumpish defendant is going to be very difficult to find, and I don't have a lot of spare time today, so I haven't tried to check this. You should maybe do so before accusing him.
Also, as I recall, the three people he shot were all from Wisconsin, but all lived further from Kenosha than he did, two of them much further: his Illinois town is very close to the state line, as is Kenosha. So what business did they have in Kenosha? They didn't have jobs there - unless someone was paying them to riot, which is an interesting question I'd love to know the answer to. If he had a legal job in Kenosha, he had more right to be there than any of the criminal morons he shot.
Was it an unlawful assembly? Or was it declared one after it got violent? Was there a preemptive order issued that closed the area or imposed a curfew or something like that, prior to Rittenhouse's arrival? I'm asking.
IIRC, it was his stated intention as part of a group to defend the property of an acquaintance from anticipated rioting/looting. He got separated somehow.
As far as dispersing, could he argue he was in the process of trying to leave the area, ie disperse?
Even if he was violating an unlawful assembly order or something, I don't see how he forfeits his right to protect his own life.
Dr Weevil -- if that's the case, that would be an actually productive argument for the defense to make. If he brought the rifle to protect himself during lawful activity, that makes him look way more sympathetic.
I always call the WaPo the WaPoo, since it keeps WaPooping on us.
The assembly by one and all was arguably lawful; it was the rioting (and arson, and willful destruction of property, and acts of assault and/or battery) by one of the assembled groups that inarguably wasn't.
Yeah, I was kind of surprised that the NYT published videos on their site that made it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted in self-defense. Really, there's nothing on his site that wasn't on NYT already.. [Emphasis in the original.]
@Jupiter, no doubt that happened because the Times does not believe in the natural right of self defense, especially when defending oneself from “righteous” lefty rioters.
"Other rioters"? Mr. Rittenhouse was not a rioter. You need to do a better job of choosing the words you use
Declaring an assembly a riot means that everyone there has an obligation to disperse.
The original riot act was passed in 1714 (in England):
From
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/what-it-actually-means-to-read-the-riot-act-to-someone
“Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the act made in the first year of King George, for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the King!”
Once the officer—who could be a mayor, bailiff, sheriff, or justice of the peace—read this wordy sentence, ideally in a booming and authoritative voice, the group received a grace period of one hour. After 60 minutes elapsed, any members of the crowd who remained had officially committed a felony. The punishment? Death.
If he was there, he was a rioter.
Make a wish upon a star... Rittenhouse is the deplorable George Floyd. He's a regular modern day Paul Revereware. Riding from town to town shouting "Antifa is coming, Antifa is coming"
His name is Robert Paulson
To be clear:
This incident is not about the 2nd Amendment. It's about the reason there is a 2nd Amendment.
The left want nothing more than to criminalize self-defense. From cops need to shoot people in the leg, to run and hide from attackers, it's always the underlying principle.
Like I say: the boring legal stuff is going to be important in this one.
Imagine if Antifa had a site like that! Oh wait, they don't need a site, the Democrats and liberals give them $$$.
Imagine if a criminal or a Leftwing domestic terrorist killed a judge or policeman or bank guard or set up off a bomb that killed someone and imagine Hollywood/Music celebrities' and other left-wing figures celebrating the killers by writing songs, making films, and giving them money for their defense funds.
of course, that would NEVER happen.
If it's illegal to riot - where are all the arrests of the rioters?
Or he could be allowed to give a self defense argument, with the following hypothetical instructions to the jury:
"You must decide Mr. Rittenhouse's reasons for being in Kenosha that night. If you decide that he was there to act as a medic, as the defense has argued, you may consider his argument of self defense. If you decide that he traveled there in order to start a fight with other rioters, as the prosecution has argued, then the self defense argument is invalid."
The comment section of WaPo and Huffpo lands on Althouse.
The colonials at Lexington implicitly rejected the provisions of the riot act, and the act's underlying philosophy, as an unlawful abrogation of their God-given natural rights, including property rights, which were established by precedent in British law. When ordered to disperse they refused on the grounds that their God-given rights superseded the whim of a tyrannical sovereign. In fact they believed that the king was denying them rights that had long been the preserve of British crown subjects. They were making the point to the king that he was not above the law, and that the king and his representatives had literally no right in the circumstance to order their dispersal. They assembled peacefully to communicate this message. In vain, as it turned out.
The dead guys are beyond suffering.
The punk who had his bicep demolished fortunately is alive to regret his behavior every minute of every day.
He imagined himself a bad ass, talking rough,busting up stuff, setting fires, chasing Kyle, pulling a gun. Now, he crying like a baby, going to doctor appointments, taking pills, and suffering.
What a shame.lol
Funny how the liberals/Left can never explain why Rittenhouse is a bad killer who deserves to get the book thrown at him, and all the killers on death-row and police killers they idolize should be treated with kid gloves.
the only answer for their double standard is this. The liberal/left doesn't give a shit about law and order, or the rule of law, or justice. Its all politics. If Rittenhouse had killed three members of the Alt_right they'd be singing his praises.
You know it, I know it, even Bob Dole knows it.
Rittenhouse was in the middle of a mostly peaceful protest, not a riot.
So, how's the prosecution of the police officers going?
You know, the thing that started the riots? Does anyone know? Does anyone even care?
I'll give you a hint: The prosecutor took his charges to a grand jury. Late September/early October he announced he wasn't going to release the findings of the grand jury until....."after the election".
Jupiter said...
Yeah, I was kind of surprised that the NYT published videos on their site that made it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted in self-defense. Really, there's nothing on his site that wasn't on NYT already.
The NYT would likely prefer that the charges be dropped (even though they won't come out and say it) and the incident forgotten because an acquittal will look bad for their side and a conviction will guarantee that Kyle Rittenhouse becomes a martyr to the Deplorable cause.
I'll say one thing for the WaPo, they've done Rittenhouse a huge favor by advertising the site, and they did it for free.
@1:45- Retail Lawyer is correct.
CNN confirms. Mostly peaceful protests. Not riots.
The comment section of WaPo and Huffpo lands on Althouse.
Oh, sure. By all means, defend your guy in a murder case by blustering past the strong arguments for the other side.
Prosecutors are aggressive, and self defense is tricky. If you don't believe me, look for courses in the law of self defense in your state. It's not as easy as showing a couple of videos and walking out of the courthouse to a slow clap. The other side gets to make arguments, too.
It is well to point out that the colonials, had they wanted a fight, could have attacked the British column while it marching to Lexington, in column of route. Fighting Indian-style, harrying the marching Redcoats along the course of the latter's journey, shooting at them from cover, from behind stone walls and trees, they could inflicted massive casualties on the British force, in much the same fashion as the French and their Indian allies did to Braddock's column in the French and Indian War. But they eschewed this option because they did want to provoke a war. They believed their grievances were legitimate and could be resolved peacefully. It was only after the Redcoats shot them down that they saw the truth of the matter.
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.
"By all means, defend your guy in a murder case by blustering past the strong arguments for the other side."
Do you think you're making strong arguments?
Zach - we realize prosecutors exist to prosecute crime. Often, I stand with prosecutors... Usually - when there is an actual crime. Like say - the Aurora theater shooter where a crazed gunman killed over 10 people in cold blood. I stand with the prosecutor.
Our local media stood with the aurora theater shooter and the one lone juror who saved his life. His victims didn't get that choice.
Also - Leftwing zealots and mobsters who lie also exist.
1. Trump can only grant a pardon for a FEDERAL crime.
2. Lexington and Concord are bad analogies. The British forces were the duly authorized forces of the British government. The militia were the duly authorized forces of the colonists. Nobody was rioting. The Americans were rebelling. It was a war, not yet declared.
There is a "Kýlé Rittenhouse Fúckk Around And Find Out Classic Mug" available through the Althouse Amazon portal.
"It's an unlawful assembly, and he was unlawfully assembling."
Was it? Unless a government/law enforcement entity declared it as a riot/ordered dispersal, a person who is on a public street, not breaking the law otherwise, has every right to be there.
Prosecutors are aggressive, and self defense is tricky. If you don't believe me, look for courses in the law of self defense in your state. It's not as easy as showing a couple of videos and walking out of the courthouse to a slow clap. The other side gets to make arguments, too.
Tell us about it-
The lawyer and his wife from St.Louis is still being prosecuted for standing up to the horde on the steps of their front porch. Even after the DA ordered the weapon/ballistics data altered.
What you call "tricky" normal people call a corrupt, two-tier justice system that few people still hold in high regard.
The left is lawless. They insist all others abide by their version of justice, which can and does change on the dime.
We are left with calling them "Hypocrites", which makes them laugh with amusement.
This cannot hold. Which, is the entire point of it all.
Given the level of jury nullification that takes place in courtrooms all over this country complaining about Kyle is pretty rich.
Keep up your bullshit, leftists, and Kyle Rittenhouse will be the least of your problems.
"You must decide Mr. Rittenhouse's reasons for being in Kenosha that night. If you decide that he was there to act as a medic, as the defense has argued, you may consider his argument of self defense. If you decide that he traveled there in order to start a fight with other rioters, as the prosecution has argued, then the self defense argument is invalid."
Wrong, wrong, wrong! A valid claim of self-defense does not rest on the idea that a person had to have some kind of intention. What matters are actions and reasonable perceptions of whether or not another person put you in mortal danger.
If you went to the Village Square hoping that there would be fighting and that you could join in, you have committed zero crimes. If you went there and didn't aggress upon another person the whole time, it doesn't matter what hopes you may have had in your heart.
OTOH, if you went to the Village Square to feed the homeless and rescue puppy dogs, but you decided to chase down a teenager who had done nothing to you and bash his head in with a skateboard, you would be guilty of aggravated assault and would not have a valid claim of self-defense.
It wasn't in his hometown. He had to catch a ride to get there. And the whole reason he went there was because there was going to be a riot that night. We might as well acknowledge that, because it's not like the prosecution isn't going to notice.
You may want to educate yourself more on why he was there. Because you're wrong.
It's not that he killed anyone is self defense - it's that he killed 2 antifa thugs in self defense.
That's the problem. The leftwing mob protect their own.
RigelDog said...
His "legal theory" wouldn't even make "Bad Legal Takes". He's conflating in an attempt to get you to think about anything but what actually happened.
In short, he's a fucking idiot.
I want to get the Kyle Rittenhouse BB Gun with BLM drop targets for my three grandsons.
The rioters had a gentleman's agreement that THEY were the ones to have the weapons.
Rittenhouse violated that.
He had to be dealt with.
Two million dollar bail for what was a probable case of self-defense with extraordinary self-restraint, and a defendant with a low risk of flight.
Hiv disease for the last 3 years and had pain hard to eat and cough are nightmares,especially the first year At this stage, the immune system is severely weakened, and the risk of contracting opportunistic infections is much greater. However, not everyone with HIV will go on to develop AIDS. The earlier you receive treatment, the better your outcome will be.I started taking ARV to avoid early death but I had faith in God that i would be healed someday.As a Hiv patent we are advise to be taking antiretroviral treatments to reduce our chance of transmitting the virus to others , few weeks ago i came on search on the internet if i could get any information on Hiv treatment with herbal medicine, on my search i saw a testimony of someone who has been healed from Hiv her name was Achima Abelard and other Herpes Virus patent Tasha Moore also giving testimony about this same man,Called Dr Itua Herbal Center.I was moved by the testimony and i contacted him by his Email.drituaherbalcenter@gmail.com . We chatted and he send me a bottle of herbal medicine I drank it as he instructed me to.After drinking it he ask me to go for a test that how i ended my suffering life of Hiv patent,I'm cured and free of Arv Pills.I'm forever grateful to him Drituaherbalcenter.Here his contact Number +2348149277967...He assure me he can cure the following disease..Hiv,Cancer,Herpes Virus,Hpv,Pile,Weak Erection,Lyme Disease,Epilepsy,Glaucoma.,Brain Tumor,psoriasis, Cataracts,Macular degeneration,Cardiovascular disease,Chronic Diarrhea,Lung disease.Enlarged prostate,Osteoporosis.Alzheimer's disease,
Dementia. ,Bladder Cancer,Autism,Colorectal Cancer,Breast Cancer,Kidney Cancer,Leukemia,Lung Cancer,Tay tach disease,Non Hodgkin Lymphoma,Skin Cancer,Lupus,Uterine Cancer,Prostate Cancer, Seizures, fibromyalgia ,ALS,Hepatitis,Copd,Parkinson disease.Genetic disease,Fibrodysplasia disease,Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva,Fluoroquinolone Toxicity Syndrome,Stroke,Hpv,Weak Erection,Liver/Kidney Inflammatory,Men/Woman infertility, bowel disease ,Huntington's disease ,Diabetes,Fibroid.
using a gun to protect your life from people who want to kill you IS EXACTLY LIKE killing innocent people as an act of terrorism
Not only "want to kill", but his life was at immediate, and with multiple protesters attacking, progressive risk. The shooting was reactive, not proactive, and measured. #HateLovesAbortion
Given the riots in Kenosha, there is no way I can see him being convicted in that county. Hung jury is a possibility though. And the prosecutor might try to retry the case knowing that the process itself is a form of punishment. I don't know what allegations the prosecutor is making, but I struggle to see how any prosecutor can have a good-faith belief in the likelihood of securing a conviction in this case. Kyle went there only after the rioting had occurred. There is photographic evidence showing him cleaning up a vandalized public school. There is video evidence of him declaring himself to be a medic and offering to treat anyone who was wounded. The video of the two shooting incidents shows him fleeing from the people approaching. After the second shooting he sought out police. He ended up going to the police station voluntarily, and told them of the incidents he was involved in. These are not the actions of a guilty person. I don't know what possible crazy arguments can be made to spin these facts. That Kyle is some evil criminal genius 17 year old and carefully plotted these actions ahead of time to give himself legal cover for his real goal of shooting people? I would say I feel badly for the 3 people shot and the 2 that perished but that would be a lie. Kyle should walk free. And the prosecutor should be out of a job.
Youtuber PSA Sitch has been calling the Rittenhouse case a "free will test." Basically, if you watch the footage of the incident and come away thinking Rittenhouse didn't 100% defend himself, you are captured by ideology and have no intellectual free will.
Lefties have been coming out of the woodwork on this case for months, each of them omitting details, railing on irrelevant facts, or straight-up imagining things. They live in a fantasy land.
Zach's arguments are not strong here. Self-defense does not evaporate the moment you're out after a curfew. If you're loitering out after dark and a maniac chases you in an attempted murder, what are you supposed to do? Sit down and take it? Say, "aw shucks, guess I have to get murdered now"? Being on a public street after curfew is not the same as breaking into someone's house at night. There is no public castle doctrine meaning that if you are outside, you are free pickings for any maniac who sees you. That is, if you jaywalk, you are not surrendering yourself to a mob justice beatdown because you "broke the law."
Same goes for "HE BROUGHT A GUN." Watch the video. Everyone had guns, including the protestors. Open carrying a gun is not an invitation for a fight; it is in fact a de-escalation, a means to dissuading violence (which failed when a literally suicidal psychopath attacked him, a man who earlier in the evening begged other gunmen to shoot him).
If a woman kills a man who tries to rape her, you cannot argue "she shouldn't have been walking alone in that dark alley with a short skirt" to discount her self-defense.
If you decide that he traveled there in order to start a fight with other rioters
Start a fight with the neo-KKK? No. He was there to stand with people who were being threatened and attacked by the protestors. In other cases, the neo-KKK invaded neighborhoods, even cities, to intimidate people to kneel. They occupied Bezos property and his wife paid several billion in protection fees to the racket. Not everyone can afford to make payment to the mob.
They insist all others abide by their version of justice, which can and does change on the dime.
Social justice (i.e. a Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic, relativistic religious doctrine) anywhere is injustice everywhere.
In Zach's fever-dream imagination of self-defense law, if you roll through a stop sign, a random person can walk up to your car, open your door, and punch you in the face. And keep punching. And pull you out of the car for additional beating. If you kill that person, you're a murderer because you broke the law first! You criminal!
Better, Duck or Bing him.
Friends don't encourage friends to use Google.
Yeah, or search, without bias. When did Google under the Alphabet umbrella corporation become a Kleenex, a Xerox? I should probably insert an emoticon here.
Tara Omar! Show us your tits, girl!
Narr
And put a mask on
Jury pools get tainted both ways. This bozo doth protest too much.
I figured out who Zach is. Zack from Big Bang Theory.
Hmm, I wonder what the Wisconsin statute says?
https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2014/chapter-939/section-939.48
939.48(1m)(b) (b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:
939.48(1m)(b)1. 1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity at the time.
...
939.48(2) (2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
939.48(2)(a) (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
939.48(2)(b) (b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
939.48(2)(c) (c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.
Like I said, quite tricky. He was engaged in unlawful behavior and arguably provoking an attack in which he could claim self defense. He then retreated.
But standing in the street between a mob and a business they want to burn down sounds an awful lot like "provok[ing] an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant." In which case all the exceptions and subclauses drop away and Rittenhouse "is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense."
Rittenhouse needs to hire some lawyers who have experience with criminal defense in the state of Wisconsin.
"Like I said, quite tricky. He was engaged in unlawful behavior and arguably provoking an attack in which he could claim self defense."
You left out the proof that he intended the eventual outcome. An oversight? Or what?
and arguably provoking an attack in which he could claim self defense. He then retreated.
So what is the argument that he was provoking an attack? Him being out after a curfew doesn't strike me as an action that is provoking an attack. Is there some other allegation that he did something else?
"Why was Kyle's GoFundMe shut down?"
I guess that's the point: they'll stop you from fundraising, then criticise you for making your own money.
"Provoking an attack" is another lie.
"I want to carry out a criminal act. You are standing between me and the intended target of that attack. Therefore, you have provoked me to attack you."
Do I have that right, Zach?
"Is there some other allegation that he did something else?"
It would appear Zach is arguing that, by making it more difficult for the rioting mob to continue with their destruction of private property, Kyle provoked them.
"Victims." Ha! They were belligerents who got more than they bargained for. Too bad for them.
Ok- Kirk P. got there first. But still...
"Provoking an attack" =
If leftwing thugs plan and show up to riot and commit arson - you better not get in their way.
But standing in the street between a mob and a business they want to burn down sounds an awful lot like "provok[ing] an attack"
Standing?? STANDING?? In what universe is "standing" provocation? Standing is not a crime! Standing is not aggression! It's literally NON-ACTION.
And that is not even what happened! Kyle was standing in the street in a neutral place, away from the business and separated from his group, when Rosenbaum approached him and tried to start shit. Rittenhouse ignored him and, when Rosenbaum wouldn't leave him alone, Rittenhouse bolted to get away. These details are described by the prosecution in their charging document, which I see you have not actually read. Rosenbaum instigated here, and even the prosecution knows it.
Also you literally post this:
939.48(2)(b) (b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
Withdraws from the fight? Like Kyle Rittenhouse did when he ran from the crazy person? And when he tried to disengage and withdraw, as people continued to chase and attack him?
Let's see. We've got the Jogger in Georgia (JiG). We've got Fentanyl Floyd. We've got the People's Pedo and the Skateboard Skourge, along with He Who Hesitated and Lost (an arm) in Kenosha. We've got the McCloskeys in St Louis. The Law According To Soros has set up a series of criminal persecutions of honest, law-abiding Americans for the coming year. It's a pity that juries can't find the prosecution Guilty As Charged.
If memory serves, he tried to make his way back to his friends before this went down, but Police wouldn't permit it and sent him on his way...which did not go well.
Howard said... Rittenhouse is the deplorable George Floyd. He's a regular modern day Paul Revereware.
Howie needs to go back to troll school. There are plenty of 12 year-olds who are far more clever.
The Vault Dweller said...
So what is the argument that he was provoking an attack?
Apparently when Antifa stomps it's feet and goes "Boo!" you're supposed to run away screaming in fear, otherwise you're "provoking them".
Seems to me that Zach has failed badly at Althouse's "If you had to defend that" breakfast table game.
"Withdraws from the fight? Like Kyle Rittenhouse did when he ran from the crazy person? And when he tried to disengage and withdraw, as people continued to chase and attack him?"
"Continued to chase and attack him", like the guy who was shot in the arm who later said his only regret was not killing Kyle?
But the rioters were the victims here? How stupid do you have to be to believe that?
Let's give Zach the benefit of the doubt. His claim is that Kyle Rittenhouse is in danger of being convicted of serious crimes. I can't disagree with that. He also claims that Rittenhouse's current set of attorneys are pursuing a dangerous course. I suppose that is true too, given that they are opposing an utterly corrupt and unscrupulous collection of bottom-feeding Democrat legal parasites, but that was hardly a choice that they made. They have chosen to widely publicize the innocence of their client, rather than keeping quiet and hoping for a plea deal that will rob their client of the next decade of his life. An unusual approach, but the circumstances are unusual. One half of a Nation cries out for justice for their client.
So, Zach. You believe that Rittenhouse would be better served by some well-connected shysters who would plead him out for a ten-year sentence? Instead of raising millions of dollars to hire defense witnesses, applying crushing pressure to the corrupt and vulnerable prosecution maggots, and arguing his very strong case publicly to the probable Kenosha jurors? Your view is noted.
It's an unlawful assembly, and he was unlawfully assembling.
That's an assertion made without factual evidence. First, the "riot" may be unlawful, but the defense of property is not a disturbance of the peace. Indeed, Rittenhouse purpose for being there was to assist in restoring the peace. While some focus on him carrying a gun, Rittenhouse was also providing first aid to people injured by rioters. As you noted, his stated purpose for being there was as a medic.
Second, where is the ruling in court that the riot was an unlawful assembly? If you are going to present this as evidence in court, then shouldn't you show that a) The assembly was ruled unlawful? b) that Rittenhouse had knowledge of this or should have had knowledge that the assembly he was participating was unlawful? In fact, there are plenty of media and official reports that declared the assembly a peaceful protest, which doesn't satisfy the statute for unlawful assembly. Read the statute on "unlawful assembly" for Wisconsin (section 947.06). Read the statute on "unlawful assembly" for Wisconsin (section 947.06).
Finally, Kyle Rittenhouse entered the area after checking in when the police on the scene. If it was unlawful, the police would have been dispersing and suppressing the assembly per paragraph 1; yet they let Rittenhouse enter. Indeed, the police were told by elected officials not to disperse the crowd. The definition of unlawful assembly includes the intent to damage property, and it is clear that Rittenhouse was there to prevent damage to property. Rittenhouse never refused to leave upon being ordered to disperse, because a) the order was never given and b) he is seen asking permission of officials on the scene to be there.
As for provoking an attack; video evidence shows that a third person provoked a rioter and the rioter confused Rittenhouse as the third person. So the claim that Rittenhouse "provoked" the attack fails. Just being present is not provocation, particularly as discussed earlier, there was no unlawful assembly declared. I also caution declaring that "[Rittenhouse] was engaged in unlawful behavior" when that hasn't been proven anywhere by anybody and you have failed to provide evidence to back up that claim.
Nutshells.
The defense case: Kyle Rittenhouse was pursued by multiple attackers who demonstrated clear intent to commit serious harm upon him. A reasonable person in Rittenhouse's situation would be justified in using lethal force to stop the attack(s).
The prosecution case: It is a crime to defend oneself against the threat of serious injury or death if the attackers belong to a protected political class.
If I was a juror, I know how I would decide.
Kyle, some 4 months short of 18, and employed in Kenosha, was only one of many to respond to the appeal of a former assemblyman for armed citizens to prevent further looting and arson. The damage resulting from this violence is estimated to exceed $80 million. 20 buildings were burned to the ground, and many more damaged. The historic Danish Brotherhood Lodge, a charitable organization, was left a pile of rubble. The owner of Car source, whose inventory was torched, says his losses exceed $4 million. (His insurer has invoked the 'riot' exclusion.) Attempts were made to set fire to residential structures.
If those who stepped forward to put an end to the destruction were heard to defend themselves, what would they say? Let me speak for them: Only the most craven of the able bodied would, in the absence of police protection, passively sit on their hands as a riotous mob destroyed their community.
The Criminal Complaint states that Kyle, accompanied by Richie McGinniss, a reporter, began to run when Rosenbaum, who set these events in motion, attempted to "engage" him. The defense video compilation includes the 8/28 interview of McGinniss by Fox News. He says he followed as Rosenbaum chased Kyle across a parking lot. A shot rang out, and Kyle turned to confront his pursuer. "I took 1 or 2 steps to my right, just as Rosenbaum was lunging for the barrel of the rifle." Only then did Kyle fire. Joseph Ziminski of Racine has been arrested for firing the shot that caused Kyle to turn.
Kyle was carrying an AR 15, the most popular sporting rifle, kept in a locker of a hunting companion in Kenosha. The Complaint contains no verbiage about "crossing state lines."
From everything I have seen, and I have seen a lot because there were several videos taken at the time or near in time to what happened -- Rittenhouse was heroic and did the right thing. Even when we don't have video of crucial moments, it's easy to imagine what happened because there's video of these people, the people that Rittenhouse was defending himself from, close in time to that and we can see what kind of people that were and how they acted.
If you can put yourself in Rittenhouse's shoes and imagine it was you and you were being chased and people were trying to kill you or seriously injure you, just as can be seen from other videos taken that night, then you will sympathize with Rittenhouse. And in fact you might even think about all the ways he could have gotten it wrong and didn't. And even realize that if it had been you, actually you there, you might have done seriously worse.
So the way the mind of a left-wing believer works is to not think about what they don't want to think about -- do not put yourself in Rittenhouse's shoes -- and to create a false narrative for the hive mind to believe in and then to repeat it over and over again -- which is what journalists do -- until the faithful get angry when they hear anything else.
And maybe there's more to it. But that's my first guess as to how it works.
"But the rioters were the victims here? How stupid do you have to be to believe that?"
Biden stupid.
"Howie needs to go back to troll school. There are plenty of 12 year-olds who are far more clever."
Oh, now. I would say that Howie is easily the most capable of our trolls. He has a disarming ability to set aside his primary mask and operate from behind another, while maintaining his Howard identity. It's impressive, and rather effective. Imagine Igna trying that, or Chuckles. How's that big dick taste, Chuckles? Let me guess. Like chicken.
Zach said: "939.48(2)(c) (c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.
Like I said, quite tricky. He was engaged in unlawful behavior and arguably provoking an attack in which he could claim self defense. He then retreated."
NOPE. He wasn't engaged in unlawful behavior and he didn't provoke an attack. Those terms do not mean what you seem to think they mean.
He definitely continually retreated, you got that part right.
"But standing in the street between a mob and a business they want to burn down sounds an awful lot like "provok[ing] an attack....
NOPE. That's not going to fall into any sort of legally-recognized provocation.
How did he "provoke an attack"?
By being there and then retreating?
Zach, you’re very confused. Kyle Rittenhouse was rendering or attempting to render medical aid when first attacked. If there was such a legal concept as “duty to disperse” (there is not) it wouldn’t apply to him. Rioters are required to disperse or face deadly force to disperse them (note-required, not a duty) and bring a halt to the riot. That is, of course, if The Riot Act is actually read by the authorities. They did no such thing. They allowed the rioters free reign and failed to maintain good public order, their most important job.
The governor of Wisconsin and the mayor of Kenosha both deserve to have their sleep interrupted one night by a mob with pitchforks, torches, and rope. Maybe their replacements will properly deal with out of control rioters.
Let's step back and consider what's really going on here. This young man is being threatened with a long prison sentence. 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. Why? When the Left gains control of a city or state government, and members/allies of the Left resort to violence to promote the goals of the Left, isn't it common sense to suppose that the Left-controlled government wants to use its power to discourage citizen opposition to that violence?
Even if Rittenhouse is acquitted, hasn't the Left won? Would you put yourself at risk not only of death or great bodily injury (which "would never happen to me!"), but of having your life ruined even if you are acquitted, to stand up against the violence of the Left?
BTW, I said "the Left", but how different is this from the way "the Right" came to power in Italy and Germany?
Blogger Jupiter said...
Let's give Zach the benefit of the doubt.
No. He hasn't earned it.
Starting position: What say you?
This is why this country keeps ratcheting towards the left. We live by a standard of right and wrong, fairness, and good faith arguments. They live by the standard of fuck-you
"Even if Rittenhouse is acquitted, hasn't the Left won? Would you put yourself at risk not only of death or great bodily injury (which "would never happen to me!"), but of having your life ruined even if you are acquitted, to stand up against the violence of the Left?"
Otherwise known as "The Process Is The Punishment".
""939.48(2)(c) (c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense."
Is that really what the statute says? Does the law of the State of Wisconsin actually contemplate the possibility that a person can "provoke an attack" by lawful conduct? If the "attack" is expected to excuse bodily harm visited upon the attacker, it must, necessarily, be an unlawful act. Thus the law is saying that an unlawful attack can be justified by lawful behavior that "provokes" it. How might lawful actions "provoke" an unlawful attack? Perhaps if a woman wore provocative clothing? There are women who would do that. Show some ankle, or even just a lock of hair. Some poor frustrated bastard is provoked into dragging her into an alley and raping her, and the bitch shoots the poor guy! I think we can all agree with the Wisconsin legislature that any woman who behaves in that provocative fashion deserves whatever she gets. We can't let these brazen whores keep hiding behind the law.
"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."
Actually, the gate that was broken was not a gate into "their community", it was a gate into their private property, and the mob, some of whom were armed, were standing on their property.
The first mistake is to believe what the left says. They don't believe a word of it.
You, normal people, tend to believe everyone until proven otherwise.
Every aspect of traditional American life has been destroyed. From government to media to industry to media, to common decency, respect, courtship, and 'mind your own business', to the Boy Scouts to the Church.
All still are virtuous in your memory, based off legacy.
What Kyle did that day, that night, is nothing short of admirable. Yet, we feel we have to defend every bullshit shitpost from assholes...always playing defense.
Damn.
Zach,
But standing in the street between a mob and a business they want to burn down sounds an awful lot like "provok[ing] an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant."
Ooookay. Let's have another hypo, shall we? Suppose it wasn't "a business," but a private home, and Rittenhouse was "standing in the street" between the mob and the people in the residence. Still "provocation"? I mean, there Rittenhouse is, doing something admittedly legal to prevent the mob from doing something admittedly illegal. We could add some rococo embellishments, if you like. Suppose the people in the residence can't flee, because they are infirm or elderly or physically constrained in some way. Suppose the mob still wants to burn down the building, with the people in it. Still "provocative" to stand in the street between the mob and the house?
I ask, because the law you cite makes none of the distinctions you are likely to use in objection. If Rittenhouse's actions were "provoking an attack," then so would be the action of "standing in the street" between the KKK mob and the Black family living in their house. Obviously you'd want the person with the temerity to do that "provocative" thing punished, too. Right? I mean, you got in front of the mob; obviously the mob is in the right, and should be able to burn down anything it feels like.
I'm being hyperbolic, yes. But this whole line of argument makes me sick to the stomach.
"What Kyle did that day, that night, is nothing short of admirable. Yet, we feel we have to defend every bullshit shitpost from assholes...always playing defense.
Damn."
Guilty as charged, I suppose. There are far too many communities in this country who don't deserve a Kyle Rittenhouse these days, when even the police are letting the leftist garbage amongst us run loose.
Damn, indeed.
..."always playing defense."
Like I've said, the left defines the terms and always goes on offense, they never relent...and that is admirable.
And the idiot 'right' plays by the other teams rules and is more concerned about what the NYT or CNN has to say about them.
20221 is the year to drop my R party affiliation. They don't fight. I'll support someone who will.
MDT,
I don't see the hyperbole in what you are saying. That is exactly the sort of misapplication of Wisconsin law that Zach is trying to use here.
"And the idiot 'right' plays by the other teams rules..."
It's even worse than that. The left doesn't play by their own rules, yet insists that the right do. And the right does.
Which has a lot to do with the incredible amount of TDS displayed these last four years. How dare he not go along with the scam? It's kind of what you'd expect to see if the Generals stopped rolling over for the Globetrotters.
Zach,
The more I read your contributions to this thread, the worse they get.
Rittenhouse worked in Kenosha. He had every right to be there. He had traveled less far than the assailants he killed. His gun wasn't "transported across state lines," but bought in WI and kept there. It takes a particularly cynical bastard to argue that it doesn't matter that he was defending property from being torched, because it wasn't his property, or that he was "in" the riot, just with a different agenda, as though the arsonists and the firefighters are all just doing the same general sort of thing. (Were there firefighters, by the way? There was certainly arson. And were the firefighters also in violation of the Riot Act, and, if so, shouldn't all of them also be charged?)
It makes no sense that he would be carrying a first aid kit if his aim was to shed blood.
You say you aren't a lawyer. I can well believe it.
Oso Negro said...I want to get the Kyle Rittenhouse BB Gun with BLM drop targets for my three grandsons.
He should flee to Florida (or Texas) after negotiating for that state's official protection even if contrary to custom, and start a self-defense program (and militia training) to train others in his superb gunhandling skills. Fuck Wisconsin and county up there. The U.S. as we knew it is unraveling very fast and this is no time to worry about tradition.
Think California and counties ignoring Federal law in immigration.
No one has "standing" to challenge the election results. NO ONE. Not before the election, not after the election, not in this lifetime, or the afterlife.
Wanna stop signature verification, audits, legal testimony, re-redistricting, you name it-Standing.
Honduran gang-banger in Mexico wanting U.S. residency-ISIS terrorist in Iraq? Hell yea, present your case to the U.S. federal court, and you'll have your day.
The President of the United States, with bona fide evidence of illegal voting to removes him from office?
You Sir, will not be heard! You have no access to legal remedy of grievance in America!
That's how fucked up this country is right now.
Kyle's future is a microcosm of this country. What befalls him befalls us.
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.
Being engaged in lawful or unlawful conduct is an important distinction. It makes a big difference whether certain outcomes can be reached. 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.
Provoking a fight is arguable. But after all, what are you doing if you brandish a weapon in the street except making a credible threat to start a fight if they don't do what you want? Remember, the statute doesn't say he has actions have to be unlawful to provoke an attack -- it clearly says that lawful actions which provoke an attack lose the privilege of self defense.
The statute says that he can regain the privilege by retreating. And he did retreat. But it said that in paragraph b), which is modified by paragraph c) making it clear that provoking an attack with the intent of using it as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm means that the assailant cannot claim self defense.
All of which means that a defense which claims he was standing between the mob and someone else's business in order to prevent the mob from burning it down is going to be a loser. 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).
If he wants to claim self defense, he should make the claim that he was only there to offer first aid to the injured. And that his conduct, while technically unlawful because it occurred during a riot, was otherwise consistent with retreating, deescalating, etc until he was legitimately in fear of death or great bodily harm.
Unfortunately, his lawyers are raising money on the principle that he was a hero for standing between the mob and the business it wanted to burn down. That's the worst move on the board! The Wisconsin legislature specifically said you can't provoke an attack, lawfully or unlawfully, and then claim self defense.
"His gun wasn't "transported across state lines," but bought in WI and kept there."
If "transported across state lines" is the problem for Zach and the gun wasn't, he'd be okay with Kyle's actions, then? I'd bet not. It's just another one of the bullshit piled-on charges that get thrown at those who are not pets of the prosecutor, just because he can.
How many rioters were arrested and held on $2 million bail that night, anyway? I forget.
"The Wisconsin legislature specifically said you can't provoke an attack, lawfully or unlawfully, and then claim self defense."
So your legal opinion is that if someone wants to burn your house down, you are provoking them by not letting them?
What a maroon.
Note for Browndog-
I am moving on from defending my position with Zach to mocking him. As he has made clear, he's either an idiot or a troll.
I'm Not Sure,
So your legal opinion is that if someone wants to burn your house down, you are provoking them by not letting them?
Oh, no, Zach is more lenient than that. He's OK with your defending your own house from a mob. It's when it's some other person's house involved that he says, no can do. Because you, of course, have no interest whatsoever in what happens to your neighbors.
Again, Zach: Where does it say in your statute that firefighters can attempt to put out a fire during an "unlawful assembly"? Are they not just more rioters, with "different agendas"? I guess the general idea is that arsonists gotta arson, and the rest of us gotta do nothing.
So your legal opinion is that if someone wants to burn your house down, you are provoking them by not letting them?
The statute has a specific carve out for defending your own home, place of business, or motor vehicle:
939.48(1m)(ar)1. 1. The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
939.48(1m)(ar)2. 2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.
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.
Zach thinks there is a pro-Antifa jury somewhere in Wisconsin.
Helping OJ Simpson set up his own site. We've ordered thousands of "OJ Killed Nicole and Ron Goldman and All I Got Is This Bloody T-Shirt" bloody t-shirts.
"Zach thinks...
Evidence?
Again, Zach: Where does it say in your statute that firefighters can attempt to put out a fire during an "unlawful assembly"?
I suggest you look it up, Michele.
https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2012/chapter-947/section-947.06/
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.
(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.
(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.
Paragraph (3) seems quite clear to me, but maybe you can find an interesting wrinkle.
Big Mike: Self defense is a NATURAL right. It cannot be taken away by legislation...
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.
Post a Comment