-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rittenhouse Trial
- Thread starter hollowoutadime
- Start date
Great analogy. Yes, all minors should be at riots and places likely to have alcohol and drugs. That's where we want all legal precedents to be set. I see you're a "parent by the village" kind of guy.
Greg Gauthier on Gab: ''
Greg Gauthier on Gab: 'This should be grounds enough for completely dismissing the case. The destruction of exculpatory evidence is proof enough of malicious prosecution, in my book.'gab.com
Is this the same FBI that participated in the coup of a sitting United States President? Asking for a friend.
So if the minor in this hypothetical situation stabbed their rapist they should be charged. Wtf I'm guessing she asked for it also.
The gov't didn't do their job of maintaining law and order - allowing protestors to burn, loot, etc.
That failure might have started with the mayor, city council and up to and including a weak governor.
Gov. though might have been "blowing off steam with hopeful minor was cheaper than a Kent State scenario"
It's a shame the position the gov't put the residents in, but I can't say I'm surprised. I don't depend on them.
**
So some residents say "not in my backyard". Some are idealists, others curious, some minors. This was an exceptional time. Similar to "patriot doing patriot things".
**
So Kyle grabs his rifle,his friends and goes down there.
Had he borrowed a weapon it might be a little different (eliminating the straw buyer issue), minor point for Kyle (not his friend though)
As for being a minor, If I were a juror, I'd argue that gov't failed the population causing residents to act.
If some were minors, so be it.
This is America, Kyle had a right to be there.
Kyle didn't act recklessly, didn't fire unnecessarily, maintained control, fired no more than he had to, gave bad guys ability to retreat. (which they didn't)
That failure might have started with the mayor, city council and up to and including a weak governor.
Gov. though might have been "blowing off steam with hopeful minor was cheaper than a Kent State scenario"
It's a shame the position the gov't put the residents in, but I can't say I'm surprised. I don't depend on them.
**
So some residents say "not in my backyard". Some are idealists, others curious, some minors. This was an exceptional time. Similar to "patriot doing patriot things".
**
So Kyle grabs his rifle,his friends and goes down there.
Had he borrowed a weapon it might be a little different (eliminating the straw buyer issue), minor point for Kyle (not his friend though)
As for being a minor, If I were a juror, I'd argue that gov't failed the population causing residents to act.
If some were minors, so be it.
This is America, Kyle had a right to be there.
Kyle didn't act recklessly, didn't fire unnecessarily, maintained control, fired no more than he had to, gave bad guys ability to retreat. (which they didn't)
best post here by a wide margin
It seems the twats are rapidly growing in number here.
The fact that he announced numerous times that he was looking for anyone who needed medical help is of major importance.
I guess with your argument, if the rioters were not at that location, Rittenhouse, nor others who were trying to protect properties wouldn't have to be there. I'm not saying there's not a chance he's convicted, but regardless of what the jury says, he'll get a retrial. This isn't going away any time soon, unless the judge dismisses the case with prejudice. I wonder if this isn't a case where the judge could over ride the jury's decision and declares Rittenhouse innocent of all charges. But then again, some of the jurors seemed to be very pro 2A. We'll have to see, but I'm hoping the kid gets off entirely.
After all, progressive judges have dismissed charges for the rioter brought to courts.
There's the problem right there. We need to go back to common sense and consequences.
Wanna riot? Bullet for you.
Spilled McDonald's coffee in your lap? Sucks to be you, but it's not their fault you're clumsy.
We've spent decades creating entitled little shits who believe accountability is an archaic concept
I would agree with that and I'm not arguing at all. I'm simply looking at this as I would if he was my kid, and I wouldn't want my own in this mess. I consider someone like Massad Ayoob to be an SME on this and when he starts off with never shoot someone and if you have to defend yourself it will be $100k, ugh. That being said, Ayoob had positive things to say about the case.
You have people trolling here looking for arguments as if there isn't a difference between a 17 y/o at war vs. in a riot. I hope he gets off as well but since they seated a jury, etc. I think the chances of being dismissed are slim and none.
And since it was mentioned already, I think a squeamish public is a lot more willing to support a teenager in OK killing home invaders with an AR rather than Kyle. Do his rights get lost in the noise of wokeness? I wouldn't want to bet my kid's future on the outcome of this trial.
The "adults" he was with have hung him out to dry, that night and now.
You may "feel" something but that doesn't make it true.
There is virtually no way to get acquitted in a self defense case without testifying. The subjective element of self defense--believing one's life/limb is imminently threatened--usually cannot be established without the defendant testifying.
We the People created Government and created a framework that Government is supposed to Follow, it is not Organic and it must at all times serve US, when Government Fails US and lets our society decay into the mess that created an out of control riot, with imported rioters, We the People have the Right to take it back and set things right. The Government Failed and the People Acted, blood is on the hands of every government employee and elected that failed in letting the scum burn the city.
A video of a guy swinging a skateboard at your head, and another pointing a pistol at you pretty much says it all
It may show that the actions are objectively reasonable, but ONLY the person using the force can say what he or she feared when the deadly force is used. That virtually requires testimony, unless it can be demonstrated circumstantially from what is going on in the situation, which while that may seem obvious, it isn't always so obvious.
In my state, it is virtually impossible to even get the self defense instruction without the defendant testifying. I know of only one reported case where it has ever happened in its 109 year history, and thus far in my own cases, the self defense instruction has never been given (even where requested) where the defendant didn't testify.
I recall a case where a defense attorney asked for such an instruction after her client got into a full on boxing match with a deputy sheriff on a dirt road out in the county. The defendant claimed that he feared the officer because he got his ass beaten and got tased. The court of appeals quite laughingly affirmed his conviction after noting that the ass beating and the TASER only came into play after he'd struck the deputy, and therefore the ass beating and TASER couldn't have formed the basis for him having struck the officer in the performance of his duties. Dude got his ass whopped and got 18 months in prison.
Strange state. Here's it's what a reasonable person (juror) would believe if in the same situation.
We had a junkie who broke into his dealer's house to rob him. Dealer put a 12ga round center chest. DA only prosecuted for the drugs, not the shooting.
Reading a few of the "opinions" here, I'm not sure I would want gun owners on the jury. Take my chances with the judge.
Holy fuckballs Batman! Today was a total trainwreck for the defense! I admit I did doze off a bit when the detective was being direct examined, but I was getting so frustrated that the defense did not object when they had so many legit opportunities due to the prosecutor constantly leading the witness. The prosecutor is a total dick who felt the need to object during the defense's opening statements which is a total faggy thing to do, but I feel he's doing a much better job at gaining the jury's trust. Richards not knowing his left from his right is not what the jury wants to hear. Hopefully Richards comes out strong tomorrow when he finishes cross examination of the detective. Gotta remember folks, the law may be on Kyle's side pertaining to self defense, but in the end it's the jury that needs to be convinced.
Not a strange state at all, you just don't know what you're talking about. Self defense requires both the subjective belief that the defendant is about to be seriously injured or killed and that it be objectively reasonable. I challenge you to find even a single state in these United States (or anywhere in the common law world for that matter) that differs.
You would have better odds with a jury trial. When the judge decides, you only get 1 chance. When the jury decides, you get 12 chances.
So, you're a "blame the victim" type. Noted. Being at the wrong place at the wrong time does not negate one's right to self defense. If Sally the prospective rape victim pulled a G43 out of her skivvies and canoed her attacker, you'd be whining about how she shouldn't have been carrying the gun. FFS. @EddieNFL is right, might be better to take one's chances with a bench trial than risk a FUDD on the jury.
My dad enlisted when he was barely 17. He went into battle on Christmas day. At 17, you can be a man.
Still a big difference between amateur and a pro, you couldn't possibly do ANY worse than the current prosecutor.Well, I guess we are just gonna be looking at the trial different ways. I mentioned during the Chauvin trial that I have been studying criminal law in my spare time for the past couple years. So yeah, I look at this trial in a legal and professional way and avoid any type of prejudice so I can learn more. Trust me when I say watching this trial through the eyes of someone learning is way more interesting than just a casual viewer. Although jury selection is always boring as hell no matter how you look at it.
There's no evidence
Not sure if I understand you completely but Castle Doctrine and similar laws do NOT require injury or or killed as a law for defense.
In Illinois for instance, Commie as they come aside from NY and Cali- forcible felonies are defensible as are crimes of property.
Did you say you were a lawyer?
Forcible felonies include:
- Aggravated battery
- Robbery
- Kidnapping
- Burglary
- Criminal sexual assault
- Arson
- Any other felony that involves violence or physical force
Use of Force to Protect Property in Illinois
The Prairie State has a very limited “castle” doctrine. This rule comes from that old adage that a man’s home is his castle. Illinois’ version of this rule only applies if:
- Forced Entry: Use of deadly force in the home is authorized under the statute if the entry is made or attempted in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, and the home dweller reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to the home dweller or another person in the dwelling, or the home dweller reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling. If the use of force is justified, the person breaking in your house has no right to sue you under Illinois Law.
- Necessary Response: The actor must reasonably believe that s/he must use force to prevent an assault or great bodily harm.
- Forcible Felony: Not all felonies qualify as “forcible.” Forcible Felonies include “treason, first degree murder, second degree murder, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, robbery, burglary, residential burglary, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated kidnapping, kidnapping, aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.” (720 ILCS 5/2-8) (from Ch. 38, par. 2-8) Breaking into a home or building to with the intent to commit a theft therein is burglary or a residential burglary and both are forcible felonies.
So, bottom line is: play stupid games (of significance) win stupid prizes. And last I checked, MOST states are this way. If Commie ass Illinois is-you bet they have have precedence on such shit. Just an opinion. The REAL question is-have the Commies influenced your local political class enough that they will persue you for righteous shootings/self-defense (Kyle-McCloskeys), or will they let it go (either way) as pointed out by @quietmike ....
One more thought-actually-if you do get exonerated of shooting dumbass felon in Illinois (Criminally), you CANNOT then be civilly sued by said dumb-asses' family. BECAUSE-Murica. And that silly Constitution. In Illi-fucking-commie-nois.
Let that sink in-the LAST state for concealed carry.
I do not know why I even try anymore.
PS: This shithole is in my rearview mirror-they just do not know it yet. That is another story, for another day.
Let that sink in-the LAST state for concealed carry.
I do not know why I even try anymore.
PS: This shithole is in my rearview mirror-they just do not know it yet. That is another story, for another day.
YES!!!!!
Is this the same FBI that participated in the coup of a sitting United States President? Asking for a friend.
I must have stumbled into GD on arfcom. I've never heard so much convoluted logic in my life. Have any of you raised any children that AREN'T fucked up?
I'm so glad you can all bring your fictitious rape fantasies into a conversation about an 18y/o on trial for his life.
Yes, with fearless commanders such as some of you I'm sure you can lead your army of teenagers into the streets and defeat the evil menace, lmfao.
Credit where credit is due. 4 for 4 in .76, I wonder if it was all .19 splits?
Is this the same FBI that participated in the coup of a sitting United States President? Asking for a friend.
Jury instruction on the State’s “innocently” destroyed evidence stands
By Joseph Lunsky, Esq. On July 18, 2014, on the 50th anniversary of the State v. Willits decision, the Supreme Court of Arizona declined the State’s “invitation” to overrule Willits, a case that he…
lunskyarizonalaw.wordpress.com
On July 18, 2014, on the 50th anniversary of the State v. Willits decision, the Supreme Court of Arizona declined the State’s “invitation” to overrule Willits, a case that held that if the State fails to preserve potentially exonerating evidence, the accused might be entitled to an instruction informing the jury that it may draw an adverse inference from the State’s action. See State v. Glissendorf, No. CR-13-0388-PR, 1-2 (Ariz. 2014).
A two-part test is used in the Willits jury instruction analysis. A defendant must prove that (1) the State failed to preserve material and reasonably accessible evidence that could have had a tendency to exonerate the accused, and (2) there was resulting prejudice. See State v. Glissendorf, No. CR-13-0388-PR, 4 (Ariz. 2014). “Tendency to exonerate” must be more than mere speculation; there must be a real likelihood that the evidence would have had evidentiary value. Id. (citing State v. Smith, 158 Ariz. 222, 227 (1988)). However, the Court clarified that a “tendency to exonerate” does not mean the evidence must have had the potential to completely absolve the defendant. State v. Glissendorf, No. CR-13-0388-PR, 5 (Ariz. 2014). The evidence not preserved needs to be material and potentially useful to a defense theory supported by the evidence. Id.
Also, a Willits instruction is explicitly intended to cover innocent destruction of evidence on the part of the State. State v. Glissendorf, No. CR-13-0388-PR, 5 (Ariz. 2014). On the other hand, to establish a due process violation, a defendant must show bad faith, an intentional destruction of evidence. Id. The remedy for intentional destruction of evidence is either a bar to further prosecution or suppression of State’s most probative evidence. Id. (citing California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 487 (1984)). In the case of an unintentional destruction of evidence the remedy is only a Willits jury instruction. See Id. To be continued..
I know exactly what I'm talking about.
In Tennessee intent is inferred in these cases.
Someone comes at you with a lethal weapon, you're good to kill them, same with burglary/home invasion.
Can't help you live in a blue shithole.
Genesis 4:9
9 And the LORD said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?" "I do not know!" he answered. "Am I my brother's keeper?"Luke 10:25-37
New International Version
The Parable of the Good Samaritan
25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]”
28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”
Albany County Sheriff's Office investigates deadly shooting
The Albany County Sheriff's Office is investigating a deadly shooting near Vedauwoo that occurred Saturday, Sept. 9
www.wyomingnewsnow.tv
Open and shut self defense in WY. The shooter was defending some minors that were getting thumped on by some asshole. Said asshole turned his attention to the guy interfering. The asshole ended up dead, he had no weapons other than his fists.
Supposedly the Chomo was released from a mental health facility earlier in the day nd had tried to commit suicide....you know because they release you when you try that.
Forget where I saw that.
I think we all should say a small prayer for the defense team to get their ass in gear! I know the judge estimated the trial would last 2 weeks, but not so sure it will go that long as we just got through day 3. As it stands right now, the judge is being a better defense team for Kyle than the actual defense team.
Not that I care all that much because his criminal record is irrelevant and not on trial here and well he's dead, but does anyone know the exact details about Rosenbaum's sexual assault convictions with minors? Were they actual kid kids, like elementary kids or were they like 17 years old?
Not that I care all that much because his criminal record is irrelevant and not on trial here and well he's dead, but does anyone know the exact details about Rosenbaum's sexual assault convictions with minors? Were they actual kid kids, like elementary kids or were they like 17 years old?
I know that there are some prosecutors that are actually decent people, but the majority of all state prosecutors are awful people that only care about locking people up guilty or not. I personally would never want to become a lawyer and practice law as a defense attorney. My reason is even though the money is good, I just don't feel I could trust myself with literally someone else's fate in my hands. I guess if I had to choose being a lawyer, I'd become a personal injury lawyer and not criminal defense.
I'm not even going to guess why you're directing this towards me. I'm more a Psalm 144.
"The victims were five boys ranging in age from nine to 11 years old. "
You don't have to guess, I bolded the part that made me go huh????
" I believe in the right of self defense. And the first part of believing that, is protecting my prison purse virginity by not putting myself into a questionable situation and using a gun."
Kind of a "me me me me me" philosophy, maybe that's not how you meant it?
Psalm 82:3-4 - MSG - You're here to defend the defenseless ...
https://www.biblestudytools.com › msg › psalms › passage › ?q=psalm+82:3-43 You're here to defend the defenseless, to make sure that underdogs get a fair break; 4 Your job is to stand up for the powerless, and prosecute all those who exploit them."
Rosenbaum Who raped five boys, sentencing records reveal
Sharing right knowledge and create an awareness among people is the aim and motive of AziBase.com. #Reviews To Identify #Scam or #Legit, #biography
“Per documents from the Superior Court of Arizona in Pima County, the crimes for which Kyle Rittenhouse's 1st attacker, Joseph Don Rosenbaum, was imprisoned and made to register as a sex offender involved the molestation and rape of five separate boys between the ages of 9 and 11,” Trevor Sutcliffe tweeted.
While the pedophile was in PC, he backed up his turd-gobbler and then sued a CSO because she violated the child-rapists' rights...
III. Complaint
Plaintiff alleges three counts for threats to safety, denial of basic necessities, and conditions of confinement. Plaintiff sues Sergeant Gobea and Corrections Officer II (CO II) Tweet and Colegrove.All three of Plaintiff's claims are based on the following facts: In the early morning of January 8, 2010, an inmate in Plaintiff's pod caused his toilet to overflow and flood other cells in the pod, including Plaintiff's. The Defendants all arrived at the scene. Plaintiff asked Colegrove to have Plaintiff's cell cleaned. Colegrove told Plaintiff that he could not pull Plaintiff out of his cell unless approved by a sergeant. Plaintiff then asked Sergeant Gobea to help him "fix" his problem, but she said no. (Doc.# 1 at 3.) When Plaintiff asked her why, she responded, "`my socks are wet. f my socks are wet[,] you will be too.'" (Id.) When Plaintiff again questioned Gobea, she told him that she could not pull him out without permission from the deputy warden. Plaintiff asked her to call the deputy warden, but Gobea refused to call the deputy warden at 3:30 a.m. in order to obtain permission to pull Plaintiff out of his cell. Plaintiff asked Tweet for assistance because his cell was "filled with urine and fecal matter contaminated water" but she "refused to acknowledge" Plaintiff's "pleas to get this issues [sic] resolved." (Id. at 5.) Colegrove also failed to supply Plaintiff with disinfectant, gloves, mop, and cleaning supplies to "properly" sanitize his cell. (Id. at 4.) Later that morning, Plaintiff cleaned his cell using his own shampoo and soap without gloves or proper supplies. (Id.)
Plaintiff alleges that Gobea "negligently, wantonly, recklessly and intentionally failed to formulate, implement and oversee policies and procedures for [his] protection" and thereby subjected him to mental anguish and emotional distress. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff alleges that Colegrove violated his right to basic necessities by refusing to pull him out of his cell after it was flooded with "with urine and fecal matter water," which caused Plaintiff mental anguish. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff alleges that Tweet's refusal to pull him out of his cell caused him stress by failing to follow procedures to prevent the spread of disease and unsanitary living conditions.
Rosenbaum v. Gobea, No. CV 10-0712-PHX-GMS (MEA), 3-4 (D. Ariz. Apr. 29, 2010)
Last edited:
"Intent" is not the element I'm talking about. I am talking about the subjective fear that is required to be proven to establish self defense, which almost always must come from the defendant himself. Once again, it is obvious that you don't know what you're talking about--this isn't a "blue" state thing, it has been the law since before there even was a United States (and is probably the law in all 50 states, although I don't have time to look).
Whatever you do for a living, you should stick to it, and I'll stick to doing this.
There's video of him killing people from multiple angles. If that's "no evidence," you ought to go to your local courthouse and watch a homicide case sometime. It would be an absolute dream to have a murder case like this where the facts were essentially uncontested and the whole case comes down to argument and jury instructions.
What I find most amusing about this thread is everyone is pretending like this is a sports game where people are counting up the points. It isn't a damn sports game. Nothing matters but yhe verdict. There is no score until the end, at which time it will be 0-1 or 1-0, and that is literally all that matters (unless there is a mistrial).
Only an amateur would act as if any trial couldn't go either way.
Seriously? Lack of reading comprehension and/or trolling had previously accused "me" of not believing in self defense, therefore I am speaking about myself in the 1st person as the first sentence shows.
My parable for you is how are you your brother's keeper if you get yourself stupidly incarcerated? As in my brother was going to rob a liquor so since I'm his keeper I rode along to talk him out of it but couldn't and now I'm going to be sitting in prison with him.
As plainly as I can restate the same for those with no sense of humor, if you read about me using a firearm for self defense it won't be about me going to trial because so many things were "iffy" that the overlords from the state questioned my motives.
You're arguing with a straw man. I never said that someone has to be injured or killed for self defense to run, just that a person has to fear that is imminent. Certainly such a fear would (potentially) attach to any forcible felony that was occurring against that person. Such things don't reduce to nice little numbered lists even if a statute might say they do. Fear in the real world doesn't come with a legal analysis--it's a split second decision.
"Affirmative defense" essentially means you have to admit the crime, but claim an excuse, which you seem to have gotten right. And no, the defendant does not have any burden to prove anything. The State has to prove all of the elements of the crime (including disproving a claim of self defense) beyond a reasonable doubt. A defendant does have to raise the issue of self defense, which generally requires him to testify (but not always, it is hypothetically possible to raise the issue without testifying, but extremely rare and very likely to fail if tried).
And yes, I'm a lawyer who has tried more (criminal) cases to verdict than everyone commenting in this thread combined.
If I may ask, what's your opinion about having the defendant testify in this case?
I would have to see the evidence, and by the evidence, I mean I would have to actually be in the courtroom during all the testimony to see how the case presented. But if it is as I think it is, he would be an absolute fool to refuse to testify. Absent the remaining evidence presenting in a truly extraordinary way (which isn't out of the question, this is a unique type of case), his chance of being acquitted by self defense is low, very low. In the vast, overwhelming majority of these cases (almost all), a person has to take the stand and tell the jury about his fear and why he fired to get the not guilty verdict. Which is why none of us would ever want to be in this situation unless it was an absolute last resort, because no matter how justified your actions might have been, having to explain them to the jury would inevitably stress anyone out to the max, knowing that if the jury gets it wrong, you're going to prison for life.
The relevant portion of TCA-39-11-611.
(c) Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within a residence, business, dwelling or vehicle is presumed to have held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury to self, family, a member of the household or a person visiting as an invited guest, when that force is used against another person, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, business, dwelling or vehicle, and the person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
I'm not trying answer for anybody else, but I would question if this only refers to the shooting in the center of the road? From what I've seen and heard so far, they're not going after him as much for the second shootings but the first with the pedo at the car dealership. It seems like he is going to have to explain why he was in fear of rioter #1, who the prosecution is establishing had no weapon.
Everything that happens after that is clearly defense after being physically attacked. And his defense didn't even ask the police to describe what the pedo threw at him.
Similar threads
