Kyle Rittenhouse trial set for early November .

[HiBC]

IMO, the REALITY is somebody attacking KR was shot.

Somebody from the Oprah School of "Feelings" sees a "Victim" (Time for Kleenex and a group hug)

Its sad when anyone gets killed, but I have zero sympathy for a person who attacks a person fleeing a mob .He is running and fighting for his life. Try to stop him? Stupid games,stupid prizes.
No "feelings"

Kudos to the Judge who insists his courtroom maintain a decorum of Justice.

The Media and Rioters want a lynching.

 

[stagpanther]

But the guy who tried to bash KR with a skateboard, is an assaillant,not a victim. Remember,KR was trying to retreat .

And what of the first guy shot and killed by KR--he was unarmed, made no contact, though he was a loudmouth and previously had yelled at him--was he just at the wrong place at the wrong time, a shot was fired by someone else in the confusion and therefore deserved to be sent on his less than merry way to his maker? KR appeared to empty coup de grace shots into the guy too, wasn't just a "stop deadly force threat" (there wasn't one anyway).

 

[HiBC]

Time and the jury will tell. Giving you the benefit of the doubt,its possible there was ONE victim.

Till there is a verdict, I'll stick with "Presumed Innocent till Proven Guilty"

The NYT has proven over time they have no regard for Truth. They are an agenda driven rag . NO credibility.

 

[Metal god]

Stupid games,stupid prizes.

I love that saying ( people who play stupid games win stupid prizes ) I'm going to use that all the time now when appropriate ;-)

 

[Metal god]

There was another thing the judge mentioned in that hearing about the timing of shots fired . He referenced an officer involved shooting where the LEO fired two shots with in one second and the first shot was deemed justified and the second shot was not .

I'd love to understand that ruling better because if they split up Kyle's first 4 shots as individual incidents . Then try to figure out if each shot was justified keeping in mind I believe the record shows those first 4 shots were fired in under 1 sec . That could confuse the jury big time

I understand if you fire look around then look back and see the "victim" down
then reengage and fire more shots how that could be problematic but a double tap and view each shot as a separate event ??? I know when I practice "double taps" it's much slower then you see on TV . I can shoot but I'm not world class so it takes a tad longer for me to reacquire the sights on target and fire again . It's still fast but not movie fast . I don't see how it's reasonable to differentiate between shot when it's only a couple and very close together .

If they break down those first 4 shots like that I think Kyle is in big trouble . The only thing that might change things is the Reporters eye wittiness account where each shots POI was and which shot was likely the one that stopped Rosenbaum's aggression . This is a very interesting and maybe a very troubling way to break down an incident like this .

 

[Aguila Blanca]

OK,MG, lets imagine you are

No lets not , my poor little feelers don't matter . Isn't that one of our biggest problems right not , feelings matter more then reality ?

No, let's. If one of the biggest problems we (as a society, I assume) face is feelings counting for more than facts, why are you focusing on something that may be a strong indicator that other judges are ruling based on feelings rather than on facts and the law?

That's not even the point in this specific situation .

If that's not the point, what is the point? How can and why should an assailant be characterized as a "victim" simply because he chose his victim poorly?

I'd feel the same way if everything was reversed . If the judge was the only judge that allowed the use of the word victim in the state , that would be just as wrong . It's not so much about the word and it's connotation . It's about the judge being the only judge with this opinion/rule . I even started my earlier post saying I understand the argument . Not sure why you think using me in an example would change my opinion ?

There's an interesting thing about judges -- they are human, and they are often wrong. That's why we have appellate courts, and supreme courts (both state and federal) above the appellate courts. The fact that one judge ruled in a manner that's logical and consistent with law but not in lock step with multiple other judges doesn't automatically make the one judge wrong.

Obviously, I think the judge ruled correctly. All three of the people Rittenhouse shot were assailants. The state doesn't get to convert them into martyrs to facilitate a conviction of a kid who was defending himself.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

And what of the first guy shot and killed by KR--he was unarmed, made no contact, ...

So many sources have agreed that the first "victim" was trying to wrestle the gun away from Rittenhouse that I have to ask how you determined that he made no contact?

 

[stagpanther]

So many sources have agreed that the first "victim" was trying to wrestle the gun away from Rittenhouse that I have to ask how you determined that he made no contact?

Watching the video it does not show any contact by Rosenbaum--using any kind of weapon, anyway. There is no mention of grabbing the rifle and wrestling it away and I can't see that in the video. This will likely be one of the key focuses of the trial, I would imagine. However, in the case of Rosenbaum there seems to be a suggestion that some of the following shots may have been fired by someone else, so it was incorrect for me to say KR administered a coup de grace--but that doesn't mean he only took one shot, either. I suppose if someone shoved an AR muzzle in your belly you wouldn't at least attempt to have your midsection not turned into a massive mush of bloody hamburger?

 

[HiBC]

HMMM. So...KR showed a pattern of watching over private businesses,rendering first aid,and putting out dumpster fires. Seems like a model citizen practicing random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.

KR courageously put out a fire lit by radical,violent rioters practicing arson.
In My concealed carry cert class,they told us there are two types of people that can be shot in the act. Rapists and arsonists. Fires are unpredictable and they do kill people,including sleeping children and firefighters.

KR did not shoot the arsonist. KR seems pretty mellow.

But now,StagP, you have him ramming his AR into Peoples stomachs? Turning them to hamburger? What transformed him?
StagP,you were not there,neither was I. In contrast with KR's pattern of behavior, I've watched a lot of footage of "Mostly Peaceful Demonstrators"

Snarling,nasty vicious evil hyenas,that encircle and relentlessly blindside attack. Cowards. Especially if you work for good. Put out fires. Do you have audio to prove Rosenbaum did not say "I'm going to kill you" I don't have the audio either.

But can you provide proof of some kind that KR was not threatened by great violence,surrounded by "mostly peaceful demonstrators" ??? I did not think so. Of course,I do not have proof either.

The difference between you and I,StagP, is that you presume KR's GUILT,and I presume his INNOCENCE ,at least until the Jury Foreman says "Guilty"

And YES!! I will say it. I've watched too many VICTIMS of "Mostly Peaceful Demonstrators"
I watched video once of some hyenas trying to rip some creature apart alive..I forget what it was, I'll say a Wildebeast at water's edge..and of all things,a Hippo went berserker and hyenas went flying.
I cheered! I have a whole new deep respect for hippos.

And I do not give a rats hiney about dead hyenas.

 

[Mainah]

In My concealed carry cert class,they told us there are two types of people that can be shot in the act. Rapists and arsonists

That's some damn nonsense.

 

[mehavey]

Interesting question: Lethal Force vs Rape/Arson

Interesting answers:
> Current law does not clearly articulate a basis for the right to use deadly
> self-defense when a person reasonably believes that harm will be limited
> to forcible intercourse.

Being a legal issue, "on the other hand..."
> Overall, rape can be viewed as a grievous physical and psychological
> attack that may be resisted by any and all means. (and 136 footnotes)

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/deadly-force-self-defense-against-rape

As to arson...

https://lawofselfdefense.com/jury-i...se-of-deadly-physical-force-to-prevent-arson/



All of which is why it was the Devil Himself who invented lawyers.
Recommendation:
Hire the best law (aka demon) your money can buy.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

We have to remember that we have fifty states plus the District of Columbia, and they all have their own laws.

Example -- Pennsylvania:

https://www.findlaw.com/state/pennsylvania-law/pennsylvania-self-defense-laws.html

Statutes


Use of force in self-protection: 18 Pa.C.S.A § 505

Use of force for the protection of other persons: 18 Pa.C.S.A § 506

Use of Force in Self-Protection

You can use deadly force when you reasonably believe that the force is necessary in order to protect yourself against an unlawful use of force including: death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or nonconsensual sexual intercourse.
You do not have a duty to retreat from your home, car or place of work unless you were an initial aggressor.

Use of Force for the Protection of Others

Deadly force is justified when protecting another in the following examples:

If you were in the same situation as the person that you are trying to protect, you could legally use the same force that you will use to protect them.
You reasonably believe that the person you are trying to protect would be justified in using such force.
You reasonably believe that your help is necessary to protect the other person.

The actual law:
https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdoc...Type=HTM&ttl=18&div=0&chpt=5&sctn=5&subsctn=0

(2.1) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2.2), an actor is presumed to have a reasonable belief that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat if both of the following conditions exist:

(i) The person against whom the force is used is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered and is present within, a dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle; or the person against whom the force is used is or is attempting to unlawfully and forcefully remove another against that other's will from the dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle.

(ii) The actor knows or has reason to believe that the unlawful and forceful entry or act is occurring or has occurred.

https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdoc...Type=HTM&ttl=18&div=0&chpt=5&sctn=6&subsctn=0


Wisconsin:

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.
(1)  A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
...
(4) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person's intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

In My concealed carry cert class,they told us there are two types of people that can be shot in the act. Rapists and arsonists

That's some damn nonsense.

That depends on the law of the state in which the class was given.

Arizona:

13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicability

A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2.

New York: https://lawofselfdefense.com/jury-i...se-of-deadly-physical-force-to-prevent-arson/

With respect to count(s) (specify count(s) and name(s) of crime(s) ), one of the elements that the People must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant was not justified. The defendant is not required to prove that he/she was justified; the People must prove that he/she was not.

I will now explain when, under our law, a person is justified in using deadly physical force to prevent or terminate arson or an attempted arson.

Under our law, any person may use deadly physical force upon another individual when he or she reasonably believes it to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of arson by such individual.

 

[Metal god]

why are you focusing on something that may be a strong indicator that other judges are ruling based on feelings rather than on facts and the law?

lol , it's not "other" judges . It's every judge and all institutions in that state use the word victim . My dad once told me "if you have a problem with everybody , it's not everybody that has the problem " . It appears ( to me ) this judge is the one being influenced by his feelings .

If that's not the point, what is the point? How can and why should an assailant be characterized as a "victim" simply because he chose his victim poorly?

Because victim does not have only one meaning . This is starting to remind me of the case headspace debate . Just because it means one thing doesn't mean it can only be used in that context when most of society excepts multiple meanings .

There's an interesting thing about judges -- they are human, and they are often wrong. That's why we have appellate courts, and supreme courts (both state and federal) above the appellate courts. The fact that one judge ruled in a manner that's logical and consistent with law but not in lock step with multiple other judges doesn't automatically make the one judge wrong.

No but it does make his courtroom inconsistent with the rest of the states courts . You pointed out your self how each state has different laws and rules and this judge seems to think each court room should as well . doesn't sound fare . It's not unlike the conceal carry law here in CA . It's a good cause law but some counties pretty much hand them out like they are giving out candy on Halloween while other counties have a virtual prohibition on conceal carry permits . There needs to be consistency in the law and again I'm not against this judges rational only that he's the only one ruling this way in the sate . Depending on what side of the court you are on when entering his court room you know you either are starting with an advantage or a disadvantage compared to all other courts in the state .

I'm not advocating for or against his ruling only that it differs from everyone else with similar authority in said state .

The state doesn't get to convert them into martyrs to facilitate a conviction of a kid who was defending himself.

LMAO , yes the state does because that is EXACTLY what it does in EVERY OTHER COURT ROOM in the state and nobody except this judge has a problem about it . If it was that big a deal they'd have a rule baring it in all courtrooms .

 

[mehavey]

I've lost the bubble here.

Are we saying the judge...
- Isn't allowing the dice to be loaded by presumptional language,
- Isn't going to let the ham-sandwich prosecutor run his courtroom, and . . .
- Does have his head on straight ?

... or is the judge a bad guy?

.

 

[Metal god]

None of the above . He is simply ruling in a way that is inconsistent with the rest of the state . I said this before and I’ll say it again. If everything was reversed and he was the only judge in the state that allowed everybody to use the word victim , he would be ruling in the same inconsistent manner . My objection is not about the word victim and I thought I’ve been clear about this . It’s the inconsistency in which he runs his courtroom compared to the rest of the state .

 

[Mainah]

Interesting question: Lethal Force vs Rape/Arson

Interesting answers:
> Current law does not clearly articulate a basis for the right to use deadly
> self-defense when a person reasonably believes that harm will be limited
> to forcible intercourse.

Being a legal issue, "on the other hand..."
> Overall, rape can be viewed as a grievous physical and psychological
> attack that may be resisted by any and all means. (and 136 footnotes)

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-li...e-against-rape

As to arson...

https://lawofselfdefense.com/jury-in...prevent-arson/

First of all I apologize for the tone of my response, it was over the top. I was responding to the context of the statement:

In My concealed carry cert class,they told us there are two types of people that can be shot in the act. Rapists and arsonists.

There are more than two types of people whose behavior can justify the use of deadly force. In some states, and in some cases rape and arson could represent a threat that justifies lethal force. But I still reject that blanket statement.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

In My concealed carry cert class,they told us there are two types of people that can be shot in the act. Rapists and arsonists.

There are more than two types of people whose behavior can justify the use of deadly force. In some states, and in some cases rape and arson could represent a threat that justifies lethal force. But I still reject that blanket statement.

But it wasn't a blanket statement. It was a very specific statement, reporting what was taught in one, particular concealed carry class.

Unfortunately, the statement failed to identify what state the class was conducted in, so we have no way of verifying the accuracy of the statement. Given that we have 51 state-level sets of laws in the U.S., overlaid by a set of federal laws, it's always dangerous to make blanket statements. On the other hand, my own research has shown me that some states do allow the use of lethal force to prevent arson, others allow the use of lethal force to prevent rape, and some allow the use of lethal force for both of those purposes.

Unfortunately, there is no substitute for knowing the laws that apply in your jurisdiction. There ain't no on-size-fits-all in this game.

 

[44 AMP]

In My concealed carry cert class,they told us there are two types of people that can be shot in the act. Rapists and arsonists.

The instructor in your class should not have given that statement, that way, as instruction. It is simply too broad and isn't true everywhere or in all circumstances.

Most (don't know about all) states allow the use of deadly force to prevent death or serious injury to yourself and others. They may be specific about circumstances or they may be more general. BUT if its not done within the state's legal limitations, it won't be found justified.

I've often heard that rape is one of the crimes that where allowed by state law deadly force may be used to stop. Here on the net is the first time I've heard arson as something deadly force may be used to stop. Personally, I would think that using deadly force to prevent arson would have to be very situational to justify. Arson MAY result in harm or death to people, but that's not a given. Arson may be an instrument of murder. It may result in manslaughter, not murder, or it may only be a property crime. To me, that would be a legal ruling, not on every state allows the citizen to make on their own. I can see justification for deadly force to stop arson when you KNOW people are at risk. But what about when you don't??

 

[HiBC]

Regarding my concealed carry class,arsonists,and rapists.

I was not giving legal advice. In the words of Elmer Keith. "Hell,I was there!"

I reported what was said in my class. You were not there. How would you know what was said? Why would you argue? I did not say "The law is...."

Thanks to those who researched the actual laws in select states. You verified law is written providing for shooting arsonists and rapists as the law provides.
Its no secret I live in Colorado. I was not telling anyone what Colorado law is.

I don't recommend anyone go hunting for arsonists and rapists. Life likely will get very difficult if you shoot anyone for any reason.

I was picking up on an anti-KR vibe, a bias suggesting he was a whacko ramming his AR-15 in peoples guts and making hamburger,

I was attempting to provide context. Among the "mostly peaceful protesters" were arsonists. Perhaps police snipers should have been on rooftops eliminating arsonists.

KR did not shoot arsonists,though he MAY have been justified to do so. No, KR was extinguishing the fire the arsonist set.

Angry arsonist and friends are getting agitated. You and I do not know what threats were made . An attack on KR was imminent. He was alone and vastly outnumbered. He was in serious danger.

The comments on whether he should have been there or not are BS. The comments on whether or not he should have been armed are BS.

There should not have been an arson. He was right to put out the fire.

No one,NO ONE,had any right to touch,threaten or abuse him. And no one should have put him in a position he feared for his life. No one should have attempted to disarm him. Any of those COULD create a situation where KR was justified to use deadly force.

Not so long ago a man resisting was shot and killed by police after he took the cops taser. They were justified.

KR does not need to allow himself to be disarmed.

I'm detecting among some that the "mostly peaceful protestors" should have a free pass to be violent and destructive while an essentially peaceful armed citizen should be condemned for defending himself.

I DO NOT declare KR innocent, Its BS to declare him guilty. He deserves to be presumed innocent till a fair trial declares him guilty.

As far as the judge is concerned...." But MOM!!! All the other Judges are doing it!! Really? Have you ever heard of Tyranny of the Majority?
This nation is not a Democracy. It is proper and correct for one lone Individual Judge with a spine to stand up for one lone individual's fair trial.

Democracy is a lynch mob. Its 12 wolves and a Sheep negotiating a menu.

That Judge is demanding his court gives a fair trial to one individual young man. I stand by him.

And I do not care what your personal definition of "Victim" is. Or "Headspace",for that matter. If there is a center of the universe,it ain't you.

And how you FEEL about it matters less to me than a Bulgarian flea fart...in Bulgaria.