Kyle Rittenhouse trial set for early November .

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks, HiBC, for identifying your state.

Colorado statute regarding use of force and arson:

https://codes.findlaw.com/co/title-18-criminal-code/co-rev-st-sect-18-1-705.html

FindLaw said:
A person in possession or control of any building, realty, or other premises, or a person who is licensed or privileged to be thereon, is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that it is reasonably necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of an unlawful trespass by the other person in or upon the building, realty, or premises.  However, he may use deadly force only in defense of himself or another as described in section 18-1-704 , or when he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the trespasser to commit first degree arson.
Click to expand...

Colorado statute regarding the use of force and rape:

https://codes.findlaw.com/co/title-18-criminal-code/co-rev-st-sect-18-1-704.html

(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.

(2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:

(a) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury;  or

(b) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204 ;  or

(c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302 , robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or 18-4-302 , sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402 , or in section 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 and 18-3-203 .
Click to expand...

So, basically, the use of deadly force IS allowed against both arson and rape in Colorado. It's not quite as cut-and-dried as the instructor stated it, however. The actor (the shooter) might be called upon to justify why he believed that a lesser degree of physical force wasn't enough and why he believed that deadly force was necessary. But it's still based on what the shooter believed at the time so, unless the prosecution can show that such belief was not reasonable, the use of deadly force would be justified.
 
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...."
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I just don't think that Rick Schroder can make enough Hallmark movies to bail us all out. The KR case is fascinating, but also full of lessons about what to avoid.
 
I can see justification for deadly force to stop arson when you KNOW people are at risk. But what about when you don't??
Click to expand...

First,I DO NOT go through life looking for an opportunity to shoot anybody.
I sincerely hope I live out my days without using deadly force on anyone.

IF I qualify for the "Reasonable Person" classification, I agree there is a distinct difference between bra burning (unless the bra is occupied), or starting a fire in a dumpster (unless the dumpster is kindling against an occupied building).
I don't think its OK to shoot someone for torching an unoccupied police cruiser.

But if you are at the front door of an occupied building (such as a police precinct) lighting a Molotov Cocktail,you might qualify as a target.

Or if Beavis and Butthead are pouring gasoline on a sleeping (or passed out) homeless man, a deadly force intervention might be appropriate.
 
As always, the devil is in the details. Youse gotta read da laws.

For example: The Arizona statute I quoted in post #133 allows the use of deadly force to prevent the arson of an occupied structure. The Colorado statute allows the use of deadly force to prevent first degree arson. What's first degree arson? To find out, you have to look at a different section of the Colorado statutes -- the section that defines crimes and spells out the various degrees of each.

There is no one-size-fits-all answer to these questions. If you want to understand what's legal and when you can legally use your firearm for anything other than target shooting, you either have to do a LOT of research into your own state's laws, or pay an attorney to do the research and explain it to you. DON'T ask a cop -- police officers aren't lawyers. And don't trust anything you find on the Internet -- beyond the actual statutes.

With apologies to Frank, Spats, and other attorneys on here who I think do know their stuff, you can't even trust any random name on the Internet who claims to be an attorney. A number of years ago, there was a site that was the predecessor (directly or indirectly) to the www.handgunlaw.us web site run by Gary Slider. That old site was called www.packing.org, I think -- or maybe it was www.packin.org. It operated as or included a forum. One day, a new member who said he was an attorney came on the forum with a post in which he stated categorically that it IS legal to carry a firearm on United States post office property. As his proof, he cited (and quoted from) 18 U.S. Code 930, which is the federal law that generally addresses conduct on federal property.

I don't remember the full logic of his interpretation, but suffice it to say that he was VERY wrong. He was wrong because he completely overlooked 39 CFR 232.1 - Conduct on Postal Property. And that law very clearly states that not only can we NOT carry in a post office building, we also cannot carry or even possess a firearm anywhere on USPS property -- not even in the parking lot.

A number of attorneys posted to point out the omission. Within a couple of days he quietly removed his post from view and went back to whatever he had been doing prior to making a public fool of himself.

"Consider the source."
 
The interesting thing about Barnes being out , was todays jury selection . I didn't know he had already been handed his hat and thought to my self . Kyle's attorney seems lost in his questioning and remember thinking at one point " this is what a dream team of jury selectors looks/sounds like" ??? :confused:

Turns out the dream team was not needed , we shall see but I watched Bull .... just say-n lol
 
Aguila Blanca said:
As always, the devil is in the details. Youse gotta read da laws.

For example: The Arizona statute I quoted in post #133 allows the use of deadly force to prevent the arson of an occupied structure. The Colorado statute allows the use of deadly force to prevent first degree arson. What's first degree arson? To find out, you have to look at a different section of the Colorado statutes -- the section that defines crimes and spells out the various degrees of each.

There is no one-size-fits-all answer to these questions. If you want to understand what's legal and when you can legally use your firearm for anything other than target shooting, you either have to do a LOT of research into your own state's laws, or pay an attorney to do the research and explain it to you. DON'T ask a cop -- police officers aren't lawyers. And don't trust anything you find on the Internet -- beyond the actual statutes.

With apologies to Frank, Spats, and other attorneys on here who I think do know their stuff, you can't even trust any random name on the Internet who claims to be an attorney. A number of years ago, there was a site that was the predecessor (directly or indirectly) to the www.handgunlaw.us web site run by Gary Slider. That old site was called www.packing.org, I think -- or maybe it was www.packin.org. It operated as or included a forum. One day, a new member who said he was an attorney came on the forum with a post in which he stated categorically that it IS legal to carry a firearm on United States post office property. As his proof, he cited (and quoted from) 18 U.S. Code 930, which is the federal law that generally addresses conduct on federal property.

I don't remember the full logic of his interpretation, but suffice it to say that he was VERY wrong. He was wrong because he completely overlooked 39 CFR 232.1 - Conduct on Postal Property. And that law very clearly states that not only can we NOT carry in a post office building, we also cannot carry or even possess a firearm anywhere on USPS property -- not even in the parking lot.

A number of attorneys posted to point out the omission. Within a couple of days he quietly removed his post from view and went back to whatever he had been doing prior to making a public fool of himself.

"Consider the source."
Click to expand...
So are you saying that attorneys never make mistakes?
 
So bummed , missed opening statements . Testimony of Mr Black has been informative . there does not seem to be any question Kyle was there tending to injured protesters as well as putting out fires all while carrying a firearm . Another thing of note is that Kyle was directed to go down to the second location to help . Owners of property seem to of asked for them to be there , to the point of driving they to the locations . This blows big holes in the prosecutions idea that Kyle was there with out being asked and that even if he was asked Kyle was to stay in one location . Well that's been established not to be accurate .

I was listening to the commentator from Court tv and wow how it seems we are watching two different trials .

I will say the defense started out really off putting and feel he should have eased into treating Black as a hostel witness . Defense also seem surprised Blacks attorney never told Black they wanted to talk with him . Likely one reason he stated out so aggressive because he thought Black was blowing them off . Who knows maybe that's just another thing Black can't seem to remember :rolleyes:

Interesting how Black can't seem to remember anything that implicates him or his father . ( not sure how Kyle found the gun down stairs , Didn't really notice Kyle had the gun when we left even though we went and bought slings for them earlier ) lol Wait there's more " I don't know which one is my gun , I think my scope is different " . Seems with all this memory loss maybe I didn't know what gun each of us was carrying when we left ?:confused: haha .
 
Did the court mis speak when saying the next witness shall not be videoed or pic taken ? Where's the audio ??? Or did they mean no video or audio ?
 
OMG , prosecution was trying to say Kyle and Rosenbaum were never in the same place that night until right before the shooting during pre trial motions , Reason being that they claim Kyle would not have known about Rosenbaums earlier state of mind . This was to denie the defense video of Rosembuam yelling at the guys with guns saying shoot me etc . This first video shows them in the same crowd in close proximity of each other . Clearly Kyle could have observed him at that time . I'm still watching maybe at the end of the video will be the first altercation .

EDIT - NOPE , Not sure the point of the video . I have no idea what the prosecutor is trying to establish with these first witnesses but all I see is him giving the defense everything they need later on to rebut what seemed was going to be there key points .

Even this documenter guy said he did not see fires etc that tues compared to previous nights . Then his very first video they show , has a fire burning across the street followed by a dumpster being set on fire twice lol . Nope nothing to see here .
 
Last edited:
When someone is in Rittenhouses position,IMO,its good to remember the News is not concerned with Truth.The News media wanted to lynch KR. He is everything they hate.

We are in the position of "Mushrooms" Kept in the dark and fed....organic matter.

Which is why I prefer to say"Time will tell" and hang on to "Innocent till proven guilty"

I hope he gets a fair trial. If he is guilty,he'll be held accountable. I hope he is acquitted.
"Good Guy" Armed Citizen stories DO happen.
 
Metal god said:
So bummed , missed opening statements . Testimony of Mr Black has been informative . there does not seem to be any question Kyle was there tending to injured protesters as well as putting out fires all while carrying a firearm . Another thing of note is that Kyle was directed to go down to the second location to help . Owners of property seem to of asked for them to be there , to the point of driving they to the locations . This blows big holes in the prosecutions idea that Kyle was there with out being asked and that even if he was asked Kyle was to stay in one location . Well that's been established not to be accurate .

I was listening to the commentator from Court tv and wow how it seems we are watching two different trials .

I will say the defense started out really off putting and feel he should have eased into treating Black as a hostel witness . Defense also seem surprised Blacks attorney never told Black they wanted to talk with him . Likely one reason he stated out so aggressive because he thought Black was blowing them off . Who knows maybe that's just another thing Black can't seem to remember :rolleyes:

Interesting how Black can't seem to remember anything that implicates him or his father . ( not sure how Kyle found the gun down stairs , Didn't really notice Kyle had the gun when we left even though we went and bought slings for them earlier ) lol Wait there's more " I don't know which one is my gun , I think my scope is different " . Seems with all this memory loss maybe I didn't know what gun each of us was carrying when we left ?:confused: haha .
Click to expand...
Watch the opener. The defense mauled the prosecution. I say this as someone who strongly thought he should be guilty, but would vote unproven now.

Also yes next witness is not video d.
 
I say this as someone who strongly thought he should be guilty, but would vote unproven now.
Click to expand...

I'm in the same boat. I don't think he should have been there, and I hate the idea of him becoming some kind of cultural hero. However he was there, and I can see a case for self defense based on the conditions he was facing.
 
I watched the opening arguments and at this point I have to just assume it’s my bias because I just can't get what the prosecutor is doing . The prosecution just keeps on offering reasons while it was self defense. He literally said Rosenbohm chased Kyle - Kyle then turned and pointed the gun at him which prompted Rosenbaum to stopped . Kyle then turned away and started running again at which time Rosenbohm continues chasing him and longed for him as Kyle shoots him .

So in opening arguments the prosecution concedes Rosenbaum was chasing Kyle. Rosenbaum saw the threat that Kyle posed as Kyle threatened him with a firearm by pointing it at him and Rosenbaum recognize the threat and stopped pursuit . Kyle then turned and tried to flee again and Rosenbohm re-institutes the chase for lack of a better term at which point a shot was fired from about 30 feet away ( not Kyle ) which appeared to have prompted Kyle to turn and shoot Rosenbohm who was now close enough to be lunging at him . To be clear this isn’t me guessing what happened or a news report of what happened . This is what the prosecutor said in his opening statement .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL06ZMd9fSQ

The defense then points out that Kyle had no legal duty to retreat and yet he did twice trying to get away . Based on this thread and what we’ve talked about earlier including the part of starting a fight and still being able to claiming self-defense . I don’t see how anybody can conclude Kyle was not trying to avoid conflict . He clearly had given up and was trying to retreat and both the prosecution and the defense do not disagree on that point .

I’m not sure if you guys remember the original charges or paperwork for arrest ( I forget what it’s called , the specific name) But in that statement the prosecution/district attorney or whoever it was that would be writing that type of thing up . Did the same thing that the prosecution did in his opening statement which was admit that Kyle was retreating and being attacked when he discharged his weapon. It almost seems as if The prosecution is self sabotaging and if not that , simply prosecuting because they have to knowing if they drop all charges that’ll cause a problem in itself .
 
Last edited:
I am extremely cynical. I do not believe that the jury's decision will be based on the evidence presented to them.

I think the jury will convict based on the fact that there will be extreme efforts brought to bear to identify them and pressure them to believe their safety, and that of their community, depends on a conviction.

We seem to be in an era where justice is defined by the mob.
 
Criminal complaint is what it was called

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/7047765/Kyle-Rittenhouse-Criminal-Complaint.pdf

From link above said:
In the course of investigating this incident, law enforcement reviewed and shared with your
complainant multiple videos that appeared to be recorded on cell phones. In the first video, a male
who was later identified to be Kyle H. Rittenhouse, DOB: 01/03/03 (hereinafter “the defendant”), is
running southwest across the eastern portion of the Car Source parking lot. The defendant is a
resident of Antioch, IL. The defendant can clearly be seen holding a long gun, which was later
recovered by law enforcement and identified as a Smith & Wesson AR-15 style .223 rifle. The
recovered magazine for this rifle holds 30 rounds of ammunition. Following the defendant is
Rosenbaum and trailing behind the defendant and Rosenbaum is a male who was later identified
as Richard McGinnis, a reporter.
The video shows that as they cross the parking lot, Rosenbaum appears to throw an object at the
defendant. The object does not hit the defendant and a second video shows, based on where the
object landed, that it was a plastic bag. Rosenbaum appears to be unarmed for the duration of this
video. A review of the second video shows that the defendant and Rosenbaum continue to move
across the parking lot and approach the front of a black car parked in the lot. A loud bang is heard
on the video, then a male shouts, “████ you!”, then Rosenbaum appears to continue to approach
the defendant and gets in near proximity to the defendant when 4 more loud bangs are heard.
Rosenbaum then falls to the ground.
The defendant then circles behind the black car and approaches Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum
remains on the ground. McGinnis also approaches, removes his shirt, and attempts to render aid
to Rosenbaum. The defendant appears to run away from the scene. As the defendant is
running away, he can be heard saying on the phone, “I just killed somebody.”
Detective Cepress interviewed McGinnis and indicates the following: Before the shooting,
McGinnis was interviewing the defendant. The defendant told McGinnis that he was a trained
medic. McGinnis stated that he (McGinnis) has handled many ARs and that the defendant was not
handling the weapon very well. McGinnis said that as they were walking south another armed male
who appeared to be in his 30s joined them and said he was there to protect the defendant.
McGinnis stated that before the defendant reached the parking lot and ran across it, the defendant
had moved from the middle of Sheridan Road to the sidewalk and that is when McGinnis saw a
male (Rosenbaum) initially try to engage the defendant. McGinnis stated that as the defendant
was walking Rosenbaum was trying to get closer to the defendant. When Rosenbaum advanced,
the defendant did a “juke” move and started running. McGinnis stated that there were other people
that were moving very quickly. McGinnis stated that they were moving towards the defendant.
McGinnis said that according to what he saw the defendant was trying to evade these individuals.
McGinnis described the point where the defendant had reached the car. McGinnis described that
the defendant had the gun in a low ready position. Meaning that he had the gun raised but pointed
downward. The butt of the gun would have been at an angle downwards from the shoulder.
McGinnis stated that the defendant brought the gun up. McGinnis stated that he stepped back and he thinks the defendant fired 3 rounds in rapid succession. McGinnis said when the first round
went off, he thought it hit the pavement. McGinnis felt something on his leg and his first thought
was wondering whether he had gotten shot. McGinnis was behind and slightly to the right of
Rosenbaum, in the line of fire, when the defendant shot.
McGinnis stated that the first round went into the ground and when the second shot went off, the
defendant actually had the gun aimed at Rosenbaum. McGinnis stated he did not hear the two
exchange any words. McGinnis said that the unarmed guy (Rosenbaum) was trying to get the
defendant’s gun. McGinnis demonstrated by extending both of his hands in a quick grabbing
motion and did that as a visual on how Rosenbaum tried to reach for the defendant’s gun.
Detective Cepress indicates that he asked McGinnis if Rosenbaum had his hands on the gun when
the defendant shot. McGinnis said that he definitely made a motion that he was trying to grab the
barrel of the gun. McGinnis stated that the defendant pulled it away and then raised it. McGinnis
stated that right as they came together, the defendant fired. McGinnis said that when Rosenbaum
was shot, he had leaned in (towards the defendant).
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top