Kyle Rittenhouse trial set for early November .

Status
Not open for further replies.
stagpanther said:
So I just want a little clarification--at the end of the day, if you are armed and someone comes running at you--for whatever reason--as long as you believe they are a threat to you, BAM--it's OK to waste them, anytime, anywhere?
Click to expand...
Sort of ... but it's not quite as simplistic as your post implies.

You are entitled to use deadly force in self defense if you are reasonably in fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury. That's not quoted from Wisconsin state law -- that's the general legal principle.

The two key words are "imminent" and "reasonable."

"Imminent," of course, basically means "right here and now." This is why you can shoot someone who is actively threatening you but, if they break off the attack and they are fleeing, you no longer have legal permission to use deadly force against them.

The "reasonable" part is generally described as being subject to the "hypothetical reasonable man" test. That asks the jury to put themselves in the place of the defendant at the time of the incident, and knowing only what the defendant could have known at that moment. If the jury decides that -- on that basis -- it was "reasonable" for the defendant to have been in fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury, then the use of deadly force is justified. The incident must be viewed by the jury through the eyes of the defendant.

With those concepts clarified, then the answer to your question

if you are armed and someone comes running at you--for whatever reason--as long as you believe they are a threat to you, BAM--it's OK to waste them, anytime, anywhere?
Click to expand...

is "Yes."
 
Last edited:
As to those that say Kyle should not have had a gun . That's just like saying " she should not have wore that low cut blouse or short skirt" . Bad things happen when you do nothing illegal , what did you think would happen ?
 
Last edited:
I have (quite fortunately) never had any encounter with a DA, or ADA.

So, I'm curious. Does anyone have any idea how the role of ADA works? Are you handed cases by the DA and told 'you better get a conviction, or else'?

Are they graded by conviction rates? Are they like private practice attorneys and are expected to generate their own work?

The behavior of these 2 ADA seems slightly desperate to me, so I'm just wondering if there is any kind of pressure on them from their boss?
 
ghbucky said:
Does anyone have any idea how the role of ADA works? Are you handed cases by the DA and told 'you better get a conviction, or else'?

Are they graded by conviction rates? Are they like private practice attorneys and are expected to generate their own work?

The behavior of these 2 ADA seems slightly desperate to me, so I'm just wondering if there is any kind of pressure on them from their boss?
Click to expand...

I'm sure it's different in different places. I know a few people in the local municipal and county prosecutor's offices, but I live in an old urban area that is fairly corrupt if we measure corruption by federal indictments of local officeholders. I've had clerks who went on to manage some of these systems.

The prosecutors may have looked desperate to you, and some of that desperation could be from not being really great at what they do. It could be recognition that they were handed a high profile stinker. I've only handled a couple of matters with criminal prosecutors that turned out well enough, but not because of the good sense and even temperament of the prosecutors. It's not a world I like to be in.

It's a safe guess that they both work for someone who is politically adept and willing to make both their lives hellish with little provocation. "Just show up and do the work" isn't the way people hang on to patronage employment. Patronage positions aren't necessarily easy, but your durability in the spot will have less to do with objective metrics and competence than whether the people above you see you as a supporter. Sometimes these people are instructed to make embarrassingly awful arguments by a superior. It can be a humiliating way to live.

Typically, the criminal defense attorneys start out in that system and get out of it not to become judges but to practice defense. I didn't watch the whole trial, but KR's people looked happier and more in control than the state's.
 
Not an attorney, but I have worked for and against prosecutors. They all seem to be very different to me in how they work and how they like their jobs. But they don't generate their own work unless they are letting criminals back into the system to commit more crime. Some of the cases I have seen with no charges brought because of "little likelihood of a conviction" have made me shake my head in the same way I have seen cases with charges filed. Like anything in the legal system, they have to work with what they have and witnesses and evidence don't always look the same 1 or 2 years later.

Personal opinion, sometimes charges just need to be brought in order to let the "trier of fact" come to a verdict, guilty or innocent. So taking a loser to court is sometimes politically expedient in the same way not prosecuting a winning case can be.
 
With those concepts clarified, then the answer to your question

Quote:
if you are armed and someone comes running at you--for whatever reason--as long as you believe they are a threat to you, BAM--it's OK to waste them, anytime, anywhere?
is "Yes."
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with AB on this, in part, and its specifically due to the language used in this statement,
BAM--it's OK to waste them, anytime, anywhere?
Click to expand...

AB did a fine job covering when deadly force is justified. The important point here (to me) is that use of deadly force to stop an attack can be justified, but "wasting them" cannot be. The law recognizes that death is often the result of using deadly force, but it does not directly justify killing, and as I understand the use of "wasting them" it means killing them. NOT stopping them and having them die as a tragic consequence of being stopped but a deliberate and intentional murder. And that can get you in the same kind of situation Rittenhouse is in now.

The prosecution says he committed murder, the defense says those people died as a result of lawful self defense.

It may seem like a small nuance of language and "wasting them" might be just the way you usually talk, but in legal matters, words matter much MUCH more, and in different ways than they do in casual conversation.
 
So I've been reading and hearing something about Binger pointing the gun at the jury with his finger on the trigger . I found a clip and based on my understanding of the court room and not knowing what's off camera . It looked to me he pointed it just to the right of the jury box and maybe an unoccupied area of the court room .

Second If he did point it at the jury it was meant to be done . After proof of Rosenbaum either touching the barrel or so close it was a certainty he was going to be touching it based on his forward momentum . . The prosecution changed there argument from shooting an unarmed man from several feet to Rosenbaum was provoked into the chase by Kyle pointing a gun at someone .

I believe If Binger did it on purpose it was to freak out the jury to recognize how threatening having a gun pointed at you can be and feel . How often do we all freak out when someone sweeps us let alone points a gun right in are face . This was the point , to put the jury literally in the shoes of someone having a gun pointed at them . This allows them in deliberations to remember how that felt when the prosecutions "new" theory of provocation is brought up as a a good reason Rosenbaum took chase . If that is indeed what his plan was I think it was brilliant . You can tell by all the arm chair keyboard attorney's on the net and news outlets freaking out about what he did . " YOU NEVER POINT A GUN AT ANYONE ! " they say . and Binger laughs and say exactly .
 
On a legal comment basis, its interesting that the number of shots in the Rosembaum portion was an issue.

Is that common? In police videos multi round bursts seem normal, primarily because Adrenalin can lead you to put three or four rounds out in a second before the threat begins to appear to stop.
 
Is that common? In police videos multi round bursts seem normal, primarily because Adrenalin can lead you to put three or four rounds out in a second before the threat begins to appear to stop.
Click to expand...

The one Major mistake Richards made on closing was saying something to the effect . In this very area police have been known to shoot a suspect 7 times and be found justified . Very bad in a case so closely bound to Jacob Blake who was shot 7 times and the LEO involved was found justified . When Richards said that my jaw dropped a little bit . Even "if" I/we think when considering the totality of evidence in the Jacob Blake case the cop was justified . It still turns the stomach to think of seven shots in the back as being OK . No way you want to bring that to the jury's attention as a reason your client can shoot someone 4 times .
 
Metal god said:
This allows them in deliberations to remember how that felt when the prosecutions "new" theory of provocation is brought up as a a good reason Rosenbaum took chase . If that is indeed what his plan was I think it was brilliant . You can tell by all the arm chair keyboard attorney's on the net and news outlets freaking out about what he did . " YOU NEVER POINT A GUN AT ANYONE ! " they say . and Binger laughs and say exactly .
Click to expand...

That sense of shock can work both ways though. If a lunatic chases you with your arm clearly visible and keeps running at you with the muzzle pointed his way, you are facing someone with a real commitment to hurting you.

zincwarrior said:
On a legal comment basis, its interesting that the number of shots in the Rosembaum portion was an issue.
Click to expand...

I found Binger's observation that KR tracked Rosenbaum as he fell interesting. I wondered what else KR should have done. Keep shooting where Rosenbaum no longer was?
 
I think the argument is that he should have stopped shooting. Its interesting, as to when is the threat considered stopped in front of a jury.

Definitely puts competition shooters in more jeopardy as fast combos are basic muscle memory.
 
I believe If Binger did it on purpose it was to freak out the jury to recognize how threatening having a gun pointed at you can be and feel . How often do we all freak out when someone sweeps us let alone points a gun right in are face . This was the point , to put the jury literally in the shoes of someone having a gun pointed at them . This allows them in deliberations to remember how that felt when the prosecutions "new" theory of provocation is brought up as a a good reason Rosenbaum took chase . If that is indeed what his plan was I think it was brilliant . You can tell by all the arm chair keyboard attorney's on the net and news outlets freaking out about what he did . " YOU NEVER POINT A GUN AT ANYONE ! " they say . and Binger laughs and say exactly .
Click to expand...

He demonstrated what it feels like to get swept with an AR, I'm not sure if that helps the case.
 
It's a safe guess that they both work for someone who is politically adept and willing to make both their lives hellish with little provocation. "Just show up and do the work" isn't the way people hang on to patronage employment. Patronage positions aren't necessarily easy, but your durability in the spot will have less to do with objective metrics and competence than whether the people above you see you as a supporter. Sometimes these people are instructed to make embarrassingly awful arguments by a superior. It can be a humiliating way to live.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the insight.

The prosecutors may have looked desperate to you
Click to expand...

That is a good point. I don't know how prosecutors normally behave so this may just be how these 2 normally operate.

It has been interesting watching this because I really have no exposure to how these types of things normally proceed.

I've also been pretty amused at how it seems that everyone on social media is either an expert defense attorney, judge or prosecutor depending on the day.
 
From what I noticed on social media, there are people who formed their opinion by watching the trial, and those who formed their opinion from big media talking points.

My opinion of the case has changed somewhat by watching parts of the trial.
 
From what I noticed on social media, there are people who formed their opinion by watching the trial, and those who formed their opinion from big media talking points.

My opinion of the case has changed somewhat by watching parts of the trial.
Click to expand...

Me too. This case has been a master class in media bias.
 
zincwarrior said:
I think the argument is that he should have stopped shooting. Its interesting, as to when is the threat considered stopped in front of a jury.
Click to expand...
I read somewhere that Rittenhouse fired four shots at Rosenbaum in 0.7xx seconds. That's not enough time for the brain to process whether or not the threat has ended.

Much of the expert training advice I've seen suggests either two shots to center of mass and then stop long enough to evaluate. If the threat is still active, shoot for the cranium. That was apparently old advice. A police officer friend (who has survived two shootouts) told me his advice is to fire two shots to center-of-mass and one shot to the "snot locker" (his words, not mine), THEN stop and evaluate.
 
Can the judge replace those jurors with alternates . If the only reason you won’t vote your true feelings is because you fear repercussions ? That should be a good enough reason for dismissal??? It's not that they believe he's guilty ,they'd rather vote guilty and have him go to jail only because of fear .
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top