Civil Unrest Thread

That’s not correct. If I’m jaywalking or double parked when someone jumps me, I can fight back. He’s an absolute piece of shit and deserves to root in jail but bringing a gun over state lines is not (I think) enough to waive any self defense argument.

Just to elaborate slightly. I am defending a civil action against a store (ignore this) where the underlying cause of action arises from theft and assault. Specifically, Plaintiff stole items from the store and stabbed our employee when confronted. He claimed at his civil trial that he acted in self-defense since (allegedly) our employee tased him first. Even thought he admitted to the theft, he was able to argue self defense. Further, unless Rittenhouse pleas to the lesser crimes prior to trial, the jury will be ruling on them as well, which begs the question on how he cannot argue self defense because he was allegedly committing crimes to which he neither admitted nor was convicted of. Just saying “hey, he was doing these crimes too” doesn’t fly.

Appreciate the layman's explanation. I pretty much feel US law is arbitrarily applied bullshit - not necessarily worse than other countries, but certainly subject to the whims of whether a judge got his dick sucked and allows an objection or not, and how loud/aggressive the lawyers are. Outcomes correlate more strongly with money, prejudice, and connections than justice. And the more I hear stories from the inside, the more I think I'm right.

Rittenhouse should be knelt in front of a wall and double-tapped. He won't serve a sentence of any sort.
 
I’m not a lawyer but doesn’t this case really depend on if the first person he shot was in self defense or if he was the aggressor?
All the lawyer has to do is prove reasonable doubt for 1st degree murder, it's going to be difficult to say he intended to murder Rosenbaum while running away. In both cases he was fleeing. This is why I think it'll be a hung jury, some will say he's guilty, others will doubt the charge of 1st degree. This wiki entry breaks down my understanding of what happened:


There may be more/new evidence introduced at the trial. For the charges:

The complaint against Rittenhouse lists six charges:

first-degree reckless homicide against Joseph Rosenbaum,

Hung. Kyle was running away, other shots were fired which caused him to stop. Maybe he thought Rosenbaum was shooting? Dunno. Unless they can somehow prove his intent was to kill someone prior, I don't know how they're going to say it was pre-meditated intent.

first-degree recklessly endangering safety against Richard McGinnis (a reporter who interviewed Rittenhouse before the shooting),[59]

I don't even know what this is about or how Richard's safety was endangered. ???

first-degree intentional homicide against Anthony Huber,

This is the guy who hit him in the head after Kyle tripped as he was fleeing. Hung.

attempted first-degree intentional homicide against Gaige Grosskreutz,

Again, fleeing, attacked, then Gaige attempts to jump him with a handgun drawn. Hung.

first-degree recklessly endangering safety against an unknown male victim,

Not sure who this is either. ???

and possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 (the only misdemeanor charge, the others are felonies).[60][61][62] Each felony charge comes with a "use of a dangerous weapon" modifier,[60] which invokes a Wisconsin law that prescribes an addition of no more than five years of imprisonment for each of the charges if found guilty.[63]

This he is guilty of. Even though he didn't bring the weapon across state lines, he purchased it illegally through a friend. One of the items I read was Rittenhouse was overcharged and it'll be difficult to nail him on 1st degree murder, where a lower charge had a higher chance of conviction. Except for the weapons charge. Anyway, that's my prediction barring unknown evidence that may show up later.
 
Because laws are more thoroughly codified by statute rather than left to judges to craft by judicial decision. While a lot of people think American judges simply enforce laws, the reality is that law is created by judges in a common law system.

So that's from judges defining law through legal opinions on cases, right?

I was still thinking of civil, even if it's more rigidly defined in statutes. For example, the recent dismissal of third-degree murder charges for Derek Chauvín (George Floyd's killer) was a chess move of sorts; they won't be able to convict on the remaining charge of 2nd degree murder, so he'll likely get manslaughter for negligence or walk. When I see stuff like that, it feels like judges playing along or putting their thumb on the scale for their friends, not doing what's best for justice or for the people.
 
Just to elaborate slightly. I am defending a civil action against a store (ignore this) where the underlying cause of action arises from theft and assault. Specifically, Plaintiff stole items from the store and stabbed our employee when confronted. He claimed at his civil trial that he acted in self-defense since (allegedly) our employee tased him first. Even thought he admitted to the theft, he was able to argue self defense. Further, unless Rittenhouse pleas to the lesser crimes prior to trial, the jury will be ruling on them as well, which begs the question on how he cannot argue self defense because he was allegedly committing crimes to which he neither admitted nor was convicted of. Just saying “hey, he was doing these crimes too” doesn’t fly.

The distinguishing issue is that he crossed state lines with the gun looking for a conflict. He's more like the theif than jaywalker. I agree merely crossing state lines with the gun does not deprive him of self defense but if he did so with intent to engage somebody with the gun across state lines then he's not committing an unrelated crime in which self defense may have occurred. The entire chain of events was part of murderous intent.
 
The distinguishing issue is that he crossed state lines with the gun looking for a conflict. He's more like the theif than jaywalker. I agree merely crossing state lines with the gun does not deprive him of self defense but if he did so with intent to engage somebody with the gun across state lines then he's not committing an unrelated crime in which self defense may have occurred. The entire chain of events was part of murderous intent.
But you know how hard it is to prove intent.

Although, I wouldn’t be surprised if circumstantial evidence exists in the form of social media posts/comments or text messages.
 
Sadly, I could totally see things playing out the way PhischyII said. Think about it, the fact is that there are sick fucks out there who strongly believe this kid’s murders were justified and are glorifying this kid. If just one of them ends up on the jury and sticks to their guns (no pun intended)....
I never apologized for anyone. I sat on a murder trial, I can see how this could be argued and that's why I'm saying Hung vs a verdict either way based on the information publicly available and how polarizing the situation is.

There very well may be a Kyle's postings somewhere that set the tone that he had intent, in which case, fuck him he's done. If that can't be proven and they're relying solely on the video evidence, I think there's a solid chance for a hung jury on several of the charges. He will not walk from all of them though.
 
Top