Kyle Rittenhouse, accused multi-murderer from Kenosha BLM shooting

[Emily's Cat]

The fun part is that the No Minors with Weapons part also covers non-firearms weapons, like brass knuckles and nunchucks. If the judge's reading is correct, kids can carry those, too. So why have the statutory prohibition if it is globally negated by the add-ons? Seems to me the qualifiers should be subservient to the statute. In a Spirit of the Law state, they would.

My kid (freshly Esq-ed) agrees that wiggle room is often intentionally left, so as not to be so restrictive that it can be evaded with ease. But her reading of these Wisconsin laws is that it was quite literally the result of stupidity. No one bothered to proofread to see if they made sense when cutting and pasting amendments.

It's all speculation, none of us have ESP. That said, I would guess that the "kids can't have weapons" law is intended for two things. First, to be preventive. If it's clearly stated that it's illegal for minors to have weapons, then you're less likely to have kids wandering around with weapons because they think it looks cool or makes them tough. It' acts as a deterrent to stupidity that could hurt people by accident. Second, it would also act as a justification for arresting an aggressive minor who seems intent on causing problems, even if they haven't actually harmed anyone yet. The possession itself is illegal, thus grounds for arrest prior to any harm being done. I'd give good odds that if a kid between the ages of 15 and 18 goes out and intentionally hurts someone else with a weapon, they would be charged as an adult (assuming mental competence).

On the other hand, however, it's Wisconsin. And a lot of people hunt. And hunting with one's parents is a pretty common thing. It would cause a lot of very angry residents, and be generally viewed as a problem if they made it illegal for teens to hunt.

I would guess that 99% of the time, this combination works just fine - by design. This situation fell into the 1% where the two statutes came into play together and caused a challenge.

 

[webfusion]

Grosskreutz is suing the city. I haven't heard of any lawsuits against Rittenhouse yet. His acquittal doesn't prevent lawsuits against him, but they are a pretty good indicator that suing him successfully would be difficult. So we may well not see any.

Back in January, Huber's S.O. Hannah Gittings did sue him already (along with additional plaintiffs ---- three other people who were also present on the streets that night after curfew --- claiming they were harassed and threatened by militia members) The legal action was withdrawn, with prejudice.
https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/lo...cle_8fda21ff-b5f7-5ae6-a762-9ef0a0ca3dfa.html

 

[plague311]

Too right it'd be difficult. The balance of probabilities standard in a civil case would, in effect, not be applicable to this particular incident. And that's because the entirety of Rittenhouse's culpability (and liability, in any civil suit) rests on the validity of his "self-defence" defence. Even in any civil case, lawyers for the plaintiff(s) would have to convince the court (just as in the criminal trial) that Rittenhouse must have been lying when he claimed he was acting in self-defence because he feared for his mortal safety just before he took each shot.

Unless counsel for the plaintiff(s) can do this - and I think there's little or no chance of that - then each and every civil suit will collapse. It will cost the plaintiff(s) a lot of money. Money they probably don't even have.

So even if, say, Rosenbaum's family wants to sue Rittenhouse, they'd first have to find a lawyer who was willing to advise them and present the case in court. But I'm not sure - given the very low odds of victory - that many lawyers would even want to take the case. After all, if they too believe there's very little chance of success, that means they'd eventually have to chase the plaintiff(s) for their far-from-insubstantial fees. Perhaps there's a lawyer somewhere who'd be prepared to take the case on a pro bono or no-win-no-fee basis....?

I don't think any of this is true. From one source I can find:

Unlike a criminal case requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the plaintiff would simply have to prove, by a preponderance of evidence, that the armed citizen did not act reasonably

It would largely depend on how specifically Wisconsin is coded out, but you implying that no lawyer would take the case is, frankly, bull ****. There are a ton of people who think Kyle didn't act reasonably throughout the entire evening, and in this case they don't have to go beyond a reasonable doubt. I think most lawyers would jump at this case. They aren't as restricted on evidence, so videos like Kyle **** talking those people at Target, and when he fought that female, might be allowed in. I really don't think you have any idea what you're talking about at all here.

 

[plague311]

Back in January, Huber's S.O. Hannah Gittings did sue him already (along with additional plaintiffs ---- three other people who were also present on the streets that night after curfew --- claiming they were harassed and threatened by militia members) The legal action was withdrawn, with prejudice.
https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/lo...cle_8fda21ff-b5f7-5ae6-a762-9ef0a0ca3dfa.html

Sounds like the lawyers were idiots that had no idea what they were doing. It also doesn't say if the case was decided outside of court and that's why they withdrew. That really is a **** article with absolutely no detail in it at all. It's certainly not indicative of any other lawsuit or pending civil case.

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't think any of this is true. From one source I can find:



It would largely depend on how specifically Wisconsin is coded out, but you implying that no lawyer would take the case is, frankly, bull ****. There are a ton of people who think Kyle didn't act reasonably throughout the entire evening, and in this case they don't have to go beyond a reasonable doubt. I think most lawyers would jump at this case. They aren't as restricted on evidence, so videos like Kyle **** talking those people at Target, and when he fought that female, might be allowed in. I really don't think you have any idea what you're talking about at all here.

Hahaha well let's see, eh?

 

[LondonJohn]

Sounds like the lawyers were idiots that had no idea what they were doing. It also doesn't say if the case was decided outside of court and that's why they withdrew. That really is a **** article with absolutely no detail in it at all. It's certainly not indicative of any other lawsuit or pending civil case.

LOL, yeah I'm sure that you're absolutely right and "the lawyers were idiots who had no idea what they were doing"....

 

[Suddenly]

LOL, yeah I'm sure that you're absolutely right and "the lawyers were idiots who had no idea what they were doing"....

This seems implausible how?

Most lawyers are idiots. You just aren't going to hear about most of the silly crap.

 

[plague311]

LOL, yeah I'm sure that you're absolutely right and "the lawyers were idiots who had no idea what they were doing"....

You should roll your eyes, you should roll them to the website and read how the lawyers were acting. They were fighting amongst themselves:

Earlier, Flores-Williams and the attorney he originally worked with on the suit had a public spat over the case, with attorney Jennifer Sirrine withdrawing. In her motion to withdraw, Sirrine accused Flores-Williams of harassing and underpaying her. In that filing, Sirrine wrote that Gittings and another of the plaintiffs emailed her saying they wanted to end their attorney-client relationship due to “broken trust.”

They appeared to be terrible lawyers. They couldn't even properly work out the process of getting paid between them. It also appears that those same lawyers dismissed the case themselves, and included the prejudice but said "no comment". Which could mean a bunch of things. As I said, the article is fairly light on details.

Thanks for the snark though. If you're going to be wrong, at least be condescending when you do it lol.

Hahaha well let's see, eh?

HAHAHAHAHA ok.

 

[Dr. Keith]

This seems implausible how?

Most lawyers are idiots. You just aren't going to hear about most of the silly crap.

No lies.

 

[plague311]

Kyle appears to be pushing back a bit on the conservative praise. He was on a podcast recently and had a few things to say:

Kyle Rittenhouse said it was “probably not the best idea” to travel to Kenosha, Wisconsin, last year during a night of civil unrest where he fatally shot two people.

"Hindsight being 20/20, probably not the best idea to go down there," the 18-year-old said on Monday's episode of "You Are Here," a conservative podcast. "Can’t change that. But I defended myself and that’s what happened."

I'd say probably the best answer one could give. When she praised him for killing the two he did because she hit "two of the worst", which is really stupid, he replied:

“It’s nothing to be congratulated about.”

“If I could go back, I wish I would never have had to take somebody’s life,” he said.

All in all that's something to be admired, at least he isn't bathing in the fact he killed someone. Although, he went on to say he has PTSD but the best thing to do is joke about it, which seems odd but what do I know about PTSD?

ETA: Oh, he also said he's destroying the gun. So it doesn't appear he's going to be a massive piece of stupid **** like Zimmer and try to cash on every aspect he can. Like going around signing bags of skittles like a douche.

He reiterated that the AR-15-style weapon he carried during the protest will be destroyed.

“We’re just having it destroyed. I think that’s the best thing, and that’s what I want to do with it," Rittenhouse said.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Kyle appears to be pushing back a bit on the conservative praise. He was on a podcast recently and had a few things to say:



I'd say probably the best answer one could give. When she praised him for killing the two he did because she hit "two of the worst", which is really stupid, he replied:



All in all that's something to be admired, at least he isn't bathing in the fact he killed someone. Although, he went on to say he has PTSD but the best thing to do is joke about it, which seems odd but what do I know about PTSD?

ETA: Oh, he also said he's destroying the gun. So it doesn't appear he's going to be a massive piece of stupid **** like Zimmer and try to cash on every aspect he can. Like going around signing bags of skittles like a douche.

I didn't realize he had the rifle to destroy.

Isn't it evidence of a crime related to his buddy that illegally provided it to him?

Kyle is not the "owner" of that firearm, his friend basically straw purchased it for him. Seems like it would be confiscated as the direct product of a crime.

 

[plague311]

I didn't realize he had the rifle to destroy.

Isn't it evidence of a crime related to his buddy that illegally provided it to him?

Kyle is not the "owner" of that firearm, his friend basically straw purchased it for him.

Are they charging Black? I honestly have no idea. I saw the gun at the trial, and I'm not sure what control over the destiny of the firearm they have. It could be that one of the options is to have the police destroy it.

 

[Thermal]

Are they charging Black? I honestly have no idea. I saw the gun at the trial, and I'm not sure what control over the destiny of the firearm they have. It could be that one of the options is to have the police destroy it.

Kyle publicly and repeatedly referring to it as "his" is likely bolstering the claim of a straw purchase, which is not going to work out well for either of them.

 

[Segnosaur]

Kyle appears to be pushing back a bit on the conservative praise.

Its kind of a mixed bang with Rittenhouse.

Yes, he (and his lawyers) have attempted to make Rittenhouse look remoresful, etc.

But he DID go visit Stubby McBonespurs down in Florida. If you really want to distance yourself from controversy, perhaps you shouldn't go visit a racist con-artist who praised neo-nazis as "fine people".

Perhaps he has 2 different people whispering conflicting information in his ears.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

a fallacious argument

I'd say probably the best answer one could give. When she praised him for killing the two he did because she hit "two of the worst", which is really stupid, he replied...

The right-wing demonization of the slain men is both irksome and fallacious. Even if one were to grant that these two men were two of the worst for the sake of argument, Mr. Rittenhouse could not possibly have known this. It is intellectually dishonest for his supporters to make statements such as these.

I also have heard it said that Mr. Rittenhouse has shown interest in a career within the medical world. The man that he maimed (Gaige Grosskreutz) has skills and professional experience, but it is unclear to me whether he will ever be able to practice them again. Chicago Tribune

 

[plague311]

Its kind of a mixed bang with Rittenhouse.

Yup. In all honesty, Kyle could probably make enough money to live out the rest of his life in relative silence if he embraced this wholeheartedly. If he **** talked the people he killed, if he played up him being a hero, and if he really sold out. He might get sued out of most of it, but I bet he could get enough to live ok.

He's not, and on some level I respect that. He's pushing back against people glorifying his actions to kill. He's pushing back on people calling him a hero. He's stated things that he had to have known would irritate the people that are basically worshipping him right now. He's come off as a bit more mature than I thought he would be.

 

[theprestige]

Its kind of a mixed bang with Rittenhouse.

Yes, he (and his lawyers) have attempted to make Rittenhouse look remoresful, etc.

But he DID go visit Stubby McBonespurs down in Florida. If you really want to distance yourself from controversy, perhaps you shouldn't go visit a racist con-artist who praised neo-nazis as "fine people".

Perhaps he has 2 different people whispering conflicting information in his ears.

How dare this person that I hate not dance to the exact virtue signals that I prefer?!

 

[Thermal]

My boy Ky is playing both sides of the fence. He wants everyone to like him in a dichotomy world of love him or hate him. Not going to work out well for the lad. No one likes a hypocrite, saying you support BLM while hanging with Proud Boys and flashing white power signs.

Actually, the white supremacists are publicly duplicitous all the time, so they might still embrace him, assuming he is lying for the camera.

 

[carlitos]

How dare this person that I hate not dance to the exact virtue signals that I prefer?!

He's doing a media tour with right wing and alt-right edging douchebag grifters, which is definitely "signaling" something.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

He's doing a media tour with right wing and alt-right edging douchebag grifters, which is definitely "signaling" something.

Indeed. The fascist right is a bit disappointed that he's not being deliberately provocative enough in his victory tour, but they had very high hopes.

He's hanging around with far-right propagandists enough, it may just be a matter of time before he starts showing up to events with a skull mask and "commie killer" across his back.