Riots, looting, vandalism, etc.

Bogative said:
Evidence his attorneys were unreliable when they released their statement claiming he had not transported a weapon across state lines? The state's attorney's has proven they are reliable, so far.



For now, but it's slowly collapsing.


From today.
Click to expand...

If the sound of an unknown gunshot somewhere unseen during a riot affected Captain Kyle's decision to open fire, he is a particularly cowardly murderer, done deal. His defense lies 100% on showing that he had a reasonable belief that Rosenbaum intended to kill or grievously harm him. Trying to disarm the provoking Kyle is not enough. Random others firing shots elsewhere does not give Rittenhouse license to kill.
 
Bogative said:
Evidence his attorneys were unreliable when they released their statement claiming he had not transported a weapon across state lines?
Click to expand...

Evidence is not required to doubt a claim that is presented without evidence.

But your propensity to automatically regard as true what defense attorneys say about their clients will be useful in future discussions.
 
Thermal said:
If the sound of an unknown gunshot somewhere unseen during a riot affected Captain Kyle's decision to open fire, he is a particularly cowardly murderer, done deal. His defense lies 100% on showing that he had a reasonable belief that Rosenbaum intended to kill or grievously harm him. Trying to disarm the provoking Kyle is not enough. Random others firing shots elsewhere does not give Rittenhouse license to kill.
Click to expand...

"Provoking" isn't meaningful here. It's an appeal to emotion, but it's not a legally relevant descriptor. And yes, actually, in many situations trying to disarm someone who has a weapon can indeed be reasonably interpreted as a deadly threat.
 
Ziggurat said:
"Provoking" isn't meaningful here. It's an appeal to emotion, but it's not a legally relevant descriptor.
Click to expand...

The State of Wisconsin disagrees with you. Provocation is their statutory term of choice, as quoted upthread.

And yes, actually, in many situations trying to disarm someone who has a weapon can indeed be reasonably interpreted as a deadly threat.
Click to expand...

It can. It remains to be seen if it will in this case. Rittenhouse's future largely relies on that finding.
 
johnny karate said:
Evidence is not required to doubt a claim that is presented without evidence.
Click to expand...

And yet, you didn't seem to doubt the claim that he had crossed state lines with the weapon, even though that was presented without evidence.

But your propensity to automatically regard as true what defense attorneys say about their clients will be useful in future discussions.
Click to expand...

I expressed the view that the defense claims were credible, and I explained my reasoning: this was the sort of claim that's very easy to prove true or false. It's bad practice to make a factual claim that can easily be proven false, because that ruins your credibility and makes defending the client harder to do. The fact that they were making such a claim so early suggested (and correctly, as we now know) that the defense attorney knew it was true. Had he not known it was true, I think he would have simply remained silent on the issue. He could always contest it at trial if that were part of the charges, but no point in going out on a limb when you don't need to. So believing the defense attorney in this case wasn't automatic, it was contingent upon the specifics of the claim and the circumstances.
 
I'm going through the hypotheticals for the 2nd set of shooting victims.

- If the killing of Rosenbaum (the first shooting victim) is found to be unlawful, seems that is almost certainly follows that the 2nd shootings were clearly criminal. If the first killing was a crime, Rittenhouse was a fleeing, armed criminal that was violently resisting lawful attempts by bystanders to stop him. If he loses the Rosenbaum killing, he's totally boned on everything after.

- If the killing of Rosenbaum is not unlawful, the later shootings could still be found to be a crime. Rosenbaum still appears to be a fleeing killer, and proportionality of opening fire on 2 unarmed men is still very suspect. I suppose the cleanest case for "self-defense" might be for the wounding of the man armed with the pistol, but that still doesn't seem clear cut. The killing of Huber, the man that swung a skateboard, seems like a real challenge legally. Firing at the other unarmed man also seems similarly difficult. It's not going to be difficult for the prosecutor to paint these men as trying to stop and disarm, not maim or murder, Rittenhouse. Several from the crowd are still alive and I suspect will testify as much.

Technical legal arguments aside, I think a jury is going to rightly see Rittenhouse as a prime agent of violent chaos that night, and take a dim view of any self defense claims. He didn't stay with his victim to provide aid, nor did he call 911 or stay on the scene to make a police report. The fact that he fled the state that night and did not think to make a police report after a double homicide really undercuts a self-defense claim.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
And yet, you didn't seem to doubt the claim that he had crossed state lines with the weapon, even though that was presented without evidence.
Click to expand...

Except that I never expressed an opinion on that.

I expressed the view that the defense claims were credible, and I explained my reasoning: this was the sort of claim that's very easy to prove true or false. It's bad practice to make a factual claim that can easily be proven false, because that ruins your credibility and makes defending the client harder to do. The fact that they were making such a claim so early suggested (and correctly, as we now know) that the defense attorney knew it was true. Had he not known it was true, I think he would have simply remained silent on the issue. He could always contest it at trial if that were part of the charges, but no point in going out on a limb when you don't need to. So believing the defense attorney in this case wasn't automatic, it was contingent upon the specifics of the claim and the circumstances.
Click to expand...

Good for you. You stick with your flimsy rationalizations, and I’ll go ahead and stick with relying on facts and evidence.
 
johnny karate said:
Good for you. You stick with your flimsy rationalizations, and I’ll go ahead and stick with relying on facts and evidence.
Click to expand...

Yet I was right, and the best you can claim is that by not having any opinion you weren't actually wrong. But you certainly weren't right.
 
Investigations show that the Marshals lied about the shooting.
It does look more and more like a Hit.
Barr needs to investigate - but won't.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
- If the killing of Rosenbaum (the first shooting victim) is found to be unlawful, seems that is almost certainly follows that the 2nd shootings were clearly criminal.
Click to expand...

Nope, doesn't follow. That isn't how the law of self defense works. Rittenhouse would have to remain an active threat to others in order to justify the use of deadly force against him. Past illegal action on his part doesn't provide that justification.

If he loses the Rosenbaum killing, he's totally boned on everything after.
Click to expand...

As a matter of jury opinion, possibly. As a matter of law, no.

If the killing of Rosenbaum is not unlawful, the later shootings could still be found to be a crime.
Click to expand...

In principle, yes.

It's not going to be difficult for the prosecutor to paint these men as trying to stop and disarm, not maim or murder, Rittenhouse. Several from the crowd are still alive and I suspect will testify as much.
Click to expand...

Legally speaking, though, this isn't relevant. It doesn't matter what their true intent was. What matters is what Rittenhouse could reasonably conclude in the moment, with the information he had. And if you're being beaten with a skateboard, it's not unreasonable to conclude that the person beating you means you serious harm.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
"they didn't want to arrest him"

Will the US Marshals disavow the President's description of their conduct as an extrajudicial killing?

Trump either confessed to ordering an assassination, or accused the US Marshals of murder. Which is it?
Click to expand...

You too are wrong.

"They" doesn't refer to the marshals, it refers to the state police. Trump was saying that the state police did nothing for days, so the feds stepped in and resolved it quickly.
 
Ziggurat said:
You too are wrong.

"They" doesn't refer to the marshals, it refers to the state police. Trump was saying that the state police did nothing for days, so the feds stepped in and resolved it quickly.
Click to expand...

Correct.

People know that Trump speaks in a very scattershot way, changes subject constantly, is not precise in his wording, but anyone with some verbal IQ and experience listening to him can understand what he's trying to convey.

People selectively pretend they don't know, in order to pretend they are outraged about something.
 
Ziggurat said:
You too are wrong.

"They" doesn't refer to the marshals, it refers to the state police. Trump was saying that the state police did nothing for days, so the feds stepped in and resolved it quickly.
Click to expand...

No he wasn't.
 
Ziggurat said:
Nope, doesn't follow. That isn't how the law of self defense works. Rittenhouse would have to remain an active threat to others in order to justify the use of deadly force against him. Past illegal action on his part doesn't provide that justification.



As a matter of jury opinion, possibly. As a matter of law, no.



In principle, yes.



Legally speaking, though, this isn't relevant. It doesn't matter what their true intent was. What matters is what Rittenhouse could reasonably conclude in the moment, with the information he had. And if you're being beaten with a skateboard, it's not unreasonable to conclude that the person beating you means you serious harm.
Click to expand...

Apologies, I meant to post this in the Rittenhouse thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom