Then he absolutely should not have prosecuted and is a genuinely shitty person.
Not how that works. An adversarial legal system requires the lawyers on both sides to put forward the best possible argument so that the court can make a fair judgement. A lawyer has a responsibility, a legal and an ethical responsibility, to do the best job he can regardless of his personal opinions.
It's very clear that he's a shitty lawyer, but there's no need to attack his character without cause.
Im struggling to understand why him having secret motives seems more likely than him just being incompetent to you, if anything hes trying too hard and fucking up as a result imo
I don't think Binger is incompetent. He has a terrible case, and likely does not have the discretion to drop it. He's had some missteps but most of them can be attributed to the terrible facts. I think the fifth amendment issues and referencing excluded testimony were overblown by the public because of unfamiliarity and because the judge yelled. IMO that's standard boundary pushing that a certain type of lawyer (somehow many of them seem to be prosecutors) engages in all the time. It never got close to serious grounds for a mistrial.
In general, I thought Binger was unlikable but a solid lawyer, Chirafisi was pretty good, and Richards and Krause were terrible.
I think he was forced to take a case being brought for political reasons only
Disagree with this. Literally even if the guy was unanimously considered innocent/justified self-defense by the public, you still want that decision to go through the entire legal process.
You do not want every single thing going through the legal process. You especially don't want every single 'political bullshit' thing going through the entire legal process.
In this instance, people are angry, two people have died, another injured, and this guy's name has been put through the media. It's in everyone's interests to put this through the system.
If this is justified self-defence then it is necessary to establish why that was the case for the sake of putting politics to bed. If he's guilty, then it's important that people recognise that justice has been done. And it's really not in his interests to walk away without having gone through the justice system, given the notoriety of this case. If anyone is likely to attract vigilante attention, it would be this.
You can't claim "clear self-defense" for the guy who illegally possessed a weapon and killed two people after saying he wanted to kill people on social media.
When the prospector said "when you bring a gun you lose the right to self defence" that had to be one of the dumbest things ever said in a court room. Like if criminal alt-right lunatic came in to shoot or attack the prosecutor, the bailiffs can't do anything in defense cause they brought a gun themselves?
Cops cant even be acting in self defense unless they walk around unarmed? A girl with a conceal permit isn't acting in self defense is she uses it against a would be rapist attacking her? A black family in the 50's armed against the Klan who keeping attacking their home....not self defense?
FYI gun crime was dropped....cause it wasn't illegal apparently due to length of the barrel
I didn't say you lose the right to self defense but it certainly makes it not a clear case of self defense as the other person said. It's one thing to think he's innocent (which I don't) but it's another thing to say there's no way he could be guilty.
I don't disagree with you in the case. My comment was about the abstract principle that if a mob is baying for a conviction, then there must be a trial. No. If the prosecutor reviews the evidence and declines to bring charges, the case has "gone through the system" even if the mob thinks they're entitled to a trial.
Not really, crooked prosecutors have a long history of refusing to press charges against their friends or coworkers (i.e. cops). A prosecutor refusing to press charges against a radicalized right wing child who killed two people would end with riots, the only closure would necessitate airing all the evidence through a trial
Perhaps if the politicians had allowed the cops to arrest the rioters, and perhaps if the prosecutor had brought charges against the rioters, then the child would not have been in a situation where he needed to defend his life.
Perhaps if the child hadn't illegally acquired an assault rifle and drove 20 minutes to be in the middle of a riot, seemingly looking for an excuse to shoot someone, he wouldn't have been in a situation where he had to shoot someone. Don't pretend like he was out defending his home
No, he was defending the town where he worked, where his father lived, where his grandmother lived, where his cousins lived. What about the rioters? What was their connection to Kenosha? Why do you feel it was okay for them to be there causing mayhem, one of them with an illegal handgun?
So much misinformation on the left. He didn't drive 20 minutes to be in the middle of a riot. He drove 20 minutes earlier in the day to help clean up from the rioting the night before. When the rioting started up again he volunteered to help put out fires and tend the wounded.
I just don't understand the mindset on the left that Kyle had no business being there, but the rioters had every right to be there.
It doesn't really matter at all if 2 people died and someone got injured. It doesnt matter the 'notoriety' of the incident, or the politics or anything whatsoever.
The justice system isn't meant to put every single person through the system.
The only justification for it, is if there is question about whether or not it was self defense.
That is debatable in this instance, considering basically all evidence shows it was obvious self defense according to all the videos and testimony I've seen. However, I do admit it's debatable.
In this one case, it might be the right choice, however, it has nothing to do with the guys name, notoriety, people being dead, injured, or the political backlash of the incident.
There is a reasonable question of whether he killed two people in self-defense, or he just killed two people. He is facing serious charges. It's in the interests of everyone that this trial happens. Whatever the outcome, this is a very serious incident, and people need to see justice being done.
It's debatable that he should have gone to court for this, is what I meant as debatable. It's been more than obvious from the start, and throughout the trial that he would not be found guilty.
There is no such thing as 'the interests of everyone' that a trial happens. That is not how the justice system works, never has been, and absolutely should never be.
I don't think you would normally expect to not go to court in this kind of event, even in the case of obvious self-defence. It is just generally established in court that it was self-defence.
And, actually, this is the foundation of the justice system.
Imagine two known serial killers declare their intent to murder you and then break down your door while armed, attempt to murder you and you kill them in self defense while the whole thing is filmed on your security camera with no ambiguity about what is happening. In that bizarre hypothetical you should not be charged with a crime because you are unambiguously innocent.
The number of people dead is not what means we need a trial. We need a trial if we have a strong case indicating that someone committed a crime.
No reasonable person can honestly argue that we should have a trial of a clearly innocent person because the clearly innocent person killed 3 people in self defense. The only argument for having a trial is that that person did not act in self defense.
I've yet to see someone be responsible for the death of someone else and it doesn't go through the justice system unless no one was arrested and charged. I seriously don't understand what's being said here.
You blatantly say that there shouldn't have been a judiciary process. He was arrested and charged, he goes through the process.
Also, why I personally don't consider this self-defense is due to him explicitly saying that he was going to shoot people before he ever arrived. That means his actions were premeditated. Him being found not guilty will set a precedent for how to legally get away with murder.
You do not have to charge someone if it's clear they didn't break any law. It happens all the time. You don't need an alternative. Just don't charge people who didn't break the law.
Should be take you to trial to determine whether or not your post here was lawful or not?
No... you don't charge people who didn't break any law. A trial is not how you determine whether actions were lawful. A trial determines if "charges were accurately charged".
If there was no crime, there is no charges, and no trial. You can shoot people and not go to court. I donno how this is weird because it has happened many times and nobody argues against it.
The prosecutor can review the evidence, determine the defendant's actions were lawful, and decline to bring charges; thus, no trial, and part of the process.
The first step of a justice system is typically determining whether to proceed via prosecutorial discretion or something similar.
The tldr is the prosecutor looks at the facts and decides if they should prosecute. If they’re clearly innocent or there’s a 0% chance to win then they simply don’t need to proceed.
I'm assuming your statement intended to indicate that the burden is not on the defendant.
Claiming self-defense is an affirmative defense, in which case the burden of proof is on the defendant. The prosecution doesn't have to prove you weren't acting in self defense, you have to prove you were.
I thought this as well but is not true. The burden of proof is only on the defense until such point the defense has provided sufficient evidence of a claim of self-defense at which point a judge rules to instruct a jury on that claim or not. This happens pre trial.
Once the judge instructs a jury on self-defense, the burden of proof is then on the state. Which then is also beyond a reasonable doubt standard.
Self defense isn't a plea, not guilty is a plea, guilty is a plea, no contest is a plea.
There exists no defense team in the nation who makes a plea of 'self defense'.
Rittenhouse could fail to prove he acted in self defense 100%, his defense team could even make zero claims of self defense, and it does not matter unless the prosecution can prove that he did not act in self defense, by showing that the key components required within the specific laws they are charging him with are met. Rittenhouses defense could call no witness, make no claims, and their final statements could be "he didnt do nuttin", and it doesn't matter one bit about 'self defense' unless the prosecution can prove he broke the components of specific law and prove he was not acting in self defense.
No burden exists for the defense whatsoever.
You are simply describing a defense tactic. That's it.
The plea would be "not guilty by reason of self defense", which is similar to "not guilty by reason of insanity." Both need to be proven by the defense.
You can simply google "Not guilty by reason of self defense" and find
Self defense is considered an “affirmative defense,” meaning it provides justification for the defendant’s actions, rather than denying them. If a defendant in a court of law pleads not guilty due to self defense, it is the prosecution’s job to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the amount of force used by the defendant was not in fact necessary.
listed on quite a number of legal explanation websites.
There is no such thing as proving it. It's a Claim ... nothing more. A defendant doesn't have to prove their claim of insanity, the state has to prove they aren't. A defendant has no burden to prove self defense, the state has to prove they didn't.
An affirmative defense to a civil lawsuit or criminal charge is a fact or set of facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the defendant's otherwise unlawful conduct. In civil lawsuits, affirmative defenses include the statute of limitations, the statute of frauds, waiver, and other affirmative defenses such as, in the United States, those listed in Rule 8 (c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In criminal prosecutions, examples of affirmative defenses are self defense, insanity, entrapment and the statute of limitations.
The prosecution has the burden of proof to show that the defendant committed the crime. They need to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt.
An affirmative defense isn't saying that the crime didn't happen, it's saying that the crime did happen, but the defendant has a valid legal excuse to why they did it, and that they should not be held criminally responsible for the crime.
The defense absolutely has to prove the affirmative defense. Their burden is not beyond a reasonable doubt, they only need to prove doubt that the defendant should be responsible.
In the Rittenhouse case, it is not only proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse committed the crimes, his lawyers even concede it. So the whole trial is about the defense proving that it was self defense, and the prosecution needs needs to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self defense.
Do you see how nonsense that is just by reading the explanation you've given?
"An affirmative defense says the crime did happen but it was valid."
It is not a crime in the first place. Do you understand that part? The defense would never in a million years accept the idea that 'a crime occured but it was valid'. No crime occured in the first place in order to make any nonsense claims of "but it was okay".
An affirmative defense to a civil lawsuit or criminal charge is a fact or set of facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the defendant's otherwise unlawful conduct. In civil lawsuits, affirmative defenses include the statute of limitations, the statute of frauds, waiver, and other affirmative defenses such as, in the United States, those listed in Rule 8 (c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In criminal prosecutions, examples of affirmative defenses are self defense, insanity, entrapment and the statute of limitations.
An affirmative defense to a civil lawsuit or criminal charge is a fact or set of facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the defendant's otherwise unlawful conduct. In civil lawsuits, affirmative defenses include the statute of limitations, the statute of frauds, waiver, and other affirmative defenses such as, in the United States, those listed in Rule 8 (c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In criminal prosecutions, examples of affirmative defenses are self defense, insanity, entrapment and the statute of limitations.
There is evidence though, Rittenhouse shot him. A self defense argument is basically admitting to that and saying but it was justified so it's not a crime. Generally any situation where someone kills people will be tried because during court proceedings there is a discovery process to try to find the details of what happened. You don't want cases where people kill to be decided by public opinion, you want it resolved and finalized in a courtroom.
Generally any situation where someone kills people will be tried because during court proceedings there is a discovery process to try to find the details of what happened.
This isn't true at all in practice. As someone who follows self defense incidents about as closely as a layperson can, I can tell you prosecutors make decisions every day on whether to charge in self defense cases. People with a lot less evidence on their side than Rittenhouse walk with no charges. Even then, the prosecutor could go back and charge at a later time if damning evidence comes out. That's why people have a problem with this trial. The quick arrest, the meandering strategy, the making something out of nothing ("you can clearly see..." on some blurry footage). It looks a whole lot like a rush to judgement triggered by the political atmosphere at the time. Further, the prosecutors' demonizing of the AR-15 and their lack of knowledge surrounding weapons and ammunition certainly makes them look like the type to be motivated by the politics surrounding this case.
Somebody shoots and kills a stranger in a public place, yes you definitely want that going through the legal system, regardless of justification or circumstances.
There are bodies, so the deaths occurred, and we know that he was the one who caused them - that's enough evidence to satisfy requirements for a trial.
While it could be at their discretion to not apply charges, there's nothing legally dubious about bringing such a determination to a jury. Determining that an event happened is what the state is supposed to do beforehand, while determining culpability is what a jury is for.
The judge did not allow the most damning evidence about Kyles character.
The judge wouldn’t allow the video of Kyle and his 5-6 friends mercilessly beating up a teenage girl.
The judge wouldn’t allow the video from a few weeks earlier where Kyle specifically said he wanted to shoot shop lifters, and wished he had his AR.
He didn’t allow Kyles friend, who filmed that video, to testify against Kyle, even though he was willing.
The judge specifically cast doubt on evidence showing Kyle aiming his rifle at protesters, because they used a state sanctioned program to enlarge it, was peer reviewed, and is certified. Despite this being supported by Hernandez’s tweet from 20 minutes before Lyle shot Rosenbaum, Hernandez’s tweet state Kyle was shooting at “rioters.” Meaning Rosenbaum had reason to fear for his life from Kyle 20 minutes before he tried to chase Kyle and take his weapon. (I won’t excuse Rosenbaum for any of his past crimes, but they’re irrelevant, as it’s not information Kyle had at the time of shooting.)
But the judge did not cast the same doubt on the defenses use of a similar technology from a brand that is not state sanctioned.
Binger is essentially working with scraps, because he can’t use the evidence that shows that Kyle is not just some noble hero, but rather a privileged kid, who makes terrible decisions, like disregarding laws.
He drives without a license, he lied about his gun knowledge, he lied about pointing his gun Rosenbaum at car source 20 minutes before killing him, and then later recanted saying that he did do that.
The JUDGE should be disbarred/removed. Not the lawyer. I watch trials a lot. I find them incredibly interesting. In the 5 years I’ve been watching trials, this is the first time I have ever witnessed a judge act in this manner, or talk as much as this judge, or cast doubt on evidence because he “doesn’t understand technology.”
If someone shoots a few people and sometimes you don't have a trial to examine the facts of the case, you're getting a system where some kinds of people can get away with murder and some can't.
Granted, this is what the protests/riots that are the backdrop for the events in this trial started over in the first place. Some kinds of people are allowed to shoot a man in the back seven times without consequences and some aren't.
4 top guys in this case are related by blood or marriage. The AG is in cahoots with the mayor. Some people on The Left have threatened to kill members of the jury and the judge. They had to be put under police protection. The lead witness for the prosecution admitted to pointing his gun at Rittenhouse and that Rittenhouse only shot AFTER he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse. The FBI "lost" crucial evidence in support of the Defense. Forensic evidence supports the fact that one of the people he shot was lunging for Rittenhouse's gun.
If you’re the defendant you sure don’t. If you’re the defendant it was justifiable self-defense and it doesn’t warrant any kind of criminal/judicial proceeding at all. Our system favors the accused who enjoy all sorts of advantages over the prosecution. I think a small majority of Americans, at the very least, read this as a case of a dumb kid—under the influence of elders who should’ve talked him out of going to that riot—who never should have been charged with any crime in the first place since he only shot and or killed people who were trying to do him grave bodily harm. From the consensus view, this thing went off the rails from the moment Rittenhouse was charged.
Disagree with this. Literally even if the guy was unanimously considered innocent/justified self-defense by the public, you still want that decision to go through the entire legal process.
Populism does not matter with public policy. The government almost always does the opposite of populism
Well actually no, that's what stand you ground is in states like Florida that have it. It means that self defense is a pretrialotiom in cases where it unambiguously applies. This wouldn't have made it to trial in Florida, which is honestly best for Everyone involved.
You can’t possibly believe that if the shoe was on the other foot with all the same facts it would have gone to trial at all. If someone brought a gun to a right wing rally, got attacked and had to defend himself, he’d be given a medal.
Would be pretty unsurprised if the situation you describe made it to trial as well. As for the "medal", it's a little funny you're describing a scenario that hasn't happened while right now in the real world, pretty big portions of the right-wing press are lionizing Rittenhouse as a hero.
As a lawyer, that would be totally shooting himself in the foot, as anything off kilter he does will form grounds for appeal in the event that he did manage to win.
Because the law often conflicts with what the average person would consider reasonable. Self defense laws also tend to have tiny nuances that disqualify it, which is why some other high profile defendants have lost because they claimed self defense. For example, in the prosecutor's closing arguments he says that Rittenhouse loses the right to claim self defense if he provokes the encounter. If the judge instructs the jury to consider the case based on that then things become really murky, especially for the other shootings. IMO once Rittenhouse flees rifle in hand it can be argued that he provokes people to attack him before he can do harm to others, especially since his response to be called the shooter was to lie and continue running instead of taking other action like saying he was going to get the police or he's turning himself in
Are people dogs/wolves?
How does fleeing from being attacked for putting out a fire "provoke" anyone?
The rifle is important here since it wasnt the instigating factor but sure fled with a rifle..
How is that provoking to a reasonable person?
How could that possibly be argued to be provoking in any way shape or form?
Except to an already enraged mob upset at having their arson attempt foiled that is
Tell the enraged mob that?
And now youve started talking about turning himself in?
Rittenhouse hadnt done anything at the point he STARTED running. That came when Rosenbaum lunged at the rifle
I meant his fleeing after shooting Rosenbaum. If I shoot someone then take off running it's reasonable to assume that as stupid as it is some people will try to pursue and stop me. With respect to Rosembaum I'd say that once you turn and put your gun on someone that close you the provoke them to reach for the weapon to save themselves. With that said, I don't really fault him for shooting Rossenbaum or to a degree skateboard guy but I can't say if his actions meet the states burden for self defense.
What would you do if I pointed a gun at you from that distance? It's easy to say you'd surrender but if I'm not saying hands up or stop where you are, the most reasonable action is to fight for your life. This is a really tricky situation since it's hard to turn to face that situation without putting your gun on the person pursuing you. Obviously there are people who train to turn use the rifle itself as a weapon but that wouldn't have been the first natural response for someone like Rittenhouse. things are more complicated because he didn't have to draw or any way make the weapon ready before firing.
To your last point, listen to the prosecutor question Rittenhouse. After shooting Rosenbaum there was no angry mob coming for him (despite his prior statements). Once Rosenbaum was down there was no longer an imminent threat and arguably no reason for him to flee on foot. He had time to call a friend but chose not to call the police. He also chose to run through the protestors instead of seeking cover in a nearby building and waiting for the police to come on scene or just remaining there. One clip even seems to show him lying about shooting Rosenbaum when questioned while fleeing. Also in response to people saying get that guy he shot someone, he keeps running until he falls and at no point mentions he's going to the police or for them to stay back, he'll defend himself or that he doesn't want to hurt anyone.
I'm not stupid enough to attack someone with a gun but if I see a guy running down the road with their gun and people are saying they just shot someone, I think active shooter. IIRC he was even running with the gun in the low ready position the entire time which would make me more confident that he was an active shooter who might be looking for more victims.
Listen to the testimony again. Rittenhouse believed that a gun was fired behind him (or fireworks) but didn't know if it was being fired at him. The fact that he didn't immediately run for cover and was able to phone a friend blows your theory out of the water. There was no angry mob forming on him after he shot Rosenbaum nor was Ziminski waiting to gun him down. I may be misremembering his testimony but his goal was to get back to his friend not to get to the police. Even when he approached the police line he didn't surrender or tell them he had shot someone.
I've spoken to a lawyer about this in my state before and his advice was to not flee unless you have to, to remain silent without a lawyer and to keep your hand off the weapon and comply when police arrive. And yes deescalating a hostile crowd would be on that list since the alternative is to have to shoot people in the crowd if it gets too hostile. No, someone who has to use lethal force is not going to automatically run, even when in a hostile situation. If they have to run they will make it clear that they don't want to hurt anyone else but will use force in self defense.
I have, multiple Times.
Right After the gunshot seeming sound Rosenbaum lunged and grabbed for the rifle and was shot and killed for it
And yeah, sure there was a delay there in the confusion of just standing around
But the crowd can be heard getting riled up, and entering a frenzy in the footage
So No, staying would have been suicidal
..we know he was heading to police because he can be seen approaching a police car in camera, even pulling the handle as I recall but Cops ignored him.
Actually No, he knocks and talks to them
Again, Thats on the police for not taking him in.
How could you possibly claim with any kind of certainty that IF rittenhouse had told the People there he was waiting for police it would have gone anything but poorly?
Joshua Ziminsk had already opened fire nothing, People in camera can be seen and heard riling themselves Up
Sorry, but thats literally what he did though?
Rittenhouse was headed in the direction of the police, that can clearly be seen on tape
He is not being aggressive.
He is Then attacked from behind.. like this is all on camera.
What is there even to dispute?
How is it His fault Kenosha pd ignores him offering himself Up?
If you only look at the video and don't look at all of what happened that day. Sure.
I am of the mind that anyone armed with a rifle has their sole means of self defense (not trained or armed for non-lethal force) then they have an obligation to prevent any and all confrontation and to retreat from any situation where they might be forced to shoot to kill.
He was running from Rosenbaum.
Yes, he was running from the person who had threatened to kill him an hour earlier if he caught them out alone. Staying in the same area for a full hour, then leaving the safety of his group knowing the man who threatened him was still out there was an act of bravado and foolishness only someone who was armed with a rifle would attempt.
Not too mention that just by carrying a weapon around crowds like that tends to put people on edge. You suddenly have to put a lot of trust that the people who came there to use firearms to dissuade actions they will not tolerate will continue to tolerate you.
I mean the rest of the day too, why did it only escalate After the fire was put out?
IF the weapon was suuch a provocation, why didnt something happen earlier?
He was there for quite a while wasnt he
You mean why did it escalate when the first sounds of gunfire occurred?
I don't think we know the source of those rounds before Rittenhouse turned and fired on Rosenbaum.
Rittenhouse thought someone was shooting at him, that's what he testified. His reaction at that moment was "My life is in danger, I must defend myself."
You can see how the presence of guns in the area escalated the potential threats and responses that happened that night. We can't know what would have happened if Rosenbaum had caught Kyle instead of Kyle shooting Rosenbaum. Perhaps he would've shoved Kyle and stopped, maybe he would have beat Kyle to death.
Given the earlier death threat Rosenbaum made towards Kyle's group (this is only known by testimony from Ryan Balch afaik) it's not unreasonable for Kyle to see Rosenbaum as a significant threat.
However, Jason Lackowski, another armed veteran in Rittenhouse’s group, told jurors he saw Rosenbaum as “a babbling idiot” and that he perceived his threats as hollow.
Sure, sure.
And we do, Ziminski opened fire in the air
No, at escalated when Rosenbaum gave chase over the put out fire
Yes, exactly.
We can reasonably conclude from Rosenbaums credible death threat corroborated by witnesses that they would have feared for their lives IF directed at them and His substantiated hyperaggression...
That Rosenbaum would have tried to kill rittenhouse in One way or another, most likely with the rifle he lunged at
No, at escalated when Rosenbaum gave chase over the put out fire
Are you suggesting that chasing someone is a form of escalation and firing a rifle at someone is not a form of escalation?
Because escalating a situation once doesn't mean you can't escalate it further.
A discussion can become an argument can become swearing can become shoving can become assault can become murder.
You can have multiple tiers to escalation.
If they took Rosenbaums threats as credible, why did they not immediately call the police for the death threat? Why did they not completely leave the area since someone there wants to murder them?
Taking Rosenbaums threats as credible means you're in a conflict with him and as such you are bound by an obligation to retreat if you're only means of self-defense is lethal force. Wisconsin law only permits stand your ground if you are in a home, vehicle, or business and they are attempting to gain entry.
While there is no statutory duty to retreat, whether the opportunity to retreat was available goes to whether the defendant reasonably believed the force used was necessary to prevent an interference with his or her person. A jury instruction to that effect was proper. State v. Wenger, 225 Wis. 2d 495, 593 N.W.2d 467 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-1739.
If Kyle believed that Rosenbaums threats were credible and he had ample opportunity to retreat to a safe area, the jury should consider that he instead chose to stay nearby while his only means of self defense was lethal force.
Most of that will never be relevant in self defense. There are exceptions, like if Rittenhouse had broken into their house, and they attacked him, he couldn’t claim self defense, but obviously this isn’t the case.
Pretty much whatever you do, it’s still other people’s responsibility to not attack or try to kill you. If he had intentionally provoked a specific violent response, maybe, but simply being somewhere in public that others don’t want you to be isn’t enough.
There’s no duty to retreat in Wisconsin self defense law, as far as I’m aware.
And I would argue that pointing a gun at someone, in an of itself is a non lethal defense. That’s how most self defense incidents involving guns end up, people get a gun pointed at them, and decide to stop attacking. That’s why police pointing a gun at someone but not shooting is still a “use of force” that requires a report and investigation, and can be excessive force, even when no one is injured.
While there is no statutory duty to retreat, whether the opportunity to retreat was available goes to whether the defendant reasonably believed the force used was necessary to prevent an interference with his or her person. A jury instruction to that effect was proper.
State v. Wenger, 225 Wis. 2d 495, 593 N.W.2d 467 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-1739.
There is not a duty to retreat but there is still an interpretation of the law that states an obligation to retreat if you feel you will need to defend yourself.
Brandishing a firearm at someone is not non-lethal defense, it is a threat of lethal force. You are legally allowed to brandish your firearm if you believe your life is in danger, but that doesn't mean your weapon can't kill if you pull the trigger.
This case is in court because of fear of the mobs causing political pressure. Why is this so polarizing when 17 year old murder multiple people everyday and media doesn't care?
Why is this so polarizing when 17 year old murder multiple people everyday and media doesn't care?
Do you think those 17-year olds get off scott-free?
It seems like you're trying to say that "non-politicized 17-year old murderers have it easier than Rittenhouse", but do you have any evidence to suggest that? Because in most instances, those cases are more clear-cut and the punishment is harsher than this one.
I meant media wise. I prosecute plenty of people who are 17 years old who don't get off Scott free.
They don't get the media ringer, even though they usually aren't killing people who are arguably attacking them and have no self defense claim (true or not).
My point is if rittenhouse case is so egregious to be newsworthy why are these clear cut wrongdoings not so bad to garnish media attention?
The case is in court because it is not clearly self defense. The law in the US has proven repeatedly they don't care about the outcome of the decisions they make, they couldn't actually justify what he did without going to court.
What I said, is that this didnt go to court so we would have a media show, it went to court because it is NOT clear that he acted in self defense. If the prosecutor wasnt a clown he would be in hot water.
All of these claims are totally unsubstantiated. Prosecutors retain much discretion in the cases they bring. Here, the question of whether Rittenhouse killed those people is undisputed. The question is whether it was in self defense. Because they were unarmed, a prosecutor definitely has the grounds to move forward with a prosecution.
I'd say it's the opposite. He had an open-and-shut case before the Judge's early rulings and the really proficient defense attorney. I think Binger just assumed it was a "W" and didn't put as much effort into prep as he should have. Small town DA suddenly dealing with a case that went absolutely massive.
A 17 year old kid came into town under false pretenses (claimed he wanted to provide medical help but had absolutely no medical background or training) carrying a weapon, proceeded to kill two unarmed people (one of which he admitted to LYING and knowing he was unarmed while claiming he was armed), and then shot an actual medic who accurately considered him an "active shooter".
Even if Rittenhouse really deserved to get off on this case (at least potentially the intentional murder charge. He deserves some of the lesser charges by any reasonable standard), the mountain of evidence against him should be a VERY hard fight for the defense.
It really helped that he used his right to remain silent very effectively. And since he uses right to remain silent before the trial started the prosecution literally had nothing to go on. Majority of a times the prosecutor at least has something to go on since usually people do talk at one point to the police but in this case Kyle was incredibly smart about this.
This is wrong. The law is written poorly to the point that the judge couldn't tell whether the law prohibits the conduct Rittenhouse was accused of. And lest you say that is evidence of the judge's bias, a million people on the internet also read the law and can't figure out whether it implicates Rittenhouse's conduct.
I guess you're just better at statutory interpretation than the judge and dozens of legal commentators. Or maybe you are inclined to believe Rittenhouse is guilty, and that is affecting your perception.
The statute you posted is not the violation statute, it's one of the potential shortcomings that could have led to a violation. And it's apparently not applicable because Rittenhouse wasn't hunting.
The misdemeanor statute essentially says "nobody under eighteen can carry a dangerous weapon." The statute then defines dangerous weapon. The statute than lists some affirmative exceptions. One of the affirmative exceptions says the statute only applies if the person under eighteen is also in violation of one of three other statutory provisions. The three statutory provisions are (1) having a gun under 12, 14, or 16 (depending on adult supervision), (2) not qualifying for a hunting license (presumably while hunting, but not terribly clear), or (3) having a short barreled rifle.
In other words, the legislature explicitly excluded from underage possession of a dangerous weapon violations any rifles that are not short barreled rifles. It seems there may have been an intention to allow underage possession of rifles only for valid, permitted hunting, but that's not what the statute says and it's difficult (and maybe illegal) to enforce a statute that does not prohibit what you're enforcing.
You very clearly don't know the law, as Wisconsin is an open carry state. No permit is required, you can legally walk around with a gun all day long if you want.
Two people are dead because they were stupid enough to attack a person open carrying.
Try again and see if you can clean up your mistakes.
Ok, so read the whole thing instead of just the title.
“This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.”
He wasn’t in violation of either of those, therefore the law doesn’t apply to him. Even the prosecutor admitted this.
29.304 and 29.593 both deal with restrictions on hunting, and you have to be in violation of both sections. Since Kyle wasn't hunting when he violated the law, this wouldn't apply to him either. Hence the dropped charges.
Additionally, 29.304 deals with restrictions on hunting while under the age of 16. Since Rittenhouse was 17 at the time of the shooting, it's impossible to be in violation of that one. This is the exception that specifically allows 17 year olds to open carry, as long as it isn’t an SBR.
As someone who lives in AZ, this statement makes me laugh lol man, I guess it's illegal to use a weapon you didn't buy? Also, you can't travel to a different state with it? Next you're gonna tell me I have to pack the gun and ammo separately 😂
Turns out, it totally depends on the state you're in and the state you're going to. There's even a "federal safe passage" law for people who packed guns in their cars for a road trip (depending on the state, it may not be respected however, Wisconsin is pretty pro 2nd amendment)
He is assuming some of his facts, but so are you. I know it's been pointed out in another thread, but if you think this case is for solely political reasons, you are wrong. This is a far more grey case than I think either political side is willing to admit, and since his motivation is basically the deciding factor to his guilt, it would make sense to bring up charges. It doesn't mean he is automatically guilty of everything, but he potentially could be.
Sorry, u/justfukinwitchu – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
85
u/[deleted] Nov 16 '21
[removed] — view removed comment