Rittenhouse pleads 'Not Guilty'

[KLB]

I looked up the law. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48

Relevant portion bolded.





So it's pretty plain you can regain a self-defense claim, even one involving deadly force.

Interesting. I really don't know how they can claim he didn't do exactly that. He ran away until he heard a gunshot behind. He turned to find Rosenbaum charging at him reaching for his gun.

 

[srad]

I looked up the law. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48

Relevant portion bolded.





So it's pretty plain you can regain a self-defense claim, even one involving deadly force.

Hey BBI, does part (a) stand on its own or does the assailant have to perform part (b) to regain the right to self defense? Part (a) seems to reinstate the right to self defense if the assailant is in fear of life, even if part (b) is not acted upon. Regarding part (b), would Rittenhouse's very visible and intentional retreat, i.e. running away across the lot, be sufficient or is the vocal, verbal announcement required as well, as noted in part (b)? Thanks.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Hey BBI, does part (a) stand on its own or does the assailant have to perform part (b) to regain the right to self defense? Part (a) seems to reinstate the right to self defense if the assailant is in fear of life, even if part (b) is not acted upon. Regarding part (b), would Rittenhouse's very visible and intentional retreat, i.e. running away across the lot, be sufficient or is the vocal, verbal announcement required as well, as noted in part (b)? Thanks.

With the understanding I'm just reading the law as written, am not an expert in WI law, and have no background information on case law (and do not care enough to research it):

The law reads it as separate considerations. The reason laws are written with that (a) (b) format is to make the elements of each crime (or exemption from the statute) plain. If a given sub-section does not specifically refer to another, they are not linked. So any given (A) will stand alone unless it specifically states another sub-section applies.

So, my reading is they each stand alone. My non-expert opinion is that, absent case law to the contrary, KR likely satisfied the elements of both sub-sections.

 

[rugertoter]

It's amazing that they say 'he was the only person to kill anyone' and yet he was being pursued, attacked, beaten, and had a gun pointed at his head at the moment that he shot one of the aggressors, and yet they have charged him with murder when he was the one defending himself...and it's caught on video! It all shows just how twisted it can be...

Kyle Rittenhouse ‘the only person who killed anyone’ in Kenosha unrest, prosecutors say

I agree with your logic, but the kid should have just stayed home.

 

[Tombs]

 

[Ingomike]

I agree with your logic, but the kid should have just stayed home.

Not your decision. He did what he thought was right. Are we all doing what we think is right? Or what is convenient?

 

[jamil]

I agree with your logic, but the kid should have just stayed home.

In hindsight, sure. If he’d have stayed home he wouldn’t be on trial.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

In hindsight, sure. If he’d have stayed home he wouldn’t be on trial.

And if my uncle had ****, he'd be my aunt.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

I agree with your logic, but the kid should have just stayed home.

Sounds awful similar to “she shouldn’t have wore that”.

He had as much right to be there as anyone. He has a right to self defense. If those dumb ****s wouldn’t have attacked him he wouldn’t have had to shoot them. Not a single shot was fired at anyone who didn’t attack him first.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

And if my uncle had ****, he'd be my aunt.

That doesn’t really matter now days

 

[actaeon277]

I have mentioned it before but will add it here. I was on one jury trial over a shooting, no fatalities and was the only person on that jury with ANY knowledge of firearms. Jim.

I bet that was frustrating

 

[actaeon277]

He shoulda stayed home...

Well that's pretty all encompassing.

Got in a car accident.. shoulda stayed at home.

Robbed at the supermarket.. shoulda stayed at home.

 

[ditcherman]

I agree with your logic, but the kid should have just stayed home.

And miss the opportunity of seeing a hero?
Miss the possible turning point of a nation, because even the average joe that just laps up what the media puts out can see through their ruse now?
Miss the opportunity for encouragement to stand up for what is right and stop rolling over?

Of course, my comments may be a little hyperbolic. Or they may not be, if this is the point at which people that matter will stand up for what is right.

 

[Wstar425]

But does a jury even understand the parameters of provocation and self defense as it pertains to the law? I've never been on a jury (put on theoretical duty but never called in). So does a jury get anyone explaining the law to them? Has that already happened? Does it happen before they start deliberation? Do they get to ask for help from the judge if they aren't sure?

I was on a child pornography trial and ended up being the foreman.

I will say yes to all of your questions. We asked several questions of the judge, and got answers. We also were instructed to not discuss anything that was NOT talked about in the trial but we did end up discussing some computer file sharing protocols as that is how he got his pictures, and we had a computer guy on the jury and quite a few people clueless about it. This was about 15-20 years ago. We convicted after a couple of hours.

One guy said “Let’s vote and go home” as soon as we got in the room.

I said “first we need to elect a foreman” and he said “I nominate YOU!!!”

Morel of the story, keep your big mouth shut.

 

[qwerty]

 

[Wstar425]

I believe that in many cases such as this the law doesn't mean nearly as much as the totality of the evidence.

The jury will interpret the facts and find innocent or guilty and try to shove those findings into the law. The law will give their conscience cover.

Hopefully they went into this as they should have, presuming Kyle Rittenhouse innocent. Once that simple thought is accepted they must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty. From what I have seen and been made aware of there is no way they can get there. However, I come at this with certain preconceived ideas, philosophies, and notions of my own. Others may differ.

Kenosha County Wisconsin has a population of about 180k, or 200k less than Allen County Indiana. It has a veteran population of about 5.6%, which is slightly higher than my county, Allen, of 5.2%. It looks to be mostly white, mostly rural area. It is stuck between Chicago and Milwaukee. I highly doubt the people of Kenosha county have the same tolerance of crime as their neighboring cities do.

I could be surprised but I don't see KR being found guilty.

Regards,

Doug

Kenosha is a $hithole along the lake. It’s a bedroom community for both Milwaukee and Chicago. Eastern county is big city, lots of poverty. Western county very rural and farming. I’m not sure I would agree with your assessment for tolerance of crime? I used to go there several times a month for pickup and deliveries before moving to NM.

 

[KellyinAvon]

I wanna go back
And do it all over again
But I can't go back I know
I wanna go back
Cause I'm feeling so much older
But I can't go back I know

That of course is the chorus to Eddie Money's "I Wanna Go Back" from 1986.

Eddie was right, we can't go back. To do over? I'm sure KR would've done it differently if he had it to do over. Just like the rest of us, he can't.

Just as we can't go back and do it all over, we will never know what would've happened if KR would've stayed home. We play the hand we're dealt.

 

[Libertarian01]

Kenosha is a $hithole along the lake. It’s a bedroom community for both Milwaukee and Chicago. Eastern county is big city, lots of poverty. Western county very rural and farming. I’m not sure I would agree with your assessment for tolerance of crime? I used to go there several times a month for pickup and deliveries before moving to NM.

The point I was going for is that, generally speaking, people from lower population communities have not become as inured or desensitized to crime and a lack of disorder as those in larger population zones.

My presumption is simply that the Kenosha County jury pool will be more supportive of KR than a jury from Indianapolis, or Chicago, or Milwaukee. That's all.

Regards,

Doug

 

[actaeon277]

Matt has a pretty good breakdown.
And if I remember right, Matt didn't start off as a 2A supporter

 

[actaeon277]

So, did I hear right? Was the weapons charge thrown out by the judge?