Rittenhouse trial goes to opening statements after jury set

Technically you are guilty of a homicide. That he killed the two persons is not disputed by the defendant. He admits it. The defenses is an affirmative defense of lawful use of deadly force in self-defense. So yes he has to prove he had a reasonable cause to fear imminent death or serious bodily harm. To convict the jury would have to beyond a reasonable doubt not believe him. I think the prosecution proved that for him.

 

rittenhouse was charged with many crimes...not just murder..

he had as many as 7 charges against him..

and the jury has been told they could find him guilty of lessor charges

below are 3 of the charges against him which i think he will be found guilty

1. first degree recklessly endangering safety, use of a dangerous weapon

2.possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18

3.failure to comply with an emergency order from state and local government

being guilty of these crimes will not bring a anything more than a slap on his wrist..

he will do a few days

 

Yep, don't forget Stalin, the bank robber and murderer (dozens were killed in just one of his robberies I believe) BEFORE he became the most powerful Communist the world has seen.

 

If they are going for #1 and/or #3, they would have had to have charged 1000's of people. Convicting just one 17 year old out of all those people in the videos doing exactly the same thing would be arbitrary and morally wrong.

 

The lesson for the nation needs to be: citizens have no obligation to allow fires to burn, especially when it is obvious that their government intends to watch them burn.

Additionally, when the state and media encourage these destructive events, culpability for various crimes are reduced (even the arsonists have reduced guilt after being encouraged by government officials, and in participation with many others). For example, during and after Hurricane Katrina, there was a 7-10 day period in which all sorts of firearms violations occurred, including the firing of warning shots. That's because there were roving bands of criminals robbing and killing people, unchecked by the government. It would have been ridiculous to charge the many people simply trying to defend themselves when no one else was.

Again, based on the evidence I've seen, I think it would be morally wrong to single out this 17 year old kid for what happened here.

 

First one is a charge that will be hard to prove. All the prosecution has is a grainy video that even the judge could not see the evidence. The second will probably be dismissed by the judge since the statute the prosecution referenced does not apply to Kyle. The third was dismissed since there was no lawful curfew order.

 

I agree. As far as the video, they have not corroborated it with any witness testimony. They know who this Zaminsky guy is. They know he was standing within 6 feet of the event. Instead of Zaminsky testifying, the prosecutor basically testified to the pointing. A garbage argument imo.

 

how many people in those videos were under 18 and carrying AR 15's??

how many of the other people carrying guns killed 2 and shot 1??

I got a speeding ticket a few weeks ago

since there are millions of people driving too fast before and since my ticket

can I go before the court and say "everyone is speeding" and it is morally wrong to give me a ticket??

it is very funny in this case people preach "morals"

and a few months ago morals did not matter when a morally bankrupt guy named trump was in office

I am amazed at how little respect the rittenhouse groupies have for the law

one thing is for sure..

rittenhouse should be careful

he is stealing trumps groupies and trump don't like competition

 

I don't know; I suspect more than just Rittenhouse. How many do you think were illegally carrying concealed weapons? The situation those people were in was caused by the media and politicians. And now, because they are heartless, they want to crucify this kid for their mistakes.

 

How do you know that? What is your evidence?

 

Once it is self-defense the lower ones go away except the except maybe a possession charge I think the curfew has already been dropped. As far as the shooting if it is self-defense then it is not manslaughter either. And if he is acquitted as I expect the most I would think the judge might do is the possession with 6 months probation.

And let's hope those seeking vengeance accept the justice served. The justice here is for Rittenhouse who faces the legal sanction. I'm hearing they are preparing for the lynch mobs to hit the streets.

 

#3 has already been tossed.

 

Over on democrat underground they want Kyle's mom to be arrested.

 

Just a tool manipulated by the

Excellent post. The government has culpability, but no liability as SCOTUS has ruled that police do not have to provide protection when called.

The liberal idea that bands of people can run around starting fires with impunity apparently means that we should just flee our home if someone attempts to burn it down.

A liberal argument against owning guns was always just call the police for protection. So a question for liberals. What do you do when the police do not enforce the law? This is a serious question, but I don't expect any serious answers from the usual left wing posters here on PF.

One more comment. After Katrina police went door to door confiscating legally owned guns that people needed to defend their homes. Police even stopped boats on the water and confiscated guns while pointing their AR-15s at boat passengers. Yet the homes of the elite were protected by Blackwater Private Military Company security. Thus demonstrating that with the left all animals are equal. But some are more equal than others.

 

Thats my take as well. This is what we should expect to happen when the cops retreat and law and order breaks down. You can't pull the cops off the street and then persecute people for defending themselves. I do think Rittenhouse brought this on himself by going there in the first place ...as, like you said, hundreds to thousands of other people did. But on the other hand, people still live there. When govt pulls out, its not unreasonable to go in to try to protect friends and relatives in their stead. Thats what people are supposed to do for eachother.

 

Funny how that goes...

 

WRONG...
The Under 18 Weapons Charge Carries a Max of 9 Months...
And even IF, he is acquitted of the Murder Charges, and is only convicted of the weapons charge...
..There is NO WAY he "will (only) do a few days"

 

That's not the way I, or the judge I think, interprets the WI law. I believe he was legally carrying.

 

Rather than jailing this kid, I suspect it'll be 2 years of home confinement, that would be a more reasonable way to deal with the situation.

 

The judge asked the prosecution to prove the weapons charge applies to Rittenhouse by Monday or he will dismiss the weapons charge. It is clear that it does not apply to Kyle as the judge had to remind the prosecution the title is not the statute. The language of the statute exceptions clearly do not apply.

 

Why? Gaige Grosskreutz didn't even get charged for his illegal weapons carrying offense, let alone get sentenced to any jail time.

Why should it be any different for Kyle?

 

Because Kyle wasn't a lefty like GG, so he doesn't get immunity for gun charges, or even chasing a KID down with a bunch of armed thugs and attempting to execute him.

The prosecutor who gave GG immunity for a clear attempted murder on a kid, should be removed immediately.

 

Is it on record that GG was given immunity for his testimony, or could it just be that no one has pressed any charges against him?

Either way, it does seem a double standard, like he's being protected for doing what Rittenhouse is being prosecuted for...

 

I've heard a couple different times that he has immunity. That's the only explanation as to why the judge didn't ask the bailiff to take GG into custody for attempted murder after hearing what he said on the stand.

And he is obviously being protected. This man saw a bunch of armed men chasing and threatening a kid, AND HE DECIDED TO DRAW AN ILLEGALLY CONCEALED WEAPON AND JOIN THE CHASE!

Everyone keeps talking about Kyle's common sense. In what world does it make sense to do what GG did?!

 

Great.

My only conention (based on the post that I responded to) was:
IF, Rittenhouse was convicted of the Weapons Charge-- that he would do more than a "few days".

Obviously, he won't do any time if found innocent of All Charges.