judge may allow the men Kyle Rittenhouse shot to be called 'rioters' or 'looters'

LV426 said:
Ah, but what you don't seem to understand is that because of that illegal act, Kyle killed two people.

This gets to the intent...Kyle KNEW or had to have known that it was illegal for him to carry that weapon into Wisconsin, therefore any act he takes with that weapon is viewed as an illegal act by the law.

So "self defense" isn't going to fly in court when you're admitting to breaking a law that put you there in the first place and created the circumstances of what happened.

Rittenhouse is actually in a worse position, legally, than James Fields ever was because Fields wasn't illegally driving his car on the roads prior to his attack.
Click to expand...

Self defense is not an illegal act. Fields is not on trial here. Stop bringing up that strawman.
 
LV426 said:
OK, name one case.
Click to expand...

In State v. Mercer, filed 28 February 2020, the Supreme Court considered “[w]hether justification is a common-law defense to the charge of possession of a firearm by a felon under N.C.G.S. § 14-415.1, a question of first impression before the Court. After an altercation outside Mercer’s home, he was charged with possession of a firearm by a felon. Mercer and two friends arrived at his home and were confronted by approximately 15 people who blocked entry into his home and wanted to fight them. As the group approached Mercer they said they we’re “done talking”. Mercer, as well as his mother who had come out of the house, observed that members of the group were armed. Mercer and his two friends continued to back up as the group approached them. Mercer heard the sound of guns cocking. One of Mercer’s friends had a gun, pulled it out, but appeared not to know how to use it or was having difficulty. Upon observing this, Mercer took the gun from his friend, pointed it at the group and told them to “back up”. Both Mercer and his mother heard gun shots, and his mother heard one member of the group tell another to shoot Mercer. As Mercer continued to retreat, he fired the pistol and it jammed thereafter. Mercer was able to get away and the next day turned himself into authorities where he was charged with possession of firearm by a felon.


At trial, Mercer requested the trial court to instruct the jury on “justification” as a defense to the charge of possession of firearm charge. The trial court refused, and the jury convicted Mercer. Ultimately, his case came before the North Carolina Supreme Court. The Supreme Court concluded the trial court erred, that Mercer was entitled to a new trial, and that he was entitled for the jury to consider whether he was justified in the possession and use of the firearm. “Justification” defense serves as an affirmative legal defense against a criminal act. Like any other affirmative defense, the defendant has the burden to prove it to the satisfaction of the jury.
 
BartenderElite said:
So, "victim" is too loaded of a term, but "rioter" and "looter" are not.

Got it. Pretty clear where this one is headed.
Click to expand...

This particular judge, and other judges, often prevented the prosecution from using the term since it implies guilt; the opposite of presumed innocence.

IMO, would be bad for the defense to go off on a racist rant about BLM, Antifa and calling every black person there a murdering arsonist and looter.

The prosecution will, no doubt, present family and friend witnesses on the behalf of the dead who are no longer able to defend themselves.

The world is watching this. Let's see how both Wisconsin and Kyle fare over the next 10 years.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Is this actually true? It might be but it doesn't seem right.
Even the most strict gun law states have no restriction on rifles as long as they're not machine guns.
There may have rules about where you can bring them, but that wouldn't include one's own car.
Maybe it's because he was under eighteen at the time. That could be it.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
This particular judge, and other judges, often prevented the prosecution from using the term since it implies guilt; the opposite of presumed innocence.

IMO, would be bad for the defense to go off on a racist rant about BLM, Antifa and calling every black person there a murdering arsonist and looter.

The prosecution will, no doubt, present family and friend witnesses on the behalf of the dead who are no longer able to defend themselves.
Click to expand...

You have a very good point. Are there black jurors in the jury?
 
LV426 said:
Wait a second.

You're saying KYLE felt threatened AFTER SHOOTING SOMEONE FIRST????
Click to expand...

ROFL.......you're doing it again............

read very closely. I'm saying that Kyle felt threatened by the first person he shot, which would be why he shot......he quite obviously felt threatened by the second and third persons he shot
 
SmarterthanYou said:
already acknowledged that this appears to be his only actual crime committed
Click to expand...

But that means that every single action Kyle took with that gun was illegal, including shooting the people he shot.

So his illegal act led him to make several more illegal acts.

You can't argue self-defense if you shot first.
 
LV426 said:
Kyle shot into the crowd first, then skateboard guy charged him...so when skateboard guy charged him, KYLE WAS ALREADY THE ACTIVE SHOOTER, and skateboard guy was the one acting in self defense.

That's what the video shows.

Kyle shot first, then skateboard guy charged him, then Kyle killed skateboard guy.
Click to expand...
nowhere in that video does it show the circumstances of the first person shot....you are simply making it up to suit your needs
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you are still wrong about the law here......
Click to expand...

I'm not wrong.

Kyle's presence in Kenosha with that gun was illegal, so therefore every action he took with that gun was an illegal act (Poison pill).

So self-defense can't apply here because he broke the law first. So at that point, all bets are off. At that point, you're just racking up felonies and misdemeanors.

In the eyes of the law, Kyle Rittenhouse was in Kenosha illegally, therefore in the eyes of the law, every action he took was poisoned by that illegality.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
This particular judge, and other judges, often prevented the prosecution from using the term since it implies guilt; the opposite of presumed innocence.

IMO, would be bad for the defense to go off on a racist rant about BLM, Antifa and calling every black person there a murdering arsonist and looter.

The prosecution will, no doubt, present family and friend witnesses on the behalf of the dead who are no longer able to defend themselves.

The world is watching this. Let's see how both Wisconsin and Kyle fare over the next 10 years.
Click to expand...

If it can be shown the attackers were looting, rioting, or committing arson, that is good enough to call them looters, rioters, or arsonists...all illegal activities.
 
LV426 said:
But that means that every single action Kyle took with that gun was illegal, including shooting the people he shot.

So his illegal act led him to make several more illegal acts.

You can't argue self-defense if you shot first.
Click to expand...
self defense is not illegal. one cannot claim self defense if they initiated the conflict..........since the judge hasn't ruled that kyle cannot claim self defense, there seems to be a case to be made that he did indeed shoot in self defense
 
LV426 said:
I'm not wrong.

Kyle's presence in Kenosha with that gun was illegal, so therefore every action he took with that gun was an illegal act (Poison pill).

So self-defense can't apply here because he broke the law first. So at that point, all bets are off. At that point, you're just racking up felonies and misdemeanors.

In the eyes of the law, Kyle Rittenhouse was in Kenosha illegally, therefore in the eyes of the law, every action he took was poisoned by that illegality.
Click to expand...

you don't know the law.......definitely not well enough by your statement.........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top