Kyle Rittenhouse trial set for early November .

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Metal god

No lets not , my poor little feelers don't matter . Isn't that one of our biggest problems right not , feelings matter more then reality ?

No, let's. If one of the biggest problems we (as a society, I assume) face is feelings counting for more than facts, why are you focusing on something that may be a strong indicator that other judges are ruling based on feelings rather than on facts and the law?

That's not even the point in this specific situation .

If that's not the point, what is the point? How can and why should an assailant be characterized as a "victim" simply because he chose his victim poorly?

I'd feel the same way if everything was reversed . If the judge was the only judge that allowed the use of the word victim in the state , that would be just as wrong . It's not so much about the word and it's connotation . It's about the judge being the only judge with this opinion/rule . I even started my earlier post saying I understand the argument . Not sure why you think using me in an example would change my opinion ?

There's an interesting thing about judges -- they are human, and they are often wrong. That's why we have appellate courts, and supreme courts (both state and federal) above the appellate courts. The fact that one judge ruled in a manner that's logical and consistent with law but not in lock step with multiple other judges doesn't automatically make the one judge wrong.

Obviously, I think the judge ruled correctly. All three of the people Rittenhouse shot were assailants. The state doesn't get to convert them into martyrs to facilitate a conviction of a kid who was defending himself.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by stagpanther

And what of the first guy shot and killed by KR--he was unarmed, made no contact, ...

So many sources have agreed that the first "victim" was trying to wrestle the gun away from Rittenhouse that I have to ask how you determined that he made no contact?

[stagpanther]

So many sources have agreed that the first "victim" was trying to wrestle the gun away from Rittenhouse that I have to ask how you determined that he made no contact?

Watching the video it does not show any contact by Rosenbaum--using any kind of weapon, anyway. There is no mention of grabbing the rifle and wrestling it away and I can't see that in the video. This will likely be one of the key focuses of the trial, I would imagine. However, in the case of Rosenbaum there seems to be a suggestion that some of the following shots may have been fired by someone else, so it was incorrect for me to say KR administered a coup de grace--but that doesn't mean he only took one shot, either. I suppose if someone shoved an AR muzzle in your belly you wouldn't at least attempt to have your midsection not turned into a massive mush of bloody hamburger?

[HiBC]

HMMM. So...KR showed a pattern of watching over private businesses,rendering first aid,and putting out dumpster fires. Seems like a model citizen practicing random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.

KR courageously put out a fire lit by radical,violent rioters practicing arson.
In My concealed carry cert class,they told us there are two types of people that can be shot in the act. Rapists and arsonists. Fires are unpredictable and they do kill people,including sleeping children and firefighters.

KR did not shoot the arsonist. KR seems pretty mellow.

But now,StagP, you have him ramming his AR into Peoples stomachs? Turning them to hamburger? What transformed him?
StagP,you were not there,neither was I. In contrast with KR's pattern of behavior, I've watched a lot of footage of "Mostly Peaceful Demonstrators"

Snarling,nasty vicious evil hyenas,that encircle and relentlessly blindside attack. Cowards. Especially if you work for good. Put out fires. Do you have audio to prove Rosenbaum did not say "I'm going to kill you" I don't have the audio either.

But can you provide proof of some kind that KR was not threatened by great violence,surrounded by "mostly peaceful demonstrators" ??? I did not think so. Of course,I do not have proof either.

The difference between you and I,StagP, is that you presume KR's GUILT,and I presume his INNOCENCE ,at least until the Jury Foreman says "Guilty"

And YES!! I will say it. I've watched too many VICTIMS of "Mostly Peaceful Demonstrators"
I watched video once of some hyenas trying to rip some creature apart alive..I forget what it was, I'll say a Wildebeast at water's edge..and of all things,a Hippo went berserker and hyenas went flying.
I cheered! I have a whole new deep respect for hippos.

And I do not give a rats hiney about dead hyenas.

[Mainah]

In My concealed carry cert class,they told us there are two types of people that can be shot in the act. Rapists and arsonists

That's some damn nonsense.

[mehavey]

Interesting question: Lethal Force vs Rape/Arson

Interesting answers:
> Current law does not clearly articulate a basis for the right to use deadly
> self-defense when a person reasonably believes that harm will be limited
> to forcible intercourse.

Being a legal issue, "on the other hand..."
> Overall, rape can be viewed as a grievous physical and psychological
> attack that may be resisted by any and all means. (and 136 footnotes)

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-li...e-against-rape

As to arson...

https://lawofselfdefense.com/jury-in...prevent-arson/



All of which is why it was the Devil Himself who invented lawyers.
Recommendation:
Hire the best law (aka demon) your money can buy.

[Aguila Blanca]

We have to remember that we have fifty states plus the District of Columbia, and they all have their own laws.

Example -- Pennsylvania:

https://www.findlaw.com/state/pennsy...ense-laws.html

Statutes


Use of force in self-protection: 18 Pa.C.S.A § 505

Use of force for the protection of other persons: 18 Pa.C.S.A § 506

Use of Force in Self-Protection

You can use deadly force when you reasonably believe that the force is necessary in order to protect yourself against an unlawful use of force including: death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or nonconsensual sexual intercourse.
You do not have a duty to retreat from your home, car or place of work unless you were an initial aggressor.

Use of Force for the Protection of Others

Deadly force is justified when protecting another in the following examples:

If you were in the same situation as the person that you are trying to protect, you could legally use the same force that you will use to protect them.
You reasonably believe that the person you are trying to protect would be justified in using such force.
You reasonably believe that your help is necessary to protect the other person.

The actual law:
https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs...tn=5&subsctn=0

(2.1) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2.2), an actor is presumed to have a reasonable belief that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat if both of the following conditions exist:

(i) The person against whom the force is used is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered and is present within, a dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle; or the person against whom the force is used is or is attempting to unlawfully and forcefully remove another against that other's will from the dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle.

(ii) The actor knows or has reason to believe that the unlawful and forceful entry or act is occurring or has occurred.

https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs...tn=6&subsctn=0


Wisconsin:

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...tes/939/iii/48

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.
(1)  A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
...
(4) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person's intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Mainah

That's some damn nonsense.

That depends on the law of the state in which the class was given.

Arizona:

13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicability

A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2.

New York: https://lawofselfdefense.com/jury-in...prevent-arson/

With respect to count(s) (specify count(s) and name(s) of crime(s) ), one of the elements that the People must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant was not justified. The defendant is not required to prove that he/she was justified; the People must prove that he/she was not.

I will now explain when, under our law, a person is justified in using deadly physical force to prevent or terminate arson or an attempted arson.

Under our law, any person may use deadly physical force upon another individual when he or she reasonably believes it to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of arson by such individual.

[Metal god]

why are you focusing on something that may be a strong indicator that other judges are ruling based on feelings rather than on facts and the law?

lol , it's not "other" judges . It's every judge and all institutions in that state use the word victim . My dad once told me "if you have a problem with everybody , it's not everybody that has the problem " . It appears ( to me ) this judge is the one being influenced by his feelings .

If that's not the point, what is the point? How can and why should an assailant be characterized as a "victim" simply because he chose his victim poorly?

Because victim does not have only one meaning . This is starting to remind me of the case headspace debate . Just because it means one thing doesn't mean it can only be used in that context when most of society excepts multiple meanings .

There's an interesting thing about judges -- they are human, and they are often wrong. That's why we have appellate courts, and supreme courts (both state and federal) above the appellate courts. The fact that one judge ruled in a manner that's logical and consistent with law but not in lock step with multiple other judges doesn't automatically make the one judge wrong.

No but it does make his courtroom inconsistent with the rest of the states courts . You pointed out your self how each state has different laws and rules and this judge seems to think each court room should as well . doesn't sound fare . It's not unlike the conceal carry law here in CA . It's a good cause law but some counties pretty much hand them out like they are giving out candy on Halloween while other counties have a virtual prohibition on conceal carry permits . There needs to be consistency in the law and again I'm not against this judges rational only that he's the only one ruling this way in the sate . Depending on what side of the court you are on when entering his court room you know you either are starting with an advantage or a disadvantage compared to all other courts in the state .

I'm not advocating for or against his ruling only that it differs from everyone else with similar authority in said state .

The state doesn't get to convert them into martyrs to facilitate a conviction of a kid who was defending himself.

LMAO , yes the state does because that is EXACTLY what it does in EVERY OTHER COURT ROOM in the state and nobody except this judge has a problem about it . If it was that big a deal they'd have a rule baring it in all courtrooms .

[mehavey]

I've lost the bubble here.

Are we saying the judge...
- Isn't allowing the dice to be loaded by presumptional language,
- Isn't going to let the ham-sandwich prosecutor run his courtroom, and . . .
- Does have his head on straight ?

... or is the judge a bad guy?

.

[Metal god]

None of the above . He is simply ruling in a way that is inconsistent with the rest of the state . I said this before and I’ll say it again. If everything was reversed and he was the only judge in the state that allowed everybody to use the word victim , he would be ruling in the same inconsistent manner . My objection is not about the word victim and I thought I’ve been clear about this . It’s the inconsistency in which he runs his courtroom compared to the rest of the state .

[Mainah]

Interesting question: Lethal Force vs Rape/Arson

Interesting answers:
> Current law does not clearly articulate a basis for the right to use deadly
> self-defense when a person reasonably believes that harm will be limited
> to forcible intercourse.

Being a legal issue, "on the other hand..."
> Overall, rape can be viewed as a grievous physical and psychological
> attack that may be resisted by any and all means. (and 136 footnotes)

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-li...e-against-rape

As to arson...

https://lawofselfdefense.com/jury-in...prevent-arson/

First of all I apologize for the tone of my response, it was over the top. I was responding to the context of the statement:

In My concealed carry cert class,they told us there are two types of people that can be shot in the act. Rapists and arsonists.

There are more than two types of people whose behavior can justify the use of deadly force. In some states, and in some cases rape and arson could represent a threat that justifies lethal force. But I still reject that blanket statement.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Mainah

There are more than two types of people whose behavior can justify the use of deadly force. In some states, and in some cases rape and arson could represent a threat that justifies lethal force. But I still reject that blanket statement.

But it wasn't a blanket statement. It was a very specific statement, reporting what was taught in one, particular concealed carry class.

Unfortunately, the statement failed to identify what state the class was conducted in, so we have no way of verifying the accuracy of the statement. Given that we have 51 state-level sets of laws in the U.S., overlaid by a set of federal laws, it's always dangerous to make blanket statements. On the other hand, my own research has shown me that some states do allow the use of lethal force to prevent arson, others allow the use of lethal force to prevent rape, and some allow the use of lethal force for both of those purposes.

Unfortunately, there is no substitute for knowing the laws that apply in your jurisdiction. There ain't no on-size-fits-all in this game.

[44 AMP]

In My concealed carry cert class,they told us there are two types of people that can be shot in the act. Rapists and arsonists.

The instructor in your class should not have given that statement, that way, as instruction. It is simply too broad and isn't true everywhere or in all circumstances.

Most (don't know about all) states allow the use of deadly force to prevent death or serious injury to yourself and others. They may be specific about circumstances or they may be more general. BUT if its not done within the state's legal limitations, it won't be found justified.

I've often heard that rape is one of the crimes that where allowed by state law deadly force may be used to stop. Here on the net is the first time I've heard arson as something deadly force may be used to stop. Personally, I would think that using deadly force to prevent arson would have to be very situational to justify. Arson MAY result in harm or death to people, but that's not a given. Arson may be an instrument of murder. It may result in manslaughter, not murder, or it may only be a property crime. To me, that would be a legal ruling, not on every state allows the citizen to make on their own. I can see justification for deadly force to stop arson when you KNOW people are at risk. But what about when you don't??

[HiBC]

Regarding my concealed carry class,arsonists,and rapists.

I was not giving legal advice. In the words of Elmer Keith. "Hell,I was there!"

I reported what was said in my class. You were not there. How would you know what was said? Why would you argue? I did not say "The law is...."

Thanks to those who researched the actual laws in select states. You verified law is written providing for shooting arsonists and rapists as the law provides.
Its no secret I live in Colorado. I was not telling anyone what Colorado law is.

I don't recommend anyone go hunting for arsonists and rapists. Life likely will get very difficult if you shoot anyone for any reason.

I was picking up on an anti-KR vibe, a bias suggesting he was a whacko ramming his AR-15 in peoples guts and making hamburger,

I was attempting to provide context. Among the "mostly peaceful protesters" were arsonists. Perhaps police snipers should have been on rooftops eliminating arsonists.

KR did not shoot arsonists,though he MAY have been justified to do so. No, KR was extinguishing the fire the arsonist set.

Angry arsonist and friends are getting agitated. You and I do not know what threats were made . An attack on KR was imminent. He was alone and vastly outnumbered. He was in serious danger.

The comments on whether he should have been there or not are BS. The comments on whether or not he should have been armed are BS.

There should not have been an arson. He was right to put out the fire.

No one,NO ONE,had any right to touch,threaten or abuse him. And no one should have put him in a position he feared for his life. No one should have attempted to disarm him. Any of those COULD create a situation where KR was justified to use deadly force.

Not so long ago a man resisting was shot and killed by police after he took the cops taser. They were justified.

KR does not need to allow himself to be disarmed.

I'm detecting among some that the "mostly peaceful protestors" should have a free pass to be violent and destructive while an essentially peaceful armed citizen should be condemned for defending himself.

I DO NOT declare KR innocent, Its BS to declare him guilty. He deserves to be presumed innocent till a fair trial declares him guilty.

As far as the judge is concerned...." But MOM!!! All the other Judges are doing it!! Really? Have you ever heard of Tyranny of the Majority?
This nation is not a Democracy. It is proper and correct for one lone Individual Judge with a spine to stand up for one lone individual's fair trial.

Democracy is a lynch mob. Its 12 wolves and a Sheep negotiating a menu.

That Judge is demanding his court gives a fair trial to one individual young man. I stand by him.

And I do not care what your personal definition of "Victim" is. Or "Headspace",for that matter. If there is a center of the universe,it ain't you.

And how you FEEL about it matters less to me than a Bulgarian flea fart...in Bulgaria.

[Aguila Blanca]

Thanks, HiBC, for identifying your state.

Colorado statute regarding use of force and arson:

https://codes.findlaw.com/co/title-1...-18-1-705.html

Originally Posted by FindLaw

A person in possession or control of any building, realty, or other premises, or a person who is licensed or privileged to be thereon, is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that it is reasonably necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of an unlawful trespass by the other person in or upon the building, realty, or premises.  However, he may use deadly force only in defense of himself or another as described in section 18-1-704 , or when he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the trespasser to commit first degree arson.

Colorado statute regarding the use of force and rape:

https://codes.findlaw.com/co/title-1...-18-1-704.html

(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.

(2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:

(a) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury;  or

(b) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204 ;  or

(c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302 , robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or 18-4-302 , sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402 , or in section 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 and 18-3-203 .

So, basically, the use of deadly force IS allowed against both arson and rape in Colorado. It's not quite as cut-and-dried as the instructor stated it, however. The actor (the shooter) might be called upon to justify why he believed that a lesser degree of physical force wasn't enough and why he believed that deadly force was necessary. But it's still based on what the shooter believed at the time so, unless the prosecution can show that such belief was not reasonable, the use of deadly force would be justified.

[Mainah]

Regarding my concealed carry class,arsonists,and rapists.

I was not giving legal advice. In the words of Elmer Keith. "Hell,I was there!"

I reported what was said in my class. You were not there. How would you know what was said? Why would you argue? I did not say "The law is...."

Fair enough. I just don't think that Rick Schroder can make enough Hallmark movies to bail us all out. The KR case is fascinating, but also full of lessons about what to avoid.

[HiBC]

I can see justification for deadly force to stop arson when you KNOW people are at risk. But what about when you don't??

First,I DO NOT go through life looking for an opportunity to shoot anybody.
I sincerely hope I live out my days without using deadly force on anyone.

IF I qualify for the "Reasonable Person" classification, I agree there is a distinct difference between bra burning (unless the bra is occupied), or starting a fire in a dumpster (unless the dumpster is kindling against an occupied building).
I don't think its OK to shoot someone for torching an unoccupied police cruiser.

But if you are at the front door of an occupied building (such as a police precinct) lighting a Molotov Cocktail,you might qualify as a target.

Or if Beavis and Butthead are pouring gasoline on a sleeping (or passed out) homeless man, a deadly force intervention might be appropriate.

[Aguila Blanca]

As always, the devil is in the details. Youse gotta read da laws.

For example: The Arizona statute I quoted in post #133 allows the use of deadly force to prevent the arson of an occupied structure. The Colorado statute allows the use of deadly force to prevent first degree arson. What's first degree arson? To find out, you have to look at a different section of the Colorado statutes -- the section that defines crimes and spells out the various degrees of each.

There is no one-size-fits-all answer to these questions. If you want to understand what's legal and when you can legally use your firearm for anything other than target shooting, you either have to do a LOT of research into your own state's laws, or pay an attorney to do the research and explain it to you. DON'T ask a cop -- police officers aren't lawyers. And don't trust anything you find on the Internet -- beyond the actual statutes.

With apologies to Frank, Spats, and other attorneys on here who I think do know their stuff, you can't even trust any random name on the Internet who claims to be an attorney. A number of years ago, there was a site that was the predecessor (directly or indirectly) to the www.handgunlaw.us web site run by Gary Slider. That old site was called www.packing.org, I think -- or maybe it was www.packin.org. It operated as or included a forum. One day, a new member who said he was an attorney came on the forum with a post in which he stated categorically that it IS legal to carry a firearm on United States post office property. As his proof, he cited (and quoted from) 18 U.S. Code 930, which is the federal law that generally addresses conduct on federal property.

I don't remember the full logic of his interpretation, but suffice it to say that he was VERY wrong. He was wrong because he completely overlooked 39 CFR 232.1 - Conduct on Postal Property. And that law very clearly states that not only can we NOT carry in a post office building, we also cannot carry or even possess a firearm anywhere on USPS property -- not even in the parking lot.

A number of attorneys posted to point out the omission. Within a couple of days he quietly removed his post from view and went back to whatever he had been doing prior to making a public fool of himself.

"Consider the source."

[Metal god]

Live jury selection , I didn't realize they would have this as a live feed .

https://abc7chicago.com/kyle-rittenh...udge/11187412/

I'm not very good at finding these things online . Please post links to better video sights . Like a court tv link or which ever is best to get live feeds from the court room .

This is what I found
https://www.courttv.com/title/court-tv-live-stream-web/

[ghbucky]

I saw a report of last minute shakeup on KR's defense team.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politic...ction-n1528505

Lots of unsourced claims in that article, so I'm not sure how legitimate it is.

[Metal god]

Here's Barnes talking about him leaving the team . Starts about 11min in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE8iX5eKXgA

[Metal god]

The interesting thing about Barnes being out , was todays jury selection . I didn't know he had already been handed his hat and thought to my self . Kyle's attorney seems lost in his questioning and remember thinking at one point " this is what a dream team of jury selectors looks/sounds like" ???

Turns out the dream team was not needed , we shall see but I watched Bull .... just say-n lol

[101combatvet]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

As always, the devil is in the details. Youse gotta read da laws.

For example: The Arizona statute I quoted in post #133 allows the use of deadly force to prevent the arson of an occupied structure. The Colorado statute allows the use of deadly force to prevent first degree arson. What's first degree arson? To find out, you have to look at a different section of the Colorado statutes -- the section that defines crimes and spells out the various degrees of each.

There is no one-size-fits-all answer to these questions. If you want to understand what's legal and when you can legally use your firearm for anything other than target shooting, you either have to do a LOT of research into your own state's laws, or pay an attorney to do the research and explain it to you. DON'T ask a cop -- police officers aren't lawyers. And don't trust anything you find on the Internet -- beyond the actual statutes.

With apologies to Frank, Spats, and other attorneys on here who I think do know their stuff, you can't even trust any random name on the Internet who claims to be an attorney. A number of years ago, there was a site that was the predecessor (directly or indirectly) to the www.handgunlaw.us web site run by Gary Slider. That old site was called www.packing.org, I think -- or maybe it was www.packin.org. It operated as or included a forum. One day, a new member who said he was an attorney came on the forum with a post in which he stated categorically that it IS legal to carry a firearm on United States post office property. As his proof, he cited (and quoted from) 18 U.S. Code 930, which is the federal law that generally addresses conduct on federal property.

I don't remember the full logic of his interpretation, but suffice it to say that he was VERY wrong. He was wrong because he completely overlooked 39 CFR 232.1 - Conduct on Postal Property. And that law very clearly states that not only can we NOT carry in a post office building, we also cannot carry or even possess a firearm anywhere on USPS property -- not even in the parking lot.

A number of attorneys posted to point out the omission. Within a couple of days he quietly removed his post from view and went back to whatever he had been doing prior to making a public fool of himself.

"Consider the source."

So are you saying that attorneys never make mistakes?

[zincwarrior]

Interesting trial so far.