The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 11, 2020, 02:08 PM   #76
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
I agree with intent and also agree with the idea of keeping your mouth shut . I can’t believe all these people have incriminated themselves .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old November 11, 2020, 02:56 PM   #77
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,720
I remember when *a baby* could walk into any hardware store and buy a gun (assuming the baby could walk) and nobody cared if he was a felon because it didn't matter. That was 1967, and it wasn't a problem. All the current "felon in possession" and "straw purchase" problems are a manufactured problem intent on increasing process crimes rather than reducing victim crimes. It makes me sad that we've accepted that as normal. (that being said, I abide by these unconstitutional laws too because I'm not a prohibited person yet, and so far it's just easier. But it's not normal)
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth
zxcvbob is offline  
Old November 12, 2020, 10:02 PM   #78
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
While I believe Rittenhous shot in self defense I believe now he will plead because of the straw purchase. Too bad for him. He'll do some time.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old November 12, 2020, 10:57 PM   #79
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
For any young people who might be willing to pay attention, it's a good example of how to ruin the rest of your life. Rittenhouse may be a convicted felon before he turns 18. If he had an interest in becoming a police officer, he can kiss that goodbye. A couple of bad decisions and his future is down the toilet.

"Welcome to West World, where nothing can go wrong ... go wrong ... go wrong ..."

I'm sure when he bought the rifle it never occurred to him that he might get caught for making a straw purchase. Maybe he didn't even know that it's a federal crime. And when he set out to guard that business I'm sure he never expected that by the end of the night he would have killed two people and wounded a third. Young people generally don't understand that decisions have consequences. Sometimes learning that is a very hard lesson.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old November 13, 2020, 12:52 AM   #80
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
Quote:
While I believe Rittenhous shot in self defense I believe now he will plead because of the straw purchase. Too bad for him. He'll do some time.
That's a separate issue I believe . Yes he "may" have got the gun illegally but I believe that does not mean you forfeit your right to self defense . I've read somewhere that even a convicted felon who is prohibited from owning a firearm can use one in self defense . I know it would have to be carefully argued but think he still has a shot at beating the murder charges . I do agree at this point he will do some time but IMHO if they stick with 1st degree murder I don't see a 12-0 vote for that . Then again with all this new self incrimination and dad throwing him under the bus . Maybe he said some dumb stuff to his friends and or investigators .

The saddest thing is it appears his defense team is not up for this . I heard they went to file an appeal on the extradition and were told he's already gone . It's my understanding they are way over there heads on this at best and up to no good and only in this for the money at worst for Kyle .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6frUeVjCd1U
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old November 13, 2020, 01:07 AM   #81
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
Metal god, I think you are correct. Clearly, the straw purchase is a separate issue (albeit part of the same incident) as the murder charges. As an example, we can look back to 1984 and Bernerd Goetz, the NYC "subway shooter." Goetz was convicted of a firearms charge but not on the multiple charges of attempted murder that he faced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_N...ubway_shooting

Quote:
Goetz was tried before a Manhattan jury of 10 whites and 2 blacks, of whom 6 had been victims of street crime. He was acquitted of the attempted murder and first-degree assault charges and convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree – carrying a loaded, unlicensed weapon in a public place.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old November 13, 2020, 01:15 AM   #82
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca View Post
I believe Black himself has told the police that he bought the gun using Kyle's money....
Yes, but .... If I understand things correctly, this would make Black a co-conspirator. I haven't dug into this issue in federal or WI law, but I believe it is pretty standard that the testimony of a co-conspirator has to be corroborated somehow. IOW, in order to successfully charge Rittenhouse, prosecutors would have to have Black's statements + something else. Bank statements, other witnesses (who are not co-conspirators), video from the gun store .... something. And you can bet dollars to doughnuts that if Rittenhouse didn't tell investigators about this early on, he ain't starting now.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old November 21, 2020, 01:45 PM   #83
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Eastern, TN
Posts: 1,236
Looks like he was freed on bail yesterday:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...tenhouse-bail/
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old November 23, 2020, 01:37 PM   #84
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
Yep , and to answer my earlier question. The bail was 2mil and he had to post all of it . Wisconsin is not a 10% is good enough state you must post the complete bail for release . The silver lining in that is when and if he fulfills his bail obligations . The total $2 million will be returned to him .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .

Last edited by Metal god; November 23, 2020 at 02:22 PM.
Metal god is offline  
Old November 23, 2020, 02:01 PM   #85
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,720
Even if he loses he gets the money back, doesn't he?
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth
zxcvbob is offline  
Old November 23, 2020, 02:16 PM   #86
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
Quote:
Even if he loses he gets the money back, doesn't he?
I believe so but don't know what the definition of "fulfilled obligation" is in Wisconsin in this context . There may be caveats but don't believe so . One thing I heard but again not sure , is that his defense can not ask the court for some or all of that money for payment after the case is over .

I'm interested to know if anyone can try to claim the money if he is convicted . If found guilty can the victims or there families try to get to the bail money ?

I read the My Pillow Guy and someone else helped out with funds . It may be that they set up a contract that they get there money back if it's returned . If I was giving out that kind of money , that would be something I think I'd try to set up . Do it more as a lone then a donation or gift .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .

Last edited by Metal god; November 23, 2020 at 02:24 PM.
Metal god is offline  
Old December 8, 2020, 01:12 AM   #87
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
Update

Came across this today and thought I'd share , looks like he has or is getting some new council .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztUJeQsk5z0
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .

Last edited by Metal god; December 8, 2020 at 02:39 AM.
Metal god is offline  
Old December 8, 2020, 04:51 AM   #88
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
Am not fully versed in all the legal ins and outs so this is just my opinion, not verified fact.

A convicted criminal is not allowed to profit from the crime.

Return of bail money is not profit. Isn't posting bail a contract between you and the court?? You ask for release from custody promising to show up when necessary for court processes, and put up a sum of money as security.

When you complete your legal requirements (show up and face trial, etc) that money is returned by the court. It's your money, you do your part, you should get it back.

If this wasn't the case, how could bail bondsmen operate? Why do they chase down bail jumpers? So they can present them in court and get their money back.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old December 8, 2020, 08:14 AM   #89
mehavey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,869
My understanding (also) is that while survivors can sue the convicted individual & his estate (and therefore any bail money returned to it), the bail in this case was largely put up by outsiders.

Survivors have no claim on funds returned to them at that point
mehavey is offline  
Old December 8, 2020, 01:12 PM   #90
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
Whoever put up the bail money is the one who gets it back. "outsiders" can give him the money and he can pay the bail, with what is now "his" money. OR they can post the bond for him, with "their" money.

If its not his money, no one suing him has any claim on it, that I can see.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old December 9, 2020, 01:05 AM   #91
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,649
This is a train wreck still. What's really, REALLY, sad to me is I fully believe this kid wanted to, believed, and thought he was doing good for the community by trying to protect a business.

Unfortunately, knowingly inserting yourself into imminent danger has consequences. I do not believe he will be convicted, especially of 1st degree murder. But his life is forever changed for the worse. And tis a lesson in how to conduct yourself. I'm all about people who stand up and face danger to do the right thing... but there is a razor thin line between reckless and brave. My family motto is Nec Temere Nec Timide (neither reckless nor timid). Actually living that way is easier said than done. At any rate, being someone of Mr. Kyle's demographic at a protest that is basically protesting your demographic (not exactly, but close) is a recipe for disaster, even more so if you open carry a rifle there.
__________________
Support the NRA-ILA Auction, ends 03/09/2018

https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=593946
5whiskey is offline  
Old January 1, 2021, 10:46 AM   #92
tyme
Staff
 
Join Date: October 13, 2001
Posts: 3,355
It sounds like Black admitted to a straw purchase, but as far as I'm aware nobody has been charged federally [yet]. I wouldn't be surprised if Kamala has a conference call with the DoJ about this on her calendar for late January, though.

Wisconsin charged Rittenhouse with possession under 18 (948.60 (2)(a) , and they charged Black with a facilitator version of that same crime: 948.60(2)(c).

The defense counsel pointed out during the prelim hearing that the open carry law Kyle was charged under is not really applicable. He even took a verbal shot at the prosecutor, saying that when he (defense counsel) went to law school, they taught him to read the entire statute.

The logical problem with applying the Wisconsin possession/carry law to 16-17 year olds is as follows:

Quote:
948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

(1) [defines dangerous weapon]
(2) 
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
...
(3)
(c) 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. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.
The bold portions are what's critical relating to Kyle. 941.28 is about SBSs and SBRs. 29.304 is about minors under 16.

29.593 is what everyone's arguing about. It's an administrative provision that spells out certain requirements for obtaining hunting authorization (a hunting license in Wisconsin terms, I think). The problem is that it's unclear what compliance means when you're talking about an administrative regulation governing applications for hunting licenses, and you're not applying for a hunting license.

The operative section (1)(a) reads in its entirety:

Quote:
(1)(a) Except as provided under subs. (2), (2m) and (3), and s. 29.592 (1), no person born on or after January 1, 1973, may obtain any approval authorizing hunting unless the person is issued a certificate of accomplishment under s. 29.591.
In terms of mathematical logic, this count should absolutely fail. If the law said anyone subject to this section must have a hunter's education certificate, then it would apply. But the certificate is made conditional on applying for a hunting license, which Kyle didn't need, so...

I have no idea what a Wisconsin judge will make of this law, though. They make take it upon themselves to interpret the law such that you have to have passed hunter safety before you can open carry outside the context of hunting.

If the Wisconsin courts interpret it broadly, which from my limited knowledge of the law is improper but they might do it anyway, Black gets a felony while Kyle gets a misdemeanor. Even if Kyle's self defense claims are upheld by a jury, it doesn't look like self defense matters at all for downgrading Black's felony count(s), and Class H felonies are 6 years max vs 3.5 years max for Class I.

Another strange thing is that Black was charged twice, once for each of the people Rittenhouse killed, even though the act involved was the transfer of the gun to Rittenhouse which only happened once. I don't know how that works, but isn't there generally a principle that you can't charge someone with multiple identical counts for the same criminal transaction just because multiple crimes happen downstream? Not that that helps Black much. One state felony conviction is bad enough.

On the federal level, if Kamala encourages the DoJ to make an example out of them, which she might... Black gets charged with a straw purchase under whatever statute that is, and both Black and Kyle conspired on the straw purchase so they both get charged with 18 USC 371?

I don't think either of them admitted to anything that got them into deeper trouble under Wisconsin law. However, exposing themselves to federal charges was idiotic. If they'd both just shut their mouths, the feds might not be able to prove that it was a straw purchase. Now, though, even if the Wisconsin courts do the right thing and eventually dismiss all charges, I expect they're both screwed federally unless Trump pardons them before he leaves office.

They should have seen one of James Duane's talks on youtube, or read his book. It's too late now.

Next hearing, this time before the trial judge instead of the feckless county commissioner, is in a few days.

Also, that fool Ziminski (who has quite a misdemeanor and traffic and family court record), who fired a shot in the air while Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse, has a trial coming up. He had a felony endangering safety charge, but it was withdrawn or dismissed along with two other misdemeanors. He's now facing only a single misdemeanor. In a fair and just world, and in a state with better laws, he would be facing that felony charge for reckless endangerment (what goes up must come down), another one for conspiracy to assault Rittenhouse, as well as felony murder charges since he was involved in a conspiracy to commit a felony that resulted in deaths.

I'm not going to touch on how unwise Rittenhouse's actions that night were. Obviously he made a variety of mistakes, but mistakes and lack of wisdom are not crimes. As far as I can tell, his heart was in the right place. If everyone had behaved themselves within reasonable bounds, nothing would have come of Kyle's mistakes.
__________________
“The egg hatched...” “...the egg hatched... and a hundred baby spiders came out...” (blade runner)
“Who are you?” “A friend. I'm here to prevent you from making a mistake.” “You have no idea what I'm doing here, friend.” “In specific terms, no, but I swore an oath to protect the world...” (continuum)
“It's a goal you won't understand until later. Your job is to make sure he doesn't achieve the goal.” (bsg)
tyme is offline  
Old January 1, 2021, 04:06 PM   #93
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyme
Also, that fool Ziminski (who has quite a misdemeanor and traffic and family court record), who fired a shot in the air while Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse, has a trial coming up. He had a felony endangering safety charge, but it was withdrawn or dismissed along with two other misdemeanors. He's now facing only a single misdemeanor. In a fair and just world, and in a state with better laws, he would be facing that felony charge for reckless endangerment (what goes up must come down), another one for conspiracy to assault Rittenhouse, as well as felony murder charges since he was involved in a conspiracy to commit a felony that resulted in deaths.
He was involved in a conspiracy? Who were the co-conspirators?

Does the felony murder charge require a conspiracy? I thought it only required that the actor be involved in a criminal act that resulted in a death.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old January 1, 2021, 08:04 PM   #94
tyme
Staff
 
Join Date: October 13, 2001
Posts: 3,355
Rosenbaum and Ziminski conspired to assault Rittenhouse. Since Rosenbaum is deceased, he can't be charged with anything for his own death. That leaves Ziminski.

Conspiracy leads to felony murder. I thought there was a problem charging felony murder for this in Wisconsin, but I seem to have been wrong. I thought Wisconsin didn't have transitivity for felony murder. The law says "whoever causes the death..." which I thought meant directly causing. However, annotations pointing to case law suggest that a violent felony causing the victim to fire fatal shots [in self defense] is sufficient to convict the aggressor(s) for felony murder. [1]

The conspiracy isn't as obvious as, say, a getaway driver waiting in a car outside a bank, but I think it's clear enough for both conspiracy and felony murder charges to go to a jury. No?

They're bringing trumped-up murder charges against Kyle when the most he should be facing from the least favorable interpretation of events that night is manslaughter and reckless endangerment. The least they could do is charge Ziminski with a similar laundry list of crimes.


Point 1: video earlier that night shows Rosenbaum ("R") slightly bumping Ziminski ("Z"), who turns and looks on as R postures and yells at a "militia" member, telling the militia member to "shoot me, n-word!" R and Z seem to know each other, since the bump was enough for Z to turn and look, yet he didn't say anything, and R didn't acknowledge the physical space violation.

Point 2: Z fired a shot into the air while R was chasing Rittenhouse. Was it just a coincidence that Z and R happened to be together again, and that Z happened to walk by and decide to shoot into the air for no apparent reason? I think it's clear he was trying to frighten Rittenhouse, hoping he would freeze instead of defend himself while R assaulted him and stole his gun.

Point 3: This doesn't directly go to conspiracy but it goes to what kind of person Z is. Another video segment earlier that night showed Z chilling in a group. It's the segment where his wife or gf flashes some sort of hand signs. Z is clearly recorded holding a handgun in his hand, by his side. So he's the kind of person to brandish a handgun instead of leaving it in a holster when there was no violence imminent requiring presentation fo a handgun. He wants to be a gangster. Or he is one.

Point 4: Z told police that the handgun he fired that night was stolen from his residence days later. Sure. Right. More likely, the gun was either a crime gun he was afraid would match ballistics from elsewhere, or it was stolen, or the person he got it from purchased it legally but really, really didn't want any police entanglements. One might even speculate he's involved in a more active sense in either gun running or armed crime, and wanted Kyle's AR-15 for that.

[1] https://law.justia.com/codes/wiscons...40/940.03.html
__________________
“The egg hatched...” “...the egg hatched... and a hundred baby spiders came out...” (blade runner)
“Who are you?” “A friend. I'm here to prevent you from making a mistake.” “You have no idea what I'm doing here, friend.” “In specific terms, no, but I swore an oath to protect the world...” (continuum)
“It's a goal you won't understand until later. Your job is to make sure he doesn't achieve the goal.” (bsg)
tyme is offline  
Old January 1, 2021, 09:50 PM   #95
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyme
Rosenbaum and Ziminski conspired to assault Rittenhouse. Since Rosenbaum is deceased, he can't be charged with anything for his own death. That leaves Ziminski.

Conspiracy leads to felony murder. I thought there was a problem charging felony murder for this in Wisconsin, but I seem to have been wrong. I thought Wisconsin didn't have transitivity for felony murder. The law says "whoever causes the death..." which I thought meant directly causing. However, annotations pointing to case law suggest that a violent felony causing the victim to fire fatal shots [in self defense] is sufficient to convict the aggressor(s) for felony murder. [1]

The conspiracy isn't as obvious as, say, a getaway driver waiting in a car outside a bank, but I think it's clear enough for both conspiracy and felony murder charges to go to a jury. No?
I'm not a lawyer or a judge, I'm only a technical writer. You'll have to excuse me if I tend to use words the way normal people understand them.

According to Merriam-Webster 0n-line:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspire
Quote:
Definition of conspire

transitive verb
: plot, contrive

intransitive verb

1a : to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement accused of conspiring to overthrow the government conspired to monopolize and restrict trade
b : scheme

2 : to act in harmony toward a common end
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy
Quote:
Definition of conspiracy

1 : the act of conspiring together They were accused of conspiracy to commit murder.
2a : an agreement among conspirators uncovered a conspiracy against the government
b : a group of conspirators
To my dinosaur brain, "conspiracy" relates to the before-hand plotting of an act, not to perpetrating the actual act. Driving the getaway car in a bank robbery would not, IMHO, be "conspiring" to rob a bank, it would be acting as an accessory to bank robbery.

So I'm confused as to how Rosenbaum and Ziminski "conspired" to assault Rittenhouse. The fact that they may have known each other doesn't automatically demonstrate that they engaged in a conspiracy.

I'm not defending them, mind you. I think they were scum, and I hope Rittenhouse gets off. But I think charges should fit offenses. I hate it when prosecutors overcharge or, worse, lose a case against a real scumbag because they didn't charge correctly.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old January 2, 2021, 03:48 PM   #96
tyme
Staff
 
Join Date: October 13, 2001
Posts: 3,355
I left out what might be the best piece of evidence of conspiracy, because I'm not sure how reliable it is. In the video of the first shooting taken from across the street, it sounds like someone yells "get him" once or twice right before Kyle starts running away.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss-G-FX3Nys&t=3h58m46s (requires login, sorry there's nothing I can do because Google is awful and refuses to let people watch age-restricted videos anymore without logging in)

It may take a bunch of replaying 5-10 seconds, from time code 3:58:46 until the camera pans back to show Kyle running. The vlogger is speaking, but in the background there's some yelling, and at least one of them sounds to me like "get him".

In the preliminary hearing, Kyle's attorney asserted that it was Ziminski yelling about Kyle. Probably since Kyle was there and Kyle would know who said it. If that's true, would that be enough to convince you of a conspiracy?

The entire video of the prelim hearing (minus the part where they're waiting for everyone to join, and Gaige's chair breaks, which was later edited out), for anyone who wants to watch... this link is cued up to the part where the defense attorney (Richards) is talking about the alleged yelling of "Get him!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoTUXgLXp64#t=31m55s

The defense attorney's questioning and full outline of all the shootings starts at 30:17 and goes for about 18 minutes.

By the way, according to the cameraman in the first video, the overall situation before the first shooting was that there was a group of BLM more towards the intersection, a group of [mostly white] antifa (I believe that includes Rosenbaum and Ziminski), and the antifa group (across the street from the cameraman, on the opposite edge of the repair shop from the intersection) was gearing up to do some hardcore property destruction on that business, and they'd already assaulted one person for getting too close with a camera. Then Rittenhouse showed up. (From later questioning, it seems Dominick had gotten word that this was going on and called Kyle to tell him, and that's why he went there. Dominick being the 19 year old who got Kyle the AR-15.)
__________________
“The egg hatched...” “...the egg hatched... and a hundred baby spiders came out...” (blade runner)
“Who are you?” “A friend. I'm here to prevent you from making a mistake.” “You have no idea what I'm doing here, friend.” “In specific terms, no, but I swore an oath to protect the world...” (continuum)
“It's a goal you won't understand until later. Your job is to make sure he doesn't achieve the goal.” (bsg)
tyme is offline  
Old January 2, 2021, 05:16 PM   #97
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyme
It may take a bunch of replaying 5-10 seconds, from time code 3:58:46 until the camera pans back to show Kyle running. The vlogger is speaking, but in the background there's some yelling, and at least one of them sounds to me like "get him".

In the preliminary hearing, Kyle's attorney asserted that it was Ziminski yelling about Kyle. Probably since Kyle was there and Kyle would know who said it. If that's true, would that be enough to convince you of a conspiracy?
Not even close.

Tht's on-the-spot, spur of the moment stuff. To me, that doesn't in any way equate to conspiracy. To me, conspiracy is meeting beforehand and plotting the crime in advance.

For example, I recall a murder case a few years ago (I think it was discussed here, but I don't recall the case) in which the defense disputed that "murder" was an appropriate charge, since the shooting had not been planned in advance but was the result of a short-term argument. The defense argued that "murder" in that state's law required premeditation.

The prosecutor's response was that "premeditation can occur in an instant."

Sorry -- I didn't buy that argument then, and I don't buy it now.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old January 2, 2021, 06:33 PM   #98
tyme
Staff
 
Join Date: October 13, 2001
Posts: 3,355
I think the point of contention here is whether conspiracy requires premeditation, and I don't think it does.

Doesn't the scenario fit your quoted definition (2) of the word conspire?

They acted in harmony — Rosenbaum chased Kyle, while Ziminski fired into the air to create tension — toward a common goal — attacking Kyle, communicated between Ziminski and Rosenbaum through the alleged "Get him!" although I don't think that verbal communication is necessary. I think their actions once Kyle started running show they were both in on it. Depending on what's allowed into evidence, you could even say they were conspiring to commit arson, and that Rosenbaum's death was downstream of that.

There is obviously a more sinister version of a conspiracy, where 2 or more people plot in secret well before the crime to commit that crime, but I don't believe conspiracy is limited to that. In its more common form, it's merely an agreement (potentially verbal or even non-verbal) to act toward a common (typically illegal or politically dubious) goal. And, in my view, it becomes obvious there's an agreement even without direct evidence of it, because otherwise the conspirators would not be acting in common. It seems to me that evidence of the agreement only becomes important if the plot is disrupted before it's carried out.

I think, and legal experts please correct me if I'm wrong, conspiracy in the legal sense is intended to enable prosecution of one person for crimes physically committed primarily by another person, as long as there's enough evidence they both wanted the crime committed (not merely wishful thinking, but an actual desire to see the crime carried out).

If you catch someone vandalizing or disconnecting antennas or telecom cables that support a facility's alarm system, and you catch someone else burglarizing that facility, do you need separate evidence of agreement to figure out that the vandal is engaged in conspiracy to commit burglary? That's how I view Ziminski's "firing into the air". This wasn't New Year's, nor was it some party in a less-developed country. He wasn't celebrating anything. He was assisting an assault, either by trying to draw attention away or to scare Kyle or both. I don't see any other plausible way to view it. Do you? Disregarding legal terminology or requirements, as a practical matter, do you see any other possible interpretation of his firing that gun into the air, such that it was just a coincidence Rosenbaum was chasing Kyle at the same time?
__________________
“The egg hatched...” “...the egg hatched... and a hundred baby spiders came out...” (blade runner)
“Who are you?” “A friend. I'm here to prevent you from making a mistake.” “You have no idea what I'm doing here, friend.” “In specific terms, no, but I swore an oath to protect the world...” (continuum)
“It's a goal you won't understand until later. Your job is to make sure he doesn't achieve the goal.” (bsg)
tyme is offline  
Old January 2, 2021, 10:34 PM   #99
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyme
I think the point of contention here is whether conspiracy requires premeditation, and I don't think it does.

Doesn't the scenario fit your quoted definition (2) of the word conspire?
You are correct, that is the point of contention. I understand where you're coming from, but I've been on this mudball for almost 77 years and, based on a lifetime of using words -- to me -- "conspiracy" requires a modicum of premeditation. But, neither you nor I are on the jury, so we can disagree 'til the cows come home. The only opinions that are going to matter are the opinions of the jurors who hear the case.

It ain't law school, but ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28criminal%29

Quote:
In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old January 29, 2021, 06:47 PM   #100
Desmosedici
Member
 
Join Date: April 1, 2016
Location: North Texas
Posts: 72
I wouldn't say this was a good decision, either.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...54q-story.html
Desmosedici is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.10736 seconds with 10 queries