Kyle Rittenhouse trial set for early November .

[Eight_is_enough]

Leftists and others seeking to put America on its knees want there to be no such thing as self-defense. They want their marauding hordes to be able to assault conservatives at will with you being able to do nothing to stop it.

Kyle did absolutely nothing wrong. If I am on the ground after trying to flee from you, and you are trying to bash me in the head with a skateboard, I consider that an imminent threat of death or serious physical harm, and it is certainly reasonable to use deadly force to stop it.

When the next guy comes at me with a drawn pistol, clearly visible in the photo, that is an even greater threat.

Kyle should not have been prosecuted. There is almost no chance the state will be able to find a jury that will vote unanimously to convict. They are not going to get a conviction. They may get a hung jury or two, but they will never get 12 to say "guilty."

[HiBC]

In the Trevon Martin/Zimmeman case, IMO,Zimmerman made serious mistakes.I don't know enough information to say for sure whether he should have paid any attention to Trevon Martin at all.
I recognize the possibility Zimmerman may have been playing vigilante for racial reasons. I said "possibility" recognizing I do not know.

Imo,the MOST Zimmerman MiGHT have been justified in doing is calling the police and reporting an unrecognized person in the neighborhood. Being Black is not "Probable Cause"

IMO,it IS possible Zimmerman's "thought process" was "I'm armed,he is Black,and this is thrilling"

Which,IMO,is stupid and unjustifiable.

OK,those of you who think Kyle Rittenhouse "should not have been there" is a reason to prosecute him, compare the cases.

So Trevon Martin became provoked that Zimmerman was bird dogging him.
He may have become enraged because once again,he was being hassled for being Black. I don't know,but its possible.

I any case,there was a fight.Trevon Martin was unarmed. But he was better at fighting.He was on top,giving Zimmerman a "Ground and Pound"

Zimmerman's head was being slammed into the sidewalk. He feared becoming unconscious. He feared Martin would discover the gun and kill him.

Zimmerman shot Martin and killed him. He was found "not guilty" in court by reason of self defense.

It just does not matter If I think Zimmerman should not have been there in the first place.

In the moment of Gravest Extreme ,he used deadly force to defend himself.

So ,looking at that trial and verdict,how can you say Kyle Rittenhouse is a slam dunk "He is guilty because I think he should not have been there"?

[Metal god]

The interesting argument I’ve ran through my head is .... what if the first shooting which seems to have the most gray area surrounding it , is deemed unjustified ? Does that change the narrative of the above photo or either of the “self defense” action after that first incounter ?

My thought is “if” the first altercation is deemed KR’s fault . Well then instead of a angry mob trying to “get/harm” a poor citizen there to help . It can be argued they are there trying to catch a murderer who just killed a fellow citizen. Doesn’t the same argument now apply to skateboard and Glock guy ? They are just being good citizens trying to stop a killer from killing more ?

[HiBC]

I'm going to do what a lot of people should probably do.

Say this:

"I just don't have enough factual information to offer an opinion."

[Metal god]

HiBC

I agree the Zimmerman case is not comparable however I believe Zimmerman was guilty , of what specifically I'm not sure . I don't believe the jury was aloud to consider lesser charges like negligent homicide or manslaughter . IMO Trevon was literally doing nothing wrong so any escalation was caused by Zimmerman's confrontation .

It comes down to what is Kyle charged with . I don't know if they have changed anything ( added or reduced charges ) but if I recall KR was originally charged with 2nd degree murder which I believe Zimmerman was as well . In both cases I don't see how a jury gets to second degree murder .

[HiBC]

Its not uncommon ,when there is a wreck, that both drivers messed up at the same time.
Often one driver who is paying attention can avoid the wreck.

I have expressed my bias that Zimmerman played a large part in the setup of his incident with Trevon Martin.
But lets not overlook one important factor. Zimmerman did not appear to be in great physical condition. I suspect Trevon Martin had the agility and stamina to keep out of Zimmerman's reach. I don't think Zimmerman could run down and capture Trevon Martin. Trevon Martin likely could have avoided the physical altercation.

I was born in Wisconsin. I have not seen it since I was a kid, Google Earth photos show my home town has not changed much. Fox River/Lake Winnebago area

I've been to the Pacific Northwest. Portland/Seattle/Tacoma...Beautiful places. I'm a landlocked guy,I enjoy the beaches,etc.Low tide play puddles,critters...
Based on my perceptions of what has happened over the last few years,I will avoid travel to my Wisconsin birthplace just as I will avoid Portland and Sea/Tac. And I will avoid cartel controlled Mexico,even though I've had a wonderful time down in the Baja penninsula.

I can't expect the Police to keep the streets reasonably safe. While I agree with the sentiment "The Lives of Black People Matter",I do NOT support the organization "BLM" or ANTIFA.

The vision of being encircled and attacked by groups of hyenas dressed in black with masked faces inspires me to thoughts I prefer not to dwell on. I recognize I could very well become in Kyle Rittenhouse's position.Or worse. I could be killed.

So I don't go. Is that wisdom or cowardice? I don't know. I feel no need to prove anything. I may "bucket list" those places. But certainly not because I'm looking for adrenaline rushes.

I might want to catch a Wisconsin walleye. Play on a low tide Oregon beach.
Eat cheese or seafood.

I do not want to walk around in a John Wick / Clint Eastwood state of mind.

[44 AMP]

The coverage of the Zimmerman case was a true fecal storm of distortions, misrepresentations and some outright lies.

However, no where do I recall either side ever making the claim that Zimmerman attacked Martin physically. We can debate all the things that went before and what amount of influence they had on the attack, but its clear that Martin physically attacked Zimmerman.

And, fwiw, pounding someone's head into the pavement is NOT a harmless act. It can (and has) killed people. It is a deadly assault. To me, on that basis alone deadly force in self defense was justified.

In the current matter, the court will decide as they are the final legal step, but in my opinion pointing a gun at someone is not a friendly act, and I think waiting until they shoot in order to determine if they are a deadly threat could be the last choice you ever make. I think that's a rather poor idea, personally.

[Paul B.]

The one thing I remember is the prosecutor in the Kyle Rittenhouse case had stated on hid Facebook page that he prosecuted ALL self defense cases. It is also noted that he quickly removed it. I've seen it and I'm sure many others have seen it. It makes me believe there is extreme prejudice on in this case on the part of the prosecutor.

Paul B.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Metal God

I agree the Zimmerman case is not comparable however I believe Zimmerman was guilty , of what specifically I'm not sure . I don't believe the jury was aloud to consider lesser charges like negligent homicide or manslaughter . IMO Trevon was literally doing nothing wrong so any escalation was caused by Zimmerman's confrontation .

Except that Zimmerman didn't "confront" Martin. Zimmerman was attempting to trail and observe Martin, but he lost sight of him and was heading back to his car. Martin circled around and ambushed Zimmerman. Any escalation or confrontation was initiated solely by Martin.

In the Rittenhouse case, I don't remember the details of the first shooting. That said, if you want to talk about choices, skateboard dude and handgun dude made conscious choices to approach and attack a person who was carrying a rifle. If you want to discuss poor choices and consequences ... there's your opportunity.

[Lima Oscar 7]

There are now jurisdictions in America where the just will be punished and the unjust will go unpunished for political expediency. We are in a WROL environment in certain areas as we have all witnessed for going on two years. Do I think Mr. Rittenhouse had noble intentions? Ablsolutely. Do I think should even be on trial? Heck no! Kyle Rittenhouse did what he did in an unjust jurisdiction. In just areas, he would not be on trial right now. My wish is he will come through this unscathed. My gut tells me he’s headed to prison. We can learn from this tragedy. We are in uncharted territory in this nation. There are some parts of this country where you better do everything you can to avoid the use of lethal force even when it is clear you are fully justified. Up is down. Down is up. Right is wrong. Wrong is right. If he does go to prison, we can work to elect a sane President who will see this for what it is and pardon him.

[Lima Oscar 7]

Leftists and others seeking to put America on its knees want there to be no such thing as self-defense. They want their marauding hordes to be able to assault conservatives at will with you being able to do nothing to stop it.

Kyle did absolutely nothing wrong. If I am on the ground after trying to flee from you, and you are trying to bash me in the head with a skateboard, I consider that an imminent threat of death or serious physical harm, and it is certainly reasonable to use deadly force to stop it.

When the next guy comes at me with a drawn pistol, clearly visible in the photo, that is an even greater threat.

Kyle should not have been prosecuted. There is almost no chance the state will be able to find a jury that will vote unanimously to convict. They are not going to get a conviction. They may get a hung jury or two, but they will never get 12 to say "guilty."

Spot on Eight is Enough—-well said!

[Metal god]

I followed that case closely I don’t remember it that way

[Aguila Blanca]

Just a reminder: This discussion area is "Law and Civil Rights." How the Rittenhouse case plays out with respect to the applicable laws is open for discussion. If the discussion wanders into politics, we'll have to close the discussion.

[mehavey]

Originally Posted by A_B

if you want to talk about choices, skateboard dude and handgun dude made conscious choices to approach
and attack a person who was carrying a rifle. If you want to discuss poor choices and consequences ..

There in a nutshell is the problem.
We have an entire segment of society now convinced there not only are no consequences, but there should be no consequences ...for them.

At that point free-for-all in a social structure unable to comprehend what is happening to them.

[stagpanther]

Thank God we still have some semblance of laws and justice. Otherwise we can just paint whatever color of justification we want to endorse murder.

[Lima Oscar 7]

I’ve read through all replies. I could have worded my replies much better. As others have said just because something is not smart does not make it illegal. Agreed.

My experiences and opinions for that matter, are not relevant. What are the laws applicable to this case?

My questions are: What are the laws in the city, county and state where this happened? Who are the judges who will have a say in these proceedings?

One final question: Is the “ Department of Justice “ involved in this?

[stagpanther]

I've seen a million versions of this thread over the years--they all end up in the same place--"I'd kill someone if..."

Clint Smith said it best; "A lawyer rides every bullet you fire."

[Double Naught Spy]

There are now jurisdictions in America where the just will be punished and the unjust will go unpunished for political expediency.

At no time in America have such places not existed.

Kyle should not have been prosecuted.

While I agree, "should" or "should not" is a value or opinion statement that is a bit outside of the law. He did break the law, so he will get due process and determine if he did so with justification or not.

Will the jury be a bunch of people like you originally had who seem to want to put the blame on his shoulders for being there when he could have avoided the situation? We'll find out.

[Lima Oscar 7]

I don’t want to assign blame. I could have chosen my words better. It might not have been the smartest thing to be there but as the title of the this forum suggests, we are concerned with the law here.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Double Naught Spy

While I agree, "should" or "should not" is a value or opinion statement that is a bit outside of the law. He did break the law, so he will get due process and determine if he did so with justification or not.

Other than possibly violating a law dealing with possession of a firearm, what law are you stating that he broke? If you are referring to laws prohibiting homicide, if the law (as the law in every state does) includes exceptions for circumstances under which homicide is justified (legitimate self defense), then if he is found to fall under such an exception he did not break the law.

[JohnKSa]

Killing someone intentionally is breaking the law. It's necessary to determine if justification for the act exists.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Killing someone is breaking the law. It's necessary to determine if justification for the act exists.

I disagree. If justification for the act exists, then it is not breaking the law.

The law:

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...tatutes/940/I/

940.01  First-degree intentional homicide.
(1)  Offenses.

(a) Except as provided in sub. (2), whoever causes the death of another human being with intent to kill that person or another is guilty of a Class A felony.
(b) Except as provided in sub. (2), whoever causes the death of an unborn child with intent to kill that unborn child, kill the woman who is pregnant with that unborn child or kill another is guilty of a Class A felony.

(2)  Mitigating circumstances. The following are affirmative defenses to prosecution under this section which mitigate the offense to 2nd-degree intentional homicide under s. 940.05:

(a) Adequate provocation. Death was caused under the influence of adequate provocation as defined in s. 939.44.
(b) Unnecessary defensive force. Death was caused because the actor believed he or she or another was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that the force used was necessary to defend the endangered person, if either belief was unreasonable.
(c) Prevention of felony. Death was caused because the actor believed that the force used was necessary in the exercise of the privilege to prevent or terminate the commission of a felony, if that belief was unreasonable.
(d) Coercion; necessity. Death was caused in the exercise of a privilege under s. 939.45 (1).

(3)  Burden of proof. When the existence of an affirmative defense under sub. (2) has been placed in issue by the trial evidence, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts constituting the defense did not exist in order to sustain a finding of guilt under sub. (1).

So, if the defendant satisfies any of the mitigating conditions, the homicide would not constitute breaking the law, because the mitigating conditions are exceptions to the law. Under exception (2)(b), the homicide is lawful if the defendant reasonably believed that deadly force was necessary to defend himself. If the jury determines that the alleged belief was not reasonable, the charge would be reduced from first-degree intentional homicide to second-degree intentional homicide.

[mehavey]

Homicide in and of itself is not illegal.
It is the circumstances that determine judgement one way or (several) others.

[JohnKSa]

Homicide is illegal.

If the homicide is justifiable, the person can escape conviction.

The following are affirmative defenses to prosecution

This tells the story. The mitigating circumstances provide a defense to prosecution.

How can a person be prosecuted for a legal act? Clearly they can not.

The deadly force section of TX law states it nicely--the chapter provides justifications that exclude criminal responsibility based on the circumstances, for actions that are against the law.

I hadn't really thought about the topic in exactly those terms before, and I admit that it's probably down into the level of semantically splitting hairs, but it's kind of interesting to see that the deadly force laws don't actually say:

If these circumstances apply then it's legal.

They say things like:

If these circumstances apply then that's a defense to prosecution.
If these circumstances apply then there is no criminal responsibility.
If these circumstances apply then it's justifiable.

[Double Naught Spy]

I will rephrase. Rittenhouse committed homicide. Homicide is treated as a crime in Wisconsin until which time it is determined as to its status of legality. He was arrested for it and and apparently getting prosecuted as a result. That is due process. The possibility was there for it not to go this far, but it has.