IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Kyle Rittenhouse , murder cases

Reply
Old 18th November 2020, 11:03 AM   #361
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 9,347
Lin Wood, one of Rittenhouse's attorneys, seems to be trying to insert himself in the Great Election Fight of 2020. He has filed a lawsuit against the state of Georgia.

If I were facing a lifetime behind bars, I'm not sure I would want some clout-chasing lawyer on my multiple felony case. Wood strikes me as just another grifter trying to insert himself as a hero into whatever right wing grievance story that is hot at the moment.

https://twitter.com/alanfeuer/status...20234066878465
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2020, 11:18 AM   #362
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 51,128
It seems he used his stimulus money to finance the straw purchase of the gun.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b1749495.html
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2020, 12:27 PM   #363
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 9,347
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
It seems he used his stimulus money to finance the straw purchase of the gun.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b1749495.html
I'm very curious about the exact details of when this rifle was bought from the original FFL. Did Rittenhouse's buddy buy it for the sole purpose of giving it to Kyle, or was this a rifle that he bought for his own personal use that he later decided to sell.

Gets a bit trickier as it seems Rittenhouse only occasionally had possession of the rifle, and it was stored at the friend's house. I have no idea whether they would qualify as a straw purchase or not.

ETA: This dude has lawyers and he's giving jailhouse interviews to the Washington Post about his pending multiple felony case. Wonder if his lawyers are incompetent or Rittenhouse is just an unmanageable client. If he had any sense he'd keep his mouth shut until the trial is over.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 19th November 2020 at 12:29 PM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2020, 01:37 PM   #364
webfusion
Philosopher
 
webfusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,523
"The night of the shooting, Mr Rittenhouse took his weapon from his home across the border in Illinois and brought it to the protest." -- from The Independent article linked.

That is not what happened according to the information provided by Illinois authorities.
webfusion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2020, 02:34 PM   #365
webfusion
Philosopher
 
webfusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,523
Posting bail, Rittenhouse allowed to leave jail.

He might just vanish, a la Abbie Hoffman (aka Barry Freed).
webfusion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2020, 08:02 AM   #366
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 9,347
And so the reactionary circus begins. Every right wing ghoul that wants to prove their credibility is going to make a point of hanging out with this murderer while his trial is pending. Given it's a serious case and there are serious delays because of covid, Rittenhouse may be free on bail for some time.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2020, 08:06 AM   #367
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 15,133
Rittenhouse's bail was paid for by ... wait for it ... the My Pillow Guy!
__________________
"As private parts to the gods are we, they play with us for their sport." - Melchett, Blackadder
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2020, 09:01 AM   #368
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 18,358
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Rittenhouse's bail was paid for by ... wait for it ... the My Pillow Guy!
And Ricky Schroeder from Silver Spoons.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 05:27 PM   #369
webfusion
Philosopher
 
webfusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,523
Ricky Schroder (sp.) is a "right wing ghoul" ? Who knew!
webfusion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 06:00 PM   #370
rockinkt
Master Poster
 
rockinkt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,145
What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty as the cornerstone of American law?

Say all you want about guilt or innocence - being let out on bail is not a declaration of either. It is also a protected right under the US Constitution.

All these truly ignorant armchair lawyers make me want to laugh - but then I realize that they and their obnoxious uninformed hateful invective is what is causing most of the problem in the US society today.

The amount of vitriol and hatred and the lack of respect for the fundamental rights of people on this so-called sceptics board is truly astonishing.

Rights for only those I deem worthy of having rights!
What a circus!
__________________
"Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." Steve Earle

"I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." Townes Van Zandt
rockinkt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 06:20 PM   #371
eerok
Quixoticist
 
eerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: ON Canada
Posts: 3,849
Originally Posted by rockinkt View Post
What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty as the cornerstone of American law?
Once it becomes political, objectivity goes out the window.
__________________
"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde
eerok is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 06:48 PM   #372
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 17,946
Originally Posted by rockinkt View Post
What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty as the cornerstone of American law?

Say all you want about guilt or innocence - being let out on bail is not a declaration of either. It is also a protected right under the US Constitution.
Everyone has a right to apply for bail, but they do not have an absolute right to have it granted. Bail can be denied for people who are regarded as too dangerous to be allowed out in public, or for those who present a significant flight risk. It can also be revoked at any time.
__________________
I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms.
- Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project)
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 22nd November 2020 at 06:56 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 06:49 PM   #373
Elagabalus
Philosopher
 
Elagabalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 7,047
Originally Posted by webfusion View Post
Ricky Schroder (sp.) is a "right wing ghoul" ? Who knew!
I was going to say that I'll never watch "The Champ" again and then remembered that it stars Jon Voight. Some of the crazy must have rubbed off on Ricky. Poor lad.

Jon Voight rails against ‘evil’ Democrats and calls Joe Biden ‘Satan’ in ‘disturbing’ new video
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 07:50 PM   #374
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 17,946
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
I was going to say that I'll never watch "The Champ" again and then remembered that it stars Jon Voight. Some of the crazy must have rubbed off on Ricky. Poor lad.

Jon Voight rails against ‘evil’ Democrats and calls Joe Biden ‘Satan’ in ‘disturbing’ new video
... the “greatest fight since the Civil War”.


Looks like he took his role as Ben Gates' father too seriously!
__________________
I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms.
- Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project)
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 22nd November 2020 at 07:52 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2020, 10:10 AM   #375
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not In Follansbee
Posts: 4,125
Originally Posted by eerok View Post
Once it becomes political, objectivity goes out the window.
Sure. If we change this persons ethnicity and his political orientation his chances of making bail / amount of bail will wildly vary, and usually for the worse.

So, yes, objectivity does go out the window here, but to the advantage of this specific person.
Suddenly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2020, 11:04 AM   #376
rockinkt
Master Poster
 
rockinkt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,145
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Everyone has a right to apply for bail, but they do not have an absolute right to have it granted. Bail can be denied for people who are regarded as too dangerous to be allowed out in public, or for those who present a significant flight risk. It can also be revoked at any time.
Who said anything different? I sure didn't.
__________________
"Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." Steve Earle

"I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." Townes Van Zandt

Last edited by rockinkt; 23rd November 2020 at 11:08 AM.
rockinkt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2020, 11:07 AM   #377
rockinkt
Master Poster
 
rockinkt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,145
Originally Posted by eerok View Post
Once it becomes political, objectivity goes out the window.
Which is why most of the comments on this thread do not belong on a sceptic's board.
__________________
"Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." Steve Earle

"I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." Townes Van Zandt
rockinkt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2020, 11:10 AM   #378
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 32,960
Originally Posted by rockinkt View Post
What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty as the cornerstone of American law?
Why does this concept only apply to Rittenhouse and not the people he murdered?

I mean I know why, but I want to hear what excuse you make up that you honestly think we'll buy.
__________________
Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question."
Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..."
Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2020, 11:20 AM   #379
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 17,946
Originally Posted by rockinkt View Post
Who said anything different? I sure didn't.
Really?

Originally Posted by rockinkt View Post
Say all you want about guilt or innocence - being let out on bail is not a declaration of either. It is also a protected right under the US Constitution!
__________________
I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms.
- Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project)
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 23rd November 2020 at 11:22 AM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2020, 10:53 AM   #380
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 9,347
Rittenhouse loses motion to dismiss during probable cause hearing. It's unusual that Rittenhouse's lawyer even tried to do this during the PC hearing. There was a 0% chance of success for such a tactic. Self-defense is an affirmative defense that must be heard at trial, and there's no doubt that Rittenhouse did in fact shoot and kill his victims. The bar for probable cause is quite low, and obviously Rittenhouse's case clears it. The fact that Rittenhouse shot these people is not in dispute, how could there not be probable cause?

Honestly, this smacks of culture war posturing than actually good lawyering. Rittenhouse may actually have a path to freedom on some or even all of these charges if he has excellent legal defense and a bit of luck, but I doubt he's getting that level of defense from these grifting media hounds he has for attorneys.

There was a similar nonsense legal fight over Rittenhouse's extradition. Perhaps this is just savvy pandering to the Kyle's bloodthirsty supporters who are donating money to his legal defense, but if this is the level of legal acumen that is going to be brought to trial, Rittenhouse is in trouble.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 4th December 2020 at 11:41 AM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2020, 01:41 PM   #381
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 23,349
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Rittenhouse loses motion to dismiss during probable cause hearing. It's unusual that Rittenhouse's lawyer even tried to do this during the PC hearing. There was a 0% chance of success for such a tactic. Self-defense is an affirmative defense that must be heard at trial, and there's no doubt that Rittenhouse did in fact shoot and kill his victims. The bar for probable cause is quite low, and obviously Rittenhouse's case clears it. The fact that Rittenhouse shot these people is not in dispute, how could there not be probable cause?

Honestly, this smacks of culture war posturing than actually good lawyering. Rittenhouse may actually have a path to freedom on some or even all of these charges if he has excellent legal defense and a bit of luck, but I doubt he's getting that level of defense from these grifting media hounds he has for attorneys.

There was a similar nonsense legal fight over Rittenhouse's extradition. Perhaps this is just savvy pandering to the Kyle's bloodthirsty supporters who are donating money to his legal defense, but if this is the level of legal acumen that is going to be brought to trial, Rittenhouse is in trouble.
Kyle can't afford high level legal representation. These stunts help him to raise money. Whether he spends the money raised on high level legal representation or more stunts is yet to be decided.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2020, 04:27 PM   #382
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 9,347
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Kyle can't afford high level legal representation. These stunts help him to raise money. Whether he spends the money raised on high level legal representation or more stunts is yet to be decided.
That's true. It's entirely possible that these absurd stunts during preliminary hearings could just be a fundraising effort. If the lawyers involved are savvy, they'll keep these stunts up for the little stuff that doesn't matter much then run the actual trial like real, straight-laced lawyers.

That implies a lot of good faith in the lawyers. I'm not too sure about this trial lawyer, but LL Wood has attached himself to this project and he is 100% grifter who would be happy to trainwreck his client if it meant collecting cash and getting his name splashed about the right wing press. If Kyle is getting good advice, he'll do like you suggest, take the cash, and hire a top-tier lawyer that isn't interested in clout chasing.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 4th December 2020 at 04:29 PM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2020, 05:42 PM   #383
webfusion
Philosopher
 
webfusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,523
2 counts of first degree murder and *** wait for it ***

breaking curfew!
https://www.lakemchenryscanner.com/2...reaking-curfew
webfusion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2020, 01:41 AM   #384
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,424
Originally Posted by webfusion View Post
2 counts of first degree murder and *** wait for it ***

breaking curfew!
Are you scoffing? Sounds like you're scoffing.

It may seem insignificant in comparison, but if Kyle had just obeyed the curfew he wouldn't now be a killer facing 1st degree murder charges.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2020, 06:34 AM   #385
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,634
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Are you scoffing? Sounds like you're scoffing.

It may seem insignificant in comparison, but if Kyle had just obeyed the curfew he wouldn't now be a killer facing 1st degree murder charges.
It could also show intent. Proving intent in a first-degree murder case can be more easily accomplished by proving the intent to commit a lesser crime committed during the murder. A vigilante can't very well claim to be enforcing the law if they know their presence at the scene of their victims' crime is itself illegal.
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2020, 06:39 AM   #386
webfusion
Philosopher
 
webfusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,523
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Are you scoffing? Sounds like you're scoffing.

It may seem insignificant in comparison, but if Kyle had just obeyed the curfew he wouldn't now be a killer facing 1st degree murder charges.

I am scoffing --- why this charge? I don't get it. Is that the fall-back position of the prosecution for a plea deal? "OK, no murder one -- just plead to the curfew violation and we'll be OK with it"

As for the statement "if Kyle had just obeyed the curfew he wouldn't now be a killer..."
You can say a lot of "IF" stuff here.

IF Gaige had not been holding a handgun when he confronted Kyle, his arm would still be intact.

IF Mr. Huber had not smashed his skateboard into Kyle's head (effectively turning it into a deadly weapon) he would still be alive to skate another day.

IF JoJo had not gotten all up in Kyle's face, trying to take away his gun, he would still be just another evil thug out there on the streets.

By the way, the curfew offense is a civil citation "punishable by forfeiture."
Maybe the Kenosha prosecutor sees the $2-million Bond as eligible for forfeiture?
webfusion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2020, 07:12 AM   #387
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 9,347
Originally Posted by webfusion View Post
I am scoffing --- why this charge? I don't get it. Is that the fall-back position of the prosecution for a plea deal? "OK, no murder one -- just plead to the curfew violation and we'll be OK with it"

As for the statement "if Kyle had just obeyed the curfew he wouldn't now be a killer..."
You can say a lot of "IF" stuff here.

IF Gaige had not been holding a handgun when he confronted Kyle, his arm would still be intact.

IF Mr. Huber had not smashed his skateboard into Kyle's head (effectively turning it into a deadly weapon) he would still be alive to skate another day.

IF JoJo had not gotten all up in Kyle's face, trying to take away his gun, he would still be just another evil thug out there on the streets.

By the way, the curfew offense is a civil citation "punishable by forfeiture."
Maybe the Kenosha prosecutor sees the $2-million Bond as eligible for forfeiture?
Seems laying the groundwork that Kyle's presence on the streets was unlawful from the start would contribute to undermining any self defense claim.

I could see how a prosecutor might paint this. Kyle was illegally on the streets (curfew violation) while illegally carrying a rifle, and any violence that followed was at least an indirect result of this lawlessness.

Self defense claims are usually rooted in the idea that the person claiming self defense was acting lawfully and using reasonable judgement to prevent violence. Showing that Kyle was not doing so would greatly weaken such a claim, especially when it comes to convincing a jury.

At the very least, I doubt the prosecutor is really motivated by hitting Rittenhouse with a petty violation. It's about building the larger case against him for murders and his other felonies.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 31st December 2020 at 07:30 AM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2020, 09:16 AM   #388
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 9,174
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Seems laying the groundwork that Kyle's presence on the streets was unlawful from the start would contribute to undermining any self defense claim.

I could see how a prosecutor might paint this. Kyle was illegally on the streets (curfew violation) while illegally carrying a rifle, and any violence that followed was at least an indirect result of this lawlessness.

Self defense claims are usually rooted in the idea that the person claiming self defense was acting lawfully and using reasonable judgement to prevent violence. Showing that Kyle was not doing so would greatly weaken such a claim, especially when it comes to convincing a jury.
I was going to imply much the same. I shouldn't have to say IANAL (I'm not) but I've been through the legal system enough times to understand the basics of what prosecutors do, and what they go for. I also haven't read the whole thread so if I duplicate something in my opinion, I apologize.

Everything webfusion labeled was AFTER the initial interaction. This charge shows that Kyle had no right to be there because his actions were against the law. Also, if Kyle initiated the interaction with "JoJo" then he can't claim self defense either. That's just not how it works. Everything after that initial encounter is a direct result of that initial encounter, which wouldn't have happened had Kyle followed the laws set in place. Same with the people he shot. The only difference is a few of them can't be penalized as they've given everything up.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss

Last edited by plague311; 31st December 2020 at 09:17 AM.
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2020, 11:15 AM   #389
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 18,358
I wonder if the third shooting victim is being charged with violating the curfew as well?
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2020, 11:21 AM   #390
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,424
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
I wonder if the third shooting victim is being charged with violating the curfew as well?
Why?
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2020, 11:39 AM   #391
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 14,795
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
I wonder if the third shooting victim is being charged with violating the curfew as well?
That's a fair question. If Rittenhouse's defiance of the emergency police order is deemed significant enough to prosecute...well, he wasn't exactly the Lone Ranger. Seems a bit selective.
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2020, 12:47 PM   #392
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 17,946
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
I wonder if the third shooting victim is being charged with violating the curfew as well?
Why?

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
That's a fair question. If Rittenhouse's defiance of the emergency police order is deemed significant enough to prosecute...well, he wasn't exactly the Lone Ranger. Seems a bit selective.
No, it isn't, its a really stupid question. Charging Rittenhouse with violating curfew is not selective, but charging the victim sure as hell would be. Its also entirely irrelevant - and here's why.

Everyone there was breaking curfew, exercising their First Amendment right to protest. Perhaps you would like to see all protesters arrested and charged and have people's 1A rights violated by banning protests - I'm quite sure Brainster would.

Rittenhouse brought a gun across a state line (a crime) carried it in public without a permit (a crime) while under age (a crime) and into a protest specifically for the purpose of causing trouble... that makes him the aggressor. He then then used the gun to kill two people... that makes him a double murderer regardless of the specific circumstances of the killings.

If he had not committed the first three crimes, none of what followed would have happened, and two families would not be mourning the death of their loved ones. I'm both surprised and disappointed that this clear and obvious fact needs to be explained to anyone other than an extreme right-wing gun-owning nutcase!
__________________
I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms.
- Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project)
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2020, 12:59 PM   #393
webfusion
Philosopher
 
webfusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,523
I seem to recall that around 50 people were arrested for curfew violations that night.

We know that several people were not there for First Amendment rights, but rather, for Second Amendment rights.

Also, your statement of the 'crimes' doesn't jibe with the set of facts as we know them.
Kyle never carried the weapon across state lines.
Kyle needed no permit for his rifle.
Kyle is not underage for the purposes of 2A.

You can go back through the thread (10 pages) and see the various cites for the laws of Wisconsin in this case.
webfusion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2020, 01:11 PM   #394
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,697
Originally Posted by webfusion View Post
Kyle is not underage for the purposes of 2A.
Could you link me to where this particular point is addressed?
It seems Kyle was charged with illegal possession of a firearm by a minor.

I've read the statute and there is a law in WI that draws the line at 18. There are exceptions but I've seen no evidence the conditions for exceptions were met, and it would be confusing for the state to charge him if he were easily provable as being in compliance with that law.

Are you trying to argue here that WI law is unconstitutional?
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2020, 01:22 PM   #395
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 14,795
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Why?



No, it isn't, its a really stupid question. Charging Rittenhouse with violating curfew is not selective, but charging the victim sure as hell would be. Its also entirely irrelevant - and here's why.

Everyone there was breaking curfew, exercising their First Amendment right to protest. Perhaps you would like to see all protesters arrested and charged and have people's 1A rights violated by banning protests - I'm quite sure Brainster would.
Defying an emergency police order in the interests of public safety in order to burn down car dealerships is not protected as ******* speech by the first amendment. It's just crime.

Btw, I'm on the protesters side. I assume however that you are 'on your own' when you partake in criminal activity.

Quote:
Rittenhouse brought a gun across a state line (a crime)...
Nope. It has been determined that he did not do so. The gun was bought in Wisconsin and is not known to have ever left.

Quote:
...carried it in public without a permit (a crime)...
Nope. Open carry perfectly legal in Wisconsin.

Quote:
...while under age (a crime)
Hey! You got one right!

Quote:
...and into a protest specifically for the purpose of causing trouble...
How do you know what his specific purpose was? Your assumptions/inferences/clairvoyant powers don't count.

Quote:
...that makes him the aggressor. He then then used the gun to kill two people... that makes him a double murderer regardless of the specific circumstances of the killings.
It makes him a killer, not necessarily a murderer, nor the aggressor. I'm inclined to think he had no intention of actually killing anyone, but was lost in a Captain America fantasy, which backfired hard, and that is entirely his doing and responsibility.

Quote:
If he had not committed the first three crimes...
In case you forgot, there is only one: underage open carry.

Quote:
... none of what followed would have happened, and two families would not be mourning the death of their loved ones
If you want to go all Saudi butterfly, there were a lot of events that could have forestalked the killings. Not picking a fight with an armed kid, for starters. Actually, be honest here: if Rosenbaum hadn't squared off with Ky-Ky and started chasing him around, do you think it was inevitable that Ky-Ky would have shot someone else anyway? Show your work on this one.

Quote:
I'm both surprised and disappointed that this clear and obvious fact needs to be explained to anyone other than an extreme right-wing gun-owning nutcase!
I'm surprised and disappointed that you screwed up the gun laws and crimes committed so badly after pages of discussion, with Wisconsin laws cited for your convenience. We all have our disappointments, no?
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2020, 01:22 PM   #396
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 17,946
Originally Posted by webfusion View Post
Also, your statement of the 'crimes' doesn't jibe with the set of facts as we know them.
Kyle never carried the weapon across state lines.
Claim withdrawn, however

Originally Posted by webfusion View Post
Kyle needed no permit for his rifle.
Kyle is not underage for the purposes of 2A.
https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...ng-assault-st/
"Since Rittenhouse is 17 years old, he would not qualify for a concealed carry permit in Illinois. It is against Wisconsin law for someone younger than 18 to possess 'a dangerous weapon.'"
"The Wisconsin Department of Justice honors concealed carry permits issued in Illinois. But Rittenhouse did not have a permit to begin with, and he was not legally old enough to carry a firearm in Wisconsin.

In Illinois, concealed carry applicants must be at least 21 years old. Since Rittenhouse is 17, he would not qualify for a permit. In Wisconsin, it is legal for adults to carry firearms in public without a license if the gun is visible. However, to open carry, you must be at least 18 years old."


https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...7&ChapterID=39

https://www.grgblaw.com/wisconsin-tr...-gun-wisconsin
"Wisconsin law stipulates that 'any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.'"

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...948/605/2/b/1m

__________________
I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms.
- Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project)
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2020, 03:34 PM   #397
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 18,358
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Why?

No, it isn't, its a really stupid question. Charging Rittenhouse with violating curfew is not selective, but charging the victim sure as hell would be. Its also entirely irrelevant - and here's why.

Everyone there was breaking curfew, exercising their First Amendment right to protest. Perhaps you would like to see all protesters arrested and charged and have people's 1A rights violated by banning protests - I'm quite sure Brainster would.
Selective prosecution is an invitation to corruption. And I am amused at your notion that somehow it's okay to break curfew to exercise the First Amendment right to protest. Do you seriously think the curfew was not intended at those people?
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2020, 05:38 PM   #398
webfusion
Philosopher
 
webfusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,523
"There are exceptions but I've seen no evidence the conditions for exceptions were met..."

Wisconsin's Constitutional protection of the right to keep and bear arms, section 25.

Text of Section 25:

Right to Keep and Bear Arms

The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.

Kyle was legally able to exercise his right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, as protected by the Wisconsin Constitution. He was not forbidden by Wisconsin law from possessing or carrying a rifle just because he was less than 18 years of age.
webfusion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2020, 08:07 PM   #399
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 17,946
Originally Posted by webfusion View Post
"There are exceptions but I've seen no evidence the conditions for exceptions were met..."

Wisconsin's Constitutional protection of the right to keep and bear arms, section 25.

Text of Section 25:

Right to Keep and Bear Arms

The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.

Kyle was legally able to exercise his right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, as protected by the Wisconsin Constitution. He was not forbidden by Wisconsin law from possessing or carrying a rifle just because he was less than 18 years of age.

Nope...

Wisconsin Legislature 948.60 - Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(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.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
(3) 
(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
(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.
__________________
I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms.
- Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project)
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 31st December 2020 at 08:18 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st January 2021, 07:51 AM   #400
webfusion
Philosopher
 
webfusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,523
smartcooky, we have been down this same road before --- Section C of the law as you posted it refers to the EXCEPTIONS --
(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.

Was Kyle in violation of s 941.28? Yes or no?
Was he in compliance with 29.304 and 29.593? Yes or no?

This is all covered back from post #61.

Last edited by webfusion; 1st January 2021 at 07:58 AM.
webfusion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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 -7. The time now is 02:08 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.