Kyle Rittenhouse, accused multi-murderer from Kenosha BLM shooting

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Jerrymander

That makes no sense whatsoever. The kid was guarding private property from rioters.

Ky-Ky was not a licenced armed security guard. Hell, he was not even an adult who even could have been. He was not requested by the private property owner to guard anything, much less even have permission to be on the property (putting the owner at a pretty serious liability risk, btw).

What Ky-Ky did was declare himself the Law. That's vigilantism, cut and dry.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Jerrymander

So Kyle was bad for breaking curfew but the rioters weren't?

Was this directed at someone else? Cuz I have said repeatedly that they all on Team Lawbreaker.

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by Jerrymander

That makes no sense whatsoever. The kid was guarding private property from rioters.

1. Is it legal in Wisconsin to use any type of force to protect someone else's property?

2. What property specifically was he guarding when he committed his two murders?

[RolandRat]

Originally Posted by Jerrymander

No. Kyle was working with the police. There is video of them thanking the militia 15 minutes before the shooting. He was only breaking curfew because the rioters were.

Is that all it takes to be considered a lawful deputy working with full legal authority from the police in the States?

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by RolandRat

Is that all it takes to be considered a lawful deputy working with full legal authority from the police in the States?

The arguments we're getting are bad enough for me to think we're being trolled, or that it's simply a Poe.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by uke2se

1. Is it legal in Wisconsin to use any type of force to protect someone else's property?

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...20the%20person

Quote:

939.49  Defense of property and protection against retail theft.
(1)  A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with the person's property. Only such degree of force or threat thereof may intentionally be used as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. It is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of defense of one's property.
(2) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person's property from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend his or her own property from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such as would give the 3rd person the privilege to defend his or her own property, that his or her intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person's property, and that the 3rd person whose property the person is protecting is a member of his or her immediate family or household or a person whose property the person has a legal duty to protect, or is a merchant and the actor is the merchant's employee or agent. An official or adult employee or agent of a library is privileged to defend the property of the library in the manner specified in this subsection.
(3) In this section “unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.

By the sound of it, they claim to be agents of the owner of the dealership they were protecting. I don't see any illegal force being used to defend property, nor I think is defence of property being claimed as a justification for the shooting. That argument is about self defence where lethal force is potentially justified.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...20the%20person


By the sound of it, they claim to be agents of the owner of the dealership they were protecting. I don't see any illegal force being used to defend property, nor I think is defence of property being claimed as a justification for the shooting. That argument is about self defence where lethal force is potentially justified.

You forgot to read the qualifiers for 3rd person defense of property. Kyle met none.

Eta: he was not a family member, employee, etc. Also force is required to be proportional to stop the theft/damage. Killing them exceeds that bar

Eta 2: it was established early on that the owner had no idea who they were or what they were doing on his property

Eta the third: since Kyle did not meet the qualifiers for legal third person defense, he is back to being a juvenile vigilante. Self defense is not afforded to those engaging in serious crimes

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Thermal

You forgot to read the qualifiers for 3rd person defense of property. Kyle met none.

Eta: he was not a family member, employee, etc. Also force is required to be proportional to stop the theft/damage. Killing them exceeds that bar

Eta 2: it was established early on that the owner had no idea who they were or what they were doing on his property

I did read the third person property defence. That is why I mentioned the claim that they were acting as agents of the owner. The defence said he did. He says the owner did ask them. Maybe the owner doesn't want rioters to target him any more? I guess we will find out the details as this progresses.

It doesn't matter to this thread though as Rittenhouse doesn't seem to be claiming to be justifying any violence with reference to property defence. He is justifying it on the basis of self defence.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I did read the third person property defence. That is why I mentioned the claim that they were acting as agents of the owner. The defence said he did. He says the owner did ask them. Maybe the owner doesn't want rioters to target him any more? I guess we will find out the details as this progresses.

Yeah, Kyle also says a loaded rifle identical to one he owns mysteriously appeared in his hands in another state, too. If the owner doesn't know who Kyle is or what he was doing there, perhaps Kyle just jumped in without checking too hard on what legal right he had? Chinese Whispers, Fatality Edition?

Quote:

It doesn't matter to this thread though as Rittenhouse doesn't seem to be claiming to be justifying any violence with reference to property defence. He is justifying it on the basis of self defence.

It matters a lot. Kyle has no privilege of claiming self defense if he was engaged in a crime. Like vigalanism.

Et: btw, your link says you cannot use deadly force to protect property. Kind of puts a dent into his scope of intent regarding his illegal wandering around in a riot.

[carlitos]

I haven’t looked. Does Wisconsin have a felony murder law?

[Jerrymander]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Was this directed at someone else? Cuz I have said repeatedly that they all on Team Lawbreaker.

That we agree.

[Jerrymander]

Originally Posted by RolandRat

Is that all it takes to be considered a lawful deputy working with full legal authority from the police in the States?

Who said he was a legal authority? Thermal implied that he did what he did in spite of the police.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Yeah, Kyle also says a loaded rifle identical to one he owns mysteriously appeared in his hands in another state, too. If the owner doesn't know who Kyle is or what he was doing there, perhaps Kyle just jumped in without checking too hard on what legal right he had? Chinese Whispers, Fatality Edition?

All possible, we will have to wait and see. There seem to be different competing claims here. It doesn't matter to the thread though as it doesn't have too much bearing on the self defence claim.

Originally Posted by Thermal

It matters a lot. Kyle has no privilege of claiming self defense if he was engaged in a crime. Like vigalanism.

The nearest thing I can find to what you are talking about is this, quoted before:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...tes/939/iii/48

Quote:

Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

Let's entertain the possibility that he was "provoking" the attack. Kyle seeks to withdraw from the fight, so the provocation issue is nullified. Even if it wasn't, his claim is that he believed he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, so we go back in a big circle and get back to whether he reasonably believed the mob was about to attack him.

Originally Posted by Thermal

Et: btw, your link says you cannot use deadly force to protect property.

Indeed, and that isn't the claim. His defence is self defence, not defence of property. He was certainly not defending property while running away from Rosenbaum.

Originally Posted by Thermal

Kind of puts a dent into his scope of intent regarding his illegal wandering around in a riot.

His defence is self defence, not that he shot anybody to protect property. If he'd shot Rosenbaum to stop the dumpster being pushed towards the gas station, this might be relevant, but he didn't.

[Jerrymander]

Delete

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by carlitos

I haven’t looked. Does Wisconsin have a felony murder law?

Yes.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...tutes/940/i/03

Quote:

940.03  Felony murder. Whoever causes the death of another human being while committing or attempting to commit a crime specified in s. 940.19, 940.195, 940.20, 940.201, 940.203, 940.225 (1) or (2) (a), 940.30, 940.31, 943.02, 943.10 (2), 943.23 (1g), or 943.32 (2) may be imprisoned for not more than 15 years in excess of the maximum term of imprisonment provided by law for that crime or attempt.

It only applies to charges of battery, sexual assault, false imprisonment, kidnapping, arson, burglary, vehicle theft, and robbery. So, this wouldn't apply to Rittenhouse. Weirdly, the people he shot seem to have that list mostly covered off between them.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by Jerrymander

That makes no sense whatsoever. The kid was guarding private property from rioters.

... by shooting them.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Not at all. I sympathize with the protesters.

So only non-protesters should listen to the cops and follow their instructions?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Jerrymander

That makes no sense whatsoever. The kid was guarding private property from rioters.

By whose authority?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Brainster

So only non-protesters should listen to the cops and follow their instructions?

Your question is irrelevant because you snipped out the part of Thermal's post that was inconvenient for you.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Realistically, the prosecution has zero chance of getting 12 people to find him guilty of the more serious charges and they'd be better off trying to get him to make a plea deal ...

This is how you get people to make plea deals: You charge them with the most serious violations you can.

Originally Posted by Brainster

... but of course that will never happen, so they'll waste everybody's time.

How do you know a plea deal will never happen? And why would seeking justice be a waste of everybody's time?

Originally Posted by Brainster

All his lawyer has to do is create a sliver of belief in just one juror's mind that Rittenhouse could have been acting in self-defense.

That might be grounds for a mistrial, but it would not mean automatic acquittal. Hung juries are not uncommon. If there's only one holdout, Rittenhouse would be retried ... or offered a plea deal, which he might be in the mood to do if only one person wanted him acquitted. If only one person wanted him convicted, he'd probably also be offered a deal - like "plead guilty to violating curfew and we'll drop the charges." He could probably then say "**** you" and walk away.

Originally Posted by Brainster

That said, there are probably some lesser crimes that the prosecution might be able to get him on--manslaughter, for example. But they don't get two bites at the apple; they have to decide which charges to go for.

Inaccurate. Juries are often given the option of finding for manslaughter if they don't think murder has been proved.

What is a Lesser Included Charge and Should You Ask For One?

Quote:

Lesser included charges arise when the evidence in the case is not what the prosecution expected it to be or when the defense argues a theory that supports the lesser included charge but not the original, higher charge. For example, a defendant might be charged with premeditated murder. At trial, there may be strong evidence that the defendant killed someone but some of the evidence might have suggested that it wasn’t premeditated. At the end of the trial, the jury might be asked to return verdicts on a lower degree of murder or manslaughter in addition to the original charge of premeditated murder.

This is from a Texas lawyer, but it's a common situation. Do you have evidence that the law in Wisconsin is radically different? Whether to ask for lesser included charges is the defense's call. It can work well, or it can backfire. It's a strategic decision.

[Elagabalus]

Originally Posted by Jerrymander

So Kyle was bad for breaking curfew but the rioters weren't?

Yes, I was speeding, Your Honor! But in my defense, so was everybody else!!

[Jerrymander]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

By whose authority?

See post 126.

[Jerrymander]

Originally Posted by Elagabalus

Yes, I was speeding, Your Honor! But in my defense, so was everybody else!!

You haven't been following the conversation.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Jerrymander

See post 126.

Immediately debunked in post 127 and elsewhere.

Jerrymander and shuttIt:

The property owner should be the authority on what he gave permissions about, yes? Kyle Rittenhouse, by comparison, was underage and illegally armed in a riot in his neighboring state. He is known to be engaging in criminal behavior. The property owner is not. So why do you both cast shade on the owners honesty? He was committing no crimes; Rittenhouse was.

Unless the property owner was contracting an out of state teenage mercenary army? Man, that's a whole nuther set of crimes. Oh, and Rittenhouse either transported his coincidentally identical rifle across State lines to engage, or was inexplicably handed one in Wisconsin, which as posted upthread is another collection of felonies for the provider.

Anywhoo, we have The Avengers facing off armed in the street (or trespassing on someone else's property) facing off against the rioters. I take it neither of you sees that as provocation (which negates a claim of self defense)? Based on the video, Rittenhouse turned and fired because he heard a shot behind him. That doesn't justify a .222 through the skull of an unarmed guy chasing you away.

[ServiceSoon]

Originally Posted by carlitos

The homicide one, mostly.

They probably didn't charge him with "obstructing a public way" or hunting outside of deer season, either.

My question was which 'brandishing' law did Kyle break? Your response of homicide as the law he broke is a poor attempt to evade my question. Everybody knows he was charged with homicide. You claimed he was brandishing a firearm. If that is the case, why wasn't he charged with brandishing?

Your mocking response to the lack of a brandishing charge was that it would not make sense to charge Kyle with any law that was less than Felony Murder. The trouble with that claim is he was charged with 'Wreckless Endangerment,' a misdemeanor.

Just give up. You cannot give a satisfactory answer because the reason you used the term brandishing was to attack his character and with unjust prejudice, cause readers to believe that Kyle was a bad dude.

[RedStapler]

Originally Posted by ServiceSoon

My question was which 'brandishing' law did Kyle break? Your response of homicide as the law he broke is a poor attempt to evade my question. Everybody knows he was charged with homicide. You claimed he was brandishing a firearm. If that is the case, why wasn't he charged with brandishing?

Your mocking response to the lack of a brandishing charge was that it would not make sense to charge Kyle with any law that was less than Felony Murder. The trouble with that claim is he was charged with 'Wreckless Endangerment,' a misdemeanor.

Just give up. You cannot give a satisfactory answer because the reason you used the term brandishing was to attack his character and with unjust prejudice, cause readers to believe that Kyle was a bad dude.

Yeah, guys, please don't attack the character of a murdering yokel pos.

[RolandRat]

Originally Posted by ServiceSoon

cause readers to believe that Kyle was a bad dude.

He was a bad dude. He deliberately travelled to another state with the intention of shooting someone.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Immediately debunked in post 127 and elsewhere.

Jerrymander and shuttIt:

The property owner should be the authority on what he gave permissions about, yes? Kyle Rittenhouse, by comparison, was underage and illegally armed in a riot in his neighboring state. He is known to be engaging in criminal behavior. The property owner is not. So why do you both cast shade on the owners honesty? He was committing no crimes; Rittenhouse was.

Unless the property owner was contracting an out of state teenage mercenary army? Man, that's a whole nuther set of crimes.

So if the owner agrees that he did ask the group Rittenhouse was with, he would be guilty of crimes? We then take his word for it that he didn't?

In any case, it doesn't matter since it has no bearing on Rittenhouse's self defence claim.

Originally Posted by Thermal

Oh, and Rittenhouse either transported his coincidentally identical rifle across State lines to engage, or was inexplicably handed one in Wisconsin, which as posted upthread is another collection of felonies for the provider.

I agree it is suspicious. Which felonies would be associated with giving the gun to a 17 year old?

Originally Posted by Thermal

Anywhoo, we have The Avengers facing off armed in the street (or trespassing on someone else's property) facing off against the rioters. I take it neither of you sees that as provocation (which negates a claim of self defense)?

No. I don't think putting out the dumpster, or open carrying in a state that allows open carry counts as provocation. In any case, even if it did, Rittenhouse retreated, so the provocation point is moot.

Originally Posted by Thermal

Based on the video, Rittenhouse turned and fired because he heard a shot behind him.

He shot because he was being pursued by an aggressive arsonist/rioter, and a shot was fired, and the arsonist/rioter attempted to grab the gun. He had reasonable fear for his life/serious injury... self defence.

Originally Posted by Thermal

That doesn't justify a .222 through the skull of an unarmed guy chasing you away.

He didn't know he was unarmed. Where do you get chasing him "away" from. Rosenbaum was chasing him? Also he wasn't shot through the skull.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by RolandRat

He was a bad dude. He deliberately travelled to another state with the intention of shooting someone.

If he did, he was remarkably lucky that three felons decided to give him a self defence justification for shooting them.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by ServiceSoon

Your mocking response to the lack of a brandishing charge was that it would not make sense to charge Kyle with any law that was less than Felony Murder.

Whatever else he may of done, or may have a defence to justify.... I don't see how he is guilty of felony murder.

[ServiceSoon]

Originally Posted by RolandRat

He was a bad dude. He deliberately travelled to another state with the intention of shooting someone.

evidence that he had intentions of shooting someone? i haven't seen it yet.

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by carlitos

"The default is that it's legal" might get you somewhere in libertarian utopia court, but maybe not so far in Wisconsin. And you'll excuse me if I ignore the legal analysis of "ammoland dot com" and continue my belief that a 17-year-old brandishing an AR-15 on a city street may indeed have violated some Wisconsin gun law.

Originally Posted by ServiceSoon

My question was which 'brandishing' law did Kyle break? Your response of homicide as the law he broke is a poor attempt to evade my question. Everybody knows he was charged with homicide. You claimed he was brandishing a firearm. If that is the case, why wasn't he charged with brandishing?



Your mocking response to the lack of a brandishing charge was that it would not make sense to charge Kyle with any law that was less than Felony Murder. The trouble with that claim is he was charged with 'Wreckless Endangerment,' a misdemeanor.



Just give up. You cannot give a satisfactory answer because the reason you used the term brandishing was to attack his character and with unjust prejudice, cause readers to believe that Kyle was a bad dude.

I didn’t say that he committed felony murder. I questioned the wisdom of “ammoland dot com” as experts on whether this guy violated one of the Wisconsin gun laws. The armchair lawyers are using some hunting exemption to say that he was legally holding an AR-15. I doubt that this was true.

If he fired the weapon, then he certainly brandished it. How else could he have fired it? Brandishing a weapon means to show it or point it at someone. He hit some people with bullets.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by carlitos

I didn’t say that he committed felony murder. I questioned the wisdom of “ammoland dot com” as experts on whether this guy violated one of the Wisconsin gun laws. The armchair lawyers are using some hunting exemption to say that he was legally holding an AR-15. I doubt that this was true.

If he fired the weapon, then he certainly brandished it. How else could he have fired it? Brandishing a weapon means to show it or point it at someone. He hit some people with bullets.

Ammoland accurately cites the only laws relevant to this that have been mentioned in the thread. The law that was cited is an exemption for rifles and shotguns. We don't know what certificates or training Rittenhouse may have. I could see that maybe the law means you have to have a hunting certificate to be able to carry a rifle around at 17. I don't see anything there that says you actively have to be hunting to be allowed to carry. Do you read it differently? If so, I'm interested to hear.

If he has a self defence justification for having shot them, I assume he had justification to point a gun at them. If he didn't have justification to shoot them, then pointing the gun at them seems like a quibbling little point.

[Jerrymander]

Originally Posted by RolandRat

He was a bad dude. He deliberately travelled to another state with the intention of shooting someone.

You mean a 20-30 minute drive?

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Ammoland accurately cites the only laws relevant to this that have been mentioned in the thread. The law that was cited is an exemption for rifles and shotguns. We don't know what certificates or training Rittenhouse may have. I could see that maybe the law means you have to have a hunting certificate to be able to carry a rifle around at 17. I don't see anything there that says you actively have to be hunting to be allowed to carry. Do you read it differently? If so, I'm interested to hear.

I don’t to be getting through. I’m not interested in the legal analysis of you or of an ammunition website. I just bought a box of ammunition at Bass Pro Shop and I’m not interested in their opinion either. (Notably you have to show your FOID to get it there) My point remains that a 17-year old in a crowded urban situation with a loaded AR-15 probably broke a gun law or two. If you can find some gun website that disagrees, I do not care.

Originally Posted by shuttlt

If he has a self defence justification for having shot them, I assume he had justification to point a gun at them. If he didn't have justification to shoot them, then pointing the gun at them seems like a quibbling little point.

Sure does.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by carlitos

I don’t to be getting through. I’m not interested in the legal analysis of you or of an ammunition website. I just bought a box of ammunition at Bass Pro Shop and I’m not interested in their opinion either. (Notably you have to show your FOID to get it there) My point remains that a 17-year old in a crowded urban situation with a loaded AR-15 probably broke a gun law or two. If you can find some gun website that disagrees, I do not care.

I am not relying on that website. What gun law did he break by carrying around the loaded AR-15 in an urban situation?

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Jerrymander

You mean a 20-30 minute drive?

Which can turn you into a felon after crossing that line, yes.

We had a woman from Pennsylvania who drove five minutes into New Jersey with a gun in her glove compartment a while back. Legal in Pennsy, but she was locked up for the multiple felonies in Jersey.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Edit: Deleted

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

If he did, he was remarkably lucky that three felons decided to give him a self defence justification for shooting them.

That they were felons is an ad-hom, not relevant to Rittenhouse shooting them at that time. Highly disputable whether they gave a reason for self defense at all, and shooting unarmed men is a disproportional response per statute.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Thermal

That they were felons is an ad-hom, not relevant to Rittenhouse shooting them at that time. Highly disputable whether they gave a reason for self defense at all, and shooting unarmed men is a disproportional response per statute.

It is not "disproportionate response per statute". Nothing in the statute says that you can't shoot somebody who is currently unarmed.