Rittenhouse trial

[rmgill]

So the Rittenhouse case is not going well for the prosecution. Last week's testimony was awful. This weeks is worse. Grosskreutz, the man shot in the arm, testified that he was shot only AFTER he presented/pointed his own handgun AT Rittenhouse. 


Here's highlights. 

 

[rmgill]

 

[BansheeOne]

As I said back when this happened - Rittenhaus, Rosenbaum, Huber, Großkreuz, sounds like the typical Bavarian fairground fight. 

[DougRichards]

This trial will be Timeless.

[jmsaari]

Looking at the videos the self-defence argument would seem to be pretty solid to a not-of-Sam layman viewed in isolation at least. Not sure what the local laws are though, can the fact that he was underage and not supposed to be armed in the first place turn into smth that he broke the gun laws, starting the whole chain of events, therefore guilty of of everything tha followed?

[DougRichards]

"So the Rittenhouse case is not going well for the prosecution. Last week's testimony was awful. This weeks is worse. Grosskreutz, the man shot in the arm, testified that he was shot only AFTER he presented/pointed his own handgun AT Rittenhouse. "

 

So the guy who was shot in the arm acted in self defence against someone he suspected was going to shoot him.....

[Mikel2]

https://babylonbee.com/news/prosecutors-move-for-mistrial-as-jury-has-been-tainted-by-clear-video-evidence-of-kyle-rittenhouse-defending-himself

[BansheeOne]

With case law, you never quite know. Over here it would have been a rather clear case of self defense, irrespective of the legality for a 17-year-old to walk around with an AR. Sure he would be punished for the offense of that, and it would be considered "defensive provocation", but not negate the legality of self-defense once attacked.

The most dubious part might be shooting the first guy, but it happened while running away, under the impression of hearing a shot already fired and seeing the guy lunging for the rifle; at worst it would probably be judged non-punishable putative self-defense or intensive self-defense excess. Being hit in the back with a skateboard and brought down while running away towards police and subsequently having a pistol pointed at you would both qualify as legitimate cause for armed self-defense. OTOH, for the pursuers, the fact that he was running towards police would negate justification to intervene. 

[DKTanker]

1 hour ago, jmsaari said:

Looking at the videos the self-defence argument would seem to be pretty solid to a not-of-Sam layman viewed in isolation at least. Not sure what the local laws are though, can the fact that he was underage and not supposed to be armed in the first place turn into smth that he broke the gun laws, starting the whole chain of events, therefore guilty of of everything tha followed?

They charged him for carrying a weapon under age, the problem is Wisconsin law makes an exception for 16 and 17 year olds.  Defense brought this up pre-trial and the judge said let the jury decide.  Another issue is from where did the weapon originate.  A lot of noise was made about Rittenhouse having brought the weapon across state lines which might be a crime.  That was quickly shot down early in the trial when the prosecution's witness, a Wisconsin resident, admitted to having given Rittenhouse the weapon.
Depending on the "crime" committed, committing one crime doesn't necessarily mean everything else is criminal.  Were that the case then the shooting of Grosskreutz should never have been a question.  Grosskreutz is a felon and forfeited his right to have a firearm, he was breaking the law during the entire evening while he was there because he was carrying a firearm.

[DKTanker]

1 hour ago, DougRichards said:

"So the Rittenhouse case is not going well for the prosecution. Last week's testimony was awful. This weeks is worse. Grosskreutz, the man shot in the arm, testified that he was shot only AFTER he presented/pointed his own handgun AT Rittenhouse. "

 

So the guy who was shot in the arm acted in self defence against someone he suspected was going to shoot him.....

Huh?  You don't get to chase somebody down and then claim self-defense.  

[Ssnake]

Seems like the prosecution thinks otherwise, in this case.

If they are thinking. I guess the verdict is still out on that.

[BansheeOne]

I suppose the prosecution is based upon the idea that the pursuers were attempting a citizen arrest of a fleeing suspect, or similar. It wouldn't fly here, but again, with case law and jury trials, you never know. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, DougRichards said:

"So the Rittenhouse case is not going well for the prosecution. Last week's testimony was awful. This weeks is worse. Grosskreutz, the man shot in the arm, testified that he was shot only AFTER he presented/pointed his own handgun AT Rittenhouse. "

 

So the guy who was shot in the arm acted in self defence against someone he suspected was going to shoot him.....

It seems to be  a case of someone claiming the right to bear arms in self defence, against someone claiming the right to bear arms in self defence, with one lacking the correct paperwork to carry, and the other too young to carry a gun anyway.

 

 

[MiloMorai]

30 minutes ago, DKTanker said:

Huh?  You don't get to chase somebody down and then claim self-defense.  

Yet that is what is being claimed in Georgia. (Ahmaud Arbery murder trial)

[rmgill]

If you see a mob attacking someone on the ground, trying to kick him in the head, yelling get him, that you chased down the street with a gun, and you ran up to him and he didn't shoot you until you pointed your own gun at him, what would that look like?  And you are both running towards the police...and you asserted that you thought the person in question was with the police.

What again would that look like? 
 

Add that you failed to tell the police that you were armed in that encounter and instead lied that you had dropped your firearm.

 

It looks to me that Grosskreutz admitted to several felonies. 

[rmgill]

3 hours ago, jmsaari said:

Looking at the videos the self-defence argument would seem to be pretty solid to a not-of-Sam layman viewed in isolation at least. Not sure what the local laws are though, can the fact that he was underage and not supposed to be armed in the first place turn into smth that he broke the gun laws, starting the whole chain of events, therefore guilty of of everything tha followed?

The statue on not being allowed to carry a firearm in this case by Rittenhouse is being misread. 

[rmgill]

46 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

Yet that is what is being claimed in Georgia. (Ahmaud Arbery murder trial)

Yes and its a bad shoot because you don't  have the legal authority to arrest someone for any crime. It must have, at the time of the incident, have been a felony committed in your presence. This was the Ga law. Whats the law in Wisconsin
 

Also, as far as I viewed, I didn't see Grosskreutz assert that he was attempting to arrest Rittenhouse under some citizens arrest powers. Perhaps you know otherwise from testimony? 
 

Also, is it customary in Canada to arrest people by bashing them in the head with a skate board after you were participating in rioting? 

 

 

Edited November 9, 2021 by rmgill

[rmgill]

4 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

As I said back when this happened - Rittenhaus, Rosenbaum, Huber, Großkreuz, sounds like the typical Bavarian fairground fight. 

Parts of the US have ethnic history. Go 100 miles north and it'll sound like a bunch of names from an episode of Wallander. 

Edited November 9, 2021 by rmgill

[rmgill]

54 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

It seems to be  a case of someone claiming the right to bear arms in self defence, against someone claiming the right to bear arms in self defence, with one lacking the correct paperwork to carry, and the other too young to carry a gun anyway.

 

 

Laws on carrying rifles and pistols are often different. Also, its generally lawful to carry a rifle openly, varies by state. Sometimes a handgun. Carrying a handgun concealed often requires special licensing.  
 

And, its very hard to assert self defense when you are chasing someone being attacked by a mob while carrying your own handgun. 
 

And its not the bearing arms in self defense that is at specific issue. Its justifiable or not shootings aka lawful or not use of deadly force. 
 

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

32 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Laws on carrying rifles and pistols are often different. Also, its generally lawful to carry a rifle openly, varies by state. Sometimes a handgun. Carrying a handgun concealed often requires special licensing.  
 

And, its very hard to assert self defense when you are chasing someone being attacked by a mob while carrying your own handgun. 
 

And its not the bearing arms in self defense that is at specific issue. Its justifiable or not shootings aka lawful or not use of deadly force. 
 

 

I take your distinction about bearing arms and stand corrected, but the fact remains, neither had the right to carry them in public that night.

From what I understand from the testimony, the 'victim' whom was shot in the arm, was running WITH the shooter for a while. This is a somewhat different situation from someone whom was brandishing a gun, deliberately chasing someone to shoot him. He only pulled the gun when he figured out Rittenhouse had shot two people and may be thinking about shooting him too. Which ultimately he was right about.

Do I think Rittenhouse probably should be acquitted? Yes. But I still think he should be prosecuted for carrying a weapon he had no right to carry in public, just as much as the guy he shot in the arm whom testified against him, whom also had no right to carry a weapon in public. I dont see there is enough evidence at this point to prosecute Rittenhouse on the other 2 shootings.

Like I always said, play stupid games, win stupid prizes. There was nobody thinking that night on either side.

[Burncycle360]

He arguably shouldn't have been there, but on the other hand he shouldn't have had to have been there if law enforcement were doing their jobs, and if protesters are going to be allowed to remain after becoming rioters, then I'll absolutely give his decision to be present deference. As far as the interpretation of the exceptions to carrying a rifle in that state at 17, that's a bit shaky IMO and I wouldn't expect a pass on it, but if there does turn out to be any vagueness in the letter of the law, it should benefit the defendant on principle and the law should promptly be reworded as to clarify afterwards.  Even if there does not though, its a misdemeanor charge in that state, not a felony,  and given the principle of competing harms and the fact that he did end up needing it to save his life I think the totality of the circumstances should play in his favor regardless. If they determine the defenses interpretation is insufficiency compelling, he'll just have to eat that charge.

I'm not a lawyer but IMO It was clear self defense throughout, one of the few times it's caught on so many cameras from so many angles, and from what I was able to see the requirements for judicial use of deadly force were met each time he pulled the trigger. What's most fascinating to me as an instructor is how well he handled a series of once in a lifetime events in such quick succession given his age, relative inexperience, and the chaos around him; he shot everyone that needed shooting and refrained from shooting anyone who didn't even as that dynamically changed over the course of fractions of a second. It could have easily been much, much worse for everyone involved.

Edited November 9, 2021 by Burncycle360

[BansheeOne]

In this standoff of armed wannabe combat medics, he may have been the less proficient medic, but clearly exhibited superior handling of combat. 

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I take your distinction about bearing arms and stand corrected, but the fact remains, neither had the right to carry them in public that night.

I'm not sure that you're correct in the case of Rittenhouse. 

In the case of Grosskreutz, he was actually breaking the law by carrying. More so, I think he was breaking the law by owning. I suspect his conviction makes him a prohibited person federally. 

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

From what I understand from the testimony, the 'victim' whom was shot in the arm, was running WITH the shooter for a while.

No. From his own testimony he claimed to be running in the same direction and not chasing him. This is despite evidence that he drew his firearm and began to run towards Rittenhouse. He would not characterize his behavior as chasing. But from everything I saw that seems to be him lying on the stand. 

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

This is a somewhat different situation from someone whom was brandishing a gun, deliberately chasing someone to shoot him. He only pulled the gun when he figured out Rittenhouse had shot two people and may be thinking about shooting him too. Which ultimately he was right about.

Wrong. He drew the weapon and was carrying it in his hand before that occurred. You can SEE him in footage pulling his hand gun before Huber was shot. He did not see Rittenhouse shoot Rosenbaum. 

You've not watched much of the case have you? Or are you just getting the pre-digested material the media is giving you? 

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Do I think Rittenhouse probably should be acquitted? Yes. But I still think he should be prosecuted for carrying a weapon he had no right to carry in public,

You need to substantiate this.

You're taking your info from folks who heard the 1st part of the peson who read the first part of 948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

The hint is that folks aren't reading down to 3 (c) of that statute and then following to see what the other conditionals are. 

The law simply does not prohibit a 17 yo from possessing a rifle. It's not that simple. I've seen a legal discussion of this statute by several lawyers who I KNOW have won gun cases, one has represented me in a case against the county (Civil suit) and I will take their reading as what makes sense. The best that can be said is that the statute is poorly written. At worse, you can ague that the DA in the case can't read. Given that he keeps calling witnesses that torpedo his case, I can't be sure if he's incompetent OR if he's sabotaging his own case to make the appearance of trying for political reasons. 

But the fact that he deliberately ordered the police to not serve a search warrant for Grosskreutz's phone, arrest him for carrying the weapon illegally, arrest him for lying to the police about having the firearm on the night he was shot OR currying the police to obtain key evidence in the a homicide case (the skate board) where the person thought to have it was even in court, one has to wonder at their professionalism. 
 

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Like I always said, play stupid games, win stupid prizes. There was nobody thinking that night on either side.

I would argue that Rittenhouse was. He shot the people attacking him. He didn't shoot random people. He wasn't shooting anyone with a weapon. He only shot those who were directly and arguably manifesting a threat to life and limb to him. 

Even Grosskreutz admitted ONTHE STAND that Rittenhouse only shot him after he pointed his own firearm at Rittenhouse. And that was after seeing Rittenhouse attacked by several other folks.  

Edited November 9, 2021 by rmgill

[rmgill]

Mind you there's the added fact that Rittenhouse attempted to turn himself into the police SEVERAL times. In one bit of testimony he approached a police car with his hands up, rifle slung, and the cop told him to stay away and pepper sprayed Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse, deflated left. When he was informed the police were looking for him, It's my understanding that he turned himself in. 

Rittenhouse was running TO the police when the mob caught up with him and tried to, arguably, do him serious harm, if not kill him. 

Grosskreutz, on the other hand, lied about having the firearm in the first place. It's a hard thing to assert self defense with a firearm when you omit to the police that you had it at all. 

Edited November 9, 2021 by rmgill

[rmgill]

It probably should be observed that the armed combat medic, Rittenhouse, had not been armed, the convicted pederast who was making threats probably would have severely beaten or killed the 17yo. He took a particular dislike for Kyle it would seem when Kyle put a fire out in a dumpster with an extinguisher. The prosecution's own witness testified that Rosenbaum made terroristic threats to several of them earlier in the night. If I catch you alone, I'll kill you. Rosenbaum seemed to be making good on that threat. 

Edited November 9, 2021 by rmgill