Rittenhouse Acquitted of all charges

[Zaida Gearbox]

Witness: Kenosha victim was belligerent but no threat (apnews.com)

"On Thursday, witnesses testified that a “hyperaggressive” Rosenbaum angrily threatened to kill Rittenhouse that night and that Rosenbaum was gunned down after he chased Rittenhouse and lunged for the young man’s rifle. "

I might have pulled the trigger in that situation too. We can say Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there to start with, but Rosenbaum shouldn't have been there either - and he definitely should have been smart enough to run away from the person with an AR-15 - not lunge for it. But, maybe he didn't think the baby-faced kid would actually fire.

Pathologist: Rittenhouse Shot First Man at Close Range | Chicago News | WTTW

"Those final two shots were at a downward angle, the pathologist said. Prosecutors have said this indicates Rosenbaum was falling forward, while defense attorney Mark Richards said Rosenbaum was lunging."

So, how did he get shot in the back? Was it because he was falling/lunging forward and the shooting downward?

 

[WolfEyes]

Could Kyle Rittenhouse face civil penalties despite acquittals in Kenosha deaths? (nbcnews.com)

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

I bet Shittenhouse is very glad that racism and white privilege in America is still working in his favor.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

What if my husband has been beating me for years before I shoot him in the back of the head? That obviously doesn't apply to Rittenhouse, but I'm just saying it's more complicated than that. I agree there was an argument for murder and it's a damn travesty he didn't at least get a lessor charge, but it's misusing facts to try to say it was an execution in the back of the head.

In a case like that, where there's clear premeditation and also clear provocation over many years by an abusive partner, English courts have, during my lifetime, moved from considering it as murder to regarding it as manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

You would be guilty of homicide of some kind, though, depending on what the jury made of the evidence.

The problem is that, in order to convict, unless the jury is sure that the degree of force used to protect himself in the circumstances as he perceived them at the time was not or reasonable to defend himself, bearing in mind this was a fast moving, highly charged confrontation and there would be no opportunity for a detailed and dispassionate analysis.

If they believed the force used was reasonable, or may have been reasonable, given the situation as he understood it, then they have to acquit.

That's the way it works in the UK and also, if I correctly understand it, in Wisconsin.

For what it is worth, I think the appropriate verdict would have been manslaughter, since I think this foolish young man found he was well out of his depth in a crisis of his own making, and panicked.

Because he'd clearly created the predicament in which he found himself, through his reckless and irresponsible decision to travel, with his rifle, to somewhere he had no legitimate business, though, I don't think he should escape responsibility entirely.

Since he clearly considered the situation in Kenosha so dangerous that he needed to take a rifle, and he had no legitimate business there (there was a curfew in force), it's wrong, to my mind, that he should be exonerated after his foolish, immature and reckless posturing cost two men their lives.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Kyle Rittenhouse Rips Lawyers as They Feud Over His $2M Bail

After Kyle Rittenhouse’s bail was set at $2 million in November 2020, conservative celebrities and others raised the cash to keep him out of jail. Now that money is up for grabs.

www.thedailybeast.com

Now, of course, they're arguing about who should get the $2 million bail money raised by his supporters (which would be unlawful in the UK).

 

[Free]

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

In a case like that, where there's clear premeditation and also clear provocation over many years by an abusive partner, English courts have, during my lifetime, moved from considering it as murder to regarding it as manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

You would be guilty of homicide of some kind, though, depending on what the jury made of the evidence.

The problem is that, in order to convict, unless the jury is sure that the degree of force used to protect himself in the circumstances as he perceived them at the time was not or reasonable to defend himself, bearing in mind this was a fast moving, highly charged confrontation and there would be no opportunity for a detailed and dispassionate analysis.

If they believed the force used was reasonable, or may have been reasonable, given the situation as he understood it, then they have to acquit.

I'm aware of how the law works in this circumstance but the point is that this is a case where I think the law is wrong. The battered person in this case may have had every reason to think their life was in danger if they didn't do something, and they are too scared of their partner to not ambush them as I described. The laws in probably most countries are laser focused on the heat of the moment, and ignore too much of the greater situation. The circumstance I described is why many women in the USA are in prison for murder for killing their abusers. It WAS defensive, but not quite the exact definition of self defense according to the law.

For what it is worth, I think the appropriate verdict would have been manslaughter, since I think this foolish young man found he was well out of his depth in a crisis of his own making, and panicked.

Because he'd clearly created the predicament in which he found himself, through his reckless and irresponsible decision to travel, with his rifle, to somewhere he had no legitimate business, though, I don't think he should escape responsibility entirely.

Since he clearly considered the situation in Kenosha so dangerous that he needed to take a rifle, and he had no legitimate business there (there was a curfew in force), it's wrong, to my mind, that he should be exonerated after his foolish, immature and reckless posturing cost two men their lives.

We totally agree, I was just responding to the earlier claim that Rittenhouse executed his victim. It was more complicated than that.

 

[Aribeth Zelin]

I'm aware of how the law works in this circumstance but the point is that this is a case where I think the law is wrong. The battered person in this case may have had every reason to think their life was in danger if they didn't do something, and they are too scared of their partner to not ambush them as I described. The laws in probably most countries are laser focused on the heat of the moment, and ignore too much of the greater situation. The circumstance I described is why many women in the USA are in prison for murder for killing their abusers. It WAS defensive, but not quite the exact definition of self defense according to the law.



We totally agree, I was just responding to the earlier claim that Rittenhouse executed his victim. It was more complicated than that.

Oh FFS - you are comparing apples and sardines here. It was not at all complicated. Rittenhouse, with a gun he didn't have the legal right to carry, was driven across state lines by his mom [who deserves to be charged too]. He went with the intent of shooting anyone. Legally, I don't think he could claim self defense because he was involved in breaking the law, but also, there is no self defense - he wanted to hunt humans.

Someone who has been abused for years and deciding to defend themselves proactively? Not even CLOSE to the same case at all. Though I never shot anyone either.

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

Oh FFS - you are comparing apples and sardines here. It was not at all complicated. Rittenhouse, with a gun he didn't have the legal right to carry, was driven across state lines by his mom [who deserves to be charged too]. He went with the intent of shooting anyone. Legally, I don't think he could claim self defense because he was involved in breaking the law, but also, there is no self defense - he wanted to hunt humans.

Someone who has been abused for years and deciding to defend themselves proactively? Not even CLOSE to the same case at all. Though I never shot anyone either.

You're twisting my words around. I was intentionally giving an extreme example to refute the idea that shooting someone in the back is always direct murder. I specifically and carefully said that did NOT apply to Rittenhouse. The post you quoted needs to be put in context of prior posts.

From a prior post:

What if my husband has been beating me for years before I shoot him in the back of the head? That obviously doesn't apply to Rittenhouse, but I'm just saying it's more complicated than that.

...also, you are over simplifying the Rittenhouse case a lot. There are witnesses and video that reinforces the fact that they were belligerent with him and chased him. I still absolutely blame Rittenhouse for his role in escalating the situation but it is a tremendous oversimplification that he just executed people.

Rittenhouse, with a gun he didn't have the legal right to carry, was driven across state lines by his mom [who deserves to be charged too]

I already posted a fact checking link about this one. He drove himself or at least testified that he did. I don't necessarily take his word on it, but there is no evidence his mom drove him. Also no evidence he took a weapon across state lines.

 

[WolfEyes]

Where did I ever say that he "just executed people"?

I never said that. Never implied it either.

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

I never said that. Never implied it either.

I never said or implied that you said that. Romana said that it was an execution. Why did you even assume I was talking about you?

 

[WolfEyes]

I never said or implied that you said that. Romana said that it was an execution. Why did you even assume I was talking about you?

Because I am the one who has been saying shooting someone in the back is cowardly and shooting someone in the back of the head is executing them. And without going back and looking I'm pretty sure I said it before Romana did.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

I'm aware of how the law works in this circumstance but the point is that this is a case where I think the law is wrong. The battered person in this case may have had every reason to think their life was in danger if they didn't do something, and they are too scared of their partner to not ambush them as I described. The laws in probably most countries are laser focused on the heat of the moment, and ignore too much of the greater situation. The circumstance I described is why many women in the USA are in prison for murder for killing their abusers. It WAS defensive, but not quite the exact definition of self defense according to the law.

I don't what the law is on loss of control (as the partial defense against a murder charge is now known in England and Wales) in the US, but I do know that it's pretty complex over here. If anyone's interested, here's a summary

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-and-manslaughter

So obviously I don't know what the situation is in the US (presumably it varies from state to state) but I agree that the law on murder is generally biased against women in most countries

Women who kill in response to domestic violence: How do criminal justice systems respond? - Penal Reform International

Study produced by Linklaters LLP for PRI examining how women who have killed their abusers following prolonged domestic abuse are treated in law and before the courts, covering nine jurisdictions.

www.penalreform.org

However, the two defenses are separate, and I think it's important not to confuse them.

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

Because I am the one who has been saying shooting someone in the back is cowardly and shooting someone in the back of the head is executing them. And without going back and looking I'm pretty sure I said it before Romana did.

I admit I'm also getting twisted around responding to several different people. I think I feel the need to circle back to what we're even talking about: I think we all agree Kyle Rittenhouse is an idiot who had no business being there and probably should have gotten AT LEAST manslaughter and possibly a few other charges. That said, I do see some misinformation on this thread about fine details.

 

[WolfEyes]

I admit I'm also getting twisted around responding to several different people. I think I feel the need to circle back to what we're even talking about: I think we all agree Kyle Rittenhouse is an idiot who had no business being there and probably should have gotten AT LEAST manslaughter and possibly a few other charges. That said, I do see some misinformation on this thread about fine details.

Thank you. I had a feeling that was the case. I've been in that position here before many times. It's not a pleasant feeling and makes one wonder if one is really welcome here. I am sorry if I made you feel that way. It was not intended.

Regardless of whether or not his mother drove him or he drove himself, he took an AR-15 with him on that trip or had one waiting for him when he got there, he went with the intention of causing bodily harm. Full stop. Those fine details you are nitpicking over do not change that one simple fact. He went to Kenosha with the intent to cause harm and/or death. There is no other way to put it even though he claims he went to protect. His method of protection was bodily harm and death. That is not protection, that is vigilantism.

Vigilantism, again in the news, is an American tradition

For many Americans, law and order has long been as much a private matter as something for the government to handle.

theconversation.com

ETA: Every time someone "takes the law into their own hands" (vigilantism) they are breaking the law. There is a very thin line between serving the public, and breaking the law. Regardless of the intention, vigilantism is illegal.

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

Thank you. I had a feeling that was the case. I've been in that position here before many times. It's not a pleasant feeling and makes one wonder if one is really welcome here. I am sorry if I made you feel that way. It was not intended.

Regardless of whether or not his mother drove him or he drove himself, he took an AR-15 with him on that trip or had one waiting for him when he got there, he went with the intention of causing bodily harm. Full stop. Those fine details you are nitpicking over do not change that one simple fact. He went to Kenosha with the intent to cause harm and/or death. There is no other way to put it even though he claims he went to protect. His method of protection was bodily harm and death. That is not protection, that is vigilantism.

Vigilantism, again in the news, is an American tradition

For many Americans, law and order has long been as much a private matter as something for the government to handle.

theconversation.com

Thank you, and I think we are in agreement, BUT I have to point out one thing... Charges have to be based on what can be proven in court, and not just what is very, very, VERY likely the case. It's very hard to prove in court he went there with the intent to shoot someone to feel like a bad ass hero. I fully agree he probably was chasing fantasies about being the Punisher or some other such "hero" and I'll always despise him for it... it's just inherently a hard thing for prosecutors to try to prove.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

he went with the intention of causing bodily harm. Full stop.

As I understand it, his case (which the jury accepted) was that he took the rifle with him not in order to cause unlawful bodily harm but in order to deter attackers and looters, and in order to protect himself and others, and that he used it only in lawful self-defence.

How do you persuade the jury to that they are sure that his motivations were not, or may not have been, as he says they were? Remember the burden of proof is on the prosecution, so the accused gets, or should get, the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Caete]

He shot the first victim in the back of the head. That's execution, which is to say, murder. What it is not is self -defense.

In the back is different than in the back of the head.

Rosenbaum suffered multiple gunshot wounds, Kelley said, including to his groin, hand, thigh and back. Kelley testified the gunshot wound to Rosenbaum's back was the lethal injury, with the bullet hitting his lungs and liver.... Kelley also confirmed Rosenbaum was falling forward, not walking away, when he was shot in the back by Rittenhouse

So either there's some sloppy newsreporting going on, falsehoods being spread as gospel, or who knows what. Yes pics of the wounds are said to include a head wound but for the 'fatal wound' to be the one in the back seems to tell me his head was intact.

Medical examiner gives graphic testimony on injuries that killed Rittenhouse shooting victims

 

[WolfEyes]

Thank you, and I think we are in agreement, BUT I have to point out one thing... Charges have to be based on what can be proven in court, and not just what is very, very, VERY likely the case. It's very hard to prove in court he went there with the intent to shoot someone to feel like a bad ass hero. I fully agree he probably was chasing fantasies about being the Punisher or some other such "hero" and I'll always despise him for it... it's just inherently a hard thing for prosecutors to try to prove.

Where are you getting this "bad ass hero" thing? I never said that is what he wanted to be.

Intent has always been difficult to prove when the perp denies it but Rittenhouse hasn't denied it. He has admitted he went there "to serve and protect". The very same phrase that you used to see on all the local, county and state cop cars. He admitted to the very definition of vigilantism.



Meaning of vigilantism in English




vigilantism
noun [ U ]

US

/ˌvɪdʒ.ɪˈlæn.t̬ɪ.zəm/ UK

/ˌvɪdʒ.ɪˈlæn.tɪ.zəm/

the practice of ordinary people in a place taking unofficial action to prevent crime or to catch and punish people believed to be criminals

 

[GoblinCampFollower]

Where are you getting this "bad ass hero" thing? I never said that is what he wanted to be.

I'm saying that's what I think he was trying to be... those are my words. I'll also say most vigilantes probably see themselves as heroes or at least aspire to be. ...when they should have stayed home and minded their own business.