Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Police shooting in Wisconsin,protests erupt

Page 11 of 22 [ 340 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 ... 22  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

30 Aug 2020, 5:40 am

As this discussion gets heated (such discussions often tend to - I recall the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin discussions back in '12) it might be prudent to point out that Kyle Rittenhouse has now been charged and will appear in court where lawyers for both the prosecution and defence will argue their respective cases.

As such, the legal ramifications of the case will be decided on the basis of the evidence presented in court, and not on the comments presented on YouTube.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

30 Aug 2020, 5:52 am

I accept Rosenbaum provoked the shooters as there is a video of him taunting the milita to "Shoot me" prior to his killing.
https://nypost.com/2020/08/28/kenosha-s ... armed-men/

However what transpired seems out of sync. Rosenbaum is clearly unarmed. What happened to all the other militia? why was Rittenhouse the only one who got provoked to shoot? why was he the one who got chased?

Also what sort of parents let their 17 yr old gun made teen cross state lines to take part in a milita.

A lot of unanswered questions.



TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

30 Aug 2020, 7:26 am

1. The defense team will have to prove that despite being unarmed, despite not even touching Rittenhouse, Rosenbaum was a threat of great bodily harm or death, and a reasonable person would have shot him.

2. The defense team will have to prove that despite being unarmed, despite not even touching Rittenhouse, and despite being shot and falling to the ground, Rosenbaum was a threat of great bodily harm or death, and a reasonable person would have shot him THREE MORE TIMES.


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

30 Aug 2020, 7:56 am

TheRobotLives wrote:
1. The defense team will have to prove that despite being unarmed, despite not even touching Rittenhouse, Rosenbaum was a threat of great bodily harm or death, and a reasonable person would have shot him.

2. The defense team will have to prove that despite being unarmed, despite not even touching Rittenhouse, and despite being shot and falling to the ground, Rosenbaum was a threat of great bodily harm or death, and a reasonable person would have shot him THREE MORE TIMES.


Surprisingly, you are 100% incorrect...

The prosecution will need to prove that Kyle did not (or a person in Kyles position would not) believe Mr Rosenbaum was a threat likely to cause great bodily harm or death - "beyond reasonable doubt"

The defence just need to show there is the possibility that he, or another person in the same situation could conceivable see him as being a threat of great bodily harm or death in that situation.

It is always the job of the accuser to have to make (and prove beyond reasonable doubt) the case to support the accusation.



vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

30 Aug 2020, 8:11 am

Brictoria wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
1. The defense team will have to prove that despite being unarmed, despite not even touching Rittenhouse, Rosenbaum was a threat of great bodily harm or death, and a reasonable person would have shot him.

2. The defense team will have to prove that despite being unarmed, despite not even touching Rittenhouse, and despite being shot and falling to the ground, Rosenbaum was a threat of great bodily harm or death, and a reasonable person would have shot him THREE MORE TIMES.


Surprisingly, you are 100% incorrect...

The prosecution will need to prove that Kyle did not (or a person in Kyles position would not) believe Mr Rosenbaum was a threat likely to cause great bodily harm or death - "beyond reasonable doubt"

The defence just need to show there is the possibility that he, or another person in the same situation could conceivable see him as being a threat of great bodily harm or death in that situation.

It is always the job of the accuser to have to make (and prove beyond reasonable doubt) the case to support the accusation.
The defense will make an issue of state of mind and that in the mist of a riot and in a state of fear any reasonable person would have felt endangered.

At the very least they can muddy the waters enough to get maybe manslaughter and a lenient sentence.


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined


TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

30 Aug 2020, 8:18 am

Brictoria wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
1. The defense team will have to prove that despite being unarmed, despite not even touching Rittenhouse, Rosenbaum was a threat of great bodily harm or death, and a reasonable person would have shot him.

2. The defense team will have to prove that despite being unarmed, despite not even touching Rittenhouse, and despite being shot and falling to the ground, Rosenbaum was a threat of great bodily harm or death, and a reasonable person would have shot him THREE MORE TIMES.


Surprisingly, you are 100% incorrect...

The prosecution will need to prove that Kyle did not (or a person in Kyles position would not) believe Mr Rosenbaum was a threat likely to cause great bodily harm or death - "beyond reasonable doubt"

The defence just need to show there is the possibility that he, or another person in the same situation could conceivable see him as being a threat of great bodily harm or death in that situation.

It is always the job of the accuser to have to make (and prove beyond reasonable doubt) the case to support the accusation.

I cited Wisconsin law earlier ...

Wisconsin self-defense law uses a *reasonableness standard*.

" The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself"
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statut ... 939/iii/48

To establish self-defense, the defense team will have to prove that a reasonable person would of taken these actions.


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


Wolfram87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,976
Location: Sweden

30 Aug 2020, 8:25 am

I hope they take this into account:

Warning, Graphic

Show Spoiler
Image


Also, what are the odds that all three of the attackers would be felons; one child molester, one battery and domestic violence and one guns and drug charges?


_________________
I'm bored out of my skull, let's play a different game. Let's pay a visit down below and cast the world in flame.


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

30 Aug 2020, 8:30 am

TheRobotLives wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
1. The defense team will have to prove that despite being unarmed, despite not even touching Rittenhouse, Rosenbaum was a threat of great bodily harm or death, and a reasonable person would have shot him.

2. The defense team will have to prove that despite being unarmed, despite not even touching Rittenhouse, and despite being shot and falling to the ground, Rosenbaum was a threat of great bodily harm or death, and a reasonable person would have shot him THREE MORE TIMES.


Surprisingly, you are 100% incorrect...

The prosecution will need to prove that Kyle did not (or a person in Kyles position would not) believe Mr Rosenbaum was a threat likely to cause great bodily harm or death - "beyond reasonable doubt"

The defence just need to show there is the possibility that he, or another person in the same situation could conceivable see him as being a threat of great bodily harm or death in that situation.

It is always the job of the accuser to have to make (and prove beyond reasonable doubt) the case to support the accusation.

I cited Wisconsin law earlier ...

Wisconsin self-defense law uses a *reasonableness standard*.

" The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself"
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statut ... 939/iii/48

To establish self-defense, the defense team will have to prove that a reasonable person would of taken these actions.


And again, incorrect...

The defence just have to demonstrate the possibility that Kyle, or someone in his position may have a reasonable belief that the use of force was necessary. It is the job of the prosecution to prove this isn't\wasn't the case.

The only side needing to prove anything is the prosecution, as noted earlier...



TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

30 Aug 2020, 8:36 am

Brictoria wrote:
And again, incorrect...

The defence just have to demonstrate the possibility that Kyle, or someone in his position may have a reasonable belief that the use of force was necessary. It is the job of the prosecution to prove this isn't\wasn't the case.

The only side needing to prove anything is the prosecution, as noted earlier...

The prosecution doesn't have to actually prove anything.

The prosecution has such an advantage they can even convict innocent people.

It's the defense that has to work overtime, and pray.


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

30 Aug 2020, 8:40 am

vermontsavant wrote:
"At the very least they can muddy the waters enough to get maybe manslaughter and a lenient sentence.The defense will make an issue of state of mind and that in the mist of a riot and in a state of fear any reasonable person would have felt endangered"

That appears like a poor argument, since ...

1) He intentionally put himself in harms way.
2) He explicitly says on video "he's going to run into danger".
3) If he's so scared, and pooping his pants, why not run to safety?


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


Wolfram87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,976
Location: Sweden

30 Aug 2020, 8:40 am

TheRobotLives wrote:
The prosecution doesn't have to actually prove anything.


So where did "innocent until proven guilty" go?


_________________
I'm bored out of my skull, let's play a different game. Let's pay a visit down below and cast the world in flame.


vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

30 Aug 2020, 8:49 am

TheRobotLives wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
"At the very least they can muddy the waters enough to get maybe manslaughter and a lenient sentence.The defense will make an issue of state of mind and that in the mist of a riot and in a state of fear any reasonable person would have felt endangered"

That appears like a poor argument, since ...

1) He intentionally put himself in harms way.
2) He explicitly says on video "he's going to run into danger".
3) If he's so scared, and pooping his pants, why not run to safety?
I'm just saying what arguments his defense will mount with what is known at this point.Whether it's convincing is up to jury.I have not researched this matter since yesterday morning,maybe new things have come out.I think though that a good lawyer and the likely candidate L.L Wood is a good lawyer can get a good result for Rittenhouse.


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined


TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

30 Aug 2020, 8:57 am

Wolfram87 wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
The prosecution doesn't have to actually prove anything.


So where did "innocent until proven guilty" go?

The prosecution team just has to convince a jury of guilt not actually prove it.

That is how innocent people get convicted, and how they can get convictions for entirely circumstantial cases.

In this case, Mr. Rittenhouse confessed to the killings.

PROVEN. DONE!


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

30 Aug 2020, 9:10 am

TheRobotLives wrote:
Wolfram87 wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
The prosecution doesn't have to actually prove anything.


So where did "innocent until proven guilty" go?

The prosecution team just has to convince a jury of guilt not actually prove it.

That is how innocent people get convicted, and how they can get convictions for entirely circumstantial cases.


Again, 100% incorrect:
The prosecution try to prove their case.
The defence try to show reasons why the evidence\case as described by the prosecution may not be correct\standards for a guilty verdict not met.

The jury decide if, considerning what the defence shows, the prosecution have proven the case to their satisfaction or not. The better the defence lawyer (or information\evidence they can supply), the better the chance for an acquital.



TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

30 Aug 2020, 9:42 am

Brictoria wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
Wolfram87 wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
The prosecution doesn't have to actually prove anything.


So where did "innocent until proven guilty" go?

The prosecution team just has to convince a jury of guilt not actually prove it.

That is how innocent people get convicted, and how they can get convictions for entirely circumstantial cases.


Again, 100% incorrect:
The prosecution try to prove their case.
The defence try to show reasons why the evidence\case as described by the prosecution may not be correct\standards for a guilty verdict not met.

The jury decide if, considerning what the defence shows, the prosecution have proven the case to their satisfaction or not. The better the defence lawyer (or information\evidence they can supply), the better the chance for an acquital.

You don't appear to understand the how the real US legal system works.

1. The prosecution case is proven. Rittenhouse confessed.
2. The defense can make a self-defense claim or not.
3. The defense has to prove their claim per Wisconsin law as I posted earlier.
4. A jury , not law, not facts, not truth, are what makes the final decision.

The last time I was a potential juror, I was on a triple murder case by a drug dealer, the defense team eliminated all selected jurors with college education.

Rittenhouse could be facing a jury that is persuaded more by emotion (not logic, facts).


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 46,020
Location: Houston, Texas

30 Aug 2020, 10:09 am

People like Kyle Rittenhouse are the reason we need a total gun ban.


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!

Now proficient in ChatGPT!