Verdict returned in Rittenhouse trial

Post Reply New Topic

I am also familiar with double enrendres but I am feeling charitable and will give you the benefit of doubt.

Ok here's a question for the legal eagles.

Under US common law there is a principle of the Castle doctrine. it stems of Anglo-Saxon law that a man's home is his castle and he has the right to defend it.

The “castle doctrine” permits the use of lethal force in self-defense without imposing a duty to retreat in the home. Over time, states began to expand the non-retreat rule to spaces outside of the home.

In the case of 17 year old Trayvon Martin he was walking home after buying Skittles from a nearby convenience store. At the time, Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer who called police after spotting Martin. Despite being told by the 911 operator to remain in his car until officers arrived, Zimmerman instead confronted Martin.

In the Zimmerman case, for example, under traditional self-defense law, the combination of first-aggressor limitation and duty to retreat would not have allowed Zimmerman to follow Martin (who was trying to get home) around and kill him without being liable for murder.

Under common law When the defendant (Zimmerman) provoked this incident, he lost the right to self-defense. Under common law "You cannot claim self-defense against a danger you create.”


Now when you look at the Rittenhouse trial he crossed state lines and entered a place of protest armed with an AR-15. His action in carrying a loaded weapon at a protest. Under common law Rittenhouse (like Zimmerman) is not justified in using deadly force if he had an opportunity to retreat to safety unless they are in their home or workplace. Since Rittenhouse crossed state lines with a loaded weapon he contravened this law and was never justified to use deadly force.

My question is how the judge and jury in both cases ignored existing castle law and allowed "Stand your ground": rules to apply in a context where both Zimmerman and Rittenhouse went out of their way to put their victims in harm after i.) they travelled to a place where they knew they were not supposed to be in the place of the incident ii) using a loaded weapon and iii) created the situation where lethal force was used.

Conservative Americans are sticklers for constitution and the rule of law. Yet in these instances they purposefully prop up self-defense to circumvent existing law in order to (evidently) allow vigilanteism against their natural enemy.

As far as crossing state lines go, I thought that in the states, you can just walk from state to state or drive from state to state, without needing any prior authorization from the government. Also the weapon he took in was legal to Wisconsin law, so there isn't anything the judge could have done about that legally, as far as I know.

Of course, you can go from state to state without "authorization."

During COVID, though, back in 2020, you had to quarantine for 14 days in most states if you were coming from another state. Same thing with Canadian provinces, probably.

You can't bring a gun from one state to another if the "other" state has stricter gun laws. You can't bring a gun into New York from Texas, for example.

Also: it's a federal crime to "cross state lines" in order to commit a crime in another state. There's something called the Mann Act----wherein it's a serious federal felony, say, to bring a prostitute across state lines in order to "conduct business." Chuck Berry, the rock-n-roll pioneer, was jailed for that in the late 50s-early 60s.

Rittenhouse only travelled from very northern Illinois to very southern Wisconsin. I doubt he even went 50 miles north. Still, in Wisconsin, he was under the jurisdiction of Wisconsin. And subject to federal laws pertaining to guns, too.

But in court they said the rifle was legal to posess in Wisconsin though. So why do people keep making up a fake gun law that doesn't exist, when the court ruled there is no law on this particular weapon being illegal?

In the vast majority of cases, people younger than 18 are not allowed to possess guns that are not shotguns or rifles within the State of Wisconsin. As far as I'm concerned, the judge searched mighty hard for a loophole, and he found it.

Is that bad if there is a loophole in the law though? If there is a loophole in the law, then there is a loophole, and that's the law that the people wanted to a degree if they voted and passed such law?

I don't really mind it that Rittenhouse was acquitted.

What I do like is the potential for him to be used by Trump as some sort of symbol.

I don't like the path that Trump was following while he was President. He was taking the United States on a bad road, indeed.

I was not really "political" until Trump came on the scene.

I always said that the "kids" were playing war games. Tragically, two people ended up dead, and one seriously injured.

I have excellent reasons for not wanting Trump to lead our nation. It has very little to do with the fact that he's a Republican.

I'm almost as irritated with the Wokeism which has become endemic here. I feel like this has the potential to be very harmful as well.

Yeah....if I'm biased, so be it!! !!