Verdict returned in Rittenhouse trial

Post Reply New Topic

Strangely enough... You are again mistaken.

"Self defence" is an "affirmative defence":

Source: https://legaldictionary.net/affirmative-defense/

There would be nothing to prevent a person in the situation you described from claiming "self defence" in Australia. The act of claiming "self defence" requires the prosecution to show that the actions were not "self defence", but also entails admitting to the actions which are being claimed to have been made in "self defence", meaning if the claim of "self defence" is a poor\invalid one, then by having claimed an action was "self defence" you had admitted taking the specific action and so would be found guilty (you can't (in general) claim "self defence" as well as "the gun fired on its own\misfired\etc.", for example) - It's not some magic "get out of jail free" card, and its use comes with significant risks for the person electing to do so (it is not "automatic" anywhere in the world, for this reason).

The main reason it would be unlikely to be used in Victoria is not that it is not an applicable defence, but rather related to fireamr laws and licencing - To shoot an intruder would require the person doingso to take the time to remove the weapon from their firearm safe (where they must be stored), and loading it, before being in a position to use it (and, being a rifle/shotgun (handguns are considerably rarer due to the licencing restrictions), it wouldn't be the best choice in a residential premesis) - getting a knfe\hammer\other implement would be much easier, and potentially more effective.



Not really - even the original criminal complaint, filed within a few days of the events, was written in such a way that showed those who prepared it believed self defence was the cause of the actions Mr Rittenhouse took.

The reason for the arrest and initial charges was predominantly to defuse what was already a volatile situation, where not having done so ran the risk of the situation in that town deteriorating further. Why the prosecutor decided to continue with the charges for so long, rather than dropping them (The prosecutor's job is not to secure convictions, after all) was based on the political ambitions of the prosecutor, not the merits of their case.

Well, yes. Why would this situation be different? They killed people in response to something that didn't warrant death, and were ok with it. Is this situation supposed to be different somehow? It sounds like a repeat of Ethan Crumbley. Kid had a gun they weren't supposed to, shot/killed people over "bullying", made to feel like it was ok. It reads like every other kid-shoots-bullies-over-bullying story. Why would it be special?

Really?
He broke a curfew at the age of 17
He was in possession of a loaded weapon
He killed two people and injured a third.
There were witness reports he provoked the incident

Sufficient grounds to go to trial to at the very least investigate the accusations

Well, if there's things found in the investigation that can point to a guilty state of mind when it comes to the homicides themselves (some form of intent), then that itself would need to be taken into account, yes. Considering he was charged with 1st murders, they must have had evidence that he intended to go out and kill those he killed or he killed the specific people he did out of personal reasons (whether with some form of prior knowledge or what he gained at the time of the incidents). If they didn't have that evidence, then all I see is gross law enforcement misconduct with those charges (overcharging is an issue with law enforcement and they don't get punished for it either; they'll also put people that didn't actually do the more serious offense or any at all away because the defendant makes a simple mistake or they don't have a good defense and the jury sends them away). The jury figured no, so I'm going to say they didn't have any, or what they had was flimsy and relied on leaps. From where I'm sitting, the most I can throw is a manslaughter charge at the shirtless/1st incident for excessive force, and a jury may have even gone with that one with a really good prosecutor and terrible defense. Unless tangible evidence shows intent, I'm gonna go negative on that one. Maybe I'll watch the court case, as that'll be some good distraction.

For self-defense, the one claiming it is at a disadvantage when it's happening and will be the one that likely ends up dying, so it never even sees the questioning/talk to my lawyer stage (that's the nature of bad dudes doing bad things to innocents). I saw a lot of talking heads saying his intent was to enter the situations to force fights or was looking for it, but it's functionally suicide. If green shirt got kicked in the head a little harder, hit with the skateboard a little better, or handgun guy didn't flinch, green shirt guy would have lost at any of those 3, as they all struck first or had the chance to. He got lucky 3 from 3. Maybe 4 from 4, as it does appear someone is shooting at him from the right as he's walking away in the bgonthescene video (8 handgun rounds; 2, 3 then 3; same shooter. Handguns are hard to shoot at night at over 20 yards if people don't train with them much, hell, even day, hence it's easy to see why the guy would have missed). I'm pretty sure shirtless guy just wanted to die going by his behavior though.

To be fair with eyewitness testimony, it's fairly poor, as you almost never remember things as they happened; you tend to get an overall picture of what happened (this is important for corroboration with multiple witnesses), but details tend to be unreliable. It's why video evidence is the best; it doesn't lie, but it can't tell the entire story either in all instances.

This is a fair point, eyewitness testimony is notoriously inaccurate, especially as more time has elapsed since Aug 2020.

There remain gaps in the events leading up to the incident but it's probably irrelevant now given the verdict has been delivered.

You've repeated this a few times as if it is a certainty, and I strongly disagree with that. I think a trial is almost always appropriate for a self-defense case. Self-defense is rarely obvious, and in this case, it was certainly not obvious to most of the American public. A trial was necessary to clarify the facts and reach a conclusion. Self-defense is primarily reliant on the mental state of the shooter, and no amount of video can ever determine that.

I believe I've provided a solid and rational reason for holding a trial that is completely different than the purely political one you keep presenting as the sole option. What you present is your opinion, not "the" reasoning. My opinion is different and, I will argue, equally valid. I find the way you continue to write as if your opinion is the only potentially valid one when I've argued my same point before feels, to be honest, intentionally dismissive. All you need to add is either "I believe" or "it can be argued" and we're good to go.

I believe a lot of very important facts came out during the trial that most of the American public would never have been aware of without a trial. It actually served Rittenhouse's best interests for all that information to be presented in a court of law rather than by questionable media pundits. We now have a transcript and trail of evidence to share with people who don't understand the verdict. The trial was the only way to get that.

Also, under our adversarial system of justice, I would argue that, in the US, it IS a prosecutors job to secure convictions.

Were these facts new (only first becoming publicly known during the trial), or old details, long publicly available but unknown to large portions of society because the media they choose to rely upon was derelict in it's duty of informing the public? If the later, it wasn't the trial that was needed, but rather the media which needs to stop politicising events and misinforming the public\withholding information from them...

I've made my statements throughout this based upon information that was available at\around the time of the events (coupled with researching the relevent laws), and have constantly reviewed my understanding of the events as further relevent details came to light - Nothing in the trial challenged this understanding, with the only "new" information being either irrelevent, or suportive of Mr Rittenhouse's case.

As an aside, here are a couple of murder cases in recent times that were dropped as a result of the accussed claiming "self defence", to show that just because a person kills another, there is no automatic "right" for the case to go to trial:
https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/murder-charge-dismissed-after-man-claims-self-defense-2273717/
https://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/prosecutors-drop-murder-charge-against-man-who-claimed-self-defense/article_24f8b4d6-95ac-5dc1-8f1e-8b350a714b48.html
https://dentonrc.com/news/murder-charge-against-teenager-dropped-grand-jury-rules-self-defense/article_7bf5e1f7-7cc5-5177-a089-2c30791a3ef4.html



Not really - Under that approach you would be motivating prosecutors to chase every case, and incentivise them to act in unethical ways, to ensure such convictions were secured wherever possible: Consider what section(s) of society would be hardest hit if prosecutors were motivated\incentivised\required to seek as many convictions as possible...


Source: https://lawaspect.com/the-roles-of-the-prosecutor/

^^^ Agree to disagree. Just do me the favor of acknowledging that your assessment of why it went to trial is your opinion. Your statements on motive cannot be proven. Kind of that simple to me.

This is how you come across to me.

Apparently some here think they have magical powers to predict the future as if they live in Hogwarts and MAGA crystal balls usurp the need for legal process which (ironically) they were championing when the prosecution case fell apart until the verdict came out then they turned around and claimed the whole thing wasn't necessary because they were so smart and knew the outcome in advance

The height of ignorant arrogance.

Remember: Justice is [meant to be] Blind and isn't attached to mob mentality. Whatever the wider public wants or is ignorant of, isn't meant to affect anything when it comes to the judicial system. Common and statute law affects that. This is to protect the individual/s from the mob, otherwise you end up with mob justice; even the best intended mob justice is still mob justice. It's also to protect them from the state too, but sadly, the executive tends to walk all over justice as no one holds them accountable because they hold the monopoly on power in the end. Not to say the judicial system is infallible either, but the separation of powers is there to protect us from the state, and they're there to dispense justice.

A prosecution with acquittal can be punishment all by itself (from the state or mob forcing it on the state), and it's often used by the state against those they deem "incorrect" for reasons outside of the case itself. Just as the state puts those same people in "mental institutions" when they're allowed to for thinking the wrong things. The legislative and executive are never our friends no matter how much they say they are. The judicial system sometimes can be.

if you're ever in a situation where you need to justifiably defend yourself and death or serious injury is inflicted on the attacker/attackers, hope your local cops are cool and the media doesn't touch it. Because the state will make the pain far worse and won't care that they do; they won't even think about it. All they'll care about if they "lose" is they didn't put you in jail so they can't get pats on the back by their fellow tyrants. The self-defense situation itself often causes more than enough suffering for most.

People seem to be conveniently forgetting why the trial was necessary (I can't believe I'm the only one to remember this and I'm not even a lawyer)

It needed to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, whether Rittenhouse commited homicide or reckless homicide and recklessly endanger people? This were the the non-political questions that needed to be tested in court. It had nothing to do with appeasing democrats as some mischievous posters here claim.

Second there were two misdemeanour charges - for breaking curfew and unlawfully possessing a dangerous weapon while younger than 18

During the trial, the judge Bruce Schroeder did the defense a massive favour by arbitrarily dismissing the two misdemeanor charges, for breaking curfew and unlawfully possessing a dangerous weapon while younger than 18, attributing the dismissal to "errors by prosecutors". Both of these were impossible to second guess before the trial (even if some here pretended to have supernatrual powers and predicted the judge would do this).

Thanks to the biased judge removing prosecution evidence as inadmissible the trial itself turned into one narrow and prosaic question: Was Kyle justified in using lethal force to defend himself.

Ultimately, the not-guilty verdict means simply that Rittenhouse’s self-defense argument was convincing to the jurors.

While those sympatic are happy to bury the deaths of Rosenbaum and Huner under the carpet and call Rittenhouse a hero and attack the media and Biden. this case will continue to be revisted everytime vigilante action using guns is used in the US

Lying again? You know we can go back and quote what was actually said, right?

Another word that you don't know the meaning of? Seems less than "arbitrary" when both Bric and I literally said those charges would be dismissed, almost as if we read the law correctly or something.

I don’t know if you worded poorly or have trouble with the concept, but “reasonable doubt” does not require a weak case be tested in court. Instead, it serves as a deterrent to taking a weak case to trial. The law in the US is innocent until proven guilty, and it is guilt that has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Prosecutors often drop cases if they don’t have enough evidence to have a good chance of winning them; reasonable doubt is a pretty high bar, and if the trial comes out not guilty it cannot be prosecuted again if new and better evidence is found later.

I’m sorry it feels that way; I try to use qualifiers so it is obvious I’m not discounting other opinions, but sometimes I forget and I do get persistent. I get persistent because I feel like you all don’t hear me. I often feel ignored, and my words misrepresented. Responses so often are is if I said something entirely different than I actually did. It’s frustrating. Either I write poorly for the audience, or members are assuming more than reading. I don’t care if anyone agrees with me, but I’d like them to actually hear me. It’s OK to disagree; I’m just sharing. But it would be nice to feel heard.