Kyle Rittenhouse

Jinentonix

Executive Branch Member
Sep 6, 2015
8,905
2,876
113
Olympus Mons
Huh, who knew the Kenosha riot was mere peaceful protest. And you'll note one of those "peaceful" protestors that got shot also brought a gun with him. Only he wasn't supposed to be conceal carrying because he let his permit expire.
I dunno, maybe it's normal to bring artillery to a "peaceful" protest in the US?
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
34,549
3,049
113
Vancouver Island
Just finished reading this and there were interesting points made, TB. Thoughts? It is from September last year, so the info would be out of date/incomplete compared to what came out via the trial. However there are still points raised that do bring interesting questions to the case.


Larry Knight


From a military legal worker:
I'm seeing a lot of ignorance and misinformation flying around about what happened in Kenosha, and I'm going to set the record straight from a professional legal position... as well as from a former military position. I'm going to explain some things from a more technical angle derived from my many years as a paralegal and from my experience working in federal criminal justice and prosecution.
Legally, if you are in the process of a commission of a crime, it negates your ability to claim self defense if you kill someone. As in, it can't even be entered as your official defense in court. It is similar to getting rear-ended at a red light through zero fault of your own, but you were driving without a license or insurance. It automatically makes you at fault because you weren't even legally allowed to be driving.
That 17 year old in Kenosha had committed two crimes and was not even legally allowed to open carry the rifle he used to shoot three people. This means that he legally cannot claim self defense.
Another key discussion is the Castle Doctrine. Some of you may be vaguely familiar with it, as it is what allows you to use deadly force when someone comes into your house unlawfully, etc. But there are some finer points most people don't realize that you generally have to do some formal legal studies to know.
First, as soon as someone sets foot inside the threshold of your home uninvited that you believe intends to commit a crime, you can legally use deadly force and it is immediately considered self defense, even if they haven't made any violent threats or actions towards harming you.
This is because in every instance outside your home, you are required to retreat and extricate yourself from a dangerous situation if possible. It is a legal mandate, not a suggestion. Your home is considered the final retreat point, and legally you should be safe in your "Castle." There is nowhere else to retreat to, etc. This is why you are able to immediately use deadly force.
However, it is NOT to protect your property, it is for protecting your LIFE. And once the burglar, for instance, has left your home... the threat to your life is considered neutralized, and deadly force is no longer authorized. So if a burglar runs out the door and down the street with your TV, you are no longer allowed to shoot after them because they are not threatening your life. You call the police, you file a claim with your insurance, and you get a new TV. If you shoot a burglar in the back down the street, you can and should be charged with murder.
While you are out in PUBLIC, this means a lot of things obviously. It means that there is far more scrutiny and boxes that must be checked in order to claim self defense. You must be in IMMINENT danger of losing life and limb. Getting into an argument and feeling scared of being punched by an unarmed person? Not likely to be a situation where deadly force is authorized. You MUST retreat.
If someone shoots at you or pulls a knife on you in the street, that is deadly force and can be met with deadly force. But if the person is unarmed, you cannot shoot them because you're afraid of a little scuffle. That is why Rittenhouse illegally shot the first protester, and it is one of the many reasons it cannot be considered self defense. The man threw a plastic bag with trash in it at him AND MISSED, and Rittenhouse shot him. He chased his victim and instigated a fight by brandishing and flagging people with his rifle, because he is an untrained idiot with a gun. The protester was not a threat, and even if he was, all he had to do was retreat back to the police line. He rushed at protesters with a gun drawn to pick a fight, and people are acting as if he were just there to keep the peace.
He fired INTO A CROWD, and it's a miracle he didn't hit more people. More people that hadn't thrown a plastic bag. More people that were just trying to protest police brutality, which is a real issue in this country.
And then when he did finally run away, some more protesters attempted to subdue him after he had already murdered someone, he tripped, and shot two people trying to stop him from shooting others.
The fact that the police didn't arrest him and take him into custody right then and there, even if they suspected it could be self defense, is a grave issue with that police department.
I could further dissect this situation, but for now I'm going to end with people passing around misinformation about the victims being "criminals so they deserved it."
First, there are no actual records of Jacob Blake or the people shot by Rittenhouse being in the official sex offender's registry. None of them raped a 14 year old girl years ago, that is complete fabrication being purposely spread by right wing extremist sites in order to try and justify the shootings.
Jacob Blake was indeed awaiting trial for sexual assault and trespassing, and did have a warrant for his arrest. It was not assault on a child, because that is a different charge with a different title. On the charging document, it would literally say that it was against a child. From what is publicly known, he allegedly broke into an ex girlfriend's house and allegedly assaulted HER, but he is innocent until proven guilty, and still deserves his day in court. He could truly be innocent.
Rittenhouse's victims do not appear to have had any record, and even if they did, he couldn't have known that at the time. You cannot insist a shoot was justified AFTER the fact because "that person was a criminal." Criminals have rights too, whether you like it or not, and it is enshrined in the very documents that built our country. If you don't like the constitution and bill of rights, I don't know what to tell you.
This is also not MY OPINION, this is literally how the criminal justice system and our laws work. I hold a degree in paralegal studies and served 8 years as an Army paralegal. I've worked for the criminal division in the Chicago US Attorney's Office, and currently work in federal law enforcement. This is what I do for a living, and I am not pulling this out of my ass, and my knowlege is a culmination of working in the field and being passionate about justice for 16 years. I'd be happy to send you sources and opines and case law and statutes if you need it. I did not get this from "mainstream media," and I am not brainwashed by the left. I'm an independent progressive.
May he face justice for what he did, and may we find a way to get on common ground before more fuses to this powder keg are lit.
This has been my Ted Talk.
How long did it take to find a quote from a clown that ignorant of the facts? Or the verdict?
 
  • Like
Reactions: petros

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,814
687
113
67
Saint John, N.B.
Just finished reading this and there were interesting points made, TB. Thoughts? It is from September last year, so the info would be out of date/incomplete compared to what came out via the trial. However there are still points raised that do bring interesting questions to the case.


Larry Knight


From a military legal worker:
I'm seeing a lot of ignorance and misinformation flying around about what happened in Kenosha, and I'm going to set the record straight from a professional legal position... as well as from a former military position. I'm going to explain some things from a more technical angle derived from my many years as a paralegal and from my experience working in federal criminal justice and prosecution.
Legally, if you are in the process of a commission of a crime, it negates your ability to claim self defense if you kill someone. As in, it can't even be entered as your official defense in court. It is similar to getting rear-ended at a red light through zero fault of your own, but you were driving without a license or insurance. It automatically makes you at fault because you weren't even legally allowed to be driving.
That 17 year old in Kenosha had committed two crimes and was not even legally allowed to open carry the rifle he used to shoot three people. This means that he legally cannot claim self defense.
Another key discussion is the Castle Doctrine. Some of you may be vaguely familiar with it, as it is what allows you to use deadly force when someone comes into your house unlawfully, etc. But there are some finer points most people don't realize that you generally have to do some formal legal studies to know.
First, as soon as someone sets foot inside the threshold of your home uninvited that you believe intends to commit a crime, you can legally use deadly force and it is immediately considered self defense, even if they haven't made any violent threats or actions towards harming you.
This is because in every instance outside your home, you are required to retreat and extricate yourself from a dangerous situation if possible. It is a legal mandate, not a suggestion. Your home is considered the final retreat point, and legally you should be safe in your "Castle." There is nowhere else to retreat to, etc. This is why you are able to immediately use deadly force.
However, it is NOT to protect your property, it is for protecting your LIFE. And once the burglar, for instance, has left your home... the threat to your life is considered neutralized, and deadly force is no longer authorized. So if a burglar runs out the door and down the street with your TV, you are no longer allowed to shoot after them because they are not threatening your life. You call the police, you file a claim with your insurance, and you get a new TV. If you shoot a burglar in the back down the street, you can and should be charged with murder.
While you are out in PUBLIC, this means a lot of things obviously. It means that there is far more scrutiny and boxes that must be checked in order to claim self defense. You must be in IMMINENT danger of losing life and limb. Getting into an argument and feeling scared of being punched by an unarmed person? Not likely to be a situation where deadly force is authorized. You MUST retreat.
If someone shoots at you or pulls a knife on you in the street, that is deadly force and can be met with deadly force. But if the person is unarmed, you cannot shoot them because you're afraid of a little scuffle. That is why Rittenhouse illegally shot the first protester, and it is one of the many reasons it cannot be considered self defense. The man threw a plastic bag with trash in it at him AND MISSED, and Rittenhouse shot him. He chased his victim and instigated a fight by brandishing and flagging people with his rifle, because he is an untrained idiot with a gun. The protester was not a threat, and even if he was, all he had to do was retreat back to the police line. He rushed at protesters with a gun drawn to pick a fight, and people are acting as if he were just there to keep the peace.
He fired INTO A CROWD, and it's a miracle he didn't hit more people. More people that hadn't thrown a plastic bag. More people that were just trying to protest police brutality, which is a real issue in this country.
And then when he did finally run away, some more protesters attempted to subdue him after he had already murdered someone, he tripped, and shot two people trying to stop him from shooting others.
The fact that the police didn't arrest him and take him into custody right then and there, even if they suspected it could be self defense, is a grave issue with that police department.
I could further dissect this situation, but for now I'm going to end with people passing around misinformation about the victims being "criminals so they deserved it."
First, there are no actual records of Jacob Blake or the people shot by Rittenhouse being in the official sex offender's registry. None of them raped a 14 year old girl years ago, that is complete fabrication being purposely spread by right wing extremist sites in order to try and justify the shootings.
Jacob Blake was indeed awaiting trial for sexual assault and trespassing, and did have a warrant for his arrest. It was not assault on a child, because that is a different charge with a different title. On the charging document, it would literally say that it was against a child. From what is publicly known, he allegedly broke into an ex girlfriend's house and allegedly assaulted HER, but he is innocent until proven guilty, and still deserves his day in court. He could truly be innocent.
Rittenhouse's victims do not appear to have had any record, and even if they did, he couldn't have known that at the time. You cannot insist a shoot was justified AFTER the fact because "that person was a criminal." Criminals have rights too, whether you like it or not, and it is enshrined in the very documents that built our country. If you don't like the constitution and bill of rights, I don't know what to tell you.
This is also not MY OPINION, this is literally how the criminal justice system and our laws work. I hold a degree in paralegal studies and served 8 years as an Army paralegal. I've worked for the criminal division in the Chicago US Attorney's Office, and currently work in federal law enforcement. This is what I do for a living, and I am not pulling this out of my ass, and my knowlege is a culmination of working in the field and being passionate about justice for 16 years. I'd be happy to send you sources and opines and case law and statutes if you need it. I did not get this from "mainstream media," and I am not brainwashed by the left. I'm an independent progressive.
May he face justice for what he did, and may we find a way to get on common ground before more fuses to this powder keg are lit.
This has been my Ted Talk.
Allow me:

Here's the first problem: "That 17 year old in Kenosha had committed two crimes and was not even legally allowed to open carry the rifle he used to shoot three people. This means that he legally cannot claim self defense."

Those two crimes were in the media a lot before the trial. Kyle was accused of illegally taking the rifle over state lines. Except he didn't.

Kyle was accused of being in illegal possession of the rifle. The judge disagreed. He ruled that the rifle was within the legal limit of length for Rittenhouse to be in possession of it. So that one is also off the table.

So that line of logic is just not on.

Here's more problems:
"But if the person is unarmed, you cannot shoot them because you're afraid of a little scuffle." Correct. UNLESS you are legally armed, and the aggressor goes for a gun.....your gun. Then he is armed, and yes, you can use lethal force.

"That is why Rittenhouse illegally shot the first protester, and it is one of the many reasons it cannot be considered self defense." See above.

"He chased his victim and instigated a fight by brandishing and flagging people with his rifle, because he is an untrained idiot with a gun. The protester was not a threat, and even if he was, all he had to do was retreat back to the police line. He rushed at protesters with a gun drawn to pick a fight, and people are acting as if he were just there to keep the peace."

Rittenhouse didn't chase anyone. Rittenhouse was chased, and retreated until he was cornered. He neither brandished nor flagged people with the rifle. His gun handling was excellent, as far as I could see, and I used to train people in handling guns. Certainly better than the prosecutor's skill.....he managed to break all four rules of gun safety in about 5 seconds, in the courtroom.

"He fired INTO A CROWD, and it's a miracle he didn't hit more people." No, he didn't, he fired 8 rounds directly at four people that were attacking him, and hit with 6. That is NOT firing into a crowd.

This guy should have waited until he had all the information.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
34,549
3,049
113
Vancouver Island
Must really suck for the leftards that a jury did not accept the media's verdict. Maybe if the media had looked at the evidence instead of inventing whatever fit their message they wouldn't look so biased and stupid.
 

Serryah

Senate Member
Dec 3, 2008
5,050
418
83
New Brunswick
Interesting speech. Not law.

What little he does get "right," he misapplies.

Sorry.

Well I did say that it was before the trial, which others obviously didn't bother to read.

I just thought it was interesting.

I think if in the end when people look back at this, it's going to be stuff like this that'll still grab attention.

No "sorry" needed. Thank you for the input.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
45,541
750
113
Washington DC
Well I did say that it was before the trial, which others obviously didn't bother to read.

I just thought it was interesting.

I think if in the end when people look back at this, it's going to be stuff like this that'll still grab attention.

No "sorry" needed. Thank you for the input.
I looked at his CV in the Facebook post. Low-level IT guy. Some college, no degree. No indication of legal training, not even the legal services specialist (military) or paralegal (civilian) level.

He got the rule of self defense wrong, he got the so-called Castle Doctrine wrong, and other stuff.

Colpy was a little off too, but a lot closer. Considering he's a foreigner (to us), pretty impressive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: taxslave and Colpy

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
45,541
750
113
Washington DC
I listened to the closing arguments in the Arbery case. They were a master class in the law of citizen's arrest and the time-and-space limits of self-defense (as well as, of course, a lot of irrelevant bullshit).
 

Serryah

Senate Member
Dec 3, 2008
5,050
418
83
New Brunswick
I looked at his CV in the Facebook post. Low-level IT guy. Some college, no degree. No indication of legal training, not even the legal services specialist (military) or paralegal (civilian) level.

He got the rule of self defense wrong, he got the so-called Castle Doctrine wrong, and other stuff.

Colpy was a little off too, but a lot closer. Considering he's a foreigner (to us), pretty impressive.

I think the initial source I got it from said it wasn't their words, that they got it from elsewhere.

So typical FB crap.

IMO looking at it now it's more an interesting "then vs now" and how POV's can seriously affect how people see things.

Yeah it did bring up interesting points to me concerning the case and trial but it didn't change much. If anything it showed how wide of the mark the person was.

As the person was throwing out there being some sort of 'legal', I shared here mostly for your opinion/take on it.

Course others look like they assumed I agree with it. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Colpy

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
45,541
750
113
Washington DC
I think the initial source I got it from said it wasn't their words, that they got it from elsewhere.

So typical FB crap.

IMO looking at it now it's more an interesting "then vs now" and how POV's can seriously affect how people see things.

Yeah it did bring up interesting points to me concerning the case and trial but it didn't change much. If anything it showed how wide of the mark the person was.

As the person was throwing out there being some sort of 'legal', I shared here mostly for your opinion/take on it.

Course others look like they assumed I agree with it. :D
I sometimes like to watch the YouTube videos of the "First Amendment auditors" who go out and film the cops and public buildings, fishing for a police reaction. The legal errors they make in defying the cops are cringeworthy/funny. The only reason they get away with it is that the cops generally know even less law than the "auditors."
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
15,788
1,199
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
I sometimes like to watch the YouTube videos of the "First Amendment auditors" who go out and film the cops and public buildings, fishing for a police reaction. The legal errors they make in defying the cops are cringeworthy/funny. The only reason they get away with it is that the cops generally know even less law than the "auditors."
This I can attest to. I work for a small transport company (A little under 30 trucks and drivers). We are supposed to know every rule and every law in every jurisdiction in each country that we traverse.

One of my hats that I wear beyond half a dozen others is that of Compliance Officier for our company.

We know most but not everything, and sometimes things change in a particular state that we’re not aware of for months. Just had no reason to know that a change had happened. Sometimes education costs with a bit of a financial Peepee whack.

It is absolutely astonishing how little many law enforcement officers actually know about their own states laws and rules. Don’t get me wrong and I’m not knocking the job because I wouldn’t want to do it.

The absolute worst was about 6 to 8 months into Covid lockdowns…& law enforcement in places (not all but many) must have been bored. People with no knowledge base or very little and some of it very wrong we’re trying to perform commercial enforcement just because they had a badge and a gun and time on their hands and truckers were actually moving.

Ugh….

“That changed about six years ago sir” but you would take eight or 10 months to fight it just show that something changed six or eight years ago and they were wrong….or “ I can provide you with a local number which you can verify this with if you would like sir…”…which never goes over well.

“Yes the license plate for this Truck is supposed to be on the front of it, on the front bumper, due to the International Registration Program” & “ no it does not look like a highway tractor but it is registered into jurisdictionally so it Has to follow the same rules.” Then eight or 10 months later you finally get something over turned because it was just wrong.

Oh well. Good times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: taxslave and petros

Mowich

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 25, 2005
16,490
819
113
72
Eagle Creek
Must really suck for the leftards that a jury did not accept the media's verdict. Maybe if the media had looked at the evidence instead of inventing whatever fit their message they wouldn't look so biased and stupid.
I was listening to the radio on my trip to Moose Jaw today and the host mentioned that an online news source called The Independent actually printed a story stating that Kyle killed three black men. I haven't been able to confirm that story but sure wish someone would as it points out yet again the lies and bias surrounding this entire fiasco.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
45,541
750
113
Washington DC
This I can attest to. I work for a small transport company (A little under 30 trucks and drivers). We are supposed to know every rule and every law in every jurisdiction in each country that we traverse.

One of my hats that I wear beyond half a dozen others is that of Compliance Officier for our company.

We know most but not everything, and sometimes things change in a particular state that we’re not aware of for months. Just had no reason to know that a change had happened. Sometimes education costs with a bit of a financial Peepee whack.

It is absolutely astonishing how little many law enforcement officers actually know about their own states laws and rules. Don’t get me wrong and I’m not knocking the job because I wouldn’t want to do it.

The absolute worst was about 6 to 8 months into Covid lockdowns…& law enforcement in places (not all but many) must have been bored. People with no knowledge base or very little and some of it very wrong we’re trying to perform commercial enforcement just because they had a badge and a gun and time on their hands and truckers were actually moving.

Ugh….

“That changed about six years ago sir” but you would take eight or 10 months to fight it just show that something changed six or eight years ago and they were wrong….or “ I can provide you with a local number which you can verify this with if you would like sir…”…which never goes over well.

“Yes the license plate for this Truck is supposed to be on the front of it, on the front bumper, due to the International Registration Program” & “ no it does not look like a highway tractor but it is registered into jurisdictionally so it Has to follow the same rules.” Then eight or 10 months later you finally get something over turned because it was just wrong.

Oh well. Good times.
The problem is the lack of recourse. The Brits have a great thing where, if you prove your interaction with the cops violated your rights, you get 500 pounds through a minimal, no-fuss administrative process. You're free to go through the months or years of hassle and expense of suing for the big bucks, or you can get the 500 pretty close to "then and there." A few weeks.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
45,541
750
113
Washington DC
I was listening to the radio on my trip to Moose Jaw today and the host mentioned that an online news source called The Independent actually printed a story stating that Kyle killed three black men. I haven't been able to confirm that story but sure wish someone would as it points out yet again the lies and bias surrounding this entire fiasco.
Maybe they meant "black" in the sense of "evil" or "vile."

You'd agree with that, wouldn't you.