Kyle Rittenhouse - The Truth in 11 Minutes

[NWRatCon]

I got 1:16 into it when it became obvious that it was a propaganda piece with no semblance of objectivity (as I completely expected, given the source). Goebbels would be so proud. Hash, meet rehash.

 

[lwf]

Even if they believed he had committed a crime, Rittenhouse is legally allowed to defend himself in Wisconsin. He's going to get off on all the murder charges. These are clear cases of self defense.

Only if he didn't actually commit a crime before he was attacked. If his attackers believed he committed a crime and he didn't, then he is entitled to self defense. If he did in fact commit a crime prior to acting in self defense, then regardless if the motives of his attackers, he is not entitled to self-defense. Any action he takes to defend his life is illegal.

This is the prosecution's case, if I am not mistaken. If Rittenhouse was truly doing nothing wrong and was suddenly pursued by a mob, then he would never have been charged with a crime. There must be evidence that he had committed some sort of a crime before he was pursued by those people. If so, then he is guilty of murdering them regardless of whether or not he needed to use his firearm to save his own life.

 

[GummyVitamins]

Only if he didn't actually commit a crime. If they believed he committed a crime and he didn't, then he is entitled to self defense.

That is not the law in Wisconsin.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Anyone have a dull butcher knife so I can slice the above irony?

IT’S LIKE RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIN ON YOUR WEDDING DAy

 

[Grizzly Adams]

IT’S LIKE RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIN ON YOUR WEDDING DAy

Ironically, this is not ironic.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Ironically, this is not ironic.

Dontcha think?

 

[lwf]

That is not the law in Wisconsin.

Wisconsin law specifies that a person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

 

[swing_voter]

If Kyle's mom would've made him keep his gun at home, nobody would've died and he wouldn't be facing life in prison right now.

The reason the mob attacked him is because he was carrying a gun.

 

[ASHES]

If Kyle's mom would've made him keep his gun at home, nobody would've died and he wouldn't be facing life in prison right now.

The reason the mob attacked him is because he was carrying a gun.

He didn't bring the gun from home.

Then the mob attacked him illegally. You can't just attack people because they're carrying a gun. Nobody randomly attacked any of the protestors that were openly carrying pistols around in their hands did they? What gave them the right to single out Kyle?

 

[GummyVitamins]

Wisconsin law specifies that a person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

Even if Rittenhouse provoked a fight he can still claim self defense in Wisconsin. There is very little the prosecution can do to prove this wasn't self defense.

The problem the prosecution has is that in Wisconsin they have to prove a lack of self defense beyond a reasonable doubt or Rittenhouse walks. This includes the qualifier of whether or not a reasonable person based on their life experience and in their shoes would believe their actions were in self defense. Even if Rittenhouse provoked it is still self defense unless it was criminal entrapment. He's going to walk. He didn't commit murder by Wisconsin statutes. The politically charged prosecution may help quell the violence/riots in the short term, but we'll see what happens when he's free. They are setting this up for a huge letdown among the violent alt-left crowd.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Even if Rittenhouse provoked a fight he can still claim self defense in Wisconsin. There is very little the prosecution can do to prove this wasn't self defense.

The problem the prosecution has is that in Wisconsin they have to prove a lack of self defense beyond a reasonable doubt or Rittenhouse walks. This includes the qualifier of whether or not a reasonable person based on their life experience and in their shoes would believe their actions were in self defense. Even if Rittenhouse provoked it is still self defense unless it was criminal entrapment. He's going to walk. He didn't commit murder by Wisconsin statutes. The politically charged prosecution may help quell the violence/riots in the short term, but we'll see what happens when he's free. They are setting this up for a huge letdown among the violent alt-left crowd.

Ya’ll keep saying this but you seem to be under the impression you have some legal info the prosecution does not. These offices weigh and balance likelihood of conviction. They go for “W’s”, not political statements. If they can combine the both, all the better.

Rittenhouse is going to jail. It’s just a matter of the crooked number they put up at sentencing.

 

[lwf]

Even if Rittenhouse provoked a fight he can still claim self defense in Wisconsin. There is very little the prosecution can do to prove this wasn't self defense.

The problem the prosecution has is that in Wisconsin they have to prove a lack of self defense beyond a reasonable doubt or Rittenhouse walks. This includes the qualifier of whether or not a reasonable person based on their life experience and in their shoes would believe their actions were in self defense. Even if Rittenhouse provoked it is still self defense unless it was criminal entrapment. He's going to walk. He didn't commit murder by Wisconsin statutes. The politically charged prosecution may help quell the violence/riots in the short term, but we'll see what happens when he's free. They are setting this up for a huge letdown among the violent alt-left crowd.

You are mistaken. I was quoting Wisconsin law when I said: "A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense."

Otherwise a man who sticks up a convenience store and then shoots the armed clerk could claim the privilege of self defense. If you are engaged in committing a crime with a deadly weapon, you have no right to use that weapon in self defense.

 

[GummyVitamins]

Ya’ll keep saying this but you seem to be under the impression you have some legal info the prosecution does not. These offices weigh and balance likelihood of conviction. They go for “W’s”, not political statements. If they can combine the both, all the better.

Rittenhouse is going to jail. It’s just a matter of the crooked number they put up at sentencing.

The incident was caught on camera and it's available to the public. You seem to think that just because you think someone is guilty that they have to go to prison. That's not how it works. You're not going to convict a kid running away from a violent mob with murder when he is attacked. That's simply not going to happen. I know you would have preferred your comrades murder this kid, but you're in the minority.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

The incident was caught on camera and it's available to the public. You seem to think that just because you think someone is guilty that they have to go to prison. That's not how it works. You're not going to convict a kid running away from a violent mob with murder when he is attacked. That's simply not going to happen. I know you would have preferred your comrades murder this kid, but you're in the minority.

This has nothing to do with what either of us think. It’s the law. Rooting interests don’t play a role.

 

[lwf]

The incident was caught on camera and it's available to the public. You seem to think that just because you think someone is guilty that they have to go to prison. That's not how it works. You're not going to convict a kid running away from a violent mob with murder when he is attacked. That's simply not going to happen. I know you would have preferred your comrades murder this kid, but you're in the minority.

The video looks like self defense. But it is out of context. We don't know why he was running or why he was being chased. If he was being chased because he had committed a crime, then it may not be self defense at all. It may be murder.

This would make sense as to why people with access to more than just the public video evidence decided to charge him with murder.

 

[GummyVitamins]

You are mistaken. I was quoting Wisconsin law when I said: "A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense."

Otherwise a man who sticks up a convenience store and then shoots the armed clerk could claim the privilege of self defense. If you are engaged in committing a crime with a deadly weapon, you have no right to use that weapon in self defense.

You don't understand what you're reading. You're quoting the "entrapment" exception. There's no evidence Kyle was committing entrapment, as evidenced by him fleeing from all of his attackers.

939.48(2)(a)

(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.

Even if he provoked the attack the only way it is murder is if it was criminal entrapment. Good luck proving beyond reasonable doubt that a kid who was fleeing and offering first aid to those trying to harm him was committing criminal entrapment for the purpose of killing them. He's going to walk.

 

[lwf]

You don't understand what you're reading. You're quoting the "entrapment" exception. There's no evidence Kyle was committing entrapment, as evidenced by him fleeing from all of his attackers.

Even if he provoked the attack the only way it is murder is if it was criminal entrapment. Good luck proving beyond reasonable doubt that a kid who was fleeing and offering first aid to those trying to harm him was committing criminal entrapment for the purpose of killing them. He's going to walk.

Just because you are unaware of evidence, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I tend to be of the opinion that the police knew what they were doing.

If he was indeed just providing first aid and not engaged in any criminal conduct, then you are correct: He will walk. I find that unlikely, however, as if that was the case it is unlikely he would have been charged with murder in the first place.

 

[Ikari]

Well he'll get his day in court and we'll see what comes of it. Last I heard, he was still in detention though.

 

[GummyVitamins]

The video looks like self defense. But it is out of context. We don't know why he was running or why he was being chased. If he was being chased because he had committed a crime, then it may not be self defense at all. It may be murder.

He was being chased because he tried to put out a fire that militant alt-left thugs started. There are already witnesses saying the altercation started because Rittenhouse took a fire extinguisher and tried to put out a fire in a dumpster that was started by the mob. There is video of Rittenhouse with the fire extinguisher and video of Rosenbaum pushing the burning dumpster toward police vehicles. There are also eye witnesses who say Rosenbaum was irate at him for putting out the fire and then the mob began throwing bricks and metal, including using hammers to get chucks of the curb to throw.

This would make sense as to why people with access to more than just the public video evidence decided to charge him with murder.

If they have more evidence they didn't mention it in the charging documentation. And, it would take a miracle short of a confession for them to have evidence that removes Kyle's right to self defense.

 

[GummyVitamins]

Just because you are unaware of evidence, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I tend to be of the opinion that the police knew what they were doing.

If he was indeed just providing first aid and not engaged in any criminal conduct, then you are correct: He will walk. I find that unlikely, however, as if that was the case it is unlikely he would have been charged with murder in the first place.

This is just willful ignorance. Even if he was committing a crime, unless it was criminal entrapment, he is going to walk. Kyle doesn't have to be attacked by an angry mob just because he has a different political persuasion than those who were attacking him. Flip the script. A black man tries to put out a fire started by the KKK. The KKK runs him down throwing objects at him while threatening him. A gunshot goes off behind him. A man tries to attack him. He fires. Does the black man go to prison or is it self defense? Are you on the side of the black man or the KKK?

 

[lwf]

He was being chased because he tried to put out a fire that militant alt-left thugs started. There are already witnesses saying the altercation started because Rittenhouse took a fire extinguisher and tried to put out a fire in a dumpster that was started by the mob. There is video of Rittenhouse with the fire extinguisher and video of Rosenbaum pushing the burning dumpster toward police vehicles. There are also eye witnesses who say Rosenbaum was irate at him for putting out the fire and then the mob began throwing bricks and metal, including using hammers to get chucks of the curb to throw.

If they have more evidence they didn't mention it in the charging documentation. And, it would take a miracle short of a confession for them to have evidence that removes Kyle's right to self defense.

It sounds like the circumstances surrounding Rosenbaum's killing are disputed. If that killing was indeed self-defense, then the rest are as well. If that killing was NOT self-defense, then the rest may not be either.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/09/11/rittenhouse-victims-records/

At one point, Rosenbaum — who appeared to be unarmed in at least one video — threw what appeared to be a plastic bag in the teen’s direction while running, and it landed short of Rittenhouse. And within seconds, shots rang out, and Rosenbaum fell to the ground, according to the complaint. It was unclear who fired first.

Seems like who fired first will be key to the prosecution.

Either way, Rittenhouse has his defense strategy. We'll see if it pans out.

 

[ASHES]

It sounds like the circumstances surrounding Rosenbaum's killing are disputed. If that killing was indeed self-defense, then the rest are as well. If that killing was NOT self-defense, then the rest may not be either.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/09/11/rittenhouse-victims-records/



Seems like who fired first will be key to the prosecution.

Either way, Rittenhouse has his defense strategy. We'll see if it pans out.

Here is what is not disputed because it is indisputably on video:

1) Kyle started running first, then Rosenbaum started chasing him. (What happened before that is in dispute)

2) A protestor fired first a short distance behind where Kyle was being chased by Rosenbaum.

3) Kyle fired less than half the shots fired, and did not fire first or last.

 

[lwf]

Here is what is not disputed because it is indisputably on video:

1) Kyle started running first, then Rosenbaum started chasing him. (What happened before that is in dispute)

2) A protestor fired first a short distance behind where Kyle was being chased by Rosenbaum.

3) Kyle fired less than half the shots fired, and did not fire first or last.

Where is this protester that shot first?

 

[ASHES]

Where is this protester that shot first?

Like the video of it, or where was he in relation to the chase, or where is he now?

The most common video breakdown showing the protestor firing first is the NYT one.

In relation to the chase, he was on the sidewalk next to the lot where the chase was happening.

As to where he is now, laying low like the white pants flying kick guy.

 

[lwf]

Like the video of it, or where was he in relation to the chase, or where is he now?

The most common video breakdown showing the protestor firing first is the NYT one.

In relation to the chase, he was on the sidewalk next to the lot where the chase was happening.

As to where he is now, laying low like the white pants flying kick guy.

I find this dubious. Police detectives are not as dense as laymen tend to give them credit for. Kenosha PD Forensics knows who shot first and when. They have more evidence than one blurry video on the internet, and they still decided to pursue murder charges. That means Rittenhouse is likely guilty of murder. Whether the charges will stick is another matter, and we will likely see the evidence they used to come to the conclusion to charge him once the trial starts.