• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:423]Ritterhouse just got a bump by a good judge

mrjurrs said:
Those are facts for the jury, not you. Running from a crime scene is not a crime, but it certainly indicates awareness of guilt.
Click to expand...

Considered they attacked him a second time during a riot, it's not smart to stick around as the second attack shows.
 
bullseyelqcs said:
By definition, anyone can bear a firearm. All they need do is pick one up to do so. The question you asked was if they could do it legally, which I pointed out came with some restraints. I also pointed out that Rittenhouse violated those restraints. He wasnt supposed to be in possession of that particular weapon, and he damned sure wasnt supposed to be transporting it from place to place.....but you knew that already.


You mean besides the law he was violating by possessing the weapon in question? Outside of that, I guess nothing. That said, thats a pretty big issue to try to get outside of.

Face it...even he knew he wasnt supposed to have that gun, or he wouldnt have gone to the lengths he did to obtain it. Secondly, even if he was recognized as a member of some militia (still up for debate), it wouldn't exonerate him from illegally carrying THAT gun on that night.

If only he had shot those people with a shotgun, he would probably be mostly in the clear.....now he has opened up the question of whether his prior crime of carrying an illegal firearm negates his claim of self defense, as the self defense statute specifically states it doesnt cover you if you are in the process of committing a crime yourself.
Click to expand...

Yet Rosenbaulm, a convicted sex offender, grabbed and attempted to take a weapon he cannot possess.
 
Metric Mouse said:
And then went and tuned himself in... that night. Like, he literally did everything you wanted him to
Click to expand...
Huh? He should have drove directly to the police department in the same town he shot everyone up in.
 
maxparrish said:
I don't see where you provided, to me, a duty to retreat law. Please point out the post and I will read it.
Click to expand...
it says that the only time they are entitled to not retreat is if they are in their own dwelling or business....was it either his own dwelling or business? If you didn't see it, it is because you didn't want to.
 
Linuxcooldude said:
First off, he was there for other reasons, such as cleaning graphitti and first aid, not just protecting property. Second, he used deadly force to protect himself and not property.
Click to expand...
bullshit....you don't need to illegally carry a weapon to clean graffiti or render first aid...and he wasn't qualified to render first aid.
 
US&THEM said:
Huh? He should have drove directly to the police department in the same town he shot everyone up in.
Click to expand...
The police department he tried to turn himself in to and they ignored him?

That would have been silly. He drove 10 minutes away to the next one.
 
bullseyelqcs said:
Face it...even he knew he wasnt supposed to have that gun, or he wouldnt have gone to the lengths he did to obtain it. Secondly, even if he was recognized as a member of some militia (still up for debate), it wouldn't exonerate him from illegally carrying THAT gun on that night.

If only he had shot those people with a shotgun, he would probably be mostly in the clear.....now he has opened up the question of whether his prior crime of carrying an illegal firearm negates his claim of self defense, as the self defense statute specifically states it doesnt cover you if you are in the process of committing a crime yourself.
Click to expand...
That's not what the statute states...
 
Metric Mouse said:
The police department he tried to turn himself in to and they ignored him?

That would have been silly. He drove 10 minutes away to the next one.
Click to expand...
Drove to it
 
ClaraD said:
it says that the only time they are entitled to not retreat is if they are in their own dwelling or business....was it either his own dwelling or business? If you didn't see it, it is because you didn't want to.
Click to expand...

Wrong, it says NOTHING about "only". It just says that there is a particular time that a paragraph's limits on a court's presumption or consideration of a factor is operative. At best the structure of the paragraph implies that a judge MIGHT consider an opportunity to retreat as a factor. It does not say that there is an actual duty to retreat, or that this duty MUST be considered by the court.

You didn't understand it because you didn't want to.
 
ClaraD said:
bullshit....you don't need to illegally carry a weapon to clean graffiti or render first aid...and he wasn't qualified to render first aid.
Click to expand...

Kyle got there during the daytime when there were currently no riots going on, cleaning up graffiti.
 
ClaraD said:
it says that the only time they are entitled to not retreat is if they are in their own dwelling or business....was it either his own dwelling or business? If you didn't see it, it is because you didn't want to.
Click to expand...
I actually do not see how the Wisconsin self-defense standard is workable in a state where you are going to allow citizens to walk the streets totting AR-15's and other assault rifles JUST BECAUSE.

The simplest case you can probably envision for Wisconsin's retreat vs defend standard is likely not applicable to Rittenhouse. It is one where a citizen in retreat runs down a blind alley or a dead end street. That is the simplest one I can conceive. But even in that case, given the effective range of the modern Assault Rifle and its lack of recoil it is simply at odds with the self-defense standard and the condition. Is the blind alley or dead end street shorter than the effective range of the weapon? Hence could the citizen have escaped and continued his retreat as opposed to taking a long range shot or shots with a very accurate weapon with little recoil?

Rittenhouse will be far harder for the Jury to figure out IMO and the evidence that the Judge denies or lets in will likely be critical as well as his instructions to the Jury. All of that said I still think that somewhere along the way Wisconsin in deciding to allow citizens to tote Assault Rifles on their streets did not recognize the mess they were making of their self-defense standard.

As I stated earlier I would love to be the Defense Attorney and hate to be the Prosecutor when the Prosecution by Law must defeat the self-defense claim "beyond a reasonable doubt". Good Luck????

The Prosecution probably has a better shot at the two Reckless Endangerment charges.
 
Last edited:
Linuxcooldude said:
Kyle got there during the daytime when there were currently no riots going on, cleaning up graffiti.
Click to expand...
Black and Rittenhouse thought they were going to be paid security
 
And if they'd shot him instead I'd expect them to be charged as well. Because they also turned up armed and looking for a confrontation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom