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

[bullseyelqcs]

Doesn't have to establish employment, only that they ask for help, in which Kyle participated.

Again.....Blacks testimony never expressly stated that help was ASKED for...only that discussion of protecting the dealership had occurred. Those two things are not one and the same.

If I am hanging out with my friends and make reference to the fact that I will be moving this weekend, and then on Saturday my friends show up to help me move, the question is this....did I ever actually ASK for help? In the same vein, if the owner of the dealership was simply stating that some people were going to be protecting the dealership, can that be taken as a tacit request for Kyle, Dominic and Nick to actually be part of the "protection detail"?

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Not only is that an issue for Rittenhouse. His claim on the night in question of carrying an assault rifle for "Protection.....OBVIOUSLY" is a problem.There is nothing obvious about carrying an assault rifle as a weapon being carried for protection purposes. An assault rifle is not a self-defense, personal protection firearm. A handgun is a personal protection, self-defense firearm. An assault rifle is an assault firearm hence the name ASSAULT RIFLE!

Quite a weak argument. It's how it's used, not what it's named that's important in a court of law. If it's used in self defence, it's a personal protection device.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

As previously mentioned, the Procsecution stated they acknowledged a car dealer asked for help.

Not exactly. They acknowledge that there may have been talk of people protecting the dealership. They in no way acknowledge that help was expressly asked for. Thats kinda the hang up that has been there since the day at least one of the owners of the dealership told police that (at least to his knowledge) nobody had been asked to help protect the dealership. I will concede that him not knowing doesn't mean it didn't happen, but as of yet, nobody has actually come out and testified that anyone associated with the dealership actually ASKED anyone to provide protection.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

because it lends to he knew he could not possess a gun, forethought that he was committing a crime, he also knew that he could not claim to be a certified EMT also a crime.....to claim self defense, you cannot be committing a crime in Wisconsin.

A deadly force claim doesn't require a legal or illegal weapon. Only if it's justified in it's use to save your life or limb. I believe that happened in spades.

It also states it's illegal to claim self defence using a firearm to commit a crime, not one already committed by possessing it.

Such as claiming self defence when law enforcement shoots at you because you are robbing a bank and you shoot back.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

Keep and bear arms. What does keep mean?

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms"

Interestingly enough, the key word in that sentence is the word RIGHT, not arms. You have the RIGHT to own a firearm. I personally don't believe it means you have a right to whatever the hell it is you want. I also concede that is my personal opinion and not the way law interprets it, but that is how I personally read that sentence.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

A deadly force claim doesn't require a legal or illegal weapon. Only if it's justified in it's use to save your life or limb. I believe that happened in spades.

It also states it's illegal to claim self defence using a firearm to commit a crime, not one already committed by possessing it.

Such as claiming self defence when law enforcement shoots at you because you are robbing a bank and you shoot back.

To the part in red.....

It actually states that if you are in the process of committing a crime, that you don't have a legal basis to claim self defense. It doesn't say that you have to be using a firearm to commit said crime, only that if you are in the process of committing a crime (which he was by illegally carrying that weapon), your right to self defense may not be recognized.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Interestingly enough, the key word in that sentence is the word RIGHT, not arms. You have the RIGHT to own a firearm. I personally don't believe it means you have a right to whatever the hell it is you want. I also concede that is my personal opinion and not the way law interprets it, but that is how I personally read that sentence.

We don't nessicarily have a right to use that firearm whenever we want. But that is covered by other laws, such as murder or hunting out of season.

 

[bullseyelqcs]

We don't nessicarily have a right to use that firearm whenever we want. But that is covered by other laws, such as murder or hunting out of season.

Well of course. But that wasn't what I was talking about.

I openly admit that my interpretation of the 2A isn't supported by law. That doesn't change that I think its misinterpreted. To me, the 2A ensures you have the right to possess firearms....but it doesn't ensure that one should be able to possess whatever firearms an individual might want. The right and the arms are not one and the same, IMPO.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

To the part in red.....

It actually states that if you are in the process of committing a crime, that you don't have a legal basis to claim self defense. It doesn't say that you have to be using a firearm to commit said crime, only that if you are in the process of committing a crime (which he was by illegally carrying that weapon), your right to self defense may not be recognized.

That's quite a looong...stretch to what that laws is applied and what it means. We already have precedent on felons claiming self defence ( Or illegally possessing a firearm) with "State vs Mercer"

In which the Supreme Court esentually ordered another trial based on "Justification" and not simply a felon illegally possessing firearm:

The Supreme Court held that to establish “justification” as a defense to the charge of possession of a firearm by a felon the defendant must prove four things.

• First, that the defendant was under unlawful and present, imminent, and impending threat of death or serious bodily injury.
• Second, that the defendant did not negligently or recklessly place himself in a situation where he would be forced to engage in criminal conduct.
• Third, that the defendant had no reasonable legal alternative to violating the law.
• Fourth, that there was a direct casual relationship between the criminal action and the avoidance of the threatened harm.

 

[Aletheia]

Looks like one of the jurors just got booted for telling a joke about police shooting a black man to the rest of the jury.
Don't they actually poll the jurors before they get selected anymore? How did this guy get on in the first place?

Rittenhouse juror dismissal shows risk of bias in big cases

The juror dismissed from Kyle Rittenhouse’s murder trial apparently was trying to be funny when he cracked to a court security officer about a police officer's shooting of Jacob Blake, the event that set off the protests where Rittenhouse shot three people, two fatally. Blake, who is Black, was...

news.yahoo.com

 

[justabubba]

Looks like one of the jurors just got booted for telling a joke about police shooting a black man to the rest of the jury.
Don't they actually poll the jurors before they get selected anymore? How did this guy get on in the first place?

Rittenhouse juror dismissal shows risk of bias in big cases

The juror dismissed from Kyle Rittenhouse’s murder trial apparently was trying to be funny when he cracked to a court security officer about a police officer's shooting of Jacob Blake, the event that set off the protests where Rittenhouse shot three people, two fatally. Blake, who is Black, was...

news.yahoo.com

that 'joke' was not told to the other members of the jury
a staff member who helped that disabled juror to leave on his electric mobile device reported the joke was told to him/her
the juror acknowledged telling the jole and was dismissed by the judge
appears to me that the system actually worked quite well

 

[SCrider]

If the judge makes a decision that does not favor Rittenhouse during the trail, will he be a bad judge?

 

[jnug]

A musket is designed to kill people, in fact, every firearm on the planet is inherently designed to kill people.

Really...that is what you are going to fall back on. That is not even close to true. Not even a nice try. If this is how you are going to agree these points why don't find another hobby. You're not good at this one.

 

[jnug]

Quite a weak argument. It's how it's used, not what it's named that's important in a court of law. If it's used in self defence, it's a personal protection device.

If the citizen operator of the firearm is interested in personal protection, an AR is the wrong weapon. A pistol is the right weapon. There is little evidence that Rittenhouse was there for any other purpose but to live his fantasy. A pistol apparently was not part of that fantasy. So what do the gun goons want to do, go Christmas shopping with an AR strapped around their midsection. "Excuse me miss, I think I would like to see that perfume for my wife. This gun is sort of making it difficult for me to do so. Its too crowded to slide it to my backside and there is too much stuff on your counter for me to keep it strapped to the front."

If as a citizen in peacetime you are actually carrying for purposes of self defense/protection, you carry a pistol which you can bring to bear quickly at close range. You may not be able to bring the assault rifle to bear at close range. The circumstances where you might not be able to should be obvious to anybody that handles guns. The assault rifle can be a defense weapon in the field of combat where you need more range and more firepower because you know, not guess but know you are facing forces similarly equipped. In fact that is the fantasy argument....."in the field.....as a citizen.....defending against an army. Ohhhh.....ahhhhh." What bullshit. A modern army will cut the weekend warriors to ribbons in short order. But the fantasy, the dream lives on and your standard hunting rifle, even your standard carbine does not match the fantasy.

Your argument is the horse shit, NRA argument for citizen purchases of arms. It is a horse shit argument designed to sell guns. That is all it is.

Actually the entire 2nd Amendment in all its glory falls away in the case of citizen purchases of machine guns. The argument against the Assault Rifle is a very similar and just as valid argument. I have no interest in fulfilling the gun fantasies of gun goons. I am a gun owner myself and don't much care for gun goons or the NRA which I left over a decade ago.

 

[sjmay]

If the citizen operator of the firearm is interested in personal protection, an AR is the wrong weapon. A pistol is the right weapon. There is little evidence that Rittenhouse was there for any other purpose but to live his fantasy. A pistol apparently was not part of that fantasy. So what do the gun goons want to do, go Christmas shopping with an AR strapped around their midsection. "Excuse me miss, I think I would like to see that perfume for my wife. This gun is sort of making it difficult for me to do so. Its too crowded to slide it to my backside and there is too much stuff on your counter for me to keep it strapped to the front."

If as a citizen in peacetime you are actually carrying for purposes of self defense/protection, you carry a pistol which you can bring to bear quickly at close range. You may not be able to bring the assault rifle to bear at close range. The circumstances where you might not be able to should be obvious to anybody that handles guns. The assault rifle can be a defense weapon in the field of combat where you need more range and more firepower because you know, not guess but know you are facing forces similarly equipped. In fact that is the fantasy argument....."in the field.....as a citizen.....defending against an army. Ohhhh.....ahhhhh." What bullshit. A modern army will cut the weekend warriors to ribbons in short order. But the fantasy, the dream lives on and your standard hunting rifle, even your standard carbine does not match the fantasy.

Your argument is the horse shit, NRA argument for citizen purchases of arms. It is a horse shit argument designed to sell guns. That is all it is.

Actually the entire 2nd Amendment in all its glory falls away in the case of citizen purchases of machine guns. The argument against the Assault Rifle is a very similar and just as valid argument. I have no interest in fulfilling the gun fantasies of gun goons. I am a gun owner myself and don't much care for gun goons or the NRA which I left over a decade ago.

Curious, what are firearms made for then? If they aren't inherently designed to kill....what are they designed for?

 

[justabubba]

If the judge makes a decision that does not favor Rittenhouse during the trail, will he be a bad judge?

what has the judge done thus far to make this something other than a fair trial?
please be specific

 

[justabubba]

Curious, what are firearms made for then? If they aren't inherently designed to kill....what are they designed for?

do we build nuclear devices intending to use them to kill or as a means to establish military parity to dissuade other militaries from attacking us?

 

[sjmay]

do we build nuclear devices intending to use them to kill or as a means to establish military parity to dissuade other militaries from attacking us?

Intending to use and intending to kill are two different things,

Are you arguing that a nuclear device is not designed to kill?

 

[justabubba]

Intending to use and intending to kill are two different things,

Are you arguing that a nuclear device is not designed to kill?

you seem to be assuming that is the underlying purpose to own a firearm, when its owner might be like our national government, and want to possess lethal power to dissuade others from attacking them

 

[SCrider]

what has the judge done thus far to make this something other than a fair trial?
please be specific

I would say being allowed to slander the dead is one.

 

[justabubba]

I would say being allowed to slander the dead is one.

how did the judge slander the dead?

 

[Mr Person]

I would say being allowed to slander the dead is one.

how did the judge slander the dead?

I suspect his position had to do with rulings regarding labeling of various persons involved, such as who can call whom a "rioter" but who cannot call whom a "victim", seeing as neither shooter nor shot persons have been convicted of anything, not that one convicts a body (unless I missed something, which is quite possible given the level of attention I've paid this recently).

Now, how that lines up with MI law is probably everyone on DP's guess, since we'd need a seasoned MI defense attorney to weigh in on MI law in that regard, and I don't think I ever did have an opportunity to research federal jurisprudence on party-labeling, but if I had it'd be 1st Circuit mainly.

 

[Aletheia]

that 'joke' was not told to the other members of the jury
a staff member who helped that disabled juror to leave on his electric mobile device reported the joke was told to him/her
the juror acknowledged telling the jole and was dismissed by the judge
appears to me that the system actually worked quite well

The staff member overheard it. Whether or not it was told to others in passing isn't that clear in the link.
Regardless, whether or not he told one or more, there was clearly bias present in this juror as the court agreed (hence the boot).
That tells me the system, which should have polled for bias before he was assigned, did not work well (though granted they finally did recognize his clearly skewed bias, and threw him off after the fact).
It was only by luck and the fact someone who worked for the court reported it, that his bias was exposed.
Well, that and the media divulging it, wasn't taken too lightly by those angered by the joke. I'd say, In this case, the media worked pretty well.

 

[ASHES]

I suspect his position had to do with rulings regarding labeling of various persons involved, such as who can call whom a "rioter" but who cannot call whom a "victim", seeing as neither shooter nor shot persons have been convicted of anything, not that one convicts a body (unless I missed something, which is quite possible given the level of attention I've paid this recently).

Now, how that lines up with MI law is probably everyone on DP's guess, since we'd need a seasoned MI defense attorney to weigh in on MI law in that regard, and I don't think I ever did have an opportunity to research federal jurisprudence on party-labeling, but if I had it'd be 1st Circuit mainly.

Wisconsin, not Michigan.

 

[sjmay]

you seem to be assuming that is the underlying purpose to own a firearm, when its owner might be like our national government, and want to possess lethal power to dissuade others from attacking them

Again, you are mistaking purpose, with design.