Kenosha Shooting - split from The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Retired AF Guy]

Attached, if anyone is interested, is the Criminal Indictment against Kyle Rittenhouse containing his alleged crimes, plus, a summary of what happened that night.

 

[LittleBlackDevil]

Had he gone home after the shooting, contacted a lawyer and then surrendered to police, he would likely be able to frame the incident as self-defense and judging by the confusion existing on events, it would be quite possible that they could introduce enough reasonable doubt to forgo the charge.

Aaron J. Danielson?

Considering that he finds himself on the "correct" side of the political divide ("left of centre") I think that if he had behaved as you describe, he would have had a very very high chance of the DA not even pressing charges.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Fightback.law has put together a video that in their view somewhat accurately portrays what happened with K. Rittenhouse. 
https://fightback.law/news/

Edit: link is under DOS attack. Try this: https://twitter.com/RubinReport/status/1308581276769685504?s=20

Note the abundance of hangovers N.S. and apparently a rifle in possession of the protestors. 

Hopefully someday these street gun battles will end.

 

[Pelorus]

An update from the Associated Press: Kenosha shooter's defense portrays him as 'American patriot'

Highlights from the article (but you should really read the whole article): (Underline and bolding mine [for separate reasons]):

The way lawyers for Kyle Rittenhouse tell it, he wasn't just a scared teenager acting in self-defense when he shot to death two Kenosha, Wisconsin, protesters. He was a courageous defender of liberty, a patriot exercising his right to bear arms amid rioting in the streets.

17-year-old citizen is being sacrificed by politicians, but it's not Kyle Rittenhouse they are after. Their end game is to strip away the constitutional right of all citizens to defend our communities, says the voice-over at the end of a video released this week by a group tied to Rittenhouse's legal team.

"Kyle Rittenhouse will go down in American history alongside that brave unknown patriot ... who fired "The Shot Heard Round the World", lead attorney John Pierce wrote this month in a tweet he later deleted. The Second American Revolution against Tyranny has begun."

But such dramatic rhetoric that has helped raise nearly $2 million for Rittenhouse's defense may not work with a jury considering charges that could put the teen in prison for life. Legal experts say there could be big risks in turning a fairly straightforward self-defense case into a fight for freedom that mirrors the law-and-order reelection theme President Donald Trump has struck amid a wave of protests over racial injustice.

...

Eric Creizman, a former partner at Pierce's firm, said the heated language in the tweets is not surprising because of his former boss%u2019 tendency toward hyperbole, though he wonders if it will backfire.

"The question really should focus on whether this guy is guilty of what they're charging him with,he said, instead of making it into a political issue.

One politically charged tactic critics have attacked as a longshot is Pierce's promise to fight a charge of underage firearm possession, a misdemeanor, by arguing U.S. law allows for an "unorganized militia." Rittenhouse wielded a semi-automatic rifle.

Some experts have even questioned whether the teenager's team of four attorneys will feel pressure to hold back from making a plea bargain out of fear of disrupting the patriotic narrative and disappointing donors.

"There is a temptation to shape court arguments to keep the money flowing while the battle is ongoing, said Richard Cayo, a Milwaukee attorney who helps other lawyers in ethics cases. It puts lawyers at risk of trying to serve two masters."

Both Pierce and Wood have ties to Trump's orbit and his brand of GOP politics, though it's not clear if that played any role in their involvement in Rittenhouse's case and how it is being handled. For his part, Trump has made statements appearing to support Rittenhouse's claim of self-defense, saying the young man probably would have been killed.

...

More at link.


Throughout my adult life I have always taken the middle road with regards to the difficult topic of adult vs. juvenile sentencing for late-teens, and have always seen compelling arguments in favour of both positions. As a rule I lean towards the rehabilitation model of justice vs. the retribution model, but I acknowledge that both have their place and in reality require a case-by-case approach.

I have always been a strong believer in the philosophy of western justice, specifically with regards to the right to a fair trial. This includes the right to a competent defense for all defendants, even if we need to pay Public Defenders a proper salary to attract competent defense attorneys for all persons no matter what their alleged crimes.


While I am certainly not a lawyer, my personal belief from the known facts thus far leads me to believe that Mr. Rittenhouse is likely guilty of a number of US crimes, and I cannot imagine a scenario in which I as a 17 year old would feel compelled to enter another state (with a firearm that I cannot legally cross state lines with) to defend property that is a) not mine, and b) I have not been directly asked by the property owner for assistance.

To bring this all back to the quoted article, I believe that Mr. Rittenhouse is entitled to the best available defense in this criminal matter. Given the information in the article, I am worried that he has been seduced into replacing his assigned public defender with a high-priced (even if pro-bono in this instance) conservative attorney who is more concerned with trying to make a name for themselves and/or kiss Trump/Barr's ring than to do what's best for their client.

Time will tell I suppose.



EDIT: Trying to fix weird BB Code artifacts from importing a news article. Read the linked article for the most accurate version.

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=boot12 ] and I cannot imagine a scenario in which I as a 17 year old would feel compelled to enter another state (with a firearm that I cannot legally cross state lines with) to defend property that is a) not mine, and b) I have not been directly asked by the property owner for assistance.
[/quote]

Ironically your example also describes the US military.

 

[OldSolduer]

Ironically your example also describes the US military.

The US military is an armed organization that is part of the government. This 17 year old is a private citizen. Big difference

 

[mariomike]

The US military is an armed organization that is part of the government. This 17 year old is a private citizen. Big difference

I joined the Canadian Army ( Reserve ) in the summer of 1970 when I was 16. I also owned rifles and shotguns. The FLQ Crisis was in the news that October.

But, I had no desire to go there as a private citizen with my personal guns. I certainly would have if sent as a soldier.

 

[Jarnhamar]

The US military is an armed organization that is part of the government. This 17 year old is a private citizen. Big difference

I'd venture that armed organization recruits from private citizens who for 17 years are fed a diet of guns, liberty, and defending democracy from enemies foreign and domestic.

The kid shot someone then immediately started first aid (before getting scared off).
He also was attacked, used his gun to defend himself then didn't shoot the person who had their hands up.

He's not a member of the military but I see some similarities in mindsets.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

An update from the Associated Press: Kenosha shooter's defense portrays him as 'American patriot'

H
To bring this all back to the quoted article, I believe that Mr. Rittenhouse is entitled to the best available defense in this criminal matter. Given the information in the article, I am worried that he has been seduced into replacing his assigned public defender with a high-priced (even if pro-bono in this instance) conservative attorney who is more concerned with trying to make a name for themselves and/or kiss Trump/Barr's ring than to do what's best for their client.

Your faith in a assigned public defender is interesting, most arrive at your case with a file load of some 1-200 cases, they will generally opt for the quickest and least risk option, advising their client to plead to lesser charges and making a deal. The public defenders comes with almost no resources to support them and what they have access to is a shared pool of clerks to do file admin work. Believe me he is far better off with his current legal team, who are already challenging the narrative with a well crafted video that places their client in the best light possible, which is their job. They know that their is the court of law, the court of political expedience and the court of public opinion. They know he has already been convicted in the political court, but they intend to fight in the court of law and public opinion. 

 

[Good2Golf]

boot12, what makes you think that part of a (even pro bono) lawyer’s nexus/reputation wouldn’t be the successful defence of their client? ???

 

[OldSolduer]

. They know he has already been convicted in the political court, but they intend to fight in the court of law and public opinion.

Highlight to indicate this is the only court that has a say in whether he's found guilty or not guilty.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Highlight to indicate this is the only court that has a say in whether he's found guilty or not guilty.

The other 2 can play a part, perhaps without the political court, he would not be facing many of the current charges that were so quickly slapped on him.

 

[brihard]

Criminal is also not the only court of law. This kid and his parents are gonna get destroyed civilly.

 

[OldSolduer]

Criminal is also not the only court of law. This kid and his parents are gonna get destroyed civilly.

F8cK yes you know it. The lawsuit will be for millions.

 

[mariomike]

This kid and his parents are gonna get destroyed civilly.

Looks like at least four federal civil rights  lawsuits against Kyle, Facebook, and the militia and the Boogaloo Bois.

 

[FSTO]

Gunshot victim receiving death threats:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/he-was-shot-in-kenosha-then-received-threats-a-frightening-pattern-after-high-profile-incidents/ar-BB19gZ76

Very sympathetic piece on the victim by CNN.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/11/us/kenosha-gaige-grosskreutz-shooting-victim-interview/index.html

Which is vastly different from the video in Cloud Covers post.


Re: Kenosha Shooting - split from The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #122 on: September 22, 2020, 17:56:24 »

Quote
Fightback.law has put together a video that in their view somewhat accurately portrays what happened with K. Rittenhouse. 
https://fightback.law/news/

Edit: link is under DOS attack. Try this: https://twitter.com/RubinReport/status/1308581276769685504?s=20

Note the abundance of hangovers N.S. and apparently a rifle in possession of the protestors. 

Hopefully someday these street gun battles will end.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2020, 18:00:36 by CloudCover »


Each side of these types of incidents taylor the narrative to suit their agendas. Its gotten to the point that there is not a dispassionate voice like Knowlton Nash or Walter Cronkite that we can trust to tell the absolute truth.

 

[shawn5o]

Two things

- the rifle he had was legal in Wisconsin
https://www.scribd.com/document/474027394/Pierce-Bainbridge-Statement-on-Kyle-Rittenhouse-8-28-20?fbclid=IwAR2dLfHpBVMQGuwGs6Viknh88hEkrnyiT18P-QDe0zBqftN5y88T_WuHWdM

- Ref the civil court actions - IMO, the self-defence will pass muster, and if so, I doubt if the civil court action will hold
(I'm not a lawyer, however, I'm eligible to serve jury duty  )

 

[Donald H]

Two things

- the rifle he had was legal in Wisconsin
https://www.scribd.com/document/474027394/Pierce-Bainbridge-Statement-on-Kyle-Rittenhouse-8-28-20?fbclid=IwAR2dLfHpBVMQGuwGs6Viknh88hEkrnyiT18P-QDe0zBqftN5y88T_WuHWdM

- Ref the civil court actions - IMO, the self-defence will pass muster, and if so, I doubt if the civil court action will hold
(I'm not a lawyer, however, I'm eligible to serve jury duty  )

I think you're probably right on the self defense plea saving him.
But that's becoming a very big problem for Wisconsin isn't it?

If you got my reply to your p.m then send my a message back on what you were meaning.

:cheers:

 

[mariomike]

- Ref the civil court actions - IMO, the self-defence will pass muster, and if so, I doubt if the civil court action will hold
(I'm not a lawyer, however, I'm eligible to serve jury duty  )

All I know about US law is what I learned from watching Matlock. I was excused from jury duty.

That is NOT to suggest criminal guilt or innocence.

I believe this is the disclaimer: "All suspects are considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law."

I was just remembering a few guys who did ok on the criminal raps, but got hit hard in civil court.

eg: OJ, Robert Blake, the subway vigilante etc.

Interesting how the federal civil rights lawsuit is not just against Kyle, but also includes Facebook, and the militia.

The lawsuit, filed on Tuesday, Sept. 22, alleges the defendants “promoted attendance, violence, and imagery designed to threaten, intimidate, and harass.”

I'm no lawyer either. Perhaps SMEs will weigh in?

 

[Donald H]

All I know about US law is what I learned from watching Matlock. I was excused from jury duty.

That is NOT to suggest criminal guilt or innocence.

I believe this is the disclaimer: "All suspects are considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law."

I was just remembering a few guys who did ok on the criminal raps, but got hit hard in civil court.

eg: OJ, Robert Blake, the subway vigilante etc.

Interesting how the federal civil rights lawsuit is not just against Kyle, but also includes Facebook, and the militia.

The lawsuit, filed on Tuesday, Sept. 22, alleges the defendants “promoted attendance, violence, and imagery designed to threaten, intimidate, and harass.”

I'm no lawyer either. Perhaps SMEs will weigh in?

It seems a simple question but can the OJ Simpson outcome actually happen in Canada? That is, being found not guilty of criminal charges and then the civil suit being successful against him?