Kyle Rittenhouse Legal Proceedings - Come for the trial, stay for….

[karadion]

Based on the number of soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines I've heard talk out their ass about things like firearms I tend to discredit anyone who uses their prior military service as a reference for talking about anything. Dude is probably a POG that happened to get a CAB because the FOB got mortared.

Nah, CAB was created in 2005 and is only retroactive to 2001. This dude was out in 1999.

 

[Make Anime Illegal]

Is the judge the one who delivers these kinds of instructions to the jury?

Yes. There are standardized jury instructions with optional portions that the judge can admit if there are relevant facts in the case. That's why they wanted the drone footage so badly, even thought its a blurry pile of dog shit if they claim it's Kyle pointing his rifle at Ziminski then they convinced the judge to include the paragraph about intentional provocation.

Provocation

You should also consider whether the defendant provoked the attack. A person who engages in unlawful conduct1 of a type likely to provoke others to attack, and who does provoke an attack, is not allowed to use or threaten force in self defense against that attack.

[USE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS THAT ARE SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.]

[However, if the attack which follows causes the person reasonably to believe that he2 is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, he may lawfully act in self defense. But the person may not use or threaten force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless he reasonably believes he has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm.]

[A person who provokes an attack may regain the right to use or threaten force if the person in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice of the withdrawal to his assailant.]

[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 another person is not entitled to use or threaten force in self defense.]

 

[TheClappening]

it looks like it comes down to whether or not the state can convince the jury that Kyle intended to provoke an attack, and whether the conduct was legal or not is irrelevant. Hopefully the defense points out how he basically ignored the "protesters" 99% of the time. If he intended to provoke an attack, he would have been talking a lot more shit.

Is there a stipulation for duty to retreat? My understanding is that if you provoke an attack, and then "defend yourself" with deadly force, you're fucked.

But if you provoke an attack, the provoked person responds with deadly force, you attempt to retreat and are unable to, you have regained the right to self defense.

Like, let's say you're in a bar and I call you a cocksucking faggot, you get offended and we start throwing hands. I pull a gun and shoot you dead. In that case, since I was the provoker, I can't claim self defense.

But let's say the thing happens, but I pussy out and start running away. You chase me, pull out a knife, and I only shoot when the only options are eat a blade or pull the trigger. In that scenario, I would have regained my self defense defense.

EDIT: Saw the second post

 

[Myles the Potatophile]

Something pondered in my head: in all these "peaceful protests," there's criminals, thugs, shysters, pedophiles and degenerates involved. You could literally pluck a random person there, chances are you'd pick one out. Why is that?

Since the 60s when what you could call radical leftism (The Weatherman/Weather Underground etc) got off the ground, these groups discovered that it was much simpler to motivate and radicalize people who had nothing going on, chips on their shoulder, or some other fucked up problem. Originally Marxism and Marxist-Leninism was supposed to be appealing to the working class, but the working class said 'lol nah', so the need for foot soldiers came from the dregs of society and college students.

When you call for violence, people involved with this found that they didn't have the stomach for violence. Appeal to violent people however and that becomes helpful. To say that something like Antifa are the lefts shock troops is a very accurate description.

As you've observed, this continues to this day. And now instead of trying to appeal to the working class at all, it's just about destroying 'the system'. Not really to liberate a group, or make life easier for another, just everything lefties set out to do is to 'destroy the system'. This system just so happens to be everything that's worked and is known to be stable.

 

[CIS White Droid]

Nah, CAB was created in 2005 and is only retroactive to 2001. This dude was out in 1999.

Ah, I didn't know that when I made my post. So guy is most likely just a liar about being a combat vet unless he got shot at in Bosnia or something.

 

[talk talk talk]

Yes. There are standardized jury instructions with optional portions that the judge can admit if there are relevant facts in the case. That's why they wanted the drone footage so badly, even thought its a blurry pile of dog shit if they claim it's Kyle pointing his rifle at Ziminski then they convinced the judge to include the paragraph about intentional provocation.

Is that from the Wisconsin JIGs?

 

[reinigen]

The jury isn't sequestered, so why are you assuming they don't know about Rosenbong's kiddy diddling activities? Just because it wasn't brought up in the trial, doesn't mean the jurors never used the internet in 2020. Lots of people know.

But the guys Kyle shot came across as unsympathetic even if you're an alien visitor who landed in Kenosha WI just to observe the trial. Handyman performed poorly under cross examination. Rosenbong's angry gamer word shenanigans were discussed at length. The jury knows these guys weren't there to have a respectful conversation about inner city policing or Confederate statues.

Kyle did well on the stand, and showing emotion over the guys he wasted will help him with the jury. I'm betting on super not guilty.

Considering Tucker and Hannity have been shouting from the rooftop the last few days that Rosenbaum was a kiddy diddler, there's definitely been enough talk in the news media bout that fact. And if there's anyone of the jury who is conservative and travels through standard boomer conservative circles, I can't believe for a second their brother Billy or cousin Lisa hasn't sent them a clip/told them to tune in for the night.

It's illegal to aim a gun at someone without justification, which is what they're going for.

I would need to change my pants if the prosecution spent forever and a day pointing that fucking bigfoot photo/drone camera shot going "SEE, SEE! HE POINTED HIS RIFLE FIRST!", and the defense then brought out that video we've been talking about the last few pages and said "not only are these blowhards trying to pull the wool over your eyes because they think you're stupid, here's Mr. Zeminski clearly with his gun drawn already at this point. At the exact moment they're alledging".

Nothing till Monday, if we are good boys and girls we may even get a verdict on Monday, if not Tuesday, and if nothing by Tuesday I'm assuming a hung jury.

My dream is a 30 minute in and out not guilty on all charges.
Thread next week:

 

[Make Anime Illegal]

Is there a stipulation for duty to retreat? My understanding is that if you provoke an attack, and then "defend yourself" with deadly force, you're fucked.

But if you provoke an attack, the provoked person responds with deadly force, you attempt to retreat and are unable to, you have regained the right to self defense.

Like, let's say you're in a bar and I call you a cocksucking faggot, you get offended and we start throwing hands. I pull a gun and shoot you dead. In that case, since I was the provoker, I can't claim self defense.

But let's say the thing happens, but I pussy out and start running away. You chase me, pull out a knife, and I only shoot when the only options are eat a blade or pull the trigger. In that scenario, I would have regained my self defense defense.

EDIT: Saw the second post

You can defend yourself with deadly force if you unintentionally provoke the attack, and exhaust your ability to retreat. If you intentionally provoke an attack, you can't claim self defense period.

 

[Niggernerd]

Oh I'm well aware lol. I just figured it was good for a "laugh at the exceptional individual" moment. Because by that dudes logic, everyone out that night was fair game.

Edit
Or did you mean that poster's record?

The "veterans"

 

[A_throwaway_name62919]

Jesus christ, were any of these peaceful protestors NOT gigantic pieces of shit?

I wouldn't bet on it. People who aren't gigantic pieces of shit generally have better things to do going on in their lives than to spend time at protests. Whether it be work, family, or their own hobbies. The people who aren't gigantic pieces of shit and do have the time for protests are either protesting during the day, at well organized protests not random "spontaneous" protests, or just take a look around to realize that the people they're with are gigantic pieces of shit and quietly leave to find better people to protest with. That leaves the gigantic pieces of shit, the regular pieces of shit, and a few of the young and dumb getting swept along as their idealism gets exploited.

 

[MG-34]

So saw this getting shared by occupy democrats. I'm just gonna assume dude is full of shit on being a combat vet. Some serious retardation here.
View attachment 2711855

This fobbit nigger never touched an M4 out of basic. The number one rule of Use of Deadly Force was you can always inact your inherent right to self defense and defense of others no matter what AOR you were in. Never trust an anti gun "vet" chances are their deployment history consists of sucking cocks in Kuwait and Qutar for 4 months.

Edited for spelling.

 

[karadion]

Ah, I didn't know that when I made my post. So guy is most likely just a liar about being a combat vet unless he got shot at in Bosnia or something.

Nope, he wouldn't be on KFOR either. KFOR got stood up in June 1999 and he was out in August 1999. You aren't going to be deploying a dude who has two months left when the army required a year long deployment at the time. Kurt Schlichter for example was in Kosovo for quite sometime. Given how large the US Army was even back then, your chances of being deployed there was shit low unlike Iraq.

 

[Lord of the Large Pants]

so the need for foot soldiers came from the dregs of society and college students.

But you repeat yourself.

 

[Feline Supremacist]

I don't wanna be a dick about it, but it's possible to have a grasp on something without doing it as a profession. It's possible to have a formal education related to trial law without having a J.D. or going to law school. You can even say it's possible that a person could spend a lot of time in a courtroom during criminal trials without having passed the Bar.

I'm not nor have I ever claimed to be in the profession or to give professional advice. I've shared my opinions on law with others here before and have been corrected on my misconceptions before. Either way, it's exceptional to pretend that understanding the law is some kind of cursed, hidden temple of protected knowledge that's gatekept by a bunch of hyper-educated suits that had 2 free years and $100k to burn. I can see you wigging out if I were on here making claims misrepresenting myself, but the concepts people are discussing are chapter 1 undergraduate stuff. This isn't a super deep or complicated case, and the lawyers involved aren't digging deep into complicated legal concepts.

I didn't say his lawyers were doing a bad job. I said they were being lazy. They're not actively tanking his case, but they are constantly denying opportunities to help him. They're winning on most of their arguments, but they're not arguing as much as they should be.

Oh I agree, despite working in the legal profession for several years and having actual trial experience, I would retain a criminal law attorney for any matter that may result in jail/prison, because I practiced civil law and our practice didn't do criminal law. Not that wouldn't want to know what is going on but I'd never presume to tell any defense attorney how to do their job.

Just like I knew which judges were favorable to our attorneys, their idiosyncrasies and particular way of running their courtrooms, criminal law attorneys know their judges and court, as well as the local PD and DA/DOJ. There are factors other than statues and case law that come into play, that we as spectators don't know but the local defense attorney does. People forget that when they say Kyle's attorneys made massive mistakes. While sure, there are things I may have wanted them to do or say, they know the court and judge better than anyone on a gossip forum does, and that includes me.

 

[JoyfulDarter]

Do the jury instructions make clear that Provocation requires an unlawful act? If so and the judge uses the defense's proposed instructions for the possession charge, as long as the jury follows the instructions they cannot think "him just being there with a gun is provocation!"

I mean by that logic, the guys that were there with clubs and masks to hide their identity were acting provocative towards everyone around them, including Kyle.

 

[ProtonMailManTheSequel]

 

[Collections Agent]

This is probably exceptional behavior but I'm seriously considering ending a friendship due to someone believing Kyle faked his panic attack. While it would be the last straw that breaks a camels back in this situation, to have such little empathy to another human being who has PTSD from a situation that would be traumatic at the very least doesn't seem like someone anyone should have around in their life.

Exceptional I'm sure, but that level of either brainwashing, ideological possession, or just plain lack of empathy towards another human being present in someone feels like a good enough of a red flag to stop being close with someone. When people tell you who they are, believe them.

Late but the reason these people act like this It's because they don't know how most people outside of Twitter feel. They've never had to be in that kind of panic, they've never had to shoot somebody unwillingly, they've never had a fear for their life and be seconds away from being dead.

End friendships over this. It's the best way to show them that this sociopathic shit isn't and will never be welcome in actual society and make them feel accountable for their actions for once

 

[Kermit Jizz]

So saw this getting shared by occupy democrats. I'm just gonna assume dude is full of shit on being a combat vet. Some serious retardation here.
View attachment 2711855

"Place where violence is happening"
You mean the entire fucking city?

 

[CIS White Droid]

Nope, he wouldn't be on KFOR either. KFOR got stood up in June 1999 and he was out in August 1999. You aren't going to be deploying a dude who has two months left when the army required a year long deployment at the time. Kurt Schlichter for example was in Kosovo for quite sometime. Given how large the US Army was even back then, your chances of being deployed there was shit low unlike Iraq.

Regardless, this tard is talking out his ass and cements my thoughts on the fact that veteran =/= expert.

 

[ForTheHoard]

Is there a stipulation for duty to retreat? My understanding is that if you provoke an attack, and then "defend yourself" with deadly force, you're fucked.

But if you provoke an attack, the provoked person responds with deadly force, you attempt to retreat and are unable to, you have regained the right to self defense.

Like, let's say you're in a bar and I call you a cocksucking faggot, you get offended and we start throwing hands. I pull a gun and shoot you dead. In that case, since I was the provoker, I can't claim self defense.

But let's say the thing happens, but I pussy out and start running away. You chase me, pull out a knife, and I only shoot when the only options are eat a blade or pull the trigger. In that scenario, I would have regained my self defense defense.

EDIT: Saw the second post

The judge and prosecution talked about it today. There's no duty to retreat in Wisconsin. They even brought up the fact that Rosenpedo had no duty to retreat if he thought his life was in danger, and the prosecution's entire argument today was that Rosenpedo was provoked by Kyle pointing his rifle at Zimenski and was acting in defense of himself and others when he charged Kyle. They claim that when he commited a crime by pointing the rifle as Zimenski, he forfeited his right to self defense for the rest of the encounter.

The problem is that the main piece of evidence supporting that argument is super blurry drone view that has been digitally enhance to the point that it's considerably worse than the Bigfoot photo. The absolute most problematic piece of evidence in the entire trial is what would be the justification for guilty verdicts on all the murder counts.

The defense won their argument on jury instruction for the minor in possession of a deadly weapon charge so the jury is probably 90%+ likely not going to convict on that one.