I would say… running away met any requirement for retreat… he was trying to retreat… running for his life.
3 Likes
My personal opinion is that #2 and #3 are pretty clear cut from a legal perspective. There are MANY videos documenting his attempts to escape and that the fight pursued him.
#1 seems less clear to me and this will likely be the lynch pin to it all.
2 Likes
Everyone is focused on the last two shootings (when he fell to the ground). You need to look at the first shooting. The one with Rosenbaum (shot 5 times). The guy with the alleged “molotov coctail”. See my post above.
Here’s what I found on another attorney’s site about that Duty to Retreat Stand Your ground etc… (Wisconsin doesn’t have stand your ground BTW):
Without Stand-Your-Ground the prosecution can argue that the defender had a legal duty to take advantage of any safe avenue of retreat before he could lawfully resort to deadly force in self-defense.
Keep in mind, of course, that the jury wasn’t at the defensive gun use scene. All they know is the stories they are being told in court, the narrative of compelling guilt by the State and the narrative of compelling innocence by the defense.
If the State chooses to attack your claim of self-defense on the issue of avoidance/retreat, and has a way to get around Stand-Your-Ground, the prosecutor can simply role in a huge drawing of the scene on a big easel. And on that drawing he will have highlighted the dozen or so safe avenues of retreat that you could have taken instead of shooting and killing the “victim” (e.g., the person who attacked you).
Of course, what may look like an obviously safe avenue of retreat using perfect hindsight and from the security of a guarded court room may not have been at all obvious to you, the defender, engaged in an existential fight for your life against a vicious attacker. There’s no way, however, to truly immerse the jury in that existential experience. The “retreat drawing,” however, is simple.
So what happened in the first Shooting is Critical. Was Kyle trapped in that parking lot or could he have evaded him further? For his sake I hope he was at a dead end. If not this could be a problem and taint the other shootings as non self defense because they were trying to take down a “killer”.
So as long as someone else is breaking the law, it’s ok for you to, as well? Is that what you are saying? That is a yes or no question.
1 Like
Exactly and the lynch pin incident is the FIRST shooting with Rosenbaum. Everyone is focused on the later two shootings which obviously look like SELF-DEFENSE IF the #1 Criteria is in favor of Kyle.
If you mean the first shooting… consider, the video evidence is Rittenhouse is being chased, his pursuer is closing the distance and throws something (there is debate over what, but it was considered to be a weapon, there is no time to stop and investigate), and then a gun shot, at which point Rittenhouse turns and returns fire, but he found Rosenbaum right at his face, and grabbing for his rifle, he fired and ran, around the vehicles and came back around… and then he appears to call 911. We need the 911 records.
If you are chased, you are attacked, and you are shot at, those all meet the criteria for self defense.
3 Likes
That’s the one. Nothing that I have seen has convinced me that it was CLEARLY self defense, but of course the corollary is that nothing I have seen makes it CLEAR that it wasn’t and there is supposed to be a pre supposition of innocence. And it’s not like #1 isnt on video begging to be shot and inciting violence.
1 Like
I’m not focused on just the last two. He is running away during the first one until someone else (not Kyle) shoots a gun into the air (I don’t have the link to the video that showed this right now, but I’ll look for it) at which point the first guy catches up to him. I’d say that any reasonable person would feel being shot at (it wasn’t at him, it was into the air, but he didn’t know that) and having someone who was chasing you, throwing things at you, and trying to grab your gun catch up to you means you attempted to get away, but were forced to fight.
2 Likes
So, another one who wants to play stupid games.
If you can not win on facts, make up false accusations? Is that your plan?
I never said if one person violates the law, it is OK for others.
AND I notice you want to ask questions BUT REFUSE TO ANSWER any.
Do you think if you are attacked, even if you violated a law… .do you have a claim of self defense.
As I said, you want to blame Rittenhouse by claiming he violated the curfew or some law…
But, if you violate the law and speed, and someone follows you… chases, you… and attacks you, and you are forced to shoot them in self defense, do you lose the claim of self defense if you violated a law that led up to the shooting… or violated any law that might have put you in that position.
Rittenhouse worked in Kenosha that day, he helped after work trying to clean graffiti off of the high school, and he rendered first aid to those injured.
He was clearly being attacked, clearly his life was threatened, and clearly had a claim to self defense.
Any legal issue over the curfew or the carrying of a rifle is separate and may still find him in trouble, but they do not negate the self defense.
1 Like
Now we are getting on the same page. This is not an exercise to Crucify the kid. I truly want to explore this from a Self-Defense standpoint. And the FIRST event is what is unclear to me and IMHO is the lyncpin of the case. Unfortunately this will take another 18-24 months to be resolved with more evidence. But its fine if anyone wants to say he is innocent right now. I just can’t.
The video clearly shows he is being chased.
The video shows Rosenbaum closing the distance, and catching Rittenhouse…
And the eyewitness stated there was a gun shot before Rittenhouse turned and fired, and the witness stated Rittenhouse had to dodge Rosenbaum who was reaching for the rifle, and then Rittenhouse fired.
Not sure what other evidence would be needed. But, there might be more information that has not come out yet.
2 Likes
I hear you, I just haven’t seen it (or if I did it still left some holes in the story for me).
1 Like
No, we are not on the same page. You clearly want to condemn Rittenhouse … and you made false insulting accusations and insiunations.
It is clear… Rittenhouse has a claim of self defense.
The first event has on video, Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse, and the eyewitness states there was something thrown and a gun shot, which is when Rittenhouse turned to fire, and found Rosenbaum right behind him ‘lunging for the rifle’ (per the eyewitness)… the eyewitness was on Tucker, and is a journalist and can be seen in the video as he was the first to render aid to Rosenbaum.
Rittenhouse acted in self defense, in all three shootings.
Nobody is saying he is completely innocent. The carrying of a rifle and any legal issues over a curfew might still be a concern, but the shootings are clearly self defense, and violating a curfew does not negate your right to self defense if you are chased and attacked.
Is that clear enough for you.
1 Like
You have been so sensitive Kevin. I was trying not to respond to you because you seemed like you were taking everything personally. Get in control of your emotions dude.
I though you said Goodbye.
What holes?
What does not add up in the video?
Was Rittenhouse being chased?
Was Rittenhouse being attacked?
Was Rittenhouse under threat of death or bodily harm?
And, you might need to google the eyewitness and hear the account of what happened, but … was there a gun shot at or towards Rittenhouse?
If there is a hole in the story, can you express it or is it just a feeling and one that is not easily explained.
I mean we all get a funny feeling about certain things… so just trying to piece it together and either see what you are not seeing, or help you see the story without the holes.
1 Like
I have answered multiple questions. You shoot them down with a couple video clips. Do you have evidence he was 100% legal? No you don’t, so why don’t you get off of your soapbox. Good intentions can go to prison just like bad ones.
What false accusations? Was he out after curfew? Yes. Fact.
Did he work at the dealership or gas station? No. Fact.
Did he live there? No. Fact.
Was he under 18 in possession of a deadly weapon? Yes. Fact.
Do good intentions negate breaking the law? No. Fact.
Do people with good intentions sit in jail if they did something illegal just like any other person that acted illegally? Yes. Fact.
Are you a lawyer? No. fact.
Were you there? No. Fact.
Do you know exactly what happened aside from what was on camera? No. Fact.
So you can play stupid games and know he is innocent from a couple videos? A few minutes of video is all you need to see to know without a doubt he is squeeky clean? Do you know for a fact that he didn’t instigate a confrontation? Prove that. Who are you to point your finger at me? If you want to jump on me because I don’t have all the facts, why don’t you keep your fingers away from the keyboard as well, because you don’t know any more than anyone else here.
1 Like
Breitbart story link. His lawyers take.
He points out that authorities did nothing, forcing citizens to enforce the law. Interesting take.
3 Likes
I’m curious how an authorization to be on private property plays with a curfew. For instance, can I go to my place of business and sit in the closed property, or say on the roof of my business like the Koreans did in the California riots, during a curfew? I don’t believe a curfew restricts you from property you’re legally entitled to be at, but I don’t know. The lawyers state that Kyle was given authorization to be there by the owners so does that give a defense to the curfew? He can legally be there and then ends up defending himself?
1 Like
@Kevin29
Someone posted a summary of what appeared to be interpretations of relevent statutes earlier in this thread. Referencing this, if it can be proven that he provoked the original attack by #1 then he still had an obligation to retreat. Was anyone’s life being threatened by the vandalism being done to the cars in the lot?? Probably not, and still he confronted (or a shrewd attorney may say provoked) the vandals. Is a 5.56 to the head disparate force relative to a plastic bag with a rock, or ice in it??
In the end a jury will decide and my indicating that self defense is not 100% clear to me is neither a presumption of guilt or an attack on the kid, or on your views.
1 Like
@Scotty posted this video earlier. If you watch it at about the 3 minute mark he pieces together some video that speculates what started the whole thing. I’m not sure how putting out a fire about to be used for a crime (if that’s actually how it went down) would be considered instigating something and sacrifice your self defense justification. Here’s the link again in case you missed it Kyle Rittenhouse Update (I WAS WRONG) - YouTube
Again, not saying this is fact, just putting the currently available info out there.