Rittenhouse pleads 'Not Guilty'

[dusty88]

I am hearing reports that "jumpkickman" is claiming he approached the prosecutor and offered to testify in exchange for immunity. IOW, that the prosecutors know who he is and did not share. But that hasn't came to the courtroom. Is it even confirmed to be true?

 

[AngryRooster]

 

[KG1]

I am hearing reports that "jumpkickman" is claiming he approached the prosecutor and offered to testify in exchange for immunity. IOW, that the prosecutors know who he is and did not share. But that hasn't came to the courtroom. Is it even confirmed to be true?

Not sure but I've heard the banter about "jumpkickman" It was reported that he was not only looking to cut a deal in exchange for his testimony but it was for immunity in his existing un-related court cases and if that's true the prosecution lied about not knowing his identity.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Not sure but I've heard the banter about "jumpkickman" It was reported that he was not only looking to cut a deal in exchange for his testimony but it was for immunity in his existing un-related court cases and if that's true the prosecution lied about not knowing his identity.

Based on this case, you are more likely right than wrong.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

No. He literally wrote the book
Amazon product ASIN 1943809143He is pretty much the preeminent self defense lawyer in the country.

Law of Self Defense

lawofselfdefense.com

How many cases has he tried?

 

[tackdriver]

I think at the bottom of all this you have a trial by the state against vigilantism. ...

Not even really vigilantism. It's a trial against resistance. 'They' want you to believe you have no right, and no hope, to resist, if the thing you resist matches their narrative or dogma.

It's not new, and it's just the beginning here. Millions upon millions have been found guilty of [insert anything here] and put to death, just because they resisted. Millions more, just because they could resist, and even more just because they looked like the might think about resisting, or were related so someone that did. (Check up on Stalin, Mao, Kim, Castro, etc., etc.).

The same evil at work then never went away, and it's knocking at our door trying to get invited to dinner. Don't let it in, just because you don't want to appear rude!

 

[Jaybird1980]

So, I was trying to distill what's happening in this case for my wife (English isn't her first language, much of the legalese and nuance is lost, and she doesn't much care for media drama). There's been a lot of great insight in this thread and elsewhere, but it's a lot to absorb. Forgive me if this is redundant but, I'd like to check in and see if I'm even correctly understanding where things now stand.

- There is no argument that KR was doing anything illegal prior to the altercations that would alter his status. The BS about curfew and rifle possession is gone, and even if they were not, breaking curfew does not alter ones right to defend ones self from death or serious injury.
- Evidence and testimony indicates that KR reasonably believed that the 3 individuals he fired upon: 1. were intent on doing him harm, 2. had the capacity for doing him harm, and 3. were taking action on intent to do him harm. A ficticious "reasonable person" could agree. There has been no material evidence to contradict this.
- There has been no evidence that KR attempted to harm anyone other than those attacking him (as he saw it), nor any evidence that he had any premeditated intent to harm others.

Based on the above, this should be a textbook example of justified self defense. Did I miss anything yet?

- The prosecution, for whatever reason, decided that KR should stand trial for murder and lessor charges.
- The prosecution must Prove Beyond a Reasonable Doubt that KR did NOT believe that his attackers had Intent, Capacity, and Action.
- The prosecutions case was weak (at best) from the beginning, and got progressively worse at each step.
- "Lawyering 101: If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If the Law is on your side, argue the law. If neither is on your side, argue vehemently!" That seems to me to be the situation.
- The Law allows for self defense, given certain conditions. The Facts strongly indicate that each of the conditions were met.
- The only other way to get to "Guilty", is if KR is not entitled to self defense. The prosecution MUST find some way to remove, nullify, void, KR's right to self defense.

This is where the prosecution is trying to get to, and at this point, it's about all that matters. So...

- The first way to void the right to self defense is if the defendant was in the act of committing another crime, like robbery or rape. The prosecution may have been playing at this with the curfew and gun charges, but they are no longer relevant.
- The next way to remove self defense is if the defendant was the initial aggressor. IF KR provoked the confrontation, THEN he can no longer claim self defense protection. The 'provocation exception' or whatever, is meant to address situations where: A starts a fight with B, B fights back, A kills B and claims "I thought he was going to kill me" as self defense; or alternately, A baits B into an altercation for the purpose of killing B and then claiming self defense.
- At this point, the prosecution is going wayyyy out on a limb, claiming that KR merely having a rifle creates this provocation, and at a level high enough to void his right to self defense. (Micro-provocations, like micro-aggression???)
- The prosecution is claiming that 'You can't claim self defense if you brought the gun' (this is just diarrhea, hoping that jurors are really that stupid.)
- The prosecution is claiming that the videos in question show KR provoking Rosenbaum to act in self defense. Next, the shooting of Rosenbaum then provoked others to justifiably attack KR. (this seems like evil strategy 101 - look at what you did, then viciously accuse someone of doing that to you!)
- Just for good measure, the prosecution is arguing that KR wasn't really in danger, it was 'just a little scuffle' or 'just a bar fight' right. (just the dumbest argument possible, but nothing says these guys are smart.)


As for the trial process itself, there are reasonable arguments for a mistrial, due to prosecutorial 'mis-steps', and about the admissibility of some of the prosecutions evidence. Some could lead to a mistrial with predjudice (State can't retry the case), some without prejudice (they get to do it all over again).

Regardless of the outcome, I'm pretty sure this case will have an impact and keep coming up. I'm likely to keep bringing it up. I'm entitled to my ridiculous opinions, but I'd like to make sure my understandings are reasonably solid. If I'm missing something big, please help me out.

They did argue that he was pointing his rifle, which is what provoked the altercations. This is what they are using the questionable video to try to prove, and where the possibility of playing games with the video resolution comes into play.

In my mind if the video in questioned showed evidence of provocation, they would have made sure the best quality video possible was shown everywhere, but IANAL so who knows.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Not even really vigilantism. It's a trial against resistance. 'They' want you to believe you have no right, and no hope, to resist, if the thing you resist matches their narrative or dogma.

It's not new, and it's just the beginning here. Millions upon millions have been found guilty of [insert anything here] and put to death, just because they resisted. Millions more, just because they could resist, and even more just because they looked like the might think about resisting, or were related so someone that did. (Check up on Stalin, Mao, Kim, Castro, etc., etc.).

The same evil at work then never went away, and it's knocking at our door trying to get invited to dinner. Don't let it in, just because you don't want to appear rude!

yet those same people who are complaining about him defending himself, would demand the same rights if we marched on them.

 

[tackdriver]

They did argue that he was pointing his rifle, which is what provoked the altercations. This is what they are using the questionable video to try to prove, and where the possibility of playing games with the video resolution comes into play.

In my mind if the video in questioned showed evidence of provocation, they would have made sure the best quality video possible was shown everywhere, but IANAL so who knows.

Good point! That's what I was looking for.

My thinking was "prior to the altercations" i.e. he wasn't prohibited from being there, trespassing, assaulting people, looting, etc.

Even on the 'Gun pointing' thing, there were no related criminal charges for acts prior to Rosenbaum.

I agree with you completely on it though.

 

[jwamplerusa]

I hope something was learned from 2020.

This time if there's any justice at all there will be an immediate evelopment and crushing of the burn loot murder crowd. Start with handing ammo to the National Guard members called up, with clear ROE supporting defense of selves and property.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Good point! That's what I was looking for.

My thinking was "prior to the altercations" i.e. he wasn't prohibited from being there, trespassing, assaulting people, looting, etc.

Even on the 'Gun pointing' thing, there were no related criminal charges for acts prior to Rosenbaum.

I agree with you completely on it though.

The video wasn't discovered until later in the trial (they say). I guarantee if he's found not guilty or it's dismissed with prejudice he'll be getting that charge.

 

[Cameramonkey]

I hope something was learned from 2020.

This time if there's any justice at all there will be an immediate evelopment and crushing of the burn loot murder crowd. Start with handing ammo to the National Guard members called up, with clear ROE supporting defense of selves and property.

and a proactive rounding up of random piles of bricks that magically appear on street corners. As soon as these piles are found, get rid of them. THat could keep the national guard busy while they are waiting.

 

[Cameramonkey]

And one important fact mentioned way upthread. Under wisconsin law, even if you provoke (e.g. point a gun as they are claiming) the provocation "goes away" and is ignored if you attempt to flee afterward. I'd call running several blocks before getting cornered with nowhere to go fleeing.


And in my mind, being cornered adds additional credence over just turning around in the middle of the street after running a bit and effectively saying "screw it, I'm done running. Time to fight!".

 

[tackdriver]

yet those same people who are complaining about him defending himself, would demand the same rights if we marched on them.

Precisely!

I have no doubt that:

If a shop owner was heard saying something like "if you all light one more fire on my property, I'll beat your @$$ up and off my lot."...
Then, later that evening, a "mostly-peaceful protester" who just happened to have matches and a can of gas in his hands, was being chased by the shop owner...
Then the protester turned and shot the shop owner dead...

this would all be a very different story. Not only would it be deemed clearly self defense, the protester would be a victim, there would be a march to finish burning down the shop, there would be a national outcry that "arsonist are people too", and there'd be a go-fund-me and facebook accounts set up to sue the crap out of the dead shop owners estate.

 

[Cameramonkey]

ITs getting real. Hey boys and girls, can we say "Jury intimidation?"

BREAKING: Arrest Reported After Rittenhouse Juror Followed Home - Todd Starnes

A person followed a Rittenhouse juror home Wednesday night and was arrested by Kenosha police, Disclose TV reported Thursday.

www.toddstarnes.com

 

[Alpo]

I always thought arson was a forcible felony.

Weapons free!

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I always thought arson was a forcible felony.

Weapons free!

It can vary based on what's being "arsoned" and the specific state, but generally it is. Especially if it's a building, and doubly especially if it's an occupied building.

 

[Doug]

PREDICTION:
If Rittenhouse is found not guilty, there will be retaliatory burning, rioting, and looting.

If Rittenhouse is found guilty, there will be celebratory burning, rioting, and looting.

No matter what, Kenosha burns.

Maybe Indianapolis, too.

 

[buckwacker]

ITs getting real. Hey boys and girls, can we say "Jury intimidation?"

BREAKING: Arrest Reported After Rittenhouse Juror Followed Home - Todd Starnes

A person followed a Rittenhouse juror home Wednesday night and was arrested by Kenosha police, Disclose TV reported Thursday.

www.toddstarnes.com

Apperantly it was an MSNBC employee, prompting the judge to ban the network and it's parent NBC from the courtroom.

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

 

[tackdriver]

The video wasn't discovered until later in the trial (they say). I guarantee if he's found not guilty or it's dismissed with prejudice he'll be getting that charge.

I think I really am missing something. Are we talking about the same areal drone footage that show him being chased through the car lot? If so, I'm not even seeing what they're making a point of. Yes, KR did point the gun at R before shooting him. That's kind of how they work. I'm pretty sure that every time someone was successfully shot, the gun was pointed at them first. I really must be missing that key point.

and...does the HR video clearly show him pointing a gun at others, before preparing to shoot the maniac chasing him?