New Strategy From Rittenhouse Defense Team; He Was Just Hunting

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Two things. One, a person committing a crime cannot claim self-defense.

That is a decisively and demonstrably false statement of law.

Another is a person engaging in self-defense cannot use excessive force and shooting someone in the back as they lay face down on the ground is excessive.

Who got shot in the back? Your facts are all fucked up.

He shot people who were trying to cause serious bodily harm or death to him, and those people had been engaged in a protest similar to other such protests that had become violent and deadly. One of the dead hit Kyle in the head with a skateboard, which can be considered a deadly weapon in the manner of use. The guy who got his arm blown off was pulling out a gun from his waistband.

The fact that prosecutors are trying to get gun charges to stick tells me they know this kid will not be convicted of murder/manslaughter or have any other criminal responsibility for the shootings.

 

[meaner gene]

A conviction of guilt requires a case be made beyond a reasonable doubt.


When your case starts being based on what a man was THINKING, at a certain time, how can you eliminate the reasonable doubt that maybe he was thinking something else?

Such inferences are made all the time. When somebody murders somebody, the circumstances allow the jury to infer that he did so with the intent to murder. And of course do so, beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That was already dismissed.

Court denies motion to dismiss 2 charges, binds Kyle Rittenhouse for trial

A court commissioner has ruled there is sufficient evidence to warrant a trial for an Illinois teenager accused of killing two men during an August protest in Kenosha

www.wisn.com

All the Court did there was find that there was sufficient evidence for trial and deny the defense motion to dismiss on evidentiary grounds.

And something tells me you didn't bother reading that article, because if you had, you would know that there is plenty of exculpatory video evidence.

 

[Faun]

That's simply untrue. Convicted felons have defended themselves with guns. The fact they have a gun would be a crime, yet many have walked for self defense.

Great, post a link to an article of a convicted felon, whose right to carry a gun had not been reinstated, successfully won a self-defense case....

 

[Faun]

In Texas you can. I don't know about Wisconsin.

LOL

Who the **** cares about Texas?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

LOL

Who the **** cares about Texas?

I'm simply addressing your keyboard lawyering making broad statements about American Jurisprudence when such statements are incorrect.

 

[Faun]

No one was shot in the back. Thankfully there is video of just about the whole thing and a witness.

You really shouldn't be discussing matters you know nothing about.

Kyle Rittenhouse Criminal Complaint | DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

Kelley indicated that Rosenbaum had a gunshot wound to the right groin which fractured his pelvis, a gunshot wound to the back which perforated his right lung and liver, a gunshot wound to the left hand, a superficial gunshot wound to his lateral left thigh, and a graze gunshot wound to the right side of his forehead.​

 

[Rogue AI]

Great, post a link to an article of a convicted felon, whose right to carry a gun had not been reinstated, successfully won a self-defense case....

Here's one.

https://www.courthousenews.com/felon-gets-immunity-for-gun-use-in-self-defense/

 

[meaner gene]

No one was shot in the back. Thankfully there is video of just about the whole thing and a witness.
Your are explaining how people broke out. We're they prevented from leaving? No. The gate was broken by violent trespassers pulling the gate forward.

You are being ridiculous. People don't break down either doors or gates, by pulling on them.

 

[Correll]

Such inferences are made all the time. When somebody murders somebody, the circumstances allow the jury to infer that he did so with the intent to murder. And of course do so, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sure, intent matters and decisions and judgements can be made about or because of intent.


But, i don't recall any case where such a serious crime was decided based solely on what someone was thinking, IN OPPOSITION to hard physical evidence, ie the video, of a clear ATTACK, on a person, thus justifying self defense.

If your case rests on just what you claim he was thinking, how can you remove all "reasonable doubt" that he was thinking something else?

 

[Faun]

Who got shot in the back? Your facts are all fucked up.

^^^ another clueless idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Kyle Rittenhouse Criminal Complaint | DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

Kelley indicated that Rosenbaum had a gunshot wound to the right groin which fractured his pelvis, a gunshot wound to the back which perforated his right lung and liver, a gunshot wound to the left hand, a superficial gunshot wound to his lateral left thigh, and a graze gunshot wound to the right side of his forehead.​

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You really shouldn't be discussing matters you know nothing about.

Kyle Rittenhouse Criminal Complaint | DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

​

Kelley indicated that Rosenbaum had a gunshot wound to the right groin which fractured his pelvis, a gunshot wound to the back which perforated his right lung and liver, a gunshot wound to the left hand, a superficial gunshot wound to his lateral left thigh, and a graze gunshot wound to the right side of his forehead.​

Damn, you are playing hard and loose with the facts, aren't you?

Did you actually see the video of Rosenbaum's shooting? He hit Kyle in the head with a skateboard just prior to being shot. There is NO WAY an objective person would consider that a shooting in the back as you are trying desperately to falsely portray. The bullet may have gone into Rosenbaum's back, but that is only because he had just hit Kyle in the head with a ******* deadly weapon.

Keep spinning it.

 

[Faun]

All the Court did there was find that there was sufficient evidence for trial and deny the defense motion to dismiss on evidentiary grounds.

And something tells me you didn't bother reading that article, because if you had, you would know that there is plenty of exculpatory video evidence.

False. If the judge felt there was merit to the motion, he would have had those two charges dismissed but proceeded to trial with the remaining charges.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

You are being ridiculous. People don't break down either doors or gates, by pulling on them.

Sure they do. You are still trying to sell that the trespassers broke OUT.

 

[meaner gene]

Here's one.

https://www.courthousenews.com/felon-gets-immunity-for-gun-use-in-self-defense/

is entitled to immunity under the Stand Your Ground law, a state appeals court ruled.

 

[Faun]

I'm simply addressing your keyboard lawyering making broad statements about American Jurisprudence when such statements are incorrect.

That's fine but you should stick to relevant facts; and Texas is irrelevant.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Hunting laws allowed Kyle Rittenhouse to carry weapon, lawyers say

Prosecutor Thomas Binger dismissed the defense argument, saying Rittenhouse's attorneys should tell a jury he was "hunting on the streets" in Kenosha.

www.nbcnews.com

"Attorneys for Kyle Rittenhouse, who is charged with fatally shooting two people during a protest in Wisconsin last year, argued that hunting laws allowed him to carry the assault-style weapon used during the shootings. Wisconsin law prohibits anyone under age 18 from being armed, but Rittenhouse’s attorneys argued that state laws only forbid minors to carry short-barreled rifles and shotguns.

Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger responded that if the defense wants to tell a jury that Rittenhouse was only hunting, it should do so. “They can submit evidence that the defendant had a certificate to hunt and he was engaged in legal hunting on the streets of Kenosha that night,” Binger said Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder denied a defense motion to drop the weapons possession charge."

It is quite possible the defense team is just trolling the prosecutors and if so, that is pretty brilliant...this would also give potential jurors a nice laugh to lighten the mood...This also shows that the defense team is pretty confident that Rittenhouse will be found innocent...

The defense claim is that Kyle was allowed to carry an AR-15 styled rifle across state lines to protect businesses there from rioters; because all he was really doing was just hunting....and according to Wisconsin law; this is allowed..although Kyle is not a resident of Wisconsin nor has a hunting license there; however as long as he believed he was hunting, he should be ok...That will help clear him from any weapons possession charge the prosecutors charged him with.

This defense is not supposed to be taken literally. LOL

I am smarter than Biff_Poindexter

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That's fine but you should stick to relevant facts; and Texas is irrelevant.

So, what is Wisconsin law on that point? Do you know?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I am smarter than @Biff_Poindexter

 

[Rogue AI]

is entitled to immunity under the Stand Your Ground law, a state appeals court ruled.

Do some research, it happens more than you'd think. Felons are often targeted because it is presumed they won't be armed. They still have a right to self defense.