New Strategy From Rittenhouse Defense Team; He Was Just Hunting

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

Wrong. That is not the standard for a no-evidence dismissal in any jurisdiction.

"Enough evidence to proceed to trial" is a VERY low bar. It's basically the same as a no-evidence motion for summary judgment.

 

[M14 Shooter]

the DA will probably get a conviction on the gun charge.
No impartial jury in the world will convict on the murder (or lesser) charges.

 

[meaner gene]

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?

This goes into the context of "looking for trouble". If you can prove that somebodies intent, by his actions before and during the event, was to put himself into a situation requiring he defend himself. May by his intent, have the jury use it to nullify his argument of self defense.

 

[Faun]

Here's one.

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

Thanks for posting that. Not exactly the same but it may apply. That was a stand your ground defense that was accepted. Not sure how that will play out in Wisconsin which doesn't have a stand your ground defense in Rittenhouse's case. Typically, people are not allowed to kill others while in the commission of a crime themselves.

 

[Faun]

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 fucking deadly weapon.

Keep spinning it.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, Rosenbaum didn't even have a skateboard; no less hit Rittenhouse with one. You really have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

 

[Faun]

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

Of course I do, I read up on it. You should too.

 

[meaner gene]

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.

Then you should look for an example in a state without a "stand your ground" law. Which granted the felon immunity from possession charges in the case you cited.

 

[Faun]

Wrong. That is not the standard for a no-evidence dismissal in any jurisdiction.

"Enough evidence to proceed to trial" is a VERY low bar. It's basically the same as a no-evidence motion for summary judgment.

Dumbfuck, Rittenhouse wasn't seeking to have all the charges against him dismissed. That motion was just in regard to 2 of the charges.

How many times are you going to exhibit you don't know shit about this case?

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

the DA will probably get a conviction on the gun charge.
No impartial jury in the world will convict on the murder (or lesser) charges.

There will be no convictions.....

Kyle will be just fine and I see a very strong chance that he can easily run for at least the House or Senate as soon as he is old enough.....just on killing 2 ANTIFA punks alone...

If he is lucky enough to kill a scary George Floyd looking guy with BLM shirt on - his presidential chances improve dramatically...

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

This is correct.

Felons are still allowed to assert a self-defense claim, even if the means by which such self defense was was carried out was unlawful. That felon may face gun charges for unlawful possession, but self-defense is still available regarding the shooting.

This is why I believe all felons who have completed their sentence should have all rights restored. It's unreasonable for them to need to break the law simply to protect themselves.

 

[Rogue AI]

Then you should look for an example in a state without a "stand your ground" law. Which granted the felon immunity from possession charges in the case you cited.

Feel free to look it up. How does it falling under stand your ground change anything?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Dumbfuck, Rittenhouse wasn't seeking to have all the charges against him dismissed. That motion was just in regard to 2 of the charges.

How many times are you going to exhibit you don't know shit about this case?

I never said it was about all the charges, DUMB FUCK!!!

It was only regarding the two weapons charges. The Defense moved to dismiss those charges for insufficient evidence and the Court found that there was sufficient evidence to proceed to trial on those two weapons charges. The Court did NOT rule that Rittenhouse has no defense to said charges, like you said, DUMB FUCK!!!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Kyle will be just fine and I see a very strong chance that he can easily run for at least the House or Senate as soon as he is old enough.....just on killing 2 ANTIFA punks alone...

That would be reason enough for me to vote for him.

 

[meaner gene]

Feel free to look it up. How does it falling under stand your ground change anything?

As already posted.

That felon may face gun charges for unlawful possession, but self-defense is still available regarding the shooting.

Stand your ground, made him immune to the gun possession charge.

That's the difference.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Feel free to look it up. How does it falling under stand your ground change anything?

I think he is saying that you can be in unlawful possession of a firearm; kill someone in self defense....win on the grounds of self defense, but still be subject to charges of unlawful possession...

For example, a story recently made famous by Dave Chappelle about a rapper who was cleared of murder charges due to self defense....but still found guilty of unlawful carry of a concealed weapon...

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article221426465.html

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

That would be reason enough for me to vote for him.

Morons don't have to try too hard to convince others they are morons....I believe you

 

[Rogue AI]

As already posted.



Stand your ground, made him immune to the gun possession charge.

That's the difference.

You posted your opinion. How about you provide some evidence to back it up.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Stand your ground, made him immune to the gun possession charge.

That's the difference.

What state was that?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Morons don't have to try too hard to convince others they are morons....I believe you

And you have no sense of humor, do you?

 

[Correll]

This goes into the context of "looking for trouble". If you can prove that somebodies intent, by his actions before and during the event, was to put himself into a situation requiring he defend himself. May by his intent, have the jury use it to nullify his argument of self defense.

Yes, but if the prosecution makes the case that his going there was "looking for trouble", all the defense has to do is point out that there is a reasonable doubt that he MIGHT have just wanted to deter rioters from destroying the building.


His actions before hand, would be the same. The prosecutions case would be solely based on making assumptions about what he was thinking.


If that is how it goes, there is no way to know, "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he intent was NOT, POSSIBLY, to just protect the building.


Thus, if the jury finds him guilty, DESPITE TEH REASONABLE DOUBT EXISTING ABOUT HIS INTENT,


that will be a massive injustice.

AND, if that reason for that is because of political pressure or motives, then Rittenhouse would be a political prisoner, for hte rest of his life.


Do you disagree with any of that, and if so, which part(s)?