New Strategy From Rittenhouse Defense Team; He Was Just Hunting

[M14 Shooter]

You stated that was irrelevant....

To the claim of self-defense. Yes. Irrelevant.
The only thing that matters here, under the law, is if Rittenhouse has a reasonable fear for his life, and if the use of force was reasonably necessary for him to protect himself.
None of that other stuff matters. Not one whit.

you seem to think that discharging a weapon for self defense negates all other offenses.

If you want to argue that Rittemhouse boroke the law against the dicharge of his firearm in city limits - fine.
He wasn't charged for it, and even if he was, it does not negate his claim to self-defense.

2. Your personal revisionism is NOT Wisconsin law on the subject.

Your personal revision isn't even relatesd to the law on the subject.

3. the trial is to determine who instigated the confrontation that resulted in the running shoot out (video does not show this).

As Rittenhouse claimed self-defnse - and therefore admittind to the shooting- the trial is to determine if hehad a reasonable fear for his life and if deadly force was reasonably necessary. As in -both- isntances of his use of deadly force he was running away, anyting he may have done to instigate the actions of those who chased him with the intent to harm his is irrelevant, as the right to self-defese resets once he disengages.
So says the law.

Junior can't claim self defense if he goes looking for trouble where he was not asked to be by any local businessman, law enforcement or community activists.

All YOU are doing is just repeating your personal idea of what the law should be and what has transpired.

 

[TheDefiantOne]

To the claim of self-defense. Yes. Irrelevant.
The only thing that matters here, under the law, is if Rittenhouse has a reasonable fear for his life, and if the use of force was reasonably necessary for him to protect himself.
None of that other stuff matters. Not one whit.

If you want to argue that Rittemhouse boroke the law against the dicharge of his firearm in city limits - fine.
He wasn't charged for it, and even if he was, it does not negate his claim to self-defense.

Your personal revision isn't even relatesd to the law on the subject.

As Rittenhouse claimed self-defnse - and therefore admittind to the shooting- the trial is to determine if hehad a reasonable fear for his life and if deadly force was reasonably necessary. As in -both- isntances of his use of deadly force he was running away, anyting he may have done to instigate the actions of those who chased him with the intent to harm his is irrelevant, as the right to self-defese resets once he disengages.
So says the law.

All YOU are doing is just repeating your personal idea of what the law should be and what has transpired.

As the reader can see, essentially our gun enthusiast M14 is just doing a version of a mocking bird.....he has no real counter to the FACTS regarding the law that disproved his original contentions (as the chronology of the posts shows), and essentially just repeats himself with his own version of the law....which to date he cannot provide the quote from said law that only supports his assertions.

Folks, just go to posts #513 & #521 to see that M14 needs to clean his gun and have the sight realigned.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As the reader can see, essentially our gun enthusiast M14 is just doing a version of a mocking bird.....

Translation: You know you have nothing.

None... and that exactly none... of the items you bring up do anything to diminish the claim of self-defense.
Was he carrying a gun illegally? Maybe. Doesn't matter.
Did he discharge the gun illegally? Maybe. Doesn't matter.
Did he call someone's mom a bad name? Maybe. Doesn't matter

What -does- matter?
That he retreated from a threat, that he had a reasonable fear for his life, and that deadly force was reasonably necessary for him to defend himself.
Under WI law, he met the criteria necessary for a claim of self-defense.

 

[TheDefiantOne]

Translation: You know you have nothing.

None... and that exactly none... of the items you bring up do anything to diminish the claim of self-defense.
Was he carrying a gun illegally? Maybe. Doesn't matter.
Did he discharge the gun illegally? Maybe. Doesn't matter.
Did he call someone's mom a bad name? Maybe. Doesn't matter

What -does- matter?
That he retreated from a threat, that he had a reasonable fear for his life, and that deadly force was reasonably necessary for him to defend himself.
Under WI law, he met the criteria necessary for a claim of self-defense.

Would some nearby adult please explain to M14 that his personal opinion, supposition, conjecture is not a substitute or replacement for facts and the logic derived from those facts (as the old saying goes - the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth). All the reader has to do is look at Posts #513 and #521 to see that M14 is shooting blanks...just like little Kyle's defense lawyers. Once I reduce these wonks to the blather M14 is spewing, I just dump them into the IA bin to clear the threads of a waste of time and space.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Would some nearby adult please explain to M14 that his personal opinion, supposition, conjecture is not a substitute or replacement for facts and the logic derived from those facts (as the old saying goes - the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth). All the reader has to do is look at Posts #513 and #521 to see that M14 is shooting blanks...just like little Kyle's defense lawyers. Once I reduce these wonks to the blather M14 is spewing, I just dump them into the IA bin to clear the threads of a waste of time and space.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Would some nearby adult please explain to M14 that his personal opinion, supposition, conjecture is not a substitute or replacement for facts and the logic derived from those facts (as the old saying goes - the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth). All the reader has to do is look at Posts #513 and #521 to see that M14 is shooting blanks...just like little Kyle's defense lawyers. Once I reduce these wonks to the blather M14 is spewing, I just dump them into the IA bin to clear the threads of a waste of time and space.

The videos alone are enough to prove reasonable doubt and self-defense.

Sorry. You're shooting blanks.

 

[SavannahMann]

Nope. The judge can actually shut down entire lines of questioning or dismiss theories. It is the judge that admits evidence. So far this case is not looking good for the prosecution.

That’s the same thing the internet experts said about Chauvin. How did that turn out again?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That’s the same thing the internet experts said about Chauvin. How did that turn out again?

You mean the case where Nancy Fucking Pelosi and other local Democrat motherfuckers threatened the jury?

 

[SavannahMann]

You mean the case where Nancy Fucking Pelosi and other local Democrat motherfuckers threatened the jury?

No. I mean the case where the Defense didn’t really challenge any evidence.

As an example. Three Coroners testified for the Prosecution. All agreed homicide. Slight variations on mechanics of the deaths. But all agreed Chauvin was responsible.

Defense Coroner came out and said he would have called it undetermined. But he had to admit that Chauvin staying on the victim for two minutes after the man lost consciousness was troubling. And yes. As a Doctor he would have expected Chauvin to perform CPR on Floyd. And yes. It is entirely possible that the victim would have lived if he had.

The use of force expert for the defense was. Well he was claiming to be an expert. But after the prosecution brought up the people who trained Chauvin and supervised Chauvin. It wasn’t going to fly.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

That’s the same thing the internet experts said about Chauvin. How did that turn out again?

Notwithstanding Chauvin or even Rittenhouse, in our system of jurisprudence, Judges have the power to admit evidence, dismiss theories or even shutdown lines of questioning. This is true in every case brought before a judge, no matter who wins or loses.

 

[SavannahMann]

Notwithstanding Chauvin or even Rittenhouse, in our system of jurisprudence, Judges have the power to admit evidence, dismiss theories or even shutdown lines of questioning. This is true in every case brought before a judge, no matter who wins or loses.

True. It began with protecting the victim of Rapes. The standard defense was to bring forth witnesses who would argue she was asking for it or a loose woman.

It was changed to give the victim a voice and to reduce the horror of being victimized again and again on the stand.

The defense wants to cloud the issues. Bury the truth in irrelevant nonsense.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

In this case, it was the prosecution bringing up all kinds of irrelevant nonsense like a connection to the proud boys. If the prosecution has a case, bring it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

True. It began with protecting the victim of Rapes. The standard defense was to bring forth witnesses who would argue she was asking for it or a loose woman.

That's not how it began.

it started with prosecutors trotting out homeless people without any personal knowledge of ANYTHING to testify against criminal defendants. That is also where we get the "leading" objection. Witnesses must be able to demonstrate that they have personal knowledge of the topic they are discussing. If all they're doing is answering yes/no questions, they are not demonstrating knowledge, and therefore it is leading the witness.

When they couldn't demostrate personal knowledge, judges would shut down the testimony all together.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Would some nearby adult please explain to M14 that his personal opinion, supposition...

Translation:
You cannot provide a rational reasoned repsonse to my post.
I accept your surrender.

 

[jc456]

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.

Actually a riot with looting, but why do you care?

 

[jc456]

Actually a riot with looting, but why do you care?

A parking lot with new cars totally burned is a protest! Only on Venus

 

[TheDefiantOne]

Actually a riot with looting, but why do you care?

Hmmm, then by that mindset I can find out when the next neo-nazi/white supremacist/alt-right rally is going to take place ... travel to that state, have a friend there purchase a weapon for me, and then wait for any type of riot to start. Then I'll go there, get into it with some sheet wearer and shoot a few. Mind you, I won't be licensed to own or carry a weapon in that state, but that's okay because I was there to defend the counter-protestors and local property. Right?

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

You looking forward to looting and burning a black-owned store after the verdict?

Because BLM is 'whatever marvin martian believes it is'.

Fucking fruit loop, is you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Hmmm, then by that mindset I can find out when the next neo-nazi/white supremacist/alt-right rally is going to take place ... travel to that state, have a friend there purchase a weapon for me, and then wait for any type of riot to start. Then I'll go there, get into it with some sheet wearer and shoot a few.

Did you purposely mis-represent what happened, or do you not know there's more to the story than what you present, above?

Mind you, I won't be licensed to own or carry a weapon in that state,

No one is licensed to own or carry an AR15 in Wisconsin.
Did you not know this?

 

[skews13]

This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult.

Kyle was under adult supervision. Video evidence shows him being supervised by a veteran army medic.

Contrary to your idiotic and ignorant drivel, Kyle's defense did not argue that he was hunting.

You're an imbecilic ignorant idiot and a pathetic liar. Why do LWNJ moonbats such as yourself consistently base your political opinions on lies?

He had no defense. He crossed a state line illegally in possession of an assault rifle. He is a trespasser, aand a murderer of two unarmed people, neither of which have been charged with any crime.

But to hell with all of that. A family member or friend should find the little murderer one night and make an example of him.