OPINION: Criminal Law 101 - Self-Defense (Rittenhouse versus McMichaels)

[JohnDB]

Summary statements ought to be interesting...

The prosecutor has been talking five times as much than any witness. He's been making up his own narrative all along and every witness up to this point has disagreed with him. What's he going to say in the closing arguments?

The defense? Who knows...they haven't talked that much throughout the trial. They let the witnesses actually testify.

 

[Muhammed]

Kyle already paid for the gun.

Actually Black paid for the gun. His name is on the receipt. The purchase is also on video. Black is on video paying cash for the gun.

 

[colfax_m]

Actually Black paid for the gun. His name is on the receipt. The purchase is also on video. Black is on video paying cash for the gun.

He paid for it with money from Kyle.

That’s what a straw purchase is.

 

[hadit]

The gun was Kyle’s, illegal purchased by Black who is facing charges for it.

What's your source on that?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wasn’t there a curfew?

Was there?

 

[jbrownson0831]

Well I see the trailer trash has come out.

How about I start a fight with you and when you attempt to defend yourself from me (swing a beer bottled at my head, lunge at me with a knife, pull out a firearm, etc.) after having gotten you to take the bait, I respond by pulling out a weapon you didn't know I had and shoot you? You cool with that? After all I'd just be defending myself from someone who "out of nowhere attacked me" because you 'thought' I was a threat to you, when in fact I was not. At least I wasn't until you forced me to shoot you.

See how that works?

Here we go....the typical Dimmer poster here. Put out your baloney and when people start disagreeing with it, you call them names. By the way, there is nothing wrong with a trailer looneytunes.

 

[colfax_m]

What's your source on that?

Kyle Rittenhouse's friend, Dominick Black, testifies he bought the gun used in Kenosha shootings

The friend who bought the AR-15 style rifle for Kyle Rittenhouse was the first prosecution witness to testify in the Illinois teen's murder trial.

www.usatoday.com

 

[Turtlesoup]

This was all un-necessary if the US had stuck to common sense. Rioters, Arsonists, and LOOTERS should be shot on sight. My only problem with Kyle is that he didn't shoot enough of the animals running amuck.

 

[Turtlesoup]

Summary statements ought to be interesting...

The prosecutor has been talking five times as much than any witness. He's been making up his own narrative all along and every witness up to this point has disagreed with him. What's he going to say in the closing arguments?

The defense? Who knows...they haven't talked that much throughout the trial. They let the witnesses actually testify.

He may not make it that far...in the news today, the judge is pist off at the prosecutor for violating Kyles civil rights to not to say anything (5th amendment right to incriminate). the prosecutor was throwing a hissy accusing Kyle of not saying anything in order to hear all the testimony before he himself testified. The prosecutor is being accused of misconduct and the defense is asking for a mistrial because of it. Judge has forced the jurors out of the court room to chew the prosecutors ass...

 

[Turtlesoup]

Good thing he brought that gun? Better thing would have been had he kept his underage ass at home.

I can tell you what would have happened to him. Not a damn thing because boys like him without their piece, stay in the background and would never even consider attempting to confront anyone without a deadly weapon.

The problem is not that Kyle didn't keep his ass at home---its that the adults didn't get their asses out to stop the violent mobs like Kyle did. There was a time when looters and those burning down the town would be shot automatically in the act---and a reason why this was necessary and still is.

 

[Rigby5]

Kyle was doing that neighborhood a favor. Doing something the town wouldnt. The pedos and pinkos didnt like that.
Good thing he brought that gun or no telling what would have happened to him.

The point is he was not local, so then had no stake, standing, or excuse to even be there.
You are doing anyone when you go to someone else's city with a rifle.

 

[colfax_m]

Was there?

Yes, there was.

 

[colfax_m]

Doing something the town wouldnt.

What did he do exactly?

 

[Rigby5]

The problem is not that Kyle didn't keep his ass at home---its that the adults didn't get their asses out to stop the violent mobs like Kyle did. There was a time when looters and those burning down the town would be shot automatically in the act---and a reason why this was necessary and still is.

The reason you are wrong is that the police were the original guilty party.
The continual abuse of rights by the police made the arson and looting NECESSARY.
So then Kyle's motives were confused at best, since he seems to have been siding with those who guilty of abusing rights.

And you seem to have forgotten the 1967 riots about the very same thing, police abuse of rights.
The riots were right then and they are still right now.

What is a shame is when there were no riots over the illegal invasion of Iraq, unlike the riots over the illegal invasion of Vietnam.

 

[Papageorgio]

I honestly don't understand how so many people who apparently carry weapons are unable to understand that if you point a gun at someone and they respond to this act with violence, particularly non-deadly violence, then you are unable to claim lawfully self-defense.

In other words, you cannot antagonize someone or draw them into taking a swing at you so that you can shoot them and then turn around and claim self-defense even though we see this being allowed over and over again.

There are currently two cases being tried in which the defendant is claiming self-defense. In the Rittenhouse case, he shouldn't have been armed in the first place due to his age, while in the case of the McMichaels they didn't just initiate the confrontation that led to the shooting, they chased Arbery according to the prosecution for 5 minutes before finally cornering him "like a rat" according to one of the defendants.

View attachment 562793

[snipped]

"Ascertain the four elements required for self-defense.
To successfully claim self-defense, the defendant must prove four elements. First, with exceptions, the defendant must prove that he or she was confronted with an unprovoked attack. Second, the defendant must prove that the threat of injury or death was imminent. Third, the defendant must prove that the degree of force used in self-defense was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Fourth, the defendant must prove that he or she had an objectively reasonable fear that he or she was going to be injured or killed unless he or she used self-defense. The Model Penal Code defines self-defense in § 3.04(1) as “justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.”

Provocation​

In general, if the defendant initiates an attack against another, the defendant cannot claim self-defense (State v. Williams, 2010). This rule has two exceptions. The defendant can be the initial aggressor and still raise a self-defense claim if the attacked individual responds with excessive force under the circumstances, or if the defendant withdraws from the attack and the attacked individual persists.

Excessive Force Exception​

In some jurisdictions, an individual cannot respond to the defendant’s attack using excessive force under the circumstances (State v. Belgard, 2010). For example, an individual cannot use deadly force when the defendant initiates an attack using nondeadly force"

Entire article here: 5.2 Self-Defense | Criminal Law

Both cases are self defense from what I have heard, however I am not watching their trials. Just what I heard.

 

[Turtlesoup]

The point is he was not local, so then had no stake, standing, or excuse to even be there.
You are doing anyone when you go to someone else's city with a rifle.

He lives 30 minutes away...he's local. This is america--he has a right to be wherever he wanted to be....and the testimony is quit clear the brothers who owned the dealership requested that arm men go there to protect their businesses from the criminals. Kyle deserves a metal for defending the innocents from the criminals.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, there was.

Sounds serious!

 

[TNHarley]

The point is he was not local, so then had no stake, standing, or excuse to even be there.
You are doing anyone when you go to someone else's city with a rifle.

He worked in kenosha. He wanted to help clean it up. Awfully nice of him considering the scum he was going to have to deal with.

 

[JohnDB]

The reason you are wrong is that the police were the original guilty party.
The continual abuse of rights by the police made the arson and looting NECESSARY.
So then Kyle's motives were confused at best, since he seems to have been siding with those who guilty of abusing rights.

And you seem to have forgotten the 1967 riots about the very same thing, police abuse of rights.
The riots were right then and they are still right now.

What is a shame is when there were no riots over the illegal invasion of Iraq, unlike the riots over the illegal invasion of Vietnam.

Woah!
Once again you are not placing your ire in the wrong place.

That prosecutor is the one you should be angry at. Police are just that ...police. The police can only detain and bring you for the prosecutor to decide whether you go before the judge or not.

Police can issue all the tickets he wants...but it's still up to the prosecutor whether these tickets are worth the paper they are written on. You might not ever see him...but ultimately how those tickets are handled are his exclusive domain.

In Kyle's case the charges should never have been brought.

In the Aubrey case they should have but weren't.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

What are you babbling about? Kyle didn't start a fight with anyone fool..everyone knew Kyle had the gun--he wasn't concealing it. The felons attacked him, and he shot them for attacking him. The first one said that he was going to kill him, the second one hit him in the head with skateboard and the third tried to shoot him.

I don't drink and I am pretty sure that my abode if far better than you have ever lived in.

Uh huh....