Illinois teen arrested in fatal shooting at Kenosha protest, police say

Andrew Sullivan hits it out of the park:

 

"But when the sources of news keep getting things wrong, and all the errors lie in the exact same direction, and they are reluctant to acknowledge error, we have a problem."

The problem is they have to keep the people still watching tuned in or they won't have anyone watching at all. The people that got fed up being lied to all the time aren't coming back. Ever. Thats what happens when you lie too much. But there's enough people out there who prefer to be lied to to make money off of. So they're not going to stop because this is their only business model now- telling sweet lies to people who don't like the truth.

 

Of course:

 

It's not just Andrew Sullivan:

 

I was waiting for this:

 

Still tense:

 

How will the MSM play this:

 

Not for nothing, but this isn't the first time on this forum that someone who claims great legal expertise, such as this member, has gotten the case and the law totally wrong. I can only hope this will teach so called experts some humility.

 

Not guilty on all counts. Justice served. Now on to the prosecutorial misconduct, defamation, and cleanup that this case requires.

 

The Left isn't happy:

 

Your comment is nonsensical

In fact your reponse only shows you focus on the verdict's final outcome which I did NOT claim to know and not the methods of process discussed to arrive at the verdict which is what I in fact commented on and were followed exactly as I stated in regards to the homicide evidence..

I only discussed the latter not the former. I never claimed the accused would be found guilty and in fact I stated it was unlikely he would be found guilty BUT I also stated quite clearly I was not commenting on the verdict but rules of admissibility of evidence. For you to come on this board and try turn the vedict into a piss comment as if I stated there would be no guilt verdict speaks to your partisan political agenda and need to do what? Compensate? Compensate for what? Go on explain. What do you feel I got wrong? Provide the words. Explain how you feel vindicated and liberated from wrongful things I said. Finish it,.

Provide the words that caused hardship which you are now free from. Please.

Get real. On cue, you are caught up in a partisan political game of arguing you believe its politically acceptable for people to cross borders at the age of 17 and act as self appointed vigilantes and walk into demonstrations with weapons. Th and that has been vindicated by a not guilty verdict or because the Judge chose to ignore the lesser charges of illegally transporting a weapon across state by a minor. You think your political opinions have been vindicated by a Judge's decision and I argued a Judge's decision would not uphold your political beliefs so I am wrong and you are right.

That reflects your inability to understand the difference between the verdict and the legal process, and the political conclusions you and pro gun vigilantes then infer from it. The fact I explained admissable rules of evidence in a homicide case are not based on any political agenda and were followed in the court proceedings. Zip over your head clearly.

In regards to the lesser charges that were never considered they can be appealed and it would appear the Judge erred on what he had to consider before dismissing those charges. However Its rare for a state to appeal such verdicts.

In regards to the other matters I stated very clearly as did others that it was highly unlikely there would be a finding of guilt for murder because the onus of proving beyond reasonable doubt a homicide charge would be impossible.

So in fact you are not only wrong, you are deliberately so because I know you read what I wrote.

Put it up. Put up the legal statements I made that are wrong. You did not because you can not. You are trying to reduce this issue simply to the fact that this individual was found not guilty and deliberately misrepresenting what I in fact discussed to suggest I said he would be guilty.

My words are on this thread. Anyone can read them.

What I said and you also ignore is that in civil court, that is where families of the deceased with different rules of evidence and onus as to what to prove, will establish Rittenhouse discharged his weapon and killed people. The onus at that point switches to Rittenhouse to prove beyond reasonable doubt (the same onus the procesutor had in the criminal case) to show he was NOT negligent.

You will find as I stated the rules of evidence to consider and the principles of self defence to consider as a defence to reckless or negligent behaviour will be different than when providing a criminal offence/

That is what I said and repeat. Either address it or move on and save your posing as a legal expert to someone else. You are responding because of your political views, not as to the legal issues.

Speaking about humility-if you want to use this verdict to continue advocating the political belief people should take the law into their own hands with weapons understand where that leaves your nation. It leaves them with citizens like you who do not read, listen, take the time to consider any opinions but their own, and feel no contradiction in lecturing others on humility while they themselves in the same post show a complete lack of ignorance as to what they are claiming someone else said.

Go on buy an assault rifle, head into the next demonstration you see and tell them how the Rittenhouse case allows you to point your rifle at people you disagree with and if need be shoot them. Go on. See where that takes you legal expert.

 

Has CNN called this verdict a "white lash" yet?

Asking for a friend.

 

Well that hit a nerve!

To me the issue is not the final verdict, but the fact that the trial demonstrated that this was, and always has been, a self defense case that should never have had an indictment, let alone gone to trial. My legal background is in no way as comprehensive as yours, but when this incident happened, it was so thoroughly covered by video that I simply watched the video and said to myself, "clear cut case of self defense." That determined my position on the case, not "because of [my] political views."

Interesting that your post refers to political views multiple times, as if for all of your legal expertise, you didn't care about the legalities at all and simply used your legal position to establish credibility for your political position.

There is a problem when people can't distinguish their own personal preferences from their professional judgement. Luckily you're Canadian so the unprofessionalism that you bring is the problem for another country, but there are plenty like you in the US who can't separate their emotions from their alleged professional judgement.

 

I'm thoroughly convinced, at this point, that death is simply lying about his legal prowess. He has constantly misstated the law, legal standards, and the facts of this case.

As I explained earlier, and I was clearly right, Rittenhouse was 100% legally allowed to possess the rifle he had that night. That's why the judge dismissed the charge. He had lied repeatedly about this case and did so just now. There were lesser included charges that were considered. He loves to declare that everyone else is being partisan when he's clearly partisan himself.

When challenged by those that actually know the law, he simply puts them on ignore.

Now he's erroneously declaring that anything in a civil claim has to be proven behind a reasonable doubt. Again, he's wrong. If he's actually a professor, he needs be referred for remedial education on the basics of criminal and civil law.

 

Well so much wrong. Kyle didn’t cross state lines with the rifle. The lesser charges cannot be appealed. Not guilty on the primary charge renders them moot. The only thing that could be appealed would be any lesser charge if found guilty. The law is clear, you can defend yourself in this country.

 

Well I can't speak to the legal system in Canada, don't the judges there have to wear silly wigs? But it did look as I thought, whether he is really a judge or not, he had a political position that he wanted to express by masking it as a professional position.

This, in my opinion, is one of the biggest reasons for the death of expertise. In a politicized world, "experts" try to use their credentials to push their otherwise childish and stupid personal opinions, making them look like idiots.

 

This didn’t age well lmao

 

This one aged magnificently

 

Called that one way in advance didn’t you

 

There is no law in the United States on a state or federal level that states simply you can defend yourself with a gun. It will depend on each fact situation and each Judge and Jury.

The fact you try make a blanket sweeping application shows you do not understand how law is applied.

The decision you think is general, is only specific to Rittenhouse, no one else.

In regards to the gun possession charge was not thrown out because of the other charges not being proven:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...-carry-weapon-during-fatal-shootings-n1280950

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/why-kyle-rittenhouse-no-longer-124636265.html

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ex...rial-was-result-poorly-worded-law-2021-11-15/

The dropping of the illegal possession of weapon charge completely and not considering it at all was very unusual for a Judge to do bit he did it. I doubt it will be appealed but the law in question might very well be amended to be clearer to as to prevent such a loophole.

Its only this lesser charge that surprised, There just was insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt an intent to kill on the other charges.

However as I keep repeating its in the civil trial for wrongful death the issue as to whether he acted dangerously or without reasonable precautions causing "accidental" deaths will come up.

For those with a political agenda to claim this verdict allows them to go in a street and shoot at people they disagree with, they probably thought that before the verdict and will continue to believe that no matter what verdicts come in to the contrary. This verdict won't mean a thing to them. They use such decisions if they think they are compatible with their political opinions, if not they ignore them.

The fact remains no American can simply walk into the street and start shooting at people claiming to defend property. If you think that is what this verdict said that is your political opinion. In such cases any decision is specific to the actual facts of the case, no other facts in any other case. Its not how the law is applied.

In regards to the gun possession charge it was dependent on interpretation of statutory wording by a Judge, so in that case they either pass an amendment to clarify the loophole or it does serve as a precedent for future cases precisely because its based on its wording, not a fact situation.

 

The usual left wing hysterical erroneous take on self defense.

The weapons charge was dropped because it did not apply. Simple as that. That the judge allowed it in the first place allowed the prosecution and defense to make their arguments.

If there is no laws for self defense is a defense. No one will get prosecuted for self defense.

 

Again. No. The law in every state in The United States is that you can use deadly force, whether it's a gun, a board with a nail with it, a skateboard, or whatever else you have available, if you have a reasonable belief that you are in danger of great bodily harm or death. Full stop. Each state has minor variations, but that's the general premise. Some states have a duty to retreat, most don't. If you want to actually learn about self defense laws, in this country, you should check out www.lawofselfdefense.com. You can hear from an actual self defense expert, not some charlatan that claims to be a law professor.

The sweeping application of self defense law, in this country, is that you can defend yourself. No one has suggested otherwise, except you.

There's no "loop hole" in the law. It is a specific exemption for 16 or 17 year olds with long rifles or shotguns. It's almost as if a rural state doesn't want 16 and 17 year olds protecting the farm to get arrested for grabbing a shotgun or rifle and defending said farm.

Here's a detailed breakdown on the law and the fact that it doesn't apply to Rittenhouse.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...est-police-say.577547/page-62#post-1072864267

Incorrect. The prosecution failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Rittenhouse did not act in self defense, as was their burden.

Incorrect. The families would have to prove that Rittenhouse acted recklessly, regardless of the fact that the court has already determined that he did not, hence the not guilty verdicts on the reckless endangerment charges. The likelihood of success on suing Rittenhouse is very low, but that doesn't mean that they won't try.

No one has ever claimed that that you can. If Rittenhouse had done this; then the verdict would be completely different. The jury, the finders of fact, determined that Rittenhouse was justified in his use of deadly force.

Wrong again. The statute is very clear. The reason the judge dismissed the charge, as opposed to sending it to the jury, is that there was no fact for them to determine. Rittenhouse was, in fact, 17. Rittenhouse was, in fact, carrying a standard length barrel rifle. Therefore, Rittenhouse fell squarely within the exemption in the law. Here, I'll break it down for you again...

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...est-police-say.577547/page-62#post-1072864267

 

Your language is a little unclear. Self defence depends on looking at the specific fact situations of the case at hand. There is no blanket rejection of homicide or criminal negligence charges simply because someone raises the defence of self defence. You do not get prosecuted for self defence. You get prosecuted for homicide, manslaughter, criminal negligence, etc. Self defence is a defence to such charges and whether its a successful defence depends on the specific fact situation(s) it applies to. Yes it often happens people can be unsuccessful using self defence as a defence against homicide. It depends on the fact situation.

No you can not make a blanket generalization and state any self defence defence raised in a trial is automatically accepted. If that was the case people could go around shooting people at will and use it as a defence. Please give it some thought before you make blanket assumptions.

Next the weapons possession charge was NOT considered. The Judge said he would not consider it. Allowing the prosecution and defence to speak to it did not mean he considered it. He allowed them to speak to whether he should hear it. He dismissed it without considering it using the technicality that the law prohibiting possession of weapons that was raised only applied to short barreled weapons.

Please go find out what the Judge actually did. Thank you.

In regards to hysteria jumping to the legal conclusion anyone can go into the streets and use self defence as justification for what Rittenhouse did is inaccurate. It could very well be another Judge from the same state or another state and another Jury may have found otherwise. With two of the shootings there was a very strong defence of self defence. In one shooting it was still going to be in Rittenhouse's favour because the Prosecutor must have shown BEYOND reasonable doubt the intent was to kill. That was impossible to do. It might have been possible to show criminal negligence or manslaughter to one charge but from the way the issues were handled the Judge made it clear in his instructions that the Jury should not conclude anything in terms of negligence or incompetence in handling the weapon Rittenhouse had or read into his motives.

This is why I said, the trial which will consider whether he acted negligently, or recklessly, or dangerously, or unreasonably, will be at the civil trial not the criminal trial which has not happened yet. In the civil trial such issues will be raised to determine if Rittenhouse is liable to pay relatives of the dead for his behaviour.

The political interpretation being given to the finding is not accurate. The finding only applies to the specifics of the facts in the Rittenhouse case, NO OTHER situation.

Next the verdict did not state nor can it state or establish a precedent that because you have the right to own a gun, you can use it any way you want. Of course not. The law hasn't changed. There are still regulations and laws that apply to when and how you use a weapon in public.

Again, if some of you think this case sets a precedent that allows you to go into the street with an assault rifle and pace and follow people you disagree with, you are mistaken. If you bring any weapon you rightfully own in public, and you use it to express your political opinions, you could be charged with a crime. Whether you initiate use with your weapon for political reasons (illegal) or defend yourself against someone is a fine line. One you initiate the other you don't. That line is not always clear.

In many states and cities if you carry an open weapon at any public event you could be breaking a law even if you do nothing. If you just have the weapon and do not do a thing, common sense should tell you, if every citizen of your country walks around openly carrying a weapon what kind of society do you have?

Is that what you want? How far do some of you want to take this? Following your arguments you want your society armed in public at all times. Great. What a wonderful thing for you. Thanks but if I want that I will move to Somalia.

What has happened in your country you can't walk amongst yourselves without a weapon? What the hell has happened to you? Since when does gun ownership automatically mean arm your society at all times/ What kind of life is that for your children?

 

Maybe you should. The weapons charge was allowed pre trial so it was one of the charges. It was dropped at the end of the trial based on the defense argument and the law. It should not have been allowed in pre-trial. It is actually a prosecution overreach.