• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

A Political Thread pt. 2

Without wanting this to explode - Rittenouse, guilty or not guilty?

Seems pretty conclusively the latter imo, but it's not been hugely discussed on here yet!
 
Guilty or not guilty of what charges? I think he'll escape the most serious charge with imperfect self defense but the fact that he was the one who upped it to deadly levels means he can't use it as an absolute defense.

The judge seemed to be very pro defendant so it'll be interesting to see what the jury instructions were.

Edit: I should clarify that I am not 100% familiar with the laws of Wisconsin cause it's a flyover state. I am a corporate lawyer who mostly studied environmental law and my above statement is based off what I needed to know to pass the bar exam. Which is essentially a generalization of the laws of the various states.
 
Not Mike Brown's Sock said:
Without wanting this to explode - Rittenouse, guilty or not guilty?

Seems pretty conclusively the latter imo, but it's not been hugely discussed on here yet!
Click to expand...
I'm really not that on board with the finer details. Seams like he's not guilty of first degree acounts. Had he pled guilty to lower counts or the prosecution just gone for jugglar?

Because he's definitely guilty of manslaughter and reckless endangerment.
 
Not Mike Brown's Sock said:
Without wanting this to explode - Rittenouse, guilty or not guilty?

Seems pretty conclusively the latter imo, but it's not been hugely discussed on here yet!
Click to expand...
I think he'll get off, and in a vacuum I think it looks like self defence

But I don't know enough about the American justice system to know how much of the other stuff is relevant/allowed to be considered
There's the video (that they wouldn't allow as evidence) of him saying he wishes he had his gun so he could put some rounds down on the protestors,
Plus just the whole situation of him being there - he put drove X amount of miles with a deadly weapon to play vigilante and 3 people ended up dead.
Feels like it should at least be some sort of firearm negligence charges - similar to how you can have death by dangerous driving etc.


Definitely seems like a mistrial is on the cards, though - the judge is a joke from what I've read
 
The entire thing is a bit of a circus tbh - the prosecution are different levels of incompetent too which hasn't helped anything.

Obviously not a state law expert either but just from a broad stance it seems pretty clear cut that if a guy with a gun went to attack him, Kyle shot him and then shot the others whilst being chased, then that is pretty reasonably self defence.

But in classic american fashion, the judge having to remind the jury to ignore the input of the president and the classic chat that this is a race trial makes the whole thing an even bigger shitshow
 
Not Mike Brown's Sock said:
Obviously not a state law expert either but just from a broad stance it seems pretty clear cut that if a guy with a gun went to attack him, Kyle shot him and then shot the others whilst being chased, then that is pretty reasonably self defence.
Click to expand...
I think the first shooting is the greyest area - following two were clearly self defence, first one he was in a situation he shouldn't be in, someone threw a plastic bag at him then lunged for him and KR shot him four times (and KR says he knows the guy wasn't armed)
I'm guessing lunging at an armed guy falls under stand your ground laws?
But from an outsider looking in it's a kid looking for trouble, finding it, and then killing someone - the events after are separate IMO

because American gun laws are so so different to ours the whole thing just looks insane - 17yr olds walking around AR15s is a terrifying concept
 
So the prosecutor is a bit of a dunce, which isn't surprising cause it's a small city in Wisconsin.

To my knowledge only one of the shootings happened after one of the person held a gun up to him.
 
From a British sensibility he'd struggle with a sensible argument for self defence. Purely the fact playing law enforcer with a firearm would looked on very badly. You don't get away with self defence if you put yourself in danger and armed.

The 2nd amendment makes it a shitshow though.
 
TRF_Olyy said:
I think the first shooting is the greyest area - following two were clearly self defence, first one he was in a situation he shouldn't be in, someone threw a plastic bag at him then lunged for him and KR shot him four times (and KR says he knows the guy wasn't armed)
I'm guessing lunging at an armed guy falls under stand your ground laws?
But from an outsider looking in it's a kid looking for trouble, finding it, and then killing someone - the events after are separate IMO

because American gun laws are so so different to ours the whole thing just looks insane - 17yr olds walking around AR15s is a terrifying concept
Click to expand...
I'm not sure about the law about him "being in a place he shouldn't be" tbh - he had as much right to be there and as much right to be armed as they did so although I agree it looks bad, he wasn't actually breaking the law (as far as I know) and probably shouldn't be read into in terms of the verdict iykwim - May be wrong tho!
 
Wisconsin has a duty to retreat outside of your home or workplace, so it's not a stand your ground state. That being said you can always match the other person's level of threat if it's not deadly-force. So if someone believed rittenhouse was going to shoot them they could tackle them or him they with a skateboard, they would just have to retreat before he shot them. Rittenhouse would never be able to claim absolute self defense if he initiated the conflict.
 
Not Mike Brown's Sock said:
I'm not sure about the law about him "being in a place he shouldn't be" tbh - he had as much right to be there and as much right to be armed as they did so although I agree it looks bad, he wasn't actually breaking the law (as far as I know) and probably shouldn't be read into in terms of the verdict iykwim - May be wrong tho!
Click to expand...
Yeah it's one of those things that is hard to make a judgement on from outside of the environment, without reading all the different laws and regulations, because to me a 17yr old carrying an assault rifle to a protest is...very wrong
 
I just had a look and he hasn't done one yet (probably due to potential mistrails etc.) but have a look out when this finished for Legal Eagle on YouTube for a proper breakdown of the laws involved.

He is a moderate lefty (for America) but does excellent breakdowns of cases for laymans similar to what people like The Secret Barrister do in the UK.
 
die_mole said:
I'll give you all the analysis you need. The prosecutors kicked for the corner instead going for the posts. Should be stripped of their captaincy imho.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing they were also in overtime and 1 point behind. The kick was directly in front of the posts but they wanted a try bonus point?
 

Similar threads

Bada-Bing!
Antisocial, societal issues thread
3 4 5
Replies
92
Views
2K
Yulia
Yulia
Bada-Bing!
The Biking thread
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
2K
die_mole
die_mole
Bada-Bing!
The Ukraine War thread
22 23 24
Replies
474
Views
16K
Which Tyler
Which Tyler
T
Is anyone using a club management system for their local club?
Replies
0
Views
588
Try-Hard Tackler
T
M
Had to stare someone down at a red light
Replies
6
Views
931
Al Bangor
Al Bangor

Latest posts

Top