Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by James Lacey

 They paid a mere nuisance fee and no more.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

No. That's a complete misrepresentation of what happened. You don't get to carry a concealed weapon, then provoke someone to attack you, then shoot and kill that person, and get to claim self-defense, which is, in a nutshell, what Rittenhouse did. Frankly, I think Rittenhouse will be found guilty of murdering Rosenbaum, but there will be a mistrial on appeal. The Judge has mishandled the case that badly.

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi James:

I did not watch the trial, I've read about it some, but the coverage is soooo polarized...

Anyway, I did not think Rittenhouse's weapon was concealed.  I thought he was openly carrying a rifle, which might be legal(?), even if not smart, during a riot.  Also, didn't the defense reasonably prove that Rosenbaum attacked Rittenhouse?  Hence all the discussion of whether Rittenhouse's use of deadly force was justified under WI law, which I understand is rather broad.

If Rittenhouse had a right to be there with his rifle, I don't think that this "provocation" of a disturbed man would rise to the level of provocation you are talking about, which would undercut the self-defense argument.  I'm not saying that Rittenhouse is a hero of course, but he may have a legit self-defense argument with respect to any murder charge.

All of the pundits seem to think that a mistrial is coming.  I did hear some sober analysis of the prosecution stepping way over the line when he brought up Rittenhouse's silence after the event.  I can't believe that the prosecutor went there.  The 5th Amendment is sacred of course, and I'm not surprised the judge went nuts at that point.

Jim

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Grosskreutz, the only survivor shot by Rittenhouse, testified he pursued Rittenhouse because he thought he was an active shooter. An all too common problem when you start inserting lots of armed civilians into volatile situations.

I'm not saying the defense had not put up a good counter-argument. I'm merely saying if you ignore all of the politics and the left versus right, it seems clear to me that Rittenhouse caused the whole situation.

Here's an analogy.

I'm walking down the street, and I see some people vandalizing cars that are not mine. I tell them to stop. Instead, they flip me the bird. I then pull out my gun, point it at them and ask them to stop. One of the vandals then charges at me completely unarmed. He is threatening, and I'm in fear for my life. So, I fire at him four times, hitting him each time killing him. Am I legally justified in my actions, or is this murder? The above analogy is almost identical to Rittenhouse's actions, and I think he was wrong and caused the whole situation. Rittenhouse had no business being there with a rifle trying to protect property that was not his, and the owners did not ask him to watch. It's not self-defense since Rittenhouse provoked and caused the entire situation. When you do something to provoke a crisis, you cannot use deadly force to defend yourself from the threat you caused. Imagine if you could get away with that what our society would look like.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

On edit: It seems the charge against Rittenhouse for shooting and killing Rosenbaum is reckless homicide, so technically not intentional murder. We do tend to play it loose with the terminology here, though.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Hi Jim,

  You are exactly right in your analysis because it is reasoned analysis, according to the law of Wisconsin.

James says that it was all caused by Rittenhouse?  No, there were violent Joe Biden voters who were bused into the area from other states to cause violence and destruction.

IF one wants to place Blame on 1 individual in particular, it is FAR more reasoned to say that the convicted Felon, Pedophile, and child rapist Joseph Rosenbaum was the Proximate cause of the entire situation that evening. 

Had Joseph Rosenbaum NOT been there trying to instigate violence, committing arson, and running around threatening people, destroying property, Kyle Rittenhouse may have just gone through the night, unaffected. 

The attack on Kyle Rittenhouse by J. Rosenbaum, when he chased him, screaming that he was going to kill him, finally catching him, grabbing the barrel of the gun, attempting to turn it on Kyle Rittenhouse and kill him, initiated the fatal shot that killed J. Rosenbaum, which then initiated the MOB of violent rioters coming down on him trying to kill him.  

Tell me what you disagree with in my posting above.  

Thanks.

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi James:

The actual jury instructions are key.  Good jury instructions will spell out in plain language what the elements of and defenses to various crimes are, and what lesser included offenses (if any) can be considered by the jury.  

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

If that happens and he is convicted of anything, his lawyers will immediately appeal and although it may take time, the original conviction may be overturned due to prosecutorial misconduct that occurred all through and even after the trial was finished with testimony.  

It was found that the prosecution had deliberately kept exculpatory evidence of drone footage by the cops out of the hands of the defense when they had it all along.

The whole trial was a railroad job by the prosecution and we're finding this out little by little, in bits and pieces.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

A jury sees through the lies of the prosecution, and they find Kyle Rittenhouse Not Guilty on all 5 bogus counts.

The lefitst media is an utter disgrace and I hope Kyle Rittenhouse sues the pants off the scumbags in the media. 

The process worked well.  

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi Richard:

I agree that justice was served.  However, did you read through the jury instructions, particularly the parts about self defense and provocation?  I can't imagine anyone reading that and thinking that this prosecution was bogus.  This was a really close case that hinged on facts that could have been interpreted either way.  I am not a mind reader of course, but I'd bet a lot that the jury thought this was a very close case, and the strong presumptions in favor of innocence probably saved Rittenhouse.

Jim