17-year-old arrested in killing of 2 people in Kenosha

Apparently KR supports BLM?!?!? (Just saw a blurb about the interview) Dude, maybe some ptsd or counselor that was a hippie screwed him up. Can anyone name a major Burn, Loot & Murder event that didn’t devolve into criminal activity? That mindset will get him killed in short order.
My interpretation of what he said, after watching the interview; was that he “supported the BLM movement’s right to protest. Just how I understood in in the context of what he was saying.

I also noticed that he was trying to be very careful with his words. Im speculating that he is trying to stay consistant with his testimony.

He stopped himself short of saying “the other side” as in us vs. them, which would not have been in line with testimony.

But, im no expert, I just have a tv and a lot of opinions....
 
My interpretation of what he said, after watching the interview; was that he “supported the BLM movement’s right to protest. Just how I understood in in the context of what he was saying.

I also noticed that he was trying to be very careful with his words. Im speculating that he is trying to stay consistant with his testimony.

He stopped himself short of saying “the other side” as in us vs. them, which would not have been in line with testimony.

But, im no expert, I just have a tv and a lot of opinions....
He is listening to his attorneys.
 
Apparently KR supports BLM?!?!? (Just saw a blurb about the interview) Dude, maybe some ptsd or counselor that was a hippie screwed him up. Can anyone name a major Burn, Loot & Murder event that didn’t devolve into criminal activity? That mindset will get him killed in short order.
I remember the vids of that night. Id say the majority of people who were armed and attempting to guard businesses were telling the crowd they were with them ideologically. Plus young kids tend to be naïve and emotional
 
Pick up those soccer moms, aging hippies and teens from the local high school and let them ‘March’ with BLM in Boston, NYC or LA - that would be gold. Do you know why? Because those folks aren’t BLM, have no clue other than what is force fed via MSM and would be in for a rude awakening.
1515816087486.jpg
 
In a self-defense case, you admityou did it,
but your lawyer claims you check off all the items
which allow you to be entitled to do it.
And the prosecution is striving to give the jury
reasonable doubt that at least one of the 4-5 elements wasn't fully checked-off.
If the prosecution makes the jury doubt your entitlement then you're screwed,
because you'd implicitly conceded that you did the actual act.

So a danger in Kyle's trial in Wisconsin was that the prosecutor
might sow enough doubt in the jury that they considered
flouncing around open carrying a scary black rifle (and putting out fires)
to be a troll of the rioters.

In practical terms you may have a point, given that a jury might not follow the law precisely. But Wisconsin does not require innocence of everything. The law specifically addresses when provocation itself is unlawful. Second, from the jury instructions on self-defense:

The State must prove by evidence which satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act lawfully in self-defense.

That is unusual, I think. Third, I didn't come up with it on my own. I heard it from Robert Barnes, who is licensed in Wisconsin. So basically, I told you what Barnes said, and you said no it wasn't true.
 

A former official with the DuPage County Democratic Party in Illinois has come under fire for callous comments suggesting that Sunday night's mass murder at a Wisconsin Christmas parade was "karma" for the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse, according to Fox News.

Mary Lemanski
Mary Lemanski, who was listed as the social media director for the Democratic Party chapter as of this morning, and whose name was removed minutes ago, mocked the Waukesha parade massacre that left at least five dead and 40 injured as "probably just self-defense," and "karma" following the verdict in Kenosha.
 
The prosecution may have been trying to argue that (c) applied based on their premise that Kyle's intent from start to finish was to engineer an opportunity for him to shoot people. But if the provocation alone is to be considered sufficient evidence of intent, then (a) and (b) become meaningless, so this interpretation cannot be right.
After reading 939.48: "Self-defense and defense of others: ... (2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows" again...

(a) Establishes that if you provoke someone with behaviors like disorderly conduct (and/or fighting words?), it removes your privilege of self-defense unless the person you provoke tries to maim or kill you. If you do provoke someone into trying to maim or kill you, then you can fight back only using non-lethal force unless you believe all of your attempts to escape, or otherwise avoid getting maimed or killed, have been fruitless.

(b) If you provoke someone as in (a), but you both manage to get away and the person you provoked should know that you don't want to fight any more, then if they re-engage, you can fight back as if you never provoked the fight in the first place.

(c) Except that (a) and (b) don't apply if you trolled someone intending to maim or kill them after they were triggered. In that case, you have no privilege of self-defense at all.


So (a) constrains your privilege of self-defense if you rub someone's rhubarb, (b) describes how you can regain your privilege, and (c) is an exception to (a)+(b) that completely removes legal protection from trolls.


In practical terms you may have a point, given that a jury might not follow the law precisely. But Wisconsin does not require innocence of everything. The law specifically addresses when provocation itself is unlawful. Second, from the jury instructions on self-defense:

That is unusual, I think. Third, I didn't come up with it on my own. I heard it from Robert Barnes, who is licensed in Wisconsin. So basically, I told you what Barnes said, and you said no it wasn't true.
I absolutely agree with you that the quoted jury instruction
doesn't match what I thought I'd learned about
how to analyze self-defense across all US jurisdictions.

I don't know whether I'm mistaken,
or Wisconsin has an exception not reflected in the generic analysis.
 
A new initiative by Andrew Branca (@Law of Self Defense) -
Kyle's Law is a proposal for new state-level statutes to
compel courts and prosecutors personally to compensate
acquitted self-defense defendants who had been
persecuted by a laughable paucity of evidence,
in the judgement of the criminal trial's jury.
I just noticed that he added a 3rd and a 4th angle on Sunday.
 
Probably worth posting here so people actually read it:

---------------------

The larger issue here is that if it is possible to have a society held together by shared principles and ideas, then why is that notion on trial? Why was the principle of self-defense open to debate in the Rittenhouse case? Why is the principle of free expression on trial in Charlottesville, Va.? Why is the tradition of community defense up for debate in the Ahmaud Arbery murder trial?

The answer is that a significant number of people reject the principles necessary to have a rule-based society. Here is the ACLU making that clear in the wake of the Rittenhouse verdict. They used to oppose the “crossing state lines” trick to involve the Feds, but those rules no longer matter. They just want blood. The mass media sees the verdict as a reason to unleash even more racial vengeance.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but here is a statement from the National Basketball Association condemning the verdict. Two things to note: Sports teams are owned by billionaire oligarchs, the people who run the country. Second, the statement is a direct contradiction of observable reality. Calling self-defense in the midst of a riot “vigilantism” and the riot a “peaceful protest” is deranged. They are either lying or crazy.

What the Rittenhouse case should do for the civic nationalists, especially the reaction to it from the halls of power, is cause them to wonder if their opponents are fit for a civil society at all. In other words, their concept of a civil society must exclude people who are mentally unfit for a rule-based society. Put another way, victory in the Cold Civil War can only come when the enemy is physically removed.

The libertarian political theorist Hans-Hermann Hoppe made this point with regards to his proposed libertarian society. In a rule-based society organized around the protection of private property, “There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and removed from society.”

What these trials of civic nationalism are revealing is that for a rule-based society to function, it must maintain an absolute intolerance of those who question it. The intolerance and implacable zeal to destroy that defines the enemies of civil society must be met with an even stronger reaction. This person (Ayanna Pressley!!) has no place in a civilized society. There is no shame in admitting it.

That is the central question at the heart of these trials. Is civic nationalism capable of defending itself from its enemies? Can the defenders of participatory order find the courage to do what must be done to preserve the ordered society? If the answer is no, then something else must come forward to beat back the forces of darkness threatening Western civilization. Otherwise, it is the long dark winter Joe Biden has promised.
---------------------





This is the long-hand version of "the only good Communist is a dead Communist".
Praising Hoppe?

Naw, it's better left unread.
 
Oh, these are the folks that Rittenhouse Supports?

What do you think Brooks has to do with BLM?

Why are you tying the two together?
 
What does Jack the hack always act like he’s the one breaking all these stories or facts when in reality he just poaches the stuff off others (or other send it to him) because he has a bigger platform than most?
He was the one source in Twitter that I could count on for a steady stream of up to date information. The others were intermittent, or had other things going on at the same time.

If I wanted nothing-but-KR news, I went to Jack.

And now that the trial is over, I'll probably never go to his page again.
 
I absolutely agree with you that the quoted jury instruction
doesn't match what I thought I'd learned about
how to analyze self-defense across all US jurisdictions.

I don't know whether I'm mistaken,
or Wisconsin has an exception not reflected in the generic analysis.
(During more EMail catch-up, I discovered that)
while I really ought to wrap my brain around it much harder,
Andrew says in...
...this:

Self-Defense Immunity: Minimize Cost, Time, Risk​

Self-defense immunity is best thought of as a way to arrive at a determination of privileged use of force in self-defense in a relatively cost-effective and timely pre-trial hearing and possibly avoiding the tremendous cost and risk of a full-blown trial.​
Absent self-defense immunity, ...​

(Recall I wrote a while ago that some but not all jurisdictions let a defendant
gamble on having a preliminary (set of) hearing(s) where if they can convince
a judge that some use-of-force was privileged by self-defense,
then it completely short-circuits the main trial. That's what he means by
"self-defense immunity").

...a full-blown trial is the only way to combat a prosecutor intent on bringing you to trial on a use-of-force charge. He brings you to trial on a criminal charge based on your underlying use of force—murder or manslaughter, for example, if you’ve shot somebody dead—and you raise the legal defense at trial of self-defense—sure, I shot him dead, but I meet all the conditions required for lawful self-defense (or, more accurately, the state can’t disprove any of those conditions beyond a reasonable doubt), and therefore the killing is legally justified (or privileged, as Wisconsin prefers to put it).​
...​

Emphasis on my added underscoring above.

Andrew's unified model for self-defense reasoning seems to be that
if the prosecution can't disprove beyond a reasonable doubt
at least 1 of the 4-5 elements of self-defense,
then your invocation of the defense against murder, etc. called "self-defense"
gives you an out against the charges.

Which isn't necessarily identical to the prosecution's burden
being injecting reasonable doubt into an element of self-defense.

I have to brain on whether they mean the same thing or not some more.
 
Back
Top Bottom