Kyle Rittenhouse Trial?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by wiscoaster, Nov 11, 2021.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ColoradoMinuteMan

    ColoradoMinuteMan Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2015
    Messages:
    575
    My non-lawyer opinion of the below statute is that it is not acceptable in WI to use deadly force solely for the purpose of defending property, however, as was mentioned it has been testified that the purpose of the firearm was for the purpose of self defense.

    Wisconsin s. 939.49  Defense of property and protection against retail theft.

    "(1)  A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with the person's property. Only such degree of force or threat thereof may intentionally be used as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. It is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of defense of one's property.
    (2) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person's property from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend his or her own property from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such as would give the 3rd person the privilege to defend his or her own property, that his or her intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person's property, and that the 3rd person whose property the person is protecting is a member of his or her immediate family or household or a person whose property the person has a legal duty to protect, or is a merchant and the actor is the merchant's employee or agent. An official or adult employee or agent of a library is privileged to defend the property of the library in the manner specified in this subsection.
    (3) In this section “unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both."
     
    RetiredUSNChief likes this.
  2. yeongjo

    yeongjo Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2021
    Messages:
    59
    I myself have to agree with you, but I also think to myself how cowed does civil society have to become? How programed must we all be? Must we all shelter in place while law enforcement is told to stand down. One reason I prefer an elected Sheriff over a politically appointed Chief of Police. I've seen many instances in the past where the tightly controlled, and narrow wills of politics have controlled entire police departments while an elected sheriff opposes those wills for their constituents. What amazes me is the general public is caught between a pincer movement of local law enforcement and federal law enforcement.

    There are certain behaviors by this mob, whether it be in Kenosha or cities elsewhere. The burning of city dump trucks, but only OLD city dump trucks. The burning of property, but only Insured commercial property. It is as if mayhem is allowed to rein freely but only sanctioned mayhem may rein.

    The public is expected to cower indoors, shelter in place, obey the curfew, while well funding International groups (Antifa) roam the Nation causing mayhem......? and here we have the unpredictable "wild card" a kid (I could not even dream up a better poster boy) that was instilled with the values of local community service, helping others, the ideals of the bill of rights and the constitution, etc, and etc in his head. I honestly think in Kyle's head he thought he is was doing good, as is/was his mistaken belief he had the right to do? Frankly Kyle's idealism disgusts a lot of people out there.

    I'll preface by saying I haven't watched the trial whatsoever. But again, it comes down to, this or that, or this and that, but do you allow a person to wrest the gun from your hand you are holding?

    We live in a different world, shelter in place, I had an aunt that lived in a bad neighborhood 30 years ago and when she heard screaming at night she would climb into her bath tub and not even call the police. A female neighbor was knifed to death, while screaming in the street, and when other members of the family asked her why she didn't call police she stated she did not want to get involved. Wasn't her problem, etc. Of course today she is the type of person that is also calling for Kyle to hang.

    It's the same with the popular meme "rooftop Koreans". In that vein Russians, I used to frequent a upscale Spa/Sauna and Russians, and people from Ukraine loved saunas, birch branches and all. Russians are never harassed, the race card is never played on Russians, they do not tolerate their wives being harassed. Russians do not get into all this lengthly debate and discussion. It is an amazing thing to observe.

    I hope Rittenhouse is found not guilty, not for me, or for any shortsighted political agenda but for my grandchildren lives, yours too btw. I think more-so than me they are going to need the right to defend their lives. Doubtful they will be able to because the longsighted have an entirely different agenda.

    Citizens seemingly can't rely on the police obviously, or the FBI or even the National Guard when personal vehicles (insured, don't worry, it's only property) are being lit afire in driveways and un/occupied personal residence (insured, don't worry, it's only property) are being firebombed by the roving mobs..
    Where this country is going doesn't look optimistic overall.
     
  3. Madcap_Magician

    Madcap_Magician Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    2,424
    Location:
    MN
    Gem's point was that prudent reflection on the prospective risks vs. benefits of going by Rittenhouse could have avoided this conflict, which is true.
     
    RetiredUSNChief likes this.
  4. yeongjo

    yeongjo Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2021
    Messages:
    59
    Oh no I understand that. I am also of the opinion that a person can also avoid a lot of things in life. Like serving in a combat zone by simply not joining the armed services. It takes a certain type of person wiling to self sacrifice themselves for ideals and rights. That is why I see this trial as far more import than the case it simply represents. You can stay at home, I can stay at home to, we can all shelter in place. But do we have to? Do we really have to? Seems to me Kyle did everything, and near perfectly he was allowed to do within the law. I don't hunt too much anymore, far to many crazies in the woods. Doesn't guarantee I won't get shot in any other unpredictable manner either. I enjoy going into the woods when hunting season is closed.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2021
    270OKIE, RetiredUSNChief and armydog like this.
  5. Madcap_Magician

    Madcap_Magician Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    2,424
    Location:
    MN
    Ultimately he did take his chances, and he's paying for that decision, even if he's acquitted. I hope he thinks it was worthwhile, he'll have the rest of his life to ponder that question. I hope he's free to ponder it and not sitting in a cell doing so.
     
  6. desmobob

    desmobob Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2019
    Messages:
    351
    Location:
    upstate NY - Lake George region
    I haven't decided what to think on Ritt being there. It was his father's --so, sort of "his"-- community, but on the other hand, was absolutely a bad place to be; chock full of potential trouble. And the kid is 17... an age where you can be excused for acting child-like or expected to act like an adult. Tough... (I can certainly see myself doing the same thing.)

    But the bottom line is "Did he murder those men or act in self-defense according to WI law"? That's what the trial is to determine. I don't think his reason for being there really has any bearing on the case, does it?
     
  7. wiscoaster

    wiscoaster Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2019
    Messages:
    3,469
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    That was made quite clear by the LEO teaching my CCW class a couple years ago. The question arises, however, if your threat of or even use of non-lethal force does not deter, prevent or terminate the unlawful property interference then you have no further recourse, so long as it's only property that's being threatened and not your life or great bodily harm.
     
    RetiredUSNChief likes this.
  8. Jim Watson

    Jim Watson Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    31,557
    Location:
    Florence, Alabama
    Right, my simplistic view is that the thousand points of light no longer shine on property defense but if I yell "Stop, thief!" and the thief assaults me, then it becomes self defense.
     
  9. GEM

    GEM Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    10,345
    Location:
    WNY
    That is a nuance. I don't know every law in every state but in some I lived in you can use 'force', not deadly force, to protect property. If the opponent's use of force or clear threat of force escalates to 'deadly' levels, you can respond with the same.
     
    RetiredUSNChief likes this.
  10. lsudave

    lsudave Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2007
    Messages:
    964
    GEM, while I agree with you as a practical matter- this isn't the hill I would have chosen to die on... I do feel like that choice is being forced upon us.

    It seems that soon enough, we will either have to take a stand (do stupid things at stupid places), or roll over and concede our lifestyle and freedom. It really feels like the option to keep our heads down and go on about our daily business is going away.
     
  11. Craig_VA
    • Contributing Member

    Craig_VA Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2007
    Messages:
    996
    Location:
    Arkansas
    The full actual lawyer teaching from attorney Andrew Branca is that Texas is the only state that considers it legal to use deadly force for protection of property, and even then only in very specifically prescribed circumstances. I highly recommend taking his Law of Self Defense courses, or reading his free book of the same name, or even better, doing both.
     
    RetiredUSNChief likes this.
  12. Boattale

    Boattale Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2012
    Messages:
    1,271
    Location:
    SWMO
    I don't think deciding not to go to the riot equates very well to sheltering in place.
     
    RetiredUSNChief likes this.
  13. GEM

    GEM Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    10,345
    Location:
    WNY
    I have repeatedly said that a major failure is that of the authorities not to act effectively to protect society. Thus, I understand the motivation but comment on the personal risk.

    I also commented that a re-evaluation of protecting massive amounts of property with force in civil disturbance is being re-evaluated in some legal circles.

    Protecting property if the property is crucial for life is discussed in some law. Your last vial of insulin that cannot be replaced in real time. Is destroying a central business district an action that reaches that level? Can authorities ignore such because of politics or feeling that the initial cause of the disturbance is just? That's going to be a issue for discussion. The abrogation of responsibility in Portland and Seattle stand out.

    Branca makes the point well and I have a post somewhere giving references to this debate.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2021
  14. RetiredUSNChief

    RetiredUSNChief Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Messages:
    10,746
    Location:
    SC (Home), VA (Work)
    Not true. I thought so at first, but then I looked up the statutes on this for Illinois in another discussion on this matter elsewhere.

    Take a look at the following link on the Illinois statutes:

    https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?ActID=1876&ChapterID=53&SeqEnd=9700000&SeqStart=8200000

    In 720 ILCS5/Article 7, "Justifiable Use of Force: Exoneration" there are three applicable sections.

    Section 7-1 "Use of force in defense of person". This one deals with the use of force, including deadly force, in defense of himself or another.

    Section 7-2 "Use of force in defense of dwelling". This one deals with the use of force, including deadly force, "to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling". It covers both personal defense (subparagraph (1)) and the "force necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling" (subparagraph (2)).

    Section 7-3 "Use of force in defense of other property". This one deals with the use of force, including deadly force, in defense of property which is not a dwelling.


    In illinois, defense, up to and including the use of deadly force, of dwelling or property does not necessarily require a threat to a person under Sections 7-2 and 7-3.
     
    Big Bore 44, Old_Grouch and yeongjo like this.
  15. wiscoaster

    wiscoaster Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2019
    Messages:
    3,469
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Sorry, GEM, I have to take issue with your statement. It is not a "major failure" of "authorities" to "not .. effectively ... protect society", but rather it's inherent in the very nature of authority that it cannot completely protect society, and never will be able to do so, no matter how strong that authority, and so that fundamental limitation (or "flaw" if you will) in its very nature recognized by the Founders, and thus one of the motivations for the Second Amendment, and limitations on authority.
     
    twarr1 and Boattale like this.
  16. RetiredUSNChief

    RetiredUSNChief Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Messages:
    10,746
    Location:
    SC (Home), VA (Work)
    Meanwhile, back to the trial:

    The judge has barred MSNBC from the court because apparently they had one of their reporters attempt to follow the jury bus last night.

    This whole debacle just gets crazier and crazier.


    "I have instructed that no one from MSNBC News will be permitted in this building," Schroeder said. "This is a very serious matter, and I don't know what the ultimate truth of it is, but absolutely, it would go without much thinking that someone was following a jury bus ... that is an extremely serious matter and will be referred to the proper authorities."

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/crime/rittenhouse-judge-bars-msnbc-from-trial-for-allegedly-following-jury-bus

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/rittenhouse-judge-bars-msnbc-from-courtroom-trailing-jury-bus
     
  17. Hartkopf

    Hartkopf Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2019
    Messages:
    2,049
    Location:
    Texas
  18. lsudave

    lsudave Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2007
    Messages:
    964
    I suppose that decision depends somewhat on where you live, how far away the riots are.

    I live in a South La city. We had a very highly publicized shooting in my city (Alton Sterling). There were several protests for this, as well as other events. The protests did not occur "downtown", because my city is a gigantic suburban sprawl (frankly, nobody would notice if something happened downtown). The chosen sites were major thoroughfares with lots of commercial properties (businesses) on them, roads I tend to avoid if possible anyway since traffic is a nightmare at times).
    I saw people harassing others miles away, blocking gas stations etc. The overall intent was clearly to create as much unrest and tension as possible for the entire community... if you chose to leave the house at all, you may well run into conflicts.

    I say all this to bring some context into Rittenhouse's situation. He lives closer to the sites of the Kenosha riots, than I did to some of the protests in my city. When people (outsiders) come in and disrupt 'your' community, it makes you want to respond. My own son vented some on this when it happened here, but we successfully avoided it. To my city's credit, there was some internal conflict in the protests here- the locals were telling the outside agitators "don't bring that s*** here. We're marching, not burning".
    We did also have some outsider come here, and kill a number of police (Gavin Long, the guy from Missouri, came down and shot 6, killed 3 with a Tavor). That was tied to the Sterling incident, and took place MILES away from where Sterling's incident occurred. Again, the locals quickly condemned that. But the event illustrated- there were no safe spots. If I drove a vehicle from Sterling's location to Long's, we're talking at least 20 minutes by car, and worse if in afternoon traffic.
     
    RetiredUSNChief and 270OKIE like this.
  19. Waveski

    Waveski Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2014
    Messages:
    3,099
    Location:
    43 north
    What the heck is that ??? Trying to have a meaningful discussion here.
     
  20. yeongjo

    yeongjo Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2021
    Messages:
    59
    Appeal after conviction is not what is wanted imo. Bumps it up to appellate court. The best outcome (for the powers that be) here is a mistrial with prejudice. The powers that be achieve what they want.
    What I believe is wanted is 1) to undermine the legal system of the United States and 2) intensify the partisan divide in the United States.
    Each side will take what they want from this case further entrenching the American public in division. And 3) a Not Guilty verdict does even that.
    It's genius really. Look at the police officers standing next to the prosecution..... who even trusts "them". Pure genius.
    Good people who don't invest a lot of time in thinking to much about things (nor have the time to do so) will simply say in the go along to get along way people are. Oh, yeah, that Rittenhouse kid was wrong, he shouldn't have done that. Shoulda stayed at home.
    He's sorta a wanna be white supremacist nazi anyway. Oddly enough. Staying at home has become widely popular nowadays.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2021
    RetiredUSNChief likes this.
  21. Waveski

    Waveski Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2014
    Messages:
    3,099
    Location:
    43 north
    But in this particular case the authorities deliberately refrained from taking action to protect society , property , and safety of the citizens of Kenosha. Stand down orders were issued. Offers of federal assistance were declined. For three long and horrible days and nights! Then , after gunfire broke out - which IMO was inevitable - suddenly the riots were quelled.

    It's not as though the authorities tried their best and failed , as you imply.
     
  22. BreechFace

    BreechFace Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2020
    Messages:
    2,076
    @yeongjo

    Could not have said it better myself.
     
    RetiredUSNChief, 270OKIE and yeongjo like this.
  23. BreechFace

    BreechFace Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2020
    Messages:
    2,076
    I hope if (I'm not a juror and haven't been privy to all the "evidence") Kyle gets acquitted, he goes after every single one of the media outlets that pronounced judgement on him outside of the trial and owns their outlets. This country is quickly moving away from being a nation of laws, into a nation of mob rule.

    https://imest24.com/cbs-news-posts-tweet-declaring-kyle-rittenhouse-murderous-before-promptly-removing-it/

    Obviously, I'm not a juror but based on what I've heard and read about the trial, it seems pretty clear it was self-defense, and there were no laws he broke by being in the area as Wisconsin has open carry laws on the books as the judge showed in dismissing the gun charges.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2021
  24. BreechFace

    BreechFace Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2020
    Messages:
    2,076
    RetiredUSNChief and 270OKIE like this.
  25. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    23,195
    Bingo.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice