Closing arguments are scheduled to begin Monday morning in the murder trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, the now 18-year-old Illinois gunman who traveled across state lines and killed two men and injured another during racial injustice protests in Wisconsin in the summer of 2020.
While the biased judge wonât let the victims be referred to as such, I sincerely hope that the prosecutor makes great use of the following phrases:
The applicable law (emphasis added):
939.48 Self-defense and defense of others.
(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 his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
. . . . .
(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the personâs assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
(c ) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.
I hope (against hope) that this little dweeb is convicted. He had no business being in the middle of this mess and was not legally armed. Throw the book at him. Meanwhile, in the real world, heâs probably going to walk and become a new hero of the Reich wing.
This seems like the kind of case where the jury is likely to end up compromising by convicting on one or more of the lesser charges.
And so it turns out that like virtually every other ârightâ wing argument, projection is a significant part of their âslippery slopeâ talk about gun safety laws. Self defense, along with stand your ground, becomes the âjustificationâ for murdering anyone who acts to minimize the threat represented by your prancing around with your penis compensation device.
Judge Dismisses A Gun Charge Against Rittenhouse
Judge Schroeder dismissed the misdemeanor charge against Rittenhouse for possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
Iâm not able to watch.
Did the judge give a reason?
When will the judge say âletâs go Brandon?â
Wisconsin law allows a minor to use AR-15-type weapons only for hunting. So, because punk Rittenhouse was indeed hunting that night, it is Oll Korrect⌠Please proceed.
Judgeâs final words to jurors:
âRemember, you can come to whatever conclusion you like, but thereâs clearly only one correct conclusion and itâs not the guilty one. May god and the well-armed citizens of Wisconsin have mercy on you if you come to the wrong conclusion.â
No, not mistrial worthy.
IANAL. Is there any way to have a higher court rule this a mistrial based on the judgeâs egregious behavior? I recently saw an Amazon movie on the trial of the Chicago 7 and the judge was exactly like this racist fascist asshole, and despite guilty verdicts all were overturned on appeal and the trial declared a mistrial or something to that effect.
Schroeder, nice, Good German name.
And what is it about male Wisconsin conservatives? They all seem so frightened of black people and angry, like someoneâs threatening their manhood or something. But how can your manhood be threatened if youâve got none?
Yep. As I posted elsewhere. (and the judge didnât want to drop the charge)
That is because Wisconsin law has a specific exception for rifles and shotguns. That is what the judge didnât agree with. He felt it should apply but because an AR-15 is classified as a rifle and there was nothing that it had a shorter barrel length, the exception applies
The judge had no choice.
Sure, but only if itâs egregious behavior that results in the conviction of the defendant. The prosecution doesnât get do-overs because of the Alex Trebek clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Where was there an indication that Rittenhouse was afraid of black people?
Charges that werenât requested by the prosecution until after the defense rested. Original charges were filed two days after the shooting and DA Gravely refused to consider lesser charges.
While there may be some issues with the judge, a lot of the complaints about him are based on incorrect or incomplete information.
It was a BLM/Antifa protest against police brutality against blacks. Does this actually need to be explained?
There was looting and burning of businesses the two nights previously and he was asked by a car lot owner to be there at the car lot. How is that somehow fear of black people?
Itâs called âlesser included charges,â and itâs fine.
The owners of said car lot testified thatâs a fuckinâ lie.