The Rittenhouse trial

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Martin_Hyde

The thing is you’re already creating a much higher bar for self-defense than actually exists. Someone chasing you with violent intent is, in and of itself, often more than enough to establish a self-defense claim–even in a duty to flee state, if you can convince the jury that you weren’t able to flee successfully.

What if you make an effort to insert yourself into a fraught situation as Rittenhouse did (IIRC illegally obtaining a weapon as a part of that)?

If you (general “you”) are a KKK member in full regalia and travel a long distance to run through a march of Black Panthers is it ok to start shooting them if some chase you?

[Saint_Cad]

Just saw this
“Ipads … have artificial intelligence in them that allow things to be viewed through three-dimensions and logarithms,” the defense team argued.
How does that even remotely make sense?

To continue:
"This isn’t actually enhanced video. This is Apple’s iPad programming creating what it thinks is there, not what necessarily is there.” Schroeder responded that the prosecution shouldered the burden of proof that Apple does not use artificial intelligence to manipulate footage.

At first I thought the Judge was trying to get Rittenhouse off. Now I’m wondering if he is Angry Old Man with the beginnings of demetia.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Whack-a-Mole

@Martin_Hyde

The thing is you’re already creating a much higher bar for self-defense than actually exists. Someone chasing you with violent intent is, in and of itself, often more than enough to establish a self-defense claim–even in a duty to flee state, if you can convince the jury that you weren’t able to flee successfully.

What if you make an effort to insert yourself into a fraught situation as Rittenhouse did (IIRC illegally obtaining a weapon as a part of that)?

If you (general “you”) are a KKK member in full regalia and travel a long distance to run through a march of Black Panthers is it ok to start shooting them if some chase you?

What’s good about my post is it applies to all future hypotheticals:

Were you the aggressor? No? Okay, were you committing some sort of felony otherwise? No, okay then-- At the time you killed the person, did you have a reasonable fear of life and limb?

[Saint_Cad]

Question about Binger bring up Rittenhouse’s silence. Do we know if Rittenhouse positively invoke his 5th Amendment right? If not, isn’t his silence fair game under Salinas?

[Whack-a-Mole]

So, I can seek out and antagonize anyone I choose and if they react with aggression I can legally shoot them in self defense?

[tofor]

@Whack-a-Mole

So, I can seek out and antagonize anyone I choose and if they react with aggression I can legally shoot them in self defense?

@Martin_Hyde

Were you the aggressor? No? Okay, were you committing some sort of felony otherwise? No, okay then-- At the time you killed the person, did you have a reasonable fear of life and limb?

Thanks @Martin_Hyde for making this easy.

[Folly]

@Whack-a-Mole

So, I can seek out and antagonize anyone I choose and if they react with aggression I can legally shoot them in self defense?

Probably. “Fighting words” or in this case “Fighting clothing” does not give the other person the right to threaten or inflict great bodily harm or death. Although it might provide for some mitigation in punishment.

If they escalate to threatening or inflicting great bodily harm or death, the other person probably has a right to self defense.

I’m saying probably a lot because this is not my area of law and the usual caveat of 51 jurisdictions and differing laws applies.

[Saint_Cad]

@Whack-a-Mole

So, I can seek out and antagonize anyone I choose and if they react with aggression I can legally shoot them in self defense?

I think the defense’s tactics of “I feel so bad.” and cry for the jury along with through-the-grace-of-God judge they got shows that even they don’t think that’s true.

[Whack-a-Mole]

So…if I want to kill you and get away with it all I need to do is provoke you enough to threaten me. Thing is…that threat is whatever I deem to be a threat.

Then BANG…I shoot you dead and did so legally.

Neat trick.

But hey…those people were threatening so it’s all good I guess. Wasn’t Rittenhouse threatening?

If it is this easy to just say, “I felt threatened,” to legally shoot someone we should all be deeply worried.

[eschrodinger]

And the thread has come full circle. See post #6 for the law of provocation in Wisconsin.

Here’s the quote:

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 person’s 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.

(a) probably doesn’t apply because Rittenhouse wasn’t engaging in that kind of unlawful conduct.

(c) could possibly apply, but it doesn’t sound like there was much if any evidence of that presented. Possibly in part due to restrictions ruled on earlier.

[Martin_Hyde]

If the legal standard of “reasonable fear” was just you saying the words “I felt threatened” you might be in the neighborhood of making a salient point. However it is not and you are not.

[Folly]

@Whack-a-Mole

Thing is…that threat is whatever I deem to be a threat.

Of course not. Fear of great bodily harm or death. Reasonable person standard.

[Babale]

@eschrodinger

(c) could possibly apply, but it doesn’t sound like there was much if any evidence of that presented. Possibly in part due to restrictions ruled on earlier.

Yes, I agree, the judge preventing evidence about Rittenhouse’s state of mind from being included certainly makes it hard to prove what his state of mind was. Very convenient!

[octopus]

Contrary to what one is conditioned to by participation in online safe spaces in the real world one has freedom of speech. The exercise of said freedom of speech does not give a mob or an individual any right right to murder, harm, or assault you. Yes, we all know that those are ‘consequences’ and free speech doesn’t mean freedom from ‘consequences.’ But, even though those are ‘consequences’ don’t mean they are legal ‘consequences.’

If one attacks a person unlawfully than that person has the right to self defense. In other words, sticks and stones may break my bones… the rest is triggering in the age of crayons and play doh for college students so I’ll leave it unsaid.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Martin_Hyde

However it is not and you are not.

You’re wrong:

https://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/05/us/trayvon-martin-shooting-fast-facts/index.html

Was there anything other than Zimmerman’s word on this?

[Martin_Hyde]

@Whack-a-Mole

@Martin_Hyde

However it is not and you are not.

You’re wrong:

https://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/05/us/trayvon-martin-shooting-fast-facts/index.html

I’m a little unsurprised you’d interpret the self-defense claim in the Zimmerman case to “I felt threatened”, when what the trial actually showed is, with actual physical evidentiary support, that Zimmerman was prone and with Martin on top of him at the time the shooting occurred…which suggests more was happening than just “him feeling threatened.” The injuries to his face and head also were suggestive of that.

It’s easy to think all that is required for a successful self defense claim is the assertion of “I feel threatened” when you are deliberately ignorant of the facts of a case.

[Whack-a-Mole]

So…why couldn’t they shoot Rittenhouse under the same circumstances?

[octopus]

It’s puzzling basic facts such as that are mysteriously ignored.

[Whack-a-Mole]

You didn’t read the link I provided, did you?

George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain in Sanford, Florida, calls 911 to report “a suspicious person” in the neighborhood. He is instructed not to get out of his SUV or approach the person. Zimmerman disregards the instructions. Moments later, neighbors report hearing gunfire. Zimmerman acknowledges that he shot Martin, claiming it was in self-defense. In a police report, Officer Timothy Smith writes that Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose and back of the head.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Whack-a-Mole

You didn’t rad the link I provided, did you?

George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain in Sanford, Florida, calls 911 to report “a suspicious person” in the neighborhood. He is instructed not to get out of his SUV or approach the person. Zimmerman disregards the instructions. Moments later, neighbors report hearing gunfire. Zimmerman acknowledges that he shot Martin, claiming it was in self-defense. In a police report, Officer Timothy Smith writes that Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose and back of the head.

Nope, I did not–I literally followed that case incredibly closely and am aware of tons of the actual evidence. Nothing in the facts of that case would indicate that all one must do to establish self-defense is to say “I feel threatened.”