Posted on 11/03/2021 1:25:22 PM PDT by Enterprise
Kenosha detectives are testifying now that Kyle Rittenhouse was shot at! This entire case is a miscarriage of justice
(Excerpt) Read more at citizenfreepress.com ...
Dismiss, with prejudice!
The media can call them victims but they can’t be called that in the courtroom.
I think you are referring to Joshua Ziminski and his wife.
Try to keep up.
“Rittenhouse’s home is a little over 20 miles from the incident, so he had to make a concerted effort to go there.”
He worked there, daily. He was there that day working as a lifeguard. He had friends there. He was close to business owners there.
Many of us think nothing of driving 20 miles to the place much of our current lifestyle takes place.
“In Wisconsin, no one under 18 is allowed to purchase or bear a non concealed gun.”
For all legal purposes, the rifle was owned and kept by a friend in-state.
Regarding age, the law in question is poorly worded, the action could be construed as covered by the “hunting” clause (funny/outrageous as that may seem, legal definitions are very precise and often do not apply as normal colloquial use would (such as under NY law, a rifle is not a firearm)). At one extreme the violation would be nothing more than a misdemeanor, and at the other the law is completely invalidated because, under the “doctrine of competing harms”, his possession of the rifle was obviously justified by his need to use it to defend his life.
“There is nothing to indicate Rosenbaum was armed”
Trial just examined the FBI infrared surveillance video, demonstrating that 3 people threatened, chased, and attacked Kyle.
A shirtless man screaming threats and throwing things in assault is not to be ignored.
When cornered by said man, a shot WAS fired, in close range, at Kyle.
Unclear as to whether Rosenbaum was armed, with Rosenbaum closing distance (toward a clearly armed intended victim), with gunshots indicating a violent attack was under way focused on him, and having been cornered with no other option - Kyle fired at an assailant.
Members of an attacking mob are responsible for the actions of the mob.
Kyle had reason to believe he was under lethal attack, and that stopping Rosenbaum would stop the attack.
Upon being shot, Rosenbaum ceased his assault (yes, legal definition of assault), the lethal threat ceased (shooter stopped shooting), and Kyle was able to exit the situation.
“shot two to death, at least one unarmed, and wounding a third”
First: a chronic child rapist, having just left a mental hospital he was in for a suicide attempt, and having been thrown out of his baby’s mother’s home due to a restraining order for beating her bloody; a violent person looking for trouble by wandering thru a criminal arson-inclined mob screaming “SHOOT ME N*****” repeatedly at random people, and running after and assaulting a complete stranger who was carrying a rifle. One may be a lethal threat despite being “unarmed”.
Second: attempted to repeatedly bludgeon Kyle, as he lay on asphalt, with a large heavy blunt object. Far more people are beaten to death with blunt objects than are killed with rifles.
Third: attempted to kill Kyle with a handgun, and while recovering in the hospital clearly stated his wish that he had succeeded in killing Kyle.
Agree. Wouldn’t surprise me if the families of the so called “victims” file a wrongful death civil lawsuit against Kyle after all serious criminal charges against him are tossed out. Unless the presiding criminal trial judge is a corrupt crook, he will likely dismiss all criminal charges against Kyle following defense motion for dismissal due to self defense/prosecutors failing to prove basis for charges after presenting the states case!
Not correct. Judge Schroeder even alluded to this in the initial jury instructions.
People 16 and 17 years old have never been forbidden from possessing and using rifles and shotguns in Wisconsin law.
The defense has moved to dismiss the weapons charge. Judge Schroeder has not made a ruling on it yet.
People under 18 are forbidden from possessing "dangerous weapons" which is a very specific definition under Wisconsin law. Rifles and Shotguns are exempted from the law.
Fraud vitiates, right?
Good point: to hang “minor in possession of a firearm in public” on Kyle, you have to concede he is/was a minor and thus not subject to being prosecuted for homicide as an adult.
...at which point, prosecuting him for illegal possession either gets the statue eviscerated for poor wording, or at most he gets a slap on the wrist with a misdemeanor.
Thank you.
The DA filed the charges. Even the DA’s indictment says it was self defense.
The exemption isn’t apparent from the definition at https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/i/22/10
I know some states do separate “dangerous weapon” from “firearm” etc; not versed in Wisconsin law so don’t see the division apply (yet).
That said, the point is easily refuted by “doctrine of competing harms”, to wit: doing something illegal is not punishable if following the law would cause greater harm. Absent the rifle, all else same, Kyle would presumably be dead or gravely injured - so possession of the rifle is an “affirmative defense” to wit “yes I broke that law, and this is why doing so is allowed...”.
Were he sued by the deceased’s families, methinks he has grounds for countersuit to wit: if they hadn’t attacked him, he would not have faced the non-choice of killing them to survive.
This was during the second day of the trial, speaking of jury instructions.
when are Kyle’s attorneys going to ask the judge to dismiss charges? this is a travesty
Why not? Make a motion for a directed verdict of not guilty right now!
There is a statute specific definition at Wisconsin 648.60 1 with the exemption for rifles and shotguns at 648.60 3(c)
Indictment here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7047765-Kyle-Rittenhouse-Criminal-Complaint.html
Indictment doesn’t use the term “self-defense”, but clearly describes such a situation: with no other interaction than Kyle passing by, Rosenbaum assaults Kyle and attempts to take his gun, while others demonstrate hostility and a shot is fired at Kyle. In so many words, shooting to stop a violent/lethal assault is “self-defense”.
Surely looks like the DA assigned ADA Thomas Binger as the patsy prosecuter to take the fall when the case crumbles. Binger is embarrassing to watch during this trial.
Good point!
Joshua Ziminski and his wife.
—
Who’s he?
I just found and read the indictment.
Among other exonerating content, it states “Rosenbaum was trying to get the defendant’s gun.”
If you, shirtless, are chasing a stranger, screaming threats at the stranger, throwing things at the stranger, and corner the stranger, all while an accomplice proceeds to shoot at the stranger, attempting to take the stranger’s weapon puts you in the category of “armed threat”.
“But...!” you cry. Many object to gun ownership precisely with “your unarmed attacker can just take your gun from you and kill you with it” (which, BTW, happens to many police) - as such, you cannot claim that Rosenbaum was “unarmed”, having ability and opportunity and intent to take the weapon with lethal malicious intent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.