Rittenhouse Trial Prediction

As eminent American Philosopher Yogi Berra once said: “Making predictions is hard…especially about the future.”

I was wrong in my prediction that the Virginia Democrats would be able to create enough fake votes to steal the election from Youngkin…not for lack of trying mind you, but they just couldn’t overcome the wave…

So after being pleasantly wrong on that one, I’m going to make another prediction, this time on the Trial of Kyle Rittenhouse. By the way, if you’re interested in the case and how the trial is going, Andrew Branca, self defense attorney and the brains behind “The Law of Self Defense” has been covering each day of the trial in detail with a daily post at Legal Insurrection.

Friday was Day 4 of the Trial. I discovered Andrew during the Zimmerman Trial where he covered the proceedings in detail and his coverage of the Rittenhouse trial has been lo less indispensable.

At any rate, my concern is that the SJW’s are desperate to see Kyle drawn and quartered for having the audacity to fight back against the Antifa and BLM rioters in Kenosha and my fear is that at least one of the jurors is a stealth SJW who lied during Voir Dire to get on the jury.

If that’s the case, they will try their hardest to convince the jury to convict which will at best result in a hung jury.

There’s no way a fair, non-politically motivated jury could ever convict Kyle based on the evidence they’ve presented, and I see no cause to think they’ve got some bombshell to drop that’s going to prove he was some murderous zealot out for blood rather than just what he seemed: A patriotic kid who wanted to try to help protect the town and provide medical assistance to anyone who needed it, who was violently attacked by the rioters when they realized he was alone and isolated and was forced to defend himself.

But I think there’s probably at least one stealth SJW on the jury and my prediction is that it will end with a hung jury.

This is another of those predictions where I sincerely hope I’m wrong. Time will tell.

Share

4 thoughts on “Rittenhouse Trial Prediction

  1. He was carrying a rifle, underaged, across state lines in the middle of a protest that he politically opposed. He shouldn’t be held I don’t believe for a full life sentence or anything severe. But a few years served and loss of constitutional rights to bear arms is obviously in order here.

    • I don’t agree.

      1. He was the same age I was when I joined the military – a few months shy of 18…”underage” is just arbitrary. I’ve known 15 year olds that conducted themselves in a mature and responsible manner and 30 year olds I wouldn’t trust to operate a checkbook; but even so, his carrying of the rifle was legal…the “minor in possession” charge was dismissed as a result.

      2. He was technically across state lines, but Kenosha is a border town, he only lives about 20 miles away. He worked in Kenosha. His dad lives in Kenosha. Many of his friends, including his best friend, live in Kenosha. It’s not like he was some stranger who’d never been there and just showed up looking for trouble. Exactly the opposite – he had a strong connection and affinity to Kenosha and was concerned about the damage being done there.

      3. Rittenhouse didn’t oppose the protesters, he opposed the damage being done to the city. He provided medical help to some of the protesters, engaged some of them in friendly conversation and never showed aggression toward anyone who wasn’t attacking him. This all came out during the trial. When the protesters lit fires, he didn’t shoot the protesters, or even point his gun at them…he used a fire extinguisher to put the fires out. He only used his gun to defend himself when he was attacked by protesters who were angry at him for putting out their fires and preventing them from doing the damage they wanted to do.

      You’re attitude that good people should stand by and do nothing while bad people damage our towns and destroy businesses is the coward’s way out. That’s how we end up with a subway car full of people who witness a brutal rape and do nothing. We have become a nation of wimps…afraid to stand up for anything because we might get hurt…or be forced to hurt someone else.

      Kyle isn’t a hero for doing what he did…but he’s more of a man than 90 percent of the males in this country. He stood up for what he believed in even though he knew it was dangerous to do so.

      We’ve lost sight of the fact that our form of “government of the people, by the people and for the people” means that the ultimate responsibility in what happens here is ours. All of ours. We are responsible for our own safety and security. We are responsible for the well-being of our towns and cities. We delegate that responsibility to people whom we elect or hire to act on our behalf, but the ultimate responsibility is still ours. Sitting back and doing nothing while criminals like Rosenbaum and Huber and Kaminsky and Grosskreutz run rampant and destroy public and private property for the pure joy of destruction is not prudence, or acting responsibly or being a good citizen…it’s cowardice.

      In my humble opinion

  2. You’re also treading on some seriously thin ice on the perception of “life threatening” being justification for murder…….the problem being that you have to prove that your life is actually in danger, and you can’t, because they’re dead. The issue then is you’re creating a precedent, that anyone can kill anyone, as long as they can shape public perception that they thought, not even if they were, were in life threatening danger. And that’s not really what I perceive to be American Justice.

    • I take it you’re not a lawyer. Neither am I, but as someone who carries a concealed handgun for personal protection on a regular basis, I’ve done a lot of research and received a lot of legal advice on this subject.

      I highly recommend Andrew Branca’s “The Law of Self Defense”. He’s built a whole community around his law practice, but if nothing else, the book is a great resource.

      In order for a self-defense claim to be legitimate, you do NOT have to “prove your life was in danger”. You have to have a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm.

      That precedent has been set for decades if not centuries. This case isn’t setting it, it’s being judged under that standard.

      There are actually four elements to successfully claim self defense in a deadly encounter (5 in some states, but Wisconsin (and most other states) is a “stand your ground” state, you have no duty to retreat).

      1. You can’t have started the encounter. You can’t attack someone and then claim self defense because the person you attacked fought back.

      2. The attack has to be ongoing or imminent. You can’t kill someone in self defense because you fear they may be a threat to you at some time in the future, or after the attack is over. They have to be actively attacking you, or at least making aggressive moves that indicate they are about to attack you or continue the attack.

      3. The force you use must be proportional to the force being used against you. You can’t shoot someone for slapping you in the face. Virtually any weapon can be a deadly weapon so generally if they attack you with a bat, knife, stick, club, skateboard, etc, it’s considered a deadly force attack. Disparity of force can also be a factor…for example, someone jumping up in the air and trying to come down on your head with their full body weight while you are on the ground can definitely be deadly. This can become murky when someone attacks you with fisticuffs because that can be deadly, but often isn’t so it usually comes down to the specific circumstances and it’s left to a jury to figure out.

      4. Your perception of the deadly threat must be objectively reasonable. Sometimes that’s clear…when a person points a gun at you, the fear of death is reasonable. Sometimes it’s not so clear and is up to the jury to decide, but the standard is that your fear of imminent death or great bodily harm must be objectively reasonable.

      These are well established, longstanding principles of self defense. They are the factors that were considered that ended up with George Zimmerman being acquitted.

      The interesting thing is that in the Rittenhouse case, the prosecution didn’t even try to disprove any of those things. They used a provision specifically spelled out in Wisconsin law called “provocation”.

      It’s pretty much the “you can’t have started the fight” element, but it’s a little more involved than even that. Basically, the concept is that you can’t goad someone into attacking you and then claim self defense because of that attack.

      The prosecution initially tried to claim that because Rittenhouse’s possession of the gun was illegal, it in itself was a provocation that eliminated Rittenhouse’s ability to claim to self defense.

      That, however, fell apart when the Judge dismissed the “minor in possession” charge. The law as written exempted Rittenhouse so his carrying of the gun in that situation was not illegal.

      Then the prosecution tried to claim that Rittenhouse pointed the gun at Zaminsky, which was what provoked the attacks. The only problem is that there was no testimony at the trial that Rittenhouse ever pointed the gun at anyone prior to being attacked. The only “evidence” they had was a very grainy image from a video taken at a long distance that, after being “enhanced”, kind of sort of looked like Rittenhouse may have been shouldering the rifle left handed* (Rittenhouse is right handed and in every clear picture was holding the gun right handed) and may have been pointing it at something or someone that was not in the frame.

      Weak to say the least.

      The prosecution didn’t even attempt to argue that Kyle didn’t have a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. The fact that Rosenbaum was shot while attempting to grab the gun, “Jump Kick guy” was in the process of stomping Rittenhouse in the face with his entire body weight, Huber was hitting Rittenhouse in the head with a deadly weapon (a skateboard) and Grosskreutz was pointing a gun at Rittenhouse at the time he was shot establishes that reasonable fear. There was never any question of any of that.

      So, in summary, there is no danger that this case is going to establish a precedent that anyone can kill anyone for any reason. In fact, the verdict in this case hinges on the jury upholding the clear and well established precedent already set and, if they do, there’s no way they won’t acquit Rittenhouse.

      Of course, I’ve already made my prediction and the fact that the jury has been deliberating for three days without a verdict leads me to believe I’m right…there’s going to be a mistrial due to a “hung jury”. There are at least one or two jury members who, due to political beliefs or fear of the backlash, are refusing to reach the clearly correct verdict of “not guilty”.

      *something that makes the left handed shouldering of the rifle even less likely: Rittenhouse had the rifle on a sling. When a rifle is slung across the front of the body so that it can be held and controlled, the sling prevents it from easily being changed from right handed to left handed use. It’s not just a matter of moving the buttstock over to the other shoulder, you have to unsling the rifle first, then transfer it to the other shoulder. It defies reason to believe that the right handed Rittenhouse would have, while standing in clear, open space and for no obvious reason, unslung the rifle and transferred it to his left shoulder just for the purposes of pointing it at someone.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.