"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State..."

[ManUtdManiac]

I'm wondering if there is a Constitutional argument in regards to Rittenhouse's situation and by extension, to all armed 'militia' groups in response to ANTIFA's strategy of essentially subverting the State and Federal laws in their riots and barricades.

Could the legal team present, a PRECISELY, 2ndA argument that Rittenhouse, was in a militia, armed, in order to secure a free State in response to ANTIFA's chaos and rioting and impediment of 'life, liberty and pursuit of happiness'?

I would love such an argument, because it would achieve two very powerful outcomes - it would show the total and immediate relevance of the 2ndA to today's society (an argument the anti's regularly raise) and it would allow armed, regulated, citizen groups to band together and resist these rioters under the umbrella of legal precedent. Also, does a Constitutional defence de facto provide a Federal precedence as well?

 

[ken226]

8 USC 311 defines the militia.

10 U.S.C. § 311 - U.S. Code Title 10. Armed Forces § 311 | FindLaw

U.S. Title 10. Armed Forces 10 USCA Section 311. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

 

[hollowoutadime]

The defense will hopefully put forth a strategy with the best chance of acquittal.
here's an opinion:

Kyle Rittenhouse's attorneys portray him as 'American patriot'

Kyle Rittenhouse’s high-profile defense and fund-raising teams refused to speak to The Associated Press about their strategy ahead of the teen’s next court appearance, a hearing in Illinois on whether to return him to Wisconsin.

www.fox6now.com

While I can't tell clearly from the first shooting (the pedophile) , the second two look 99.9% self defense. (not to mention extreme control under pressure - didn't shoot more than he needed to, I( think that plays well to a jury)

 

[varano14]

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.

I believe that is the sentence that will ultimately determine his fate. I'm sitting for the bar exam in two weeks and if his case was a question I would certainly answer that he reasonably believed he was under threat of imminent death or great bodily harm.

The militia argument is certainly creative but my gut reaction is that its irrelevant because the question is was he justified in killing/using deadly force. If he was the tool he used isn't relevant at all to the outcome. Now to rebut some sort of unlawful weapons charge, maybe I can see the line of reasoning making sense. As far as I know from our discussion of the 2nd this line of arguing has never been made, atleast not with enough sucess to teach about it.

 

[pmclaine]

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves... and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms."

Richard Henry Lee: Senator, First Congress


"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."

George Mason: Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

MILITIA

Im guessing Kyle is a member "of the whole people" and therefore he, as well all of us, comprise the militia.

It represents not only a right to be armed but intends a responsibility to be armed.

If the People were not expected to be a "militia" Im thinking your basis for draft in time of war is gone.

As citizens of the country you comprise the "militia" responsible to be called upon in time of need to defend the country.

Ominously.....


"Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia."

George Mason: Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1788

 

[hollowoutadime]

Varan014 - good luck with the bar.

 

[diverdon]

Can't happen. His attornies sole job is to protect him from conviction and other harm from the state and not to further our cause. Too bad.

 

[varano14]

Varan014 - good luck with the bar.

Thanks can't wait to have my life back, thanks to covid it's been over a 5 month process.

 

[ManUtdManiac]

@varano14

So here's my thinking on why I referenced the Amendment. I was wondering, if I was the prosecutor, what would be my tactic for nixing the self-defense argument - which is compelling from the vids. I would want to position Rittenhouse as an agitator, an active and aggresive provocateur and so undermined his self-defense claim. The people attacking him seeing him as a threat to their safety in essence.

Hence, if actually positioning Rittenhouse as a Constitutionally protected and even mandated (ref: PMclaine's post) member of an armed militia, expressly protected, there cannot be the argument that he's an aggressor by dint of being armed, wearing military 'paraphrenalia' (which he wasn't really) and so, any attacks on him could not readily be claimed to be 'proactive' self-defense.

I'm clearly not a lawyer, but I do enjoy the odd argument every now and again...

My objective read on this is as follows: Rittenhouse will be convicted on the murder, in the second degree or manslaughter, of the first deceased and acquitted of the other shootings. Either trump pardons him or he'll hopefully win the appeal...

 

[pmclaine]

Can't happen. His attornies sole job is to protect him from conviction and other harm from the state and not to further our cause. Too bad.

Miller got us in common use.

Heller got us self defense.

McDonald struck down local prohibitions of the right.

Miller died before his case but all his atty was doing was trying to get him out from under the charges.

 

[pmclaine]

@varano14

So here's my thinking on why I referenced the Amendment. I was wondering, if I was the prosecutor, what would be my tactic for nixing the self-defense argument - which is compelling from the vids. I would want to position Rittenhouse as an agitator, an active and aggresive provocateur and so undermined his self-defense claim. The people attacking him seeing him as a threat to their safety in essence.

Hence, if actually positioning Rittenhouse as a Constitutionally protected and even mandated (ref: PMclaine's post) member of an armed militia, expressly protected, there cannot be the argument that he's an aggressor by dint of being armed, wearing military 'paraphrenalia' (which he wasn't really) and so, any attacks on him could not readily be claimed to be 'proactive' self-defense.

I'm clearly not a lawyer, but I do enjoy the odd argument every now and again...

My objective read on this is as follows: Rittenhouse will be convicted on the murder, in the second degree or manslaughter, of the first deceased and acquitted of the other shootings. Either trump pardons him or he'll hopefully win the appeal...

I see a lot of Kyles being that makes him a sympathetic attractive character to a jury of peers.

His own words stating he was there to help and pre- shoot video reinforcing those statements/actions support that.

My fear is a biased judge will declare much "inadmissible".

The histories of those shot are relevant to their violent natures and I think it will be verboten.

We will see if we have a kangaroo court or a court of justice.

This isn't a "process" case.

KR is facing a life sentence pretty much if he doesn't get off. A lawyer looking beyond securing his freedom should be wary of malpractice in the effort to make a name for himself.

Good luck @varano14 perhaps we will hear your name announced at 1700 on Saturday!

What do you call 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?

 

[Stevo86]

I see a lot of Kyles that makes him a sympathetic attractive character to a jury of peers.

His own words stating he was there to help and pre- shoot video reinforcing those statements/actions support that.

My fear is a biased judge will declare much "inadmissible".

The histories of those shot are relevant to their violent natures and I think it will be verboten.

We will see if we have a kangaroo court or a court of justice.

This isn't a "process" case.

KR is facing a life sentence pretty much if he doesn't get off. A lawyer looking beyond securing his freedom should be wary of malpractice in the effort to make a name for himself.

Good luck @varano14 perhaps we will hear your name announced at 1700 on Saturday!

What do you call 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?

A good start???

 

[pmclaine]

@varano14

So here's my thinking on why I referenced the Amendment. I was wondering, if I was the prosecutor, what would be my tactic for nixing the self-defense argument - which is compelling from the vids. I would want to position Rittenhouse as an agitator, an active and aggresive provocateur and so undermined his self-defense claim. The people attacking him seeing him as a threat to their safety in essence.

Hence, if actually positioning Rittenhouse as a Constitutionally protected and even mandated (ref: PMclaine's post) member of an armed militia, expressly protected, there cannot be the argument that he's an aggressor by dint of being armed, wearing military 'paraphrenalia' (which he wasn't really) and so, any attacks on him could not readily be claimed to be 'proactive' self-defense.

I'm clearly not a lawyer, but I do enjoy the odd argument every now and again...

My objective read on this is as follows: Rittenhouse will be convicted on the murder, in the second degree or manslaughter, of the first deceased and acquitted of the other shootings. Either trump pardons him or he'll hopefully win the appeal...

Your objective is based on your belief that he should not have shot those idiots that were attacking him.

According to all that is currently public at no time was he the aggressor unless putting out an arsonous fire is threatening.

In every video he is in retreat, running from his attackers before being assaulted.

Your understanding of our freedoms is inline with your birth country.

You may have passed a test on the Constitution but to you it's just words.

In order to understand it it needs to be in your blood.

Time may soon be approaching when you will with the clarity of the best glass and the precision of a razor have your complete attention focused on why the recognition of self defense is such a precious right.

KR knew it t before his incident, it's why he was armed while performing his mission of peace.

You need to assimilate and shed your servant skin.

 

[pmclaine]

A good start???

Mean girl!

I was going to say a disaster of epic proportions, a reason for world wide mourning, a total reason for banning oceans.

You need therapy.

 

[RMB]

Why not ask for a change of venue.....such as Rhinelander...or Crandon Wisconsin....? Heck even Green Bay....

 

[ManUtdManiac]

Your objective is based on your belief that he should not have shot those idiots that were attacking him.

According to all that is currently public at no time was he the aggressor unless putting out an arsonous fire is threatening.

In every video he is in retreat, running from his attackers before being assaulted.

Your understanding of our freedoms is inline with your birth country.

You may have passed a test on the Constitution but to you it's just words.

In order to understand it it needs to be in your blood.

Time may soon be approaching when you will with the clarity of the best glass and the precision of a razor have your complete attention focused on why the recognition of self defense is such a precious right.

KR knew it t before his incident, it's why he was armed while performing his mission of peace.

You need to assimilate and shed your servant skin.

Man, you're exhausting. Do you even read?

You know nothing about me, where I'm from, where I was born, what I do or who with.

None of that is relevant either. I'M NOT ARGUING AGAINST RITTENHOUSE...!

"I was wondering, if I was the prosecutor, what would be my tactic for nixing the self-defense argument - which is compelling from the vids. I would want to position Rittenhouse as an agitator, an active and aggresive provocateur and so undermined his self-defense claim. The people attacking him seeing him as a threat to their safety in essence."

Get it? I was putting forward a hypothesis... not a person opinon or judgement. I wholly support the kid and wish him total exoneration and a fat civil cause for wrongful arrest etc.

And here's a little tidbit, I've had a CCW since 2012. Don't need your prophecy to tell me what I already know and believe.

Seriously... stay off the sauce, at least if you're going to proclaim yourself some kind of profiler of people whom you know fuck all about...

 

[pmclaine]

Man, you're exhausting. Do you even read?

You know nothing about me, where I'm from, where I was born, what I do or who with.

None of that is relevant either. I'M NOT ARGUING AGAINST RITTENHOUSE...!

"I was wondering, if I was the prosecutor, what would be my tactic for nixing the self-defense argument - which is compelling from the vids. I would want to position Rittenhouse as an agitator, an active and aggresive provocateur and so undermined his self-defense claim. The people attacking him seeing him as a threat to their safety in essence."

Get it? I was putting forward a hypothesis... not a person opinon or judgement. I wholly support the kid and wish him total exoneration and a fat civil cause for wrongful arrest etc.

And here's a little tidbit, I've had a CCW since 2012. Don't need your prophecy to tell me what I already know and believe.

Seriously... stay off the sauce, at least if you're going to proclaim yourself some kind of profiler of people whom you know fuck all about...

So your last sentence...your "objective read".......means nothing?

Listen dipshit if you are going to make a point make your point and defend it.

 

[pmclaine]

And thank you for the reminder....

 

[TheGerman]

All I know is that Bayern won the SuperCup today, and ManUtd lost to Crystal Palace (LOL) the other day.

 

[pmclaine]

All I know is that Bayern won the SuperCup today, and ManUtd lost to Crystal Palace (LOL) the other day.

Is that some gay sex site thing?

@ManUtdManiac is bottom again?

 

[ManUtdManiac]

All I know is that Bayern won the SuperCup today, and ManUtd lost to Crystal Palace (LOL) the other day.

yeah.

That hurt.

All of it.

A lot.

 

[pmclaine]

yeah.

That hurt.

All of it.

A lot.

KY.....buy it......use it.

 

[Cheyenne Bodie]

All I know is that Bayern won the SuperCup today, and ManUtd lost to Crystal Palace (LOL) the other day.

 

[ManUtdManiac]

View attachment 7431769

your displeasure at the discussion of football (not soccer, football. What you call football is actually gay shit for big men wearing spandex and cosplay) is the salve i needed against German's mean comments.

Thank you. Please google Eric Cantona and bask under his amazingness and lack of spandex...

 

[Stevo86]

Mean girl!

I was going to say a disaster of epic proportions, a reason for world wide mourning, a total reason for banning oceans.

You need therapy.

Probably.... matter fact, I’m having some therapy right now... called coors light

 

[TheGerman]

your displeasure at the discussion of football (not soccer, football. What you call football is actually gay shit for big men wearing spandex and cosplay) is the salve i needed against German's mean comments.

Thank you. Please google Eric Cantona and bask under his amazingness and lack of spandex...

I googled him but all that came up was a page that said, 'I live in the past'.

 

[ManUtdManiac]

fuck...

'Tis true...

Much like German greatness...

 

[ManUtdManiac]

And thank you for the reminder....

View attachment 7431764

Honestly, bourbon is such shit. It's basically alcoholic sweet iced tea. What's wrong with proper Whiskey like Midleton's?

 

[pmclaine]

fuck...

'Tis true...

Much like German greatness...

Germany was getting their "Europa, Europa" wet dreams fulfilled, all be it under the Hanschars, until Nigel convinced the Brits that they actually can have a set of balls.

The ones that left...........no balls.

 

[varano14]

@varano14

So here's my thinking on why I referenced the Amendment. I was wondering, if I was the prosecutor, what would be my tactic for nixing the self-defense argument - which is compelling from the vids. I would want to position Rittenhouse as an agitator, an active and aggresive provocateur and so undermined his self-defense claim. The people attacking him seeing him as a threat to their safety in essence.

Hence, if actually positioning Rittenhouse as a Constitutionally protected and even mandated (ref: PMclaine's post) member of an armed militia, expressly protected, there cannot be the argument that he's an aggressor by dint of being armed, wearing military 'paraphrenalia' (which he wasn't really) and so, any attacks on him could not readily be claimed to be 'proactive' self-defense.

I'm clearly not a lawyer, but I do enjoy the odd argument every now and again...

My objective read on this is as follows: Rittenhouse will be convicted on the murder, in the second degree or manslaughter, of the first deceased and acquitted of the other shootings. Either trump pardons him or he'll hopefully win the appeal...

Just because I'm actively studying this I'll throw in that generally at common law (judge created law before there was statutes) even the an original aggressor can be justified in the use of force (including lethal as far as I'm aware) IF they withdraw from the conflict and communicate their withdrawal to the original "victim." So to me in the video where he is running for his life and eventually falls I don't see how that doesn't fit that exception, not sure what others would say but to me he's completely withdrawn from any interaction he may have "instigated." I also thing the instigator argument holds a lot of water politically but very little legally.

That being said I'm not sure jurisdictionally if that rule/exception applies but I would certainly be arguing that he wasn't an agitator in the later half when he was running for his life. As you stated I think the first shooting could pose more of an issue because it isn't as clear, at least to me what the threat to him was at that point as the video is less convincing. At the end of the day that one may come down to the lawyering which is often the case unfortunately.

This all assumes of course rational and unbaised application of the law, which for all our sakes I tell myself is still possible but the cynic in me thinks we may be past that. Thankfully, I'll be staying out of the court room for most of my legal work and doing estate planning and land stuff.

 

[Ravenworks]

Germany was getting their "Europa, Europa" wet dreams fulfilled, all be it under the Hanschars, until Nigel convinced the Brits that they actually can have a set of balls.

The ones that left...........no balls.

Ouch,

 

[pmclaine]

Just because I'm actively studying this I'll throw in that generally at common law (judge created law before there was statutes) even the an original aggressor can be justified in the use of force (including lethal as far as I'm aware) IF they withdraw from the conflict and communicate their withdrawal to the original "victim." So to me in the video where he is running for his life and eventually falls I don't see how that doesn't fit that exception, not sure what others would say but to me he's completely withdrawn from any interaction he may have "instigated." I also thing the instigator argument holds a lot of water politically but very little legally.

That being said I'm not sure jurisdictionally if that rule/exception applies but I would certainly be arguing that he wasn't an agitator in the later half when he was running for his life. As you stated I think the first shooting could pose more of an issue because it isn't as clear, at least to me what the threat to him was at that point as the video is less convincing. At the end of the day that one may come down to the lawyering which is often the case unfortunately.

This all assumes of course rational and unbaised application of the law, which for all our sakes I tell myself is still possible but the cynic in me thinks we may be past that. Thankfully, I'll be staying out of the court room for most of my legal work and doing estate planning and land stuff.

In the first video one of the agressors fires first - unclear if that firing was in the air or in the direction of Kyle - regardless its on camera that within 50 feet or so, while being chased there was a firearm discharged. Add to that a party that had just thrown an unknown object at him, was likely making statements of aggression and perhaps Kyle had actually witnessed the scene just prior where Rosenbaum throws out some choice racist language and postures in a violent manner.

The facts point to a situation where a party running from an aggressor, boxed in by other aggressors, and just had a shot either fired in his direction or in close proximity he should should be able to articulate "in fear for my life"

 

[Peterpan]

It will just come down to a jury of his peers. And I would think a lot of his peers are tired of this shit. If I was on the jury I don’t give a fuck what’s the law says. Just watch the video and you and you’ll see the cock suckers got what they had coming. This is a no win case for the prosecuting attorney. All they need is one stubborn patriot on the jury reguardless of what the laws say.

 

[varano14]

It will just come down to a jury of his peers. And I would think a lot of his peers are tired of this shit. If I was on the jury I don’t give a fuck what’s the law says. Just watch the video and you and you’ll see the cock suckers got what they had coming. This is a no win case for the prosecuting attorney. All they need is one stubborn patriot on the jury reguardless of what the laws say.

Couldn’t agree more.

 

[BullGear]

There are 2 sayings I'd like to remind everyone of.

1. I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

2. Even if you only have a million to one chance, that means you still have a chance.

I don't care how you feel about the kid, he deserves to be freed from jail with a handshake and a pat on the back. If you feel differently, turn in your guns, all ammo and go sit in your safe place.