FBI Spy Video Shows Kyle Rittenhouse Being Chased Down at Kenosha Riot...Which Explains Why You've Never Seen It

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Criminal history is always relevant in proving that alleged criminal activity is likely to have occurred.

Nah. It actually isn't. Especially when you are arguing self defense.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Nah. It actually isn't. Especially when you are arguing self defense.

Where are you getting your information?


Wisconsin Statutes 904.04

904.04  Character evidence not admissible to prove conduct; exceptions; other crimes.
(1)  Character evidence generally. Evidence of a person's character or a trait of the person's character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that the person acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except:
(a) Character of accused. Evidence of a pertinent trait of the accused's character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same;
(b) Character of victim. Except as provided in s. 972.11 (2), evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim of the crime offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same, or evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor;
(c) Character of witness. Evidence of the character of a witness, as provided in ss. 906.07, 906.08 and 906.09.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Where are you getting your information?


Wisconsin Statutes 904.04

904.04  Character evidence not admissible to prove conduct; exceptions; other crimes.
(1)  Character evidence generally. Evidence of a person's character or a trait of the person's character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that the person acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except:
(a) Character of accused. Evidence of a pertinent trait of the accused's character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same;
(b) Character of victim. Except as provided in s. 972.11 (2), evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim of the crime offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same, or evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor;
(c) Character of witness. Evidence of the character of a witness, as provided in ss. 906.07, 906.08 and 906.09.

I did not say or imply it was not admissible.

 

[Canon Shooter]

That's not how it works.

The prosecution doesn't get to exclude evidence based solely on the speculation of what Rittenhouse knew or didn't know.

The defense can only offer evidence of what was happening, who was involved, and their background, because that tends to show that they were likely to be involved in rioting, arson, etc.

That whooshing sound you just heard was my point sailing effortlessly over your head.

Unless Rittenhouse had knowledge of their backgrounds when he shot them, their backgrounds won't matter an iota when it comes to Rittenhouse claiming self defense...

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I did not say or imply it was not admissible.

Then, the defense can use it to show that criminals were acting like themselves, which resulted in their deaths.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Criminal history is always relevant in proving that alleged criminal activity is likely to have occurred.

The judge already said that if evidence comes forward about the actions of the dead guys, that would be relevant and the judge would allow the defense to call them arsonists, etc.

Let's say Rosenbaum is a child molester.

Rosenbaum chases Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse shoots and kills Rosenbaum.

Unless Rittenhouse knows that Rosenbaum is a child molester when he shoots him, he can't use the fact that Rosenbaum's a child molester in his self defense claim.

And there's not a single reason in the world to believe that Rittenhouse really knew anything about Rosenbaum...

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That whooshing sound you just heard was my point sailing effortlessly over your head.

Unless Rittenhouse had knowledge of their backgrounds when he shot them, their backgrounds won't matter an iota when it comes to Rittenhouse claiming self defense...

You are way out of your element here, pal.

I just posted the Wisconsin statute.

It doesn't matter what Rittenhouse knew. They were criminals and that evidence tends to prove that they acted as such in starting the violence. THAT is relevant. It shows that it's more likely that the violent criminals started the shit and Rittenhouse was justified in acting in self defense.

Whoosh.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Sure it would be.


If a child molester is attacking a child, most people would agree the child has the right to use deadly force.

Not necessarily.

If the child doesn't know his attacker is a child molester, he can't say he shot him because he was a child molester...

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Let's say Rosenbaum is a child molester.

Rosenbaum chases Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse shoots and kills Rosenbaum.

Unless Rittenhouse knows that Rosenbaum is a child molester when he shoots him, he can't use the fact that Rosenbaum's a child molester in his self defense claim.

And there's not a single reason in the world to believe that Rittenhouse really knew anything about Rosenbaum...

This is wrong.

Rosenbaum's criminal past shows that he is likely the aggressor, not Rittenhouse.

It's relevant and will be admitted.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Then, the defense can use it to show that criminals were acting like themselves, which resulted in their deaths.

They can try. But when they then focus on the small window of events to argue self defense, they jury will understand that it had no bearing on Kyle's acts. Similarly, the prosecution will show things about Kyle that indicate he was hoping to get violent that night.

 

[Canon Shooter]

You are way out of your element here, pal.

I just posted the Wisconsin statute.

It doesn't matter what Rittenhouse knew. They were criminals and that evidence tends to prove that they acted as such in starting the violence. THAT is relevant. It shows that it's more likely that the violent criminals started the shit and Rittenhouse was justified in acting in self defense.

Whoosh.

Let's try this:

Rittenhouse shot and killed Rosenbaum. Unless Rittenhouse knew Rosenbaum was a child molester, he cannot claim that he shot Rosenbaum because he was a child molester and that fact made Rittenhouse fear for his life.

Sure, the defense can enter into the evidence anything and everything about Rosenbaum to show what a piece of shit he was. If you review what I've written, I've never claimed otherwise. What I said is that, when it comes to a self defense claim, Rittenhouse can't claim something he had no knowledge of...

 

[Canon Shooter]

This is wrong.

Rosenbaum's criminal past shows that he is likely the aggressor, not Rittenhouse.

It's relevant and will be admitted.

Again, that's fine!

It CANNOT, however, be legitimately used in a self defense claim, simply because Rittenhouse had no knowledge of Rosenbaum's past...

 

[Carl in Michigan]

My favorite scene in the original is when that animal was over him about to kill him....Then BANG!!!

The mother fucker was so surprised, ran away, and dropped dead in the street before he hit the ground

100% self defense. Bet he was as surprised as when Trevon Martin got himself shot

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Again, that's fine!

It CANNOT, however, be legitimately used in a self defense claim, simply because Rittenhouse had no knowledge of Rosenbaum's past...

That is where you are wrong.

It DOES go to show that Rittenhouse, the non-criminal, did not provoke the attack. Read the statute I posted.

 

[progressive hunter]

Let's say Rosenbaum is a child molester.

Rosenbaum chases Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse shoots and kills Rosenbaum.

Unless Rittenhouse knows that Rosenbaum is a child molester when he shoots him, he can't use the fact that Rosenbaum's a child molester in his self defense claim.

And there's not a single reason in the world to believe that Rittenhouse really knew anything about Rosenbaum...

he doesnt need to know,, but the fact rosenbaum was a violent criminal only proves kyle acted in self defense..

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Let's try this:

Rittenhouse shot and killed Rosenbaum. Unless Rittenhouse knew Rosenbaum was a child molester, he cannot claim that he shot Rosenbaum because he was a child molester and that fact made Rittenhouse fear for his life.

Sure, the defense can enter into the evidence anything and everything about Rosenbaum to show what a piece of shit he was. If you review what I've written, I've never claimed otherwise. What I said is that, when it comes to a self defense claim, Rittenhouse can't claim something he had no knowledge of...

But, Rosenbaum's disgusting criminal past does indicate that it is more likely than not that Rosenbaum's animal ass started the shit.

Read

The

Statute

 

[Canon Shooter]

That is where you are wrong.

It DOES go to show that Rittenhouse, the non-criminal, did not provoke the attack. Read the statute I posted.

I'll try this one more time.

Let's say that, once upon a time, you, once upon a time, had gotten into a fight and during that fight you stabbed someone.

Now, some time later, let's say you and I get into a fight. Neither of us knows the other from Adam. All of a sudden, you pull out a knife and try to stab me. I, then, pull a gun and shoot you.

After the fight, I find out that you have a history of stabbing people in fights.

Since I had no previous knowledge about you when you and I fought, I cannot claim that I shot you because you had a history of stabbing people in fights.

It's the same here. Rittenhouse cannot claim that he killed Rosenbaum because Rosenbaum was a child molester, simply because at the time, Rittenhouse had zero knowledge of that...

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

100% self defense. Bet he was as surprised as when Trevon Martin got himself shot

He was surprised for sure

 

[Canon Shooter]

But, Rosenbaum's disgusting criminal past does indicate that it is more likely than not that Rosenbaum's animal ass started the shit.

Read

The

Statute

You're thick.

I never disagreed with you on that point.

I'm saying that, unless Rittenhouse knew about Rosenbaum's past, Rittenhouse cannot base his claim of self defense on Rosenbaum's past...

 

[Carl in Michigan]

He was surprised for sure
View attachment 560406

Moral of the story: don't assault people. One of your victims may be armed