Judge in Rittenhouse case might be a tad biased.

[Dwarvenhobble]

Expert witness' eyes like dollar signs.

Cue the joke where the Defence attorney asks the coroner how if he could tell they were dead then argue that the coroner without testing couldn't have known they were dead only for the coroner to reply their brains were sitting in jars on his desk so he's pretty sure they were dead.

 

[Gergar12]

Maybe, maybe not.
But is this really the example you're going to hang your hat on?

That's fine.
I just urge everyone to temper their outrage for just a second. I also think people who are saying this will mean Rittenhouse will walk (which is on other sites) have jumped the gun by quite a bit. Just because the prosecutor can't use the term "victim" does not mean he is constrained from pointing out that Kyle shot those two men.

Yes, yes it is.

 

[Fallen Soldier]

I’m sorry but the people killed were certainly victims, what the heck is wrong with this judge?

 

[Gordon_4]

"A Jose Canseco Bat!? Tell me... you didn't pay for this."

That joke eluded my understanding for fucking years.

He went there hoping to kill his political opponents.

Rittenhouse was what, 16 when this happened? I doubt he holds any (serious) political stance beyond not getting along with people who actually like Nickleback, or preferred PS3 over Xbox360. And honestly, looking at his gormless face on that Onion tweet drives my brain directly to 'Do not attribute to malice that which is easily explained by stupidity'. The boy is a fucking idiot who got in over his head by being somewhere he had no business being. And unless Saul Goodman is defending him, I don't think he's getting out of this shit scott free. Nor should he.

 

[BrawlMan]

Rittenhouse was what, 16 when this happened?

17.

 

[tstorm823]

And unless Saul Goodman is defending him, I don't think he's getting out of this shit scott free. Nor should he.

The opposite is also a possibility though. In arguing pre-trial that the character of the deceased should not be relevant to the case, the prosecutor basically said that he'd seen no evidence they had committed any crime but arson. I appreciate the malice vs stupidity guidelines, but it's hard to imagine someone being that dumb, feels a bit like throwing the case on purpose.

 

[Gordon_4]

The opposite is also a possibility though. In arguing pre-trial that the character of the deceased should not be relevant to the case, the prosecutor basically said that he'd seen no evidence they had committed any crime but arson. I appreciate the malice vs stupidity guidelines, but it's hard to imagine someone being that dumb, feels a bit like throwing the case on purpose.

Just so we're 100% clear, you're aware I'm talking about Kyle Rittenhouse, who is both alive and the accused in this case right?

 

[tstorm823]

Just so we're 100% clear, you're aware I'm talking about Kyle Rittenhouse, who is both alive and the accused in this case right?

Yes. You were saying that unless Rittenhouse has a fictionally amazing lawyer, he's not going to get out of trial without being found guilty of something. I'm saying that is still possible with an average defense attorney for Rittenhouse to get away with it if the prosecution is unbelievably terrible.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

So now that we have testimony on top of recorded video evidence, will people here NOW stop playing their stupid political games and admit that this was self-defense?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

So now that we have testimony on top of recorded video evidence, will people here NOW stop playing their stupid political games and admit that this was self-defense?

You know they won't.
They can't even acknowledge they have spread clear misinformation in here and say they were wrong. But you watch them try to deflect by digging back through everything a person has said to bring up something from an entirely different thread to try to get them to argue over that again to deflect or you know just make up some other false claims and then when called out just vanish away then do it all again in another future thread.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

So now that we have testimony on top of recorded video evidence, will people here NOW stop playing their stupid political games and admit that this was self-defense?

Witness in Kyle Rittenhouse trial says first shooting victim acted 'belligerently' | CNN

The first man shot and killed by Kyle Rittenhouse during protests in Wisconsin acted "belligerently" and asked to be shot but was not perceived as a serious threat, a former Marine testified Friday.

www.cnn.com

"The former Marine testified that he also came across Rosenbaum, who "had been...acting very belligerently, he had asked very bluntly to shoot him" but that he did not consider the man to be a threat."

You don't get to shoot someone four times for "acting belligerently".

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Witness in Kyle Rittenhouse trial says first shooting victim acted 'belligerently' | CNN

The first man shot and killed by Kyle Rittenhouse during protests in Wisconsin acted "belligerently" and asked to be shot but was not perceived as a serious threat, a former Marine testified Friday.

www.cnn.com

"The former Marine testified that he also came across Rosenbaum, who "had been...acting very belligerently, he had asked very bluntly to shoot him" but that he did not consider the man to be a threat."

You don't get to shoot someone four times for "acting belligerently".

Lol you should see the full witness testimony for that.

"acting belligerently" in the full context of everything said also includes (if it's the witness believe it is) threatening to kill him and the others guarding the lot and saying at one point "If I catch any of you alone at any point tonight I will kill you so you better make sure you're never alone".

While Kyle was standing nearby.

Kyle who was being attacked by Rosenbaum while he was alone and away from the others with Rosenbaum trying to take the gun off Kyle and having allegedly previously expressed desire to try and acquire firearms by taking them from others to try and inflame the situation more by presumably using said weapons.

So yeh when they guy has threatened to kill you and others and has expressed a desire to take peoples guns presumably to do that I think 4 shots as he's attacking you trying to take that gun isn't exactly that far out of the realm of self defence.

 

[tstorm823]

So yeh when they guy has threatened to kill you and others and has expressed a desire to take peoples guns presumably to do that I think 4 shots as he's attacking you trying to take that gun isn't exactly that far out of the realm of self defence.

1) Don't go to a riot with a gun.
2) If a rioter tells you they are going to steal your gun and kill you, you retreat from the situation.

If you take only the immediate events of the shooting, it's easily self defense. But that removes the context of him deciding to attend a riot and at least agreeing to carry a gun there. We do not want to handwave responsibility from vigilantes who decide to attend riots expecting to get into violent altercations.

 

[Eacaraxe]

I'm on the record here as against prosecutorial discretion, but the Rittenhouse case is a prime example of why it needs to exist -- albeit regulated, at least.

Without proffering an opinion on what Rittenhouse did, there's not enough to prove reckless or intentional homicide beyond reasonable doubt, which is in the final analysis the evidentiary standard in play. Wisconsin doesn't impose a statutory duty to retreat, and despite this Rittenhouse attempted to retreat, was followed, and after which he was assaulted in a forcible attempt to disarm him. Any reasonable person in that circumstance would have cause to believe themselves at risk of death or serious bodily harm, which is the standard for use of lethal force in self defense.

The homicide charges never should have been pressed, because they're highly unlikely to yield conviction and therefore weaken prosecution's case overall. The only reason they were, was because of the politically controversial nature of the case. Prosecution should have stuck to the reckless endangerment and firearms charges.

 

[SilentPony]

1) Don't go to a riot with a gun.
2) If a rioter tells you they are going to steal your gun and kill you, you retreat from the situation.

If you take only the immediate events of the shooting, it's easily self defense. But that removes the context of him deciding to attend a riot and at least agreeing to carry a gun there. We do not want to handwave responsibility from vigilantes who decide to attend riots expecting to get into violent altercations.

Also I hadn't realized this until I was listening to the case. He identified himself as an EMT, as well as a private security officer. Now isn't impersonating a law enforcement officer and licensed medical technician like...crimes?
So illegally possessed a gun, illegally traveled over state lines with the gun, illegally acted as both an EMT and security officer, illegally told citizens to disperse at gun point, and illegally shot and killed 2 people.
But he's just a sweet kid who did nothing wrong and is just an innocent victim of circumstance?!

 

[Mister Mumbler]

You don't get to shoot someone four times for "acting belligerently".

You can if you're a cop.
<- *avatar*

So personally, I feel that not only is Rittenhouse guilty of at least manslaughter (he knowingly placed himself into this situation with a deadly weapon that was illegal for him to carry), the person who gave him that rifle should be charged with manslaughter as well.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

1) Don't go to a riot with a gun.
2) If a rioter tells you they are going to steal your gun and kill you, you retreat from the situation.

If you take only the immediate events of the shooting, it's easily self defense. But that removes the context of him deciding to attend a riot and at least agreeing to carry a gun there. We do not want to handwave responsibility from vigilantes who decide to attend riots expecting to get into violent altercations.

1) Again Kyle didn't go with the gun but was handed it when he arrived.
2) In the full footage you do see Kyle retreat back but he's basically cornered with no-where to really retreat to safely as dumpsters were behind him when it happened plus they were probably brushing off his comment at the time as bravado and intimidation not expecting him to actually try it.
3) Kyle wasn't at the protest turned riot. He was at a lot on the edge of Kenosha away from the main crowd because the lot had previously been hit by rioters leaving a previous protest. I get the idea of not wanting to encourage vigilantism but unless people are willing to have local council fully cover all the costs to rebuild businesses burned down or vastly increase police presence then people are going to protect their own properties and businesses or find people who will help them do it. We can't expect people to just roll over and go "Oh my livelihood and everything I've built up is gone and I just have to accept it was a sacrifice in the name of some protest movement and say it is my cost to bear". From the Rooftop Koreans to many others in history people have an will continue to defend what they have built up or get people to help them defend it.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I'm on the record here as against prosecutorial discretion, but the Rittenhouse case is a prime example of why it needs to exist -- albeit regulated, at least.

Without proffering an opinion on what Rittenhouse did, there's not enough to prove reckless or intentional homicide beyond reasonable doubt, which is in the final analysis the evidentiary standard in play. Wisconsin doesn't impose a statutory duty to retreat, and despite this Rittenhouse attempted to retreat, was followed, and after which he was assaulted in a forcible attempt to disarm him. Any reasonable person in that circumstance would have cause to believe themselves at risk of death or serious bodily harm, which is the standard for use of lethal force in self defense.

The homicide charges never should have been pressed, because they're highly unlikely to yield conviction and therefore weaken prosecution's case overall. The only reason they were, was because of the politically controversial nature of the case. Prosecution should have stuck to the reckless endangerment and firearms charges.

You gotta remember the initial charges they were going for were 1st degree murder (premeditated murder) and were seemingly going to try and frame it as Rittenhouse going to said place with the express intent and desire to murder rioters.

Also I hadn't realized this until I was listening to the case. He identified himself as an EMT, as well as a private security officer. Now isn't impersonating a law enforcement officer and licensed medical technician like...crimes?
So illegally possessed a gun, illegally traveled over state lines with the gun, illegally acted as both an EMT and security officer, illegally told citizens to disperse at gun point, and illegally shot and killed 2 people.
But he's just a sweet kid who did nothing wrong and is just an innocent victim of circumstance?!

Rittenhouse was a lifeguard and actually first aid trained and certified. So he's not an EMT as such but he's far better trained than 99% of the AnitFa "street Medics" at the protest. Hell Rittenhouse even turned up with a fairly decent medical kit based on most reports (That's the big bag he seems to be carrying) and was earlier in the night helping treat protestors.

So lets for about the 3rd or 4th time play debunk the claims in this thread.

• The technical statue (though I'm not fully aware of every minute detail) is it's illegal only if not under supervision of an adult. Technically the lot owner or others there would class as adults. Also the Wisconsin gun law states

  This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593

  941.28 is of the item in their possession is possession of a sawn off shotgun. 29.304 is no hunting if under 12 or under 14 without parent or guardian supervision or licenced adult tutorship. 29.593 is you need to prove you can handle a gun to get a hunting licence. As such under the laws being argued Kyle Rittenhouse wasn't in illegal possession of a firearm as he wasn't hunting nor carrying a sawn off shotgun
• As Rittenhouse was given the gun when he arrived he didn't travel with it to the location so the only argument is the speculation he travelled home with the gun after which isn't known and considering there was a dispersal / return home order in place that would likely supersede the law around that added to the fact Kyle tried to turn himself in on the night itself and as such extenuating circumstances come into play because what was he meant to do try to go back through the angry crowd against police order to had the gun back? Leave it in the street somewhere when it wouldn't be safe?
• Technically acting as private security as was done here isn't illegal nor is helping people with a medical kit otherwise a lot of the idiots at these protests should be charged to because they don't even have basic medical training.
• It's not illegal to tell people to leave a private lot
• Finally the whole case is to determine if his actions are legal under self defence laws so no as of yet you can't argue he illegally shot 3 people killing 2.

So yeh so far you're 0.5 for 5 I'd say here

 

[Eacaraxe]

You gotta remember the initial charges they were going for were 1st degree murder (premeditated murder) and were seemingly going to try and frame it as Rittenhouse going to said place with the express intent and desire to murder rioters.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. My only interest here is in the charges for which he's standing trial, the strategic logic that heralded those charges, and the likelihood of a guilty verdict in each.

 

[tstorm823]

3) Kyle wasn't at the protest turned riot. He was at a lot on the edge of Kenosha away from the main crowd...

He was there explicitly because they expected violence there.