Kyle Rittenhouse pre-trial

1
Prosecutors cannot call those shot by Kyle Rittenhouse 'victims,' a judge has ruled

Prosecutors in the criminal trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, the teenager who shot and killed two protesters last year in Kenosha, Wis., will not be able to refer to the people he shot as "victims," a judge has ruled, while defense attorneys may be able to call them "arsonists" or "looters."
https://www.npr.org/2021/10/26/10494586 ... udge-ruled

Apparently the judge thinks "victim" is a loaded word. Fair enough...I guess. But defense can call them "arsonists" and "looters" because those aren't loaded. If anyone here understands law better than me (that's a low bar), I need this one explained.

Also, defense can play the video of police thanking Rittenhouse for being there. Because that's not prejudicial.

This is interesting.

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse pre-trial

2
I think that if ANYONE in that situation could be called a terrorist, or a violent threat to the well-being of people in the area, it would be a teenager who was hauled across state lines by his mother for the express purpose of shooting people who were protesting violence visited on the community by people with badges and guns.

"The Riot didn't start until the police showed up in their riot gear!"
Eventually I'll figure out this signature thing and decide what I want to put here.

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse pre-trial

3
I have an unpopular opinion here as to if the shootings were justifiable self defense. But I do share the popular opinion there was no fucking reason what so ever that a minor (or anyone) should be there armed.

However, the trial is about the first, not the second. It is interesting and I'm trying to keep emotions out of it, personally. It will be an important case on the use of deadly force in self defense. Or not.

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse pre-trial

4
It's a high visibility case and the judge doesn't want to make any errors that appellate courts could use to overturn the verdict. He'll probably make more controversial rulings as the case proceeds. WI isn't a "stand your ground" state like FL. From a law firm.
Self-defense is an affirmative defense that a person accused of a violent crime can bring, arguing that their use of force was justified because they were defending themselves. Wisconsin law allows deadly force in self-defense in the limited circumstances where the person defending themselves “reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm” to their person. Importantly, some states impose a duty to retreat from a conflict, but Wisconsin is not among them.

However, Wisconsin does allow juries to consider whether a defendant could have retreated in determining whether the use of deadly force was “necessary.”
https://www.grgblaw.com/wisconsin-trial ... fense-rule
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse pre-trial

5
featureless wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 12:01 am I have an unpopular opinion here as to if the shootings were justifiable self defense. But I do share the popular opinion there was no fucking reason what so ever that a minor (or anyone) should be there armed.

However, the trial is about the first, not the second. It is interesting and I'm trying to keep emotions out of it, personally. It will be an important case on the use of deadly force in self defense. Or not.
I’m in your camp as well. Also, if the mother was responsible for bringing her teenager to an unsafe environment, she should be charged with child endangerment. Totally irresponsible, but also not what the court case is about as noted by featureless.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse pre-trial

6
Original post was my confusion about the terms that were and weren't allowed to be used. Anyone able to shed light on that?

The other questions are too complex for me, but I don't share the opinions above. Probably my emotions talking. He'll get a trial to sort that out--because he's white and survived the night. See, there goes my emotional response again.

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse pre-trial

7
cooper wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:25 am Original post was my confusion about the terms that were and weren't allowed to be used. Anyone able to shed light on that?

The other questions are too complex for me, but I don't share the opinions above. Probably my emotions talking. He'll get a trial to sort that out--because he's white and survived the night. See, there goes my emotional response again.
Yep, emotional responses are tough. I figure, should I find myself on trial, I'd prefer examination of the facts (such that we know them). :)

I believe the terminology is due to the fact that at least two of those shot were witnessed to be up to ungood things (arson) while at the riot in question, so it's biased to describe willing participants in illegal actions as victims. They were agitators, different from the vast majority of the demonstrators. Further, two were convicted violent felons (one in multiple child rape charges), so they have a record of being perpetrators more so than victims. If we go too far down the victim path, we're not looking at facts of the case, we're looking at histories and emotions. This case is complicated enough without that. But each side will try to weasel it in to smear the other. The judge is seeking to prevent that.

The "he's white and survived the night" is a huge issue, but not the one on trial. Just to point out, he didn't shoot a single person of color despite an entire evening of opportunities, so while many believe that to be his motive, I'm not convinced. There is ample evidence of white privilege and fucked policing external to the known fact that a white kid shot three white men, killing two of them. The question on trial is did he do so in self defense or in malice. Most of the rest is not relevant to that very specific question.

We should probably talk about chickens. My wife wants some and I know nothing. :) We're not ready for goats yet.

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse pre-trial

8
Yeah. I get that everyone involved likely came out looking for trouble. I just think if you can't call them victims, you shouldn't call them arsonists because they haven't been convicted or even charged with arson. If the judge wants no prejudicial terms, just call them by name with no descriptors / judgements.

My point about him surviving the night because he's white was not to say he was out there to shoot POC. Just that a POC with a rifle on a dark, chaotic, violent night likely wouldn't have been brought in peacefully to stand trial.

Yeah, chickens are a better subject. We got rid of ours this year. They were fun, but a lot of damn work in the winter with very little return. Seriously, I think the sheep are easier. I think you're someplace warm, though, so checking on the chickens in winter probably isn't too bad. Every other day we want to get rid of the goats, they're from Hell. And yet they crack me up...

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse pre-trial

9
Chickens, you get eggs. Not that I have chickens, but love eggs. Totally biased comment. Goats, could be useful, but take up more space. Also not an experience based comment. In other words, I have no real experience just opinions.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse pre-trial

10
cooper wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 11:32 am If the judge wants no prejudicial terms, just call them by name with no descriptors / judgements.
Totally agree.
cooper wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 11:32 am My point about him surviving the night because he's white was not to say he was out there to shoot POC. Just that a POC with a rifle on a dark, chaotic, violent night likely wouldn't have been brought in peacefully to stand trial.
Several here and many elsewhere have said his motive was to shoot POC. I totally get your point and completely agree with it. Was just trying to stave off that other particulate perspective.
cooper wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 11:32 am Yeah, chickens are a better subject. We got rid of ours this year. They were fun, but a lot of damn work in the winter with very little return. Seriously, I think the sheep are easier. I think you're someplace warm, though, so checking on the chickens in winter probably isn't too bad. Every other day we want to get rid of the goats, they're from Hell. And yet they crack me up...
Our winters can get coldish, lows in the 30s and sometimes 20 or less (coldish being relative to California!). I'd love to know what you ended up settling on for a coup/run (perhaps another thread?) We're lousy with predators around here--foxes, racoons, coyotes, primarily. I do want sheep for their lawn mowing prowess (haven't decided if I could eat them). Also haven't determined if goats are worth the effort. But then I look at 20 acres of raw land covered in brush below the oaks...

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse pre-trial

12
featureless wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 12:01 am I have an unpopular opinion here as to if the shootings were justifiable self defense. But I do share the popular opinion there was no fucking reason what so ever that a minor (or anyone) should be there armed.

However, the trial is about the first, not the second. It is interesting and I'm trying to keep emotions out of it, personally. It will be an important case on the use of deadly force in self defense. Or not.
Had he not crossed state lines with the firearm, which was illegal for him to have in the jurisdiction where it happened, with the express purpose of using that firearm to "help the cops," his claim of self-defense might carry some weight with me.

Nah, not even then. He entered an emotionally-charged situation looking forward to shooting someone. Stuff him in a cell with three Bubbas.
Eventually I'll figure out this signature thing and decide what I want to put here.

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse pre-trial

14
A victim at least in a media sense is seen as someone who has no culpability in an incident/crime, we don't know that for a fact in this case at this time. This happened August 25, 2020 in the midst of the presidential election and in the midst of protests after the murder of George Floyd on May 25th. It got politicized and still is politicized. A lot of people have opinions on the case, voir dire will probably be long. Remember both sides use the media.

If I brought chickens onto my property I'd be driven out of the neighborhood. This is a rural area, but not that rural.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse pre-trial

15
highdesert wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 1:34 pm A victim at least in a media sense is seen as someone who has no culpability in an incident/crime, we don't know that for a fact in this case at this time. This happened August 25, 2020 in the midst of the presidential election and in the midst of protests after the murder of George Floyd on May 25th. It got politicized and still is politicized. A lot of people have opinions on the case, voir dire will probably be long. Remember both sides use the media.

If I brought chickens onto my property I'd be driven out of the neighborhood. This is a rural area, but not that rural.
I’m inner city. One of my neighbors keeps a few chickens in their yard. Probably not allowed, but I’m not going to tell on them.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse pre-trial

16
sikacz wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 1:49 pm
I’m inner city. One of my neighbors keeps a few chickens in their yard. Probably not allowed, but I’m not going to tell on them.
The mark of a good neighbor is not telling the (likely fascist) local government when a neighbor is doing something that helps themselves but doesn't harm anyone else.

Thank you!
Eventually I'll figure out this signature thing and decide what I want to put here.

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse pre-trial

17
This will be an interesting case to watch. The actual shooting event has a lot of elements about it that support self defense. However, everything that lead up to that moment is in question. I'm very interested in where this case is going to go. Its also a case where there are no good guys.

Remember, for a successful self defense case, you really need to meet 5 tests

1 - You're the innocent party (as in, not the aggressor)
2 - The threat has to be imminent
3 - The force you employ must be proportional to the threat
4 - Duty to retreat (depending on which state you're in)
5 - Your conduct has to be reasonable

I'm very interested in seeing how the defense and prosecution address these 5 issues, because there's all kinds of gray area with this case.
“I think there’s a right-wing conspiracy to promote the idea of a left-wing conspiracy”

Kyle Rittenhouse pre-trial

19
FrontSight wrote:This will be an interesting case to watch. The actual shooting event has a lot of elements about it that support self defense. However, everything that lead up to that moment is in question. I'm very interested in where this case is going to go. Its also a case where there are no good guys.

Remember, for a successful self defense case, you really need to meet 5 tests

1 - You're the innocent party (as in, not the aggressor)
2 - The threat has to be imminent
3 - The force you employ must be proportional to the threat
4 - Duty to retreat (depending on which state you're in)
5 - Your conduct has to be reasonable

I'm very interested in seeing how the defense and prosecution address these 5 issues, because there's all kinds of gray area with this case.
Based on these criteria, I would say that Rittenhouse fails right off the bat. Crossing state lines in illegal possession of a weapon with the intent of violating a curfew to confront people he doesn’t like certainly fails to come off as being a reluctant participant in a conflict.

But then again, if a racist “justice” system can let George Zimmerman walk, they can do the same here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"I have been saying for some time now that America only has one party - the property party. It's the party of big corporations, the party of money. It has two right-wings; one is Democrat and the other is Republican."
-Gore Vidal

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse pre-trial

20
Frontsight laid it out well. And I am with 7N6Wolf that Rittenhouse came into this too tainted by immediately prior actions that he is guilty as hell. (At least I think that was your point, I'm open to be corrected.)

And certainly there was lots of blame to go around that night. Doesn't exonerate someone who showed up looking for trouble and ended up doing some killing.

And of course, I'm a legal expert and in full possession of all the pertinent facts of this case. (sarcasm)

We'll see what happens.

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse pre-trial

21
If the courtroom wasn't already equipped with video screens they will be added, because I assume a lot of video will be shown each side spinning it. Plus charts and diagrams and experts on both sides. Hope jurors have good kidneys and bladders because this will probably be a long trial. Since Kenosha County is a purple county they should be able to get a balanced jury. The defense didn't request a change of venue, so they must feel they have a good chance of winning in Kenosha County, of course if they did the judge could have sent the trial to Milwaukee or Dane counties.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse pre-trial

24
You know what's going to happen, Kyle will most likely walk on at least two of the shootings (the wounding and the second killing, as both were obviously self-defense!), and maybe cop to manslaughter on the third IF AND ONLY IF the prosecution can prove a different story than his additional self-defense claim (he might walk from the first shooting as well as there's no video of that first killing that I've seen?).

He likely will be convicted of weapons charges, as will his Mom (illegal purchasing and endangerment etc), so hopefully they both will never be allowed to own weapons legally again, if and when they get out of jail.

Ya'll whining about it won't change anything, as he was being chased by armed/violent rioters intent on beating him and taking his weapon (rioters armed with a skateboard/club, a handgun, and roundhouse kicking feet aimed at his head etc), and the reason doesn't matter in those two cases (the first shooting and extinguishing a fire lit by rioters in a dumpster was the reason he was being chased...), so the first shooting is the only one that is really in question AFAIK.

Agreed, hang Mom out to dry in any case as he shouldn't have been there, and he shouldn't have had the AR!

Also, the Judge's orders so far seem to favor the shooter, so that's something that an appellate court will likely look at after the fact (as the deceased and injured rioters are also victims etc).

Re: Kyle Rittenhouse pre-trial

25
FrontSight wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 10:45 am This will be an interesting case to watch. The actual shooting event has a lot of elements about it that support self defense. However, everything that lead up to that moment is in question. I'm very interested in where this case is going to go. Its also a case where there are no good guys.

Remember, for a successful self defense case, you really need to meet 5 tests

1 - You're the innocent party (as in, not the aggressor)
2 - The threat has to be imminent
3 - The force you employ must be proportional to the threat
4 - Duty to retreat (depending on which state you're in)
5 - Your conduct has to be reasonable

I'm very interested in seeing how the defense and prosecution address these 5 issues, because there's all kinds of gray area with this case.
For the latter two shootings...

1) He was running away.

2) He was chased by at least three people, one trying to take his head off with a roundhouse kick, one armed with a hand gun, and one with a skateboard/club (the latter two were shot, the hand gun guy lost his bicep and is really lucky that's all he lost, the skateboard guy died).

3) The crowd chasing him was trying to at minimum beat him to a pulp if not kill him, and take his weapon.

4) He was retreating, he was running away.

5) Hmmm, none of this on either side can be considered "reasonable".

For the first shooting...

Witnesses have said a crowd cornered him and tried to take his weapon after he doused a flaming dumpster that the rioters had set alight, mostly led by the first guy killed, though there's no video of that encounter that I've seen (there is lots of video of the second and third shootings however).

It will be interesting...
Last edited by DJD100 on Fri Oct 29, 2021 7:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron