MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: #UnleashSean on November 08, 2021, 04:12:19 PM
-
Scoop has been generally okay on these topics lately so let's see how long this one will last.
Looks as if that trial is pretty much over.
-
Scoop has been generally okay on these topics lately so let's see how long this one will last.
Looks as if that trial is pretty much over.
We must be looking at different Scoops :o
-
Lets see, if I were to bet (which you probably can these days). My guesses at verdicts (without commentary):
First-degree reckless homicide (COUNT 1)
- Not Guilty, self defense
First-degree recklessly endangering safety (COUNTS 2 AND 5)
- Guilty
First-degree intentional homicide (COUNT 3)
- Not Guilty, self defense
Attempted first-degree intentional homicide (COUNT 4)
- Guilty (toughest one, not sure)
Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 (COUNT 6, misdemeanor)
- Guilty
Use of a dangerous weapon (AGGRAVATING FACTOR)
- Yes, just adds to any other felony guilty verdict
-
Lets see, if I were to bet (which you probably can these days). My guesses at verdicts (without commentary):
First-degree reckless homicide (COUNT 1)
- Not Guilty, self defense
First-degree recklessly endangering safety (COUNTS 2 AND 5)
- Guilty
First-degree intentional homicide (COUNT 3)
- Not Guilty, self defense
Attempted first-degree intentional homicide (COUNT 4)
- Guilty (toughest one, not sure)
Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 (COUNT 6, misdemeanor)
- Guilty
Use of a dangerous weapon (AGGRAVATING FACTOR)
- Yes, just adds to any other felony guilty verdict
Which guy is count 4 for?
Nevermind, I suck at reading. If you haven't seen the video yet, that one is pretty much going to be not guilty
Only video I could find btw:
https://www.reddit.com/r/InsaneProtestors/comments/qpk9hi/protest_fallout_leftistdemocrat_blm_protestor_who/
-
IBTL
-
Rittenhouse Rye is a classic. Popular in the 50’s and 60’s, it’s made a resurgence with the whiskey boom.
-
Which guy is count 4 for?
They guy that lived (thus, attempted)
-
If you haven't seen the video yet, that one is pretty much going to be not guilty
I've watched lots of video, and read daily recaps. Just my guesses. They may all be wrong.
-
I've watched lots of video, and read daily recaps. Just my guesses. They may all be wrong.
From the group of defense lawyers voicing over a stream, it seems that all murder charges will be not guilty.
-
From the group of defense lawyers voicing over a stream, it seems that all murder charges will be not guilty.
They are not the jury, nor was that testimony "all" the evidence.
-
They are not the jury, nor was that testimony "all" the evidence.
I believe this is the video the other poster was referring to (regarding the guy that survived):
https://twitter.com/thevivafrei/status/1457774701673996298?s=21
Another swing and miss from the prosecution was this one related to one of the deceased (language warning):
https://twitter.com/jordylancaster/status/1456336920099885066?s=21
Lastly, looks like some jury intimidation from an individual who is allegedly “family” (not blood related) with George Floyd:
https://twitter.com/johnmcurtis/status/1457343779833360389?s=21
My prediction is Rittenhouse gets nothing, but it’s a shame that life was lost nonetheless.
-
He'll definitely get this one: Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 (COUNT 6, misdemeanor)
and possibly this one: First-degree recklessly endangering safety (COUNTS 2 AND 5)
-
The real crime here was not being detained by the police whenever someone noticed his firearm
-
My prediction is Rittenhouse gets nothing, but it’s a shame that life was lost nonetheless.
He'll definitely get this one: Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 (COUNT 6, misdemeanor)
and possibly this one: First-degree recklessly endangering safety (COUNTS 2 AND 5)
Yep. Listen, I think he's a Dbag and a hardo who went looking for a fight and to play soldier, but its really hard to call it murder, much less get a murder charge, when you have other sh**y people also committing violent acts against him, one of whom was also armed with a gun.
That being said, I hope he gets prison time and an unfriendly welcome in gen pop.
The real crime here was not being detained by the police whenever someone noticed his firearm
Honestly, the more and more time goes on, NOBODY looks good coming out of the Kenosha situation. Just terrible crap all over.
-
I think he's a Dbag and a hardo who went looking for a fight and to play soldier, but its really hard to call it murder, much less get a murder charge, when you have other sh**y people also committing violent acts against him, one of whom was also armed with a gun.
Hm, this makes it sound like you haven't been following closely. The first two guys definitely chased him. The first had mental issues (was just released from the hospital) and lunged at him, the second chased him and hit him with a skateboard. The guy armed with a gun was the least threatening. He had his hands up in the air just after Rittenhouse shot the second guy, but then when Rittenhouse pointed the gun at him, and re-racked it, he lowered his arms and pointed his gun - then was shot. Who was acting in self defense?
So, it may *all* be self defense, but the "other" dude with a gun wasn't the threatening one. I have lots of questions about shooting someone hitting you with a skateboard and whether shooting him is within "self defense", but since he wasn't present (obviously) I think the jury will side with self defense. My gut is that the emotion of hearing a real human testify, even if he had a gun, will qualify as attempted homicide.
Regardless, I expect the sentencing to be light regardless of the verdict. He's a dumb kid that didn't have the necessary training to handle himself or that gun in that situation. People (that were "volunteering" with Rittenhouse) also testified that he didn't seem comfortable, and he was carrying the gun in a hostile way - basically saying if he had the right training this never would have happened - they were worried about him.
-
He had his hands up in the air just after Rittenhouse shot the second guy, but then when Rittenhouse pointed the gun at him, and re-racked it, he lowered his arms and pointed his gun - then was shot. Who was acting in self defense?
Apologies for quoting myself, just trying to logic through this. Two illegally armed civilians (one underage, the others concealed carry permit expired) point guns at each other. One shoots and injures the other. Who is guilty? Maybe nobody. If anybody, it has to be the guy that actually fired a shot, right? Does it matter who aimed first?
-
Rocky's take seems pretty sound. As to count 4, the victim's confusing testimony as to whether the gun was ever pointed at Rittenhouse likely doomed that chance of a G verdict. Remember, the prosecution has the burden and that testimony likely will likely convince one or more jurors to buy into self defense on that count also.
-
Hm, this makes it sound like you haven't been following closely. The first two guys definitely chased him. The first had mental issues (was just released from the hospital) and lunged at him, the second chased him and hit him with a skateboard. The guy armed with a gun was the least threatening. He had his hands up in the air just after Rittenhouse shot the second guy, but then when Rittenhouse pointed the gun at him, and re-racked it, he lowered his arms and pointed his gun - then was shot. Who was acting in self defense?
So, it may *all* be self defense, but the "other" dude with a gun wasn't the threatening one. I have lots of questions about shooting someone hitting you with a skateboard and whether shooting him is within "self defense", but since he wasn't present (obviously) I think the jury will side with self defense. My gut is that the emotion of hearing a real human testify, even if he had a gun, will qualify as attempted homicide.
Regardless, I expect the sentencing to be light regardless of the verdict. He's a dumb kid that didn't have the necessary training to handle himself or that gun in that situation. People (that were "volunteering" with Rittenhouse) also testified that he didn't seem comfortable, and he was carrying the gun in a hostile way - basically saying if he had the right training this never would have happened - they were worried about him.
I guess it all just comes down to "mob mentality". You have a group of people chasing someone, someone is wielding a weapon (the skateboard), then as you are on your back as people are pursuing you, someone is holding a gun that is then pointed at you. Even if you initially pointed the gun.
I'm not a lawyer, but hypothetically, if you were being robbed, backed into a corner, you pulled your gun out, then one of the robbers pulled out their own gun after you leveled your gun at them, then you shot them, would you be deemed an aggressor, all things considered? I guess this goes to your addendum. I don't know the legalese enough, its surely murky.
I have a friend that got cracked in the face with a skateboard in a fight in college, severe concussion and lost 3 teeth, if someone wanted to finish the job with one they probably could, so I'm not so inclined to brush off a skateboard like a stick or a broom or something.
Again, I'm not defending Rittenhouse or his cowboy antics. I think your last paragraph is pretty accurate. He went in thinking he was a Call of Duty hero, but was untrained and reckless/spastic. But at the same time, I think there were a lot of bad intentions all over the place.
Going back to Jesu's point, its even more baffling that the police weren't like "WTF are you doing?" If not directly clocking him for the shooting, but just how he appeared with that gun.
-
Thanks for the thoughts wags.
The interesting part to me, while we can debate legalese, it all comes down to the emotion of the jury. Which, in some ways is scary . Right & wrong don't necessarily matter. It's how they felt about the testimony, but often comes back to emotion...one way or the other.
Going back to Jesu's point, its even more baffling that the police weren't like "WTF are you doing?" If not directly clocking him for the shooting, but just how he appeared with that gun.
As I understand, there were several people all around town armed just like him. And they police even thanked some of them for being there. But that's not really part of this particular case.
-
The real crime here was not being detained by the police whenever someone noticed his firearm
I grew up in Kenosha and the cops were outstanding. That has really changed though in the last 20 years.
They went from being a community force to being an overly armed militia.
-
I grew up in Kenosha and the cops were outstanding. That has really changed though in the last 20 years.
They went from being a community force to being an overly armed militia.
Sounds like the rest of america.
-
The interesting part to me, while we can debate legalese, it all comes down to the emotion of the jury. Which, in some ways is scary . Right & wrong don't necessarily matter. It's how they felt about the testimony, but often comes back to emotion...one way or the other.
Rocky
Emotions trumping facts is nothing new in courtrooms or elsewhere.
Remember OJ? Or just read Scoop.
-
I guess it all just comes down to "mob mentality". You have a group of people chasing someone, someone is wielding a weapon (the skateboard), then as you are on your back as people are pursuing you, someone is holding a gun that is then pointed at you. Even if you initially pointed the gun.
I'm not a lawyer, but hypothetically, if you were being robbed, backed into a corner, you pulled your gun out, then one of the robbers pulled out their own gun after you leveled your gun at them, then you shot them, would you be deemed an aggressor, all things considered? I guess this goes to your addendum. I don't know the legalese enough, its surely murky.
I have a friend that got cracked in the face with a skateboard in a fight in college, severe concussion and lost 3 teeth, if someone wanted to finish the job with one they probably could, so I'm not so inclined to brush off a skateboard like a stick or a broom or something.
Again, I'm not defending Rittenhouse or his cowboy antics. I think your last paragraph is pretty accurate. He went in thinking he was a Call of Duty hero, but was untrained and reckless/spastic. But at the same time, I think there were a lot of bad intentions all over the place.
Going back to Jesu's point, its even more baffling that the police weren't like "WTF are you doing?" If not directly clocking him for the shooting, but just how he appeared with that gun.
I'll be the first to admit I haven't been following much of this case. But to me the key is the first encounter. The new surveillance videos show him as the aggressor, and chasing the eventual victim.
At that point, he is an individual illegally in possession of a firearm, chasing an unarmed civilian. He is not in a position of self-defense, he has initiated the confrontation and is guilty.
Arguments could be made for self defense in some of the subsequent encounters, but they all stem from the same illegal original act.
-
The prosecution needs to drive this home, but it seems like too little too late. Minor charges will stick, but that's it.
I'll be the first to admit I haven't been following much of this case. But to me the key is the first encounter. The new surveillance videos show him as the aggressor, and chasing the eventual victim.
At that point, he is an individual illegally in possession of a firearm, chasing an unarmed civilian. He is not in a position of self-defense, he has initiated the confrontation and is guilty.
Arguments could be made for self defense in some of the subsequent encounters, but they all stem from the same illegal original act.
-
Emotions trumping facts is nothing new in courtrooms or elsewhere.
yup
-
Lets see, if I were to bet (which you probably can these days). My guesses at verdicts (without commentary):
First-degree reckless homicide (COUNT 1)
- Not Guilty, self defense - Yep
First-degree recklessly endangering safety (COUNTS 2 AND 5)
- Guilty Yep
First-degree intentional homicide (COUNT 3)
- Not Guilty, self defense Yep
Attempted first-degree intentional homicide (COUNT 4)
- Guilty (toughest one, not sure) Nope
Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 (COUNT 6, misdemeanor)
- Guilty Yep
Use of a dangerous weapon (AGGRAVATING FACTOR)
- Yes, just adds to any other felony guilty verdict Yep
Minor time for Kyle.
-
I grew up in Kenosha and the cops were outstanding. That has really changed though in the last 20 years.
They went from being a community force to being an overly armed militia.
you mean that "overtly armed militia" that sat back and watched kenosha burn? you know blake admitted he was armed with a knife, right?
-
Apparently a defense witness said on the stand that the prosecutor attempted to get him to change his statement. That’s not good for the State.
-
I'll be the first to admit I haven't been following much of this case. But to me the key is the first encounter. The new surveillance videos show him as the aggressor, and chasing the eventual victim.
At that point, he is an individual illegally in possession of a firearm, chasing an unarmed civilian. He is not in a position of self-defense, he has initiated the confrontation and is guilty.
Arguments could be made for self defense in some of the subsequent encounters, but they all stem from the same illegal original act.
Do you have a link to that video? Been following the case pretty closely and haven’t seen any video or testimony suggesting Rittenhouse was chasing Rosenbaum at any point.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/11/03/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial/index.html
If the video in the above link is what you’re referring to then you have a pretty interesting take on it.
-
This is pretty much where I lie on this:
Josh Barro
@jbarro
It was morally reprehensible for Rittenhouse to voluntarily put himself in a position where he was likely to feel compelled to use deadly force against another person. Whether he committed a crime is a question of fact and Wisconsin law I'm not so sure about.
-
https://www.wpr.org/kyle-rittenhouses-defense-team-asks-mistrial-after-he-testifies
Unbelievable phuck up.
-
This is pretty much where I lie on this:
Josh Barro
@jbarro
It was morally reprehensible for Rittenhouse to voluntarily put himself in a position where he was likely to feel compelled to use deadly force against another person. Whether he committed a crime is a question of fact and Wisconsin law I'm not so sure about.
He committed a crime. It's just that homicide isn't it.
Of course, his biggest offense is being a criminally stupid kid with incredibly lousy parents.
-
He committed a crime. It's just that homicide isn't it.
Of course, his biggest offense is being a criminally stupid kid with incredibly lousy parents.
Yes, yes and yes. I am not following this terribly closely, but that seems to be fairly accurate to me.
-
This is pretty much where I lie on this:
Josh Barro
@jbarro
It was morally reprehensible for Rittenhouse to voluntarily put himself in a position where he was likely to feel compelled to use deadly force against another person. Whether he committed a crime is a question of fact and Wisconsin law I'm not so sure about.
Yeah, I think that is hard to argue with. Nearly everyone there was looking for some kind of trouble, Rittenhouse included.
-
https://www.wpr.org/kyle-rittenhouses-defense-team-asks-mistrial-after-he-testifies
Unbelievable phuck up.
At least they didn't ask him to try on any gloves!
-
At least they didn't ask him to try on any gloves!
This is 100x worse. Violated Rittenhouse's rights.
-
This is 100x worse. Violated Rittenhouse's rights.
Not really. Go back and read the question. It really wasn't nearly as bad as the judge (who's bonkers, btw) made it seem.
-
Not really. Go back and read the question. It really wasn't nearly as bad as the judge (who's bonkers, btw) made it seem.
A two-time Marquette grad!
-
Not really. Go back and read the question. It really wasn't nearly as bad as the judge (who's bonkers, btw) made it seem.
During cross-examination, prosecutors questioned Rittenhouse about statements he made before the shootings. The judge previously ruled those statements were inadmissible.
Is this what happened or not?
-
Everything I've seen (and heard) points to the conclusion that Rittenhouse will be found not guilty for all homicide charges. But you hope that tragedies like this eventually convince people to stop LARPing as vigilantes and revolutionaries, especially when guns are involved. This is the issue that arises when people lose trust in the systems we have in place, be it government or law enforcement or whatever. People begin operating outside of those systems, and then aren't prepared for when s#*t hits the fan.
When you break the rules of the system by acting as a vigilante, don't expect the mob to follow "the rules" either. If you bring a gun, don't be surprised when you have to use it. If you're "protecting property because the police won't", don't expect the police to come save you when things don't go as planned. Not going to name names because we all know, but other people have gotten themselves or others killed because they believed that "the system" had failed them, and it was their duty to act.
The judge had to grant a ten minute recess today because Rittenhouse couldn't get through his own testimony without sobbing all over himself. I don't think he intentionally murdered anyone, but I also think he was a 17 year old kid who had no idea what he was getting himself into. He clearly was not emotionally or mentally prepared to face the consequences of his decisions. He learned the hard way, and now people are dead because of it. I just hope his example makes others think twice before doing the same.
But I'm sure Rittenhouse felt pretty bada$$ for a few hours while he carried that gun around illegally to "protect" a town he'd never been to before. Hope it was worth it kid.
-
During cross-examination, prosecutors questioned Rittenhouse about statements he made before the shootings. The judge previously ruled those statements were inadmissible.
Is this what happened or not?
This isn't what set the judge off.
The judge was mad because the prosecutor asked Rittenhouse about his testimony being the first time he told his side of the story and him not giving previous statements to cops. The judge (and defense) took umbrage, because Rittenhouse has a Constitutional right not to give statements to cops and his exercising of that right can't be used against him. The question implies that Rittenhouse was somehow uncooperative or did something wrong by exercising his right, which can be seen as prejudicial.
It was a cheap ploy by the prosecution, but that's all. Crap like that happens in criminal trials.
-
This isn't what set the judge off.
The judge was mad because the prosecutor asked Rittenhouse about his testimony being the first time he told his side of the story and him not giving previous statements to cops. The judge (and defense) took umbrage, because Rittenhouse has a Constitutional right not to give statements to cops and his exercising of that right can't be used against him. The question implies that Rittenhouse was somehow uncooperative or did something wrong by exercising his right, which can be seen as prejudicial.
It was a cheap ploy by the prosecution, but that's all. Crap like that happens in criminal trials.
A cheap ploy or violating his Miranda rights and the 5th amendment?
-
A cheap ploy or violating his Miranda rights and the 5th amendment?
A cheap ploy.
Attorneys asking questions they know are going to be objected/sustained is not uncommon.
-
Haven't followed it closely but it sounds like the prosecution hasn't done themselves any favors. I would be shocked if he gets anything other than a minor charge for underage possession of the weapon. Unless the jury is bribed.
-
Haven't followed it closely but it sounds like the prosecution hasn't done themselves any favors. I would be shocked if he gets anything other than a minor charge for underage possession of the weapon. Unless the jury is bribed.
Or threatened
-
Everything I've seen (and heard) points to the conclusion that Rittenhouse will be found not guilty for all homicide charges. But you hope that tragedies like this eventually convince people to stop LARPing as vigilantes and revolutionaries, especially when guns are involved. This is the issue that arises when people lose trust in the systems we have in place, be it government or law enforcement or whatever. People begin operating outside of those systems, and then aren't prepared for when s#*t hits the fan.
Unfortunately, I think not guilty verdicts on all homicide charges will have just the opposite effect.
-
Or threatened
True. The 5 mins of the prosecutor's questions I heard on the radio was bizarre. Although, I'm surprised Rittenhouse took the stand. But this you were not threatened /"no one shot at you" narrative was seriously ridiculous from the attorney. So, you can only defend yourself after someone shoots? WTF? I agree the kid shouldn't have been there or had a rifle but there was never anything close to a 1st degree homicide case. And the fact is there were a plethora of people that shouldn't have been there and exacerbated the situation.
-
A cheap ploy.
Attorneys asking questions they know are going to be objected/sustained is not uncommon.
Just watch Law and Order. Happens every episode for 21 years.
-
The Rittenhouse fake crying video was pretty funny.
-
The Rittenhouse fake crying video was pretty funny.
the actual part in the trial this morning was really heart breaking sad. he really tried to soldier thru but when his breathing started to get labored, judge recognizes rittenhouse can't go on like this and the jury doesn't need to see anymore. patient in my chair broke down crying as she watched. looked for a moment like he was going to suffer a real breakdown. that's not funny. kudos to judge for recognizing this and taking a break. anyone having any compassion for another regardless of your position here has to feel for the guy, yes, he put himself in the position he was, but i think we can agree that he didn't go there to kill 2 people and injure another
btw rockie-he didn't "re-rack" the gun before shooting that gage guy
-
This isn't what set the judge off.
The judge was mad because the prosecutor asked Rittenhouse about his testimony being the first time he told his side of the story and him not giving previous statements to cops. The judge (and defense) took umbrage, because Rittenhouse has a Constitutional right not to give statements to cops and his exercising of that right can't be used against him. The question implies that Rittenhouse was somehow uncooperative or did something wrong by exercising his right, which can be seen as prejudicial.
It was a cheap ploy by the prosecution, but that's all. Crap like that happens in criminal trials.
Not surprisingly you are the only one I’ve seen with this take. Every legal analyst on Court TV said they’ve never seen anything like it, but what do they know I guess.
-
Everything I've seen (and heard) points to the conclusion that Rittenhouse will be found not guilty for all homicide charges. But you hope that tragedies like this eventually convince people to stop LARPing as vigilantes and revolutionaries, especially when guns are involved.
Actually, if he doesn't face any serious time, things will get worse. It'll show people like Rittenhouse that yes, they can go out armed, and gun down anyone they feel threatened by, and get away with it.
-
Actually, if he doesn't face any serious time, things will get worse. It'll show people like Rittenhouse that yes, they can go out armed, and gun down anyone they feel threatened by, and get away with it.
So if the evidence shows he shouldn't face any serious charges, he should still face serious charges?
-
Hm, this makes it sound like you haven't been following closely. The first two guys definitely chased him. The first had mental issues (was just released from the hospital) and lunged at him, the second chased him and hit him with a skateboard. The guy armed with a gun was the least threatening. He had his hands up in the air just after Rittenhouse shot the second guy, but then when Rittenhouse pointed the gun at him, and re-racked it, he lowered his arms and pointed his gun - then was shot. Who was acting in self defense?
So, it may *all* be self defense, but the "other" dude with a gun wasn't the threatening one. I have lots of questions about shooting someone hitting you with a skateboard and whether shooting him is within "self defense", but since he wasn't present (obviously) I think the jury will side with self defense. My gut is that the emotion of hearing a real human testify, even if he had a gun, will qualify as attempted homicide.
Regardless, I expect the sentencing to be light regardless of the verdict. He's a dumb kid that didn't have the necessary training to handle himself or that gun in that situation. People (that were "volunteering" with Rittenhouse) also testified that he didn't seem comfortable, and he was carrying the gun in a hostile way - basically saying if he had the right training this never would have happened - they were worried about him.
So if the guy armed with the gun would have fired first and killed Rittenhouse that he should have been charged with murder?
-
So if the evidence shows he shouldn't face any serious charges, he should still face serious charges?
Haha, exactly. If someone breaks into your house and your shoot them and get away with it that’s only going to lead to more people buying guns to protect their homes damn it!!!
-
So if the evidence shows he shouldn't face any serious charges, he should still face serious charges?
Rittenhouse illegally possessed a weapon. He's a criminal. The overhead video shows he chased the first victim. I'd argue the evidence shows he should face serious charges, just the prosecution botched this as bad as they could.
What this should change is the laws. The crime for Rittenhouse possessing the weapon should be raised to a felony. Then, he'd be guilty of homicide since a person was killed during the commission of a felony.
Haha, exactly. If someone breaks into your house and your shoot them and get away with it that’s only going to lead to more people buying guns to protect their homes damn it!!!
Yeah, because that's what happened here.
What happened here would be more closely aligned with me showing up in your work parking lot, claiming I'm protecting the cars, armed to the teeth and the moment someone looked at me strange or said something to me, chase them. Then, if they turn and stop at all shoot them 3 times including once in the back. Then claim self defense, because I was scared you were turning to take my gun.
-
True. The 5 mins of the prosecutor's questions I heard on the radio was bizarre. Although, I'm surprised Rittenhouse took the stand. But this you were not threatened /"no one shot at you" narrative was seriously ridiculous from the attorney. So, you can only defend yourself after someone shoots? WTF? I agree the kid shouldn't have been there or had a rifle but there was never anything close to a 1st degree homicide case. And the fact is there were a plethora of people that shouldn't have been there and exacerbated the situation.
The prosecution has zero case and it’s showing at every turn. Just goes to show you that it’s not about the truth and only about getting a conviction.
Many people are having a hard time with this case because they already made up their minds about it when the incident happened without knowing anything about it whatsoever. Now when actual facts and testimony are given, you can start to hear the propaganda engine starting up with things like: “judge is bad”, etc
-
Anyone know why they didn't charge him with negligent homicide. Illegally possessing a firearm would seem like an obvious "reckless" use of a weapon.
-
Rittenhouse illegally possessed a weapon. He's a criminal. The overhead video shows he chased the first victim. I'd argue the evidence shows he should face serious charges, just the prosecution botched this as bad as they could.
What this should change is the laws. The crime for Rittenhouse possessing the weapon should be raised to a felony. Then, he'd be guilty of homicide since a person was killed during the commission of a felony.
Yeah, because that's what happened here.
What happened here would be more closely aligned with me showing up in your work parking lot, claiming I'm protecting the cars, armed to the teeth and the moment someone looked at me strange or said something to me, chase them. Then, if they turn and stop at all shoot them 3 times including once in the back. Then claim self defense, because I was scared you were turning to take my gun.
He will likely get charged for illegally possessing the firearm. Homicide charges are a different story. Were there other criminals in Kenosha or Minneapolis who should be charged for a variety of illegal activity?
-
He will likely get charged for illegally possessing the firearm. Homicide charges are a different story. Were there other criminals in Kenosha or Minneapolis who should be charged for a variety of illegal activity?
Yes. But that’s an irrelevant question anyway.
-
One thing that this has underscored is that the internet discourse is an awful place to find interpretation of trial practice.
-
He will likely get charged for illegally possessing the firearm. Homicide charges are a different story. Were there other criminals in Kenosha or Minneapolis who should be charged for a variety of illegal activity?
The fact is, he committed a crime that directly led to the deaths of 3 people. He is celebrated by a lot of people on that align with his political beliefs and the vigilante type. He went out to bars and leveraged that celebrity.
To those who align with those types, they will read this as proof that you can be a vigilante. It will make things worse.
The part that I just don't understand though, is the overhead video clearly shows Rittenhouse as the armed aggressor, chasing an unarmed man. That should immediately nullify any claim of self defense.
-
Yes. But that’s an irrelevant question anyway.
I'm responding to his statement that "he's a criminal" but your point is well taken Fluffy.
-
Rittenhouse illegally possessed a weapon. He's a criminal. The overhead video shows he chased the first victim. I'd argue the evidence shows he should face serious charges, just the prosecution botched this as bad as they could.
What this should change is the laws. The crime for Rittenhouse possessing the weapon should be raised to a felony. Then, he'd be guilty of homicide since a person was killed during the commission of a felony.
Yeah, because that's what happened here.
What happened here would be more closely aligned with me showing up in your work parking lot, claiming I'm protecting the cars, armed to the teeth and the moment someone looked at me strange or said something to me, chase them. Then, if they turn and stop at all shoot them 3 times including once in the back. Then claim self defense, because I was scared you were turning to take my gun.
You’re analogy is not at all what happened in the Rittenhouse case. You’re obviously not following along with the trial.
-
The fact is, he committed a crime that directly led to the deaths of 3 people. He is celebrated by a lot of people on that align with his political beliefs and the vigilante type. He went out to bars and leveraged that celebrity.
To those who align with those types, they will read this as proof that you can be a vigilante. It will make things worse.
The part that I just don't understand though, is the overhead video clearly shows Rittenhouse as the armed aggressor, chasing an unarmed man. That should immediately nullify any claim of self defense.
Just so I understand your point of view..... your opinion is that he drove to Kenosha, armed and hoping to kill BLM protesters, because he's an ardent white supremacist, and saw an opportunity? I honestly don't see it but have not followed the trial closely.
We have.a legal system forgetful. What happened was very unfortunate and absolutely could have been avoided. I agree he had no business being there and was illegally carrying a weapon. However, charging him with first degree homicide is an entirely different animal based on the facts I am aware of in this case.
-
Lebron James tweets about the Rittenhouse case:
What tears????? I didn’t see one. Man knock it off! That boy ate some lemon heads before walking into court. 🤣🤣🤣
-
Not surprisingly you are the only one I’ve seen with this take. Every legal analyst on Court TV said they’ve never seen anything like it, but what do they know I guess.
Sure they did, Cheeksaloop.
-
Just so I understand your point of view..... your opinion is that he drove to Kenosha, armed and hoping to kill BLM protesters, because he's an ardent white supremacist, and saw an opportunity? I honestly don't see it but have not followed the trial closely.
We have.a legal system forgetful. What happened was very unfortunate and absolutely could have been avoided. I agree he had no business being there and was illegally carrying a weapon. However, charging him with first degree homicide is an entirely different animal based on the facts I am aware of in this case.
Yeah, not what I said at all.
Time for me to retire from this thread.
-
Yeah, not what I said at all.
Time for me to retire from this thread.
I apologize and admit I haven't been following the trial. However, I don't understand your basis for charging him with anything beyond the illegal possession of the weapon. All I'm saying is what is the actual evidence in this case?
-
I apologize and admit I haven't been following the trial. However, I don't understand your basis for charging him with anything beyond the illegal possession of the weapon. All I'm saying is what is the actual evidence in this case?
I'm super super far from a legal expert myself. I'm going off the first encounter. The overhead video shows Rittenhouse as the aggressor and chasing the ultimate victim. In my opinion you can't claim self defense if you are the armed aggressor. The prosecution botched this point though. That's it.
Now seriously retiring from this thread, as I really don't have anything useful to contribute.
edit. Not angry/upset. Just try to do a better job of not going down rabbit holes where I don't have things to contribute.
-
I'm super super far from a legal expert myself. I'm going off the first encounter. The overhead video shows Rittenhouse as the aggressor and chasing the ultimate victim. In my opinion you can't claim self defense if you are the armed aggressor. The prosecution botched this point though. That's it.
Now seriously retiring from this thread, as I really don't have anything useful to contribute.
Okay. I didn't mean to make you angry. I'm just unaware of this overhead video and what it conclusively shows.
-
The prosecution has zero case and it’s showing at every turn. Just goes to show you that it’s not about the truth and only about getting a conviction.
Many people are having a hard time with this case because they already made up their minds about it when the incident happened without knowing anything about it whatsoever. Now when actual facts and testimony are given, you can start to hear the propaganda engine starting up with things like: “judge is bad”, etc
Regardless of anyone's thoughts on the case one way or the other, the judge IS objectively bad. Holy crap, what a nutter.
-
Regardless of anyone's thoughts on the case one way or the other, the judge IS objectively bad. Holy crap, what a nutter.
I missed it. Why is he a disaster?
-
I missed it. Why is he a disaster?
Because TSmith read it on Twitter Muggsy, duh!
-
Regardless of anyone's thoughts on the case one way or the other, the judge IS objectively bad. Holy crap, what a nutter.
He is a nutter. It’s been well documented
-
the actual part in the trial this morning was really heart breaking sad. he really tried to soldier thru but when his breathing started to get labored, judge recognizes rittenhouse can't go on like this and the jury doesn't need to see anymore. patient in my chair broke down crying as she watched. looked for a moment like he was going to suffer a real breakdown. that's not funny. kudos to judge for recognizing this and taking a break. anyone having any compassion for another regardless of your position here has to feel for the guy, yes, he put himself in the position he was, but i think we can agree that he didn't go there to kill 2 people and injure another
btw rockie-he didn't "re-rack" the gun before shooting that gage guy
😂
-
😂
Didn’t think you could go any lower reeko. So many examples of you guys just can’t get out of yourselves. How about starting with just some plain decency and compassion the guy did not want to kill anyone and he had to relive the most horrifying experience one could go thru.
-
Didn’t think you could go any lower reeko. So many examples of you guys just can’t get out of yourselves. How about starting with just some plain decency and compassion the guy did not want to kill anyone and he had to relive the most horrifying experience one could go thru.
"decency and compassion"
"ALM"
Sorry, you don't get to take any moral high ground here.
-
Didn’t think you could go any lower reeko. So many examples of you guys just can’t get out of yourselves. How about starting with just some plain decency and compassion the guy did not want to kill anyone and he had to relive the most horrifying experience one could go thru.
He didn’t want to kill anyone, but he drove into a different state to be somewhere he knew that there would be rioting going on and he brought an assault rifle with him. Hmm…
If he didn’t want to kill anyone, he has one person to blame.
-
The part that I just don't understand though, is the overhead video clearly shows Rittenhouse as the armed aggressor, chasing an unarmed man. That should immediately nullify any claim of self defense.
Can you please link to this video. I have looked (admittedly quickly) and cannot find it. I haven’t heard anyone mention that except you in this thread and you’ve referred to it as “surveillance” video and “overhead” video. I’m not disagreeing with you, I’m genuinely curious because I haven’t heard this mentioned anywhere else.
-
Can you please link to this video. I have looked (admittedly quickly) and cannot find it. I haven’t heard anyone mention that except you in this thread and you’ve referred to it as “surveillance” video and “overhead” video. I’m not disagreeing with you, I’m genuinely curious because I haven’t heard this mentioned anywhere else.
He is literally making that fact up. No video shows it, no witness testified to it. Forgetful just created this scenario that Rittenhouse started the chase out of thin air.
-
He didn’t want to kill anyone, but he drove into a different state to be somewhere he knew that there would be rioting going on and he brought an assault rifle with him. Hmm…
If he didn’t want to kill anyone, he has one person to blame.
Isn't Kenosha like 15-20 mins from his house? I believe he has family and friends in Kenosha.
-
Isn't Kenosha like 15-20 mins from his house? I believe he has family and friends in Kenosha.
It is. Was in Kenosha almost everyday for work/life.
-
Isn't Kenosha like 15-20 mins from his house? I believe he has family and friends in Kenosha.
Yes. None of that changes the fact that he drove to a different state with an assault rifle to be somewhere that riots were going to be happening. He made that decision. If you don’t want to murder someone maybe don’t head there. Or leave the assault rifle at home. I don’t know. Just a thought.
-
And the fact that this prosecutor tried to coach a witness and asked him to lie under oath is something else that deserves the start of a full fledged investigation into the entire Kenosha County DA office. These are some bad folks down there.
-
Isn't Kenosha like 15-20 mins from his house? I believe he has family and friends in Kenosha.
Yeah, that “crossing state lines” thing is misleading. I think he worked in Kenosha and lived nearby.
-
Yes. None of that changes the fact that he drove to a different state with an assault rifle to be somewhere that riots were going to be happening. He made that decision. If you don’t want to murder someone maybe don’t head there. Or leave the assault rifle at home. I don’t know. Just a thought.
He didn’t bring the AR across state lines with him. It was and always was stored at his buddies house in Wisconsin. Would have been illegal for him to have brought it back to Illinois. This was all covered in great detail during his testimony yesterday. Me thinks you weren’t watching.
-
And the fact that this prosecutor tried to coach a witness and asked him to lie under oath is something else that deserves the start of a full fledged investigation into the entire Kenosha County DA office. These are some bad folks down there.
You're overreacting a lot here. The ADA made a terrible mistake, but you're attempting to absolve the kid of poor choices, and bad behavior. Both can be bad.
-
He didn’t bring the AR across state lines with him. It was and always was stored at his buddies house in Wisconsin. Would have been illegal for him to have brought it back to Illinois. This was all covered in great detail during his testimony yesterday. Me thinks you weren’t watching.
Why do you seem so personally invested in this case? It's being weaponized by both sides of the political spectrum.
-
He didn’t bring the AR across state lines with him. It was and always was stored at his buddies house in Wisconsin. Would have been illegal for him to have brought it back to Illinois. This was all covered in great detail during his testimony yesterday. Me thinks you weren’t watching.
Okay. You’re still deflecting. He showed up in a city he knew riots would be happening with an assault rifle. Guess who else lives within an easy drive of Kenosha? Me. Guess who didn’t show up there with an assault rifle? Me. And guess who didn’t murder multiple people? Also me. It was pretty easy to avoid. Nobody forced him to be there. Nobody forced him to bring an assault rifle. He made those choices. He “didn’t want to kill 2 people?” Then why does he have an assault rifle in a place he knows there will be unrest? Again, he has one person to blame. It’s not hard.
-
Why do you seem so personally invested in this case? It's being weaponized by both sides of the political spectrum.
That’s why I’m “invested”. There has been a lot of attention given to this case from the night of the accident but it’s only been one side who has been dealing in facts and reality. It gets me beyond frustrated to see the lies/spin being put out (primarily coming from one side of the political aisle) when it’s a kids life at stake. This isn’t some game to score cheap political points.
And the fact Biden put out a tweet shortly after the shootings blaming it on white supremacy and attaching it to trump/MAGA supporters is shameful.
-
Okay. You’re still deflecting. He showed up in a city he knew riots would be happening with an assault rifle. Guess who else lives within an easy drive of Kenosha? Me. Guess who didn’t show up there with an assault rifle? Me. And guess who didn’t murder multiple people? Also me. It was pretty easy to avoid. Nobody forced him to be there. Nobody forced him to bring an assault rifle. He made those choices. He “didn’t want to kill 2 people?” Then why does he have an assault rifle in a place he knows there will be unrest? Again, he has one person to blame. It’s not hard.
He definitely used poor judgment and as far as I know illegally obtained the assault rifle. I would think he will be charged on that count. Intimating he drove up to murder people is an entirely different story and seems incredulous.
-
He definitely used poor judgment and as far as I know illegally obtained the assault rifle. I would think he will be charged on that count. Intimating he drove up to murder people is an entirely different story and seems incredulous.
It’s not illegal to possess a rifle under 18 in Wisconsin. Otherwise every 17 year old hunter would be in violation of the law, not sure how the official language reads so I can see that charge sticking cause he obviously wasn’t out in the woods hunting or at a shooting range (also not illegal to be under 18 in possession of a rifle at the shooting range) so in the context of open carrying the rifle in the middle of town it was never really determined in testimony if that was illegal or not.
-
Yeah, that “crossing state lines” thing is misleading. I think he worked in Kenosha and lived nearby.
Funny how the borders no matta crowd is very concerned with state lines all of a sudden.
-
Regardless of anyone's thoughts on the case one way or the other, the judge IS objectively bad. Holy crap, what a nutter.
More of that "old, white dentist" syndrome brought to you by T-Squared, hey?
-
The fact is, he committed a crime that directly led to the deaths of 3 people.
This is really the only thing that matters from a legal perspective.
He is celebrated by a lot of people on that align with his political beliefs and the vigilante type. He went out to bars and leveraged that celebrity.
To those who align with those types, they will read this as proof that you can be a vigilante. It will make things worse.
This really doesn't matter one bit from a legal perspective.
-
That’s why I’m “invested”. There has been a lot of attention given to this case from the night of the accident but it’s only been one side who has been dealing in facts and reality. It gets me beyond frustrated to see the lies/spin being put out (primarily coming from one side of the political aisle) when it’s a kids life at stake. This isn’t some game to score cheap political points.
And the fact Biden put out a tweet shortly after the shootings blaming it on white supremacy and attaching it to trump/MAGA supporters is shameful.
I don't know where to start.
You're 100% lost in the sauce.
-
I missed it. Why is he a disaster?
Have you watched how he has acted during the trial? One example: he threw a sh!tfit that the prosecutors had altered photographic evidence because they showed photos and zoomed in and out just as we all do by using fingers to pinch/spread the picture. The judge is of the belief that this "alters pixels". He really believes that zooming in or out permanently alters a picture.
-
It’s not illegal to possess a rifle under 18 in Wisconsin. Otherwise every 17 year old hunter would be in violation of the law, not sure how the official language reads so I can see that charge sticking cause he obviously wasn’t out in the woods hunting or at a shooting range (also not illegal to be under 18 in possession of a rifle at the shooting range) so in the context of open carrying the rifle in the middle of town it was never really determined in testimony if that was illegal or not.
Oh...ty. I wrongly assumed that was determined. From the few things I've read and heard I'm having a very difficult time seeing his actions as anything beyond self-defense. The fact that he used poor judgment (as did the victims) by being there, with a weapon, has literally nothing to do with if he committed homicide or defended himself. Proving he intentionally went there to murder seems delusional so I'm wondering why these charges were even brought based on the evidence.
-
https://twitter.com/Rschooley/status/1458474762175352832?t=1SPhLln1WajTIpA_XAgLfQ&s=19
-
That’s why I’m “invested”. There has been a lot of attention given to this case from the night of the accident but it’s only been one side who has been dealing in facts and reality. It gets me beyond frustrated to see the lies/spin being put out (primarily coming from one side of the political aisle) when it’s a kids life at stake. This isn’t some game to score cheap political points.
And the fact Biden put out a tweet shortly after the shootings blaming it on white supremacy and attaching it to trump/MAGA supporters is shameful.
Poor, sweet baby
-
https://twitter.com/Rschooley/status/1458474762175352832?t=1SPhLln1WajTIpA_XAgLfQ&s=19
And again, this isn't legally relevant.
-
Didn’t think you could go any lower reeko. So many examples of you guys just can’t get out of yourselves. How about starting with just some plain decency and compassion the guy did not want to kill anyone and he had to relive the most horrifying experience one could go thru.
😂
-
Have you watched how he has acted during the trial? One example: he threw a sh!tfit that the prosecutors had altered photographic evidence because they showed photos and zoomed in and out just as we all do by using fingers to pinch/spread the picture. The judge is of the belief that this "alters pixels". He really believes that zooming in or out permanently alters a picture.
Cause it does. Prosecutors claimed the pinch to zoom function was no different then using a magnifying glass which could not be further from the truth.
-
He didn’t want to kill anyone, but he drove into a different state to be somewhere he knew that there would be rioting going on and he brought an assault rifle with him. Hmm…
If he didn’t want to kill anyone, he has one person to blame.
Get familiar with the case then get back to us. Just because one Has a gun, doesn’t mean you are out to kill someone people carry all the time hoping they never need the thing
-
Get familiar with the case then get back to us. Just because one Has a gun, doesn’t mean you are out to kill someone people carry all the time hoping they never need the thing
😂
-
Get familiar with the case then get back to us. Just because one Has a gun, doesn’t mean you are out to kill someone people carry all the time hoping they never need the thing
I think I can count the number of times I've seen a civilian roaming the streets with an assault rifle out in the open in my life on a single finger.
But sure.
-
https://twitter.com/Rschooley/status/1458474762175352832?t=1SPhLln1WajTIpA_XAgLfQ&s=19
How is this picture relevant to the case?
-
How is this picture relevant to the case?
It could be used to speak to his state of mind and lack of regret for taking a human life. Many of his actions on the day of, and days after the incident lead me to believe he is a child who isn't capable of making good decisions. Not to mention his parent's lack of good sensibility.
But the judge ruled it inadmissible, so it has no relevancy to the case.
-
Didn’t think you could go any lower reeko. So many examples of you guys just can’t get out of yourselves. How about starting with just some plain decency and compassion the guy did not want to kill anyone and he had to relive the most horrifying experience one could go thru.
What he did may be protected by Wisconsin law. What he did was also morally repugnant. I don't feel sorry for him in the least regardless of whether his tears were real or fake.
BTW, reflecting on your comments from last summer, I doubt you would have felt the same way about someone who was black and in the same position.
-
And the fact that this prosecutor tried to coach a witness and asked him to lie under oath is something else that deserves the start of a full fledged investigation into the entire Kenosha County DA office. These are some bad folks down there.
Buddy, you're gonna be real disappointed when you learn about every DA's office in America.
-
It could be used to speak to his state of mind and lack of regret for taking a human life. Many of his actions on the day of, and days after the incident lead me to believe he is a child who isn't capable of making good decisions. Not to mention his parent's lack of good sensibility.
But the judge ruled it inadmissible, so it has no relevancy to the case.
Wearing an offensive or stupid t-shirt should be admissible to prove his state of mind during the alleged crime or feelings after the alleged crime?
-
Wearing an offensive or stupid t-shirt should be admissible to prove his state of mind during the alleged crime or feelings after the alleged crime?
Dude, I never said that. Stop being so reactionary.
-
What he did may be protected by Wisconsin law. What he did was also morally repugnant. I don't feel sorry for him in the least regardless of whether his tears were real or fake.
BTW, reflecting on your comments from last summer, I doubt you would have felt the same way about someone who was black and in the same position.
Why are you injecting race here? Can we not look at the specific facts of this case, or any case in the news, and have a reasonable discussion?
-
Buddy, you're gonna be real disappointed when you learn about every DA's office in America.
Well that’s a terrifying indictment on our judicial system and if I ever find myself on a juror in a serious case will keep these “normal” prosecutorial strategies in mind.
-
Well that’s a terrifying indictment on our judicial system and if I ever find myself on a juror in a serious case will keep these “normal” prosecutorial strategies in mind.
I have no doubt that you'd be summarily dismissed from any jury selection process.
-
Dude, I never said that. Stop being so reactionary.
You intimated that while at the same time said the judge didn't allow the picture as evidence. I have reactionary tendencies as we all do.
-
You intimated that while at the same time said the judge didn't allow the picture as evidence. I have reactionary tendencies as we all do.
I said it spoke to his state of mind.
I never said it should be admissible, that is a jump you've made based on your emotions about the case.
-
Have you watched how he has acted during the trial? One example: he threw a sh!tfit that the prosecutors had altered photographic evidence because they showed photos and zoomed in and out just as we all do by using fingers to pinch/spread the picture. The judge is of the belief that this "alters pixels". He really believes that zooming in or out permanently alters a picture.
Not that it will do any good, but I caution everyone to fixate on the things the Internet is focusing on that the judge is doing. If you don't observe judges actually engaging with lawyers from the bench on a regular basis, then everything that the judge is doing might look ridiculous. If you do, then everything that he is doing looks more or less in the character of judges.
https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1458493792349089792?s=20
People, understandably because they're not litigators so why should they know any different as well as almost entirely have already decided their own opinion on the guilt or innocence of the accused, are watching things and latching onto the wrong things. It's an exercise in confirmation bias.
"I, the person who thinks Rittenhouse is guilty am concerned he might be acquitted, and therefore the judge's conduct in these [entirely routine] evidentiary rulings is proof of his attempt to affect the case."
Or, conversely:
"I, the person who thinks Rittenhouse is a political prisoner victim of a woke prosecutorial witch hunt see the prosecutor's conduct as proof of his corrupt intent."
(Maybe, however, Hanlon's razor applies here: "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity")
I would suggest to everyone paying attention that the more valuable thing to do here is to remove Rittenhouse and the underlying actions as pieces of what you take away from having observed this case develop from arrest to trial. You see prosecutors engaging in certain conduct, this conduct is routine, do you think that conduct is bad? You see judicial conduct that is routine, do you think this is bad? You are getting a window into the sausage making of the criminal justice system. Strip out your biases and think that there just might be nothing unusual going on.
If so, perhaps there's a lesson to be learned that has nothing to do with Rittenhouse, BLM, or the illusion of the state monopoly on violence unraveling before our eyes.
-
I have no doubt that you'd be summarily dismissed from any jury selection process.
And you’d be wrong again.
Answer the question hards….if victim #3 despite chasing down Rittenhouse would have pulled the trigger on his pointed gun first killing Rittenhouse do you believe he should have been charged with murder?
-
Well that’s a terrifying indictment on our judicial system and if I ever find myself on a juror in a serious case will keep these “normal” prosecutorial strategies in mind.
I could be wrong but given your posting history here you do not seem to be someone who was inherently distrustful of law enforcement and prosecutors. If what you take away from this trial is a deep and abiding skepticism of the justice system, that might not be a bad thing.
-
Why are you injecting race here? Can we not look at the specific facts of this case, or any case in the news, and have a reasonable discussion?
Because it shows how rocket has the inability to be logically consistent in this case, and his comments should be ignored (or more ignored than they are typically) because of it.
-
Not that it will do any good, but I caution everyone to fixate on the things the Internet is focusing on that the judge is doing. If you don't observe judges actually engaging with lawyers from the bench on a regular basis, then everything that the judge is doing might look ridiculous. If you do, then everything that he is doing looks more or less in the character of judges.
https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1458493792349089792?s=20
People, understandably because they're not litigators so why should they know any different as well as almost entirely have already decided their own opinion on the guilt or innocence of the accused, are watching things and latching onto the wrong things. It's an exercise in confirmation bias.
"I, the person who thinks Rittenhouse is guilty am concerned he might be acquitted, and therefore the judge's conduct in these [entirely routine] evidentiary rulings is proof of his attempt to affect the case."
Or, conversely:
"I, the person who thinks Rittenhouse is a political prisoner victim of a woke prosecutorial witch hunt see the prosecutor's conduct as proof of his corrupt intent."
(Maybe, however, Hanlon's razor applies here: "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity")
I would suggest to everyone paying attention that the more valuable thing to do here is to remove Rittenhouse and the underlying actions as pieces of what you take away from having observed this case develop from arrest to trial. You see prosecutors engaging in certain conduct, this conduct is routine, do you think that conduct is bad? You see judicial conduct that is routine, do you think this is bad? You are getting a window into the sausage making of the criminal justice system. Strip out your biases and think that there just might be nothing unusual going on.
If so, perhaps there's a lesson to be learned that has nothing to do with Rittenhouse, BLM, or the illusion of the state monopoly on violence unraveling before our eyes.
(https://c.tenor.com/ZRHRsonSmcQAAAAC/clapping-leonardo-dicaprio.gif)
-
Not that it will do any good, but I caution everyone to fixate on the things the Internet is focusing on that the judge is doing. If you don't observe judges actually engaging with lawyers from the bench on a regular basis, then everything that the judge is doing might look ridiculous. If you do, then everything that he is doing looks more or less in the character of judges.
https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1458493792349089792?s=20
Yeah, and the guy doesn't really have a reputation for being political. He has a reputation for being a little odd and generally supportive of a defendant's rights - which isn't a bad thing.
-
And you’d be wrong again.
Answer the question hards….if victim #3 despite chasing down Rittenhouse would have pulled the trigger on his pointed gun first killing Rittenhouse do you believe he should have been charged with murder?
I was joking, you're the perfect idiot for a jury. You're easily manipulated by your emotions.
What a stupid question. Of course.
Now entertain me.
-
Because it shows how rocket is absolutely biased in this case, and his comments should be ignored (or more ignored than they are typically) because of it.
Because a white kid killed a couple other white guys it magically has something to do with race?
-
I was joking, you're the perfect idiot for a jury. You're easily manipulated by your emotions.
What a stupid question. Of course.
Now entertain me.
So if you think Gabe G was literally seconds away from committing murder and you’re on the other side of his barrel you don’t have the right to defend yourself?
-
So if you think Gabe G was literally seconds away from committing murder and you’re on the other side of his barrel you don’t have the right to defend yourself?
I've never said the opposite.
But keep going.
-
Not that it will do any good, but I caution everyone to fixate on the things the Internet is focusing on that the judge is doing. If you don't observe judges actually engaging with lawyers from the bench on a regular basis, then everything that the judge is doing might look ridiculous. If you do, then everything that he is doing looks more or less in the character of judges.
https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1458493792349089792?s=20
People, understandably because they're not litigators so why should they know any different as well as almost entirely have already decided their own opinion on the guilt or innocence of the accused, are watching things and latching onto the wrong things. It's an exercise in confirmation bias.
"I, the person who thinks Rittenhouse is guilty am concerned he might be acquitted, and therefore the judge's conduct in these [entirely routine] evidentiary rulings is proof of his attempt to affect the case."
Or, conversely:
"I, the person who thinks Rittenhouse is a political prisoner victim of a woke prosecutorial witch hunt see the prosecutor's conduct as proof of his corrupt intent."
(Maybe, however, Hanlon's razor applies here: "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity")
I would suggest to everyone paying attention that the more valuable thing to do here is to remove Rittenhouse and the underlying actions as pieces of what you take away from having observed this case develop from arrest to trial. You see prosecutors engaging in certain conduct, this conduct is routine, do you think that conduct is bad? You see judicial conduct that is routine, do you think this is bad? You are getting a window into the sausage making of the criminal justice system. Strip out your biases and think that there just might be nothing unusual going on.
If so, perhaps there's a lesson to be learned that has nothing to do with Rittenhouse, BLM, or the illusion of the state monopoly on violence unraveling before our eyes.
Nailed it
-
Because a white kid killed a couple other white guys it magically has something to do with race?
Maybe you should follow the thread and report back.
-
Can you please link to this video. I have looked (admittedly quickly) and cannot find it. I haven’t heard anyone mention that except you in this thread and you’ve referred to it as “surveillance” video and “overhead” video. I’m not disagreeing with you, I’m genuinely curious because I haven’t heard this mentioned anywhere else.
It is the FBI surveillance video. In my original viewing of the video, based on the description of the video in the article, I miss identified who was person of interest 1 and 2. The article stated that Rittenhouse confronted Rosenbaum, it was after that confrontation that Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse.
I was wrong on the chasing part, because I misunderstood the wording of the article and then misaligned the individuals. Mea culpa.
Regarding those asking about the Judge being bad/bias. I will cite two aspects.
1. Not allowing the shooting victims to be called "victims." I understand that decision to avoid bias. But then he allowed them to be called "rioters or looters." That decision is inconsistent with the first and ends up biasing the jury to the "victims" being the bad guy.
2. He forbid inclusion of a video of Rittenhouse saying he wished he had his AR so he could shoot people he thought were shoplifting from a CVS. Excluding this was egregious. It goes to state of mind prior to Kenosha and intent, the latter critical to some of the charges. It proves he wanted an AR15 to go shoot people he viewed as looters/shoplifters.
-
I think I can count the number of times I've seen a civilian roaming the streets with an assault rifle out in the open in my life on a single finger.
But sure.
I saw news reports of many dozens of civilians openly carrying assault rifles at riots last year -- in Minnesota, in Wisconsin, in other places. I only recall one incident where one of those people fired their weapon and killed someone. The fact that someone takes an assault rifle to a riot -- and I think we agree that this is a really stupid idea -- does not mean that the person intends to shoot someone.
-
It is the FBI surveillance video. In my original viewing of the video, based on the description of the video in the article, I miss identified who was person of interest 1 and 2. The article stated that Rittenhouse confronted Rosenbaum, it was after that confrontation that Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse.
I was wrong on the chasing part, because I misunderstood the wording of the article and then misaligned the individuals. Mea culpa.
Regarding those asking about the Judge being bad/bias. I will cite two aspects.
1. Not allowing the shooting victims to be called "victims." I understand that decision to avoid bias. But then he allowed them to be called "rioters or looters." That decision is inconsistent with the first and ends up biasing the jury to the "victims" being the bad guy.
2. He forbid inclusion of a video of Rittenhouse saying he wished he had his AR so he could shoot people he thought were shoplifting from a CVS. Excluding this was egregious. It goes to state of mind prior to Kenosha and intent, the latter critical to some of the charges. It proves he wanted an AR15 to go shoot people he viewed as looters/shoplifters.
The FBI surveillance tapes and the possible deleting/withholding of them is an interesting case in and of itself. Seems that many other folks should have been charged with various crimes if that was the case.
1. Since the trial is a question of whether or not it was self defense, calling them “victims” implies that it was not. I agree that they should not have been called rioters or looters either. I think demonstrators is the best term.
2. I don’t know the reason it was excluded, but it seems it should have been included and was relevant.
-
It is the FBI surveillance video. In my original viewing of the video, based on the description of the video in the article, I miss identified who was person of interest 1 and 2. The article stated that Rittenhouse confronted Rosenbaum, it was after that confrontation that Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse.
I was wrong on the chasing part, because I misunderstood the wording of the article and then misaligned the individuals. Mea culpa.
Regarding those asking about the Judge being bad/bias. I will cite two aspects.
1. Not allowing the shooting victims to be called "victims." I understand that decision to avoid bias. But then he allowed them to be called "rioters or looters." That decision is inconsistent with the first and ends up biasing the jury to the "victims" being the bad guy.
2. He forbid inclusion of a video of Rittenhouse saying he wished he had his AR so he could shoot people he thought were shoplifting from a CVS. Excluding this was egregious. It goes to state of mind prior to Kenosha and intent, the latter critical to some of the charges. It proves he wanted an AR15 to go shoot people he viewed as looters/shoplifters.
Counsel, please provide me with your analysis of how this particular evidence ought to be considered under Wis. Stat. 904.03. I understand the purpose that you wish to use it for (to provide evidence of the defendant's state of mind and his intent), but the 904.03 is missing from your motion in limine to deem this evidence admissible.
Note, for people who are going to assume my opinion on the guilt/innocence/morality of Rittenhouse, none of what I'm saying has anything to do with whether I think he is good or evil, an avatar of citizen justice or an exemplar of a growing community of fascist streetfighters. What I am doing is trying to get at the legal analysis that gets briefed and argued in every single case before every single judge for every single defendant. Think of me like your algebra teacher in 7th grade downgrading you for not showing your work on your quadratic equations. Because, frankly, it's the "shown work" that actually matters here, not the final ruling.
-
Counsel, please provide me with your analysis of how this particular evidence ought to be considered under Wis. Stat. 904.03. I understand the purpose that you wish to use it for (to provide evidence of the defendant's state of mind and his intent), but the 904.03 is missing from your motion in limine to deem this evidence admissible.
Note, for people who are going to assume my opinion on the guilt/innocence/morality of Rittenhouse, none of what I'm saying has anything to do with whether I think he is good or evil, an avatar of citizen justice or an exemplar of a growing community of fascist streetfighters. What I am doing is trying to get at the legal analysis that gets briefed and argued in every single case before every single judge for every single defendant. Think of me like your algebra teacher in 7th grade downgrading you for not showing your work on your quadratic equations. Because, frankly, it's the "shown work" that actually matters here, not the final ruling.
As I noted, not my area of expertise and appreciate any insight. Here is my non-attorney thought process. There is a charge of intentional homicide. That requires proof of intent. The defendant is on camera saying he wanted an AR15 to shoot shoplifters/looters. This occurred two weeks before he went out and got an AR15 and shot 3 people he presumed to be looters.
As far as I can find, there is no precedent to exclude such damning evidence under 904.03. It is explicitly germane and probative to intent, a requirement of one of the charges.
If any of us were on camera saying "I'm want to kill X," and then shortly thereafter go out and kill X in the exact way I said I wanted to, it would be used as evidence of intent.
I'd be interested in seeing case precedent where a defendant saying he wanted to do the exact crime that he then went and did in short duration after was allowed to be excluded.
I also am unsure of (read provide insight from an actual legal professional) why when he said on the stand he did not want to shoot anyone, and that he wanted a weapon for defense, that this evidence would then be admissible as it contradicts his testimony, and indicates potential lying on the stand. It shows two weeks before he wanted an AR15 (specifically) to shoot looters.
I understand that inclusion of this evidence is damning, but his testimony is designed to stipulate himself out of the facts to acquit himself of guilt, stipulate himself out of facts proven by the evidence the prosecution wished to present and that was germane and probative to the charges.
"The general rule is that the prosecution is entitled to prove its case by evidence of its own choice and that a criminal defendant may not stipulate or admit his or her way out of the full evidentiary force of the case as the government chooses to present it. State v. Conner, 2009 WI App 143, 321 Wis. 2d 449, 775 N.W.2d 105, 08-1296."
-
Not that it will do any good, but I caution everyone to fixate on the things the Internet is focusing on that the judge is doing. If you don't observe judges actually engaging with lawyers from the bench on a regular basis, then everything that the judge is doing might look ridiculous. If you do, then everything that he is doing looks more or less in the character of judges.
https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1458493792349089792?s=20
People, understandably because they're not litigators so why should they know any different as well as almost entirely have already decided their own opinion on the guilt or innocence of the accused, are watching things and latching onto the wrong things. It's an exercise in confirmation bias.
"I, the person who thinks Rittenhouse is guilty am concerned he might be acquitted, and therefore the judge's conduct in these [entirely routine] evidentiary rulings is proof of his attempt to affect the case."
Or, conversely:
"I, the person who thinks Rittenhouse is a political prisoner victim of a woke prosecutorial witch hunt see the prosecutor's conduct as proof of his corrupt intent."
(Maybe, however, Hanlon's razor applies here: "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity")
I would suggest to everyone paying attention that the more valuable thing to do here is to remove Rittenhouse and the underlying actions as pieces of what you take away from having observed this case develop from arrest to trial. You see prosecutors engaging in certain conduct, this conduct is routine, do you think that conduct is bad? You see judicial conduct that is routine, do you think this is bad? You are getting a window into the sausage making of the criminal justice system. Strip out your biases and think that there just might be nothing unusual going on.
If so, perhaps there's a lesson to be learned that has nothing to do with Rittenhouse, BLM, or the illusion of the state monopoly on violence unraveling before our eyes.
Excellent post. Truly well done and needed in here.
This is a perfect case where emotions from both sides can easily supercede the duality of life.
I feel bad for Rittenhouse in a way cause I don't get the impression he is very bright. He seems pretty immature, easily influenced, and with a variety of hero complexes. Those can often be stripped away under duress and pressure. Hence it doesn't have to be an act for the same kid taking pictures and smiling as adults he admires are gassing him up for his actions...to also be sad, overwhelmed, remorseful, etc... months and months later as he realizes that he f-ing killed 2 people.
All that being said, as Ive mentioned before in here, I don't think he's some good kid who got mixed up in the wrong stuff. I think he had/has something to prove, tried to find meaning/mentorship from crappy people, went looking for trouble and found it. His parents are lousy and he didn't exactly do any better.
This all can be true. I'd say the same of countless minority youths that get caught up in criminal activity and turn into problems. You can think they are terrible, violent individuals and still feel bad for them.
My Mom used to be a social worker in a juvenile correctional facility. The stories she had were heartbreaking. She always used to talk about the honor student at that city's equivalent of a Riverside or Rufus King. Had a full ride to Purdue for engineering. But hung out with his uncle and kids he grew up with that were trash people and got caught up in a robbery, got a 6 month sentence and lost his scholarship and admission. He used to ask her to bring my Dad's old college textbooks to read in his cell and she'd find some of the pages with tear stains. But for every story like that, she had 16-17 year olds who had multiple crimes, flashing gang signs walking through the corridors, but then would sit and cry in their cell and call for their moms. They weren't hardened criminals, they were idiot kids who got caught up in stupid crap and never had a chance.
Now I'm not aligned Rittenhouse with either of those, but I do think its important to realize that HS kids can be really f-ing stupid, really easy to be manipulated and swayed, and everything is shades of grey. He's not a victim in any way in this case, but one could argue the fact that ever went down this path is pretty sad.
-
Nailed it also, JWags.
-
Excellent post. Truly well done and needed in here.
This is a perfect case where emotions from both sides can easily supercede the duality of life.
I feel bad for Rittenhouse in a way cause I don't get the impression he is very bright. He seems pretty immature, easily influenced, and with a variety of hero complexes. Those can often be stripped away under duress and pressure. Hence it doesn't have to be an act for the same kid taking pictures and smiling as adults he admires are gassing him up for his actions...to also be sad, overwhelmed, remorseful, etc... months and months later as he realizes that he f-ing killed 2 people.
All that being said, as Ive mentioned before in here, I don't think he's some good kid who got mixed up in the wrong stuff. I think he had/has something to prove, tried to find meaning/mentorship from crappy people, went looking for trouble and found it. His parents are lousy and he didn't exactly do any better.
This all can be true. I'd say the same of countless minority youths that get caught up in criminal activity and turn into problems. You can think they are terrible, violent individuals and still feel bad for them.
My Mom used to be a social worker in a juvenile correctional facility. The stories she had were heartbreaking. She always used to talk about the honor student at that city's equivalent of a Riverside or Rufus King. Had a full ride to Purdue for engineering. But hung out with his uncle and kids he grew up with that were trash people and got caught up in a robbery, got a 6 month sentence and lost his scholarship and admission. He used to ask her to bring my Dad's old college textbooks to read in his cell and she'd find some of the pages with tear stains. But for every story like that, she had 16-17 year olds who had multiple crimes, flashing gang signs walking through the corridors, but then would sit and cry in their cell and call for their moms. They weren't hardened criminals, they were idiot kids who got caught up in stupid crap and never had a chance.
Now I'm not aligned Rittenhouse with either of those, but I do think its important to realize that HS kids can be really f-ing stupid, really easy to be manipulated and swayed, and everything is shades of grey. He's not a victim in any way in this case, but one could argue the fact that ever went down this path is pretty sad.
Again, I haven't followed closely, but do we really know much about this kid and all the things you are speculating? I understand your point of how unfortunate it is that some young people go down the wrong path. Maybe he is one of those kids or maybe not? Or maybe his parents are a disaster or loving and caring? Regardless, none of these things have anything to do with the evidence in this case.
-
As I noted, not my area of expertise and appreciate any insight. Here is my non-attorney thought process. There is a charge of intentional homicide. That requires proof of intent. The defendant is on camera saying he wanted an AR15 to shoot shoplifters/looters. This occurred two weeks before he went out and got an AR15 and shot 3 people he presumed to be looters.
As far as I can find, there is no precedent to exclude such damning evidence under 904.03. It is explicitly germane and probative to intent, a requirement of one of the charges.
If any of us were on camera saying "I'm want to kill X," and then shortly thereafter go out and kill X in the exact way I said I wanted to, it would be used as evidence of intent.
I'd be interested in seeing case precedent where a defendant saying he wanted to do the exact crime that he then went and did in short duration after was allowed to be excluded.
I also am unsure of (read provide insight from an actual legal professional) why when he said on the stand he did not want to shoot anyone, and that he wanted a weapon for defense, that this evidence would then be admissible as it contradicts his testimony, and indicates potential lying on the stand. It shows two weeks before he wanted an AR15 (specifically) to shoot looters.
I understand that inclusion of this evidence is damning, but his testimony is designed to stipulate himself out of the facts to acquit himself of guilt, stipulate himself out of facts proven by the evidence the prosecution wished to present and that was germane and probative to the charges.
"The general rule is that the prosecution is entitled to prove its case by evidence of its own choice and that a criminal defendant may not stipulate or admit his or her way out of the full evidentiary force of the case as the government chooses to present it. State v. Conner, 2009 WI App 143, 321 Wis. 2d 449, 775 N.W.2d 105, 08-1296."
Okay, so what 904.03 actually does is create a balancing test. Evidence that is relevant, but also prejudicial, can be admissible if the probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect. You are arguing (reasonably, I might add) that the evidence is probative. You are not, however, evaluating how it is prejudicial. The judge applied this balancing test (which is test of judicial discretion), and found that the prejudicial effect did in fact outweigh this evidence's probative value.
Here's what the argument may have looked like for exclusion (may, I'm not following that closely, not pulling briefs and motions, and frankly already spending too much time posting about it on the internet so you're getting what you pay for here): "The profferred evidence is the sort of evidence that is more apt to show that Rittenhouse is a bad guy who thinks bad thoughts. He may well have indulged in an off color remark, but that was so far removed from the actual events at issue that its value for showing his *specific* intent on the night in question is of limited value at best. Just as you might say "I want to kill the guy who cut me off today" use of that admission to show that you wanted to kill some other person at some other time is not particularly probative of your state of mind for the actual event. What it does do, is paint you as a hothead with an anger person. The prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value."
Your job, is to convince the judge that it's not really that prejudicial. That's what's missing from message board/twitter analyses of this ruling.
And, respectfully, the case you cite about stipulation out of an element of the crime is entirely inapplicable here. That case stands for the principal that where there is a predicate element of a crime, the defendant can't concede by stipulation (and therefore exclude from evidence) a necessary element of the charged crime. It has more to do with trying to game stalking charges (that actually may be the same case... it's been a minute since I've read it). Defendant is charged with Stalking degree X. Degree X requires there to have been a prior conviction for stalking. Defendant tries to enter into a stipulation about the prior stalking conviction and then move to exclude it from the current trial, thereby blocking the state from providing necessary evidence of the prior conviction and thus making it impossible to show guilt for Stalking degree X. It's entirely irrelevant to a defendant testifying at trial.
-
Okay, so what 904.03 actually does is create a balancing test. Evidence that is relevant, but also prejudicial, can be admissible if the probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect. You are arguing (reasonably, I might add) that the evidence is probative. You are not, however, evaluating how it is prejudicial. The judge applied this balancing test (which is test of judicial discretion), and found that the prejudicial effect did in fact outweigh this evidence's probative value.
Here's what the argument may have looked like for exclusion (may, I'm not following that closely, not pulling briefs and motions, and frankly already spending too much time posting about it on the internet so you're getting what you pay for here): "The profferred evidence is the sort of evidence that is more apt to show that Rittenhouse is a bad guy who thinks bad thoughts. He may well have indulged in an off color remark, but that was so far removed from the actual events at issue that its value for showing his *specific* intent on the night in question is of limited value at best. Just as you might say "I want to kill the guy who cut me off today" use of that admission to show that you wanted to kill some other person at some other time is not particularly probative of your state of mind for the actual event. What it does do, is paint you as a hothead with an anger person. The prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value."
Your job, is to convince the judge that it's not really that prejudicial. That's what's missing from message board/twitter analyses of this ruling.
And, respectfully, the case you cite about stipulation out of an element of the crime is entirely inapplicable here. That case stands for the principal that where there is a predicate element of a crime, the defendant can't concede by stipulation (and therefore exclude from evidence) a necessary element of the charged crime. It has more to do with trying to game stalking charges (that actually may be the same case... it's been a minute since I've read it). Defendant is charged with Stalking degree X. Degree X requires there to have been a prior conviction for stalking. Defendant tries to enter into a stipulation about the prior stalking conviction and then move to exclude it from the current trial, thereby blocking the state from providing necessary evidence of the prior conviction and thus making it impossible to show guilt for Stalking degree X. It's entirely irrelevant to a defendant testifying at trial.
Okay, so what amount of legal fees has scoop wracked up so far? We're quickly depleting the Arby's fund that topper so desperately depends on, and I want to know what we're looking at here.
-
Again, I haven't followed closely, but do we really know much about this kid and all the things you are speculating? I understand your point of how unfortunate it is that some young people go down the wrong path. Maybe he is one of those kids or maybe not? Or maybe his parents are a disaster or loving and caring? Regardless, none of these things have anything to do with the evidence in this case.
Wags isn't really speculating. Rittenhouse's troubled background, as well as his questionable behavior before and after the shooting, is all out there.
That may not be at all relevant to the case. But it should be relevant to those who wish the make a hero or martyr out of the kid. He's not. He's also not a murderer. He is a dipsh*t whose dipsh*ttery resulted in two deaths.
-
Wags isn't really speculating. Rittenhouse's troubled background, as well as his questionable behavior before and after the shooting, is all out there.
That may not be at all relevant to the case. But it should be relevant to those who wish the make a hero or martyr out of the kid. He's not. He's also not a murderer. He is a dipsh*t whose dipsh*ttery resulted in two deaths.
Alright. Ty. I guess I didn't realize people were making him out to be a hero or martyr.
-
Alright. Ty. I guess I didn't realize people were making him out to be a hero or martyr.
He's representative of an ideal at this point.
The Black Rifle Coffee Co.-set and the kind of authoritarian-adjacent/sympathetic right see him as a righteous defender of civilization, someone who stepped into the breach when the authorities were overwhelmed, who took action when no one else would.
The progressive left/BLM/Antifa folks view him as young fascist streetfighter. A member of a neo-Black Hundreds type of group. He's every 3%er and Oath Keeper, only he's the one who pulled the trigger. Given the chance, and provided with what they see as precedent validating their actions, soon every 3%er and Oath Keeper will be him.
He stopped being Kyle Rittenhouse the individual the minute he was identified as the shooter that day. He's mostly a manifestation of the worldview of the observer at this point.
-
Okay, so what amount of legal fees has scoop wracked up so far? We're quickly depleting the Arby's fund that topper so desperately depends on, and I want to know what we're looking at here.
Next time scoop gets sued, hit my dms and we'll call it even.
-
He's representative of an ideal at this point.
The Black Rifle Coffee Co.-set and the kind of authoritarian-adjacent/sympathetic right see him as a righteous defender of civilization, someone who stepped into the breach when the authorities were overwhelmed, who took action when no one else would.
The progressive left/BLM/Antifa folks view him as young fascist streetfighter. A member of a neo-Black Hundreds type of group. He's every 3%er and Oath Keeper, only he's the one who pulled the trigger. Given the chance, and provided with what they see as precedent validating their actions, soon every 3%er and Oath Keeper will be him.
He stopped being Kyle Rittenhouse the individual the minute he was identified as the shooter that day. He's mostly a manifestation of the worldview of the observer at this point.
He's also the guy who approached the cops, brandishing a gun, on a night that all hell was breaking out ... and they gave him a free pass because he was their preferred color.
And yet some don't understand why there's a racial element to this.
Yep, this says a lot about what's going on in America, where we make heroes or villains out of just about everyone. (And yes, I've been guilty too.)
-
He's representative of an ideal at this point.
The Black Rifle Coffee Co.-set and the kind of authoritarian-adjacent/sympathetic right see him as a righteous defender of civilization, someone who stepped into the breach when the authorities were overwhelmed, who took action when no one else would.
The progressive left/BLM/Antifa folks view him as young fascist streetfighter. A member of a neo-Black Hundreds type of group. He's every 3%er and Oath Keeper, only he's the one who pulled the trigger. Given the chance, and provided with what they see as precedent validating their actions, soon every 3%er and Oath Keeper will be him.
He stopped being Kyle Rittenhouse the individual the minute he was identified as the shooter that day. He's mostly a manifestation of the worldview of the observer at this point.
I suspected that could be the case but honestly don't care enough to read the opinion articles on him. A "manifestation of the worldview of the observer" is something we should all think about. Ty for that synopsis. We seem to have a number of people living in a sort of la-la-land jficke and fixated on certain narratives.
-
Next time scoop gets sued, hit my dms and we'll call it even.
I'm just an innocent user here, looking out for topper's BAC (Blood-Arby's-Content). His advocate, if you will.
-
Okay, so what 904.03 actually does is create a balancing test. Evidence that is relevant, but also prejudicial, can be admissible if the probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect. You are arguing (reasonably, I might add) that the evidence is probative. You are not, however, evaluating how it is prejudicial. The judge applied this balancing test (which is test of judicial discretion), and found that the prejudicial effect did in fact outweigh this evidence's probative value.
Here's what the argument may have looked like for exclusion (may, I'm not following that closely, not pulling briefs and motions, and frankly already spending too much time posting about it on the internet so you're getting what you pay for here): "The profferred evidence is the sort of evidence that is more apt to show that Rittenhouse is a bad guy who thinks bad thoughts. He may well have indulged in an off color remark, but that was so far removed from the actual events at issue that its value for showing his *specific* intent on the night in question is of limited value at best. Just as you might say "I want to kill the guy who cut me off today" use of that admission to show that you wanted to kill some other person at some other time is not particularly probative of your state of mind for the actual event. What it does do, is paint you as a hothead with an anger person. The prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value."
Your job, is to convince the judge that it's not really that prejudicial. That's what's missing from message board/twitter analyses of this ruling.
And, respectfully, the case you cite about stipulation out of an element of the crime is entirely inapplicable here. That case stands for the principal that where there is a predicate element of a crime, the defendant can't concede by stipulation (and therefore exclude from evidence) a necessary element of the charged crime. It has more to do with trying to game stalking charges (that actually may be the same case... it's been a minute since I've read it). Defendant is charged with Stalking degree X. Degree X requires there to have been a prior conviction for stalking. Defendant tries to enter into a stipulation about the prior stalking conviction and then move to exclude it from the current trial, thereby blocking the state from providing necessary evidence of the prior conviction and thus making it impossible to show guilt for Stalking degree X. It's entirely irrelevant to a defendant testifying at trial.
A sincere thanks.
I guess when it comes down to it for me, one of two things (or both) had to occur. Either the prosecution did a horrendous job arguing about the two elements I listed above, or the judge exhibited some bias. Not being a legal professional, and not having read all the briefs I'm not in a position to decide where that balance lies, although it does seem like the prosecution has been a bit of a crap show.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Also, separate. Great post JWags, sadly I know of a couple people from my childhood that were actually good, smart kids, but due to the circumstances they were thrown ended up making some terrible choices (in some cases when you know the back story it's depressing).
I think punishment for those bad decisions is important, but I think at the same time as a nation we need to do a better job of that punishment/decision not being a stigma that destroys your future options/potential.
-
He's also the guy who approached the cops, brandishing a gun, on a night that all hell was breaking out ... and they gave him a free pass because he was their preferred color.
And yet some don't understand why there's a racial element to this.
Yep, this says a lot about what's going on in America, where we make heroes or villains out of just about everyone. (And yes, I've been guilty too.)
For the purposes of what I'm saying in this thread I'm trying (though probably not 100% succeeding) to keep my own opinion of Rittenhouse and his actions completely out of my posts. I have been very frustrated with the capital d Discourse surrounding the trial because so much of what people are talking about is simply divorced from the reality of actually litigating cases that I was going nuts. Injecting opinions about the grander societal-philosophical milieu that these events occurred in and then filtering the nuts-and-bolts of the trial through that worldview isn't helpful, I don't think, for evaluating this particular case.
There's this thing that happens a lot on the internet and cable news shows where someone goes on and makes some declaration about the law and treats it as what the law is (sorry, forgetful, picking on you: "This piece of evidence is admissible and it was erroneously excluded"). But what they're really doing is saying what they wish the law were or what they think the law should be ("the first amendment doesn't protect hate speech*"). It's fine to do that, even useful to have discussions and debates over what the law should be, but those discussions aren't really doing anyone any good when they're trying to evaluate what is going on in any specific case.
*It does, hate speech is not a real thing, anytime you see someone say this it's a great sign that they're making a statement about what they think the law ought to be, not a statement about what the law actually is.
-
One thing this case has legitimately taught me (most likely), is that I can be a whole lot more aggressive in self defense. Prior to this, I would not have thought I could shoot someone (dead) chasing me and yelling, as long as I "feared for me life".
-
One thing this case has legitimately taught me (most likely), is that I can be a whole lot more aggressive in self defense. Prior to this, I would not have thought I could shoot someone (dead) chasing me and yelling, as long as I "feared for me life".
And I also know that statement is not admissible if I happen to do such a thing.
-
One thing this case has legitimately taught me (most likely), is that I can be a whole lot more aggressive in self defense. Prior to this, I would not have thought I could shoot someone (dead) chasing me and yelling, as long as I "feared for me life".
In my apparent role of defender of the arby's fund, I would not advise you to do that. You are probably not going to become a cause celebre and raise unfathomable amounts of money from internet donations to fund your legal defense. The amount of money you will spend on vindicating your actions of self defense will keep some criminal defense firm in Arby's for a long time.
The reality of the situation is that even a legally justified shoot is likely to be the worst day of your life and likely will take a year and several hundred thousand dollars to defend.
I do not advise putting yourself in that position if you have any conceivable alternative.
-
I would not count on that. I have sat through many seminars about using people’s social media statements in trials.
-
One thing this case has legitimately taught me (most likely), is that I can be a whole lot more aggressive in self defense. Prior to this, I would not have thought I could shoot someone (dead) chasing me and yelling, as long as I "feared for me life".
When someone says when i get you alone and says I'm going to kill you and a gunshot goes off, sure.
-
One thing this case has legitimately taught me (most likely), is that I can be a whole lot more aggressive in self defense. Prior to this, I would not have thought I could shoot someone (dead) chasing me and yelling, as long as I "feared for me life".
Which is why, contrary to what another poster expressed, I think acquittal on all the serious charges will only embolden would-be vigilantes rather than make them think twice about the consequences.
-
One thing this case has legitimately taught me (most likely), is that I can be a whole lot more aggressive in self defense. Prior to this, I would not have thought I could shoot someone (dead) chasing me and yelling, as long as I "feared for me life".
You would, however, need a jury to believe your actions were reasonable under the circumstances, so please don't open fire on the next solicitor to knock on your front door.
-
I think I can count the number of times I've seen a civilian roaming the streets with an assault rifle out in the open in my life on a single finger.
But sure.
how many times have you been out during a riot?
-
In my apparent role of defender of the arby's fund, I would not advise you to do that. You are probably not going to become a cause celebre and raise unfathomable amounts of money from internet donations to fund your legal defense. The amount of money you will spend on vindicating your actions of self defense will keep some criminal defense firm in Arby's for a long time.
The reality of the situation is that even a legally justified shoot is likely to be the worst day of your life and likely will take a year and several hundred thousand dollars to defend.
I do not advise putting yourself in that position if you have any conceivable alternative.
Right, if you're going to throw your money away and needlessly risk your life, just head to Arby's for lunch instead.
-
You would, however, need a jury to believe your actions were reasonable under the circumstances, so please don't open fire on the next solicitor to knock on your front door.
Good deal. I'll wait for them to lunge towards me. Would pulling something out of a bag and extending their hand towards me be enough?
I think most here know - now I'm playing. But I really didn't know that the actions that led to his first 4 shots could be considered self defense.
-
One thing this case has legitimately taught me (most likely), is that I can be a whole lot more aggressive in self defense. Prior to this, I would not have thought I could shoot someone (dead) chasing me and yelling, as long as I "feared for me life".
The Zimmerman case already should have taught you that
-
Good deal. I'll wait for them to lunge towards me. Would pulling something out of a bag and extending their hand towards me be enough?
If they're trying to hand you a religious pamphlet, I think you'd be justified in using deadly force.
-
how many times have you been out during a riot?
BLM's a bit smarter than to be out and about in a riot.
Bad things happen to bad people who put themselves in bad situations. Kyle's picking up the minor charges, we'll be imprisoned for a couple years. Hopefully everyone will forget him.
This is a big win for white guys everywhere in America. Things have been looking very bleak for us, but we can kill people under the self-defense claim.
-
jficke awesome analysis/posting, thanks for the clarity around some of this stuff. Is it normal for a prosecutor to argue the idea that because a witness hires a lawyer it’s an admission of bias or guilt for some reason during cross?
I’ve been reading some analysis that this prosecutor has been so fast and loose with some of his stuff the last couple days that he is trying to force a mistrial cause they know it’s not going well and want another swing at it in a few months. Is that a legit strategy?
-
Honestly, I find it kind of remarkable that someone could be all over a thread sharing an opinion on this case -- repeatedly cite very specific facts in support of that opinion (i.e., Rittenhouse was chasing the first victim) -- and then find out that they were completely wrong on that one fact but continue holding that same opinion.* I'm not trying to pick on you, Forgetful, but I'm genuinely curious whether finding out that this fact was completely opposite of what you believed cause you to reconsider your position on guilt or innocence of the charged crimes? Even momentarily?
I'm not talking about whether you feel Rittenhouse was stupid, evil, immoral, amoral, etc. I'm talking about does the fact that he was being chased (and heard gunfire behind him) change anything in your thinking about whether this was self defense? Because I do think that that is an extremely relevant point.
* I'm editing this post to acknowledge that I wasn't completely fair in how I phrased this. I can understand continuing to hold the same opinion if that opinion was based on a number of facts. Changing one fact does not necessarily require that someone change their opinion.
-
jficke awesome analysis/posting, thanks for the clarity around some of this stuff. Is it normal for a prosecutor to argue the idea that because a witness hires a lawyer it’s an admission of bias or guilt for some reason during cross?
This didn't happen
-
https://twitter.com/Rschooley/status/1458474762175352832?t=1SPhLln1WajTIpA_XAgLfQ&s=19
If that's the best you can put up for a case..
Then we'll, it's unnatural carnal knowledgeed
-
This didn't happen
https://mobile.twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1458890557053448203
It did. Defense objected, Binger said he was trying to prove bias and some other stuff. Judge had to go to a recess, sent jury out of the court room etc
-
BLM's a bit smarter than to be out and about in a riot.
Bad things happen to bad people who put themselves in bad situations. Kyle's picking up the minor charges, we'll be imprisoned for a couple years. Hopefully everyone will forget him.
This is a big win for white guys everywhere in America. Things have been looking very bleak for us, but we can kill people under the self-defense claim.
Along with the minor charges, he’ll also likely be picking up millions in lawsuits from left wing politicians such as these ones:
https://twitter.com/ayannapressley/status/1298780540431224832?s=2
https://twitter.com/ilhanmn/status/1299014953530253315?s=21
-
jficke awesome analysis/posting, thanks for the clarity around some of this stuff. Is it normal for a prosecutor to argue the idea that because a witness hires a lawyer it’s an admission of bias or guilt for some reason during cross?
I’ve been reading some analysis that this prosecutor has been so fast and loose with some of his stuff the last couple days that he is trying to force a mistrial cause they know it’s not going well and want another swing at it in a few months. Is that a legit strategy?
Incredibly unusual.
No.
-
Along with the minor charges, he’ll also likely be picking up millions in lawsuits from left wing politicians such as these ones:
https://twitter.com/ayannapressley/status/1298780540431224832?s=2
https://twitter.com/ilhanmn/status/1299014953530253315?s=21
Um, what? Why would they sue him?
-
2. He forbid inclusion of a video of Rittenhouse saying he wished he had his AR so he could shoot people he thought were shoplifting from a CVS. Excluding this was egregious. It goes to state of mind prior to Kenosha and intent, the latter critical to some of the charges. It proves he wanted an AR15 to go shoot people he viewed as looters/shoplifters.
Id absolutely argue that something I said reactionary to a video one time has very little to do with anything I would do later on.
It would be like me going "wow Howard sucks after his 15 missed shot in a row" and then people going OMG YOU SAID HOWARD SUCKS DEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRR.
-
https://mobile.twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1458890557053448203
It did. Defense objected, Binger said he was trying to prove bias and some other stuff. Judge had to go to a recess, sent jury out of the court room etc
My apologies. I thought you referring to the cross of Rittenhouse.
Though Binger definitely didn't suggest it was an admission of guilt or bias.
-
Um, what? Why would they sue him?
You misunderstood. Rittenhouse will be receiving millions of dollars in damages. Not sure why you weren’t able to infer that.
-
My apologies. I thought you referring to the cross of Rittenhouse.
Though Binger definitely didn't suggest it was an admission of guilt or bias.
Yes you’re right, he didn’t it use the word guilt. But did say it shows bias and lack of credibility. Either way Binger seems about as slimy as they come and hope there is an investigation into all of the stunts he’s pulled.
-
You misunderstood. Rittenhouse will be receiving millions of dollars in damages. Not sure why you weren’t able to infer that.
Ya KR will be a very rich man if he’s acquitted, some pretty terrible/completely false stuff has been said about him from the media and other very powerful figures.
-
Yes you’re right, he didn’t it use the word guilt. But did say it shows bias and lack of credibility. Either way Binger seems about as slimy as they come and hope there is an investigation into all of the stunts he’s pulled.
He said he wanted to explore the issue for potential bias.
That's not the same "It's an admission of bias."
-
You misunderstood. Rittenhouse will be receiving millions of dollars in damages. Not sure why you weren’t able to infer that.
Oh. He will be rich, but I doubt it will be from winning lawsuits.
-
You misunderstood. Rittenhouse will be receiving millions of dollars in damages. Not sure why you weren’t able to infer that.
From who?
-
Ya KR will be a very rich man if he’s acquitted, some pretty terrible/completely false stuff has been said about him from the media and other very powerful figures.
😂
-
Ya KR will be a very rich man if he’s acquitted, some pretty terrible/completely false stuff has been said about him from the media and other very powerful figures.
What?
-
He said he wanted to explore the issue for potential bias.
That's not the same "It's an admission of bias."
Fair enough
-
He can sue for punitive damages. Learn about it here:
https://youtu.be/QP-FUaEH--c
-
He's not gonna sue any politicians and win. And I know its one of the dangers of Twitter, but elected officials saying stuff like "executed" swiftly on official channels without having facts of a case or real evidence is a problem.
Especially in comparison to the fact checking that is done in so many statements made in press conferences and the like. I can't believe those tweets havent been deleted to be honest.
-
Maybe heel just go down ta da Mexican border, pass go, and collect $450k, aina?
-
https://mobile.twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1458890557053448203
It did. Defense objected, Binger said he was trying to prove bias and some other stuff. Judge had to go to a recess, sent jury out of the court room etc
Get off twitter, you're following intellectually dishonest people.
-
You misunderstood. Rittenhouse will be receiving millions of dollars in damages. Not sure why you weren’t able to infer that.
I put the chances of this happening at around 0%
-
The only people Rittenhouse is getting rich off of is the middle aged, gun loving men who see the 18 year old as their personal hero.
-
The only people Rittenhouse is getting rich off of is the middle aged, gun loving men who see the 18 year old as their personal hero.
You should probably add the people whose businesses and livelihoods were destroyed as well .
It also seems like there were gun-loving people on both sides of the riot. I also remember the business owners in Korea Town during the LA riots protecting their stores with armaments . Can't blame people for wanting to save what they worked hard to build.
-
Get off twitter, you're following intellectually dishonest people.
1) I don’t follow him
2) don’t know much about him other then he’s a divisive fellow. Would you rather me follow Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman, maybe Rex Chapman??
-
Guys - I left this go because discussion of the actual court case is valid, and timely. However, if you all just want to spout off your personal opinions of what happened that night I'll happily lock this.
-
1) I don’t follow him
2) don’t know much about him other then he’s a divisive fellow. Would you rather me follow Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman, maybe Rex Chapman??
Jack Posobiec still touting PizzaGate?
-
IBTL
-
It seems there are several issues being melded into beliefs about the trial.
First is the legal issue is whether Mr. Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. From a legal standpoint, it's probable that 12 jurors will struggle mightily to find him guilty of anything more than a misdemeanor gun violation. I only know what I have read but it seems that at a 10,000 foot level, the gun misdemeanor given Wisconsin law, may be the only thing he's found guilty of.
Second is the moral/ethical issue of whether he even should have been in Kenosha that night. I find it absolutely amazing that a parent would allow a 17 year old out like that or that a 17 year old would want to insert himself into a riot. As a parent of two 20-somethings, I know how hard it can be to keep 24-hour watch on a teenager, but I would think the teen and the parents would collectively have more sense than this. There is no logical reason for Mr. Rittenhouse to be there. He's not an adult, he had limited firearms and life safety skills (my daughter has the same skills) and his talent as a lifeguard is wasted on asphalt in another state with no sign of water.
It's questionable whether Mr. Rittenhouse can be tried for bad judgment. I'm not going to impugn his character -- others long ago beat me to that and besides, I don't know the guy or his family. But if bad judgment were a crime, he'd be a lifer.
Finally, the question is whether the federal government will come in behind any not guilty state verdict and try Mr. Rittenhouse on different charges using the same fact pattern. I'm fearful the answer is, "yes," given comments of both the President and the Attorney General.
I trust we all will learn from what happened and seek a reconciliation. We have too much to do to build and improve our country to be spending time on hated, weapons and violence against each other.
-
The only people Rittenhouse is getting rich off of is the middle aged, gun loving men who see the 18 year old as their personal hero.
Jamie already has a framed 8x10 above his kitchen table
-
1) I don’t follow him
2) don’t know much about him other then he’s a divisive fellow. Would you rather me follow Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman, maybe Rex Chapman??
I'm very glad you check your sources. I'm also glad you're showing us who you are in real time. If you didn't know who he was, why would you link one of his tweets? He's an alt right weirdo. Why would I rather you follow those people?
You're terminally online. Stop.
-
Rex Chapman is a hilarious addition to the other 2. Thanks for the chuckle
-
It seems there are several issues being melded into beliefs about the trial.
First is the legal issue is whether Mr. Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. From a legal standpoint, it's probable that 12 jurors will struggle mightily to find him guilty of anything more than a misdemeanor gun violation. I only know what I have read but it seems that at a 10,000 foot level, the gun misdemeanor given Wisconsin law, may be the only thing he's found guilty of.
Second is the moral/ethical issue of whether he even should have been in Kenosha that night. I find it absolutely amazing that a parent would allow a 17 year old out like that or that a 17 year old would want to insert himself into a riot. As a parent of two 20-somethings, I know how hard it can be to keep 24-hour watch on a teenager, but I would think the teen and the parents would collectively have more sense than this. There is no logical reason for Mr. Rittenhouse to be there. He's not an adult, he had limited firearms and life safety skills (my daughter has the same skills) and his talent as a lifeguard is wasted on asphalt in another state with no sign of water.
It's questionable whether Mr. Rittenhouse can be tried for bad judgment. I'm not going to impugn his character -- others long ago beat me to that and besides, I don't know the guy or his family. But if bad judgment were a crime, he'd be a lifer.
Finally, the question is whether the federal government will come in behind any not guilty state verdict and try Mr. Rittenhouse on different charges using the same fact pattern. I'm fearful the answer is, "yes," given comments of both the President and the Attorney General.
I trust we all will learn from what happened and seek a reconciliation. We have too much to do to build and improve our country to be spending time on hated, weapons and violence against each other.
The president commented on this today? Was that before or after his remarks on Satchel Paige?
-
Honestly, I find it kind of remarkable that someone could be all over a thread sharing an opinion on this case -- repeatedly cite very specific facts in support of that opinion (i.e., Rittenhouse was chasing the first victim) -- and then find out that they were completely wrong on that one fact but continue holding that same opinion.* I'm not trying to pick on you, Forgetful, but I'm genuinely curious whether finding out that this fact was completely opposite of what you believed cause you to reconsider your position on guilt or innocence of the charged crimes? Even momentarily?
I'm not talking about whether you feel Rittenhouse was stupid, evil, immoral, amoral, etc. I'm talking about does the fact that he was being chased (and heard gunfire behind him) change anything in your thinking about whether this was self defense? Because I do think that that is an extremely relevant point.
* I'm editing this post to acknowledge that I wasn't completely fair in how I phrased this. I can understand continuing to hold the same opinion if that opinion was based on a number of facts. Changing one fact does not necessarily require that someone change their opinion.
Hey, it's fair to pick on me. I was wrong on a key element that I was posting on. Personally, I think I should be privy to an extra Arby's sauce for correcting my error and admitting fallibility.
Regarding the rest, it does change some of my perception of the case. I much more firmly understand, why as the case currently stands he'll likely be acquitted of the major charges. For me at least, that doesn't change the stance that he is still guilty/responsible for the deaths (illegal possession of the firearm and lack of a true threat). It does change the stance on the current charges though. I find it hard to convict for the current charges based on the totality of evidence available to the jury.
What I would argue is that he is guilty of "imperfect self defense." I believe that is the Wisconsin wording for the law, and would be subject to a lower criminal standard. My personal opinion still remains that anyone who conducted themselves in the same way as Rittenhouse should face serious jail time...notably, my personal opinion is worth bupkis in a court of law, or in Arbys.
-
I'm very glad you check your sources. I'm also glad you're showing us who you are in real time. If you didn't know who he was, why would you link one of his tweets? He's an alt right weirdo. Why would I rather you follow those people?
You're terminally online. Stop.
I linked one of his tweets because I saw it via a retweet from someone who I do follow which is how Twitter works my friend. I linked his tweet cause good luck finding any “reputable” (in your eyes at least) covering this trial with the video evidence to what Pakuni and I were talking about at the time. I didn’t link his tweet because of the video in it, not in support of him or any prior positions he’s held. Should t be that hard to figure out Hards.
-
Hey, it's fair to pick on me. I was wrong on a key element that I was posting on. Personally, I think I should be privy to an extra Arby's sauce for correcting my error and admitting fallibility.
Regarding the rest, it does change some of my perception of the case. I much more firmly understand, why as the case currently stands he'll likely be acquitted of the major charges. For me at least, that doesn't change the stance that he is still guilty/responsible for the deaths (illegal possession of the firearm and lack of a true threat). It does change the stance on the current charges though. I find it hard to convict for the current charges based on the totality of evidence available to the jury.
What I would argue is that he is guilty of "imperfect self defense." I believe that is the Wisconsin wording for the law, and would be subject to a lower criminal standard. My personal opinion still remains that anyone who conducted themselves in the same way as Rittenhouse should face serious jail time...notably, my personal opinion is worth bupkis in a court of law, or in Arbys.
In other cases, when I person acts in self-defense, is the shooter "guilty/responsible for their deaths" if that's the result? Are you making a distinction between Rittenhouse and say a person shooting someone if they break into their home? Technically isn't anyone who kills someone in self-defense "responsible" for the death? That doesn't mean that it's a crime.
-
In other cases, when I person acts in self-defense, is the shooter "guilty/responsible for their deaths" if that's the result? Are you making a distinction between Rittenhouse and say a person shooting someone if they break into their home? Technically isn't anyone who kills someone in self-defense "responsible" for the death? That doesn't mean that it's a crime.
The distinction between someone who arms him/herself and voluntarily steps into a violent situation and a person whose home is invaded seems pretty obvious, no?
-
I linked one of his tweets because I saw it via a retweet from someone who I do follow which is how Twitter works my friend. I linked his tweet cause good luck finding any “reputable” (in your eyes at least) covering this trial with the video evidence to what Pakuni and I were talking about at the time. I didn’t link his tweet because of the video in it, not in support of him or any prior positions he’s held. Should t be that hard to figure out Hards.
You know, a real person would just say, "I'm sorry, I will be more careful in the future."
But that ain't you.
Either way, if you're following people who retweet Jack Posobiac, it still says a lot about your twitter tendencies, no?
-
The distinction between someone who arms him/herself and voluntarily steps into a violent situation and a person whose home is invaded seems pretty obvious, no?
On the surface yes, but I'm asking from a legali standpoint. I'm not making a moral equivalency. No one is denying he used poor judgment and shouldn't have been there.
-
Rex Chapman is a hilarious addition to the other 2. Thanks for the chuckle
agreed. The other two are at least highly educated journalists, not under-educated emotional flame throwers
-
what a shocker, "main stream" people get it wrong again and blame the institution who, by the way was appointed by a "D". you would think they learned their lesson with the nick sandmann debacle. people have lost the ability to look at anything as it is anymore. if this were flipped, they would be ALL in.
-
what a shocker, "main stream" people get it wrong again and blame the institution who, by the way was appointed by a "D". you would think they learned their lesson with the nick sandmann debacle. people have lost the ability to look at anything as it is anymore. if this were flipped, they would be ALL in.
😂
-
what a shocker, "main stream" people get it wrong again and blame the institution who, by the way was appointed by a "D". you would think they learned their lesson with the nick sandmann debacle. people have lost the ability to look at anything as it is anymore. if this were flipped, they would be ALL in.
I have to assume you just watched something on TV, came here to find the most "relevant" thread, and posted your opinions about what you watched on TV, as opposed to the actual thread. That's the only way I can understand most of your posts. They have nothing to do with what is currently being discussed in the thread, and frankly I have no context for what they mean (nor do most people). The only thing I'm certain of is that some politicized media outlet got you all riled up.
-
Well boys, we had 3 great pages of discussion, then 6 pages of "those guys" derailing everything.
If we could talk about the actual case that would be great. Not what political party you're on.
-
😂
You're getting lazy, Unk. Ratings, please.
The president commented on this today? Was that before or after his remarks on Satchel Paige?
It was after the president's remarks about Frederick Douglass being alive, Steve Apple and the fire-ravaged California town of Pleasure.
-
I have to assume you just watched something on TV, came here to find the most "relevant" thread, and posted your opinions about what you watched on TV, as opposed to the actual thread. That's the only way I can understand most of your posts. They have nothing to do with what is currently being discussed in the thread, and frankly I have no context for what they mean (nor do most people). The only thing I'm certain of is that some politicized media outlet got you all riled up.
I believe Hannity had Rittenhouse's mother on.
-
Glad to see this thread is going places.
-
You're getting lazy, Unk. Ratings, please.
It was after the president's remarks about Frederick Douglass being alive, Steve Apple and the fire-ravaged California town of Pleasure.
LOL.
-
https://www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/qsayje/insurgent/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
-
https://www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/qsayje/insurgent/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
Legally this is a pretty inaccurate.
-
https://www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/qsayje/insurgent/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
So if I showed up to my neighbors house, with my legally owned handgun, where he was being beaten violently by an intruder and screaming for help and I shot the intruder before he killed him, I'm a...terrorist?
-
So if I showed up to my neighbors house, with my legally owned handgun, where he was being beaten violently by an intruder and screaming for help and I shot the intruder before he killed him, I'm a...terrorist?
Not really a parallel.
-
Legally this is a pretty inaccurate.
Legally and entirely.
-
https://www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/qsayje/insurgent/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
So we've moved the intellectual discourse from random Twitter accounts to meme reddit pages? Proud of you.
-
Not really a parallel.
Why not? His description is incredible general and broad. "armed, violence occurring, prepared for violence, engaging in violence".
If he wanted to stop there and deem it out of bounds for self defense, I can see the argument (besides it being kind of extreme to apply wartime/military circumstances to civilian matters). But taking it to terrorist was a bit much.
If he wanted to talk about it being some sort of active conflict/crime occurring situation/etc then it puts some sort of parameters on the argument, but he didn't, presumably to create more shock value
-
a good look at the Judge and some of the more "controversial" (per the graduates of the Twitter School of Law) decisions for trail procedure. When left wing Slate defends him maybe there's something to the overreaction from the left:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/11/judge-bruce-schroeder-rittenhouse-trial-villain.html?via=rss
So far Schroeder has not done anything to suggest he overtly favors one side over the other. And his past record doesn’t suggest partiality either. If Kyle Rittenhouse goes free, there will be lots of blame to go around: the prosecution for antagonizing the judge when their case appeared to be going poorly, an almost entirely white jury that may empathize more with a killer than the men he killed, a political machinery that turns right-wing vigilantes into conservative folk heroes, and a criminal justice system that gives white defendants a benefit of the doubt it never offers to Black defendants.
-
Deleted. I've complained about political stuff in the past...want to resist the urge myself.
-
Why not? His description is incredible general and broad. "armed, violence occurring, prepared for violence, engaging in violence".
If he wanted to stop there and deem it out of bounds for self defense, I can see the argument (besides it being kind of extreme to apply wartime/military circumstances to civilian matters). But taking it to terrorist was a bit much.
If he wanted to talk about it being some sort of active conflict/crime occurring situation/etc then it puts some sort of parameters on the argument, but he didn't, presumably to create more shock value
You're being overly pedantic to delegitamize the guy's point without having to actually address the guy's point. Agree with him or not (and I mostly do not) it's obvious he was speaking of Rittenhouse's actions, not some fiction in which you rescue your neighbor from a murderous intruder.
Not nearly as lame as another poster's ad hominem, but you're clearly capable of better.
-
So we've moved the intellectual discourse from random Twitter accounts to meme reddit pages? Proud of you.
"I treat this board like the joke it is" guy getting triggered is a turn I didn't see coming
-
a good look at the Judge and some of the more "controversial" (per the graduates of the Twitter School of Law) decisions for trail procedure. When left wing Slate defends him maybe there's something to the overreaction from the left:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/11/judge-bruce-schroeder-rittenhouse-trial-villain.html?via=rss
So far Schroeder has not done anything to suggest he overtly favors one side over the other. And his past record doesn’t suggest partiality either. If Kyle Rittenhouse goes free, there will be lots of blame to go around: the prosecution for antagonizing the judge when their case appeared to be going poorly, an almost entirely white jury that may empathize more with a killer than the men he killed, a political machinery that turns right-wing vigilantes into conservative folk heroes, and a criminal justice system that gives white defendants a benefit of the doubt it never offers to Black defendants.
I wouldn't have expected you to agree with Slate's point of view on all of that, BH.
-
I don't think the judge is biased, but he's teetering on incompetent
https://twitter.com/Guinz/status/1459216913536634881/video/1
-
"I treat this board like the joke it is" guy getting triggered is a turn I didn't see coming
Just in awe of your intellectual prowess, kin.
❄❄❄
-
So far Schroeder has not done anything to suggest he overtly favors one side over the other. And his past record doesn’t suggest partiality either. If Kyle Rittenhouse goes free, there will be lots of blame to go around: the prosecution for antagonizing the judge when their case appeared to be going poorly, an almost entirely white jury that may empathize more with a killer than the men he killed, a political machinery that turns right-wing vigilantes into conservative folk heroes, and a criminal justice system that gives white defendants a benefit of the doubt it never offers to Black defendants.
Surprisingly sober-minded. And I agree. As someone who has been front of a lot of judges, I think this judge’s conduct is representative of a lot of judges; old guys on the bench—and that ain’t great. But the fact that people like that are in charge encapsulates the above points perfectly.
-
I don't think the judge is biased, but he's teetering on incompetent
https://twitter.com/Guinz/status/1459216913536634881/video/1
Perfectly logical way to save a text-signed Rube Goldberg.
-
I don't think the judge is biased, but he's teetering on incompetent
https://twitter.com/Guinz/status/1459216913536634881/video/1
Agreed, there have been some embarrassing moments for him. He clearly has a beef with the prosecutor. Maybe there is some history there.
-
Agreed, there have been some embarrassing moments for him. He clearly has a beef with the prosecutor. Maybe there is some history there.
I think he might be enjoying his moment in the sun a little too much.
-
I wouldn't have expected you to agree with Slate's point of view on all of that, BH.
people are rushing to blame the judge instead of the incompetence of the Prosecution. They also forget about the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" and how difficult a conviction can actually be to get. The people who convicted Rittenhouse based upon the initial media description of the incident are looking for a scapegoat for when he is acquitted on the murder charges. Of course, the people who have already acquitted Rittenhouse will celebrate not knowing the legal justification for the judge taking such actions. If we've seen anything in the last year it's a whole lot of new graduates from Social Media School of Law and School of Medicine.
-
people are rushing to blame the judge instead of the incompetence of the Prosecution. They also forget about the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" and how difficult a conviction can actually be to get. The people who convicted Rittenhouse based upon the initial media description of the incident are looking for a scapegoat for when he is acquitted on the murder charges. Of course, the people who have already acquitted Rittenhouse will celebrate not knowing the legal justification for the judge taking such actions. If we've seen anything in the last year it's a whole lot of new graduates from Social Media School of Law and School of Medicine.
I've been a little late to all the details in this case. What I do not understand is why this trial continued at all, after the witness who was shot in the arm, admitted he pointed a gun at Rittenhouse? It's also interesting to read the portrayal from various media of the victims. Uhhh....not exactly pure as the driven snow citizens.
-
people are rushing to blame the judge instead of the incompetence of the Prosecution. They also forget about the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" and how difficult a conviction can actually be to get. The people who convicted Rittenhouse based upon the initial media description of the incident are looking for a scapegoat for when he is acquitted on the murder charges. Of course, the people who have already acquitted Rittenhouse will celebrate not knowing the legal justification for the judge taking such actions. If we've seen anything in the last year it's a whole lot of new graduates from Social Media School of Law and School of Medicine.
A lot of people are rushing to blame the judge/prosecution. But aren't really stopping to think that the case in generally really has no solid evidence that points to conviction.
-
If we've seen anything in the last year it's a whole lot of new graduates from Social Media School of Law and School of Medicine.
Very true. And most of the talking heads on TV attended and graduated with honors.
-
A lot of people are rushing to blame the judge/prosecution. But aren't really stopping to think that the case in generally really has no solid evidence that points to conviction.
Literally none as far as I've heard or read. It's actually embarrassing this ever went to trial unless I'm missing something?
-
This feels like a place for some whataboutism but nah
-
I've been a little late to all the details in this case. What I do not understand is why this trial continued at all, after the witness who was shot in the arm, admitted he pointed a gun at Rittenhouse? It's also interesting to read the portrayal from various media of the victims. Uhhh....not exactly pure as the driven snow citizens.
that is true, but it doesn't mean they deserved to be killed by Rittenhouse since it isn't related to their actions that night. They could have been honors students and did what they did leading to the incidents of that night and it wouldn't have changed anything.
One thing I find annoying is the constant "he drove across state lines" as if he went across the DMZ. One of the victims (sorry, Judge) came from West Allis, further away than Rittenhouse came from Antioch.
A lot of people are rushing to blame the judge/prosecution. But aren't really stopping to think that the case in generally really has no solid evidence that points to conviction.
There is enough evidence to get him on illegal possession of a gun, but that's a misdemeanor and should have been taken care of via a plea deal.
-
that is true, but it doesn't mean they deserved to be killed by Rittenhouse since it isn't related to their actions that night. They could have been honors students and did what they did leading to the incidents of that night and it wouldn't have changed anything.
One thing I find annoying is the constant "he drove across state lines" as if he went across the DMZ. One of the victims (sorry, Judge) came from West Allis, further away than Rittenhouse came from Antioch.
There is enough evidence to get him on illegal possession of a gun, but that's a misdemeanor and should have been taken care of via a plea deal.
Crossing an imaginary line is a big deal for many aspects of life and business, this is included.
-
that is true, but it doesn't mean they deserved to be killed by Rittenhouse since it isn't related to their actions that night. They could have been honors students and did what they did leading to the incidents of that night and it wouldn't have changed anything.
One thing I find annoying is the constant "he drove across state lines" as if he went across the DMZ. One of the victims (sorry, Judge) came from West Allis, further away than Rittenhouse came from Antioch.
There is enough evidence to get him on illegal possession of a gun, but that's a misdemeanor and should have been taken care of via a plea deal.
I'm not saying they deserved to be killed but I have yet to hear or read anything rational that Rittenhouse didn't act in self-defense. Yes, I agree about the gun charge.
-
Crossing an imaginary line is a big deal for many aspects of life and business, this is included.
I think its definitely pertinent from a legal perspective as it relates to charges.
I don't think its at all inflammatory or impactful from the spin of people making it seem like he drove hours to get in the mix. Largely because I think the people BH is referring to aren't focused on interstate weapons charges and more on him getting a murder charge as a blood lust vigilante.
-
One thing I find annoying is the constant "he drove across state lines" as if he went across the DMZ. One of the victims (sorry, Judge) came from West Allis, further away than Rittenhouse came from Antioch.
I think the point is that he went out of his way to insert himself into a situation in which he didn't belong. He didn't stumble into trouble. He went looking for it.
That's not really evidence of a crime. It is evidence of utter stupidity that left two people dead.
-
I'm not saying they deserved to be killed but I have yet to hear or read anything rational that Rittenhouse didn't act in self-defense. Yes, I agree about the gun charge.
sorry if my response came off as saying you did. That was not my intent. Though for some on one side of the spectrum it has been justification.
-
I think the point is that he went out of his way to insert himself into a situation in which he didn't belong. He didn't stumble into trouble. He went looking for it.
That's not really evidence of a crime. It is evidence of utter stupidity that left two people dead.
It's 20 mins from his house to Kenosha. He has friends and his dad live in Kenosha. Now maybe he was a dip-sht"looking for trouble"? I have no earthly idea. My guess is there were a plethora of dumbasses there in the streets. The question is was this first degree homicide? Or actually how is it even possible he was charged with first degree homicide?
-
Or actually how is it even possible he was charged with first degree homicide?
These kinda charges happen when you shoot and kill people without weapons.
-
It's 20 mins from his house to Kenosha. He has friends and his dad live in Kenosha. Now maybe he was a dip-sht"looking for trouble"? I have no earthly idea. My guess is there were a plethora of dumbasses there in the streets. The question is was this first degree homicide? Or actually how is it even possible he was charged with first degree homicide?
+1. But then again how is it possible that the Uniter in Chief would call him a White Supremicist and a terrorist without any evidence? Makes anything seem possible, a’ina?
-
I think the point is that he went out of his way to insert himself into a situation in which he didn't belong. He didn't stumble into trouble. He went looking for it.
That's not really evidence of a crime. It is evidence of utter stupidity that left two people dead.
Agree 100%. My guess is you could say the same for a whole lot of people who were there that night -including the victims. Except that those people didn’t kill anyone, and that’s a very large “except”.
-
These kinda charges happen when you shoot and kill people without weapons.
With all due respect these were not innocent bystanders. His rifle was grabbed by one of the victims after he chased him, while the other hit him with his skateboard. The prosecutor within 36 hours, not knowing any of the facts, charged Rittenhouse with several counts of first degree homicide. We have due process and a legal system.
Are you saying there has been concrete evidence in this trial that this kid should be charged with 1st degree murder? That his intent was to go there and kill two people and shoot another? If so what is the evidence of this exactly? I'm not saying Rittenhouse should have been there, and he"s no hero, but legally the case from the prosecution is borderline absurd. Not Duke Lacrosse level absurd but pretty flimsy to put it mildly.
-
Agree 100%. My guess is you could say the same for a whole lot of people who were there that night -including the victims. Except that those people didn’t kill anyone, and that’s a very large “except”.
Yes, but they may have killed Rittenhouse. We have no idea and they all had significant criminal records.
-
He's innocent, legally.
He's guilty, morally.
Bigger conversation should be how/why we've reached the point culturally/as a society that this happened at all. Sad.
-
Let's not forget that FD Joe and Worst Governor Evers opined immediately as judge, jury, and executioner, hey?
-
He's innocent, legally.
He's guilty, morally.
Bigger conversation should be how/why we've reached the point culturally/as a society that this happened at all. Sad.
Well, that's an important conversation and it starts with full transparency. You can lump in all the scumbags that rioted during the course of the summer of 2020 in this discussion. They are guilty morally as well. As are various people threatening to burn down cities and calling for bloodshed. As are the aholes on Jan 6th. As is the media for intentionally creating narratives to divide our society from all sides of the political spectrum. People have had enough of this garbage and the politicization of every freaking situation that can be used to foster division.
-
This is the good stuff.
-
This case was never not going to trial (intentional double negative) and if you can’t understand why you are not familiar with the criminal justice system.
He will likely be found NG on the most serious charges. Anyone applauding his actions that night needs to re-examine their perspective on the value of life.
-
Let's not forget that FD Joe and Worst Governor Evers opined immediately as judge, jury, and executioner, hey?
How has your brain gotten so mushy? I mean, these aren't even clever nicknames.
-
Well, that's an important conversation and it starts with full transparency. You can lump in all the scumbags that rioted during the course of the summer of 2020 in this discussion. They are guilty morally as well. As are various people threatening to burn down cities and calling for bloodshed. As are the aholes on Jan 6th. As is the media for intentionally creating narratives to divide our society from all sides of the political spectrum. People have had enough of this garbage and the politicization of every freaking situation that can be used to foster division.
Are you incapable of having a discussion about the defendant without resorting to "yeah but whatabout...?"
-
Are you saying there has been concrete evidence in this trial that this kid should be charged with 1st degree murder?
Nope.
This case was never not going to trial (intentional double negative) and if you can’t understand why you are not familiar with the criminal justice system.
Yup, that's basically what I was saying. It had become an echo chamber in this tread the past few pages.
-
How has your brain gotten so mushy? I mean, these aren't even clever nicknames.
Old, white, dentist syndrome. I blame 34, hey?
-
Old, white, dentist syndrome. I blame 34, hey?
What does Eisenhower have to do with it.
-
There doesn't need to be concrete evidence to charge someone with a crime. There needs to be evidence. There is a sufficient amount here to warrant charging him. If not, the judge would have granted a motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of the prosecution.
-
This thread has not disappointed.
ND sucks.
-
Are you incapable of having a discussion about the defendant without resorting to "yeah but whatabout...?"
Fluffy, I think you're projecting your disappointment in the facts of this case onto me. I responded to a statement within the thread that was perhaps tangential in your opinion. People do this constantly in all threads btw which is fine. You can scream "whataboutisn" until you're blue in the face but it generally reads as attacking the messenger. I'm thick skinned so it doesn't bother me but I think it's a weak and ineffective rebuttal.
-
Fluffy, I think you're projecting your disappointment in the facts of this case onto me. I responded to a statement within the thread that was perhaps tangential in your opinion. People do this constantly in all threads btw which is fine. You can scream "whataboutisn" until you're blue in the face but it generally reads as attacking the messenger. I'm thick skinned so it doesn't bother me but I think it's a weak and ineffective rebuttal.
What "disappointment in the facts of this case" have I expressed? I have stated that it seems as though his self-defense is legally justified, but his actions were morally questionable. It sounds like you are making assumptions instead of reading what I actually wrote. Very weak.
And I am "attacking the messenger" in the sense that "whataboutism" is generally deployed when one's initial statements are easily swatted away. You want to change the scope or direction of the topic instead of actually addressing how poor your point was. Also very weak.
Honestly you admit you aren't following this case much, yet still come here making inaccurate statements, changing topics, etc. And you wonder why you are called out for it? LOL. Ok bud...
-
What "disappointment in the facts of this case" have I expressed? I have stated that it seems as though his self-defense is legally justified, but his actions were morally questionable. It sounds like you are making assumptions instead of reading what I actually wrote. Very weak.
And I am "attacking the messenger" in the sense that "whataboutism" is generally deployed when one's initial statements are easily swatted away. You want to change the scope or direction of the topic instead of actually addressing how poor your point was. Also very weak.
Honestly you admit you aren't following this case much, yet still come here making inaccurate statements, changing topics, etc. And you wonder why you are called out for it? LOL. Ok bud...
Fluffy, the fact is other cases and situations ARE pertinent to this case if you want to have a comprehensive discussion or not. I wasn't following it much at all until the media became ridiculously obsessed with Rittenhouse as opposed to say the Aubery case. Whether you are a left, right, liberatatlrian, or center we should be asking ourselves why Rittenhouse and not Aubery?
Now, I have a theory but I will keep it to myself because I don't want to upset you but think about it Fluffy? Does this not remind you of what happened in Ferguson with Michael Brown as opposed to Walter Scott in South Carolina? This is important with regards to this discussion, it's not "whataboutism". And while I commend you for actually looking at facts in this case, and perhaps I unfairly misrepresented your views, the same cannot be said for much of the general public and major media outlets.
-
Fluffy, the fact is other cases and situations ARE pertinent to this case if you want to have a comprehensive discussion or not. I wasn't following it much at all until the media became ridiculously obsessed with Rittenhouse as opposed to say the Aubery case. Whether you are a left, right, liberatatlrian, or center we should be asking ourselves why Rittenhouse and not Aubery?
Now, I have a theory but I will keep it to myself because I don't want to upset you but think about it Fluffy? Does this not remind you of what happened in Ferguson with Michael Brown as opposed to Walter Scott in South Carolina? This is important with regards to this discussion, it's not "whataboutism". And while I commend you for actually looking at facts in this case, and perhaps I unfairly misrepresented your views, the same cannot be said for much of the general public and major media outlets.
So your counter to those who point out the inadequacies of your statements about the Rittenhouse case is to not only bring up those who rioted in Kenosha in 2020, but also a bunch of other cases, all of which have their unique facts that aren't terribly relevant to the Rittenhouse case.
Taking whataboutism to a new level. Stick to the topic at hand if you can.
And believe me, nothing you can say about this is going to "upset" me because you are so over the place with your statements and questions, that at this point it just words with no context.
-
So your counter to those who point out the inadequacies of your statements about the Rittenhouse case is to not only bring up those who rioted in Kenosha in 2020, but also a bunch of other cases, all of which have their unique facts that aren't terribly relevant to the Rittenhouse case.
Taking whataboutism to a new level. Stick to the topic at hand if you can.
And believe me, nothing you can say about this is going to "upset" me because you are so over the place with your statements and questions, that at this point it just words with no context.
You don't attack anyone but me Fluff when a thread (in your mind) goes off topic. It's no biggie but I'm just responding to various points of view. And I disagree that the media coverage and overall obsession with Rittenhouse, which leads to a more comprehensive discussion, is off topic.
-
Fluffy, the fact is other cases and situations ARE pertinent to this case if you want to have a comprehensive discussion or not. I wasn't following it much at all until the media became ridiculously obsessed with Rittenhouse as opposed to say the Aubery case. Whether you are a left, right, liberatatlrian, or center we should be asking ourselves why Rittenhouse and not Aubery?
Now, I have a theory but I will keep it to myself because I don't want to upset you but think about it Fluffy? Does this not remind you of what happened in Ferguson with Michael Brown as opposed to Walter Scott in South Carolina? This is important with regards to this discussion, it's not "whataboutism". And while I commend you for actually looking at facts in this case, and perhaps I unfairly misrepresented your views, the same cannot be said for much of the general public and major media outlets.
Oh Jesus Christ.
-
He's innocent, legally.
He's guilty, morally.
Bigger conversation should be how/why we've reached the point culturally/as a society that this happened at all. Sad.
I don't disagree, but one could argue that riots and violence well beyond the cause/catalyst related to them have been going on for far longer than just recent history and current climate. Its just a different digital age.
But its still incredible concerning, even if its been going on for 10/20/50 years.
-
He's innocent, legally.
He's guilty, morally.
Bigger conversation should be how/why we've reached the point culturally/as a society that this happened at all. Sad.
So it is immoral to shoot someone who is trying to do you bodily harm?
asking for a friend.
-
So it is immoral to shoot someone who is trying to do you bodily harm?
asking for a friend.
Maybe.
Perhaps legally as well.
-
The judge dismissed the gun charge. I had read an article/column or two last week suggesting that this was a possibility. The statute (https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60) was poorly written with a section that appears to limit it to cut-off guns (i.e., 948.60(c)(3)). Personally, I think the "spirit" of the statute would absolutely include regular length rifles and shotguns, but the text definitely can be interpreted to not include those. Crazy since brass knuckles or nunchucks are clearly a violation of the statute, but arguably not a rifle.
I also heard that the Judge is planning to instruct the jury that they may consider whether Rittenhouse provoked one of the victims (Huber) and also consider lesser charges in that one. At least one report that I read suggested that this instruction breathes some life into the prosecutor's case that seemed hopeless before.
-
The judge dismissed the gun charge. I had read an article/column or two last week suggesting that this was a possibility. The statute (https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60) was poorly written with a section that appears to limit it to cut-off guns (i.e., 948.60(c)(3)). Personally, I think the "spirit" of the statute would absolutely include regular length rifles and shotguns, but the text definitely can be interpreted to not include those. Crazy since brass knuckles or nunchucks are clearly a violation of the statute, but arguably not a rifle.
I also heard that the Judge is planning to instruct the jury that they may consider whether Rittenhouse provoked one of the victims (Huber) and also consider lesser charges in that one. At least one report that I read suggested that this instruction breathes some life into the prosecutor's case that seemed hopeless before.
Read the same article. Seems to be a loophole that would allow children to use hunting rifles. Definitely against the spirit of the law.
-
It's times like these I have to remind myself that most people don't do statutory analysis on the regular.
So... there's this thing about state legislatures. They write statutes... right? Just, uh... look at a state legislature and the typical legislator when you have a moment. Doing that will put a reaction of "that's not a very well-worded statute" into perspective.
-
It's times like these I have to remind myself that most people don't do statutory analysis on the regular.
So... there's this thing about state legislatures. They write statutes... right? Just, uh... look at a state legislature and the typical legislator when you have a moment. Doing that will put a reaction of "that's not a very well-worded statute" into perspective.
To be honest, they likely cobble together statues copied from other states, special interest groups, etc. and pass it off as their own.
-
To be honest, they likely cobble together statues copied from other states, special interest groups, etc. and pass it off as their own.
If they're lucky. People love to gripe about ALEC writing legislation, but that actually tends (not always, but tends) to put into effect the thing it's actually designed to do. More often you get this:
"We *tried* to ban dangerous weapons in the hands of minors, but we also know that hunting is okay, so we *tried* to create a carveout that would allow minors to still hunt, but we just weren't very specific and so read in its totality this kinda sorta excludes long guns from the statute. Who coulda seen it coming? Classic whoospiedoops."
-
To be honest, they likely cobble together statues copied from other states, special interest groups, etc. and pass it off as their own.
Kind of like this?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DZc3x8cW4AAPjOm?format=jpg&name=900x900)
-
It's times like these I have to remind myself that most people don't do statutory analysis on the regular.
So... there's this thing about state legislatures. They write statutes... right? Just, uh... look at a state legislature and the typical legislator when you have a moment. Doing that will put a reaction of "that's not a very well-worded statute" into perspective.
Kind of. Every piece of legislation in WI is written and reviewed by the Legislative Reference Bureau before being introduced. It is supposed to be non-partisan. (usual people with a background in Administrative Law). https://legis.wisconsin.gov/LRB/
Most states have similar bodies. Legislators themselves rarely write actual bills that end up being debated.
-
If they're lucky. People love to gripe about ALEC writing legislation, but that actually tends (not always, but tends) to put into effect the thing it's actually designed to do. More often you get this:
"We *tried* to ban dangerous weapons in the hands of minors, but we also know that hunting is okay, so we *tried* to create a carveout that would allow minors to still hunt, but we just weren't very specific and so read in its totality this kinda sorta excludes long guns from the statute. Who coulda seen it coming? Classic whoospiedoops."
Isn't that what the legislative reference bureau in Wisconsin for? The actual drafting of legislation. Not having the elected goofs trying to write bills, let the lawyers do it.
-
so, if Rittenhouse is acquitted what happens in Kenosha? Anyone living there or nearby?
-
so, if Rittenhouse is acquitted what happens in Kenosha? Anyone living there or nearby?
Kenosha? I'm more interested in nationwide agitation by future rittenhouses
-
so, if Rittenhouse is acquitted what happens in Kenosha? Anyone living there or nearby?
Jockitch will be burning down auto zones.
-
Kenosha? I'm more interested in nationwide agitation by future rittenhouses
Hopefully BLM sympathizers won’t set cities on fire in the future so we won’t find out.
-
Hopefully BLM sympathizers won’t set cities on fire in the future so we won’t find out.
Rioting and looting are bad.
Going into a violent area with a weapon is also bad.
Fukk outta here with that BS.
-
Rioting and looting are bad.
Going into a violent area with a weapon is also bad.
Fukk outta here with that BS.
Yes they are. So hopefully there won’t be situations where either feels compelled to do either.
-
Yes they are. So hopefully there won’t be situations where either feels compelled to do either.
Ya. That's sure what you meant
-
Ya. That's sure what you meant
It is, but go ahead and make up your own narrative.
If there hadn’t been riots there wouldn’t have been a draw for cosplay vigilantes.