collapse

* Recent Posts

2024 NCAA Tournament Thread by tower912
[Today at 08:20:19 PM]


2024 Coaching Carousel by The Sultan of Semantics
[Today at 08:18:59 PM]


Sweet 16 presser by Goose
[Today at 07:54:34 PM]


Where is Marquette? by MU Fan in Connecticut
[Today at 07:52:45 PM]


Dallas bars tonite by MarquetteVol
[Today at 07:30:33 PM]


2024 Transfer Portal by Goose
[Today at 07:05:04 PM]


10 years after “Done Deal” … It’s Happening! by Judge Smails
[Today at 07:02:27 PM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address.  We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!


Author Topic: Rittenhouse Volume 2  (Read 22844 times)

pacearrow02

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 2
« Reply #125 on: November 11, 2021, 08:36:42 AM »

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?

pacearrow02

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 2
« Reply #126 on: November 11, 2021, 08:38:11 AM »
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? 

Hards Alumni

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6583
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 2
« Reply #127 on: November 11, 2021, 08:43:54 AM »
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.

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9877
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 2
« Reply #128 on: November 11, 2021, 08:50:45 AM »
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

The Sultan of Semantics

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 11520
  • "Private message me coward" - panda
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 2
« Reply #129 on: November 11, 2021, 08:51:37 AM »
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.
“True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else.” - Clarence Darrow

forgetful

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 2
« Reply #130 on: November 11, 2021, 09:07:21 AM »
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.


StillAWarrior

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4205
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 2
« Reply #131 on: November 11, 2021, 09:10:57 AM »
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.
Never wrestle with a pig.  You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.

CountryRoads

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 2
« Reply #132 on: November 11, 2021, 09:20:49 AM »
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.

jficke13

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1359
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 2
« Reply #133 on: November 11, 2021, 09:23:11 AM »
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.

forgetful

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 2
« Reply #134 on: November 11, 2021, 09:51:02 AM »
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."
« Last Edit: November 11, 2021, 09:54:18 AM by forgetful »

JWags85

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2978
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 2
« Reply #135 on: November 11, 2021, 09:55:45 AM »
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.

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9877
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 2
« Reply #136 on: November 11, 2021, 10:07:46 AM »
Nailed it also, JWags.

MuggsyB

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 12687
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 2
« Reply #137 on: November 11, 2021, 10:11:14 AM »
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.   

jficke13

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1359
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 2
« Reply #138 on: November 11, 2021, 10:11:19 AM »
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.

Hards Alumni

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6583
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 2
« Reply #139 on: November 11, 2021, 10:18:56 AM »
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.

Pakuni

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9877
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 2
« Reply #140 on: November 11, 2021, 10:24:14 AM »
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.

MuggsyB

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 12687
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 2
« Reply #141 on: November 11, 2021, 10:29:06 AM »
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. 

jficke13

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1359
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 2
« Reply #142 on: November 11, 2021, 10:36:25 AM »
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.

jficke13

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1359
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 2
« Reply #143 on: November 11, 2021, 10:39:52 AM »
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.

MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22729
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 2
« Reply #144 on: November 11, 2021, 10:42:03 AM »
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.)
“It’s not how white men fight.” - Tucker Carlson

MuggsyB

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 12687
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 2
« Reply #145 on: November 11, 2021, 10:43:35 AM »
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.

Hards Alumni

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6583
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 2
« Reply #146 on: November 11, 2021, 10:45:00 AM »
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.

forgetful

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 2
« Reply #147 on: November 11, 2021, 11:05:38 AM »
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.

jficke13

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1359
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 2
« Reply #148 on: November 11, 2021, 11:33:03 AM »
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.


rocky_warrior

  • Global Moderator
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9002
Re: Rittenhouse Volume 2
« Reply #149 on: November 11, 2021, 11:43:41 AM »
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".

 

feedback