Kyle Rittenhouse

[Underdog 29161]

45 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I have to listen to Teddy Bear to get my chest to hurt. Everytime.

Motherfucker! 

[Incredulity 11874]

This is unreal.  

[Johnny Sack 8397]

DA has proven to be scum.  This episode is exhibit 6 or so. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

44 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I believe he went there hoping to shoot a bad guy in fulfillment of the prophecies our fucked up mythology lays out. Evil is easily identified and deserving of only death by bullet. Or to quote Hans:

Maybe when he was fleeing, he was beginning to see the real absurdity of his vision of the evening. Too late. He kills a guy he would never have otherwise met in fulfillment of the scriptures.

 

Rittenhouse is too old and lives in another state, perhaps the governor of Texas won't consider Stephen Crane to be pornographic, but I've never forgotten his novel, nor Erich Maria Remarque for that matter. Literature matters.

Consider the passages:

Quote

 

The youth was in a condition of shock. So they were at last going to fight! Tomorrow, perhaps, there would be a battle, and he would be in it. For a time he had to labor to make himself believe. He could not accept with certainty a sign that he was about to take part in one of those great affairs of the world.

He had, of course, dreamed of battles all his life—of uncertain and bloody fights that had excited him with their vastness and fire. In dreams, he had seen himself in many struggles. He had imagined peo­ple secure in the protection of his fierce bravery. But, awake, he had regarded battles as bloody marks on the pages of the past. He had put
them as things of the past with his imaginings of heavy crowns and high castles. There was a portion of the world’s history which he regarded as “the time of the wars.” But it, he thought, had disappeared forever.

He had wanted several times to join the army. Tales of great move­ments shook the land. There seemed to be much glory in them. He had read of marches, advances, battles, and he had wanted to see it all. His busy mind had drawn for him large pictures filled with breathless deeds.

 

And later, in battle

Quote

He had run, he told himself, because certain death approached. He had done well in saving himself, because he was a little piece of the army. He had decided it was the duty of every piece to save itself if pos­sible. Later the officers could fit the little pieces together again and make a battle line. If none of the little pieces were wise enough to save
themselves from death at such a time, where would the army be? It was all clear that he had proceeded according to very correct and admirable rules. His actions had been sensible—full of wisdom.

Not a direct comparison, but the emotion is undeniably real and similar. We read (or should read) to understand. Not just the motivation of foot soldier, Henry, but also the greater forces that placed him there.

Same with Kyle, but I doubt we're capable of such introspection--not as individuals and not as a society. The pale blue dot keeps on turning.

Edited November 10, 2021 by Mrs Whiggins

[washparkhorn 9973]

10 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

This is unreal.  

Not really. You are starstruck by a process that occurs regularly in Courtrooms. 

The DA should be making mincemeat of a defendant taking the stand. He is making it more difficult than it needs to be. 

[Dr. Teeth 5868]

This is definitely a kid that has watched too many Kevin Sorbo and Dean Cain movies. 

[Incredulity 11874]

Just now, washparkhorn said:

Not really. You are starstruck by a process that occurs regularly in Courtrooms. 

The DA should be making mincemeat of a defendant taking the stand. He is making it more difficult than it needs to be. 

The judge has told the DA he was "at least very close" to violating the constituion.

I don't believe for a moment that 

Quote

occurs regularly in Courtrooms

 

[wildcat09 29577]

Usually judges don't give a shit that DAs violate the Constitution because the defendants are rarely white men.

[JimmyJames 12271]

30 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Jimmy I haven't been following too closely and my impression of WI's self-defense law might be a bit off, but my understanding of how it applies is basically the following (ignoring the duty to retreat for a moment): if he actually reasonably feared for his life and used reasonable force in self defense against the first guy he shot, causing the others to then try to disarm him thinking that THEY were using a reasonable level of force to defend themselves and/or others from his (believed to be) unlawful conduct, he can also succeed on a self defense claim for the subsequent shootings of the guys who reasonably thought THEY were legally acting to defend themselves and others. Does that sound accurate to you?

That seems like a pretty big fucking problem.

Pretty much. Here’s the statute. It’s pretty lengthy. 
 

https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2014/chapter-939/section-939.48

Heres some further relevant language:

939.48(2)(a) (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.

939.48(2)(b) (b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.

939.48(2)(c) (c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

 

If I were prosecuting I would focus on that last paragraph, but the judge gutted that part of the case by keeping out kyles statement that he wanted to shoot looters. 

[wildcat09 29577]

3 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Pretty much. Here’s the statute. It’s pretty lengthy. 
 

https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2014/chapter-939/section-939.48

Heres some further relevant language:

939.48(2)(a) (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.

939.48(2)(b) (b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.

939.48(2)(c) (c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

 

If I were prosecuting I would focus on that last paragraph, but the judge gutted that part of the case by keeping out kyles statement that he wanted to shoot looters. 

What a clusterfuck of a statute.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

If I were prosecuting I would focus on that last paragraph, but the judge gutted that part of the case by keeping out kyles statement that he wanted to shoot looters. 

About that last bit-I understood the earlier items with respect to the judge and the defendant and the victims, but that one I couldn't quite get my head around. Was it hearsay or was it a direct statement? It does seem relevant based on one of the interviews he gave to a reporter on television prior to the incident where he did not mention medical aid, but mentioned protecting businesses. One is acting as a medical first responder, the other is acting as a security guard/vigilante. Does that not speak to subsequent actions?

[washparkhorn 9973]

10 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

The judge has told the DA he was "at least very close" to violating the constituion.

I don't believe for a moment that 

 

you are funny.  You are not serious - right?

[4th&Five 41984]

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

What a clusterfuck of a statute.

Yeah I don’t do criminal law but I have a hard time believing most states statutes on self defense are that crazily written. 

[BrickHorn 18447]

Whether his crying is sincere or not is irrelevant. Since when is crying on the stand a legitimate substitute for prison time? 

[JimmyJames 12271]

2 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

About that last bit-I understood the earlier items with respect to the judge and the defendant and the victims, but that one I couldn't quite get my head around. Was it hearsay or was it a direct statement? It does seem relevant based on one of the interviews he gave to a reporter on television prior to the incident where he did not mention medical aid, but mentioned protecting businesses. One is acting as a medical first responder, the other is acting as a security guard/vigilante. Does that not speak to subsequent actions?

It likely wouldn’t be relevant to prove he shot someone. That’s likely why the judge kept it out because that’s their natural instinct. 
 

Because of the way the Wisconsin self defense statute is written, however, and which I agree is a clusterfuck, it is relevant towards his intent in the context of self defense, particularly in this case where he shows up at a place he has no business being. 

[Fud 9724]

The prosecution is a disaster

[JimmyJames 12271]

Is anyone going to post anything that the guy actually says on the stand? 

[washparkhorn 9973]

9 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Since when is crying on the stand a legitimate substitute for prison time? 

It's not, but it may work for the Defendant testifying. http://dev.cjcenter.org/_files/apcj/APCJ SPRING 2015-Heath.pdf_1433368056.pdf

Participants (N = 160) read scenarios in which a defendant’s guilt status (guilty, not guilty); type of emotion judgment made (feeling, displaying); and defendant/victim relationship (husband and stranger) were varied to determine their influences on expectations for defendants’ emotional responses. In a second experiment, we presented these same variables between-subjects to 324 online participants. In a third experiment, 329 online participants provided expectations for a defendant’s crying behavior when defendant gender, guilt status, and defendant/victim relationship varied. Generally, more emotion (e.g., sadness) was expected when a spouse versus stranger was killed, but only when the defendant was not guilty. Expectations varied with defendant gender and participants’ self-reported emotionality. The implications of having defendant emotion expectations are discussed within a wrongful conviction context.

. . . Why does seeing an emotional defendant lead to people making more favorable decisions? Bond et al.’s (1992) idea of expectancy violation certainly is in line with the above results (Heath et al.,2004; Salekin et al.,1995); violate expectations for emotion level, and you are more likely to be seen as guilty

 

[Fud 9724]

Just now, Bravo said:

it is a combination of horrible prosecutors and no evidence.

I'm not a lawyer and don't watch trials as a hobby or anything, but the lawyer being that disrespectful to the judge followed by the judge laying into him was wild. People are speculating whether the prosecutor is trying for a mistrial at this point in some sort of way to save face and blame it on the judge vs being found non-guilty by jury, because he's been so poor 

[Incredulity 11874]

16 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

you are funny.  You are not serious - right?

if you say so. 

Not a lawyer, haven't had significant interactions with courts(thank god).  

That said, the judge yelling at the prosecutor repeatedly was striking.  I watched a bit on the Rieketa Law feed and they were all jaws on the floor.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

11 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

It likely wouldn’t be relevant to prove he shot someone. That’s likely why the judge kept it out because that’s their natural instinct. 
 

Because of the way the Wisconsin self defense statute is written, however, and which I agree is a clusterfuck, it is relevant towards his intent in the context of self defense, particularly in this case where he shows up at a place he has no business being. 

Yes, that was what I was thinking after I read it too. The Car Source testimony was conflicting--former employee said yes, the owner requested; the owner said no. That both of those witnesses were on the stand implies the security guard/militia aspect.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20907]

21 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

 

Don't know, but it's apparent that Ricky Schroeder is not a good acting teacher.

[washparkhorn 9973]

10 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Is anyone going to post anything that the guy actually says on the stand? 

This is a good source for testimony:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1458451658061586440.html

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 minute ago, washparkhorn said:

This is a good source for testimony:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1458451658061586440.html

 

Thanks for that. 
 

So what were the prosecutors questions that set off the judge? 

[workswithseed 2204]

The 5th amendment 

[washparkhorn 9973]

7 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

if you say so. 

Not a lawyer, haven't had significant interactions with courts(thank god).  

That said, the judge yelling at the prosecutor repeatedly was striking.  I watched a bit on the Rieketa Law feed and they were all jaws on the floor.

Remember the jury was not in the room to see this. That's intentional. 

When an attorney draws an overly intrusive judge (judge wants to be a star; judge has predetermined guilt or innocent unknowing; judge wants to do everyone's job), these conflicts occur. Occasionally, one can change the judge's mind. These high visibility cases bring out the worst in some judges.  

But I do believe this judge is doing his best to ensure a fair trial. He is just caught in a moment that I imagine he regrets. The job for the attorney is to give the judge an avenue to save face and adjust. 

[washparkhorn 9973]

9 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

So what were the prosecutors questions that set off the judge? 

Question regarding defendant's decision to exercise right to remain silent and question regarding impermissible character evidence (prosecutor claimed propensity to act in accordance with prior acts and evidence should come in because the defendant put his character into evidence with his testimony (a big reason not to have a defendant testify). 

Just typical criminal trial tactics. 

Edited November 10, 2021 by washparkhorn

[JimmyJames 12271]

4 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Question regarding defendant's decision to exercise right to remain silent and question regarding impermissible character evidence (prosecutor claimed propensity to act in accordance with prior acts and evidence should come in because the defendant put his character into evidence with his testimony (a big reason not to have a defendant testify). 

Just typical criminal trial tactics. 

I went back and read the summary you posted. Thanks for that. 
 

The first time the judge admonished the prosecutor was over the fifth amendment which makes zero sense since the guy is up there on the stand testifying. But whatever. 
 

The second time when the judge got really pissed was because the prosecutor was trying to bring up Kyles prior wanting to shoot looters statement. I can see why the judge got pissed since he had excluded it but I can also see why the prosecutor brought it up since I’m sure he believes like I do the exclusion is error given the nature of the case and the claim of self defense. But once Kyle is acquitted, if that occurs, there’s nothing the prosecution can do about that. 

[Fud 9724]

4 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

The first time the judge admonished the prosecutor was over the fifth amendment which makes zero sense since the guy is up there on the stand testifying. But whatever. 

Perhaps trial lawyers on here can chime in, but my understanding was that questioning someone's right to the 5th is a no-no, even if he's waved the right 

['stache 22131]

16 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

The 5th amendment 

He chose to take the stand, and he can still invoke the fifth, but he's open to any and all questions, even those that could incriminate him if he voluntarily answers. That is why defendants rarely take the stand. You can train them for weeks on how to not incriminate themselves, but if they volunteer it, it's valid testimony. The only time a judge should get testy is if the defendant invokes the fifth on a question and the attorney asks it over and over again. "He's provided his response, move on please counselor."

[Fud 9724]

To be clear, the prosecutor was harping on why Rittenhouse hadn't commented on the incident until today, which is questioning why he was previously invoking the 5th amendment 

[JimmyJames 12271]

The fact itself that Kyle is testifying at all makes his prior statement from 2 weeks prior that he wanted to shoot looters relevant. It was an arguably defensible position by the judge prior to Kyle getting on the stand but to exclude it after he testifies is unconscionable and clear error. Judge just doesn’t want to admit he fucked up and knows if he’s acquitted he won’t be reversed. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

2 minutes ago, Fud said:

To be clear, the prosecutor was harping on why Rittenhouse hadn't commented on the incident until today, which is questioning why he was previously invoking the 5th amendment 

Ah. That does make sense then. 
 

I am always amazed at how much crap both sides in a criminal case can get away with that would immediately shut down a civil case. 

[Fud 9724]

 

[DonkeyCigars 143]

If you are the defense and feel great about getting your verdict, you don't move for a mistrial. 

[mantis toboggan 854]

3 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

If you are the defense and feel great about getting your verdict, you don't move for a mistrial. 

Me thinks you are not a lawyer

Edited November 10, 2021 by mantis toboggan

[washparkhorn 9973]

8 minutes ago, Fud said:

 

Motions for mistrial are common. Declaring a mistrial is relatively common in criminal cases. 

[DDD Dad 14643]

4 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

If you are the defense and feel great about getting your verdict, you don't move for a mistrial. 

You take each and every opportunity to get rid of a case that presents itself.  Also you do so to preserve error in case things go bad later.

Just now, mantis toboggan said:

Me thinks you are not a lawyer

I don't think he's ever claimed to be.  

[DDD Dad 14643]

1 minute ago, washparkhorn said:

Motions for mistrial are common. Declaring a mistrial is relatively common in criminal cases. 

With prejudice not quite so much, though, amirite?

[JimmyJames 12271]

The reason the judge didn’t and won’t call a mistrial is he’s up on the stand testifying. Without that, he might have. 

[DDD Dad 14643]

1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

The reason the judge didn’t and won’t call a mistrial is he’s up on the stand testifying. Without that, he might have. 

Was the jury present when the defense counsel requested it?  I would think they would have needed to do that via sidebar.

[JimmyJames 12271]

7 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

If you are the defense and feel great about getting your verdict, you don't move for a mistrial. 

If he’s on the stand testifying they don’t feel “great” despite what the DT circle jerk might be saying, 

[washparkhorn 9973]

5 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

With prejudice not quite so much, though, amirite?

100% correct. 

[washparkhorn 9973]

4 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Was the jury present when the defense counsel requested it?  I would think they would have needed to do that via sidebar.

It is out of the presence of the jury. 

[DDD Dad 14643]

Just now, washparkhorn said:

It is out of the presence of the jury. 

Because I would think that sort of motion in front of the jury might cause a mistrial the other way (or at least a pretty severe scolding from the judge followed by an instruction to the jury).

['stache 22131]

36 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

The fact itself that Kyle is testifying at all makes his prior statement from 2 weeks prior that he wanted to shoot looters relevant. It was an arguably defensible position by the judge prior to Kyle getting on the stand but to exclude it after he testifies is unconscionable and clear error. Judge just doesn’t want to admit he fucked up and knows if he’s acquitted he won’t be reversed. 

 

12 minutes ago, Fud said:

 

The first I think can be asked validly in a careful manner, but I guess it was asked improperly, or he harped on it too long. The second might also be proper if the witness opened the door, but again might have been handled improperly by the prosecutor. This judge seems like a real prick so my guess is he'll either get a mistrial or he'll go scorched earth and enter some bs order that will all but require acquittal. 

[Fud 9724]

This is a good account for following if you're unable to watch live

 

[elfenix 34744]

My impression of the judge was set by the exchange about the DA appealing something in some prior case a decade ago and it coming back down then going up again and him being right. That seems like a long time to bear a grudge.

[DaysOff 8198]

The DT thread calls this PTSD. No no, serious PTSD.