Kyle Rittenhouse

[fattyflattie 4640]

On 11/3/2021 at 6:58 AM, Fudge Nuggets said:

No he's not.  There are enough shitheads out there like you that will make sure of it.

Go fuck yourself. 

[Captainant 28504]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

Go fuck yourself. 

careful, don't give him a reason to defend himself

[henrygandorf 29225]

22 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Hopefully attacks the Capitol in a few years.

or in just 4 months.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13624]

17 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Yes. Person 1 in scenario one is attempting to stop an aggravated robbery.  That is legal,  Person 2 shooting him just committed a murder under felony murder.

Scenario 2 -- Person 2 is not committing the type of felony that permits you to use force against them.  He is not pointing his gun at anyone.  He is illegally carrying technically because he is not yet 18.  That is a misdemeanor.  You don't have authority to try to disarm someone from carrying so long as they are not pointing the gun at someone.  Any more than you have authority to pull them over for speeding.  It is legal to open carry rifles.  People do it all the time.  It being a riot and a dangerous situation does not change anything. Him being 4 months younger than 18 does not change a damn thing with anyone's right to disarm him.  Sure, if he points it at someone, go for it.  Otherwise, either call the cops and let them know you think a minor is illegally carrying or mind your own fucking business.

Call the cops that were hanging out with the shooter? That'll probably work.

The fact that it took you that much explaining to describe that decision tree sorta illustrates what's fucked up in our gun infested culture. I'm guessing there's another decision tree involved if someone had tried to disarm the (now pardoned and running for Senate) McCloskeys. And another one for the Austin murder when a guy drove his car into marchers, had a gun pulled on him and then shot the guy who pulled the gun (whom I guess should have just shot the driver since had already assaulted the marchers with a deadly weapon...???...) What about "Patriot" citizens' patrols holding misdemeanor border crossers at gunpoint? Is it ok for the migrants to try to disarm them and what page in the guidebook covers legal liability in a shooting scenario there?

[henrygandorf 29225]

2 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Call the cops that were hanging out with the shooter? That'll probably work.

The fact that it took you that much explaining to describe that decision tree sorta illustrates what's fucked up in our gun infested culture. I'm guessing there's another decision tree involved if someone had tried to disarm the (now pardoned and running for Senate) McCloskeys. And another one for the Austin murder when a guy drove his car into marchers, had a gun pulled on him and then shot the guy who pulled the gun (whom I guess should have just shot the driver since had already assaulted the marchers with a deadly weapon...???...) What about "Patriot" citizens' patrols holding misdemeanor border crossers at gunpoint? Is it ok for the migrants to try to disarm them and what page in the guidebook covers legal liability in a shooting scenario there?

people rittenhouse shot = looters and rioters

ashli babbitt = patriot

it's not that difficult.

[Nivek 17404]

1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:

He was acting all mentally ill and crazy? And yelling the n word (completely irrelevant but yeah judge just go ahead and let that in).

Shoot him like a dog!

Judge seems incredibly defense biased on this one. Keeps out video of Kyle saying he wants to shoot people, allows in the n word by the victim, err I mean, looter.

what the fuck?

[JimmyJames 12271]

6 minutes ago, Nivek said:

what the fuck?

https://www.facebook.com/tmj4/videos/353854999616671/
 

Judge ruled this video inadmissible. Given the nature of the defense, ruling looks like horseshit.

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

Because the jury only hears evidence offered in court. 

Yep. They’ll have to get on YouTube after the trial to hear the video where the defendant talks about wanting to shoot people two weeks prior since the judge kept it out of evidence. 

[TwiceHorn 32066]

2 hours ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

I still don't understand why evidence of the victim's character is admissable but the defendant's isn't, but making the public understand is the reasoning the judge gave for railing on the media in court, though that appears to be a separate issue.

I was admittedly multi-tasking when I read it but if any legal eagles wanna chime in...

https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/live-trials-current/kyle-rittenhouse/kyle-rittenhouses-judge-scolds-jeffrey-toobin-and-other-cnn-analysts-for-being-obviously-unfamiliar-with-an-ancient-rule-of-our-law/

The rule of evidence is Rule 404, this is the federal version, but they are very similar nationwide:

Rule 404. Character Evidence; Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts

Primary tabs

 

(a) Character Evidence.

(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.

(2) Exceptions for a Defendant or Victim in a Criminal Case. The following exceptions apply in a criminal case:

(A) a defendant may offer evidence of the defendant’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it;

(B) subject to the limitations in Rule 412, a defendant may offer evidence of an alleged victim’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may:

(i) offer evidence to rebut it; and

(ii) offer evidence of the defendant’s same trait; and

(C) in a homicide case, the prosecutor may offer evidence of the alleged victim’s trait of peacefulness to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor.

(3) Exceptions for a Witness. Evidence of a witness’s character may be admitted under Rules 607, 608, and 609.

(b) Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts.

(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.

(2) Permitted Uses. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.

(3) Notice in a Criminal Case. In a criminal case, the prosecutor must:

(A) provide reasonable notice of any such evidence that the prosecutor intends to offer at trial, so that the defendant has a fair opportunity to meet it;

(B) articulate in the notice the permitted purpose for which the prosecutor intends to offer the evidence and the reasoning that supports the purpose; and

(C) do so in writing before trial — or in any form during trial if the court, for good cause, excuses lack of pretrial notice.

The general rule is that you can't use evidence of "character" or specific prior wrongful acts against a defendant in a criminal case in an attempt to prove that the defendant acted in conformity with that character trait or prior wrongful act.  It may be used for some other purpose.

The rules are slighly more relaxed for non-defendants.

I'm not sure what information about the victims we're talking about, but it is somewhat easier to get non-defendant character/bad acts information in.  Relevance would seem to be a big issue, though.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Shit isn't admissible.  Judge does not want to commit reversible error.

Just like I said in the other thread, Rodney Reed violent sexually assaulted (and in once case attempted to kill while sexually assaulting) numerous women in the Bastrop area.  Several in a very similar manner to Stacey Stites.  That evidence does not come in to prove guilt.

Just like all of Ted Bundy's murders and kidnapping convictions, including his Chi O murders he was convicted for, were not admissible in his murder/kidnapping case of Kimberly Leach.

This is basic shit.  It is never coming in.  Only time it might come in is if the defendant testifies and then his felony conviction for certain crimes can be used to impeach.  And that's if probative value does not outweigh prejudice.

[Nivek 17404]

Define trait then.  And define evidence and intent and conspiracy.  Because that looks like a conspiracy to commit murder with the cunt driving the little shit there with an assault rifle.    

And the defending property of others seems like a pile of shit.  They don't know the property, the others, the owners, and no one invited the aid.  Can one walk into a grocery store and see the guys with guns taking sacks of money out and start shooting them?     

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

3 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Can one walk into a grocery store and see the guys with guns taking sacks of money out and start shooting them?     

 

Need more info. Is the guy walking in with a gun white and does he support the cops? Or is he black and looks like he might be antifa? 

[Incredulity 11874]

18 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Need more info. Is the guy walking in with a gun white and does he support the cops? Or is he black and looks like he might be antifa? 

 

Antifa is purely white neckbeard hipsters

[Johnny Sack 8397]

29 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Define trait then.  And define evidence and intent and conspiracy.  Because that looks like a conspiracy to commit murder with the cunt driving the little shit there with an assault rifle.    

And the defending property of others seems like a pile of shit.  They don't know the property, the others, the owners, and no one invited the aid.  Can one walk into a grocery store and see the guys with guns taking sacks of money out and start shooting them?     

 

He wasn’t defending property.  He was defending himself.  All sorts of shit was going on that night.  Rioting. Arson.  Rittenhouse only shot the people attacking him.  And it’s why it’s such an easy case.  

[tantric superman 4668]

58 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

He wasn’t defending property.  He was defending himself.  All sorts of shit was going on that night.  Rioting. Arson.  Rittenhouse only shot the people attacking him.  And it’s why it’s such an easy case.  

If Rittenhouse wasn't in the wrong, it would be an easy case. 

 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13624]

2 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Shit isn't admissible.  Judge does not want to commit reversible error.

Just like I said in the other thread, Rodney Reed violent sexually assaulted (and in once case attempted to kill while sexually assaulting) numerous women in the Bastrop area.  Several in a very similar manner to Stacey Stites.  That evidence does not come in to prove guilt.

Just like all of Ted Bundy's murders and kidnapping convictions, including his Chi O murders he was convicted for, were not admissible in his murder/kidnapping case of Kimberly Leach.

This is basic shit.  It is never coming in.  Only time it might come in is if the defendant testifies and then his felony conviction for certain crimes can be used to impeach.  And that's if probative value does not outweigh prejudice.

Then why is the judge allowing the individuals Rittenhouse shot to be defined as "looters" and "arsonists" merely if the  defense can provide, not a conviction beyond a shadow of a doubt, but mere evidence. 

Does the presumption of innocence only apply to the accused and no one else? 

And even IF the individuals were convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt of looting or arson, you noted, correctly I think, that the shootings didn't occur while KR was defending property, so what other than obvious purpose would that serve for the judge to allow that?

 

[TwiceHorn 32066]

2 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Does the presumption of innocence only apply to the accused and no one else? 

 

Yes.

 

Apparently, it is not terribly uncommon for judges to proscribe "victim" to refer to the decedent and that is a standard rule in his court.  They can be described as looters or arsonists if the defense shows that they looted or committed arson.

 

Edited November 5, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[JimmyJames 12271]

Yeah that ruling has generated the most outrage but I can somewhat see a basis for it although if you’re gonna prevent one side from using loaded terms to describe an interested party it seems like it should go both ways.

The biggest bullshit ruling is keeping out the video where Kyle says he wants to shoot people two weeks prior. That goes directly to his intent which negates his self defense defense.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

9 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Yeah that ruling has generated the most outrage but I can somewhat see a basis for it although if you’re gonna prevent one side from using loaded terms to describe an interested party it seems like it should go both ways.

The biggest bullshit ruling is keeping out the video where Kyle says he wants to shoot people two weeks prior. That goes directly to his intent which negates his self defense defense.

Well, it would be reversible error to admit it.  So the judge didn’t.  This is 1L law type shit.  
 

It isn’t even relevant.  He said he wished he had his AR to stop looters.  He didn’t shoot anyone looting.  
 

He could have gone there really hoping someone could attack him so he could shoot them.  Those thoughts wouldn’t negate self defense.  

[Incredulity 11874]

Doesn’t matter.  Leftist fefes are all that matters.

 

for leftists 

[tantric superman 4668]

38 minutes ago, Bravo said:

The DA looks like the defense attny. It looks pretty easy thus far and the actual defense attny hasn't even started in with his case. 

I'm not saying Rittenhouse isn't going to win.  I'm saying that it's a difficult case because Rittenhouse is so obviously in the wrong, and the laws will not find him as such. 

Sometimes you defend a case you are going to lose, and sometimes you prosecute a case you can't win.  Because some things rise above the technicalities of the law.

[JimmyJames 12271]

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Well, it would be reversible error to admit it.  So the judge didn’t.  This is 1L law type shit.  
 

It isn’t even relevant.  He said he wished he had his AR to stop looters.  He didn’t shoot anyone looting.  
 

He could have gone there really hoping someone could attack him so he could shoot them.  Those thoughts wouldn’t negate self defense.  

I already posted the wording from Wisconsin law in the other thread but here it is again:

“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.”
 

It’s not relevant to prove the crime itself and wouldn’t be admissible then, but at least according to the Wisconsin statute, it is relevant towards his intent for being there which is relevant towards his self defense defense. Two weeks before the shooting he says on video he wishes he could shoot some looters, then shows up to defend a building from looters, a building he has no prior connection to, then shoots people. It’s relevant.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13624]

15 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Yeah that ruling has generated the most outrage but I can somewhat see a basis for it although if you’re gonna prevent one side from using loaded terms to describe an interested party it seems like it should go both ways.

The biggest bullshit ruling is keeping out the video where Kyle says he wants to shoot people two weeks prior. That goes directly to his intent which negates his self defense defense.

It seems like it would be an easily remedied decision by the judge to rule both parties use neutral terms, particularly when it seems the shootings happened independent of any property damage the terms refer to. And agreed on the second point. 

[tx 3 putt 78665]

26 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Yeah that ruling has generated the most outrage but I can somewhat see a basis for it although if you’re gonna prevent one side from using loaded terms to describe an interested party it seems like it should go both ways.

The biggest bullshit ruling is keeping out the video where Kyle says he wants to shoot people two weeks prior. That goes directly to his intent which negates his self defense defense.

 

this one blew me away 

he went there to start shit and shoot someone

[JimmyJames 12271]

48 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yes.

 

Apparently, it is not terribly uncommon for judges to proscribe "victim" to refer to the decedent and that is a standard rule in his court.  They can be described as looters or arsonists if the defense shows that they looted or committed arson.

 

Also if the defense can call them rioters or looters by showing that they did that why can’t the prosecution call the dead victims after showing that they were victims? The logic makes no sense. I don’t think it really matters too much but it did cause outrage outside the right wing hate machine, who probably ignored that.

I don’t think judges should necessarily change just because it’s a high profile case but stuff like that is just unforced errors. And to ignore the public at large and it’s perceptions is neither realistic nor wise. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

7 minutes ago, Bravo said:

A lot of you are going to be very shocked and confused by the verdict. I think mainly just because I keep hearing opinions of how things should be vs what the law actually is. 

Given that the prosecution already let on an old white guy who got kicked off the jury for telling the bailiff a racist joke about the black guy who got killed that set all this in motion, I’ll only be shocked and confused if he’s convicted. 

Edited November 5, 2021 by JimmyJames

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 minute ago, Bravo said:

You realize this is a case about a white guy shooting 3 other white guys, right? 

Yep. And you realize why there was a riot/protest for Kyle to show up at in the first place right? 

[DaysOff 8197]

 
this one blew me away 
he went there to start shit and shoot someone

It's even more amazing that those of a certain political persuasion don't bat an eye that a 17 year old is walking the streets in the dark with a rifle during civil unrest. That would be unheard of in countries that they'd call shithole countries. Gun laws in this country are so fucked up, buy that's another thread. Piece of shit kid will walk in an all white cheese eating state.

[JimmyJames 12271]

“Why did the Kenosha police shoot Jacob Blake seven times?'"

“Because they ran out of bullets.'"

Har har. And THAT guy was let on the jury. He walks. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13624]

4 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

 And to ignore the public at large and it’s perceptions is neither realistic nor wise. 

But that's the thing. He wasn't ignoring the public. In the Law and Crime piece I posted the judge stated he felt it important the public understand the rationale behind his rulings, but instead of making it understandable to the average Joe like me as it relates to justice and an even playing field, he just comes off as a petulant pisshead.

[JimmyJames 12271]

8 minutes ago, Bravo said:

You realize this is a case about a white guy shooting 3 other white guys, right? 

I mean seriously do you not know why this case has become such a darling of the right wing hate machine? 
 

Kyle may have killed and shot 3 white dudes but it was three white dudes who were at a protest for a killing of a black man by the police so ergo Kyle is a right wing hate machine hero and those 3 white dudes are worthless traitors. Just look at the sack on the other thread posting full metal jacket and other memes in celebration of what Kyle did. 

[Bullneck 19507]

2 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

He wasn’t defending property.  He was defending himself.  All sorts of shit was going on that night.  Rioting. Arson.  Rittenhouse only shot the people attacking him.  And it’s why it’s such an easy case.  

No one would have attacked him if he'd stayed home.

[fattyflattie 4640]

1 minute ago, Bullneck said:

No one would have attacked him if he'd stayed home.

No one would have gotten shot had they stayed home.  This is fun. 

[conVINCEd 21477]

1 minute ago, Bullneck said:

No one would have attacked him if he'd stayed home.

And what would staying home do for his social media street cred?

[JimmyJames 12271]

4 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

No one would have gotten shot had they stayed home.  This is fun. 

No one would have died if Kyle hadn’t murdered them. This is fun.

[fattyflattie 4640]

Just now, JimmyJames said:

No one would have died if Kyle hadn’t murdered them. This is fun.

True. Makes you wonder what would happened if that piece of shit hadn’t fought the police, and went for a weapon. All kinds of lives and businesses would still be around.  But then, that first guy would still be raping children, which isn’t good.  Makes you think. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

5 minutes ago, conVINCEd said:

And what would staying home do for his social media street cred?

Also how can you back the blue if you’re just sitting on your ass at home playing fornite?

And what if the dems are stealing an election? You’re saying I shouldn’t not attack the Capitol? I don’t think so.

[JimmyJames 12271]

Just now, fattyflattie said:

True. Makes you wonder what would happened if that piece of shit hadn’t fought the police, and went for a weapon. All kinds of lives and businesses would still be around.  But then, that first guy would still be raping children, which isn’t good.  Makes you think. 

Yep. Luckily when I heard all about that I fought the urge to visit Wisconsin and cracked open another beer. Worked out well for me anyway.

[JimmyJames 12271]

12 minutes ago, Bravo said:

The child rapist would be alive if he stayed home. 

Trump is still alive dude.

His buddy Epstein is the one whose dead.

[tx 3 putt 78665]

30 minutes ago, conVINCEd said:

And what would staying home do for his social media street cred?

 

lin wood would be 2mil poorer !

[Bookman 4758]

7 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Well, it would be reversible error to admit it.  So the judge didn’t.  This is 1L law type shit.  
 

It isn’t even relevant.  He said he wished he had his AR to stop looters.  He didn’t shoot anyone looting.  
 

He could have gone there really hoping someone could attack him so he could shoot them.  Those thoughts wouldn’t negate self defense.  

Excellent legal analysis. No wonder UT law took you for your third year.

Edited November 5, 2021 by Bookman

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 hour ago, Bravo said:

bUt tRuMp 

About as relative to the case as one of the dead being a pedo. 
 

bUt pEdO

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13624]

1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:

About as relative to the case as one of the dead being a pedo. 
 

bUt pEdO

Relevant in a murder case, irrelevant when choosing the leader of the free world.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 hour ago, Bookman said:

Excellent legal analysis. No wonder UT law took you for your third year.

Wrong.  

[TwiceHorn 32066]

9 hours ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

But that's the thing. He wasn't ignoring the public. In the Law and Crime piece I posted the judge stated he felt it important the public understand the rationale behind his rulings, but instead of making it understandable to the average Joe like me as it relates to justice and an even playing field, he just comes off as a petulant pisshead.

In criminal cases, the field is not level as between the government and the defendant.  The field is tilted against the government, on purpose, because of the power the government wields over the defendant.

Judges are more concerned with "fairness" toward the defendant than fairness to both sides.

This whole mess is just a traveshamockery.  You have the "right" trying to make this kid into a martyr and the "left" reacting accordingly, and no one is being rational about it.

The second and third shootings, I think, were pretty clear self-defense.  Someone swinging a skateboard at you or drawing a gun,while you're on the ground, pretty clearly invokes self-defense 99 times out of 100.  Those two actions by the victims supersede any bad intent Rittenhouse may have had.

The first shooting is a bit more suspect, but I think it's naive to believe that under current self-defense and open carry laws, he would be convicted.  Also, as repeatedly hashed out in this thread, the "prior bad acts" evidence was fairly unlikely to make it in.  There are ways in which it could have been admitted, but very well may have been reversible error.  A trial judge can barely go wrong keeping that out.

It's kind of interesting how, depending on the popularity of the defendant, the various pro-defendant procedures of our criminal courts are accepted as good, or decried as bad.

Edited November 5, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[High Plains Drifter 11186]

10 hours ago, Bravo said:

A lot of you are going to be very shocked and confused by the verdict. I think mainly just because I keep hearing opinions of how things should be vs what the law actually is. 

 

This is why we should have two threads:

one to discuss what the law actually is (DT)

one to discuss what the law should be (CR)

 

But surly gonna surly.

 

 

 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13624]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

The first shooting is a bit more suspect, but I think it's naive to believe that under current self-defense and open carry laws, he would be convicted.  Also, as repeatedly hashed out in this thread, the "prior bad acts" evidence was fairly unlikely to make it in.  There are ways in which it could have been admitted, but very well may have been reversible error.  A trial judge can barely go wrong keeping that out.

I appreciate the responses, but I don't see how this reconciles  possible "previous bad acts" (looting, arson...) being conditionally admissable when, afaik, the defense isn't even arguing the shootings occurred while KR was trying to stop alleged crimes, unless you're referring exclusively to "previous bad acts" on part of the defendant, in which case it becomes an is/should discussion.

[elfenix 34741]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

The second and third shootings, I think, were pretty clear self-defense.

those are the ones i have the biggest issue with because they came right after he killed someone.  you're usually allowed to use deadly force in defense of others under these laws.  does that suddenly go away when you're no longer defending but now stopping someone who just killed someone?

again, i go back to the good guy with gun 1 & 2 scenario i posted at the top of the previous page.  is that really where we're at?  because that's what's being declared good shoot. 

Edited November 5, 2021 by elfenix

[elfenix 34741]

6 minutes ago, Bravo said:

The problem with that line of thought is he was fleeing. 

i guess that has to be it.  once the killing is accomplished and the guy with the smoking gun is leaving the building all the good guys with guns have to put their weapons down. 

[TwiceHorn 32066]

21 minutes ago, elfenix said:

those are the ones i have the biggest issue with because they came right after he killed someone.  you're usually allowed to use deadly force in defense of others under these laws.  does that suddenly go away when you're no longer defending but now stopping someone who just killed someone?

again, i go back to the good guy with gun 1 & 2 scenario i posted at the top of the previous page.  is that really where we're at?  because that's what's being declared good shoot. 

Well, you're flipping the script.  Would the second two be entitled to self-defense if they had instead killed Rittenhouse?  And, even if so, what bearing does that have on Rittenhouse' defense?

But this brings up the whole problem with open carry and self-defense, where use of deadly force is just right there at the surface.  And even the application of initially non-deadly force to the gunbearer has potential to become deadly.

It's a mess.

But, yeah, I think the fleeing/retreating part puts Rittenhouse on the better side of that.  If he had been standing at or near the spot of the initial shooting in an aggressive posture, that might be a different deal.

Edited November 5, 2021 by TwiceHorn