Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Kyle Rittenhouse trial..........


Recommended Posts

"...........The jury will decide whether Rittenhouse acted in self-defense, as claimed by his lawyers, or acted as a vigilante when he opened fire last year and killed two protesters and wounded another in Kenosha, Wis.

Already, the case has gotten much attention as the judge, a 40-year veteran of the bench, has made controversial decisions favoring the defense.......

Most recently, he upheld a long-standing rule in his courtroom that the men whom Rittenhouse shot can't be called "victims" during the hearing. He did say the defense can refer to them as "rioters, looters and arsonists." .........

Rittenhouse faces multiple felony charges of homicide and recklessly endangering the safety of others, along with one misdemeanor count of possession of a dangerous weapon by a minor. ...........

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/01/1050413087/jury-selection-trial-kyle-rittenhouse?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=npr&utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews

:unsure:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the deceased shouldn't be call victims since the purpose of the trial is to determine if shooting them was justified or not (i.e. if they are really victims or not).

I saw a video of the last two shooting and they look like they were done in self-defense.   Of course this puck placed himself in a situation that caused him to have to defend himself so this will be a difficult trial; for those shooting and  deaths,   likely a conviction on reckless endangerment.      

Haven't reviewed the evidence of the first shooting.  Is there a video of that?     Unless there is one I don't see how the state can get a conviction there.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, JamesJazGuitar said:

I agree that the deceased shouldn't be call victims since the purpose of the trial is to determine if shooting them was justified or not (i.e. if they are really victims or not).

So referring to them as "victims" is prejudicial, but referring to them as "looters, rioters and/or arsonists" isn't?

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

So referring to them as "victims" is prejudicial, but referring to them as "looters, rioters and/or arsonists" isn't?

They should NOT be called looters,  rioters or arsonist either.     They should be called something as generic as possible;    E.g. Deceased #1,  

Just read the L.A. Times article on this;   according to this there isn't a video of the first shooting that lead to Deceased #1.      I'll have to check with my brother-in-law,  retired former DA,   who has the burden of proof;   E.g. does the defense have the burden of proof the shooting was in self-defense or does the prosecution have the burden of proof it was murder?     I assume the latter and thus without any video I don't see how they get a conviction.      The Travon Martin shooting showed how hard it is to get a conviction against a claim of self-defense.

The last two that were shot:  one clearly is trying to harm the defendant with a skateboard and the other guy came at him with a gun.  

Looks to me like the prosecution is overcharging.    That could be a big  mistake.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, JamesJazGuitar said:

according to this there isn't a video of the first shooting that lead to Deceased #1. 

What about eye witnesses, they still count don't they? He's gotta be connected to  Deceased #1 some way

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, JamesJazGuitar said:

They should NOT be called looters,  rioters or arsonist either.     They should be called something as generic as possible;    E.g. Deceased #1,  

Just read the L.A. Times article on this;   according to this there isn't a video of the first shooting that lead to Deceased #1.      I'll have to check with my brother-in-law,  retired former DA,   who has the burden of proof;   E.g. does the defense have the burden of proof the shooting was in self-defense or does the prosecution have the burden of proof it was murder?     I assume the latter and thus without any video I don't see how they get a conviction.      The Travon Martin shooting showed how hard it is to get a conviction against a claim of self-defense.

The last two that were shot:  one clearly is trying to harm the defendant with a skateboard and the other guy came at him with a gun.  

Looks to me like the prosecution is overcharging.    That could be a big  mistake.

Yeah, I agree that the defense will probably win in this case, unfortunately. However, the second two people were reportedly approaching the shooter due to him having shot the first guy. So were skateboard guy and "other guy with a gun" acting in self-defense/defense of others?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

Yeah, I agree that the defense will probably win in this case, unfortunately. However, the second two people were reportedly approaching the shooter due to him having shot the first guy. So were skateboard guy and "other guy with a gun" acting in self-defense/defense of others?

I don't think the prosecution can use self-defense of others as lack of justification for Rittenhouse's self defense.    (but I have seen this used in a civil trail which will happen here regardless of how these criminal proceeding so).

To me the video shows Rittenhouse sitting on the ground waving his riffle in a circle yelling for people to stay away from him.    That guy with the skateboard gets closer and closer and then tosses the skateboard at Rittenhouse and continues to approach.    Rittenhouse shoots him in the gut.    Since the man is dead we will never know what he was thinking,  but what did he expect Rittenhouse to do?    Just allow him and then other to get a hold of him?    Rittenhouse is one sick puppy but in that specific situation,  at that moment,  he had a right to defend himself from what would have surly been harm if not death.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, cigarjoe said:

What about eye witnesses, they still count don't they? He's gotta be connected to  Deceased #1 some way

The best connection is the bullets from Rittenhouse's riffle that were found in Deceased #1's body.    

As for eye witnesses:   will all jury members believe them if they are all from-the-other-side?       As seen in the Michael Brown case community members with an agenda will lie.   

It is best to have independent eye witnesses and that night there were few of these type of folks around.     Hopefully there were some journalist that can offer independent eye witness testimony of that first shooting.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JamesJazGuitar said:

I agree that the deceased shouldn't be call victims since the purpose of the trial is to determine if shooting them was justified or not (i.e. if they are really victims or not).

I saw a video of the last two shooting and they look like they were done in self-defense.   Of course this puck placed himself in a situation that caused him to have to defend himself so this will be a difficult trial; for those shooting and  deaths,   likely a conviction on reckless endangerment.      

Haven't reviewed the evidence of the first shooting.  Is there a video of that?     Unless there is one I don't see how the state can get a conviction there.

 

 

1 hour ago, LawrenceA said:

So referring to them as "victims" is prejudicial, but referring to them as "looters, rioters and/or arsonists" isn't?

Judge is obviously biased or he would have offered other terms, such as deceased as you suggested.

43 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

Yeah, I agree that the defense will probably win in this case, unfortunately. However, the second two people were reportedly approaching the shooter due to him having shot the first guy. So were skateboard guy and "other guy with a gun" acting in self-defense/defense of others?

Since Kyle shot first and was carrying a rifle, that seems like a good case for his not being in self-defense mode.  He intentionally came from another state with a rifle and apparently the intention of shooting someone.

28 minutes ago, JamesJazGuitar said:

I don't think the prosecution can use self-defense of others as lack of justification for Rittenhouse's self defense.    (but I have seen this used in a civil trail which will happen here regardless of how these criminal proceeding so).

To me the video shows Rittenhouse sitting on the ground waving his riffle in a circle yelling for people to stay away from him.    That guy with the skateboard gets closer and closer and then tosses the skateboard at Rittenhouse and continues to approach.    Rittenhouse shoots him in the gut.    Since the man is dead we will never know what he was thinking,  but what did he expect Rittenhouse to do?    Just allow him and then other to get a hold of him?    Rittenhouse is one sick puppy but in that specific situation,  at that moment,  he had a right to defend himself from what would have surly been harm if not death.

 

Why not?  I am under the impression that you can shoot someone in defense of yourself or others if attacked or threatened with attack.

Will be up to the evidence, which the judge will probably not allow, for prosecution to show that Rittenhouse initiated the situation and by continuing to stay there and wave his rifle around caused the situation to escalate.  Note that two people are dead and one wounded and Rittenhouse did not suffer anything.

I have noticed locally that white supremacists and racist people are posting signs to "Free Kyle."

It is going to be a mess, but he definitely needs to be punished, both civilly and criminally.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ElCid said:

Will be up to the evidence, which the judge will probably not allow, for prosecution to show that Rittenhouse initiated the situation and by continuing to stay there and wave his rifle around caused the situation to escalate.  Note that two people are dead and one wounded and Rittenhouse did not suffer anything.

For the second two the evidence supports reckless endangerment but not murder.     To me the video makes it clear that Rittenhouse was in danger from those two, especially the guy with a gun.     Have you seen the video?     

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, JamesJazGuitar said:

For the second two the evidence supports reckless endangerment but not murder.     To me the video makes it clear that Rittenhouse was in danger from those two, especially the guy with a gun.     Have you seen the video?     

Not in a while.  But still the question to be determined is, who threatened who first?   Sure the rioters and looters were breaking the law, but were they a threat to Rittenhouse before he became a threat to them or to others?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ElCid said:

Not in a while.  But still the question to be determined is, who threatened who first?   Sure the rioters and looters were breaking the law, but were they a threat to Rittenhouse before he became a threat to them or to others?

Well the second dead guy can't explain his POV (e.g. that he felt threatened by Rittenhouse) and therefore it will be next to impossible to get a confliction for murder.

The alive guy who was shot can claim he felt threatened and that is why he was approaching Rittenhouse with the goal of disarming or detaining him,  but that sounds like total BS to me and I assume most jurors as well.       This comes up on Judge Judy from time to time:     Defendant - I felt threatened;       Judge Judy "so you decided the best way to feel less threatened was to rush the guy and attack him,,,   yea,  right!".

For those last two that were shot,   all Rittenhouse has to prove is at the time the video was taken (when he was on the ground with people circling him),  he felt threatened,  warned people to back away,  and they didn't,   so he fired in self defense.      To me that is a slam dunk based on the audio and visual from the video.    This is why I said I believe the state is overcharging and sited the Trey Martin \ Zimmerman case;    There was only audio,  but Zimmerman was able to convince all jurors that he acted in self-defense.

Thus for me that only possible manslaughter case the state has is on the first shooting that lead to death and where there is no video.   Here the state has a case due to all the actions by Rittenhouse that took place before the actual shooting;  E.g.  crossing state lines with a gun with the intent to cause bodily harm,  etc...

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cases Over Far-Right Violence Show Limits — and Opportunities — for Anti-Fascism in the Courts

The Kyle Rittenhouse murder trial and the civil suit against organizers of the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville hold lessons about fighting fascism with the law.

".......

We find ourselves in an unusual moment in U.S. legal history, as a number of high-profile state and federal trials are currently taking aim at white supremacist defendants. Alongside the ongoing cases against participants in the January 6 riots, a civil trial began this week against organizers of the deadly 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. In Wisconsin, meanwhile, pretrial hearings have begun in the case against Kyle Rittenhouse — the armed, pro-Trump fanatic who traveled across state lines during last year’s Black liberation uprisings and shot dead two anti-racist protesters.

The January 6 defendants are, despite their protestations to the contrary, receiving considerably more lenient sentences than activists on the left facing comparable charges from protest-related arrests. ................

Hundreds upon hundreds of Black Lives Matter protest arrest cases, which should have been prosecuted on a state level, were deviously transmuted into federal courts. On the other hand, Rittenhouse — who actually crossed state lines — is facing murder charges on the state level alone. .............

https://theintercept.com/2021/10/30/kyle-rittenhouse-charlottesville-far-right-violence-courts/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=theintercept

:unsure:

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, mr6666 said:

(the juror from the trial that now has a 19-person jury panel (and only one individual of color).

:unsure:

Why does the racial make-up of the jury panel matter in this case?     All 4 individuals involved in the case are white.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A timeline of how the Kyle Rittenhouse case played out over the last year following the shootings in KenoshaAug. 23, 2020:

A Kenosha police officer shoots Jacob Blake seven times, caught on video

Responding to a call about a domestic incident at a child's birthday part, Kenosha police officer Rusten Sheskey shoots Jacob Blake, a Black man, seven times from behind as he's getting into an SUV.

A neighbor's cellphone video of the Sunday afternoon incident quickly goes viral, prompting massive protests in Kenosha that turned violent, leading to major property damage downtown. ..........

 

Aug. 25: 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse comes to Kenosha to monitor protests; shoots three people and kills two

Violent protests followed the Blake shooting, with dozens buildings destroyed and severely damaged. Though the protest was centered outside the courthouse, arson and looting spread to the Uptown area as well. ........

Rittenhouse, of Illinois, and his friend Dominick Black, of Kenosha, had been helping clean up around Civic Square Park on Tuesday.  They return downtown that evening with rifles,........

see all:   https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2021/10/28/timeline-kyle-rittenhouse-case-in-kenosha-wisconsin-after-protests-jacob-blake-police-shooting/8437851002/

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep reading that the Deceased #1 had a plastic bag with him when he was shot:   Don't the authorities know what was in this bag?    E.g.  a flammable liquid?     If they did,  wouldn't that info be release to the public?     

Isn't part of the self-defense claim,  that deceased #1 was trying to start cars on fire?     I'm also interested in if there was an flammable liquid residue found on deceased #1's hand,  clothing,  etc....  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm certain my opinion won't be popular here, but I do believe Rittenhouse will be acquitted. The first guy he shot was taunting Rittenhouse and others a few minutes for before he was killed. The polite version is "Shoot me!" but that's not all he said. The guy was very aggressive and he paid the price. The two guys who were attacking Rittenhouse when he was on the ground-  one armed with a skateboard, the other armed with a pistol- they were fools to behave that way in the face of someone armed with a rifle.

The pistol, that's a no-brainer as far as self defense goes, and if you don't think you can crack someone's skull with a skateboard (especially someone who is sitting or laying on the ground, when you are standing up), you're dreaming.

Self-defense

Rosenbaum was the first guy killed. Take a look at this. Language warning:

https://gab.com/WallofPeople/posts/107220814328243150

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, unwatchable said:

I'm certain my opinion won't be popular here, but I do believe Rittenhouse will be acquitted. The first guy he shot was taunting Rittenhouse and others a few minutes for before he was killed. The polite version is "Shoot me!" but that's not all he said. The guy was very aggressive and he paid the price. The two guys who were attacking Rittenhouse when he was on the ground-  one armed with a skateboard, the other armed with a pistol- they were fools to behave that way in the face of someone armed with a rifle.

The pistol, that's a no-brainer as far as self defense goes, and if you don't think you can crack someone's skull with a skateboard (especially someone who is sitting or laying on the ground, when you are standing up), you're dreaming.

Self-defense

Rosenbaum was the first guy killed. Take a look at this. Language warning:

https://gab.com/WallofPeople/posts/107220814328243150

 

I viewed your link and that may be the other guy's story, but is there any confirmation of it?  Has Rittenhouse or his attorneys stated that Rittenhouse  heard it?  What about the other two people that Rittenhouse shot?

 See photo of Kyle and his associate below.  When civilians go into a situation armed as they were, it is not a good thing.  There is a difference between defending yourself or your property and inserting yourself into a volatile situation as a civilian.  Especially one who does not even live in the same state.  They are there to shoot someone - period.  That is why they are carrying semi-automatic military style weapons in a shoot to kill fashion.

I agree though that based on what has happened so far, he will probably be acquitted, especially with this judge.  However, he could be still be convicted of attempted murder in the case of the wounded guy or some variety of manslaughter.

Rosenbaum threw a bag at Rittenhouse and missed.  They then moved across the parking lot and Rittenhouse shot unarmed Rosenbaum.   Unarmed Huber tried to detain Rittenhouse or defend others from him and held onto his skate board while doing it.  Rittenhouse shot him.

Groskreutz was the one armed with a pistol.  He had his hands in the air, but one was holding the pistol as he moved toward Rittenhouse.  Rittenhouse shot him.   As for Groskreutz with the pistol, he was reacting to Rittenhouse killing someone.

Kenosha shooting suspect called a friend to say he 'killed somebody,' police say, and then shot two others

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/01/us/kyle-rittenhouse-shooting-victims-trial/index.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, ElCid said:

Rosenbaum threw a bag at Rittenhouse and missed.  They then moved across the parking lot and Rittenhouse shot unarmed Rosenbaum.   Unarmed Huber tried to detain Rittenhouse or defend others from him and held onto his skate board while doing it.  Rittenhouse shot him.

With regard to the bag:    It is my understanding people that night where throwing bags that were home-made-bombs (molotov cocktails).   If that is true,  it doesn't matter what Rosenbaum was actually throwing or what was in the bag.       The legal bar is if one has a reasonable-fear that they face bodily harm:     IMO it would be  reasonable for someone to fear bodily harm if someone throws a bag at them when others have been throwing bags that night that were home-made-bombs   (or even bags that contained rocks,  nails or other hard substances).

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, whatever was in that bag probably couldn't have harmed Rittenhouse as much as a bullet or bullets  from an assault rifle.   And I see a vast difference between "bodily harm" and "life threatening".    I don't suspect a bag full of nails or such  would hurt me much.  At least not as much as a bomb would except when thrown at me in a bag, which I might easily be able to dodge. And since in my past, at times I have been known to toss a few Molotov cocktails, I'd have to say that nobody ever throws them while they're inside any kind of bag.  :rolleyes:  Likely they might have been pipe bombs, but I never heard of those going off during all that ruckus.   Plus I don't think shouting threats at someone, especially when the person threatening isn't brandishing any dangerous weapon(and threatens to fulfill that threat at some other time, and "IF")  constitutes a reason for any "self defense".  

Sepiatone

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

From Wikipedia:  "The Daily Caller is a right-wing news and opinion website based in Washington, D.C. It was founded by now-Fox News host Tucker Carlson and political pundit Neil Patel in 2010. "  So, he is not a "very credible witness," but just someone who can testify.   He also appears to be offering opinion evidence rather than factual evidence.  

He does make a case that Rosenbaum appeared to be advancing on Rittenhouse, but then Rittenhouse was waving a gun around and perhaps Rosenbaum considered himself and others to be threatened and attempted to disarm a dangerous person.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...