Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

[Bengalzona]

Wow! Been awhile since my shadow has haunted the hallowed halls of P&R! Frankly, I haven't had much to say about politics since Trump left, allowing me to retreat to my Fortress of Moderate Solitude...LOL!

A friend and I had discussed this trial weeks ago. She is a retired public defender, very level-headed, and also firmly entrenched in the Left camp. Our conclusion at that time was that this would go exactly the way it went. The difference between the state laws and the charges they were trying to prosecute just left too much open. Too much reasonable doubt.

The fact that the judge made an initial ruling that skewed towards the defense was not a game changer (and, personally, I mostly agree with his ruling). This is how court cases are: your side scores a point here, their side scores a point there, etc. It is sort of like football that way. Saying that your side lost a case solely because of one ruling is akin to saying your team lost the game solely due to one bad play. Your team never loses a game due solely to one bad play. Any NFL coach will tell you that.

The judge was correct in throwing out the misdemeanor weapons charge. The gun he used did not fit the description in the state statute. The barrel was a different size than the law precludes. Period. I feel this was just thrown in as additional by the prosecution, hoping but not expecting it would slip through. They should have known better, and they probably did.

Now, the prosecution had some statutory challenges in bringing their case. For one thing, Wisconsin doesn't have manslaughter felonies like many other jurisdictions (charges that IMO might have been more appropriate). Homicide is far more difficult to prove. Also, Wisconsin law doesn't require premeditation. Another statutory issue comes from Wisconsin's definition of self-defense. It is one of the few places that permits the original aggressor to plead self-defense as an affirmative defense. There is a reason why most states don't have this: because they have more experience in these situations and know better.

The prosecution failed in a couple of critical areas. They were apparently unsuccessful in personalizing the individuals Rittenhouse shot to the jury, permitted the defense to infantilize Rittenhouse on the stand without a good counter, and probably were weaker than the defense in educating the jurors in the laws and how they fit the facts of the case.

Like it or not, that is how are legal system works. It was a fair trial and represented the laws of the jurisdiction.

[Belsnickel]

(11-19-2021, 09:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The really bad part was people like Jackson-Lee and Pressley repeating known falsehoods that evidence has clearly shown to be false, like "crossing state lines with a rifle".  Rittenhouse was defamed by many people of prominence both in politics and the media, and every single one of them should be sued for as much money as they can get.  People, especially prominent people, need to learn that you can't hurl baseless accusations about people simply because you don't like them and expect to face no consequences.  You think the Sandman incident would have taught them something, but the far left is really feeling themselves right now and that's when people tend to go too far.

Usually when people say "the far left" I am one to jump in and counter that it is the centrist style ones being the asshats. This trial was very interesting for me, though. It should shock no one that I frequent several boards and subreddits devoted to left-leaning people who like to shoot things. We have to create out own places because of the hostility we face in the general firearms community. Anyway, I post in some where they wear the liberal label proudly (i.e. the more mainstream, centrist to center-left types) and I post in some places for, lets say, more radical lefties (lots of discussion of Marxism, revolution, and what not).

Now, usually, the liberal places are a lot less hardcore on the 2A rights than the lefty ones. Leftists have a tendency to go full on "repeal the NFA." Liberals, not so much. What I saw during this trial, though, was so many leftists throwing away their position on individual freedom to want Rittenhouse locked up. That was the prevailing position in these places. I don't know whether it was the majority opinion, others could have just been keeping quiet to not cause a ruckus, but that was what was at the forefront. Not the case for the liberals, where the overwhelming position from the start was that he should walk. It really highlighted to me why I don't tend to join these groups. So many of these leftists, who I agree with on many ideological things, were getting too tribal with their position on Rittenhouse.

Anyway, it was just a weird phenomenon I wanted to bring up.

[GMDino]

(11-19-2021, 04:13 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'm gonna assume you will say the same thing in the Abery trial as the defense keeps trying to get the victim's past brought in?


Beyond that this "young man" put himself in that situation without the help of the media or Biden.  He's gonna be just fine.  In fact he'll probably be on the conservative talk show circuit and promoting his story any minute now.

And I say that fully predicated by the fact that he acted in self-defense as the law allows no matter what other circumstances lead to the confrontations.

jesus christ pic.twitter.com/aBSacumE5n

— Andrew Lawrence (@ndrew_lawrence) November 20, 2021

 

[Sled21]

(11-19-2021, 09:41 PM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: Don’t know why it took 3 days to end in a not guilty verdict.

The Jury was getting really good food and decided to ride it out until Friday.

[Sled21]

(11-19-2021, 09:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: My final word on the trial itself.  I am pleased to see that facts won out over feelings, or as Bel put it, "the gut feeling".  There was never enough evidence, or rather there was a lot of evidence against, charging him as he was in the first place.  So kudos to the jury for making the correct decision.

I will close by pointing out that Rittenhouse's emotional reaction to the verdict looked identical to his emotional reaction on the stand.  So either he was faking it both times or people who accused him of faking before should really be ashamed of themselves.

This. His attorney stated he is suffering from PTSD, and both his behavior on the stand and during the verdict reading were both classic panic attacks.

[Sled21]

(11-20-2021, 12:25 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Wow! Been awhile since my shadow has haunted the hallowed halls of P&R! Frankly, I haven't had much to say about politics since Trump left, allowing me to retreat to my Fortress of Moderate Solitude...LOL!

A friend and I had discussed this trial weeks ago. She is a retired public defender, very level-headed, and also firmly entrenched in the Left camp. Our conclusion at that time was that this would go exactly the way it went. The difference between the state laws and the charges they were trying to prosecute just left too much open. Too much reasonable doubt.

The fact that the judge made an initial ruling that skewed towards the defense was not a game changer (and, personally, I mostly agree with his ruling). This is how court cases are: your side scores a point here, their side scores a point there, etc. It is sort of like football that way. Saying that your side lost a case solely because of one ruling is akin to saying your team lost the game solely due to one bad play. Your team never loses a game due solely to one bad play. Any NFL coach will tell you that.

The judge was correct in throwing out the misdemeanor weapons charge. The gun he used did not fit the description in the state statute. The barrel was a different size than the law precludes. Period. I feel this was just thrown in as additional by the prosecution, hoping but not expecting it would slip through. They should have known better, and they probably did.

Now, the prosecution had some statutory challenges in bringing their case. For one thing, Wisconsin doesn't have manslaughter felonies like many other jurisdictions (charges that IMO might have been more appropriate). Homicide is far more difficult to prove. Also, Wisconsin law doesn't require premeditation. Another statutory issue comes from Wisconsin's definition of self-defense. It is one of the few places that permits the original aggressor to plead self-defense as an affirmative defense. There is a reason why most states don't have this: because they have more experience in these situations and know better.

The prosecution failed in a couple of critical areas. They were apparently unsuccessful in personalizing the individuals Rittenhouse shot to the jury, permitted the defense to infantilize Rittenhouse on the stand without a good counter, and probably were weaker than the defense in educating the jurors in the laws and how they fit the facts of the case.

Like it or not, that is how are legal system works. It was a fair trial and represented the laws of the jurisdiction.

Well, first off, if the jury found he was not guilty of 1st murder due to self defense, then that same thing applies to all the lessor included charges like manslaughter, etc. If he was defending himself, he was defending himself, period. 

Secondly, the prosecution really couldn't personalize the deceased, now could they. They included a mentally unstable man off his medicine,  who was convicted of raping 5 boys, ages 9-11, a man convicted of domestic violence towards women and of choking out his grandfather, and a convicted burglar. The prosecution couldn't try to personalize them because that would open the door for the defense to expose them for the POS's they were. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-20-2021, 08:05 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Usually when people say "the far left" I am one to jump in and counter that it is the centrist style ones being the asshats. This trial was very interesting for me, though. It should shock no one that I frequent several boards and subreddits devoted to left-leaning people who like to shoot things. We have to create out own places because of the hostility we face in the general firearms community. Anyway, I post in some where they wear the liberal label proudly (i.e. the more mainstream, centrist to center-left types) and I post in some places for, lets say, more radical lefties (lots of discussion of Marxism, revolution, and what not).

Now, usually, the liberal places are a lot less hardcore on the 2A rights than the lefty ones. Leftists have a tendency to go full on "repeal the NFA." Liberals, not so much. What I saw during this trial, though, was so many leftists throwing away their position on individual freedom to want Rittenhouse locked up. That was the prevailing position in these places. I don't know whether it was the majority opinion, others could have just been keeping quiet to not cause a ruckus, but that was what was at the forefront. Not the case for the liberals, where the overwhelming position from the start was that he should walk. It really highlighted to me why I don't tend to join these groups. So many of these leftists, who I agree with on many ideological things, were getting too tribal with their position on Rittenhouse.

Anyway, it was just a weird phenomenon I wanted to bring up.

Yeah, I'd generally agree with you, but as you say it rather fits in this instance.  Tribalism is a natural instinct, but you really have to watch yourself to ensure it doesn't overwhelm your critical faculties.  Some tried to turn this thread into a debate on self defense laws in general, and did so poorly I might add.  It's certainly a topic worthy of discussion but for a trial happening in the here and now the focus should be the law as it exists, not as you personally would like it to be.  But many people, of all stripes, will refuse to give any consideration to any view that challenges their preconceptions, in this case that Rittenhouse was a white supremacist agitator who provoked an encounter so he could kill people.  The problem was there's not a shred of actual evidence that supports either position.  Not only that, the actual hard evidence did noting but favor Rittenhouse.  I can't think of a single thing that came up during the prosecutions case that I thought was damaging for Kyle and many, if not most, of their witnesses turned out to help the defense, in some cases tremendously so.  But that will happen when the actual evidence favors one side so heavily.


As an aside, I once posted in the liberal gun owners subreddit.  I asked, respectfully, and stated as such, how they could reconcile voting for people who want to take away a right they so clearly find important.  I got negged into oblivion before being banned, not one honest attempt to square the circle.  This phenomena is by no means confined to that subreddit, or the left, but it's a good example of the tribalism mentioned above.

[CJD]

(11-19-2021, 03:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I was thinking the same to be honest. But to put you in the mind of someone making a decision like this, I'll describe what goes on when we deliberate in a Title IX case. I just had one on Wednesday and it came out, like most of them, where we found the responding party not responsible for violating policy. We still took several hours walking through the evidence and testimony before getting there, and it's because all of us felt that he was responsible (in fact, he admitted to sexual assault during the hearing but because of policies we couldn't find him responsible for that instance), but we wanted to go through the evidence to verify that we didn't have enough to say he was responsible.

When you have to think about finding someone guilty of something like this, you have to understand that you must rely on the evidence and the testimony. Your gut can't be the determining factor. I have let so many people go off scot-free while knowing in my gut that they were guilty, and it's because the evidence wasn't there. So during these three days, there were likely jurors thinking like that. It's why they asked for these videos. I deal with a preponderance level, but for them with the beyond a reasonable doubt hurdle they really had to work at it. I guarantee that there are jurors on that panel that do not feel good about their decision because their gut says Rittenhouse should be in prison, but the evidence just wasn't there, and they spent that time making sure it wasn't so they could feel better about their decision.

Yea, that makes sense. If I were on that jury I wouldn't feel good about voting not guilty either, even though I think it's the correct decision (according to our current laws). However, some members of the Proud Boys are, apparently, already talking about killing more protesters  ("The left wont stop until their bodies get stacked up like cord[s of] wood") under the precedent this ruling has effectively set.

We really should change SOME law because of this trial...Maybe not ban open carry outright, but a consideration for banning open carry in highly political or emotional scenarios would be great...

Like, open carrying a handgun on your hip isn't ideal, but it's not openly threatening anyone around you. I think an AR15 strapped to your chest should be treated differently than a handgun on your hip.

[jj22]

He had no signs of PTSD or remore ouside of his performance on the stand.

All other shots had him smiling and acting smug. Also when he was making his rounds celebrating with those appluading the killings right after it happened and while out to dinner with the police the night of, he showed no kinds of remorse or agony from the actions. He wasn't traumatized or sickened by what he felt "forced" to do. You can't knock those who pick up on these small details. People fall for it becuase of politics, but take politics out and all signs point to the stand testimony as a performance.

That's why folks rolled thier eyes at his fake performance. That switch was turned on for that moment and that moment only. We never saw it and will never see it again.

[jj22]

(11-19-2021, 09:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I say this as someone with no problem with you, and I generally think you're a good dude.  But these two posts should really tell you something if you took a moment and examined them.  You were very quick to label this a "right wing conspiracy" and then it turned out to be 100% factual.  I don't think you realize how much you emulate the very behavior and attitudes that you lambast in others.  Take some time, let the facts come in before you make a knee jerk decision.


This is silly.  I already explained why the OK hand symbol is not a white supremacist symbol.  You are correct though, the jury was only able to see evidence actually related to the offense in question.  That pesky criminal justice system and its rules to protect defendants.

It was the White supremacist goups themselves who adopted and stated the "OK" sign was their sign. Sure it wasn't in the past as we all know, but this was their new thing. One that they are proud of and openly embraced . Not sure why others who refuse to acknoledge. Maybe because they are told white supremacist don't exists and believe that even tho they are open and public.

We have to get past the point where people tell us exactly who they are/ what they are doing and; we because of politcs, make excuses for them and write it off as "oh they don't really mean it", "it's just the OK symbol" "it's to troll the libs".... Truth is this is just cognitive dissonance becaue of the support for these poor character people, and people want to support them while distancing themselves from the ugly side of them.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-20-2021, 02:48 PM)jj22 Wrote: He had no signs of PTSD or remore ouside of his performance on the stand.

Yeah, because you've been around him enough to know that. 

Quote:All other shots had him smiling and acting smug. Also when he was making his rounds celebrating with those appluading the killings right after it happened and while out to dinner with the police the night of, he showed no kinds of remorse or agony from the actions. He wasn't traumatized or sickened by what he felt "forced" to do. You can't knock those who pick up on these small details. People fall for it becuase of politics, but take politics out and all signs point to the stand testimony as a performance.

You telling someone to "take the politics out of it" in this thread is the height of absurdity.

Quote:That's why folks rolled thier eyes at his fake performance. That switch was turned on for that moment and that moment only. We never saw it and will never see it again.

I have to strongly think the following two things; you don't have any idea how PTSD or panic attacks work, and you don't have a very firm grasp of human behavior.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-20-2021, 02:56 PM)jj22 Wrote: It was the White supremacist goups themselves who adopted and stated the "OK" sign was their sign.

Incorrect, as already explained.  But it raises the question, is the above picture of St. Michael a white supremacy symbol now?  Using your logic the answer would have to be yes.  What if white supremacists started using the rainbow flag as a symbol of white supremacy, would that make anyone who flew the rainbow flag a white supremacist?

Quote:Sure it wasn't in the past as we all know, but this was their new thing. One that they are proud of and openly embraced . Not sure why others who refuse to acknoledge. Maybe because they are told white supremacist don't exists and believe that even tho they are open and public.

Or, a third option, they understand the absurdity of believing the OK hand sign is all of the sudden a white supremacy gesture, especially when it was started entirely as a troll on the left.  Which they took hook, line and sinker.

Quote:We have to get past the point where people tell us exactly who they are and we because of politcs make excuses for them and write it off as "oh they don't really mean it", "it's just the OK symbol".... 

Once again, the irony meter is pinned.

[jj22]

(11-20-2021, 02:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You telling someone to "take the politics out of it" in this thread is the height of absurdity.

Did you not see the pics and video's of his celebrations the night of and day following? I know the jury didn't but it was easily accessable for everyone else. 

I may not have anything in your book, but when people tell me exatly who they are, I accept it. I'm not going to waste my time covering for them and cleaning their actions up to make me feel better for them being someone I support.

[jj22]

Socio, say what you want exusing and turning a blind eye to his post killing celebrations, court room demeaner, but you can't find anything else other than his stand performane that shows any remorse.

If you do, please share.

We'd love to see it and it would help the perception that the only time we saw any "remorse" was on the stand where they are preped and practive for weeks before hand.

[Bengalzona]

(11-20-2021, 10:46 AM)Sled21 Wrote: Well, first off, if the jury found he was not guilty of 1st murder due to self defense, then that same thing applies to all the lessor included charges like manslaughter, etc. If he was defending himself, he was defending himself, period.

In most places, the original aggressor would not be able to plead self defense. And self defense is not a panacea against all charges. For example, the First-Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety charge for shooting towards Richie McGinniss, a reporter who was not involved in the melee. Or the First-Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety, Use of a Dangerous Weapon charge for firing two rounds at a bystander to the melee after he had turned and ran away. Self defense was not in play in either situation and each had to be addressed separately.

Quote:Secondly, the prosecution really couldn't personalize the deceased, now could they. They included a mentally unstable man off his medicine,  who was convicted of raping 5 boys, ages 9-11, a man convicted of domestic violence towards women and of choking out his grandfather, and a convicted burglar. The prosecution couldn't try to personalize them because that would open the door for the defense to expose them for the POS's they were.

Actually, I believe the defense spoke about the characters of the individuals shot and, interestingly enough, didn't not include any of those tidbits. Rather, I think to chose to stick with just the facts they could prove.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-20-2021, 03:03 PM)jj22 Wrote: Socio, say what you want exusing and turning a blind eye to his post killing celebrations, court room demeaner, but you can't find anything else other than his stand performane that shows any remorse.

If you do, please share.

We'd love to see it and it would help the perception that the only time we saw any "remorse" was on the stand where they are preped and practive for weeks before hand.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  You're doing exactly what you accuse others of, which is seeing what you want based on your own proclivities.  I get that you don't see it, much as you didn't see it when you instantly labeled the accusations against MSNBC a "right wing conspiracy" based on nothing.  Of course it was 100% true, but that didn't stop you from instantly forming an opinion based on your personal feelings.  This is more of the same.  If you don't see that then I don't know what else to tell you.

[jj22]

(11-20-2021, 03:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  You're doing exactly what you accuse others of, which is seeing what you want based on your own proclivities.  I get that you don't see it, much as you didn't see it when you instantly labeled the accusations against MSNBC a "right wing conspiracy" based on nothing.  Of course it was 100% true, but that didn't stop you from instantly forming an opinion based on your personal feelings.  This is more of the same.  If you don't see that then I don't know what else to tell you.

But I've shown evidence in the pictures and videos. That's not fair to claim I and you are equal in our defenses when you can't show anything and I guess that does mean "evidence of absence", but it's not fair to equate that argument to ignore those who actually provide evidence as their own "proclivities". 

As for the msnbc court issue. I also had no problem admitting it wasn't when a poster responded to it which is why my points have always been trusted. I am an independent and can change my mind and learn something/agree with either side. You should save that speech for those who are on either side and can't show that range for willingness to change their opinoins or thier beleifs. 

[NATI BENGALS]

(11-20-2021, 12:25 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Like it or not, that is how are legal system works. It was a fair trial and represented the laws of the jurisdiction.

When it all boils down what pisses me off the most about the situation is people died because a 17  year old kid decided to roam the streets during a riot with a rifle. And according to the laws no one is accountable.

Then there is stuff like this.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-lakeith-smith-65-years/fact-check-lakeith-smith-was-sentenced-to-65-years-in-prison-for-murder-burglary-and-theft-after-his-friend-was-killed-by-police-officer-during-break-in-idUSKBN243246

Where a 15 year old gets 55 years in prison because cops shot and killed his friend. He was involved in a burglary with other people but himself was unarmed and fired no shots.

Seems a little uneven.

[Sled21]

(11-20-2021, 02:48 PM)jj22 Wrote: He had no signs of PTSD or remore ouside of his performance on the stand.

All other shots had him smiling and acting smug. Also when he was making his rounds celebrating with those appluading the killings right after it happened and while out to dinner with the police the night of, he showed no kinds of remorse or agony from the actions. He wasn't traumatized or sickened by what he felt "forced" to do. You can't knock those who pick up on these small details. People fall for it becuase of politics, but take politics out and all signs point to the stand testimony as a performance.

That's why folks rolled thier eyes at his fake performance. That switch was turned on for that moment and that moment only. We never saw it and will never see it again.

That was on the liberal networks. All the pics on Fox showed him looking very remorseful. Again, it's about being able to discern when someone is playing you.

[Sled21]

(11-20-2021, 03:13 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: In most places, the original aggressor would not be able to plead self defense. And self defense is not a panacea against all charges. For example, the First-Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety charge for shooting towards Richie McGinniss, a reporter who was not involved in the melee. Or the First-Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety, Use of a Dangerous Weapon charge for firing two rounds at a bystander to the melee after he had turned and ran away. Self defense was not in play in either situation and each had to be addressed separately.



Actually, I believe the defense spoke about the characters of the individuals shot and, interestingly enough, didn't not include any of those tidbits. Rather, I think to chose to stick with just the facts they could prove.

Rittenhouse was not the original aggressor. All he did was put out a dumpster fire they were trying to push into a gas station lot, and the crown turned on him.  The defense is not allowed to introduce the criminal histories of those that attacked Kyle.