Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

[BigPapaKain]

(10-27-2021, 07:15 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: In a different state, at a riot, with a gun you shouldn’t have, killing people.

In general. No. No way in hell a black person isn’t locked up in that scenario.

I think that’s called critical race theory or something.

I didn’t read it but I saw black dude at 1/6 Trump ball sucking fest got the longest sentence to date.

He's playing the race card now, too.

Aren't conservatives the people always saying race isn't an issue? Don't break the law and all that shit?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-27-2021, 07:15 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: In a different state,

Irrelevant.

Quote:at a riot,

Started by others that he was not participating in.

Quote:with a gun you shouldn’t have,

Has that been established?  Regardless, it's not relevant to the question of self defense.

Quote:killing people.

Alternatively, defending himself from being killed.  It's a little disconcerting that you appear to be completely discounting the possibility that an innocent person was attacked by a mob intent on doing him harm.  But, like I said, for many this has become a political issue seperate from actual facts.

Quote:In general. No. No way in hell a black person isn’t locked up in that scenario.

You'll get no argument from me that black people can get, and have gotten, a raw deal in parts of this country.  However, this has no relevance to this issue other than you speculating and making race an issue.  Maybe because you've got nothing else?  I don't know.

Quote:I think that’s called critical race theory or something.

No, it's not.

Quote:I didn’t read it but I saw black dude at 1/6 Trump ball sucking fest got the longest sentence to date.

Because he was black?  Was there potentially another reason or is that your default position because it's easy and supports your position on this case.  Lazy social analysis is truly a bane on our society.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-27-2021, 07:19 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: He's playing the race card now, too.

Aren't conservatives the people always saying race isn't an issue? Don't break the law and all that shit?

Dude, a vigorous defense will bring up any issue to raise a possible doubt in the mind of the jury.  Recall OJ's "Colombian drug dealers" explanation for Nicole and Ron Goldman's murder.  Put another way, you're on trial for the rest of your natural life and you're only eighteen.  You think you wouldn't want the kitchen sink thrown at the prosecution's case in order to secure your freedom?  

I am (dis)pleased to note how many of the responses to this thread are about political issues and not the actual facts of this case.  It's rather illustrative of how weak the prosecutions case actually is.

[CJD]

(10-27-2021, 02:01 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Someone made a good point somewhere else.

We can't keep calling the people he shot rioters or looters - they were never convicted of rioting or looting.

Yea, I think the judge actually sent out an addendum to that discussion on what to call the people who were killed.

He admitted his judgment was clouded when he said they should be called rioters or looters and he clarified that it would be more appropriate if everyone called them more neutral terms like commies, reds or "filthy bastards."

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-27-2021, 08:11 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Yea, I think the judge actually sent out an addendum to that discussion on what to call the people who were killed.

He admitted his judgment was clouded when he said they should be called rioters or looters and he clarified that it would be more appropriate if everyone called them more neutral terms like commies, reds or "filthy bastards."

[CJD]

(10-27-2021, 08:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:

Not fake news, just alternative facts 

[GMDino]

(10-27-2021, 02:01 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Someone made a good point somewhere else.

We can't keep calling the people he shot rioters or looters - they were never convicted of rioting or looting.

I heard someone on the radio after work today who basically said what I was thinking:  the prosecutors will probably just call the people who were shot by their names anyway.  Saying they are victims may work to a degree but they will try to put a name to the face and humanize them.

[GMDino]

Here's a bit of humor I saw just now on this topic.

Judge Mandates Prosecutors Only Refer To Kyle Rittenhouse As 'Hero' https://t.co/r8mdK6U0G9 pic.twitter.com/j2uIyWLFQG

— The Onion (@TheOnion) October 27, 2021

 

[NATI BENGALS]

(10-27-2021, 07:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Irrelevant.



Started by others that he was not participating in.



Has that been established?  Regardless, it's not relevant to the question of self defense.



Alternatively, defending himself from being killed.  It's a little disconcerting that you appear to be completely discounting the possibility that an innocent person was attacked by a mob intent on doing him harm.  But, like I said, for many this has become a political issue seperate from actual facts.



You'll get no argument from me that black people can get, and have gotten, a raw deal in parts of this country.  However, this has no relevance to this issue other than you speculating and making race an issue.  Maybe because you've got nothing else?  I don't know.



No, it's not.


Because he was black?  Was there potentially another reason or is that your default position because it's easy and supports your position on this case.  Lazy social analysis is truly a bane on our society.

A minor roaming the streets at night during a riot in a totally different state than the one he lives. Relevant.

Irrelevant who started it. He made the decision to join.

Has what been established? That a minor walking around the streets at night during a riot with a loaded gun is bad? IMO the answer is an easy yes.

Absolutely he defended himself in the ones I saw. But I'm not a pro. I don't think vigilantes are allowed to go around killing people. Comic books say the law went after the good guys like Batman for that type of thing.

This was a race riot. Race was an issue from the get go.

That was a joke.

No idea. I didn't read it. I'm sure it was a facebookian like algorithm headline to get me mad. Doesn't change a lifetime of observation that tells me a black guy in a giant crowd of white guys getting the book thrown at him is SOP. But yea, it was lazy social analysis.

[GMDino]

Here's a good thread on the "victims" and "rioter and looters" ruling.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1453065482655907854.html

Quote:This is a routine defense request that pros not be allowed to refer to victims as such bc it alleges a crime has been committed prior to the determination that a crime has been committed.
Unroll available on Thread Reader



It’s not as salacious or shocking as this article intends. The only shocking thing is it was granted on behalf of this defendant but never has been on behalf of my defendants… which I believe says something ? 


The article above is purposefully misleading as to the rioters, looters, arsonists bit. The judge will not allow the defense to describe the victims as rioters, looters, or arsonists during opening statements or throughout trial

but will permit them to use those terms in closing arguments if during trial they have evidence to support it. This is normal during closing arguments, it’s when both sides use evidence during trial to make final arguments to jury. Likewise, the pros can call him a murderer. 


Should the defense have evidence that is admissible of criminal acts on the victims part and admit it during trial, it is completely normal to be able to label the victims as such based on the evidence of their criminal acts. 
Label the victims as such in closing based on the evidence of their criminal acts admitted during trial ***

Wanted to be clear during closing arguments only 
Victim in this sense is a legal term with a legal proposition that a crime has been committed. It’s prejudicial. This is the ruling that should be made on behalf of all defendants just never is in cases of poor BIPOC Black clients… that’s the upsetting part here. 


Not that Rittenhouse is being afforded a trial with his rights protected, but that other defendants are denied fair and nonprejudicial trials every single day. 


I’m seeing some comments from defense attorneys that this motion is routinely requested and granted in SF and MA. Here, in Louisiana, it’s routinely requested before trial but never granted. All in all the take away is this is routine and should be granted. 


An article properly stating it’s common amongst the country to not allow victim to be used in trial, especially where self defense is at issue.

This article also correctly pointed out the bad acts character evidence is limited in scope to bad acts the evening of the shooting. So only evidence that crimes were committed by the deceased the evening of their death can be presented to a jury and argued in closing.
And as support for earlier tweets, the judge provided clarity that the article QT’ed here neglected to provide. Both sides can use harsh terms they supported at trial in closing. This is how it works, folks. The question on whether you want to as defense is more concerning.
Here the journalist points out that now allowing the prosecution to use “victim” throughout trial is standard practice in all his criminal trials. What we are witnessing is Rittenhouse just seems to be benefitting from a judge who isn’t heavily prosecution leaning…

Something we all wish for in every case. 


In the end, what I want is an absolutely above-board, fair, not prejudicial trial with a conviction where his rights were upheld. There’s no need nor should we want the pros to cheat here folks, he deserves his fair trial & jury of his peers to make the guilt determination 


Updating this for you all with attorneys saying it’s common and routine to grant motions to exclude pros from using “witness” so you all can get how inflammatory that article truly was and what is standard practice


In NYC routinely granted to give perspective

[url=https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FCqWejUXIAAcj-T.jpg][/url]

[BigPapaKain]

(10-27-2021, 07:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dude, a vigorous defense will bring up any issue to raise a possible doubt in the mind of the jury.  Recall OJ's "Colombian drug dealers" explanation for Nicole and Ron Goldman's murder.  Put another way, you're on trial for the rest of your natural life and you're only eighteen.  You think you wouldn't want the kitchen sink thrown at the prosecution's case in order to secure your freedom?  

I am (dis)pleased to note how many of the responses to this thread are about political issues and not the actual facts of this case.  It's rather illustrative of how weak the prosecutions case actually is.

I'm talking about the 1/6 rioter who got the longest sentence so far...

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-27-2021, 09:00 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: A minor roaming the streets at night during a riot in a totally different state than the one he lives. Relevant.

Not to the question of self defense, which is the crux of this case.

Quote:Irrelevant who started it. He made the decision to join.

Dude, seriously?  He didn't "join in" on the riot.  You're sounding a bit silly right now.

Quote:Has what been established? That a minor walking around the streets at night during a riot with a loaded gun is bad? IMO the answer is an easy yes.

What do you mean by "bad"?  A poor decision?  Sure.  A criminal act?  Absolutely not.  A reason to attack him?  Double plus absolutely not.

Quote:Absolutely he defended himself in the ones I saw. But I'm not a pro.

Well, forgive me, but I absolutely am and, based on what we have available, he absolutely was defending himself.

Quote:I don't think vigilantes are allowed to go around killing people. Comic books say the law went after the good guys like Batman for that type of thing.

Oh, I agree.  In this case Rittenhouse was not acting as a vigilante, he was defending himself from attack.  This is an enormous legal distinction.

Quote:This was a race riot. Race was an issue from the get go.

Sure, let's say it was.  It's still totally irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is was Rittenhouse legally defending himself.

Quote:That was a joke.

Hard to tell within the content of your post.

Quote:No idea. I didn't read it. I'm sure it was a facebookian like algorithm headline to get me mad. Doesn't change a lifetime of observation that tells me a black guy in a giant crowd of white guys getting the book thrown at him is SOP. But yea, it was lazy social analysis.

Indeed, it was.  I will tell you, wealth is a far better determinant for a more lenient outcome than race.  Of course, certain ethnicities have more wealth so it definitely dovetails into race.  I can say that I have not, personally, witnessed anyone getting railroaded because of their ethnicity, but I will acknowledge that I live in Southern California which is likely not indicative of the entire country.

(10-27-2021, 09:54 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: I'm talking about the 1/6 rioter who got the longest sentence so far...

My bad, I didn't catch that.

[*michaelsean*]

I would say if you haven’t yet proven it was a murder then maybe you can’t yet call them a victim? In most cases you know there was a murder and are trying to prove who did it Just throwing out a guess.

[GMDino]

(10-27-2021, 10:21 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I would say if you haven’t yet proven it was a murder then maybe you can’t yet call them a victim? In most cases you know there was a murder and are trying to prove who did it  Just throwing out a guess.

That's it.  And the thread I shared above said some states have that explicitly stated.

[NATI BENGALS]

(10-27-2021, 10:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not to the question of self defense, which is the crux of this case.



Dude, seriously?  He didn't "join in" on the riot.  You're sounding a bit silly right now.



What do you mean by "bad"?  A poor decision?  Sure.  A criminal act?  Absolutely not.  A reason to attack him?  Double plus absolutely not.



Well, forgive me, but I absolutely am and, based on what we have available, he absolutely was defending himself.



Oh, I agree.  In this case Rittenhouse was not acting as a vigilante, he was defending himself from attack.  This is an enormous legal distinction.



Sure, let's say it was.  It's still totally irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is was Rittenhouse legally defending himself.



Hard to tell within the content of your post.


Indeed, it was.  I will tell you, wealth is a far better determinant for a more lenient outcome than race.  Of course, certain ethnicities have more wealth so it definitely dovetails into race.  I can say that I have not, personally, witnessed anyone getting railroaded because of their ethnicity, but I will acknowledge that I live in Southern California which is likely not indicative of the entire country.

I thought he was on trial because he was an armed minor from out of state in the middle of a riot who killed people.

As far as I know he was not forced to go there. But I'm not a doctor.

It's legal for unaccompanied minors to walk around the streets in the middle of the night during riots with loaded semi auto rifles?

Yea I agree. Self defense. Just like I would be if I went out to a raucous crowd of strangers with some combat gear on and a loaded M16 and started engaging them with no authority.

He was acting as a vigilante or he wouldn't have been there. This is a common sense distinction.

It is relevant to the topic at hand. Equal justice.

.

Agreed.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-27-2021, 11:01 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I thought he was on trial because he was an armed minor from out of state in the middle of a riot who killed people.

As far as I know he was not forced to go there. But I'm not a doctor.

It's legal for unaccompanied minors to walk around the streets in the middle of the night during riots with loaded semi auto rifles?

Yea I agree. Self defense. Just like I would be if I went out to a raucous crowd of strangers with some combat gear on and a loaded M16 and started engaging them with no authority.

He was acting as a vigilante or he wouldn't have been there. This is a common sense distinction.

It is relevant to the topic at hand. Equal justice.

.

Agreed.

I've addressed every point you continue to make and pointed out, cogently, why they are not germane to the criminal case.  If you choose to dismiss them, that's fine.  I'm just not going to continue reiterating why your position is not consistent with the actual case.  If you'd care to actually refute any point I made I'd be happy to continue discussing the matter.  Until then I think we can amicably call it a day.

[BigPapaKain]

(10-27-2021, 09:01 PM)GMDino Wrote: Here's a good thread on the "victims" and "rioter and looters" ruling.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1453065482655907854.html


[url=https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FCqWejUXIAAcj-T.jpg][/url]

Yeah, that makes sense. A crime requires a conviction so technically they wouldn't be victims of a crime until after conviction due to the whole 'innocent until proven guilty'. 

Damn media and their damn click bait articles and emotional ploys.

[GMDino]

(10-28-2021, 07:42 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Yeah, that makes sense. A crime requires a conviction so technically they wouldn't be victims of a crime until after conviction due to the whole 'innocent until proven guilty'. 

Damn media and their damn click bait articles and emotional ploys.

Yeah, most of the time we get mad about things we don't think are "right" even when they are being done "right".

Like hating the fumble through the end zone rule is a turnover, or the old tuck rule.  Stupid rules...but applied correctly.

[jj22]

Honestly, I've never known a "victim" could only be deemed a victim once someone was prosecuted (and found guilty). I've always thought if something happened to you you were a victim. All the unsolved murders/rapes etc and none of those killed/raped could be called victims because no one was charged and convicted? That is just crazy to me.

[masonbengals fan]

Often times people are victims of their own actions.