Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-03-2021, 07:04 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Not Dill, but I'll take a shot in the dark here. 

As I'm told, words without means are not sufficient to start any sort of physical altercation. HOWEVER, one would think (and this is conjecture, not what I believe happened or anything; simply playing Devil's advocate) that words with means would be sufficient. I.e: an openly armed individual threatening my life would definitely warrant a response from me. May not hold up in a court of law without sufficient evidence (such as here, though they may have said evidence and it hasn't been made public), but I feel like it'd be justified.

I wish this was Reddit so I could give you an award.  You are absolutely correct, if Rittenhouse threatened Rosenbaum with harm while open carrying that could absolutely cause Rosenbaum to fear for his life and justify a physical response.  However, that all flies out the window when the person then runs away from you as fast as you can and you pursue them.  You're no longer defending yourself when you pursue a fleeing person, you've now become the aggressor, you're initiating whatever follows.  Even the poorly understood stand your ground laws do not allow for you to pursue a fleeing person and then physically attack them because you initially felt threatened by them.  Remember, no duty to retreat is vastly different than you can pursue a fleeing person and still claim to be the one threatened.  

BTW, law enforcement is an exception to this, they have a legal duty to arrest anyone committing a misdemeanor, and certainly a felony, in their presence.  So their pursuing a fleeing person under those circumstances is absolutely legal, and required.

[NATI BENGALS]

(11-03-2021, 07:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh, absolutely.  An even better time to ask them, as I previously stated, is before you even file charges.  It's very much worth remembering that charges should not be filed by the DA unless they believe they can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.  I've said this before but if you put this concept in percentage terms it would be around 90-95% likely the person committed the alleged offense.  A trial exists to provide evidence and argument to either support or deny this standard of proof.  If you already have reams of evidence that leans heavily toward self defense then filing charges would not be appropriate, unless your goal is something other than actually proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Can you honestly say, given the video evidence available about this case (and I've said this before, but it's very uncommon to have so many comprehensive pieces of video evidence in such a case) that you could state that Rittenhouse did not act in self defense with 90-95% certainty?  Again, I'm open to a different interpretation if previously unseen evidence is brought to life, but seeing as how discovery is a thing the prosecution would have already had to present that evidence in court.  I haven't heard of it, have you?  The prosecutor certainly didn't reference any such evidence in their opening statement.

Look, I get why the incident leaves a bad taste in people's mouths.  I get why we constantly hear legally irrelevant things like "he shouldn't have been there".  But when you look at this case through a dispassionate legal lens there's literally only one logical conclusion.  I'll close with this, my uncle is a judge, was a prosecutor for many years and worked with a DA task force to prosecute cartel smuggles.  He's also gay and hardly a Republican.  He flat out stated that the fact that charges were filed in this case with the evidence available is a flat out disgrace and abuse of the office.  This man is razor sharp and has decades of experience.  If I hadn't already been of the same opinion his position would absolutely make me pause and reexamine the evidence.  It's honestly that cut and dry.

There is 100% certainty that he killed people that night. If it was self defense that’s fine and dandy. You shouldn’t be able to kill someone and not have to explain it in court.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-03-2021, 07:42 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: There is 100% certainty that he killed people that night. If it was self defense that’s fine and dandy. You shouldn’t be able to kill someone and not have to explain it in court.

This is a very disturbing take.  So if someone breaks into my home and I shoot them I should automatically be charged with murder and have to defend my actions in court with my life on the line?  If a woman is being raped and manages to reach her gun and kills her rapist she should automatically be charged with murder and have to defend her actions in court with her life on the line?  Wow, just wow.

[NATI BENGALS]

(11-03-2021, 07:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is a very disturbing take.  So if someone breaks into my home and I shoot them I should automatically be charged with murder and have to defend my actions in court with my life on the line?  If a woman is being raped and manages to reach her gun and kills her rapist she should automatically be charged with murder and have to defend her actions in court with her life on the line?  Wow, just wow.

In general yes. I would like any instance of a person killing another person to be thoroughly looked at. Someone breaking into your house is kind of an easy one. Other than that I’d prefer my LEOs to not sweep killings under the rug.

A lady can’t just claim rape and murder people and that’s the end of it.

If Rittenhouse was sitting at his house and 3 people broke in and he killed them I'd be with you. Instead we have a minor who went across state lines to a riot open carrying a rifle and killed people. There are minor differences there.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-03-2021, 08:45 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: In general yes. I would like any instance of a person killing another person to be thoroughly looked at. Someone breaking into your house is kind of an easy one. Other than that I’d prefer my LEOs to not sweep killings under the rug.

You do realize that law enforcement cannot file criminal charges?  Only the DA's office, or equivalent, can do that.  It's not at all uncommon for the DA to charge a person with a crime that is not the same as the charge they were arrested for.  Law enforcement investigates a crime and then makes an arrest when applicable.  They then submit their findings to the DA who decides what charges, if any, should be filed in court.  So there is zero ability for law enforcement to "sweep killings under the rug" beyond completely falsifying investigation results.

Quote:A lady can’t just claim rape and murder people and that’s the end of it.

Oh, dear lord.  Of course not, which is why the actual evidence gathered during an investigation is reviewed by the DA to see what, if any, criminal charges should be filed in court. I'm actually starting to understand the confusion in this thread though.  The complete ignorance of many to the actual criminal justice process and how charges are filed is rather illuminating.  And here I thought Law and Order was a popular set of shows.  

[GMDino]

In the next bit of totally normal behavior at the trial the judge takes a few minutes to complain about the media coverage...of him.

In another bizarre move, the Judge in the Rittenhouse case takes a break during the trial to complain about media coverage of his rulings. pic.twitter.com/oLmUV11xeX

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) November 3, 2021

Not illegal...just a bad look, IMHO.


But a lot of people can't handle the media if they aren't used to it.  Plus I'd imagine a judge is less likely to want anyone challenging him on anything...lol.  Especially if he's right.

[GMDino]

After four years of DJT and his ilk killing irony and making the Onion seem sane by comparison they seem to be finding their footing again:

https://www.theonion.com/kyle-rittenhouse-claims-self-defense-after-shooting-3-j-1847984647

Quote:Kyle Rittenhouse Claims Self-Defense After Shooting 3 Jurors




Today 7:00AM

[/url][url=https://twitter.com/share?text=Kyle%20Rittenhouse%20Claims%20Self-Defense%20After%20Shooting%203%20Jurors&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theonion.com%2Fkyle-rittenhouse-claims-self-defense-after-shooting-3-j-1847984647%3Futm_medium%3Dsharefromsite%26utm_source%3D_twitter][url=https://www.theonion.com/kyle-rittenhouse-claims-self-defense-after-shooting-3-j-1847984647][/url]
KENOSHA, WI—Arguing that he had no choice but to take the law into his own hands, Kyle Rittenhouse reportedly claimed self-defense Wednesday after shooting three jurors in his trial for multiple counts of first-degree homicide. “Finding himself outnumbered by a mob of 20 jurors, Mr. Rittenhouse was forced to make the split-second decision to save his own life,” said defense attorney Mark Richards, who presented the remaining members of the jury with a series of photographs that he argued showed the dead jurors armed with water bottles, heavy stacks of evidence, and other potential deadly weapons they could have used to harm the teenager. “Kyle came to this courthouse with the best of intentions, yet these courtroom agitators appeared to want to take his weapons away and potentially send him to jail for decades. So he made the smart and swift decision to protect himself and others. Frankly, any sane person put in his shoes would have done the same.” Richards went on to share video evidence that he alleged showed members of the jury jumping out of their seats to riot the moment they saw Rittenhouse’s assault rifle.

[jj22]

(11-03-2021, 09:14 PM)GMDino Wrote: In the next bit of totally normal behavior at the trial the judge takes a few minutes to complain about the media coverage...of him.

In another bizarre move, the Judge in the Rittenhouse case takes a break during the trial to complain about media coverage of his rulings. pic.twitter.com/oLmUV11xeX

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) November 3, 2021

Not illegal...just a bad look, IMHO.


But a lot of people can't handle the media if they aren't used to it.  Plus I'd imagine a judge is less likely to want anyone challenging him on anything...lol.  Especially if he's right.

This judge..... One word. Compromised. 

[NATI BENGALS]

(11-03-2021, 08:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You do realize that law enforcement cannot file criminal charges?  Only the DA's office, or equivalent, can do that.  It's not at all uncommon for the DA to charge a person with a crime that is not the same as the charge they were arrested for.  Law enforcement investigates a crime and then makes an arrest when applicable.  They then submit their findings to the DA who decides what charges, if any, should be filed in court.  So there is zero ability for law enforcement to "sweep killings under the rug" beyond completely falsifying investigation results.


Oh, dear lord.  Of course not, which is why the actual evidence gathered during an investigation is reviewed by the DA to see what, if any, criminal charges should be filed in court. I'm actually starting to understand the confusion in this thread though.  The complete ignorance of many to the actual criminal justice process and how charges are filed is rather illuminating.  And here I thought Law and Order was a popular set of shows.  

The gun he was carrying killed people. He shot it. Is it the DAs job to decide his guilt or innocence?

[GMDino]

(11-03-2021, 09:39 PM)jj22 Wrote: This judge..... One word. Compromised. 

No, I don't think so.  Just a bit of a whiner.  I read one take that said judges are just lawyers that can force people to listen to them so their egos get fed better.

[Belsnickel]

(11-03-2021, 11:03 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: The gun he was carrying killed people. He shot it. Is it the DAs job to decide his guilt or innocence?

It's the DA's job to say whether they can prove charges in court. Whether they are confident that they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed the crime and that it was not in self-defense (if we're talking homicide). Well, technically speaking it is the job of the grand jury to decide that but the 5th Amendment hasn't been fully invested, but that's another conversation again.

You say people should have to "explain it in court." That's not how our legal system works, though. The approach you're taking on this one is coming from an assumption of guilt, seemingly regardless of the evidence.

[GMDino]

(11-04-2021, 09:31 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's the DA's job to say whether they can prove charges in court. Whether they are confident that they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed the crime and that it was not in self-defense (if we're talking homicide). Well, technically speaking it is the job of the grand jury to decide that but the 5th Amendment hasn't been fully invested, but that's another conversation again.

You say people should have to "explain it in court." That's not how our legal system works, though. The approach you're taking on this one is coming from an assumption of guilt, seemingly regardless of the evidence.

I thought we were just do as we're told and let the legal system work it out if we were really guilty or not? 

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

Judge Schroeder in the Rittenhouse trial, for some strange reason, decided to give the jury a law school class on the hearsay rule, which veered off into a discussion of a Bible passage on the trial of Paul. pic.twitter.com/UHgUvrXTMs

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) November 3, 2021

 

Again, I'm not legal expert so I'm not sure if this breaks any rules or laws and it may not matter one iota in the end.  Maybe a lot of judges do this and we just don't get to watch them.  I just get amused and people who say this is "definitely" going to be grounds for appeal/mistrial who also have no legal knowledge.

[jj22]

Good read.

https://ganso.substack.com/p/the-making-of-a-child-soldier

[GMDino]

https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/live-trials-current/kyle-rittenhouse/judge-boots-juror-from-kyle-rittenhouse-murder-trial-for-making-jokes-to-bailiff-about-police-shooting-of-jacob-blake/

Quote:Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Judge Boots Juror Who Joked About Why It Took ‘Seven Shots to Shoot Jacob Blake’

AARON KELLERNov 4th, 2021, 10:40 am
 
[/url]




[url=https://www.reddit.com/submit][img=58x20]http:://thebengalsboard.com/data:image/png;base64, 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[/img]
[i]Judge Bruce Schroeder reacts to a statement made by Juror #7 in the Kyle Rittenhouse murder trial. (Image via the Law&Crime Network)[/i]

Saying that the “appearance of bias is present,” the judge overseeing the intentional homicide trial of Kenosha, Wis. shooter Kyle Rittenhouse on Thursday morning dismissed a juror who made an inappropriate joke about the police shooting of Jacob Blake.

Judge Bruce Schroeder talked with prosecutors and defense attorneys without the jury present to discuss the matter involving Juror #7’s purported joke on Thursday morning.

“Why did it take seven shots to shoot Jacob Blake?” the juror allegedly said (according to Schroeder’s retelling).
Lead prosecutor Thomas Binger said he heard the purported joke “fourth hand” but understood its phrasing another way.

“Why did the Kenosha Police shoot Jacob Blake seven times?” Binger recalled being told the juror had asked.

“It’s my understanding that the rest of the joke was: ‘because they ran out of bullets,'” he added.

A Kenosha police officer shot Blake in Aug. 2020, leading to widespread protests that in turn lured Rittenhouse into the violent and destructive fray. Rittenhouse subsequently killed two people and injured a third during the civil unrest. Prosecutors say Rittenhouse purposefully agitated the first person he shot and then continued to fire on those who attempted to disarm him; defense attorneys say he fired in self defense to prevent himself from being killed by a violent crowd.

Binger said the implication was that the juror was highly favorable to the defendant’s viewpoints.  He called for the juror’s expulsion from the trial; the defense said the juror should be questioned before being ejected; all agreed.

The juror was subsequently brought into court to answer questions for the record.

“I was told that while you were being escorted to the car the other day that you began to tell a joke about the shooting of Jacob Blake, and I wanted to see if that was accurate or not,” the Judge Schroeder said to the juror.
“It is?” the judge said in response to an inaudible response from Juror #7. “Are you comfortable repeating what the joke is, or do you just want to leave it alone?”

Juror #7 apparently answered that he did not want to repeat the joke when called to answer for it, though his comment was not audible on a live feed of the proceeding.

The judge was not amused.

“I will tell you that I’ve talked quite a bit about public confidence in the outcome of the trial, and regardless of whether the issue is as grave as you’ve presented it in terms of inner feelings, it is clear the appearance of bias is present, and it would seriously undermine the outcome of the case,” Schroeder said.  “That, in itself, would be sufficient cause for discharge.”

Schroeder asked Binger and the defense if it had anything to add.

“His unwillingness could be taken in the worst light,” one of the attorneys present said off camera.

“Under the circumstances, I’m going to dismiss you from the jury, sir,” Schroeder said.  “And we do thank you for taking the time to come down here.”

After being relatively mum, the juror decided to dig in.

“My feeling is that it was nothing to do with the case, it wasn’t anything to do with Kyle and his seven charges,” the juror said.

“I have to make judgments,” Schroeder responded.  “I try to confine my judgments to the things I have to judge . . . I don’t want to get into that.”

The judge was attempting to articulate that an appearance of bias was present.  A finding of actual bias was not necessary to jettison Juror #7 from the remainder of the trial.

“The public needs to be confident that this is a fair trial,” Schroeder continued.  “At the very most, it was bad judgment to tell a joke of that nature.  Okay?  Thank you very much, sir.”

“At the very least, it was bad judgment,” the judge clarified.

Watch the discussion below via the Law&Crime Network:








Rittenhouse Juror Dismissed for Jacob Blake Joke



0 seconds of 6 minutes, 15 secondsVolume 90%





 
Have a tip we should know? tips@lawandcrime.com

You just can't do that in certain circumstances.  This is one of them.

[NATI BENGALS]

(11-04-2021, 09:31 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's the DA's job to say whether they can prove charges in court. Whether they are confident that they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed the crime and that it was not in self-defense (if we're talking homicide). Well, technically speaking it is the job of the grand jury to decide that but the 5th Amendment hasn't been fully invested, but that's another conversation again.

You say people should have to "explain it in court." That's not how our legal system works, though. The approach you're taking on this one is coming from an assumption of guilt, seemingly regardless of the evidence.

I would say there is ballistic evidence of bullets from his gun in dead bodies. As well as video evidence that shows him discharging the weapon.

How is there claims of self defense if there are no charges? I’ve seen videos of someone being arrested and the LEO telling that person to tell it to the judge or whatever.

Person is responsible for dead bodies. This is not normal. Person should be charged for making those bodies dead. Court system then does it’s part to decide the guilt or innocence for why those bodies are dead and any extenuating circumstances.

What you guys keep telling me is a DA gets to be the judge and jury when there is clear evidence a person is responsible for a dead body.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-04-2021, 09:31 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's the DA's job to say whether they can prove charges in court. Whether they are confident that they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed the crime and that it was not in self-defense (if we're talking homicide). Well, technically speaking it is the job of the grand jury to decide that but the 5th Amendment hasn't been fully invested, but that's another conversation again.

You say people should have to "explain it in court." That's not how our legal system works, though. The approach you're taking on this one is coming from an assumption of guilt, seemingly regardless of the evidence.

This case does an excellent job of highlighting how obnoxious it is to work in the enforcement part of the criminal justice system.  Despite cop and court room shows being so popular people have little to no understanding of how the law works and why it works the way it does.  They want the law to give them the results they want, not what the law is written to do.  In this thread it has been explained meticulously why Kyle's presence there, where he "had no business being", is not relevant, why his crossing state lines is not relevant, why umpteen other things are not relevant to a claim of self defense and we continue to hear the exact same protestations.

Based on the comprehensive video evidence this is a clear cut case of self defense.  I'd be saying the exact same think if Kyle was a black Antifa supporter who killed three Proud Boys.  Legal facts are what's important, everything else is a smokescreen being put out by persons or groups with an agenda that has nothing to do with enforcing the law.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-04-2021, 12:24 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I would say there is ballistic evidence of bullets from his gun in dead bodies. As well as video evidence that shows him discharging the weapon.

How is there claims of self defense if there are no charges? I’ve seen  videos of someone being arrested and the LEO telling that person to tell it to the judge or whatever.

Person is responsible for dead bodies. This is not normal. Person should be charged for making those bodies dead. Court system then does it’s part to decide the guilt or innocence for why those bodies are dead and any extenuating circumstances.

If there is sufficient evidence that there is a crime, yes.  Otherwise, no.  Your position is antithetical to the very foundations of our legal system dating back hundreds of years.  It is the state's job to prove your guilt, not your job to prove your innocence.  If the state cannot meet a minimum burden of proof then no charges should be filed in the first place, ever.

Quote:What you guys keep telling me is a DA gets to be the judge and jury when there is clear evidence a person is responsible for a dead body.

No, what they get to do is decide if there is sufficient evidence to charge a person with a crime in the first place.  This is done in order to prevent exactly what you advocate for, dragging obviously, or even likely, innocent people through the criminal court process.  You are starting to get, though, why a corrupt DA, such as we currently have in L.A., San Francisco, Philadelphia, St. Louis and Chicago can have a very destructive impact on a community and cause crime rates to soar.  Once you start treating the position as a platform for enforcing an ideology instead of the law you run into a lot of problems.

[NATI BENGALS]

(11-04-2021, 01:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If there is sufficient evidence that there is a crime, yes.  Otherwise, no.  Your position is antithetical to the very foundations of our legal system dating back hundreds of years.  It is the state's job to prove your guilt, not your job to prove your innocence.  If the state cannot meet a minimum burden of proof then no charges should be filed in the first place, ever.


No, what they get to do is decide if there is sufficient evidence to charge a person with a crime in the first place.  This is done in order to prevent exactly what you advocate for, dragging obviously, or even likely, innocent people through the criminal court process.  You are starting to get, though, why a corrupt DA, such as we currently have in L.A., San Francisco, Philadelphia, St. Louis and Chicago can have a very destructive impact on a community and cause crime rates to soar.  Once you start treating the position as a platform for enforcing an ideology instead of the law you run into a lot of problems.

Whole point I’m trying to make is dead bodies caused by Rittenhouse shooting them is sufficient evidence. Bullets from his gun killed them. Period end of story. This isn’t a normal thing. That’s why I don’t view this as a political witch hunt as some like to claim.

The law says killing someone is illegal. He killed and there is no question about that. He was charged. Pretty easy to prove he was the one responsible for dead bodies. Now it’s on him to show why his actions were justified. He made the decision to open carry a lethal weapon to a riot and pull the trigger when he got scared. Nobody made that decision for him. Now he has to explain himself or be held responsible for the dead bodies he created.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-04-2021, 04:59 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Whole point I’m trying to make is dead bodies caused by Rittenhouse shooting them is sufficient evidence. Bullets from his gun killed them. Period end of story. This isn’t a normal thing. That’s why I don’t view this as a political witch hunt as some like to claim.

No, it's not.  You're not grasping the most basic point here, that if self defense is readily apparent, as it is in this case, then no charges should be filed.

Quote:The law says killing someone is illegal.

Incorrect, the law says murdering someone is illegal.  Killing someone in self defense is 100% legal.  

Quote:He killed and there is no question about that. He was charged. Pretty easy to prove he was the one responsible for dead bodies.  Now it’s on him to show why his actions were justified.

The underlined could literally not be more incorrect if you had said 1+1=6.  That is absolutely not how our system works, or has ever worked.  

Quote:He made the decision to open carry a lethal weapon to a riot and pull the trigger when he got scared.

You spelled "got chased and physically assaulted" wrong.

Quote:Nobody made that decision for him. Now he has to explain himself or be held responsible for the dead bodies he created.

I'm going to end this back and forth here.  You're a good dude, but you literally aren't grasping some of the most fundamental aspects of our criminal justice system.  Without that basic level understanding there is no room for this discussion to progress.

[CJD]

(11-04-2021, 05:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, it's not.  You're not grasping the most basic point here, that if self defense is readily apparent, as it is in this case, then no charges should be filed.



Incorrect, the law says murdering someone is illegal.  Killing someone in self defense is 100% legal.  



The underlined could literally not be more incorrect if you had said 1+1=6.  That is absolutely not how our system works, or has ever worked.  



You spelled "got chased and physically assaulted" wrong.


I'm going to end this back and forth here.  You're a good dude, but you literally aren't grasping some of the most fundamental aspects of our criminal justice system.  Without that basic level understanding there is no room for this discussion to progress.

It's so unusual to find myself agreeing with the "rightwing" side of an issue. This never happens...