Patterico's Pontifications

11/15/2021

Rittenhouse Trial: One Key Charge is Dismissed

Filed under: General — JVW @ 2:43 pm



[guest post by JVW]

Today was a busy day at the Kyle Rittenhouse murder/manslaughter trial in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Patterico has chronicled the woes that the prosecution team has faced either due to their ineptitude or (my theory) because they secretly do not want a conviction but can’t afford politically not to see this case to its bitter conclusion. Closing arguments commenced today (Legal Insurrection has been live-blogging it here), and there was one major development announced in court. Here are the basic facts from National Review Online:

The judge presiding over Kyle Rittenhouse’s murder trial has dismissed a lesser weapons charge which held that the 17-year-old was too young to legally carry the AR-15 he used to shoot three people during the riots in Kenosha, Wisc., last year.

Rittenhouse previously faced up to nine months in prison and a fine of up to $10,000 if convicted on the misdemeanor weapons charge. Judge Bruce Schroeder commented in the courtroom last week that the law delineating the misdemeanor charge could be too difficult for an “ordinary citizen” to understand.

“I have been wrestling with this statute with, I’d hate to count the hours I’ve put into it, I’m still trying to figure out what it says, what’s prohibited. I have a legal education,” Schroeder said.

Schroeder’s decision to drop the misdemeanor came on the day of closing arguments in Rittenhouse’s trial. The jury will still consider five felony charges brought against Rittenhouse, including first-degree intentional homicide and first-degree reckless homicide.

The problem here stems from the vagueness of the Wisconsin statue(s) under which young Mr. Rittenhouse has been charged. Despite what the vast majority of the mainstream media has been telling us for close to the past fifteen months, it’s not at all clear if it is illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to be in possession of an AR-15, which was the rifle the accused was sporting on that fateful night in August 2020. It is apparently explicitly spelled out in Badger State law that a minor may not possess a weapon of a certain barrel length, but the prosecution (you will not at all be surprised to hear this one) never bothered to enter into evidence the barrel length of the weapon which Mr. Rittenhouse is believed to have wielded and used to kill two men and wound a third. The judge, citing the law’s ambiguity and lack of evidence, has thus dismissed the charge.

Another important development is that the prosecutor has requested that the jury be allowed to consider lesser charges than the first-degree homicide charges that the defendant is currently facing, and the defense agreed to the request. This, as Judge Schroeder explained to Mr. Rittenhouse, makes it somewhat more likely that the jury could possibly agree on some form of guilty verdict to a lesser charge, yet at the same time it also lessens the possibility of a deadlocked trial which might compel the Kenosha District Attorney’s office to try Mr. Rittenhouse all over again.

According to Andrew Branca at Legal Insurrection, in its closing statement the prosecution seems to be basing their entire summation on the idea that Kyle Rittenhouse provoked the attacks first from Joseph Rosenbaum and then Anthony Huber and Gaige Grosskreutz. If accepted by the jury, this would render any claim of self-defense by Mr. Rittenhouse invalid. Mr. Branca (who is clearly on the defense’s side) characterizes the prosecution’s case as hinging on a moment of grainy video taken from a drone which purports to show Mr. Rittenhouse leveling his rifle at an unseen offscreen target who the prosecution contends was Joshua Ziminski, an armed rioter currently facing charges stemming from that night and curiously was not called to testify by either the prosecution or the defense.

Jonathan Turley wonders if the sudden dismissal of the illegal weapon possession charge might lead the jurors to question the soundness of the prosecution’s case.

I don’t know if the defense was able to make their closing argument today, but it is past 4:30 pm Central Time so perhaps they did not. In that case, I assume everyone will be back at it tomorrow. Governor Tony Evers is calling in 500 state guard troops to patrol the streets once the verdict comes in, and as at least one Twitter wag has pointed out, had the same wise decision been made in the aftermath of the Jacob Blake shooting and subsequent riots, perhaps Kyle Rittenhouse would have stayed home in Illinois on the night of August 25, 2020.

UPDATE 4:08 pm – Thank you to BuDuh who pointed me to a videoclip where the prosecution acknowledges that the rifle Mr. Rittenhouse was carrying that night was not prohibited for use by a minor due to barrel or length limits.

– JVW

138 Responses to “Rittenhouse Trial: One Key Charge is Dismissed”

  1. Andrew McCarthy questions why the judge gave pre-instructions to the jury before the closing arguments, especially since it ended up that the prosecution and defense continued to argue about finer points of the law after these instructions were given. Certainly it can be argued that Judge Schroeder hasn’t exactly been Solomonesque in presiding over this trial.

    JVW (ee64e4)

  2. I have a third theory: Their political masters want a conviction, but there is no case.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  3. Volokh weighed in, and mentioned the “rule of lenity”.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  4. Volokh weighed in, and mentioned the “rule of lenity”.

    Interesting, and thanks for the link. I wish I could get confirmation of the story that I read (I think in the Daily Caller) which suggested that the prosecutor never even entered into evidence the dimensions of the gun Rittenhouse used that evening. Based upon what we have seen from these clowns it seems very believable.

    JVW (ee64e4)

  5. Can the prosecuting dirt bag be disbarred for pointing a weapon at people in the courtroom?

    mg (8cbc69)

  6. I wish I could get confirmation of the story that I read (I think in the Daily Caller) which suggested that the prosecutor never even entered into evidence the dimensions of the gun Rittenhouse used that evening.

    You might enjoy the dialogue that came from that lack of submission:

    https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1460277251388416001

    Note how weaselly the DA is in his multiple responses to the judge.

    BuDuh (c62db5)

  7. It’s going to the jury now.

    Watched the videos today and that horrid image of the kid’s upper bicep blown away by the full metal jacketed round from the AR-15 did it for me. Looked like a land shark bit a hunk out of him. Can’t have irresponsible kids running around the streets of America wielding weapons like that.

    I’d vote to convict on that alone. But the laws are what they are.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  8. It’s going to the jury now.

    Is it? I haven’t found any info on the defense’s closing argument. Do you know what they said?

    Ah, I just saw that Andrew Branca says he’ll have his summation of the day’s events (including presumably the defense’s close) available for us in an hour or two.

    JVW (ee64e4)

  9. UPDATE 4:08 pm – Thank you to BuDuh who pointed me to a videoclip where the prosecution acknowledges that the rifle Mr. Rittenhouse was carrying that night was not prohibited for use by a minor due to barrel or length limits.

    Judge in Rittenhouse trial has dismissed Rittenhouse's gun charge. pic.twitter.com/v1x1QTBrGf— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) November 15, 2021

    JVW (ee64e4)

  10. > It is apparently explicitly spelled out in Badger State law that a minor may not possess a weapon of a certain barrel length, but the prosecution (you will not at all be surprised to hear this one) never bothered to enter into evidence the barrel length of the weapon which Mr. Rittenhouse is believed to have wielded and used to kill two men and wound a third.

    Yikes. That seems like a pretty basic procedural error.

    > Certainly it can be argued that Judge Schroeder hasn’t exactly been Solomonesque in presiding over this trial.

    Regardless of the intent, having the courtroom applaud one of the witnesses was *not good*.

    aphrael (4c4719)

  11. Can’t have irresponsible kids running around the streets of America wielding weapons like that.

    Kyle showed more restraint than the entire city of Chicago in a given weekend.

    I’d vote to convict on that alone. But the laws are what they are.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5) — 11/15/2021 @ 3:58 pm

    And that’s why you should never serve on a jury.

    I guess you missed the part where the hand attached to that same arm was holding a Glock in it (indeed, Bicep Boi was using it to prop himself up after he got clacked), and he admitted in court that Kyle didn’t engage him until he raised said gun.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  12. Some choice arguments from the prosecution today:

    “Why didn’t he fire warning shots”? (Because it’s illegal, that’s why)
    “Being scared is not a justification for self-defense.” (Actually, it’s the cornerstone of the plea)
    “Why didn’t he drop the gun and use his fists?” (Probably because Rosenbaum the 10-Year Child Molestation Convict was tweaking out and would have killed him if Kyle had let go of the gun when he grabbed it).

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  13. Even if the gun charge had not been dismissed, and the jury had found the kid guilty on it, but not guilty on any of the homicide and assault and battery charges, I fully and sincerely expect the prosecution would have moved to dismiss it after the verdict. It would have been a petty vindictiveness to sentence the kid on it, and petty vindictiveness is for Trump and his schnitzel-slurpers.

    nk (1d9030)

  14. The prosecutors’ main problem, I think, is that this is Wisconsin where the men are men and the deer are nervous. They generally know guns and how and when to use them and, if one or two jurors do not (know), the rest would be quick to educate them. And that would include both knowing a rifle’s barrel length at a glance and that bullets fired as warning shots have to come to rest someplace if for no other reason than gravity.

    nk (1d9030)

  15. Patterico has chronicled the woes that the prosecution team has faced either due to their ineptitude or (my theory) because they secretly do not want a conviction but can’t afford politically not to see this case to its bitter conclusion.

    I do not know what happened with this prosecution but I think it is possible they relied on interviews with the victim/rioters to get the facts, and failed to realize they might not be reliable witnesses. The police and DA have to thoroughly investigate cases but initially it can be hard to know who is telling the truth or what the real story is. Unfortunately, the initial stories are often when the narrative takes hold.

    That would also explain why the DA complained that Rittenhouse never talked to anyone. Yes, he might have been hoping for a mistrial, but he also might have been trying to explain why the charges don’t match up with the testimony.

    DRJ (03cb91)

  16. The PoS that is somehow the lawyer for the prosecution called the rioters who were trying to burn down a gas station and the very building the trial was in “heroes” who were trying to stop an active shooter.

    This guy needs to be disbarred and severe sanctions must be held against him.

    NJRob (246f45)

  17. perhaps Kyle Rittenhouse would have stayed home in Illinois on the night of August 25, 2020.

    Gone home.

    He spent the day, or part of it in his job as a lifeguard in Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin, just outside Kenosha. Then he went to the home of a close friend, (I don’t know if the friend also worked there) his almost brother-in-law (older sister McKenzie’s boyfriend, who, some months before had prchased a gun with Kyle’s money) and they both decided to go to a local high school to clean up grafitti, His friend took his long gun with him, so Kyle did too, plus two first aid kits. (He evidently couldn’t decide whether he wanted to be a medic or a soldier – but then some medics are armed.)

    At the school they decided to go to the riot to prevent more destruction to a location where somebody had asked for help…

    The guns were normally kept in a safe in the garage by the friend’s father, but he had taken them into the house and ut them in the asement because of the disturbances.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  18. de) characterizes the prosecution’s case as hinging on a moment of grainy video taken from a drone which purports to show Mr. Rittenhouse leveling his rifle at an unseen offscreen target who the prosecution contends was Joshua Ziminski, an armed rioter currently facing charges stemming from that night

    That’s the person whom one of the prosecutors tried (not at the trial) to get a photographer to identify (by name) even though he had no idea who he was.

    He showed him a picture. He asked do you know who this is? He said no. The prosecutor said that’s Joshua Ziminski, He took the picture away. Then he took out the picture again. He asked do you know who this is? He wanted him, I understand, to sign an affidavit identifying him. The photographer decided in his mind that he needed to get a lawyer.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  19. @11. Kyle showed more restraint than the entire city of Chicago in a given weekend.

    And the prosecution shows the bloodied hunk of arm the size of a half watermelon blown out of a human body by a full metal jacketed round from a AR-15 fired from an assault weapon wielded by a hyped up kid. The ‘part missed’ … was blown away. Enough of this crap on the streets of America. I’d vote to convict. ‘Nuff said.

    And that’s why you should never serve on a jury.

    Yep. Doesn’t pay well. My time is worth more.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  20. And the prosecution shows the bloodied hunk of arm the size of a half watermelon blown out of a human body by a full metal jacketed round from a AR-15 fired from an assault weapon wielded by a hyped up kid.

    The fake “paramedic” (he’s only completed EMT-B, after all, and it took him three years just to accomplish that) thought he could fake a surrender and got his bicep blown off as a result. Then he went on national TV and straight-up lied about what he said on the stand.

    Yep. Doesn’t pay well. My time is worth more.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5) — 11/15/2021 @ 7:13 pm

    Plus you’d convict innocent people based on your emotions.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  21. Patterico had a post about never stipulating to the medical examiner’s report. Gore matters.

    nk (1d9030)

  22. DRJ (03cb91) — 11/15/2021 @ 6:21 pm

    These guys aren’t used to trying cases with this level of video evidence available, the witnesses for the defense were quite good on average, and if it wasn’t for the fact that this happened during a left-wing riot, it’s likely that charges never would have been brought in the first place.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  23. Plus you’d convict innocent people based on your emotions.

    No, FWO, based on a hyped up kid blowing a bloodied hunk of a human arm, the size of a half watermelon, out of a human body by a full metal jacketed round from a AR-15 he fired from an assault weapon. The kid did this to himself; this crap has to stop on America’s streets.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  24. Gore matters.

    Yep. Look back to what the published images of the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre did to stir up the public. Look what bringing the ‘gore’ and violence of the Vietnam War into living rooms on TV did to curtail it.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  25. No, FWO, based on a hyped up kid blowing a bloodied hunk of a human arm, the size of a half watermelon, out of a human body by a full metal jacketed round from a AR-15 he fired from an assault weapon.

    Which doesn’t have anything to do with the question of self-defense.

    Maybe if Grosskreutz hadn’t tried to shoot an armed individual who was on his back while in the process of retreating towards the police, he wouldn’t be living the rest of his otherwise useless life in agonizing pain.

    The kid did this to himself; this crap has to stop on America’s streets.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5) — 11/15/2021 @ 7:25 pm

    Agree that Grosskreutz did this to himself, as did Huber and Rosenbaum the child rapist, but he’s hardly a kid.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  26. Then he went on national TV and straight-up lied about what he said on the stand.

    There’s the trial, and then there’s the perception of the trial.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  27. Both gore and bush are winning Hollywood formulas as well, with Sam Peckingpah’s The Wild Bunch and Paul Verhoeven’s Basic Instinct (Sharon Stone) as outstanding examples of each.

    nk (1d9030)

  28. What part of the bye-cep Antifa thug should Rittenhouse have shot when the proven liar put his gun to Rittenhouse’s head, DCSCA?

    You, like Paul, have clearly not followed this case and trial.

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  29. Which doesn’t have anything to do with the question of self-defense.

    Self defense has nothing to do w/justifying/rationalizing shooting a victim who later was found to have had a criminal record– or any one else. MLK, JFK and RFK were killed– and their records of marital infidelity later revealed– so America’s housewives should label it a righteous shoot, eh.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  30. Self defense has nothing to do w/justifying/rationalizing shooting a victim who later was found to have had a criminal record

    It does have everything to do with the case at hand, however.

    so America’s housewives should label it a righteous shoot, eh

    Yep.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  31. If the three “victims” had been three nekkid ladies like the one in Portland, and had just lain down and shown the seventeen-year old a spread like she did, this story would have had a happier ending I think.

    nk (1d9030)

  32. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-2vMnM0xnhw

    At the 51min mark, DCSCA’s comrade explains what Rittenhouse should have done. “Everyone takes a beating at some point…”

    Nice hero, DCSCA.

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  33. BuDuh – what’s to follow- the Hindenburg, filled w/flammable hydrogen gas, exploded in disaster at Lakehurst, NJ… and a hyped up, inexperience kid w/a AR-15 assault weapon loaded w/30 full metal jacketed rounds went to a riot and sparked a disaster at Kenosha, WI.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  34. Is this how they rationalized bizzaro world when you were slumming at JustOneMinute?

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  35. @32. As Winsome Sears said recently in the glow of her Virginia victory, ‘You just have to accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue.’

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  36. DCSCA (f4c5e5) — 11/15/2021 @ 8:00 pm

    Stop emoting, it’s already gotten you in enough trouble.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  37. @32. Buduh- An action-hungry 17 year old kid lugs a AR-15 assault weapon loaded w/30 FMJ rounds to a riot. What’s to worry. He wasn’t wearing a mask, either!

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  38. FWO- And you think the juror won’t?

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  39. FWO- And you think the juror won’t?

    DCSCA (f4c5e5) — 11/15/2021 @ 8:11 pm

    Again, it’s pretty obvious the people commenting on this haven’t actually watched the trial.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  40. @27. Yep. Worked w/a victims rights group. It is powerful. Getting the images published is a challenge.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  41. @39. You underestimate how and what jurors react to. Ask OJ Simpson.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  42. Seems odd to beg and plead to rejoin an online community to then waste the gift of reinstatement on posting tripe.

    Maybe it is an Andy Kaufman/Tony Clifton bit?

    Run what you brung, I guess.

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  43. “Full Metal Jacket” only scares people who only know guns from Stanley Kubrick movies. Like I said above, this is Wisconsin and the people there know that FMC is the usual range round as well as the least damaging according to the Geneva Convention. Hunters would almot never use it because it makes too small a wound channel compared to other ammunition available.

    nk (1d9030)

  44. FMC=FMJ

    nk (1d9030)

  45. @43. They did a pretty good job of describing the deadly damage potential of FMJ ammo during the trial. And, of course, the jurors may very well know the flick and connect the damage potential as well.

    @42. Don’t bait, Buduh. It’s beneath you.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  46. @39. You underestimate how and what jurors react to. Ask OJ Simpson.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5) — 11/15/2021 @ 8:17 pm

    Lay off the copium.

    @43. They did a pretty good job of describing the deadly damage potential of FMJ ammo during the trial

    Binger said that it can travel 500 yards after penetrating a human body. I don’t know what kind of .223 ball ammo has that kind of power, but if you do, will you let me know so I can put in an order?

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  47. @46. FWO- Perhaps you should have offered your expertise in an affidavit or testified.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  48. @46. FWO- Perhaps you should have offered your expertise in an affidavit or testified.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5) — 11/15/2021 @ 8:40 pm

    Keep coping and seething.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  49. That’s just prosecutorial drama. Like the gory photos. If the kid had used hollow-points, the prosecutor would have argued the “potential” of a fist-sized exit wound. If he had used Israeli plastic riot bullets, he would have argued that they could not be detected on an X-ray. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

    nk (1d9030)

  50. @49. That’s part of the ‘process.’ The pix, though, often do leave a lasting impression.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  51. Both gore and bush are winning Hollywood formulas as well, with Sam Peckingpah’s The Wild Bunch and Paul Verhoeven’s Basic Instinct (Sharon Stone) as outstanding examples of each.

    The final shootout scene in The Wild Bunch is one of my favorite scenes in any movie. I know that Peckinpah isn’t to everyone’s tastes, but he nailed it with that scene. The moment when William Holden sees the German general and then just decides on the spot to shoot him down in cold blood is outstanding.

    As to Sharon Stone and Basic Instinct, well, the less said the better. A quarter century (just looked it up: it’s almost 30 years) later it’s an unwatchable and ridiculous movie, except for the copious nudity provided by Ms. Stone. And there’s no way Hollywood would ever make a movie these days where the villain turns to be an attractive lesbian. They would have had Michael Douglas’s character be a corrupt cop who killed all of the dudes because of white privilege or something.

    JVW (ee64e4)

  52. @51. JVW- Peckinpah’s finale was vividly graphic and ‘new’ for the time- just as Penn’s finale to ‘Bonnie & Clyde’ was as well. BTW, Sharon Stone’s flash in 1992’s ‘Basic Instinct’ was beaten out by the more humorous crime epic with Jessica Rabbit in 1988’s “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?” But you have to know where in the movie to find the lone frame.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  53. @48. FWO- Don’t project. Leave it to the Kenosha jury to decide. They have to live there.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  54. I would say that my favorite scene is where Holden says “Let’s go!” and Oates says “Why not?”. I think that basically encapsulates the soul of the movie. And it is probably my favorite movie as a whole, although nose to nose with Leone’s Once Upon A Time In The West at times.

    nk (1d9030)

  55. Such a great scene. I was never a huge Ernest Borgnine fan, but I do like the way he strolls with his rifle slung so nonchalantly over his shoulder in that scene.

    Here is the beginning of the scene to which I referred, for those who haven’t seen the movie, and here is the continuation of the scene. I love how it is referred to as “the Battle of Bloody Porch.” I had never heard it called that before.

    JVW (ee64e4)

  56. JVW: thank you for the post. But I need to get that script for making some commenters invisible working.

    Simon Jester (195e3e)

  57. “Don’t project. Leave it to the Kenosha jury to decide. They have to live there.”

    There are stages of knowing you’re winning an argument with a liberal: IT’S UGLY! IT’S ILLEGAL! IT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL! IT’S RACIST! IT CALLS UP THE SPECTER OF RACISM! WELL, JUST LEAVE IT TO A JURY BECAUSE I’M NOT JUDGING!

    “(my theory) because they secretly do not want a conviction but can’t afford politically not to see this case to its bitter conclusion.”

    What, JVW, are prosecutors public defenders now? Do they have no choice but to prosecute an obviously justified set of shootings the same way the defenders have to defend even criminal clients to the best of their ability?

    As we’ve seen today, the answer is NO. The prosecution team is 100% malicious liberals, that’s why they so helpfully took up ALL THE OTHER CRIMINAL CASES IN THE AREA to disqualify the actual criminals via 5A protection against self-incrimination in upcoming trials from coming forward as witnesses in this case, and filing multiple continuances to push their hearings back until after the Kyle Trial so he could minimize the actual damage done on that night.

    These are not the actions of reluctant public servants, they’re the actions of amoral, bloodthirsty leftist partisans who are manifestly on the side of the rioters, and who’ll probably end up dismissing the rest of the charges once the whole Kyle thing blows over.

    He also refused to arrest or prosecute Gaige Grosskreutz for attempted murder caught on video and didn’t even take his phone as evidence.

    I have a much more well-supported theory that DCSCA is just doing a bit to see if you’re sharp on the draw. Well, a lot of you are, thanks to getting bullied by various Greater Internet Commenters on your own previous moral cowardice. DC is currently playing the role of ’emotional, childish midwesterner who fixates on the dumbest of things’ described in this comment to perfection.

    Fettlelock cleanup (8132c1)

  58. Kyle Rittenhouse:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest_shooting

    ‘At the time of the Kenosha unrest, Rittenhouse, then 17 years old, had participated in local police cadet programs, and had expressed support on social media for the Blue Lives Matter movement and law enforcement. At the time, Rittenhouse lived in Antioch, Illinois, about 20 miles from Kenosha.

    According to his attorneys, after Rittenhouse learned a local business owner wanted help defending a car dealership, he and his friend Dominick David Black “armed themselves with rifles” and went to that business. [Why????] The auto business with three locations had been badly damaged during the first two nights of unrest and suffered $1.5 million in arson damage the previous night. [Aren’t they insured?] The dealership owner’s sons denied that gunmen had been asked to defend the business.

    Several witnesses testified that armed individuals had been asked by the business to protect their property. When Richie McGinniss, a reporter for The Daily Caller, asked Rittenhouse why he was at the car dealership, he responded:

    So, people are getting injured, and our job is to protect this business. Part of my job is also to help people. If there is somebody hurt, I’m running into harm’s way. That’s why I have my rifle, because I have to protect myself, obviously. I also have my med kit.” At some point, Rittenhouse left the dealership and was prevented by police from returning.

    [His “job?” Who hired him at 17 years old from out of state to do this ‘job’ of ‘running into harm’s way’?? What was his salary? Who was his supervisor in Kenosha? Who did he report to or get deployment directions from that evening? Was he qualified and/or deputized by any Wisconsin or Illinois law enforcement entity to do such a ‘job?’]

    In the hours leading up to the shooting, Rittenhouse appeared in multiple videos taken by protesters and bystanders and was interviewed twice: first by a livestreamer at the car dealership where he and a number of other armed men had stationed themselves, second by McGinniss. Rittenhouse was seen talking with police officers, and offering medical aid to those who were injured…’

    It goes on. The details of the shootings continue in the wikiscript. But why was this kid there, from out of state, under no local supervision other than himself roaming the rioting streets w/a AR-15 in the first place?? Isn’t this essentially vigilantism?

    My point is it is hard to understand why this 17 year old youngster, who apparently wasn’t responsible to or reporting to or representing any local supervising law enforcement officials, won’t endure some kind of penalty for roaming the streets and in the chaos, ending up killing two people and injured another on his own, defensive or otherwise.

    Isn’t this what ‘law and order’ is supposed to be all about? Or is it ‘lawlessness and disorder’ w/vigilantism the rule? Back in the day, NYer Bernie Goetz shot four, didn’t killed them- and still eventually endured some consequences for his actions- regardless of how ‘righteous’ it appeared at the time.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_New_York_City_Subway_shooting

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  59. @57. Clean up on aisle Fettlock.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  60. It seems clear to me that we have a 17yo who probably should not have been there, but was. He got into a situation he could not easily get out of, and rioters were taking a dim view of his not-rioting. It may be that some clearer, wiser or faster individual might have gotten out of it without shooting people, but that’s not really the test here.

    The test is this: Has the state proven (PROVEN!) that he committed murder, or is there a reasonable doubt? If it is reasonable that he was defending himself (he does not have to prove sh1t) then the jury must acquit. I don’t think that the jury should even get the option of a lesser charge; too much temptation to split the baby.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  61. The few who cheer this, on the one hand, or want him strung up for being a 17yo idiot on the other, distress me. Young and stupid is an adequate explanation of what happened. Probably on the part of several participants.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  62. JVW: thank you for the post. But I need to get that script for making some commenters invisible working.

    Go here and copy the text into a new bookmark. Then edit the name1 etc fields to the names you want to avoid. Hitting the bookmark will get rid of those comments. Refreshing the page in any way will bring them back.

    https://www.beldar.org/beldarblog/2017/09/patterico_blocker_script.txt

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  63. It seems clear to me that we have a 17yo who probably should not have been there, but was. He got into a situation he could not easily get out of, and rioters were taking a dim view of his not-rioting. It may be that some clearer, wiser or faster individual might have gotten out of it without shooting people, but that’s not really the test here.

    More like a situation he was not trained to manage. If memory serves, legitimate law enforcement folks are taught to de-escalate situations like he faced. That’s clearly not what happened. He was on his own w/no supervision. And would the evening events in Kenosha have been any different if KR had not shown up? Probably not- other than two people would not have been killed, one injured and himself not in this mess.

    It’s the unchecked vigilantism that’s disturbing and doesn’t need reaffirmed or legitimized in a land raging against a similar lawlessness on 1/6, crying out for a return and respect for ‘law and order.’

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  64. Justified

    mg (8cbc69)

  65. I wonder what the Brandon administration will do to the judge?

    mg (8cbc69)

  66. Simon Jester (195e3e) — 11/15/2021 @ 10:24 pm

    I never read the comments without it. Life’s too short and time too precious.

    felipe (484255)

  67. “More like a situation he was not trained to manage. If memory serves, legitimate law enforcement folks are taught to de-escalate situations like he faced. That’s clearly not what happened.”

    I tend to agree, though wonder what the appropriate charge ought to have been. As observers, I think it’s human nature to cheer for anyone trying to resist senseless rioting and the destruction that ensues. Movies like Death Wish, Falling Down, or the Equalizer aren’t popular for no reason. The struggle is the tension between justice for the hoodlums and due process. Yes, the victims were in the wrong….and could have created more harm if allowed to continue terrorizing….who knows, maybe resulting in some other loss of life….but was the armed confrontation by someone with no training, supervision, or authority….who was not previously in deadly jeopardy or in fear for his property….something that society wants to encourage generally? One could imagine this ending badly 9 out of 10 times. Did the kid use great judgment or was he simply lucky? I don’t think Rittenhouse is guilty of homicide….I think his self defense claims hold up….but his recklessness did enflame the situation…where he quickly became judge, jury, and executioner. Standing one’s ground is one thing….protecting specific property is another…..he stirred the pot without careful consideration. How local communities want to deal with vigilantes is their prerogative. It seems like the law will give discretion to the jury…maybe the law needs to give the ADA more options.

    AJ_Liberty (3cb02f)

  68. @48. FWO- Don’t project. Leave it to the Kenosha jury to decide. They have to live there.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5) — 11/15/2021 @ 9:06 pm

    No projection involved. You’ve said you’d convict him for murder 1 based on nothing more than your visceral reaction to someone’s arm getting shot, argued that the tacit threat by Antifa and BLM of Kenosha being burned to the ground again–not whether he actually committed a crime or not–is going to be enough to justify the jury to get a guilty conviction, and then of course, there’s the cherry on top, the Wikipedia link that’s a basically a lazy go-to for anyone that can’t be bothered to dig deeper in to a discussion.

    Pretty much every assertion you’ve made in this thread is a textbook example of why the right to self-defense is so precious, and why violent rioters should be rebuked.

    It seems clear to me that we have a 17yo who probably should not have been there, but was.

    Again, this is irrelevant, because the three idiots he shot and the guy who tried to kick him in the head while he was on the ground shouldn’t have been there, either. And the reason EVERYONE was there in the first place is because left-wingers had burned buildings in Kenosha to the ground the night before, in support of another idiot who tried to kidnap his kids, assaulted their mother, and then stupidly pulled a knife on the police.

    .but was the armed confrontation by someone with no training, supervision, or authority….who was not previously in deadly jeopardy or in fear for his property….something that society wants to encourage generally?

    If society is going to stand by and let rioters burn cities without consequence, then it is, through a de facto process of community preservation, going to cause more of these confrontations to take place.

    I don’t think Rittenhouse is guilty of homicide….I think his self defense claims hold up….but his recklessness did enflame the situation…where he quickly became judge, jury, and executioner.

    Good god–if self-defense holds up then he was hardly Judge Dredd.

    Standing one’s ground is one thing….protecting specific property is another…..he stirred the pot without careful consideration.

    Did you even watch the trial or any of the videos that came out on this? He wasn’t “standing his ground,” he was trying to extract himself from a dangerous situation during the entire encounter. The rioters were mad that he was trying to get away, and they were attempting to stop him so they could kill or at least seriously injure him.

    “Vigilantism” only emerges when the actual law enforcement agencies responsible for keeping their communities safe and stable either completely break down, or refuse to do their job and prevent rioting mobs and criminals from threatening life, liberty, and property. It’s not the former that needs to be dealt with, it’s the latter.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  69. You can get a sense of the time we’ve got left as a cohesive society by the number of people who look at this case and proudly proclaim they wouldn’t be bothered to defend themselves, their property, their community, or their values in the face of violent assault intent on destroying it.

    Even if they acquit in this case we’re just looking at a little morphine for a terminal patient.

    frosty (f27e97)

  70. Factory Working Orphan (2775f0) — 11/16/2021 @ 4:54 am

    Did you even watch the trial or any of the videos that came out on this?

    Maybe. Maybe not. For people like DCSCA those details are largely irrelevant. They aren’t arguing based on facts. They are arguing an idea.

    I’m impressed with the number of people who can still find what they think are more subtle ways to lie.

    frosty (f27e97)

  71. The Earps and Doc Holliday were put on trial for the gunfight at the OK corral. And a warrant issued for Wyatt for the killing of Frank Stilwell sometime later. (But not for the killing of Curly Bill Brocius. A part-time real estate tax collector for Sheriff Behan riding with Deputy Billy Breakenridge, I guess he wasn’t liked all that much by anyone). And you’ll find innumerable other stories like this where half the people say a killing was justified and the other half say it was murder, according to their politics and predilections.

    nk (1d9030)

  72. “he was trying to extract himself from a dangerous situation”

    That he voluntarily put himself into without any training, supervision, or accountability….and without an exigent need. That doesn’t give you any pause?

    AJ_Liberty (3cb02f)

  73. That he voluntarily put himself into without any training, supervision, or accountability….and without an exigent need. That doesn’t give you any pause?

    The law has been written about that. A woman walking alone in a short skirt late at night can still run away from a rapist and shoot him when he catches up with her. She does not even need to run away, but the fact that she does and he chases her corroborates his intent and the reasonableness of her fear.

    nk (1d9030)

  74. That he voluntarily put himself into without any training, supervision, or accountability….and without an exigent need. That doesn’t give you any pause?

    AJ_Liberty (3cb02f) — 11/16/2021 @ 5:21 am

    No, it doesn’t, because you’re arguing the prosecution’s case that he provoked the whole situation–when the video evidence and testimony clearly showed that to not be the case. Just being present with an open carry rifle is not grounds for someone to pursue and harm you, irrespective of their reasons for being there–ESPECIALLY when he’d given no indication of hostile intent prior to Rosenbaum chasing him.

    Like frosty said, you’re not arguing the facts of the case, you’re arguing an idea, and one that has no relevance to the actual case or events, besides.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  75. “Even if they acquit in this case we’re just looking at a little morphine for a terminal patient.”

    Enough of that. Despair is a sin, and the best thing to come out of this case is Prosecutor Binger helpfully doing for the reputation of prosecuting attorneys on the right what General Mark Milley did for the reputation of the military brass among the right. Update your priors and tactics accordingly!

    The second best thing to come out of it is the new industry of lawyers playing MST3K on open court proceedings. Rekieta Law has been exemplary in this regard and a great antidote to TED Talk level lawyers making ‘explainers’ that don’t actually match reality.

    “you’ll find innumerable other stories like this where half the people say a killing was justified and the other half say it was murder, according to their politics and predilections.”

    More lazy resignation. When and who exactly can people argue the case in good faith, nk? Are you terminally bound to a BOTH SIDES MAKE POINTS position, utterly unable to express your own feelings and opinions on the matter, as it’s currently beyond obvious that those are the most important factors nowadays, and WILL be demanded of you at every turn in jury selection and otherwise? Is synthesis a process that only dirty proles undergo?

    “Clean up on aisle Fettlock.”

    Awwwww, whats the matter, D-boy, was part of your return condition that you go back to playing the role of a boilerplate liberal? Was taking a unique and nuanced position on Trump too much for your soft urban constitution? Are you so nostalgic for the good old days that even the old collegiate liberal vomit tastes okay as it returns to your mouth? Did you think that you’d collect the wages of unrighteousness for actually doing the right thing?

    Did someone at Shareblue reactivate your old control scripts?

    “That he voluntarily put himself into without any training, supervision, or accountability”

    Amazing that the people with LIBERTY and FREEDOM in their names always end up unfailingly taking a hardline NOTHING OUTSIDE THE STATE BOARD CERTIFICATION CHECKLIST PUBLISHED BY DEMOCRATS position. You’d almost call it a signifier of lying pretense, like Gaige Grosskreutz pretending to surrender as he draws the gun!

    Shape Whipper (e5f077)

  76. Maintenance! Dog vomit on Aisle 57 and Aisle 75! Maintenance! Cleanup, please, on Aisles 57 and 75!

    nk (1d9030)

  77. DCSCA wrote:

    Watched the videos today and that horrid image of the kid’s upper bicep blown away by the full metal jacketed round from the AR-15 did it for me. Looked like a land shark bit a hunk out of him. Can’t have irresponsible kids running around the streets of America wielding weapons like that.

    I’d vote to convict on that alone. But the laws are what they are.

    As to the other two men who attacked him now being stone-cold graveyard dead? Losing a bicep seems like something of a lesser injury.

    Mr Rittenhouse should not have been there, armed, but the rioters should not have been their either, participating in those “fiery but Mostly Peaceful Protests™”.

    Mr Rittenhouse has a clean record, but all three of the men against whom he defended himself are previously convicted felons. Naturally, the jury are not allowed to consider that, but we can: that all three were already convicted criminals explains, at least to me, why they were willing to assault Mr Rittenhouse: they were all three bad people! It is difficult to think that our society isn’t better off without a convicted sex criminal like Mr Rosenbaum no longer in it.

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (17bc78)

  78. DCSCA wrote:

    And the prosecution shows the bloodied hunk of arm the size of a half watermelon blown out of a human body by a full metal jacketed round from a AR-15 fired from an assault weapon wielded by a hyped up kid.

    Damn! No wonder Mr Rittenhouse was so terrified, when a guy with arms so buff that they made Ahnold look wimpy, was attacking him!

    One wonders: if Mr Grosskreutz was so studly, why did he bother pointing a gun at Mr Rittenhouse; since, as Hamilton Binger said, Mr Rittenhouse had brought a gun to a fist fight, Mr Grosskreutz could have easily subdued him with those bodybuilder arms of his propelling his manly fists?

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (17bc78)

  79. BuDuh wrote:

    What part of the bye-cep Antifa thug should Rittenhouse have shot when the proven liar put his gun to Rittenhouse’s head, DCSCA?

    Perhaps the part which would have kept Mr Grosskreutz from reproducing? I’m not sure that we need more people like him running around.

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (17bc78)

  80. BuDuh wrote:

    At the 51min mark, DCSCA’s comrade explains what Rittenhouse should have done. “Everyone takes a beating at some point…”

    Like George Zimmerman was taking a beating from Trayvon Martin, before Mr Zimmerman changed the conditions of the fight?

    I have seen this trial in the same light as Mr Zimmerman’s all along. At least in Florida, the local officials knew they had no case, and weren’t going to prosecute it. Extreme pressure from the left and the media — please pardon the redundancy — got the state to appoint a special persecutor, but once the case went to trial, it was obvious that the state had nothing. If I recall correctly, even this blog discussed, at length, how there was no case against Mr Zimmerman, and the prosecution fell apart with the state’s first witless witness.

    The same has happened here, though the local officials, despite knowing that they had nothing, went ahead, because no one was willing to take the heat for dismissing the charges. Instead, they can say that they tried, but a (supposedly) anonymous jury let him off.

    Perhaps they are hoping that the jury is as stupid as Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren and will convict anyway?

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (17bc78)

  81. Ah, eugenics! Why not? Rittenhouse, Schroeder, Binger, Kraus, Grosskreutz, Rosenbaum — a virtual Bierstube. And defense attorney Chirafisi for the second third of the Axis. Any Japanese?

    nk (1d9030)

  82. “Mr Rittenhouse should not have been there, armed”

    Drop that line. He had as much right to be there as anyone else and better motives than anyone who says he shouldn’t have been there.

    “Maintenance! Dog vomit on Aisle 57 and Aisle 75! Maintenance! Cleanup, please, on Aisles 57 and 75!”

    nk will accept any argument except the most obvious one: his august prosecutorial profession is easily taken over and riddled by utterly corrupt liberal actors-fat, lean, or otherwise-who daily wipe their asses with due process and oppress the innocent and trusting whenever given the opportunity.

    And this impunity is defended under ‘judicial independence’.

    eShape Whippper (3ab2f2)

  83. It was three Republicans who pushed for Zimmerman’s prosecution after the local State Attorney declined. Rick Scott the governor, Pam Bondi the Attorney General, and Angela Corey neighboring Sate Attorney. The District Attorney for Kenosha County is Michael D. Graveley, a career prosecutor for thirty-plus years who was elected unopposed. But, like, you know, whatever.

    nk (1d9030)

  84. It’s the unchecked vigilantism that’s disturbing and doesn’t need reaffirmed or legitimized in a land raging against a similar lawlessness on 1/6, crying out for a return and respect for ‘law and order.’

    Young and stupid is a valid defense here.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  85. Canadian dog vomit, speak when you’re spoken to! I was paging maintenance.

    nk (1d9030)

  86. I’d vote to convict on that alone. But the laws are what they are.

    You would vote to convict someone who was clearly defending himself because the injury to the perpetrator was grisly? Because you thought that the SEVENTEEN YEAR-OLD was behaving stupidly by being there? Seventeen year-old boys have a LOCK on stupid.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  87. If instead, this had been an 18yo girl in a short dress who was in fear of a gang-rape, would her pulling out her licensed Glock and shooting have been justified, even though she should never have been there in that short dress in the first place?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  88. I guess everyone gets raped at some point.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  89. AJLiberty’s line of ‘reasoning’ shows how the liberal always returns to demanding more oppression:

    “I tend to agree, though wonder what the appropriate charge ought to have been.

    It starts with ‘yes, it was legal, but can we nail his law-abiding ass for a lesser charge?

    “As observers, I think it’s human nature to cheer for anyone trying to resist senseless rioting and the destruction that ensues. Movies like Death Wish, Falling Down, or the Equalizer aren’t popular for no reason.”

    Then it goes into ‘OBVIOUSLY THE ONLY REASON YOU MOUTHBREATHERS ARE SUPPORTING KYLE IS BECAUSE YOU SAW SOME MOVIES’

    “The struggle is the tension between justice for the hoodlums and due process.”

    I can’t tell whether he’s trying to call Kyle a DIRTY HOODLUM HIDING BEHIND DUE PROCESS or trying to support the rioters. Regardless, this casual slander and bad-faith forumulation stinks through all liberal arguments and is always grounds for immediate mockery, isolation, and termination.

    “Yes, the victims were in the wrong….and could have created more harm if allowed to continue terrorizing….who knows, maybe resulting in some other loss of life….but”

    YES, EVERY FACT OF THE CASE HAS BEEN PROVEN BY LONG-STANDING TRADITION TO FIT THE DEFINITION OF SELF-DEFENSE PERFECTLY…BUT CAN’T YOU LET ME GET MY JOLLIES BY CRUSHING A CHUD WHO REMINDS ME OF THE BULLIES WHO USED TO MOCK ME IN HIGH SCHOOL?

    “was the armed confrontation by someone with no training, supervision, or authority….”

    Lies long proven to be lies, repeated long after correction, the liberal is a willing and unashamed carrier of viral narratives to release to young and uncritical minds wherever he goes.

    “who was not previously in deadly jeopardy or in fear for his property.”

    All people in the presence of antifa are always in deadly jeopardy, whether from life, limb, or slander by their paid and volunteer lying “legal observers” like Gaige Grosskreutz.

    “something that society wants to encourage generally?”

    Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. The only people against it are people who believe, without evidence, that the government can impartially litigate and adjudicate every single possible case of interpersonal violence in their district, and the lawyers who get paid by the caseload and thus treat every case that resolves without their input as a profane insult to their personal salary. Some may even want constant high crime rates for reasons including automatic reception of government grants for distressed areas!

    “[b]One could[/b] imagine this ending badly 9 out of 10 times.”

    One could. One could also discourage future incidents of mob violence by making the exemplary individual known as Kyle as cause celebre.

    “Did the kid use great judgment or was he simply lucky?”

    It’s called PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL EXCELLENCE, dude, you should look into it!

    “I don’t think Rittenhouse is guilty of homicide….I think his self defense claims hold up….but his recklessness did enflame the situation…where he quickly became judge, jury, and executioner.”

    HE’S NOT GUILTY OF HOMICIDE BUT WE SHOULD STILL USE THE LANGUAGE OF HOMICIDE WHEN WE DESCRIBE WHAT HE DID AND FURTHERMORE…

    “Standing one’s ground is one thing….protecting specific property is another.”

    More lies about the situation smuggled in as truth in the 4th paragraph. How very…Bingerian!

    “he stirred the pot without careful consideration.”

    PUTTING OUT A DUMPSTER FIRE JUSTIFIES MOB VIOLENCE

    “How local communities want to deal with vigilantes is their prerogative.”

    Ah, now you’re adding ‘vigilante’ without a single justification!

    “It seems like the law will give discretion to the jury…maybe the law needs to give the ADA more options.”

    WHAT YOU SHOULD TAKE AWAY FROM THIS EVIL CLOWNSHOW OF A PROSECUTION IS THAT PROSECUTORS SHOULD HAVE MORE UNACCOUNTABLE POWER AND DISCRETION!

    Liberals: Slanderous Bad faith today, slanderous bad faith yesterday, slanderous bad faith forever!

    FREEDOMMAN (31834f)

  90. Whatever your beefs are with the name changing person there is one thing for certain, he actually paid attention to the case and the trial.

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  91. Nk, your #81 in here is exhibit A of my #10 over there.

    urbanleftbehind (c073c9)

  92. DCSCA (f4c5e5) — 11/15/2021 @ 7:52 pm

    . MLK, JFK and RFK were killed– and their records of marital infidelity later revealed

    RFK was not his brothers. He did not commit adultery. The idea that he did with Marilyn Monroe has no basis in reality. He was a faithful Catholic with regard to sex at least, and did not use any form of birth control. In his time, abortion was not a issue.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  93. Right after Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger began his closing statement in the Kyle Rittenhouse Trial, YouTube cut off channels that were beating legacy media channels.

    https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/victoria-taft/2021/11/15/youtube-cuts-off-the-best-real-time-legal-coverage-of-rittenhouse-trial-and-immediately-regrets-it-n1533042

    They also had commentators who (gasp) criticized the prosecution.

    The only reason Rittenhouse has a chance at (rightfully) being acquitted is due to the msm not being in control of the narrative.

    It’s crazy how many things they got wrong are still being spouted by those who should know better.

    Obudman (950a67)

  94. Whatever your beefs are with the name changing person there is one thing for certain, he actually paid attention to the case and the trial.

    He hasn’t said a thing he didn’t pick up on these threads.

    He has an insane obsession with this site dating back more than a dozen years. For years, he would be banned and come back with a new nick and a static IP until he lost control again and was banned again. Maybe dozens of times until he discovered VPN.

    He does not inform, he opines, but it’s not his vapid, puerile non-sense, that make him a troll. It’s his attacks on everybody. The hosts and the commenters. He is one sick puppy.

    nk (1d9030)

  95. Nk, your #81 in here is exhibit A of my #10 over there.

    Credit gladly granted, urbanleftbehind.

    nk (1d9030)

  96. Just a reminder that the antifa mob was burning down buildings and this started because they were trying to burn down a gas station and Kyle put that fire out. That enraged the mob and led to what occurred.

    How many would have died if that station exploded?

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  97. 74. Factory Working Orphan (2775f0) — 11/16/2021 @ 5:41 am

    Just being present with an open carry rifle is not grounds for someone to pursue and harm you, irrespective of their reasons for being there–ESPECIALLY when he’d given no indication of hostile intent prior to Rosenbaum chasing him.

    He’d been around there, and they’d seen him for some time. He was not there to shoot people.

    He was attempting to interfere with various acts of vandalism and property destruction (and also administer first aid)

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  98. “If instead, this had been an 18yo girl in a short dress who was in fear of a gang-rape, would her pulling out her licensed Glock and shooting have been justified,…”

    Sure, but is that the best and most honest analogy? First, put the Glock on her hip open…and at minimum, make the dress have a camoflauge pattern….but still it misses that Rittenhouse was specifically there to deter rioters…he wasn’t just incidentally there walking back home minding his own business. He was patrolling an area that no property owner specifically asked him to patrol. Again, I think he was over-charged by the prosecution….but many don’t appreciate the times when these situations go sideways…a gun is taken away….a stray bullet does kill an innocent….or the good citizen ends up dead. There’s a reason why most of us would advise our own 17yr old to not go there…not out of cowardice….but because the risks are too high for the perceived benefits.

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  99. I am hearing an argument – here and elsewhere – that Rittenhouse is guilty in part because he went to a riot, knowing it was a violent riot, with a gun. He was guilty in part because he was there.

    While I know the three he shot are not on trial, but they were…the cause of the riot. They were making the riot violent and fiery.

    I guess my problem is the logic of this argument: if everyone just got out of the way of the riot and let the violence and arson and crime take place, no one would get hurt. Except, of course, the innocent people who get hurt, burnt, or watch their home and/or place of business go up in flames.

    The kid should not have been there, but neither should have the three rabid rioters he shot. I can’t see that the bumbling DA and his merry crew did much to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse committed murder.

    If the jury acquits, Chicago will burn. Which is beyond me since the three rioters he shot weren’t black. One of them seemed to be quite racist to boot.

    Hoi Polloi (ade50d)

  100. I think he was over-charged by the prosecution

    What charges do you recommend?

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  101. 96, we are not far from people showing up with hoses and containers instead of accelerants. The siphoners would do KRs job for him if gas got north of 10/gallon.

    urbanleftbehind (c073c9)

  102. If these were black on black participants in Cook County, there would be no charges based on mutual combat doctrine.

    urbanleftbehind (c073c9)

  103. @68. No projection involved. You’ve said you’d convict him for murder 1

    Inaccurate FWO– it says I’d convict him. That’s all.

    Pretty much every assertion you’ve made in this thread is a textbook example of why the right to self-defense is so precious, and why violent rioters should be rebuked.

    By law enforcement. Not rogue vigilantes, responsible to no one.

    “Vigilantism” only emerges when the actual law enforcement agencies responsible for keeping their communities safe and stable either completely break down, or refuse to do their job and prevent rioting mobs and criminals from threatening life, liberty, and property. It’s not the former that needs to be dealt with, it’s the latter.

    Only? A lotta wannabes and militia types out there w/police radios in their homes and vehicles who wanna play cop.

    @67. AJ- ‘I don’t think Rittenhouse is guilty of homicide…’

    More likely some degree of manslaughter– and that’s the risk/consequences a rogue vigilante, un-deputized, not representing any authorized law enforcement organization, may have to face.

    @70. They aren’t arguing based on facts. They are arguing an idea…

    Idea? Fact: two dead and one injured at the hands of a lone, armed, roaming vigilante untrained in civil crowd control representing no authorized law enforcement entity.

    Like frosty said, you’re not arguing the facts of the case, you’re arguing an idea, and one that has no relevance to the actual case or events, besides.

    Except it does.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  104. Yawn

    BuDuh (4a7846)

  105. Hoi Polloi (ade50d) — 11/16/2021 @ 8:53 am

    The kid should not have been there, but neither should have the three rabid rioters he shot.

    The police had chased them away in his direction.

    If the jury acquits, Chicago will burn. Which is beyond me since the three rioters he shot weren’t black.

    But how many people know that?? That all of them were not black?

    Yes, you’d know that if you followed the case, but if you followed the case, would you think an injustice was committed if he is found not guilty?

    The thought that none of the protesters/rioters in Kenosha were black (or virtually no one was) is probably beyond them.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  106. And yet dishonest BINGERISMS from the ever-present volunteer auxilary prosecution team:

    “is that the best and most honest analogy?”

    Is the man who continually failed to operate in good faith and honest analogies in his last reply the best person to ask that question?

    “First, put the Glock on her hip open-and at minimum, make the dress have a camoflauge pattern.”

    I have no idea which ‘gun girl’ magazines you get yourself off to, but do try to leave your fetishes out of your reasoning, Toobinator.

    “but still it misses that Rittenhouse was specifically there to deter rioters”

    HE WAS SPECIFICALLY ARMED TO DECREASE THE RISK OF VIOLENT MOB ESCALATION, WHICH IS A HANGING OFFENSE IN MY SECRET BOOK OF LAW…

    “he wasn’t just incidentally there walking back home minding his own business.”

    TAKING A VOLUNTEER SECURITY POSITION = GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS!

    “He was patrolling an area that no property owner specifically asked him to patrol.”

    HOW DARE HE PROACTIVELY CHECK FOR DANGERS DEVELOPING IN PUBLIC TERRITORY IMMEDIATELY OUTSIDE OF HIS AREA OF OPERATIONS, THAT WAS OFFICIALLY A ‘FREE LAWLESSNESS’ ZONE THAT NO ONE WITH A “LAW AND ORDER MIND” WAS ALLOWED.

    “Again, I think he was over-charged by the prosecution….but many don’t appreciate the times when these situations go sideways”

    STOP CONFUSING US WITH WHAT *DID* HAPPEN DUE TO THE QUICK, PROFESSIONAL AND EXEMPLARY BEHAVIOR OF A KID FAR ABOVE HIS YEARS AND START CHARGING HIM BASED ON WHAT *MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED* IF ONE OF US POOR SCHLUBS TRIED THE SAME THING!

    “a gun is taken away….a stray bullet does kill an innocent….or the good citizen ends up dead.”

    Life is risk, life is also about confronting risk and accepting the consequences for doing so. The failure of others to contribute to mitigating the risk does, if anything, make those who actually do take those risks more admirable and less worthy of our judgment, not less.

    “There’s a reason why most of us would advise our own 17yr old to not go there…not out of cowardice….but because the risks are too high for the perceived benefits.”

    Maybe you raised yours wrong. Wendy Rittenhouse is doing her level best for her son. She’s among those Americans who have come apart, and those getting kicked in the face, literally and figuratively, by media hos and Soros funded street punks as they try to stitch their lives and communities back together.

    She knows she comes off as déclassé and ‘the hysterical mother’, but makes an immense effort to keep it together and make a favorable impression (on an audience of dull midwestern boomers who will do nothing to help her, sadly). Might want to take notes on who the single cog holding together the Rittenhouse family is, and who is showing up unceasingly in Kyle’s corner. It’s not his father, or any other male relative.

    Kyle’s father was a drunken deadbeat who punched her in the stomach, after which they divorced. She looked after the three kids by herself, was evicted because of money troubles, then ended up in hospital after overdosing. Safe to say the Mrs Rittenhouse has probably exercised some poor judgement along the way in her life, but she managed to raise a good son, a better man than his father, and most of the men in Kenosha. Fat and beaten down as she may appear, she is a far far better woman than the vindictive anorexic hags attacking her on social media.

    LIBERTY MANG (5a8e80)

  107. Maybe not Chicago, but probably proximate places like Rockford, Zion, North Chicago, Waukegan, Milwaukee. Or maybe some Rage Against the Machine types. I think everyday hood reggin is waiting on the Arbery case.

    urbanleftbehind (c073c9)

  108. Some of the unfair rreatmnt by the prosecution:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest_shooting

    A warrant for Rittenhouse’s arrest was requested on February 3, after a mailed notice about a scheduled court appearance was returned as undeliverable. Prosecutors say that he was required to file an address change within 48 hours of moving.[107] Rittenhouse’s attorney said that Rittenhouse had been staying at an undisclosed address out of concern for his safety. His team had offered to provide the new address to prosecutors if they could guarantee its secrecy from the public, but the district attorney had declined on the grounds that the information is public record.[108] The district attorney told Rittenhouse’s attorneys they could move for the judge to seal the public record, but they never filed such a motion.[109] Prosecutors asked for a $200,000 increase in Rittenhouse’s bond.[110] Judge Bruce Schroeder denied the prosecutors’ requests at a hearing on February 11, stating that people out on bail often fail to update their address without being arrested.[111]

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  109. You better get that script over to Netflix Studios before JD Vance steals it!

    urbanleftbehind (c073c9)

  110. “By law enforcement. Not rogue vigilantes, responsible to no one.”

    HOLY COMPLIANCE DOCUMENTS, COMMISSIONER GORDON! THE BATMAN-COMPLEX ROGUE VIGILANTE OPERATING OUTSIDE THE LAW WHO IMMEDIATELY RAN FOR THE COPS TO TURN HIMSELF IN AFTER CRIMINALS IN THE CROWD THE COPS PUSHED TOWARD HIS POSITION TRIED TO UNSUCCESSFULLY MURDER AND/OR RAPE HIM!

    HOW DARE HE VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF UNLAWFULLY ASSEMBLED CROWDS NOT TO WITNESS SCARY GUNS IN THEIR VICINITY WITHOUT A PERMIT!

    LIBERTY MANG (e372a4)

  111. The real beauty to the prosecutor pointing the gun at the jury isn’t the poor gun safety. It’s the implied threat. The prosecutors main leverage now is impressing on the jury the danger of a not guilty verdict and reminding them that if they need to defend themselves he’ll be the one prosecuting them.

    frosty (f27e97)

  112. Mr Snowman wrote:

    The real beauty to the prosecutor pointing the gun at the jury isn’t the poor gun safety. It’s the implied threat. The prosecutors main leverage now is impressing on the jury the danger of a not guilty verdict and reminding them that if they need to defend themselves he’ll be the one prosecuting them.

    In that case, they ought not to be worried, because Hamilton Binger has proved just how good a prosecutor he is.

    Of course, the jury are aware that someone tried to photograph them, so there’s that; they can’t know that another attempt to photograph them might have not been caught and succeeded.

    The libertarian, but not Libertarian, Dana (17bc78)

  113. Frosty:

    Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. You think the bumbling prosecutor is suddenly going to pull some super subtle dog whistle mojo here?

    Appalled (1a17de)

  114. Appalled (1a17de) — 11/16/2021 @ 12:01 pm

    It’s not a super subtle dog whistle. Pointing a gun at someone is fairly unsubtle.

    frosty (f27e97)

  115. “You think the bumbling prosecutor is suddenly going to pull some super subtle dog whistle mojo here?”

    It’s not just the prosecutor, it’s who he represents, and who he can choose NOT to prosecute if he takes their case up. A racketeering, antifa-sympathizing prosecutor is one of the greatest gifts a criminal organization can have. (Second only to the dim, dumb, childish, moralizing cheeseheads in local government who won’t lift a finger to defend someone who was actually protecting the city.)

    Anti Cheesewheel Aktion (553bf3)

  116. They seem to want to prosecute one of the rioters, whi had fired a gun at Rittenhouse.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  117. Or near him, when he wasn’t looking. Just before he shot and killed Joseph Rosenbaum.

    Sammy Finkelman (c49738)

  118. A gun is not subtle, but the message needs a juror to connect the gun —as evidence in a trial and an illustration of some point the prosecution was making — to a threat on their persons if they don’t vote right. That requires a lot of leaps beyond the ken of a juror. Unless you have something more than a picture. Something that actually makes the link.

    Appalled (1a17de)

  119. Federal marshall says (how would he know?) two jurys holding out from not guilty fearing back lash.

    asset (ff1e61)

  120. Has Mr. Brandon weighed in recently?

    mg (8cbc69)

  121. Appalled -The 1992 Cohiba Behike BHK 52 – A pigtailed Robusto- is quite enjoyable..

    mg (8cbc69)

  122. https://www.khou.com/article/news/nation-world/kyle-rittenhouse-charges/507-0e3f0687-95bf-4a6f-ae2c-9dea26223a1f

    What charges does Kyle Rittenhouse face?

    COUNT 1: FIRST-DEGREE RECKLESS HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON
    This felony charge is connected to the death of Joseph Rosenbaum, the first man Rittenhouse shot. Bystander video shows Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse through a parking lot and throwing a plastic bag at him. Rittenhouse flees behind a car and Rosenbaum follows. Video introduced at trial showed Rittenhouse wheeling around and firing as Rosenbaum chased him. Richie McGinniss, a reporter who was trailing Rittenhouse, testified that Rosenbaum lunged for Rittenhouse’s gun. Reckless homicide differs from intentional homicide in that prosecutors aren’t alleging Rittenhouse intended to murder Rosenbaum. Instead, they’re alleging Rittenhouse caused Rosenbaum’s death in circumstances showing an utter disregard for human life. The charge is punishable by up to 60 years in prison. The dangerous weapon modifier carries an additional five years.

    COUNT 2: FIRST-DEGREE RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING SAFETY, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON
    This felony charge is connected to the Rosenbaum shooting. McGinniss told investigators he was in the line of fire when Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum. The charge is punishable by 12 1/2 years in prison. The weapons modifier carries an additional five years.

    COUNT 3: FIRST-DEGREE RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING SAFETY, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON
    Video shows an unknown man leaping at Rittenhouse and trying to kick him seconds before Anthony Huber moves his skateboard toward him. Rittenhouse appears to fire two rounds at the man but apparently misses as the man runs away. This charge is a felony punishable by 12 1/2 years in prison. The weapons modifier again would add up to five more years.

    COUNT 4: FIRST-DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON
    This charge is in Huber’s death. Video shows Rittenhouse running down the street after shooting Rosenbaum when he falls to the street. Huber leaps at him and swings a skateboard at his head and neck and tries to grab Rittenhouse’s gun before Rittenhouse fires. The criminal complaint alleges Rittenhouse aimed the weapon at Huber. Intentional homicide means just that — a person killed someone and meant to do it. The count carries a mandatory life sentence. The weapons modifier would add up to five years. The jury also was given the option of second-degree intentional homicide and first-degree reckless homicide in Huber’s death. Second-degree intentional homicide is punishable by up to 60 years in prison. The first-degree reckless homicide charge sought in Huber’s death matches an original charge in Rosenbaum’s death — it would require jurors to decide that Rittenhouse caused Huber’s death with an utter disregard for human life — and is punishable by up to 60 years in prison.

    COUNT 5: ATTEMPTED FIRST-DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON
    This is the charge for Rittenhouse shooting Gaige Grosskreutz in the arm seconds after he shot Huber, and as Grosskreutz came toward him holding a pistol. Grosskreutz survived. Video shows Rittenhouse pointing his gun at Grosskreutz and firing a single round. The charge carries a maximum sentence of 60 years. The weapons modifier would add up to five more years. The jury has also been given the option of considering second-degree attempted intentional homicide and first-degree reckless endangerment charges. The possible punishment for attempted second-degree intentional homicide is 30 years. Attempted first-degree reckless homicide is punishable by up to 12 1/2 years.

    COUNT 6: POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON BY A PERSON UNDER 18
    The judge dismissed this charge on Monday. Rittenhouse was armed with an AR-style semi-automatic rifle. He was 17 years old on the night of the shootings. Wisconsin law prohibits minors from possessing firearms except for hunting or when supervised by an adult in target practice or instruction in the proper use of a dangerous weapon. Rittenhouse’s attorneys argued that another subsection of the law, regarding short-barreled rifles, provided grounds for dismissing the charge. Prosecutors argued the defense was misreading the statute, and Schroeder had earlier twice declined to dismiss the charge. But the judge also had said the statute was confusing. After prosecutors conceded that the rifle was not short-barreled, Schroeder dismissed the charge.

    COUNT 7: FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH AN EMERGENCY ORDER FROM STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
    Rittenhouse was charged with being out on the streets after an 8 p.m. curfew imposed by the city, a minor offense that carries a fine of up to $200. The judge dismissed this charge during the trial, saying the prosecution didn’t offer enough evidence to prove it.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  123. Inaccurate FWO– it says I’d convict him. That’s all.

    Accurate, and your weak dodge doesn’t refute it.

    By law enforcement. Not rogue vigilantes, responsible to no one.

    Law enforcement failed.

    Only? A lotta wannabes and militia types out there w/police radios in their homes and vehicles who wanna play cop.

    Which is irrelevant to the case.

    @70. They aren’t arguing based on facts. They are arguing an idea…

    Idea? Fact: two dead and one injured at the hands of a lone, armed, roaming vigilante untrained in civil crowd control representing no authorized law enforcement entity.

    “LONE ARMED ROGUE VIGILANTE HERPITY DERPITY DOO!” Fact: two wastes of carbon molecules dead, no loss to the human race whatsoever, because law enforcement didn’t protect the community they were charged with overseeing.

    Except it does.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5) — 11/16/2021 @ 9:26 am

    Except it doesn’t.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  124. @123. Except it’s not.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  125. They sure is taking a long time on this verdict. I expect someone IS refusing to deliberate due to fear of the “community.”

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  126. I bet that the jury would just as soon have the case end in a mistrial with prejudice, but the judge doesn’t want to hold the bag.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  127. @126. Kevin, think about it– there’s the encroachment of the ‘real world’ with the jury, too: the jury of 12 has 7 white women, 4 white males and 1 Hispanic male. And it’s a week before Thanksgiving. It’s not ‘sexist’ to suggest that those 7 white Midwestern women likely have ‘kitchen duties’ they traditionally perform for their families preparing the holiday feast- or all have travel plans. They don’t want to be tied up dealing w/this mess through the holiday– or miss those Black Friday specials.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  128. Kevin M (ab1c11) — 11/17/2021 @ 11:58 am

    I bet that the jury would just as soon have the case end in a mistrial with prejudice, but the judge doesn’t want to hold the bag.

    The judge is holding two motions for a mistrial with prejudice in abeyance. This is apaprently because he is waiting to see if the jury acquits.

    If the jury acquits on all counts, it’s all over, and more satisfactory for Kyle Rittenhouse, although one of his lawyers told the court that he would be willing to accept a mistrial without prejudice.

    And if the judge declares a mistrial with prejudice after the jury convicts, then the prosecutor can appeal which they can not do if he declares a mistrial with prejudice before the verdict.

    The issues are:

    1) In the cross examination of Kyle Rittenhouse, we had a prosecutor pointing to the fact that Kyle Rittenhouse did not say anything before the trial (although actually his lawyers issued statement thee days after the killing) which gets into the area of trying to force somebody to testify in violation of the 5th amendment – the Supreme Court has said that prosecutors are not allowed to draw an adverse inference from that in court.

    Also in the cross examination they were starting to get into something that judge had ruled off limits – the New York Times did not say what it was (at least at first) but the Wall Street Journal reported that it was a video of Kyle Rittenhouse taken two weeks before the events he is on trial for, in which he said that if he had a gun he would shoot looters. (that’s not what happened here, and you can’t hold him to that even if you argue that that is worse than what he did)

    There are some other negative things about Kyle Rittenshouse that they didnt try to use like that when he got out on bail, hje was taken to a bar (legal at his age if his mother was there which she waa) and was treated by some people who linked themselves to the Proud Boys and they gave him ashort to put on.. Which they did for themselves and not for Kyle Rittenhouse.

    The second motion for a mistrial with prejudice involves the prosecution turning over to the defense a lower quality video (4 megabytes) than the video they showed in court (11 megabytes). The prosecution says they turned it over to a previous lawyer for Kyle Rittenhouse and that the reason they sent over a lower quality video than what they got from the police – the cops sent it by AirDrop, which is used by Apple products, was that because one of Kyle’s attorneys had an Android and not an Apple phone (so they couldn’t just forward it)

    I’m not clear if the higher quality video helps the prosecution or the defense. It was the prosecution which used it but the defense claims it shows somebody armed or something. The prosecution contends that it proves that Kyle Rottenhouse lied on the stand.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  129. NOT GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS!

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  130. What is probably holding up the jury is the judge’s instructions that if Kyle Rittenhouse started the confrontation he loses the right of self defense.

    So they have to go through exactly what caused it blow by blow. Who was the first one to act in a bad way.

    The judge is very sensitive (annoyed) by an accusation that he showed favoritism to Kyle Rittenhouse by allowing him at the end of the trial to pick which of the 18 potential jurors would become the 12 actual jurors in his case. In Wisconsin, evidently, nobody knows in during the trial who is a juror and who is an alternate.

    While letting the defendant select the actual jurors is unusual in Wisconsin, he says it’s been the practice in his court for 20 years.

    A clerk used to select the jurors, but after one trial in which the lone black juror candidate did not become an actual juror, (and the defendant’s lawyers complained I suppose – just to have an issue for appeal probably) he changed that so that the defendant himself picks the numbers out of a hat or whatever.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  131. 129. I would have predicted that, as probably did the judge. But the jurors had to go through all the video.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  132. The New York Times had along signed editorial the the day about how this whole thing undermines the idea that guns are good. It only increases the likelihood of somebody getting killed. he wrote.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/17/opinion/kyle-rittenhouse-guns.html

    He says neither Kyle Rittenhosue’s or Gaige Grosskreutz’s firearms helped them Kyle Rittenhouse’s liofe was in danger because of his gun. He had to keep the forearm on his person which limited his ability to defend himself in other ways (of course, in there, he’s believing Gaige Grosskreutz that he thought Kyle Rittenhouse was an active shooter, which might perhaps have been reasonable after he shot and killed Joseph Rosenbaum.

    After all this mayhem, all this death, what use were the guns that night?

    The guns failed to deter attacks against their owners. According to the defense, Rittenhouse’s gun was a reason Rosenbaum pursued him. And Grosskreutz’s gun was the reason Rittenhouse shot him.

    The guns failed any notion of proportionality or moderation. Prosecutors pointed out that Rittenhouse quickly fired four shots at Rosenbaum. Even if Rittenhouse felt genuinely threatened by Rosenbaum, why hadn’t Rittenhouse stopped shooting after the first shot, which could have immobilized Rosenbaum without killing him? (A defense “use of force” expert implied that the gun shot too quickly for him to pause and reassess the threat between shots.)

    If you believe Rittenhouse’s defense, the gun also failed at a more basic level, that of ordinary product safety. Rittenhouse had his rifle strapped to his body but was still worried that it could be taken from him. How useful is a gun that can be pulled away from you by a guy who is also hitting you with a skateboard?

    And finally, the guns failed at their most vaunted purpose, helping the good guys fight the bad guys. If Rittenhouse was your good guy, what good did his gun do him? How did it help anyone in the community he was trying to protect? It got two people killed, one person injured, and Rittenhouse himself facing charges of homicide.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  133. Mr. Rittenhouse would be dead today if he didn’t have a firearm to defend himself.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  134. New York values.

    nk (1d9030)

  135. Mr. Rittenhouse would be dead today if he didn’t have a firearm to defend himself.

    Perhaps. He might not have been in the situation if he didn’t have a firearm to take with him.

    In his SF juvenile “Tunnel in the Sky“, Heinlein had a group of high school kids in a “pioneer” track choose weapons for their mandatory survival training trip to a wilderness world. Some kids took every weapon they could carry. Our hero just took a knife. His theory was that 1) a knife was always useful and 2) if it wasn’t going to do the job, he didn’t want to think something else would instead of running away.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  136. 133. Judging from happened to other people, if Kyle Rittenhouse had attempted to do the same things without a firearm, he would most likely not be dead, but have been beaten into a bloody pulp, possibly suffering some long lasting or permanent injuries.

    But not dead – mostly because the anarchists involved did not want to risk an extended investigation and very long prison terms

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  137. To do death as in say slamming Rittenhouse’s head into the ground, the anarchists would be making themselves prone to be picked off (shot at long distance) by LE or helpers who stayed in the background. That is a far lager consideration then returning to prison.

    urbanleftbehind (c073c9)

  138. Mr. Rittenhouse would be dead today if he didn’t have a firearm to defend himself.

    Speculation.

    Fact: Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum are definitely dead, because he did.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2121 secs.