Kyle Rittenhouse Trial - Update: Acquitted On All Charges

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Mayer

I should have specified. I have followed this entire trial and when the Judge has made decisions and provided an explanation, including the ones mentioned by Pepsi, I have accepted it as reasonable, even if I didn't necessarily agree.

As I said, if you believe Rittenhouse is a gun loving, blood thirsty murderer, then I can certainly see how you'd view the Judge as having a bias.

If you believe that Rittenhouse used deadly force to defend himself, regardless of why he was down there, then the judges rulings seem pretty reasonable.

Despite the obviously loaded, biased, and misinformed description of people who are critical of the judge, the bolded is actually the problem.

If you believe this was self-defence, the judge seems reasonable. But that is the position of the defence. The judge should not be taking a position through the trial and certainly not before the trial has even started.

Saying "only if you believe the defence is right is the judge is reasonable" is a huge issue. How can you not see that?

[underGRADFlame]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Despite the obviously loaded, biased, and misinformed description of people who are critical of the judge, the bolded is actually the problem.

If you believe this was self-defence, the judge seems reasonable. But that is the position of the defence. The judge should not be taking a position through the trial and certainly not before the trial has even started.

Saying "only if you believe the defence is right is the judge is reasonable" is a huge issue. How can you not see that?

The judges job to weigh the arguments of both the prosecution and the defence and rule based on law what he/she believes is the proper application of that law.

It's less about taking a position and more about their interpretation of the law. Doesn't this happen in virtually every case before them?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by underGRADFlame

The judges job to weigh the arguments of both the prosecution and the defence and rule based on law what he/she believes is the proper application of that law.

It's less about taking a position and more about their interpretation of the law. Doesn't this happen in virtually every case before them?

I'm not totally sure how your question relates to my comment, but it seems like you're forgetting the role of the jury here.

The judge's conduct and what he allows/doesn't allow will absolutely impact the finding of the jury, so when his conduct is only seen as reasonable through the eyes of someone that already agrees with the defence, that is an issue.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by underGRADFlame

The judges job to weigh the arguments of both the prosecution and the defence and rule based on law what he/she believes is the proper application of that law.

It's less about taking a position and more about their interpretation of the law. Doesn't this happen in virtually every case before them?

Only those cases that are overturned on appeal. As Pepsi said, the judge is there to make decisions on the admissibility of evidence and to instruct the jury as to the law. It is the "reasonable apprehension of bias" which will open up one avenue of appeal. I haven't followed the goings on in this case, but both parties should be hoping for an unbiased judge.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Locke

This.

If Rittenhouse shows up to that protest sans AR15 then the need to defend himself probably never arises.

He himself created the circumstances in which he would be required to defend himself by creating the escalation that led to the events.

If you wander into an open crowd with a gun, and I'm talking a rifle strapped to your chest in open view, you're going to create some problems that never existed in the first place.

I know its America and guns are more commonplace, but wandering through a protest with a rifle is going to scare some people into actions they likely otherwise wouldnt take.

If he'd just been some unarmed guy, he'd just have been another face in the crowd. Nobody told him to wander through a protest with a gun.

American or otherwise, guns scare people. Add that to an already high-tension situation and you're just lighting the match.

He is absolutely the author of these circumstances through his own actions.

But of what I've seen, this Judge appears to have a desire to see him exonerated.

I'd be careful with this argument Locke. Guns are legal and can be carried. In this case, he's underaged so hes breaking that law.

Causation is not something that can be proved. People threatened him because he had a rifle, why didn't everyone react then and not just a few guys.

This is bordering on the argument of a girl getting raped at a party at 3AM, arguing on the side that she shouldn't have been at said party at 3AM.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I'd be careful with this argument Locke. Guns are legal and can be carried. In this case, he's underaged so hes breaking that law.

Causation is not something that can be proved. People threatened him because he had a rifle, why didn't everyone react then and not just a few guys.

This is bordering on the argument of a girl getting raped at a party at 3AM, arguing on the side that she shouldn't have been at said party at 3AM.

If it was a rape trial and there was video of the girl acting in a sexually aggressive manner that night, you could be sure that the male judges would have no problem admitting that evidence in court. Character assassinations against women in rape trials are normal unfortunately.

In this case, there is apparently evidence that shows Rittenhouse was acting in an aggressive manner yet the judge deemed it inadmissible. The judge seems curiously concerned about anything that might tarnish the accused's image to the jury. Yet videos of one of the deceased was allowed to be shown.

[MoneyGuy]

When is a verdict expected?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I'd be careful with this argument Locke. Guns are legal and can be carried. In this case, he's underaged so hes breaking that law.

Causation is not something that can be proved. People threatened him because he had a rifle, why didn't everyone react then and not just a few guys.

This is bordering on the argument of a girl getting raped at a party at 3AM, arguing on the side that she shouldn't have been at said party at 3AM.

This is a pretty horrible analogy.

That being said, I do think you have a point about societal differences. In many states, it's just perfectly legal to carry guns. Also, many states have pretty clear laws about it essentially being legal to have a shootout as long as both parties are consenting. Reports are that there were at least 16 guns shots not coming from Rittenhouse in that area. For a Canadian hearing a single gunshot is pretty jarring. This was chaos with multiple armed parties discharging weapons.

Also, of consideration is that the criminal legal standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt".

I don't agree with what Rittenhouse was doing and see him as a complete d-bag, but the prosecution is going to have a tough time here. If Rittenhouse was indeed backing away from other parties, who were themselves armed, it's pretty easy to raise doubts.

As for the criticism of the judge, it's in the judge's interest to ensure that both sides are acting within their rights, to avoid an appeal or a mistrial. If the judge lets the prosecution get in evidence that it shouldn't, you're almost guaranteeing Rittenhouse's freedom, even if he is guilty. If certain evidence has already been ruled inadmissible a surefire way to see that Rittenhouse walks is to then allow that evidence to slip in.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

If it was a rape trial and there was video of the girl acting in a sexually aggressive manner that night, you could be sure that the male judges would have no problem admitting that evidence in court. Character assassinations against women in rape trials are normal unfortunately.

In this case, there is apparently evidence that shows Rittenhouse was acting in an aggressive manner yet the judge deemed it inadmissible. The judge seems curiously concerned about anything that might tarnish the accused's image to the jury. Yet videos of one of the deceased was allowed to be shown.

You're talking about two different things. Similar fact evidence and evidence to a person's state of mind at the time of the relevant incident are treated entirely different in a criminal proceeding.

The judge also ruled that one of the deceased's criminal record of being a pedophile was not admissible.

[Azure]

If it was legal to carry then gun there, then it really is a case of self defense as it seems pretty clear that people were shooting / attacking him.

We can argue that morality of it, and I'd agree with everyone else that its messed up that this even happened or that kids are out there walking around with AR-15s initiating violence or whatever you want to call it.

My bigger issue is the publicity of this. There is no way people aren't tainted when everything is being plastered all over social media day.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Mayer

As I said, if you believe Rittenhouse is a gun loving, blood thirsty murderer, then I can certainly see how you'd view the Judge as having a bias.

If you believe that Rittenhouse used deadly force to defend himself, regardless of why he was down there, then the judges rulings seem pretty reasonable.

And if you are someone who understands law enforcement and follows the rules of evidence and understanding intent and motive? Then what?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Azure

If it was legal to carry then gun there, then it really is a case of self defense as it seems pretty clear that people were shooting / attacking him.

We can argue that morality of it, and I'd agree with everyone else that its messed up that this even happened or that kids are out there walking around with AR-15s initiating violence or whatever you want to call it.

My bigger issue is the publicity of this. There is no way people aren't tainted when everything is being plastered all over social media day.

It wasn't legal. In Wisconsin, anyone over the age of 18 can openly carry, but he wasn't 18 at the time. I think anyone would have been justified in disarming him.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

If it was legal to carry then gun there, then it really is a case of self defense as it seems pretty clear that people were shooting / attacking him.

Well, there we have it. Rittenhouse was not a legal weapons holder. This is done and done. Is it gas chamber or firing squad at dawn?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Well, there we have it. Rittenhouse was not a legal weapons holder. This is done and done. Is it gas chamber or firing squad at dawn?

Don't quite get the whole 'omg he killed people so we should line him up at dawn' arguement.

I don't think that just because he wasn't legally allowed to carry a gun that you can throw out his legal right (as far as Wisconsin is concerned) to defend himself.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Now, say that if the accused were black, or brown, or a minority of any sort. Therein lies the problem. If Rittenhouse wee black in this situation, he would already be on death row. Multiple killings with an illegal firearm? Roasting on a spit.

Yeah, there's the problem, and exactly what the argument of institutionalized racism continues to be front and center in these discussions. Rittenhouse is considered innocent because of the color of his skin. If a black or brown person tried this, they would be crucified long before the politically driven media had a chance to wade into the issue.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

If Rittenhouse were black in this situation, he would already be dead.

Fixed your post. This is the US after all.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It wasn't legal. In Wisconsin, anyone over the age of 18 can openly carry, but he wasn't 18 at the time. I think anyone would have been justified in disarming him.

The interpretation of the laws in Wisconsin suggest that it is legal for Rittenhouse to open carry a rifle whose barrel is 16" or longer.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1459207147779239937

[Mayer]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

And if you are someone who understands law enforcement and follows the rules of evidence and understanding intent and motive? Then what?

Unfortunately, those people still can easily slot themselves into one of the options that I mentioned.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Mayer

Unfortunately, those people still can easily slot themselves into one of the options that I mentioned.

Yeah, that's bull#### and a total copout.

[Mayer]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Yeah, that's bull#### and a total copout.

It's not, actually.

For example, I have no doubt that Binger has a solid grasp on the law and the rules of evidence etc, but he's clearly shown, to any reasonable observer, his bias.

Like I said, this is a politically charged/motivated trial and to pretend that's not the case is a bit silly.