Kyle Rittenhouse Trial - Update: Acquitted On All Charges

[devo22]

nm

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

Rittenhouse was 17 at the time of the killings. That doesn't absolve him at all, but at that age most people are idiots (that does not absolve him). The real issue is the system that allows (or encourages) this to happen. The relationship that the US has with guns, power, violence and crime is demented.

Yeah I agree. Rittenhouse himself (I personally believe) is a dangerous psychopath. But the real problem here is that the United States has devolved to such an extent where a teenager wielding a military grade assault rifle with no training was enabled to attend these protests as part of a "militia" and no one is really targeting any of that part for change.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Interesting thread. Getting powerful defending George Zimmerman vibes. It’s curious to see how the letter of the law and common sense don’t intersect.

To me as a simple man I would think if you show up with an AR15 looking for trouble, find said trouble, and then two people end up dead and another injured, why should you be absolved from the repercussions?

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.

[GGG]

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 think your are right morally, the question is what is right legally. Since there is video and essentially no disputing of the facts of what happened the only question is does the law care whether Rittenhouse put himself into the situation or not.

This is a really simple case and should have a very clear outcome.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Lots of people at the riot had firearms, including one of the people Rittenhouse shot. Were they all combatants? According to Wisconsin law they weren’t. Though once a riot reaches the torching buildings phase, the risk of violence to everyone involved - including lethal violence - goes way up. Participants who don’t want to expose themselves to that risk should take that as a cue to leave the streets to the mobs of young men looking for trouble.

Yes. I can buy the holstered handgun as self defense for the folks who were part of the riot. I cannot buy the "walking around with an AR trying to beat back the rioters"" as self defense. I'm sorry, but on no planet does someone drive that far and pick up an assault rifle while a violent riot is ongoing for self defense. That's not believable

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Mayer

The other part that wasn't mentioned was the first person who was shot grabbed at the barrel of his gun as Rittenhouse was backing up against the vehicles in the car lot, even as he was falling after the first shot.

This stuff has already been testified to by many eye witnesses.

He also shot one of the guys 4 times, including once in the head. The first shot or two may have been self defense, but the following kill shots could still be considered murder at that point.

It will be interesting to see the decision. I don't think anything is clear cut in this case.

Whack jobs who go into public areas with assault weapons should be confronted and disarmed.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I'm sorry, but on no planet does someone drive that far

Maybe you're aware of this, but it was something I only recently found out, but he lives 25 minutes away. Knowing nothing about USA geography and hearing he travelled across state lines, I assumed he had made like a weekend road trip to get there. Certainly doesn't absolve him of anything, but this was pretty much his backyard. You can travel in Calgary from the NW to the SE and take much longer.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

He also shot one of the guys 4 times, including once in the head. The first shot or two may have been self defense, but the following kill shots could still be considered murder at that point.

It will be interesting to see the decision. I don't think anything is clear cut in this case.

Whack jobs who go into public areas with assault weapons should be confronted and disarmed.

Which seems effectively what happened. And the people who tried wound up getting shot.

It reminds me of that South Park episode.

"Oh my God! Its coming right for us!!"

Open fire.

He was 'afraid for his life.' But he himself created that fear. Its insane.

[Mayer]

Originally Posted by Locke

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

The Judge has been pretty "by the book" with his comments and actions. He's admonished the Prosecutors several times because they have been trying to ask questions to witnesses that he's already ruled was inadmissible. The State lawyers know their case has been destroyed and they have been reaching from early in the trial. Good on the Judge for not putting up with that crap.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Mayer

The Judge has been pretty "by the book" with his comments and actions. He's admonished the Prosecutors several times because they have been trying to ask questions to witnesses that he's already ruled was inadmissible. The State lawyers know their case has been destroyed and they have been reaching from early in the trial. Good on the Judge for not putting up with that crap.

The judge has been criticized plenty for his bizarre conduct and apparent bias.

Why pretend any different?

[Mayer]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The judge has been criticized plenty for his bizarre conduct and apparent bias.

Why pretend any different?

Among the criticisms are the ring tone on his phone, and that he mentioned the Jury having "Asian food" for lunch one day. Oh and also having a round of applause for veterans yesterday....on Veterans Day. Seems reasonable.

His rulings and his anger with the Prosecutors attempts to skirt said rulings, in bad faith, should not be controversial.

As I said, the people wanting Rittenhouse convicted seem to be reaching for anything because they don't see this going well for their cause.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Mayer

Among the criticisms are the ring tone on his phone, and that he mentioned the Jury having "Asian food" for lunch one day. Oh and also having a round of applause for veterans yesterday....on Veterans Day. Seems reasonable.

His rulings and his anger with the Prosecutors attempts to skirt said rulings, in bad faith, should not be controversial.

As I said, the people wanting Rittenhouse convicted seem to be reaching for anything because they don't see this going well for their cause.

And, you know, saying the victims were not allowed to be referred to as "victims" but were allowed to be referred to as "rioters, looters, and arsonists", refused a new arrest warrant when Kyle violated his bond, not allowing the prosecution to present video of Kyle saying he wanted to shoot looters (among other photos and videos that give evidence of motive and sincerity) and not allowing them to present an enlarged image but allowing the defence to present a video of police saying they appreciate Kyle, not allowing the prosecution to ask why Kyle needed an AR-15 for self defence, etc.

Again, why lie and pretend? These are completely fair and reasonable criticisms that seriously call into question the judge's bias.

We can just as easily say that just because you want Rittenhouse to go free you and his supporters are painting him and the judge in the best light possible and ignoring pretty blatant issues.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Mayer as someone who was in the military, it is often thought of as an aggressive organization built upon a certain level of accepted violence. To highlight that, within a court room, in a trial with a defendant who used a military weapon in the commission of an alleged crime, is a significant misstep when it comes to an arbiter of justice in the courtroom.

It was unnecessary and could easily lead to eyebrows being raised in the lens of the general public.

[Mayer]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

And, you know, saying the victims were not allowed to be referred to as "victims" but were allowed to be referred to as "rioters, looters, and arsonists", refused a new arrest warrant when Kyle violated his bond, not allowing the prosecution to present video of Kyle saying he wanted to shoot looters (among other photos and videos that give evidence of motive and sincerity) and not allowing them to present an enlarged image but allowing the defence to present a video of police saying they appreciate Kyle, not allowing the prosecution to ask why Kyle needed an AR-15 for self defence, etc.

Again, why lie and pretend? These are completely fair and reasonable criticisms that seriously call into question the judge's bias.

We can just as easily say that just because you want Rittenhouse to go free you and his supporters are painting him and the judge in the best light possible and ignoring pretty blatant issues.

I can agree on one thing in there. Ones political views could certainly have an effect on how you view the Judges potential bias or not.

[ResAlien]

Only one thing? The entire first paragraph is facts and not particularly editorialized. You disagree with facts or do you have another interpretation of them?

[Mayer]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Mayer as someone who was in the military, it is often thought of as an aggressive organization built upon a certain level of accepted violence. To highlight that, within a court room, in a trial with a defendant who used a military weapon in the commission of an alleged crime, is a significant misstep when it comes to an arbiter of justice in the courtroom.

It was unnecessary and could easily lead to eyebrows being raised in the lens of the general public.

I don't agree at all. I don't see a connection between people being appreciative of their men and women in the Armed Forces and somehow attributing that as a bias because the defendant used violence in defending himself.

I could maybe see your point if Rittenhouse was a veteran himself, but otherwise it seems like a huge reach.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Only one thing? The entire first paragraph is facts and not particularly editorialized. You disagree with facts or do you have another interpretation of them?

Originally Posted by Mayer

Ones political views could certainly have an effect on how you view the Judges potential bias or not.

He answered your already

[timun]

Originally Posted by Mayer

Among the criticisms are [...] having a round of applause for veterans yesterday....on Veterans Day. Seems reasonable..

Is it reasonable, keeping in mind the only person in the room who was applauded as such was a prosecution witness about to take the stand? I think that's pretty ####ed. He could have made it an acknowledgement of Veteran's Day, but instead he encouraged the courtroom to applaud other individuals in the courtroom.

Bizarre behaviour.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

And, you know, saying the victims were not allowed to be referred to as "victims" but were allowed to be referred to as "rioters, looters, and arsonists", refused a new arrest warrant when Kyle violated his bond, not allowing the prosecution to present video of Kyle saying he wanted to shoot looters (among other photos and videos that give evidence of motive and sincerity) and not allowing them to present an enlarged image but allowing the defence to present a video of police saying they appreciate Kyle, not allowing the prosecution to ask why Kyle needed an AR-15 for self defence, etc.

Again, why lie and pretend? These are completely fair and reasonable criticisms that seriously call into question the judge's bias.

We can just as easily say that just because you want Rittenhouse to go free you and his supporters are painting him and the judge in the best light possible and ignoring pretty blatant issues.

The bolded part would be funny if the situation wasn't so tragic. The judge even admitted that he wasn't tech savvy and didn't understand enlarging technology. That should disqualify him from being able to preside over any trials in the information age.

[Mayer]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Only one thing? The entire first paragraph is facts and not particularly editorialized. You disagree with facts or do you have another interpretation of them?

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.