What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Kyle Rittenhouse Trial: Defense Rests. Resisting the urge to go full HT and just purge this crapshow of a thread. (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Commish

The Commish

Footballguy
Figured it's time for a thread of it's own.  We need to keep the crazy of the Jan 6 stuff in the Jan 6 thread that's been hijacked by this topic.  This is the thread to discuss the case and what's to come.  I'm just starting to pay attention to this and weed through all the noise / monday morning lawyering that we know is going to go on to get information.  Not sure how this one is going to play out.

Ordered to Stand Trial

Pre Trial Hearing

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is going to play out similar to the Zimmeeman case, the left is not going to get the pound of flesh they  crave so much and justice will prevail 

 
jon_mx said:
It is going to play out similar to the Zimmeeman case, the left is not going to get the pound of flesh they  crave so much and justice will prevail 
Click to expand...
And Rittenhouse can be a ####ty person just like Zimmerman but that doesn't change the fact that he killed in self defense. 

 
jon_mx said:
It is going to play out similar to the Zimmeeman case, the left is not going to get the pound of flesh they  crave so much and justice will prevail 
Click to expand...
Justice will likely not prevail.  It will get lost in the noise of homicide vs self defense arguments but at the end of the day the fact that Rittenhouse, just like Zimmerman would have used a gun as a safety blanket to interject himself into a situation where he created the circumstances of the death of others.  Being overcome in a fight, being chased by a "raving maniac" doesn't happen except for their failed attempts to overcome their fears by playing heroic cop wannabes.

I don't disagree with you that this will be a tough to impossible sell to get a conviction from a jury, but for justice to prevail a clear statement would need to be made that thwarted this kind of stuff from continuing to happen.  That won't like happen either. 

Maybe life in prison is the wrong sentence, but a lifetime of being in a prison of shame remembered for their cowardly acts would be appropriate but instead...

 
jon_mx said:
It is going to play out similar to the Zimmeeman case, the left is not going to get the pound of flesh they  crave so much and justice will prevail 
Click to expand...
This really isn't political. I strongly encourage all to realize this. 

 
How are we so sure he will be acquitted? Is it not going to be up to the jury to determine whether he behaved reasonably? 

I guess people are just certain that, based on the Lin Wood video, he behaved reasonably?

 
jon_mx said:
It is going to play out similar to the Zimmeeman case, the left is not going to get the pound of flesh they  crave so much and justice will prevail 
Click to expand...
Hopefully this wannabe cop and vigilante will do some time for his crimes, unlike Zimmerman.

 
The trial was pushed to November 1 start, with the judge indicating further delay is possible.  The parties are still actively conducting discovery, including DNA testing according to the prosecutor.  Everyone agreed a delay is needed.

 
It certainly appears as if people here are taking sides based on their preheld political convictions. I’m glad none of them will be on the jury. 

 
whoknew said:
How are we so sure he will be acquitted? Is it not going to be up to the jury to determine whether he behaved reasonably? 

I guess people are just certain that, based on the Lin Wood video, he behaved reasonably?
Click to expand...
No one who understands the case is sure of the outcome. 

 
As I was reading the Wiki page, something that stuck out to me is that Rittenhouse’s attorney intends to argue that the unlawful firearm charge is unconstitutional because at 17 he can be part of a “militia” and therefore has a right to a firearm under the Second Amendment. 
That seems nuts to me. So anyone at any age can decide on their own to be part of a militia? And therefore can carry a gun at any time without restriction? That’s a pretty extreme interpretation...

 
Insein said:
And Rittenhouse can be a ####ty person just like Zimmerman but that doesn't change the fact that he killed in self defense. 
Click to expand...
If I had to guess, this is what I think the result will be as well.  And it will be yet another example of ignoring personal responsibility and it costing a person their life because of it.

 
timschochet said:
As I was reading the Wiki page, something that stuck out to me is that Rittenhouse’s attorney intends to argue that the unlawful firearm charge is unconstitutional because at 17 he can be part of a “militia” and therefore has a right to a firearm under the Second Amendment. 
That seems nuts to me. So anyone at any age can decide on their own to be part of a militia? And therefore can carry a gun at any time without restriction? That’s a pretty extreme interpretation...
Click to expand...
Some are focusing on the gun charge, but that is a very minor part of this.  Its a misdemeanor charge that would have been resolved and closed long ago if that were all there was to this case.  I'm not sure what if any role that will play in the trial, which primarily involves 5 felony homicide charges.

 
How many homicide cases get pushed out like this?  How many double homicides + attempted murder have accused suspects out on bail?

Not rhetorical questions, I really am seeking knowledge here.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
It is going to play out similar to the Zimmeeman case, the left is not going to get the pound of flesh they  crave so much and justice will prevail 
Click to expand...
I know this is in the PSF, but I think we can have a really good discussion on the particulars of the case (as we already have in the other thread) without turning this into a political pissing match. 

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Justice will likely not prevail.  It will get lost in the noise of homicide vs self defense arguments but at the end of the day the fact that Rittenhouse, just like Zimmerman would have used a gun as a safety blanket to interject himself into a situation where he created the circumstances of the death of others.  Being overcome in a fight, being chased by a "raving maniac" doesn't happen except for their failed attempts to overcome their fears by playing heroic cop wannabes.

I don't disagree with you that this will be a tough to impossible sell to get a conviction from a jury, but for justice to prevail a clear statement would need to be made that thwarted this kind of stuff from continuing to happen.  That won't like happen either. 

Maybe life in prison is the wrong sentence, but a lifetime of being in a prison of shame remembered for their cowardly acts would be appropriate but instead...
Click to expand...
He’ll likely be convicted of a Class A misdemeanor for unlawful weapons possession. 

 
timschochet said:
It certainly appears as if people here are taking sides based on their preheld political convictions. I’m glad none of them will be on the jury. 
Click to expand...
Here as in this thread?  Haven’t had much of a discussion yet. If you mean the other thread where this has been discussed for a number of days, I disagree.

 
question for the legal beagles: can charges be modified/changed?  that is, can a jury find someone guilty of manslaughter for a trial where first degree murder was the original charge?

 
The Z Machine said:
How many homicide cases get pushed out like this?  How many double homicides + attempted murder have accused suspects out on bail?

Not rhetorical questions, I really am seeking knowledge here.
Click to expand...
Its an extraordinary case due to the public spotlight with nation wide attention and the massive financial resources available to the defendant.  Those two factors take the case completely out of most anyone's normal experience.  That said, it is not unusual for trial dates to get pushed.  Criminal defendants have rights to a "speedy trial" date in our country, but at today's pre-trial hearing the Court made a point to ask Kyle Rittenhouse whether he agreed to the delay, and he confirmed his agreement.  The prosecutor in the case indicated he expects to need even more time to prepare, but its not up to him when the trial starts.

As for bail, keep in mind the sole purpose of bail is to ensure the defendant appears for trial.  He is presumed innocent.  Nonetheless, under the circumstances in this case, the judge set a very high cash bail of $2mil, but Rittenhouse was able to raise the funds and post bail, in large part through the efforts of his former lawyers Lin Wood and John Pierce - both of whom have since left his defense team.  It is a very odd situation.  On the one hand, the defendant has posted a massive bail to secure his appearance at trial.  On the other hand, none of it is his money, so does he really care?  Just one of the several odd but interesting issues in this case.

 
CletiusMaximus said:
Some are focusing on the gun charge, but that is a very minor part of this.  Its a misdemeanor charge that would have been resolved and closed long ago if that were all there was to this case.  I'm not sure what if any role that will play in the trial, which primarily involves 5 felony homicide charges.
Click to expand...
The gun charge could possibly play a role with respect to the provocation section of Wisconsin’s self-defense statute. 

 
moleculo said:
question for the legal beagles: can charges be modified/changed?  that is, can a jury find someone guilty of manslaughter for a trial where first degree murder was the original charge?
Click to expand...
Yes, provided the lesser included offenses were part of the charging document (which likely can be amended up to the moment the trial starts and maybe even then during) and were included in the jury instructions with their specific elements listed. 

In other words, the jury can if the judge gives them the option to. The jury can't just unilaterally say, "we acquit Rittenhouse of murder but find him guilty of a hate crime or disorderly" conduct or some other charge not put before them. 

 
I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t even play one on TV. So what I’m asking might be ignorant if so please excuse my ignorance and hold my hand through the answer.  Legally speaking how do, you or how can you, separate the intent from the action. Specifically here them setting aside the illegality of him even carrying a gun into that scene.  It seems to me it’s all tied together and I don’t really understand how one thing can be set aside especially if that one thing inflamed (or even caused) the action.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
moleculo said:
question for the legal beagles: can charges be modified/changed?  that is, can a jury find someone guilty of manslaughter for a trial where first degree murder was the original charge?
Click to expand...
These are the 7 charges.  I'm not sure how much leeway the prosecutor has to modify the charges as the case proceeds.  I'm almost certain there is no way for a jury to convict on a charge that wasn't brought.

1  940.02(1) - 1st-Degree Reckless Homicide

Modifier: - 939.63(1)(b) Use of a Dangerous Weapon

2  941.30(1) - 1st-Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety

Modifier: - 939.63(1)(b)  Use of a Dangerous Weapon

3  940.01(1)(a) - 1st-Degree Intentional Homicide

Modifier: - 939.63(1)(b) Use of a Dangerous Weapon

4  940.01(1)(a) - Attempt 1st-Degree Intentional Homicide

Modifier: - 939.63(1)(b)  Use of a Dangerous Weapon

5  941.30(1) - 1st-Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety

Modifier: - 939.63(1)(b)  Use of a Dangerous Weapon

6  948.60(2)(a) - Possess Dangerous Weapon-Person < 18

7  323.28 - Fail to Comply w/ Emergency Mngt Order of State or Local Gov

 
The Z Machine said:
How many homicide cases get pushed out like this?  How many double homicides + attempted murder have accused suspects out on bail?

Not rhetorical questions, I really am seeking knowledge here.
Click to expand...
In my personal experience I'd say most. I've handled several first degree murder cases - included some double+ homicides - as well as other types of cases where my clients faced natural life in prison or de facto life in prison. I cannot think of a single one that went to trial on the first setting of a jury trial date. 

IIRC the first degree murder trial I did went to trial about 1.5 years after the incident. I'd say that was neither slow or fast. 

Regarding bond, some jurisdictions are more lenient but it doesn't shock me Rittenhouse made bond. He's young, has no real criminal records, and therefore a bond amount of several hundred thousand or whatever it was seems appropriate. And, if he can make it (where most defendants probably don't have access to that sort of cash or don't have the collateral to post through a bondsman), that's his right to post it. 

 
CletiusMaximus said:
Its an extraordinary case due to the public spotlight with nation wide attention and the massive financial resources available to the defendant.  Those two factors take the case completely out of most anyone's normal experience.  That said, it is not unusual for trial dates to get pushed.  Criminal defendants have rights to a "speedy trial" date in our country, but at today's pre-trial hearing the Court made a point to ask Kyle Rittenhouse whether he agreed to the delay, and he confirmed his agreement.  The prosecutor in the case indicated he expects to need even more time to prepare, but its not up to him when the trial starts.

As for bail, keep in mind the sole purpose of bail is to ensure the defendant appears for trial.  He is presumed innocent.  Nonetheless, under the circumstances in this case, the judge set a very high cash bail of $2mil, but Rittenhouse was able to raise the funds and post bail, in large part through the efforts of his former lawyers Lin Wood and John Pierce - both of whom have since left his defense team.  It is a very odd situation.  On the one hand, the defendant has posted a massive bail to secure his appearance at trial.  On the other hand, none of it is his money, so does he really care?  Just one of the several odd but interesting issues in this case.
Click to expand...
The bold is all very accurate (and the rest of the post is well stated). 

In my jurisdiction, my clients all have a speedy trial right to have a trial in a set period. Ethically, I probably cannot just waive that for a client without his consent. However, as it often the case in the criminal justice system, there are often times where it's wise to not exercise a particular right and it's common for somebody like me to advise his client to agree to have a trial later than what he could request because it gives me more time to prepare, negotiate, track down witnesses, get experts, etc. This is called "waiving time" and judges will often be very lenient in resetting trial dates because they need to ensure the defense is ready. If the defense isn't and the judge forces the trial this could be very good grounds to have the conviction(s) overturned on appeal or through post-conviction relief. 

 
John123 said:
If it wasn't political he never would have been arrested.
Click to expand...
Dude shot 3 people and killed 2. You're suggesting there wasn't reasonable suspicion to detain him and not PC to at least book him? If so, can you explain?

 
Zow said:
Dude shot 3 people and killed 2. You're suggesting there wasn't reasonable suspicion to detain him and not PC to at least book him? If so, can you explain?
Click to expand...
People shoot people in self defense regularly.  Most of the time those people are never charged.  In this case there is ample enidence of self defense.  But he killed "peaceful" protestors who were only trying to kill him so he has to be taken down.  

 
John123 said:
People shoot people in self defense regularly.  Most of the time those people are never charged.  In this case there is ample enidence of self defense.  But he killed "peaceful" protestors who were only trying to kill him so he has to be taken down.  
Click to expand...
Care to provide some sort of support to the bolded statements? They are inconsistent with my training and experience. 

Also, self-defense is, at least in my jurisdiction, an affirmative defense. What this means is that it is essentially an admission to the elements of the crime charged (in other words, probable cause is conceded), but there's good justification for committing the offense that should excuse the conduct. As @the rover pointed out at length in the Jan 6th thread, the defendant likely has to meet some burden of proof in asserting self-defense or make some prima facie showing. As such, by the very legal nature of it all a charge would be legally permissible. 

 
Zow said:
Care to provide some sort of support to the bolded statements? They are inconsistent with my training and experience. 

Also, self-defense is, at least in my jurisdiction, an affirmative defense. What this means is that it is essentially an admission to the elements of the crime charged (in other words, probable cause is conceded), but there's good justification for committing the offense that should excuse the conduct. As @the rover pointed out at length in the Jan 6th thread, the defendant likely has to meet some burden of proof in asserting self-defense or make some prima facie showing. As such, by the very legal nature of it all a charge would be legally permissible. 
Click to expand...
Regarding the burden of proof on self-defense, I don’t think we’ve settled on a definitive answer in the ongoing discussion here. It’s a huge issue. Jon found a jury charge stating that the prosecution bears the burden of proof to show that the elements of self-defense are not present, but that instruction was for self-defense that did not involve deadly force. Would be very interested to see the Wisconsin pattern jury charge on set-defense involving deadly force. 

 
bigbottom said:
Regarding the burden of proof on self-defense, I don’t think we’ve settled on a definitive answer in the ongoing discussion here. It’s a huge issue. Jon found a jury charge stating that the prosecution bears the burden of proof to show that the elements of self-defense are not present, but that instruction was for self-defense that did not involve deadly force. Would be very interested to see the Wisconsin pattern jury charge on set-defense involving deadly force. 
Click to expand...
Yeah this is super nuanced. Jon's jury instruction still makes sense to me that the state still must prove it wasn't self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. However, as I noted is the case in my jurisdiction, this instruction/principle/burden only kicks in if the defendant has met some initial burden or made a prima facie (initial) showing of self-defense. 

If I find some time I'll hit up a buddy of mine who has significant experience in WI doing homicides as both a prosecutor and defense counsel. 

 
Zow said:
Care to provide some sort of support to the bolded statements? They are inconsistent with my training and experience. 

Also, self-defense is, at least in my jurisdiction, an affirmative defense. What this means is that it is essentially an admission to the elements of the crime charged (in other words, probable cause is conceded), but there's good justification for committing the offense that should excuse the conduct. As @the rover pointed out at length in the Jan 6th thread, the defendant likely has to meet some burden of proof in asserting self-defense or make some prima facie showing. As such, by the very legal nature of it all a charge would be legally permissible. 
Click to expand...
Here's one from yesterday:

https://wgntv.com/news/chicagocrime/man-shot-by-69-year-old-conceal-carry-holder-after-attempted-robbery-3-arrested/

You think they're gonna charge the 69 year old for shooting someone?

 
Zow said:
I don't know. What you've posted here is a brief media article. 

I also don't know how one media article supports your premise. 
Click to expand...
It's actually ok for us to disagree.  You're entitled to your opinion based on your "training and experience" and I'm entitled to mine.  I'd love to see the training materials that have informed you about the statistics of people being charged in self defense scenarios though.  Your experience is a little too anecdotal for me though.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
John123 said:
A world where self defense is recognized.   I think our justice system would be far worse if anyone who killed someone in self defense was arrested. 
Click to expand...
People who kill in self-defense are oftentimes arrested (charges may later be declined or dismissed). Our system is already set up, at least in a number of jurisdictions, where the defendant must assert self-defense as an affirmative defense. 

Please understand that I'm not advocating that a person be arrested in a clear case of self-defense as there still needs to be probable cause that a crime was committed. 

 
John123 said:
It's actually ok for us to disagree.  You're entitled to your opinion based on your "training and experience" and I'm entitled to mine.  I'd love to see the training materials that have informed you about the statistics of people being charged in self defense scenarios though.  Your experience is a little too anecdotal for me though.
Click to expand...
I'm not ignoring this post and disagreements certainly are part of life. I just don't know how to respond without sounding pompous or without unintentionally doxxing myself. 

 
bigbottom said:
The gun charge could possibly play a role with respect to the provocation section of Wisconsin’s self-defense statute. 
Click to expand...
It also may have a bearing on the burden of proof for the self-defense claim.   As I understand it, Wisconsin shifts the burden of proof to the state for self-defense claims, but not where the self-defense occurs in the context of a criminal activity.   The gun charge and the curfew charge may both play into that.   

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
McCarthy and McConnell Wanted ‘Son of a B*tch’ Trump Out of Politics After Jan. 6 Riot,
2 3
Replies
124
Views
4K
ignatiusjreilly
ignatiusjreilly
GordonGekko
How NYC Bodega Clerk Jose Alba's "Self Defense" Became Political Persecution ( 7/10/22 2:12 PST)
2
Replies
97
Views
3K
parasaurolophus
parasaurolophus
Max Power
Every branch of the U.S. military is struggling to meet its 2022 recruiting goals
3 4 5
Replies
203
Views
7K
Max Power
Max Power

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top