Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

January 6th - what will happen?


Maik Jeaunz

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, the rover said:

What’s your experience with applying statutes in jury trials?  Got some case law to support your completely unsupported opinion?  You literally just make things up, get proven wrong and move on to making up something else.  It’s weird how desperate you are to be on the side of a murderer.

If your reading is correct the court will not allow Rittenhouse to claim self-defense.  Is that something you are willing to put money on?  You really believe that is what the law really says?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jon_mx said:

If your reading is correct the court will not allow Rittenhouse to claim self-defense.  Is that something you are willing to put money on?  You really believe that is what the law really says?  

No, you’re wrong again.  It means he doesn’t get a presumption and he’d have the burden of proof.  Keep trying.  Throw enough spaghetti against a wall and eventually a piece might stick.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, zoonation said:

Jon playing armchair lawyer is always hilarious shtick. 

It’s just amazing how he doesn’t care how many times he’s wrong.  Just make a false claim, get called out, backpedal, repeat.  I’m going back to putting him on ignore before I get another time out.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, the rover said:

No, you’re wrong again.  It means he doesn’t get a presumption and he’d have the burden of proof.  Keep trying.  Throw enough spaghetti against a wall and eventually a piece might stick.

 

And what presumption is that?   You have offered no explanation as to what that presumption is and what practical impact that has on this case.  I see that as having zero impact because one it does not apply since Rosenbaum would have no way if knowing Rittenhouse was underage.  So how could that have provoked it?  Rosenbaum had been verbally abusive against several people who were carrying guns regardless of whether they were underage or not.   And even if the court wrongfully concluded Rittenhouse's being underage provoked the attack, then so what?  That would have required Rittenhouse to flee if possible, which he did.  The issue that Rittenhouse reasonably feared for being killed or harmed is the same. You are bringing up yet another false/irrelevant point and not explaining it, and then throwing some kind of hissy fit.  The fact that Rittenhouse had likely committed a misdemeanor offense will have zero impact on the case.  If you disagree, explain what real impact it will have on Rittenhouse's self-defense claim.  

Edited by jon_mx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many pages are we discussing Kyle Rittenhouse in here. Isn't there a thread for that? 

Rittenhouse killed 2 criminals and wounded a 3rd all in self defense. A child rapist, a thief and a wife beater. They came after a guy with a gun because they were looking to start trouble and they found it. The video pretty clearly shows that. The trial will show that. Don't need to go another 12 rounds in here about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Insein said:

How many pages are we discussing Kyle Rittenhouse in here. Isn't there a thread for that? 

Rittenhouse killed 2 criminals and wounded a 3rd all in self defense. A child rapist, a thief and a wife beater. They came after a guy with a gun because they were looking to start trouble and they found it. The video pretty clearly shows that. The trial will show that. Don't need to go another 12 rounds in here about it.

 

I don't believe there is a separate thread.  Some of us were discussing the case some time ago in a different thread, but that was not a dedicated thread either. 

For what its worth, Rittenhouse has recently added a second Wisconsin-based criminal defense lawyer to his team, and is (in my opinion) well-represented.  He has thankfully rid himself of the celebrity lawyers and I believe has a large defense fund available to him.  

There is a pre-trial tomorrow morning, and the case is scheduled to go to trial starting on March 29.  It seems likely the trial date will be put off at tomorrow's hearing.  We'll see.

The docket for the case is here: https://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetail.html?caseNo=2020CF000983&countyNo=30&index=0&mode=details

He is facing 7 criminal counts - 5 felonies for the homicide counts, a misdemeanor (underaged gun possession) and a civil forfeiture claim, which I believe is the curfew charge.  Obviously, the case will almost entirely depend on Rittenhouse's ability to present a case for self-defense.  I personally believe this is a close call, and certainly more nuanced than the majority of online commentators make it out to be.  I would not bet a penny on how the jury will come down on that issue.

One thing I think most people understand is that the moral character and prior acts of the victims is almost certainly not admissible evidence in this case.  I understand why people want to discuss those factors in a general discussion, but the various sundry aspects of the victims' past are almost certainly not going to be before the jury in this case (barring some extraordinary set of facts that I am unaware of - such as that Rittenhouse personally knew the victims and that their prior acts contributed to his reasonable belief that his life was in danger at that moment.)  For the law geeks out there, this aspect of the case is governed by the "McMorris rule" in Wisconsin ("In cases implicating self-defense, a defendant may introduce evidence that he or she feared the victim based on the knowledge or belief that the victim had committed prior acts of violence, and thus was a person to be feared.")  This issue may be argued tomorrow.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

 

I don't believe there is a separate thread.  Some of us were discussing the case some time ago in a different thread, but that was not a dedicated thread either. 

For what its worth, Rittenhouse has recently added a second Wisconsin-based criminal defense lawyer to his team, and is (in my opinion) well-represented.  He has thankfully rid himself of the celebrity lawyers and I believe has a large defense fund available to him.  

There is a pre-trial tomorrow morning, and the case is scheduled to go to trial starting on March 29.  It seems likely the trial date will be put off at tomorrow's hearing.  We'll see.

The docket for the case is here: https://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetail.html?caseNo=2020CF000983&countyNo=30&index=0&mode=details

He is facing 7 criminal counts - 5 felonies for the homicide counts, a misdemeanor (underaged gun possession) and a civil forfeiture claim, which I believe is the curfew charge.  Obviously, the case will almost entirely depend on Rittenhouse's ability to present a case for self-defense.  I personally believe this is a close call, and certainly more nuanced than the majority of online commentators make it out to be.  I would not bet a penny on how the jury will come down on that issue.

One thing I think most people understand is that the moral character and prior acts of the victims is almost certainly not admissible evidence in this case.  I understand why people want to discuss those factors in a general discussion, but the various sundry aspects of the victims' past are almost certainly not going to be before the jury in this case (barring some extraordinary set of facts that I am unaware of - such as that Rittenhouse personally knew the victims and that their prior acts contributed to his reasonable belief that his life was in danger at that moment.)  For the law geeks out there, this aspect of the case is governed by the "McMorris rule" in Wisconsin ("In cases implicating self-defense, a defendant may introduce evidence that he or she feared the victim based on the knowledge or belief that the victim had committed prior acts of violence, and thus was a person to be feared.")  This issue may be argued tomorrow.

 

 

I believe the criminal past of the victims will play into the self defense angle. These are violent individuals that came after Rittenhouse and he was forced to defend himself. It most certainly would be used against Rittenhouse if these were churchgoing, upstanding members of the community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

One thing I think most people understand is that the moral character and prior acts of the victims is almost certainly not admissible evidence in this case.  I understand why people want to discuss those factors in a general discussion, but the various sundry aspects of the victims' past are almost certainly not going to be before the jury in this case (barring some extraordinary set of facts that I am unaware of - such as that Rittenhouse personally knew the victims and that their prior acts contributed to his reasonable belief that his life was in danger at that moment.)  

Nor should it be, although people here keep arguing otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Insein said:

I believe the criminal past of the victims will play into the self defense angle. These are violent individuals that came after Rittenhouse and he was forced to defend himself. It most certainly would be used against Rittenhouse if these were churchgoing, upstanding members of the community.

We'll know perhaps as soon as tomorrow afternoon whether this evidence will be admissible in this case. I think an argument could be made that although Rittenhouse didn't know have personal knowledge of the victims' prior conduct, he had a reasonable belief that anyone out after curfew on the streets in Kenosha that night was prone to violence.  If it were my butt on the line, or my son's, I would not feel very comfortable with the prospect the court will allow that evidence in.  If the prosecutors are acting like prosecutors normally act, any plea offer on the table today will change after a major ruling (either favorable to the prosecution or the defense.)

The judge in this case made a very favorable ruling to Rittenhouse last month when he denied the prosecution's request for a warrant to issue and for bail conditions to change based on Rittenhouse's violation of the existing bail conditions.  I think a ruling like that will typically boost a defendant's confidence.  However, this judge is known to be a "tough on crime" type judge.  He's been around forever, is a known commodity.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Insein said:

I believe the criminal past of the victims will play into the self defense angle. These are violent individuals that came after Rittenhouse and he was forced to defend himself. It most certainly would be used against Rittenhouse if these were churchgoing, upstanding members of the community.

Unless he personally knew the victims, how would their past be relevant to whether Rittenhouse reasonably feared imminent harm?  This information would be far more prejudicial than probative and would be likely be excluded.  Based on CM’s post, it seems that this isn’t a close issue in Wisconsin.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

We'll know perhaps as soon as tomorrow afternoon whether this evidence will be admissible in this case. I think an argument could be made that although Rittenhouse didn't know have personal knowledge of the victims' prior conduct, he had a reasonable belief that anyone out after curfew on the streets in Kenosha that night was prone to violence.  If it were my butt on the line, or my son's, I would not feel very comfortable with the prospect the court will allow that evidence in.  If the prosecutors are acting like prosecutors normally act, any plea offer on the table today will change after a major ruling (either favorable to the prosecution or the defense.)

The judge in this case made a very favorable ruling to Rittenhouse last month when he denied the prosecution's request for a warrant to issue and for bail conditions to change based on Rittenhouse's violation of the existing bail conditions.  I think a ruling like that will typically boost a defendant's confidence.  However, this judge is known to be a "tough on crime" type judge.  He's been around forever, is a known commodity.

 

Wouldn't that impact him negatively too?  Would the prosecutors not say the same thing about him and add he was carrying a gun around which reinforces that?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Wouldn't that impact him negatively too?  Would the prosecutors not say the same thing about him and add he was carrying a gun around which reinforces that?

Sure - the strategy calls on how to approach this defense are way beyond my knowledge or experience.  This is a very tough case in my (uninformed) opinion - for both sides. Facing multiple homicide charges and life in prison as a teenager is no joke. None of the bloggers or youtuber experts out there can claim to be able to put themselves in this kid's shoes in making the tough decisions he has to make now.  There's a reason 98+ percent of these cases never get to trial.  When you are relying on a self-defense argument, you've admitted the underlying charges - as he must in this case. In other words, he's not contesting the charge of homicide by saying he didn't do it, but is admitting murder and claiming it was justified under a self-defense argument.  That's a really tough place to be for a young kid, or really for any criminal defendant and his defense team.

At the same time, we have a young prosecutor who admittedly has career aspirations.  He's run for office in the recent past and surely views this case as a massive, potentially career-defining event.  These people are all in a fishbowl down in Kenosha.  They know there will be public outcry no matter how it is resolved. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

Sure - the strategy calls on how to approach this defense are way beyond my knowledge or experience.  This is a very tough case in my (uninformed) opinion - for both sides. Facing multiple homicide charges and life in prison as a teenager is no joke. None of the bloggers or youtuber experts out there can claim to be able to put themselves in this kid's shoes in making the tough decisions he has to make now.  There's a reason 98+ percent of these cases never get to trial.  When you are relying on a self-defense argument, you've admitted the underlying charges - as he must in this case. In other words, he's not contesting the charge of homicide by saying he didn't do it, but is admitting murder and claiming it was justified under a self-defense argument.  That's a really tough place to be for a young kid, or really for any criminal defendant and his defense team.

At the same time, we have a young prosecutor who admittedly has career aspirations.  He's run for office in the recent past and surely views this case as a massive, potentially career-defining event.  These people are all in a fishbowl down in Kenosha.  They know there will be public outcry no matter how it is resolved. 

Thanks GB....will be interesting to hear your updates and input on this as it goes forward...perhaps we should have a thread on this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Insein said:

I believe the criminal past of the victims will play into the self defense angle. These are violent individuals that came after Rittenhouse and he was forced to defend himself. It most certainly would be used against Rittenhouse if these were churchgoing, upstanding members of the community.

The only way the past criminal history becomes relevant is if the prosecution attempts to make Ridenhouse into the aggressor who provoked the attack. Then the past histories of the psychopath should be relevant. 

If I were Rittenhouse I would press for a change of venue based on. False discrimatory statements by the Sherriff (stating Riddenhouse murdered two innocent peaceful protestors).  Hopefully to the most rural location possible where gun rights are valued. 

Edited by jon_mx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Insein said:

How many pages are we discussing Kyle Rittenhouse in here. Isn't there a thread for that? 

Rittenhouse killed 2 criminals and wounded a 3rd all in self defense. A child rapist, a thief and a wife beater. They came after a guy with a gun because they were looking to start trouble and they found it. The video pretty clearly shows that. The trial will show that. Don't need to go another 12 rounds in here about it.

This Rittenhouse stuff is interesting to the lawyer types and is a good distraction from Jan 6th Trump fiasco :coffee:

  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Commish said:

Thanks GB....will be interesting to hear your updates and input on this as it goes forward...perhaps we should have a thread on this?

I'm not a good source to give reliable information on this, due to my schedule and just a general lack of experience with criminal law.  But I'm happy to update here or elsewhere as time allows.  I intend to watch the pre-trial tomorrow morning (everything is live-streamed on youtube), but work may get in the way.  I can say that I think I am rather neutral on this case.  I have a 16 year old son who, like many/most 16 year old boys, is generally a good kid but who sometimes makes dumb decisions.  I sympathize with this kid and his mom, and as noted am very happy for him that he got rid of the celebrity schmucks and is fortunate to have the resources to hire good lawyers.  It should be obvious that 99% of the 17/18 year old kids out there facing murder charges have no such options, no such luck.  At the same time, I hate these yahoos who seek out protests, travel there and march around with their guns like pretend military guys.  I do not believe he was there out of a sense of civic duty as he claims.  In my perfect world, that behavior alone would be criminal - to travel to a known hotspot and parade around with high-powered rifles dressed in quasi-military uniforms looking for a fight.  That's obviously a recipe for disaster.

That said, we have to ignore all that and look at the law.

The jury in this case will have a very difficult job in my opinion.  They will be shown various videos, pictures and hear witness testimony, and be asked to apply the Wisconsin self-defense statute to those facts.

 

Quote

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.

(1)  A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.

 

There are several other legal factors involved beyond this statute.  It is not a simple question.  But ultimately, they have to decide, when this kid pulled the trigger, did he reasonably believes that such force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself?  That's his burden.  Both sides are under tremendous political pressure, which clouds their decision-making process in my opinion.  If you remove the public scrutiny, the case would probably already be resolved.  As it stands, with both sides dug in, I think it may actually go to trial.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CletiusMaximus said:
2 hours ago, The Commish said:

Thanks GB....will be interesting to hear your updates and input on this as it goes forward...perhaps we should have a thread on this?

I'm not a good source to give reliable information on this, due to my schedule and just a general lack of experience with criminal law.  But I'm happy to update here or elsewhere as time allows.  I intend to watch the pre-trial tomorrow morning (everything is live-streamed on youtube), but work may get in the way.  I can say that I think I am rather neutral on this case.  I have a 16 year old son who, like many/most 16 year old boys, is generally a good kid but who sometimes makes dumb decisions.  I sympathize with this kid and his mom, and as noted am very happy for him that he got rid of the celebrity schmucks and is fortunate to have the resources to hire good lawyers.  It should be obvious that 99% of the 17/18 year old kids out there facing murder charges have no such options, no such luck.  At the same time, I hate these yahoos who seek out protests, travel there and march around with their guns like pretend military guys.  I do not believe he was there out of a sense of civic duty as he claims.  In my perfect world, that behavior alone would be criminal - to travel to a known hotspot and parade around with high-powered rifles dressed in quasi-military uniforms looking for a fight.  That's obviously a recipe for disaster.

That said, we have to ignore all that and look at the law.

The jury in this case will have a very difficult job in my opinion.  They will be shown various videos, pictures and hear witness testimony, and be asked to apply the Wisconsin self-defense statute to those facts.

 

Quote

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.

(1)  A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.

 

There are several other legal factors involved beyond this statute.  It is not a simple question.  But ultimately, they have to decide, when this kid pulled the trigger, did he reasonably believes that such force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself?  That's his burden.  Both sides are under tremendous political pressure, which clouds their decision-making process in my opinion.  If you remove the public scrutiny, the case would probably already be resolved.  As it stands, with both sides dug in, I think it may actually go to trial.

I'm with you for the most part.  I have a 13 year old and am not sure how I'd react in this situation.  What will be interesting to me is if the jury takes into account his actions that lead up to the events.  That will be a determining factor it seems.  Here in Florida, it was basically ruled that it didn't matter how much you did to get yourself into the situation where you were fearing for your life.  Nothing up to the point of that feeling seemed to matter at all and I struggle with that as a father who preaches personal responsibility to my kids.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a lawyer, not offering a legal opinion.  But common sensically, I'd like to believe a murderer fleeing the scene of a murder doesn't have a right to defend themselves. 

So it seems like it will depend a lot on the first shooting (the one he ran towards voluntarily).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, The Commish said:

I'm with you for the most part.  I have a 13 year old and am not sure how I'd react in this situation.  What will be interesting to me is if the jury takes into account his actions that lead up to the events.  That will be a determining factor it seems.  Here in Florida, it was basically ruled that it didn't matter how much you did to get yourself into the situation where you were fearing for your life.  Nothing up to the point of that feeling seemed to matter at all and I struggle with that as a father who preaches personal responsibility to my kids.  

But it is almost similar to blaming a rape victim for the way she dressed.  It still takes a rapist to act.  In this case, Rosenbaum appears to be a psychopath who was bound and determined to cause violence.  Rittenhouse was the last of his many outlets for his anger not only that night but his whole life.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jon_mx said:

But it is almost similar to blaming a rape victim for the way she dressed.  It still takes a rapist to act.  In this case, Rosenbaum appears to be a psychopath who was bound and determined to cause violence.  Rittenhouse was the last of his many outlets for his anger not only that night but his whole life.  

seems to me you have assigned Rittenhouse the role of victim.  I get why you say that, but Rosenbaum is the one who is dead.  Are you not explicitly blaming the victim yourself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

Not a lawyer, not offering a legal opinion.  But common sensically, I'd like to believe a murderer fleeing the scene of a murder doesn't have a right to defend themselves. 

So it seems like it will depend a lot on the first shooting (the one he ran towards voluntarily).

What are you talking about here.  Rittenhouse was fleeing from a raging maniac.  If his first act was justifiable, then how is the mob vigilante response moral and why is it immoral to run from what most certainly been a lynching based on misinformation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, moleculo said:

seems to me you have assigned Rittenhouse the role of victim.  I get why you say that, but Rosenbaum is the one who is dead.  Are you not explicitly blaming the victim yourself?

I blame the aggressor.  Rosenbaum ran after Rittenhoise with an obvious aggressive intent to do harm. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Zow said:

1. Probably isn't terribly relevant that he isn't native. That fact would likely have to be tied in to some other circumstantial evidence re: his motive. I don't think it's a fact that should be precluded, I just don't think it carries much weight. 

2. Your second question is very likely jurisdiction specific. I don't know Wisconsin law so maybe there's some felony murder component (although I assume if that was an option it'd be charged that way). Assuming not, if I were his defense attorney I would actually move to sever that count (and deal with it separately in another case and very likely look to plead it out) and then move to preclude that allegation from being mentioned in the murder trial pursuant to a rule that says if a piece of evidence has little evidentiary (meaning its arguably relevant but not case dispositive or significantly relevant) value it should be precluded if its value it substantially outweighed by the prejudice to the defendant. 

thanks.  Legally speaking, if the jury should overlook Rittenhouse violating curfew and brandishing a weapon he isn't legally mature enough to carry, then my concerns are moot and it all comes down to self defense, and I would tend to agree that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, moleculo said:

thanks.  Legally speaking, if the jury should overlook Rittenhouse violating curfew and brandishing a weapon he isn't legally mature enough to carry, then my concerns are moot and it all comes down to self defense, and I would tend to agree that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense.

If this goes to trial, which I don't think it will, it will all come down to the makeup of the jury.   He killed two people and tried to kill a third.  That's undisputed.   The only question is whether in all three cases he was reasonable to believe he was in imminent harm.  Rosenbaum was unarmed and threw a plastic bag at him.   He tried to disarm him by taking his gun.   Is that enough?   Maybe, maybe not.  Then he called his friend and said he killed a guy.   He was in so much "imminent harm" that he made a phone call, not to the police, but to his buddy (who lied in police statements about why they were there).   

Then Rittenhouse ran, fell down, tried to shoot a guy and missed, and Anthony Huber hit him in the arm with a skateboard trying to get him to drop the gun.  As Huber tried to take his gun away, Rittenhouse shot him in the chest and he died instantly.   

Rittenhouse wasn't done, though.   He's already killed two people and tried to shoot a third.   When Rittenhouse murdered Huber, Grosskreutz raised his hands in the air, but continued to move toward Rittenhouse to take his gun.   Rittenhouse tried to kill him too, but ended up shooting him in the arm and severing his bicep.  Grosskreutz did have a gun, but he wasn't threatening Rittenhouse with it.

Even after all this, Rittenhouse got up and walked away.   He walked right past police.   He didn't turn himself in.   He wasn't attacked.   He just left.  So much for "imminent harm."

 

Edited by -fish-
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, -fish- said:

If this goes to trial, which I don't think it will, it will all come down to the makeup of the jury.   He killed two people and tried to kill a third.  That's undisputed.   The only question is whether in all three cases he was reasonable to believe he was in imminent harm.  Rosenbaum was unarmed and threw a plastic bag at him.   He tried to disarm him by taking his gun.   Is that enough?   Maybe, maybe not.  Then he called his friend and said he killed a guy.   He was in so much "imminent harm" that he made a phone call, not to the police, but to his buddy (who lied in police statements about why they were there).   

Then Rittenhouse ran, fell down, tried to shoot a guy and missed, and Anthony Huber hit him in the arm with a skateboard trying to get him to drop the gun.  As Huber tried to take his gun away, Rittenhouse shot him in the chest and he died instantly.   

Rittenhouse wasn't done, though.   He's already killed two people and tried to shoot a third.   When Rittenhouse murdered Huber, Grosskreutz raised his hands in the air, but continued to move toward Rittenhouse to take his gun.   Rittenhouse tried to kill him too, but ended up shooting him in the arm and severing his bicep.  Grosskreutz did have a gun, but he wasn't threatening Rittenhouse with it.

Even after all this, Rittenhouse got up and walked away.   He walked right past police.   He didn't turn himself in.   He wasn't attacked.   He just left.  So much for "imminent harm."

 

It is going to trial.  There is little chance the murder charges stick.  You version of events complety whitewashes what each victim did it is laughable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jon_mx said:
3 hours ago, moleculo said:

seems to me you have assigned Rittenhouse the role of victim.  I get why you say that, but Rosenbaum is the one who is dead.  Are you not explicitly blaming the victim yourself?

I blame the aggressor.  Rosenbaum ran after Rittenhoise with an obvious aggressive intent to do harm. 

How you (you being not only just you specifically but those defending the kid) not label a 17yr old kid bringing and brandishing an AR to an active protest/riot as an aggressor is mind blowing to me. He absolutely is an aggressor, as are any other non law enforcement officers who brought weapons. 

Edited by dkp993
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, CletiusMaximus said:

We'll know perhaps as soon as tomorrow afternoon whether this evidence will be admissible in this case. I think an argument could be made that although Rittenhouse didn't know have personal knowledge of the victims' prior conduct, he had a reasonable belief that anyone out after curfew on the streets in Kenosha that night was prone to violence.  If it were my butt on the line, or my son's, I would not feel very comfortable with the prospect the court will allow that evidence in.  If the prosecutors are acting like prosecutors normally act, any plea offer on the table today will change after a major ruling (either favorable to the prosecution or the defense.)

 

While I am not licensed in Wisconsin, as a defense attorney I would have essentially no confidence that the court would permit me to bring out any specifics about the victims' prior acts - unless, of course, I could show my client knew about them. 

 

In my experience, prosecutors usually don't leave offers on the table indefinitely and will commonly pull offers if there is a substantive motion filed re: the evidence. Now, a favorable ruling to the defendant on an issue such as this may bring a prosecutor back to the table, but if trial is March 29th I would imagine the prosecutor and defense would have already exhausted plea negotiations at least to the extent where the state is well aware of the ballpark of what Rittenhouse may accept. And, frankly, that number range may just be simply too low regardless of pretrial issue outcome(s). 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Zow said:

In my experience, prosecutors usually don't leave offers on the table indefinitely and will commonly pull offers if there is a substantive motion filed re: the evidence. Now, a favorable ruling to the defendant on an issue such as this may bring a prosecutor back to the table, but if trial is March 29th I would imagine the prosecutor and defense would have already exhausted plea negotiations at least to the extent where the state is well aware of the ballpark of what Rittenhouse may accept. And, frankly, that number range may just be simply too low regardless of pretrial issue outcome(s). 

I've discussed the case with a couple local prosecutor friends and they said the same - at this point, they are probably dug in and going to send it to a jury.  The public spotlight / politics makes it hard for them to negotiate.  In civil cases, we often settle in the days or even hours leading up to a trial, but I guess I've learned that is less common in criminal cases.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, moleculo said:

thanks.  Legally speaking, if the jury should overlook Rittenhouse violating curfew and brandishing a weapon he isn't legally mature enough to carry, then my concerns are moot and it all comes down to self defense, and I would tend to agree that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense.

Agree here....and the problems with these self defense laws would continue to linger. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kind of cinfused.....i thought i read up thread that he didnt point a gun at anyone.  How did he kill two people having not done that?  Maybe i read incorrectly...was skimming through noise at that pont. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

I've discussed the case with a couple local prosecutor friends and they said the same - at this point, they are probably dug in and going to send it to a jury.  The public spotlight / politics makes it hard for them to negotiate.  In civil cases, we often settle in the days or even hours leading up to a trial, but I guess I've learned that is less common in criminal cases.

 

The bold, to me, is what makes this a bit more unlikely to settle last minute, too. 

My experience is similar to yours though in that 11th hour settlements are far more frequent in civil cases (and they're very frequent in family law cases). However, they're not super rare in criminal cases though either and I've resolved several matters on the eve or day of trial.* I just think in this sort of case the prosecution has likely already made the best offer it'll make barring some extreme and unlikely circumstances (e.g. lost evidence, a missing key witness, etc.). 

 

*One of my most memorable plea agreements involved a morning of plea where I got my trial immunity from prosecution for meth sales that included a range of time that went through the end of the day. The judge, who was already annoyed that he had confirmed and called a jury pool and vacated his entire week's calendar for our trial, just ruthlessly made fun of the prosecutor through the change of plea hearing and told my client he expected to see him selling meth on the courthouse steps and laughing at everybody. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what I was looking for:

According to McGinniss, it seemed that Rosenbaum and other protesters were moving toward Rittenhouse, who was trying to evade them; Rosenbaum then tried to "engage" Rittenhouse, but Rittenhouse managed to avoid this by sidestepping and running away.[33][34]

The remainder of Rosenbaum's confrontation, and the following incidents with Huber and Grosskreutz, were recorded in cellphone footage from multiple angles, including the moments of the shooting.[6] Video footage showed Rittenhouse being pursued across a parking lot by Rosenbaum,[5] who threw something in Rittenhouse's direction,[35][34] identified as a plastic bag.[33] As Rittenhouse was running from Rosenbaum, two shots could be heard, one from an unknown third party, fired for an unknown reason, and one from Joshua Ziminski, who fired a self-described "warning shot" into the air,[36] causing Rittenhouse to stop running and turn towards the sound of Ziminski's shot.[5] McGinniss has since stated that the sound of the shot was the moment Rittenhouse "went from running away to aiming his weapon."[36] Then, according to Kenosha County prosecutors, Rosenbaum engaged Rittenhouse and tried to take his rifle from him.[37][38][39] Rittenhouse then fired four shots, hitting Rosenbaum in the groin, back, and left hand. The bullets fractured Rosenbaum's pelvis, perforated his right lung and liver,[40] and caused additional minor wounds to his left thigh and forehead.[40] Rittenhouse remained near the fatally wounded Rosenbaum as McGinniss began administering first aid. Rittenhouse then made a phone call and was heard saying "I just killed somebody," and then fled as more protesters arrived.[39]

Edited by Dinsy Ejotuz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Kind of cinfused.....i thought i read up thread that he didnt point a gun at anyone.  How did he kill two people having not done that?  Maybe i read incorrectly...was skimming through noise at that pont. 

He shot three people and tried to shoot another and missed.  He shot them because they were trying to take his gun away.  He has admitted that he shot center mass intending to kill them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Commish said:

Kind of cinfused.....i thought i read up thread that he didnt point a gun at anyone.  How did he kill two people having not done that?  Maybe i read incorrectly...was skimming through noise at that pont. 

Because you are being intentionally obtuse.  The statements of pointing the gun was used to imply Rittenhouse provoked the attack and they were only trying to disarm Rittenhouse to defend themselves.  But the exact opposite is true.  Rittenhouse was chased and attacked and the pointed his gun in self-defense.  He was not the aggressor.  Liberals are making the mere presence of people as an aggressive action and ignorimg the real aggressors.  The different set of standards disgust me.  

Edited by jon_mx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, the rover said:

He shot three people and tried to shoot another and missed.  He shot them because they were trying to take his gun away.  He has admitted that he shot center mass intending to kill them.

If you're aiming a gun at someone, you better intend to kill them. They came after him as a group and continued to pursue him as he ran away. One tackled him and another tried to hit him over the head with a skateboard while he was down. They reached for his gun and he shot them. This is all on video. 

Edited by Insein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Insein said:

If you're aiming a gun at someone, you better intend to kill them. They came after him as a group and continued to pursue him as he ran away. One tackled him and another tried to hit him over the head with a skateboard while he was down. They reached for his gun and he shot them. This is all on video. 

Not to mention the third guy who had the gun in his hand who was a fraction of a second away from putting bullets into Rittenhouse.  I can't understand how they twist things with a straight face. 

Edited by jon_mx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jon_mx said:

Not to mention the third guy who had the gun in h is hand who was a fraction of a second away from pitting bullets into Rittenhouse.  I can't understand how they twist things with a straight face. 

If it wasn't on film, he'd have been crucified by now. Thankfully someone was recording thinking they were going to get Rittenhouse in trouble. It's actually the only thing saving him right now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is an unprovoked act of aggressively chasing someone down in an attempt to take their firearm morally defensible?   Is it legal to go around taking people's guns?  You just can't try to disarm people you do not like. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

How is an unprovoked act of aggressively chasing someone down in an attempt to take their firearm morally defensible?   Is it legal to go around taking people's guns?  You just can't try to disarm people you do not like. 

Do you not consider bringing a firearm to a protest that is bursting at the seams with tension an act of aggression?  I'm having trouble believing that anyone seriously thinks he was there to protect and de-escalate the situation.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

How is an unprovoked act of aggressively chasing someone down in an attempt to take their firearm morally defensible?   Is it legal to go around taking people's guns?  You just can't try to disarm people you do not like. 

After that someone had shot and killed another person and was fleeing the scene instead of waiting to talk to the police, which is what happened here after the first killing. 

I don't think it was wise of the crowd to chase Rittenhouse so as to try to apprehend him so he could be taken into custody, however it is morally defensible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, squistion said:

After that someone had shot and killed another person and was fleeing the scene instead of waiting to talk to the police, which is what happened here after the first killing. 

I don't think it was wise of the crowd to chase Rittenhouse so as to try to apprehend him so he could be taken into custody, however it is morally defensible. 

I was talking about the first instance.  And your characterization of the second instance  is just silly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dickies said:

Do you not consider bringing a firearm to a protest that is bursting at the seams with tension an act of aggression?  I'm having trouble believing that anyone seriously thinks he was there to protect and de-escalate the situation.

No.  It is legal.  I know people don't think it should be, but it is their right.   People exercising their right does in no way justify aggression, assault and robbery. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

I was talking about the first instance.  And your characterization of the second instance  is just silly. 

It is not silly. He ran away to avoid being arrested for the killing of the first victim and that is proven by the fact he didn't surrender himself to the cops when he had the opportunity to - he just walked past them and then got in a car to return to where he lived in Antioch (across the state line in Illinois). 

Edited by squistion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jon_mx said:

No.  It is legal.  I know people don't think it should be, but it is their right.   People exercising their right does in no way justify aggression, assault and robbery. 

Wasn't it illegal for a 17 year-old to carry a gun in WI?  Regardless, I watched the video when it happened and while there were people being aggressive and there may have been looters, I don't believe either of those warrant a death sentence.  I also am of the belief that someone willing to shoot another person over what happened should not be carrying a gun in that situation.  He sought out the protest.  He could have sat at home and watched in on TV or Twitter, but decided to grab a gun and get involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, squistion said:

It is not silly. He ran away to avoid being arrested for the killing of the first victim and that is proven by the fact he didn't surrender himself to the cops when he had the opportunity to - he just walked past them and then got in a car to return to where he lived in Antioch (across the state line in Illinois). 

1.  He fleed because there were a group of people coming at him.

2.  He tried to turn himself in and he was instructed to go home.  

You are welcome for the clarification. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dickies said:

Wasn't it illegal for a 17 year-old to carry a gun in WI?  Regardless, I watched the video when it happened and while there were people being aggressive and there may have been looters, I don't believe either of those warrant a death sentence.  I also am of the belief that someone willing to shoot another person over what happened should not be carrying a gun in that situation.  He sought out the protest.  He could have sat at home and watched in on TV or Twitter, but decided to grab a gun and get involved.

But he had no way to know that.  And Rosenbaum is a complete psychopath.  I 100 percent believe his intent was to kill Rittenhouse.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
  • Create New...