Rittenhouse/Kenosha Shooting Split

TomC

Celestial Highness
Staff member
Allegedly, the producer is a freelancer. Suspicions and allegations abound that the freelance producer was taking pictures, but it turns out that there are no pictures. Allegedly, the producer received orders from headquarters at NBC to follow the bus but there is no substantiation of that claim. Since there are no pictures, what is the alternative cause for following a bus of jurors? Could it be to report on when exactly deliberations would start again to get a head start on those things, to watch if when jurors get off the bus if there's any kind of violent incident to be there when it happens or some nefarious reason? If it is true that the producer is the one who said orders came from NBC headquarters, then it seems valid to ban NBC from the court room, pending investigation.

I heard a court reporter say it's typical for the media to try to get jurors' license plate numbers so they can identify and contact them after a verdict. Creepy job.
I wish I could say, "No! Our media isn't that creepy, ugly, invasive, or counterproductive, or capitalist."

However...

Tom

blastula

Contributor
Jury asks Judge if he'd be angry if they voted to convict on any charges. Judge affirmed he would.

Not quite at this point, but pretty close.
What the hell are you talking about?

I didn't think the judge showed any bias either way, other than once or twice raising his voice to the prosecutor while the jury was there. The main bias he had was to camera whoredom. During the lawyers only discussions, he would waste everyone's time on a lot of tangents into his favorite yarns, or go off on rants about what he read in the media.

He commented this week about considering never having cameras in his court again. Yeah, sure.

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Bottom line is simply this: what is the evidence that he pointed the gun at someone in the seconds before Rosenbaum started to chase after him? If you've got some, share it. If not, vote to acquit.

Not quite. The gun pointing is hardly the deciding issue. The right to self-defense doesn't always mean the right to kill someone. To have the right to use deadly force you have to be threatened by that kind of force. I would vote guilty on the JR charge.

That one is complicated for me, personally. I am not sure I commented on this before. I meant to, but then I think I erased it... Anyway, you can see in the videos that KR is not trapped like it's been said by right-wing sources. After shooting, he easily runs around a car and back around to assess the situation and possibly do even more damage. That said, he does have to go through a narrow space between the front of a car and something in front of the car, either a dumpster or a hitch or something rectangular prism-looking that might be connected or not to another car in front of the space. That choice to go through there could actually be a real choice for a bait and switch but it can't be proved. On the other hand, since he's slowing down, one could try to argue that JR is catching up to him and intends harm and so turning around and shooting once or twice might not be completely unreasonable.

Once JR is there, he's helpless. Even if he initially "lunged forward"--not sure about that--next, he's falling forward. His range of motion as he falls into the space is extremely limited, not being able to move left or right and NOT lunging forward at all after any initial alleged lunge forward. So at that point where his back is exposed to being shot he's not lunging forward--the defense claim. I can only deduce that the shot to the back, presumably the last shot was provably unnecessary.

At this point I think it is necessary to look at context holistically--KR's previous statements that show he devalues the lives of these people, his bringing a gun, his being out after curfew. Could these be relevant to frame of mind? Yes, maybe. But also, he has the presumption of innocence which I think in this case would mean that it could be counter-argued that maybe since he was defending himself, maybe he simply pulled the trigger an extra time out of nervousness or bad timing since JR was falling quickly. The defense specifically didn't make that argument for some reason, maybe there is still legal culpability with it or maybe they expect a jury to come up with it.

In any case, I think whether we allow KR to have the privilege of benefit of doubt to making a mistake during self-defense, shooting an extra time or two, it depends upon whether or not he provoked the attack initially. I don't like that because it feels an awful lot like an unstable system where we make one very small tweak and giant changes come about--this one in conclusions. At this point, I don't think people on the Internet are really dealing with this final issue of what is what in a proper, original video and I am trusting the jury to analyze this part. I have no analysis of what is there at the alleged point of provocation, but things seem dependent upon that.

SLD

Veteran Member
Bottom line is simply this: what is the evidence that he pointed the gun at someone in the seconds before Rosenbaum started to chase after him? If you've got some, share it. If not, vote to acquit.

Not quite. The gun pointing is hardly the deciding issue. The right to self-defense doesn't always mean the right to kill someone. To have the right to use deadly force you have to be threatened by that kind of force. I would vote guilty on the JR charge.
You don’t have to be threatened. You just have to have a reasonable fear of your life or great bodily harm. In this case, even the prosecution’s forensic specialist admitted that Rosenbaum either had his hand on the weapon, or was very close to it. You most definitely can be shot trying to grab someone’s weapon From them. Furthermore, the uncontradicted evidence is that Zaminski yelled that they should kill Rittenhouse - although I’m not sure if that was directed at Rosenbaum specifically or just shouted. No way did Rosenbaum not have a reasonable belief that he would be either killed or seriously injured. I don’t see the jury convicting him on that grounds, unless he provoked the attack. i see it boiling down to whether he provoked Rosenbaum and that’s what the prosecution emphasized in closing. That’s why the defense is up in arms over the version of the video they got. Provocation is everything.

Note that this is very different from the Arbery case. In that situation, the defendant, acting as a citizen cop pointed his rifle at the victim without any provocation. He was trying to stop Arbery from continuing to jog away. He can’t claim self defense at that point. Arbery logically concluded he was being threatened and tried to grab the gun.

SLD

Veteran Member

another interesting analysis of the case. I realize now that the missing video I had heard about was the HD version of the FBI’s flir video, which this guy discusses. They only have the lower resolution of that one, not the other one I posted above. The one I posted above was apparently first shown by Fox News. Someone leaked it to them a long time ago. I wonder if you could find that broadcast online.

IAE, this guy claims that the flir video shows that at most Rittenhouse just pointed his hand at Zaminski, because the gun wouldn’t give off an IR signature. But the video is very grainy.

This guy also raises the switching of the hands issue. I see that as really hurting the prosecution’s case.

Derec

Contributor
Well, except, perhaps, when it comes to bombing or otherwise vandalizing abortion clinics, or the Capital--
The last time the Capitol was bombed was by - checks notes - the .

Listen, I am not saying that the January 6th riot was not serious, but the Left only wants to talk about that, while completely downplaying monthslong rioting in 2020 that caused far more damage - not only to property (many billions vs $30M) but also in terms of human life. The leftists rioting in 2020 also occupied territory for weeks in cities like Seattle, Atlanta and Minneapolis. Imagine if the Right proclaimed a "Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone" in DC? But nothing like that happened, unlike with the left-wing riots. remember that sweet reckless Ashley Babbit (sorry, can't be bothered to look up correct spelling of this thug's name) is a patriotic martyr to many MAGGOTS. Conversely, to the Antifa/#BLMers she totally deserved to be killed even though she was unarmed and attacked nobody - she was only guilty of trespassing. But the likes of Michael Reinoehl or Joseph Rosenbaum are considered heroes. Don2 (Don1 Revised) Contributor another interesting analysis of the case. I realize now that the missing video I had heard about was the HD version of the FBI’s flir video, which this guy discusses. They only have the lower resolution of that one, not the other one I posted above. The one I posted above was apparently first shown by Fox News. Someone leaked it to them a long time ago. I wonder if you could find that broadcast online. IAE, this guy claims that the flir video shows that at most Rittenhouse just pointed his hand at Zaminski, because the gun wouldn’t give off an IR signature. But the video is very grainy. This guy also raises the switching of the hands issue. I see that as really hurting the prosecution’s case. Are these two narratives consistent? The IR video shows something on right side of KR pointed at Z. Guy analyzing videos says it's an arm, not a gun. (Not mutually exclusive). But the other story says it can't be a gun because it's on the left? repoman Contributor Derec Contributor To me Baby Face Rittenhouse, like Don the Con, are all-American thugs. What is your opinion of Jacob Rosenbaum, Anthony Huber and Gaige Grosskreutz? Or Colinford Mattis, Urooj Rahman, Michael Reinoehl etc. for that matter. Loren Pechtel Super Moderator Staff member I wonder if they all see themselves as The Ruler in the totalitarian scenario of their wet dreams. Because if/when the time comes and some trumpish tinpot dictator gets hold of this Country, each one of them is going to be either slave to the State, or among The Privileged Few. The vast majority of them are going to be very unhappy and dismayed with the lot assigned to them when they find out that the privileged few are in fact ... very very very few. The fact that The Few are all white, won't make all whites part of The Few. I don't think they expect to see themselves in power, but they think those in power will be doing what they want so it doesn't matter if they're in power or not. They don't realize how badly this would backfire. Loren Pechtel Super Moderator Staff member It was given anonymously to the state 2 weeks ago, and the police airdropped and emailed it to a prosecutor. Apparently, the emailed version was compressed compared to the airdropped one, and that lower quality one is what was emailed to the defense. So, it appears the defense got the compressed version by inadvertence. I doubt it would have made a difference in their case, but they are claiming so now. Without establishing providence how can it be used at all? But giving the defense a lower quality version is a big oops. That sort of thing can scuttle cases. Loren Pechtel Super Moderator Staff member There is virtually no cost to the defense to try to get this case retried or thrown out on a technicality. It suggests the defense is not terribly confident that this was a clear-cut case of self-defense. It doesn't matter if you have a solid defense. If you're handed a potential procedural victory like this you play it anyway. Rhea Cyborg with a Tiara Staff member another interesting analysis of the case. I realize now that the missing video I had heard about was the HD version of the FBI’s flir video, which this guy discusses. They only have the lower resolution of that one, not the other one I posted above. The one I posted above was apparently first shown by Fox News. Someone leaked it to them a long time ago. I wonder if you could find that broadcast online. IAE, this guy claims that the flir video shows that at most Rittenhouse just pointed his hand at Zaminski, because the gun wouldn’t give off an IR signature. But the video is very grainy. This guy also raises the switching of the hands issue. I see that as really hurting the prosecution’s case. So you’re saying that anyone there who had infrared eyes would have known that Ritten house was not pointing a gun - and everyone ELSE would have been rightly worried about the guy holding a gun at them. SLD Veteran Member another interesting analysis of the case. I realize now that the missing video I had heard about was the HD version of the FBI’s flir video, which this guy discusses. They only have the lower resolution of that one, not the other one I posted above. The one I posted above was apparently first shown by Fox News. Someone leaked it to them a long time ago. I wonder if you could find that broadcast online. IAE, this guy claims that the flir video shows that at most Rittenhouse just pointed his hand at Zaminski, because the gun wouldn’t give off an IR signature. But the video is very grainy. This guy also raises the switching of the hands issue. I see that as really hurting the prosecution’s case. So you’re saying that anyone there who had infrared eyes would have known that Ritten house was not pointing a gun - and everyone ELSE would have been rightly worried about the guy holding a gun at them. Sheesh. For the umpteenth time, he wasn’t pointing a gun at anyone until he was chased by Rosenbaum. The prosecution hasn’t proven that fact beyond a reasonable doubt. He wins. Don2 (Don1 Revised) Contributor These questions are meant for anyone. My previous commentary: That one is complicated for me, personally. I am not sure I commented on this before. I meant to, but then I think I erased it... Anyway, you can see in the videos that KR is not trapped like it's been said by right-wing sources. After shooting, he easily runs around a car and back around to assess the situation and possibly do even more damage. That said, he does have to go through a narrow space between the front of a car and something in front of the car, either a dumpster or a hitch or something rectangular prism-looking that might be connected or not to another car in front of the space. That choice to go through there could actually be a real choice for a bait and switch but it can't be proved. On the other hand, since he's slowing down, one could try to argue that JR is catching up to him and intends harm and so turning around and shooting once or twice might not be completely unreasonable. So... Does Rittenhouse actually have to be trapped with no exits under Wisconsin law? The defense and all right-wing sources on the web seem to quickly breeze over this subject stating it as fact that Rittenhouse was trapped. But if you look at videos, he quickly goes about his way after turning around and shooting. What about that final shot to the back? Does Wisconsin law allow it? The defense claims that Rosenbaum was lunging forward at the point of the last shot, but that is too late for this claim. So, under Wisconsin law is Rittenhouse privileged to shoot Rosenbaum in the back for defense or for a mistake? Last edited: laughing dog Contributor another interesting analysis of the case. I realize now that the missing video I had heard about was the HD version of the FBI’s flir video, which this guy discusses. They only have the lower resolution of that one, not the other one I posted above. The one I posted above was apparently first shown by Fox News. Someone leaked it to them a long time ago. I wonder if you could find that broadcast online. IAE, this guy claims that the flir video shows that at most Rittenhouse just pointed his hand at Zaminski, because the gun wouldn’t give off an IR signature. But the video is very grainy. This guy also raises the switching of the hands issue. I see that as really hurting the prosecution’s case. So you’re saying that anyone there who had infrared eyes would have known that Ritten house was not pointing a gun - and everyone ELSE would have been rightly worried about the guy holding a gun at them. Sheesh. For the umpteenth time, he wasn’t pointing a gun at anyone until he was chased by Rosenbaum. The prosecution hasn’t proven that fact beyond a reasonable doubt. He wins. You should tell Rittenhouse's jury, so they can go home. laughing dog Contributor Jury asks Judge if he'd be angry if they voted to convict on any charges. Judge affirmed he would. Not quite at this point, but pretty close. What the hell are you talking about? The seeming pro-defense bias of the judge. SLD Veteran Member another interesting analysis of the case. I realize now that the missing video I had heard about was the HD version of the FBI’s flir video, which this guy discusses. They only have the lower resolution of that one, not the other one I posted above. The one I posted above was apparently first shown by Fox News. Someone leaked it to them a long time ago. I wonder if you could find that broadcast online. IAE, this guy claims that the flir video shows that at most Rittenhouse just pointed his hand at Zaminski, because the gun wouldn’t give off an IR signature. But the video is very grainy. This guy also raises the switching of the hands issue. I see that as really hurting the prosecution’s case. So you’re saying that anyone there who had infrared eyes would have known that Ritten house was not pointing a gun - and everyone ELSE would have been rightly worried about the guy holding a gun at them. Sheesh. For the umpteenth time, he wasn’t pointing a gun at anyone until he was chased by Rosenbaum. The prosecution hasn’t proven that fact beyond a reasonable doubt. He wins. You should tell Rittenhouse's jury, so they can go home. i don’t think the judge would appreciate that. But maybe if there’s a retrial, I’ll get hired by the defense team. TomC Celestial Highness Staff member Jury asks Judge if he'd be angry if they voted to convict on any charges. Judge affirmed he would. Not quite at this point, but pretty close. What the hell are you talking about? The seeming pro-defense bias of the judge. I don't have a strong opinion about this particular case. But, yeah, I expect some bias in favor of the defense as a general rule. That's what I would expect from a judge who supports "legally innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". I understand that our legal system doesn't have a great track record on that. I still expect it. Judges are human, and humans have biases. What I expect from an impartial judge is a bias in favor of the defense. Tom SLD Veteran Member Not guilty. Told ya! SLD Veteran Member These questions are meant for anyone. My previous commentary: That one is complicated for me, personally. I am not sure I commented on this before. I meant to, but then I think I erased it... Anyway, you can see in the videos that KR is not trapped like it's been said by right-wing sources. After shooting, he easily runs around a car and back around to assess the situation and possibly do even more damage. That said, he does have to go through a narrow space between the front of a car and something in front of the car, either a dumpster or a hitch or something rectangular prism-looking that might be connected or not to another car in front of the space. That choice to go through there could actually be a real choice for a bait and switch but it can't be proved. On the other hand, since he's slowing down, one could try to argue that JR is catching up to him and intends harm and so turning around and shooting once or twice might not be completely unreasonable. So... Does Rittenhouse actually have to be trapped with no exits under Wisconsin law? The defense and all right-wing sources on the web seem to quickly breeze over this subject stating it as fact that Rittenhouse was trapped. But if you look at videos, he quickly goes about his way after turning around and shooting. What about that final shot to the back? Does Wisconsin law allow it? The defense claims that Rosenbaum was lunging forward at the point of the last shot, but that is too late for this claim. So, under Wisconsin law is Rittenhouse privileged to shoot Rosenbaum in the back for defense or for a mistake? Well, he could be found guilty indeed if he shot even one too many times. The problem is that the prosecutio’s forensic witness admitted on cross that the wound was consistent with the defense theory that the wounds were due to Rosenbaum lunging down. I think that made a huge difference to the jury. At that point, I think the prosecution lost the jury entirely. That was fatal to them. You can’t look like you’re trying to pull one over. Once they lost credibility about that, they lost it about everything. jab Veteran Member Well, except, perhaps, when it comes to bombing or otherwise vandalizing abortion clinics, or the Capital-- The last time the Capitol was bombed was by - checks notes - the . Listen, I am not saying that the January 6th riot was not serious, but the Left only wants to talk about that, while completely downplaying monthslong rioting in 2020 that caused far more damage - not only to property (many billions vs$30M) but also in terms of human life. The leftists rioting in 2020 also occupied territory for weeks in cities like Seattle, Atlanta and Minneapolis. Imagine if the Right proclaimed a "Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone" in DC? But nothing like that happened, unlike with the left-wing riots.

remember that sweet reckless Ashley Babbit (sorry, can't be bothered to look up correct spelling of this thug's name) is a patriotic martyr to many MAGGOTS.
Conversely, to the Antifa/#BLMers she totally deserved to be killed even though she was unarmed and attacked nobody - she was only guilty of trespassing. But the likes of Michael Reinoehl or Joseph Rosenbaum are considered heroes.
That terrorist thug was doing more than trespassing: she was physically at the vanguard of a mob that was threatening to capture and kill elected officials and she was leading the way crawling through a broken window into a space were, security knew, and she at least hoped, elected officials were. So, yeah, she was a threat. (It's also been suggested she had a taser, but I don't know if that true).

J842P

Veteran Member
He went into a place of unrest, knowing there was unrest, and he brought a weapon.
So did Grosskreutz, but he is not being admonished for that. Quite the contrary, he is being called a "hero", even by the prosecutor.
It doesn't seem like these things are equivalent. Grosskreuz brought a weapon for self-defense not with an intent to shoot looters and others. Grosskreuz kept the weapon concealed until he thought it was needed, too. KR, on the other hand, said he wanted to shoot people who were looting and was running around with a weapon out in the open. Then, in the final moments when Grosskreutz had a gun out in the open, he thought about using and gave a benefit of a doubt valuing human life.
Rittenhouse did not come to there with an intent to shoot looters.
Jury asks Judge if he'd be angry if they voted to convict on any charges. Judge affirmed he would.

Not quite at this point, but pretty close.
What the hell are you talking about?
I heard that His Honor was going to adopt the little Rittenhouse boy as his own child.
So, you are just embracing the "making shit up" phase, then?

laughing dog

Contributor
He went into a place of unrest, knowing there was unrest, and he brought a weapon.
So did Grosskreutz, but he is not being admonished for that. Quite the contrary, he is being called a "hero", even by the prosecutor.
It doesn't seem like these things are equivalent. Grosskreuz brought a weapon for self-defense not with an intent to shoot looters and others. Grosskreuz kept the weapon concealed until he thought it was needed, too. KR, on the other hand, said he wanted to shoot people who were looting and was running around with a weapon out in the open. Then, in the final moments when Grosskreutz had a gun out in the open, he thought about using and gave a benefit of a doubt valuing human life.
Rittenhouse did not come to there with an intent to shoot looters.
No one knows what Rittenhouse's intent was but Rittenhouse. And he had no incentive to be truthful on the stand.

J842P

Veteran Member
Well, except, perhaps, when it comes to bombing or otherwise vandalizing abortion clinics, or the Capital--
The last time the Capitol was bombed was by - checks notes - the .

Listen, I am not saying that the January 6th riot was not serious, but the Left only wants to talk about that, while completely downplaying monthslong rioting in 2020 that caused far more damage - not only to property (many billions vs \$30M) but also in terms of human life. The leftists rioting in 2020 also occupied territory for weeks in cities like Seattle, Atlanta and Minneapolis. Imagine if the Right proclaimed a "Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone" in DC? But nothing like that happened, unlike with the left-wing riots.

remember that sweet reckless Ashley Babbit (sorry, can't be bothered to look up correct spelling of this thug's name) is a patriotic martyr to many MAGGOTS.
Conversely, to the Antifa/#BLMers she totally deserved to be killed even though she was unarmed and attacked nobody - she was only guilty of trespassing. But the likes of Michael Reinoehl or Joseph Rosenbaum are considered heroes.
That terrorist thug was doing more than trespassing: she was physically at the vanguard of a mob that was threatening to capture and kill elected officials and she was leading the way crawling through a broken window into a space were, security knew, and she at least hoped, elected officials were. So, yeah, she was a threat. (It's also been suggested she had a taser, but I don't know if that true).
Absolutely. Babbitt was entering a restricted area -- basically the room right before the House Chamber. She had been ordered to stop, the doors had been barricaded. She was warned many times.

Furthermore, she has no excuse to not expect that to happen. She was in the USAAF, and was actually a security forces controller, and would understand that in such a situation a trespasser would be shot. She was in charge of manning a security gate!

J842P

Veteran Member
Bottom line is simply this: what is the evidence that he pointed the gun at someone in the seconds before Rosenbaum started to chase after him? If you've got some, share it. If not, vote to acquit.

Not quite. The gun pointing is hardly the deciding issue. The right to self-defense doesn't always mean the right to kill someone. To have the right to use deadly force you have to be threatened by that kind of force. I would vote guilty on the JR charge.
He was threatened with that kind of force. Do you think the law makes it so you have to take a beating? No. You are just making that up.

J842P

Veteran Member
Jury asks Judge if he'd be angry if they voted to convict on any charges. Judge affirmed he would.

Not quite at this point, but pretty close.
What the hell are you talking about?
The seeming pro-defense bias of the judge.
What pro-defense bias? There is no evidence of a pro-defense bias. At least, not more than any trial is in a defendant's favor, but that certainly cannot be what Jimmy Higgens is referring to?

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Somehow, I suspect this is what was going through the judge's mind.

"What a fabulous jury, everyone. Let's all give them a big round of applause. Hip hip hurray! Hip hip hurray!"

"It's a good thing they declared him innocent or I'd have to call that mistrial flag on the play."

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
These questions are meant for anyone.

My previous commentary:
That one is complicated for me, personally. I am not sure I commented on this before. I meant to, but then I think I erased it... Anyway, you can see in the videos that KR is not trapped like it's been said by right-wing sources. After shooting, he easily runs around a car and back around to assess the situation and possibly do even more damage. That said, he does have to go through a narrow space between the front of a car and something in front of the car, either a dumpster or a hitch or something rectangular prism-looking that might be connected or not to another car in front of the space. That choice to go through there could actually be a real choice for a bait and switch but it can't be proved. On the other hand, since he's slowing down, one could try to argue that JR is catching up to him and intends harm and so turning around and shooting once or twice might not be completely unreasonable.

So...

Does Rittenhouse actually have to be trapped with no exits under Wisconsin law? The defense and all right-wing sources on the web seem to quickly breeze over this subject stating it as fact that Rittenhouse was trapped. But if you look at videos, he quickly goes about his way after turning around and shooting.

What about that final shot to the back? Does Wisconsin law allow it? The defense claims that Rosenbaum was lunging forward at the point of the last shot, but that is too late for this claim. So, under Wisconsin law is Rittenhouse privileged to shoot Rosenbaum in the back for defense or for a mistake?
Well, he could be found guilty indeed if he shot even one too many times.

Okay.

The problem is that the prosecutio’s forensic witness admitted on cross that the wound was consistent with the defense theory that the wounds were due to Rosenbaum lunging down. I think that made a huge difference to the jury.

I agree that initially it is a problem because there's a narrative and then the defense proposes a different narrative that in some [other] world of things could be true in theory. To me, the reasonableness of the defense's proposition is dependent upon evidence, first and foremost, and I do not observe any evidence of a lunge forward while falling down, dying, that would create any imminent danger of death. Also--secondary to evidence are inferences from evidence, and so I deduce at the moment and subsequent moments that Rosenbaum is falling, dying, the risk of any harm to Rittenhouse is very diminished. It was already exaggerated a bit claiming he was trapped when he wasn't, but it's even more diminished at any moment where JR's back is exposed. These are deductions one can make from the video(s) evidence and the forensic witness on autopsy wounds can only speak to plausibility of narratives based on wounds where the defense came with a prepared counter-narrative (their job), but the rest of the evidence doesn't seem to show a chance of imminent harm later on.

SLD

Veteran Member
These questions are meant for anyone.

My previous commentary:
That one is complicated for me, personally. I am not sure I commented on this before. I meant to, but then I think I erased it... Anyway, you can see in the videos that KR is not trapped like it's been said by right-wing sources. After shooting, he easily runs around a car and back around to assess the situation and possibly do even more damage. That said, he does have to go through a narrow space between the front of a car and something in front of the car, either a dumpster or a hitch or something rectangular prism-looking that might be connected or not to another car in front of the space. That choice to go through there could actually be a real choice for a bait and switch but it can't be proved. On the other hand, since he's slowing down, one could try to argue that JR is catching up to him and intends harm and so turning around and shooting once or twice might not be completely unreasonable.

So...

Does Rittenhouse actually have to be trapped with no exits under Wisconsin law? The defense and all right-wing sources on the web seem to quickly breeze over this subject stating it as fact that Rittenhouse was trapped. But if you look at videos, he quickly goes about his way after turning around and shooting.

What about that final shot to the back? Does Wisconsin law allow it? The defense claims that Rosenbaum was lunging forward at the point of the last shot, but that is too late for this claim. So, under Wisconsin law is Rittenhouse privileged to shoot Rosenbaum in the back for defense or for a mistake?
Well, he could be found guilty indeed if he shot even one too many times.

Okay.

The problem is that the prosecutio’s forensic witness admitted on cross that the wound was consistent with the defense theory that the wounds were due to Rosenbaum lunging down. I think that made a huge difference to the jury.

I agree that initially it is a problem because there's a narrative and then the defense proposes a different narrative that in some [other] world of things could be true in theory. To me, the reasonableness of the defense's proposition is dependent upon evidence, first and foremost, and I do not observe any evidence of a lunge forward while falling down, dying, that would create any imminent danger of death. Also--secondary to evidence are inferences from evidence, and so I deduce at the moment and subsequent moments that Rosenbaum is falling, dying, the risk of any harm to Rittenhouse is very diminished. It was already exaggerated a bit claiming he was trapped when he wasn't, but it's even more diminished at any moment where JR's back is exposed. These are deductions one can make from the video(s) evidence and the forensic witness on autopsy wounds can only speak to plausibility of narratives based on wounds where the defense came with a prepared counter-narrative (their job), but the rest of the evidence doesn't seem to show a chance of imminent harm later on.
I hear you. But the benefit of the doubt goes to Rittenhouse. It’s not to him to provide evidence of his innocence. It’s up to the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Anytime a forensic witness agrees with the defense theory then that’s created reasonable doubt. That’s all that happened here.

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
These questions are meant for anyone.

My previous commentary:
That one is complicated for me, personally. I am not sure I commented on this before. I meant to, but then I think I erased it... Anyway, you can see in the videos that KR is not trapped like it's been said by right-wing sources. After shooting, he easily runs around a car and back around to assess the situation and possibly do even more damage. That said, he does have to go through a narrow space between the front of a car and something in front of the car, either a dumpster or a hitch or something rectangular prism-looking that might be connected or not to another car in front of the space. That choice to go through there could actually be a real choice for a bait and switch but it can't be proved. On the other hand, since he's slowing down, one could try to argue that JR is catching up to him and intends harm and so turning around and shooting once or twice might not be completely unreasonable.

So...

Does Rittenhouse actually have to be trapped with no exits under Wisconsin law? The defense and all right-wing sources on the web seem to quickly breeze over this subject stating it as fact that Rittenhouse was trapped. But if you look at videos, he quickly goes about his way after turning around and shooting.

What about that final shot to the back? Does Wisconsin law allow it? The defense claims that Rosenbaum was lunging forward at the point of the last shot, but that is too late for this claim. So, under Wisconsin law is Rittenhouse privileged to shoot Rosenbaum in the back for defense or for a mistake?
Well, he could be found guilty indeed if he shot even one too many times.

Okay.

The problem is that the prosecutio’s forensic witness admitted on cross that the wound was consistent with the defense theory that the wounds were due to Rosenbaum lunging down. I think that made a huge difference to the jury.

I agree that initially it is a problem because there's a narrative and then the defense proposes a different narrative that in some [other] world of things could be true in theory. To me, the reasonableness of the defense's proposition is dependent upon evidence, first and foremost, and I do not observe any evidence of a lunge forward while falling down, dying, that would create any imminent danger of death. Also--secondary to evidence are inferences from evidence, and so I deduce at the moment and subsequent moments that Rosenbaum is falling, dying, the risk of any harm to Rittenhouse is very diminished. It was already exaggerated a bit claiming he was trapped when he wasn't, but it's even more diminished at any moment where JR's back is exposed. These are deductions one can make from the video(s) evidence and the forensic witness on autopsy wounds can only speak to plausibility of narratives based on wounds where the defense came with a prepared counter-narrative (their job), but the rest of the evidence doesn't seem to show a chance of imminent harm later on.
I hear you. But the benefit of the doubt goes to Rittenhouse. It’s not to him to provide evidence of his innocence. It’s up to the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Anytime a forensic witness agrees with the defense theory then that’s created reasonable doubt. That’s all that happened here.
But there's doubt and then there's reasonable doubt. You have to make a distinction between the two. You can look at Rittenhouse and doubt he's a murderer because he is a man-boy who is alleged to like law and order. (Not meant at you, just the royal you). You can doubt all kinds of things that might be true or false. But there has to be a meaning to the phrase _reasonable_ doubt and that means it is reasonable. When someone is falling down in a trapped situation, trapped to the left and trapped to the right after being shot 3 times, there by evidence clearly dying and the shooter has a clear exit with no imminent threat of great harm any longer, the proposition of imminent threat of harm from lunging forward to kill Rittenhouse no longer meets that qualifier reasonable. Personally, I am willing to give a benefit of doubt of a mistaken extra shot, provided that the shooter did not provoke the situation initially, but you had said that isn't part of Wisconsin law to do that.

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
So whatever went wrong here, this kid, however misguided, is not the problem, according to the jury. But who is to blame? Something went wrong that should not have happened, which then led to these killings.

What went wrong? The police did not enforce the law when the original riots broke out and looters were allowed to run wild. Because of that dereliction of duty by the police, this chaos resulted, where vigilantes felt the need to step in and fill the vacuum left by the police who were AWOL, in several cities, and this was only one place where law enforcement abdicated and left such a vacuum.

You could blame the media, for reporting the lawlessness and rioting. Maybe censorship is the solution -- never allow the media to report riots and looting, so the public won't know about it and the vigilantes won't be provoked.

But a better solution is for the police to always enforce the law, whatever it takes, rather than allow rioters and looters to run wild. And during this period, when looters/rioters outnumbered and overpowered the cops, police must be authorized to shoot the looters and rioters. This is also what should have been done at the Jan. 6 riots. When the rioters/looters overrun the cops, the order should be given to shoot them, whether they are Red fanatics or Blue fanatics.

As soon as 2 or 3 looters/rioters are shot, the rest will stop, and the chaos will end. And the vigilantes will stay home.

Harry Bosch

Contributor
So whatever went wrong here, this kid, however misguided, is not the problem, according to the jury. But who is to blame? Something went wrong that should not have happened, which then led to these killings.

What went wrong? The police did not enforce the law when the original riots broke out and looters were allowed to run wild. Because of that dereliction of duty by the police, this chaos resulted, where vigilantes felt the need to step in and fill the vacuum left by the police who were AWOL, in several cities, and this was only one place where law enforcement abdicated and left such a vacuum.

You could blame the media, for reporting the lawlessness and rioting. Maybe censorship is the solution -- never allow the media to report riots and looting, so the public won't know about it and the vigilantes won't be provoked.

But a better solution is for the police to always enforce the law, whatever it takes, rather than allow rioters and looters to run wild. And during this period, when looters/rioters outnumbered and overpowered the cops, police must be authorized to shoot the looters and rioters. As soon as 2 or 3 looters/rioters are shot, the rest will stop, and the chaos will end. And the vigilantes will stay home.
Here's the problem that bugs me: only a white person could get away with this. If ran down a street towards protestors with a shit eating dump grin on my face with a loaded AK-47 I would have been put down by the police. And that's how a majority of dark skinned people like myself will view this.

blastula

Contributor
Not quite. The gun pointing is hardly the deciding issue. The right to self-defense doesn't always mean the right to kill someone. To have the right to use deadly force you have to be threatened by that kind of force. I would vote guilty on the JR charge.
You don’t have to be threatened. You just have to have a reasonable fear of your life or great bodily harm.

Same thing.

In this case, even the prosecution’s forensic specialist admitted that Rosenbaum either had his hand on the weapon, or was very close to it. You most definitely can be shot trying to grab someone’s weapon From them.

From the videos, it looks clear to me that the first shot was before his hand was near the gun. And, in fact, the medical examiner said the shot to the hand was the second shot, the kill shot was the third or fourth. The first shot was to the groin, which would have disabled him. Even if that one was justified (I'd disagree), no more shots were needed after that to stop any threat. It was unjustified homicide. He is responsible for every trigger pull, he doesn't get freebies just because he started shooting.

Furthermore, the uncontradicted evidence is that Zaminski yelled that they should kill Rittenhouse - although I’m not sure if that was directed at Rosenbaum specifically or just shouted.

What do you mean, uncontradicted? I think KR is the only one who claimed that. So, big deal if it was uncontradicted, it was also uncorroborated, as far as I remember.

No way did Rosenbaum not have a reasonable belief that he would be either killed or seriously injured. I don’t see the jury convicting him on that grounds, unless he provoked the attack. i see it boiling down to whether he provoked Rosenbaum and that’s what the prosecution emphasized in closing. That’s why the defense is up in arms over the version of the video they got. Provocation is everything.

It doesn't matter alone whether JZ or JR wanted to kill him, nor whether there wasn't provocation, it first matters whether 5'4" 153 lb. JR would reasonably have had the means to do so with his bare hands.

I do think the second set of shootings were more justified than the JR one though. Those guys did have weapons.

Note that this is very different from the Arbery case. In that situation, the defendant, acting as a citizen cop pointed his rifle at the victim without any provocation. He was trying to stop Arbery from continuing to jog away. He can’t claim self defense at that point. Arbery logically concluded he was being threatened and tried to grab the gun.

I think that case is easier too, but we'll see. IMO, there is a problem that juries too often, typically with cop cases, see the right to self-defense as carte blanche for anyone carrying a gun to kill anyone looking at them the wrong way. As if just having a gun, makes it justified in itself to use it.

Last edited:

blastula

Contributor
Not quite. The gun pointing is hardly the deciding issue. The right to self-defense doesn't always mean the right to kill someone. To have the right to use deadly force you have to be threatened by that kind of force. I would vote guilty on the JR charge.
He was threatened with that kind of force. Do you think the law makes it so you have to take a beating? No. You are just making that up.

Yes, the law does say that, you have to take a non-lethal beating without having the right to kill your attacker. You are confused, it said so in this case's jury instructions even.

The defendant may intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if the defendant reasonably believed that the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

Last edited:

Derec

Contributor
Here's the problem that bugs me: only a white person could get away with this.
That is some major league BS.

If ran down a street towards protestors with a shit eating dump grin on my face with a loaded AK-47 I would have been put down by the police.
In 2020, there have been several instances of heavily armed black militias marching with nothing happening to them. For example ...
Black armed protesters march in Kentucky demanding justice for Breonna Taylor

And then, when drunk driver Rayshard Brooks was shot and killed after using an officer's taser against him, armed #BLMers took over the site of the burned down Wendy's with armed force and held it for weeks.

Police did not shoot them, but if they had done so right away, an 8 year old girl would not have been murdered.

And that's how a majority of dark skinned people like myself will view this.
Just like the Rittenhouse case itself, your views on the broader issue of race and guns is completely off-base.

blastula

Contributor

Yeah, this could lead to a bunch of KR "hero" wannabes, self-appointed armed citizens patrolling protests.

Derec

Contributor
And alt-left sites are angry at "white supremacists" under their beds.
And left-wing politicians like Bill deBlowjob are still spreading long discredited misinformation.

He fired more unhinged tweets. He is really angry about the verdict.

Reality is that, based on facts and the law, this was the correct verdict. In fact, the state should not have brought charges to begin with, and the only reason they did is politics.

Derec

Contributor
The first shot was to the groin, which would have disabled him. Even if that one was justified (I'd disagree), no more shots were needed after that to stop any threat. It was unjustified homicide. He is responsible for every trigger pull, he doesn't get freebies just because he started shooting.
The four shots occurred in quick succession. KR did not wait to see whether his assailant JR was incapacitated, and then seeing that he was, unload a few more to make sure JR was good and dead. He shot four shots and stopped as soon as he saw that his attacker was no longer a threat. Self defense. Not guilty. Free as fuck.

Derec

Contributor
Yeah, this could lead to a bunch of KR "hero" wannabes, self-appointed armed citizens patrolling protests.
There have been armed people at protests well before Rittenhouse, on both sides.

TSwizzle

Let's go Brandon!
And alt-left sites are angry at "white supremacists" under their beds.
And left-wing politicians like Bill deBlowjob are still spreading long discredited misinformation.

He fired more unhinged tweets. He is really angry about the verdict.

Reality is that, based on facts and the law, this was the correct verdict. In fact, the state should not have brought charges to begin with, and the only reason they did is politics.

They really are unhinged.

Derec

Contributor
To celebrate the not guilty verdict, here are some memes.

Derec

Contributor
Just a couple more, I swear, and then I'll stop.

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
From the videos, it looks clear to me that the first shot was before his hand was near the gun. And, in fact, the medical examiner said the shot to the hand was the second shot, the kill shot was the third or fourth. The first shot was to the groin, which would have disabled him. Even if that one was justified (I'd disagree), no more shots were needed after that to stop any threat. It was unjustified homicide. He is responsible for every trigger pull, he doesn't get freebies just because he started shooting.

No--a groin shot is not going to be immediately disabling. And even if it is it takes time to evaluate whether someone is down. Firing another shot takes much less mental processing than evaluating whether the next shot is necessary. The reality is that you can end up with multiple shots fired into a target that is clearly down without any wrongdoing.

lpetrich

Contributor
As to KR pleading self-defense, I think that he acted threatening and provoked some people. It's as if he killed his parents and he then begged for mercy by saying that he is an orphan.

Opinion | Kenosha Tells Us More About Where the Right Is Headed Than the R.N.C. Did - The New York Times
The most revealing thing to happen in conservative politics this week did not involve the Republican National Convention, at least not directly. Instead, it took place in Kenosha, Wis., in the aftermath of a shooting on Tuesday night that killed two people and wounded a third.
Then about the complicated events around KR shooting those three people.

"To the conservative media, however, what happened in Kenosha was eminently justifiable and even cause for celebration."
What happened in Kenosha was a tragedy. Rittenhouse should not have been there, and we should agree — all of us — that the shooting should not have happened. We should also be troubled by police action, or the lack thereof, against armed militias. Tacit support from Kenosha police (at one point, an officer thanks the group for being there) almost certainly contributed to the permissive environment that led to the shooting. It is reminiscent, in that way, of the events in Charlottesville in 2017, where an official review found that law enforcement failed to “maintain order” and “protect public safety” leading to fights, skirmishes and the vehicular murder of a protester.