Rittenhouse/Kenosha Shooting Split

[Derec]

Rittenhouse case moving forward.

He should never have been indicted. Question: how many of the actual rioters in Kenosha are being prosecuted? \

However, the people he shot can not be called "victims" in court.

Why should they be? That's highly prejudicial.

I'm not certain why one bias is allowed but not others...

As marc pointed out, it's not a bias. They are allowed to be called "rioter" etc. only during closing arguments and iff (if and only if) defense has evidence for those claims. I think the videos of that night show it for Rosenberg - for example he and others pushing a burning dumpster toward a structure. That's attempted arson right there.

especially when Rittenhouse is being tried for their deaths!

Exactly. He is one on the trial. Due process is there to protect him, not his alleged victims. If Kenosha were to prosecute Grosskreutz for assault with a deadly weapon, then he would enjoy these protections during his trial.

Honestly, I think this call is cause for an appeal. Heck, the quote above almost seems to disqualify him to judge this.

Can prosecution even appeal in the case of an acquittal? But, in any case there is no grounds, as there is nothing wrong with judge's ruling.

 

[Shadowy Man]

An update said the judges instructions was the defense can call them rioters/looters/arsonists only in the closing statements provided they actually prove they were looting/setting fires.

So there are actually two trials happening concurrently? One against the shooter and one with the shooter’s lawyer against the bullet recipients, who aren’t available to testify on their own behalfs and who don’t have legal representation.

I guess that makes sense :huh:

Should the jury rule on the crimes of the bullet recipients prior to the closing argument so the shooter’s lawyers know that they proven their case before using the term “looter”?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Rittenhouse case moving forward. However, the people he shot can not be called "victims" in court.

The men shot by Kyle Rittenhouse in August 2020 can potentially be referred to at his trial as "rioters" or "looters," a Wisconsin judge said Monday while reiterating his long-held view that attorneys should not use the word "victim."

...

"Let the evidence show what the evidence shows, that any or one of these people were engaged in arson, rioting or looting, then I'm not going to tell the defense they can't call them that," Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder said during the pre-trial hearing.

Schroeder has had a longstanding rule of not allowing prosecutors to refer to people as "victims" at trial.

I'm not certain why one bias is allowed but not others... especially when Rittenhouse is being tried for their deaths! Honestly, I think this call is cause for an appeal. Heck, the quote above almost seems to disqualify him to judge this.

Ya I read that story too and it seems nonsensical. The judge is basically saying that it's OK for the defense to portray the victims as deserving to die but the prosecution can't refer to them as victims. It's a fact that they were killed. That's a fact. That makes them factual victims. The case is about whether Rittenhouse should be held responsible for their deaths.

But as I understand it, if these rules in part contribute to a verdict of not guilty for Rittenhouse, there is no appealing it. That would be double jeopardy. I don't know if there is a mechanism to "appeal" the judges rules prior to trial. Or take the case away from this judge who seems to be purposely setting up rules that would bias a jury.

ETA, I have no idea why this post also attempted to quote SoHo.

The dispute is over whether this is a justified shooting or not. He's the aggressor, they are victims, not justified. They're the aggressors, they are not victims, justified. Thus it is reasonable to exclude a term that implies one of those two positions.

But the judge isn't saying they can't be called rioters or looters, even though 1) they aren't on trial 2) weren't noted having committed a crime 3) no way the shooter could know. So the judge is allowing one-way bias.

 

[J842P]

Rittenhouse case moving forward. However, the people he shot can not be called "victims" in court.

The men shot by Kyle Rittenhouse in August 2020 can potentially be referred to at his trial as "rioters" or "looters," a Wisconsin judge said Monday while reiterating his long-held view that attorneys should not use the word "victim."

...

"Let the evidence show what the evidence shows, that any or one of these people were engaged in arson, rioting or looting, then I'm not going to tell the defense they can't call them that," Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder said during the pre-trial hearing.

Schroeder has had a longstanding rule of not allowing prosecutors to refer to people as "victims" at trial.

I'm not certain why one bias is allowed but not others... especially when Rittenhouse is being tried for their deaths! Honestly, I think this call is cause for an appeal. Heck, the quote above almost seems to disqualify him to judge this.

Ya I read that story too and it seems nonsensical. The judge is basically saying that it's OK for the defense to portray the victims as deserving to die but the prosecution can't refer to them as victims. It's a fact that they were killed. That's a fact. That makes them factual victims. The case is about whether Rittenhouse should be held responsible for their deaths.

But as I understand it, if these rules in part contribute to a verdict of not guilty for Rittenhouse, there is no appealing it. That would be double jeopardy. I don't know if there is a mechanism to "appeal" the judges rules prior to trial. Or take the case away from this judge who seems to be purposely setting up rules that would bias a jury.

ETA, I have no idea why this post also attempted to quote SoHo.

The dispute is over whether this is a justified shooting or not. He's the aggressor, they are victims, not justified. They're the aggressors, they are not victims, justified. Thus it is reasonable to exclude a term that implies one of those two positions.

But the judge isn't saying they can't be called rioters or looters, even though 1) they aren't on trial 2) weren't noted having committed a crime 3) no way the shooter could know. So the judge is allowing one-way bias.

So the word is that the prosecution is going to allege that Rittenhouse ran towards Rosenbaum first and instigated, apparently there is helicopter footage. The defense is going to argue that Rittenhouse was putting out fires, which is what pissed off Rosenbaum.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So the defense is teen shoots first guy in self-defense and then other people reacting to a shooter... he gets to shoot them in self-defense as well This is the trouble with open carry. Fuck, even after shooting someone, bystanders have to accept it and not react? It helps create a situation of both parties committed to legitimate acts of self-defense, and someone dies, and no one is responsible.

At best this is a very gray situation, which definitely was created by Rittenhouse being somewhere he shouldn't have been, with a weapon he should have had, and doing something he wasn't remotely trained to do. Rittenhouse bothers me greatly as he seems like a sociopath. As a teen he went out to police and protect?!

 

[marc]

He should not be allowed any kind of 'self defense' excuse at all. If say you go to a bar and see their is a massive fight going on inside, and you respond by grabbing a weapon and going in, you are not 'defending' yourself, you are choosing to take part in the fight. Rittenhouse believed there was wide spread violence going on in the city, grabbed a weapon and went to the city. He was making a choice to go somewhere he believed was filled with violence so he was choosing to participate in it.

 

[Shadowy Man]

He should not be allowed any kind of 'self defense' excuse at all. If say you go to a bar and see their is a massive fight going on inside, and you respond by grabbing a weapon and going in, you are not 'defending' yourself, you are choosing to take part in the fight. Rittenhouse believed there was wide spread violence going on in the city, grabbed a weapon and went to the city. He was making a choice to go somewhere he believed was filled with violence so he was choosing to participate in it.

But didn’t we learn from the Trayvon Martin case that even if you start a fight it is self-defense if you start losing the fight?

 

[J842P]

He should not be allowed any kind of 'self defense' excuse at all. If say you go to a bar and see their is a massive fight going on inside, and you respond by grabbing a weapon and going in, you are not 'defending' yourself, you are choosing to take part in the fight. Rittenhouse believed there was wide spread violence going on in the city, grabbed a weapon and went to the city. He was making a choice to go somewhere he believed was filled with violence so he was choosing to participate in it.

That's not how it works.

And I suspect if the guy Rittenhouse shot in the arm had gotten off a shot first and killed Rittenhouse, you'd be singing a different tune.

 

[J842P]

So the defense is teen shoots first guy in self-defense and then other people reacting to a shooter... he gets to shoot them in self-defense as well This is the trouble with open carry. Fuck, even after shooting someone, bystanders have to accept it and not react? It helps create a situation of both parties committed to legitimate acts of self-defense, and someone dies, and no one is responsible.

At best this is a very gray situation, which definitely was created by Rittenhouse being somewhere he shouldn't have been, with a weapon he should have had, and doing something he wasn't remotely trained to do. Rittenhouse bothers me greatly as he seems like a sociopath. As a teen he went out to police and protect?!

So, it wasn't created by the guy trying to attack Rittenhouse, or the guy randomly shooting in his direction? At all? Just Rittenhouse?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He should not be allowed any kind of 'self defense' excuse at all. If say you go to a bar and see their is a massive fight going on inside, and you respond by grabbing a weapon and going in, you are not 'defending' yourself, you are choosing to take part in the fight. Rittenhouse believed there was wide spread violence going on in the city, grabbed a weapon and went to the city. He was making a choice to go somewhere he believed was filled with violence so he was choosing to participate in it.

But didn’t we learn from the Trayvon Martin case that even if you start a fight it is self-defense if you start losing the fight?

Zimmerman didn't start a fight. He followed, he didn't attack.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

He should not be allowed any kind of 'self defense' excuse at all. If say you go to a bar and see their is a massive fight going on inside, and you respond by grabbing a weapon and going in, you are not 'defending' yourself, you are choosing to take part in the fight. Rittenhouse believed there was wide spread violence going on in the city, grabbed a weapon and went to the city. He was making a choice to go somewhere he believed was filled with violence so he was choosing to participate in it.

But didn’t we learn from the Trayvon Martin case that even if you start a fight it is self-defense if you start losing the fight?

Zimmerman didn't start a fight. He followed, he didn't attack.

Zimmerman DID start a fight. He aggressively ran after someone while in possession of a gun without just cause so that a reasonable person would fear for their life. This was the opposite of his training and he ignored the social cue from the police reinforcing this best practice for neighborhood watchmen which amounts to reckless endangerment or culpable negligence in the best case scenario. Zimmerman's word on this cannot be trusted in the least-remember this is a guy who lied constantly about things including a restaurant drama where he started a fight and used the n-word.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So the defense is teen shoots first guy in self-defense and then other people reacting to a shooter... he gets to shoot them in self-defense as well This is the trouble with open carry. Fuck, even after shooting someone, bystanders have to accept it and not react? It helps create a situation of both parties committed to legitimate acts of self-defense, and someone dies, and no one is responsible.

At best this is a very gray situation, which definitely was created by Rittenhouse being somewhere he shouldn't have been, with a weapon he should have had, and doing something he wasn't remotely trained to do. Rittenhouse bothers me greatly as he seems like a sociopath. As a teen he went out to police and protect?!

So, it wasn't created by the guy trying to attack Rittenhouse, or the guy randomly shooting in his direction? At all? Just Rittenhouse?

I see you get my point on conflicting self-defense arguments and the insanity of open carry.

 

[J842P]

He should not be allowed any kind of 'self defense' excuse at all. If say you go to a bar and see their is a massive fight going on inside, and you respond by grabbing a weapon and going in, you are not 'defending' yourself, you are choosing to take part in the fight. Rittenhouse believed there was wide spread violence going on in the city, grabbed a weapon and went to the city. He was making a choice to go somewhere he believed was filled with violence so he was choosing to participate in it.

But didn’t we learn from the Trayvon Martin case that even if you start a fight it is self-defense if you start losing the fight?

So the defense is teen shoots first guy in self-defense and then other people reacting to a shooter... he gets to shoot them in self-defense as well This is the trouble with open carry. Fuck, even after shooting someone, bystanders have to accept it and not react? It helps create a situation of both parties committed to legitimate acts of self-defense, and someone dies, and no one is responsible.

At best this is a very gray situation, which definitely was created by Rittenhouse being somewhere he shouldn't have been, with a weapon he should have had, and doing something he wasn't remotely trained to do. Rittenhouse bothers me greatly as he seems like a sociopath. As a teen he went out to police and protect?!

So, it wasn't created by the guy trying to attack Rittenhouse, or the guy randomly shooting in his direction? At all? Just Rittenhouse?

I see you get my point on conflicting self-defense arguments and the insanity of open carry.

Yes, it is insane. But that isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about your claim that Rittenhouse created the situation, apparently, by being somewhere he shouldn't have been.

Ok. So who in that situation was where they were supposed to be?

 

[Arctish]

So the defense is teen shoots first guy in self-defense and then other people reacting to a shooter... he gets to shoot them in self-defense as well This is the trouble with open carry. Fuck, even after shooting someone, bystanders have to accept it and not react? It helps create a situation of both parties committed to legitimate acts of self-defense, and someone dies, and no one is responsible.

At best this is a very gray situation, which definitely was created by Rittenhouse being somewhere he shouldn't have been, with a weapon he should have had, and doing something he wasn't remotely trained to do. Rittenhouse bothers me greatly as he seems like a sociopath. As a teen he went out to police and protect?!

So, it wasn't created by the guy trying to attack Rittenhouse, or the guy randomly shooting in his direction? At all? Just Rittenhouse?

We still don't know why Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse in the video that was posted here a few months ago.

Their confrontation was the only one that got to that point of active aggression. Everyone else was just arguing and giving each other dirty looks. There were some reports at the time that Rittenhouse had pointed his gun at people. If that's what set Rosenbaum off, then Rittenhouse isn't completely innocent.

I think we're going to have to wait until the trial gets underway before we get a clearer picture of what happened. And we'll have to see if Rittenhouse illegally carrying that weapon was a felony offense. If so, then felony murder charges would apply even if Rosenbaum's actions were overreactions.

 

[Derec]

We still don't know why Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse in the video that was posted here a few months ago.

Their confrontation was the only one that got to that point of active aggression. Everyone else was just arguing and giving each other dirty looks.

Rosenbaum was seen being aggressive toward other people in general. For example he yelled "shoot me nigga" after somebody put out the fire in the dumpster he wanted to push toward a building (aka attempted arson).
Rosenbaum was clearly a very disturbed individual. He was just released from a mental hospital. He was hitting his fiancée. And when he was 18, he molested some boys.
This somewhat biased video gives some background on Rosenbaum and Rittenhouse.

There were some reports at the time that Rittenhouse had pointed his gun at people. If that's what set Rosenbaum off, then Rittenhouse isn't completely innocent.

[citation needed]

I think we're going to have to wait until the trial gets underway before we get a clearer picture of what happened. And we'll have to see if Rittenhouse illegally carrying that weapon was a felony offense. If so, then felony murder charges would apply even if Rosenbaum's actions were overreactions.

I think it is misdemeanor at most, and possibly nothing at all because the law seems to have a long gun loophole.

 

[Derec]

Yes, it is insane. But that isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about your claim that Rittenhouse created the situation, apparently, by being somewhere he shouldn't have been.

He had just as much right to be there as the other Krauts.

 

[Derec]

So the word is that the prosecution is going to allege that Rittenhouse ran towards Rosenbaum first and instigated, apparently there is helicopter footage. The defense is going to argue that Rittenhouse was putting out fires, which is what pissed off Rosenbaum.

It seems that Rosenbaum was the one running at Rittenhouse. I would very much like to see that alleged footage.
From all the videos I have seen, Rosenbaum was aggressive toward other people. The "shoot me nigga" and pushing the flaming dumpster came before his encounter with Rittenhouse.

Apparently, Rittenhouse was carrying a fire extinguisher when Rosenbaum attacked him, making defense scenario much more plausible.

Especially since Rosenbaum has a history of violence and has attempted arson earlier that night.

If they select an impartial jury this should be an easy acquittal.

 

[ZiprHead]

I think he will get off via self-defence. I don't think there are any good sides in this tale however.

I do hope he is charged with weapons charges and is never allowed to posess a firearm again.

 

[Patooka]

I do hope he is charged with weapons charges and is never allowed to posess a firearm again.

But, but, but 2nd Amendment!

And you just know the MAGAtards will raise that argument if the outcome is as you suggest.

 

[J842P]

So the defense is teen shoots first guy in self-defense and then other people reacting to a shooter... he gets to shoot them in self-defense as well This is the trouble with open carry. Fuck, even after shooting someone, bystanders have to accept it and not react? It helps create a situation of both parties committed to legitimate acts of self-defense, and someone dies, and no one is responsible.

At best this is a very gray situation, which definitely was created by Rittenhouse being somewhere he shouldn't have been, with a weapon he should have had, and doing something he wasn't remotely trained to do. Rittenhouse bothers me greatly as he seems like a sociopath. As a teen he went out to police and protect?!

So, it wasn't created by the guy trying to attack Rittenhouse, or the guy randomly shooting in his direction? At all? Just Rittenhouse?

We still don't know why Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse in the video that was posted here a few months ago.

Their confrontation was the only one that got to that point of active aggression. Everyone else was just arguing and giving each other dirty looks. There were some reports at the time that Rittenhouse had pointed his gun at people. If that's what set Rosenbaum off, then Rittenhouse isn't completely innocent.

I think we're going to have to wait until the trial gets underway before we get a clearer picture of what happened. And we'll have to see if Rittenhouse illegally carrying that weapon was a felony offense. If so, then felony murder charges would apply even if Rosenbaum's actions were overreactions.

Yes, but that happened earlier. And actually, there's no evidence that it was Rittenhouse. There is a video of Rosenbaum getting angry about this, but that it's about Rittenhouse is pure speculation -- he isn't even in that video. Apparently, the proximal cause of the confrontation was that Rittenhouse was putting out fires. There is pretty good video evidence of the fact that he had just put out a fire. It looks to me that Rittenhouse wasn't even aware that he was being chased, and he was actually running to put out another fire. Rosenbaum, apparently, was lighting fires -- at least that is what the defense is going to argue. This is why the whole "arsonist" thing is an issue. Again, this is still speculation, but it's what I've gleaned from reading about all the pretrial proceedings. I agree that we'll have to wait and see for the trial itself.