Rittenhouse/Kenosha Shooting Split

[J842P]

It seems that only people with guns are allowed to practice self defense... or they need to shoot at people for people be able to react.

No. Rittenhouse would have been justified in defending himself with a bat, a piece of wood, or his fists. Whatever. It has nothing to do with him having a gun. Indeed, he was defending himself against other people with guns.

 

[Arctish]

Witnesses describe the night Kyle Rittenhouse opened fire during protests after the shooting of Jacob Blake in Kenosha

I'm not sure where the impression that someone fired a pistol behind Rittenhouse as he was being chased came from, but it appears to be mistaken.

Witnesses say Rittenhouse was pointing his rifle at different people. There is a video of one man (I think it's Rosenbaum) confronting him about it, daring him to shoot. There is video of Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse, then a shot is fired, then someone shouts "Fuck you!", then more shots are heard. I believe all those shots were the sounds of Rittenhouse shooting Rosenbaum multiple times. And there is video of Huber and Grosskreutz attempting to disarm Rittenhouse and being shot as well.

I think Rittenhouse attempted to intimidate people with his weapon, Rosenbaum took offense and tried to run him off, Rittenhouse panicked and shot at Rosenbaum who became further enraged, screamed "Fuck You!" and came after Rittenhouse with even greater angry intent, Rittenhouse then shot him multiple times, killing him. Rittenhouse then attempted to run away but people in the crowd had identified him as an active shooter and were trying to disarm him so he shot a couple more and then made his getaway.

I think Rittenhouse was acting like a teenager who got in way over his head and got scared. That doesn't excuse his killing people but I don't expect a 17 year old to be more mature and reasonable than a grown man.

 

[J842P]

Witnesses describe the night Kyle Rittenhouse opened fire during protests after the shooting of Jacob Blake in Kenosha

I'm not sure where the impression that someone fired a pistol behind Rittenhouse as he was being chased came from, but it appears to be mistaken.

Witnesses say Rittenhouse was pointing his rifle at different people. There is a video of one man (I think it's Rosenbaum) confronting him about it, daring him to shoot. There is video of Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse, then a shot is fired, then someone shouts "Fuck you!", then more shots are heard. I believe all those shots were the sounds of Rittenhouse shooting Rosenbaum multiple times. And there is video of Huber and Grosskreutz attempting to disarm Rittenhouse and being shot as well.

I think Rittenhouse attempted to intimidate people with his weapon, Rosenbaum took offense and tried to run him off, Rittenhouse panicked and shot at Rosenbaum who became further enraged, screamed "Fuck You!" and came after Rittenhouse with even greater angry intent, Rittenhouse then shot him multiple times, killing him. Rittenhouse then attempted to run away but people in the crowd had identified him as an active shooter and were trying to disarm him so he shot a couple more and then made his getaway.

It comes from a NYTimes analysis of the available footage that night:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html

Here is a twitter thread by one of the authors of that piece, which goes into even more details:

https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/1298839097923063809

And this tweet, in particular captures the moment:

https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/1298841139810893824

Although, you can find the full version of that video online and it more clearly shows the two guys, one of them Rosenbaum, chasing Rittenhouse, and the other guy shooting a pistol in the air. The sound of the pistol and the sound of the rifle are pretty distinct.

 

[ZiprHead]

Rittenhouse would threaten violence to any of his classmates that criticized Bonespurs.

Trump supporter Kyle Rittenhouse would ‘threaten’ classmates who criticized the president: report

 

[Arctish]

Witnesses describe the night Kyle Rittenhouse opened fire during protests after the shooting of Jacob Blake in Kenosha

I'm not sure where the impression that someone fired a pistol behind Rittenhouse as he was being chased came from, but it appears to be mistaken.

Witnesses say Rittenhouse was pointing his rifle at different people. There is a video of one man (I think it's Rosenbaum) confronting him about it, daring him to shoot. There is video of Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse, then a shot is fired, then someone shouts "Fuck you!", then more shots are heard. I believe all those shots were the sounds of Rittenhouse shooting Rosenbaum multiple times. And there is video of Huber and Grosskreutz attempting to disarm Rittenhouse and being shot as well.

I think Rittenhouse attempted to intimidate people with his weapon, Rosenbaum took offense and tried to run him off, Rittenhouse panicked and shot at Rosenbaum who became further enraged, screamed "Fuck You!" and came after Rittenhouse with even greater angry intent, Rittenhouse then shot him multiple times, killing him. Rittenhouse then attempted to run away but people in the crowd had identified him as an active shooter and were trying to disarm him so he shot a couple more and then made his getaway.

It comes from a NYTimes analysis of the available footage that night:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html

Here is a twitter thread by one of the authors of that piece, which goes into even more details:

https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/1298839097923063809

And this tweet, in particular captures the moment:

https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/1298841139810893824

Although, you can find the full version of that video online and it more clearly shows the two guys, one of them Rosenbaum, chasing Rittenhouse, and the other guy shooting a pistol in the air. The sound of the pistol and the sound of the rifle are pretty distinct.

Thank you for the links. The last one clearly showed a handgun being fired into the air by someone behind Rosenbaum. Any idea who that was?

 

[horhangi]

A compilation of “all video” of Rite house on the night.
https://thespacecoastrocket.com/every-video-of-kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting/
There is another video I have seen but can’t find which has a better view of what happened in the first shooting. The second was someone hitting him in the head with a skateboard and the third was armed with a handgun.
I think it all will depend on what sparked the first. I have no idea what sparked everything but it seems to me to be what the whole case will depend on.

 

[ZiprHead]

Prosecutors: Kyle Rittenhouse Made White Supremacist Hand Gesture, Had Proud Boys Anthem Sung To Him At Bar After Plea

KENOSHA, Wis. (CBS Chicago/CBS News) — Prosecutors in Kenosha County, Wisconsin said in a filing Wednesday that Kyle Rittenhouse flashed white power hand gestures and had the Proud Boys’ anthem sung to him in a Wisconsin bar last week.

Rittenhouse is accused of shooting and killing two people and wounding a third during civil unrest in Kenosha days after the shooting of Jacob Blake by police there. He was spotted at Pudgy’s Pub in Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin on Tuesday, Jan. 5, the same day he was pleaded not guilty to charges of shooting and killing two people and injuring a third during violent protests in Kenosha this summer.

In a filing Wednesday, Kenosha County Assistant District Attorney Thomas C. Binger wrote that he had reviewed video surveillance from that day. He wrote that Rittenhouse arrived at the bar at 2:30 p.m. along with his mother and several other adults, and stayed until just after 4 p.m.

Still images from that day show Rittenhouse first posing for photos outside the bar with two adult men who arrived with him, the filing said. In each, Rittenhouse and one of the men flash the “OK” sign.

Other screen grabs show Rittenhouse posing for several photographs in a T-shirt which reads, “Free as F**k,” and again flashing the “OK” sign with the adults in the bar, the filing said. The “OK” sign, prosecutors noted, has been co-opted as a white power gesture by “known white supremacist groups.” The hand symbol began as a hoax by users of the website 4chan before turning into a popular trolling tactic, the Anti-Defamation League explained in 2019. By that year, it had evolved into a gesture embraced “in some circles as a sincere expression of white supremacy,” the civil rights group said.

 

[Harry Bosch]

What do you think about this story:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crim...nhouse-defense-fund/ar-BB1ggh0B?ocid=msedgntp

A police office was fired for contributing to the Rittenhouse defense fund. He stated "God bless. Thank you for your courage. Keep your head up. You’ve done nothing wrong. Every rank and file police officer supports you. Don’t be discouraged by actions of the political class of law enforcement leadership.”"

First off, I support the police. But I only support good cops (which is the vast majority). I don't think that I like this cop. For one, Rittenhouse is a piece of shit. He took a weapon to a protest in order to intimidate people. He deserves what's coming to him. I favor gun rights. But when you use a gun to scare people, you're a piece of shit. So, yea, I think that Rittenhouse did wrong. Secondly, this cop is broadcasting that cops don't follow " the political class of law enforcement leadership." Sorry, but if you're a cop, and you're not going to follow leadership, your ass should be fired. End of story. Certainly this officer shouldn't be in a position of authority.

 

[Rhea]

What do you think about this story:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crim...nhouse-defense-fund/ar-BB1ggh0B?ocid=msedgntp

A police office was fired for contributing to the Rittenhouse defense fund. He stated "God bless. Thank you for your courage. Keep your head up. You’ve done nothing wrong. Every rank and file police officer supports you. Don’t be discouraged by actions of the political class of law enforcement leadership.”"

First off, I support the police. Biggly support. But I only support good cops (which is the vast majority). I don't think that I like this cop. For one, Rittenhouse is a piece of shit. He took a weapon to a protest in order to intimidate people. He deserves what's coming to him. I favor gun rights. But when you use a gun to scare people, you're a piece of shit. So, yea, I think that Rittenhouse did wrong. Secondly, this cop is broadcasting that cops don't follow " the political class of law enforcement leadership." Sorry, but if you're a cop, and you're not going to follow leadership, your ass should be fired. End of story. Certainly this officer shouldn't be in a position of authority.

Agree. A cop posting “you’ve done nothing wrong,” prior to a trial is no bueno.

Also, all the other “rank and file” officers that he claims think the same way shoulld be really pissed at him... all the good cops, that is. Wonder if any of them objected?

 

[Arctish]

What do you think about this story:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crim...nhouse-defense-fund/ar-BB1ggh0B?ocid=msedgntp

A police office was fired for contributing to the Rittenhouse defense fund. He stated "God bless. Thank you for your courage. Keep your head up. You’ve done nothing wrong. Every rank and file police officer supports you. Don’t be discouraged by actions of the political class of law enforcement leadership.”"

First off, I support the police. Biggly support. But I only support good cops (which is the vast majority). I don't think that I like this cop. For one, Rittenhouse is a piece of shit. He took a weapon to a protest in order to intimidate people. He deserves what's coming to him. I favor gun rights. But when you use a gun to scare people, you're a piece of shit. So, yea, I think that Rittenhouse did wrong. Secondly, this cop is broadcasting that cops don't follow " the political class of law enforcement leadership." Sorry, but if you're a cop, and you're not going to follow leadership, your ass should be fired. End of story. Certainly this officer shouldn't be in a position of authority.

Agree. A cop posting “you’ve done nothing wrong,” prior to a trial is no bueno.

Especially when it's perfectly clear Rittenhouse wasn't old enough to have legally purchased the weapon or to legally carry it in Wisconsin.

The friend who bought the gun for him is facing felony charges of "intentionally giving a dangerous weapon to a minor, causing death", and if found guilty could face up to 6 years in prison.

That whole "you've done nothing wrong" is bullshit. I seriously doubt that cop would be so free with blanket excuses if Rittenhouse was a black teenager with an illegally purchased gun facing second degree murder charges for killing Proud Boys under similar circumstances.

 

[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.

 

[TV and credit cards]

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.

I'd go with "human beings" then.

 

[crazyfingers]

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.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

 

[KeepTalking]

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.

I'd go with "human beings" then.

Maybe they can go with "murderees", or "formerly living persons who became deceased immediately after being shot by the defendant".

 

[Keith&Co.]

The [rioters he crossed state lines to shoot with an illegal weapon in defense of property he does not own]-ees.

 

[marc]

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.

 

[blastula]

"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 pretrial hearing.

Even if they can prove it, how is it relevant anyway?

Should only matter whether Rittenhouse was defending himself.

 

[Derec]

The [rioters he crossed state lines to shoot with an illegal weapon in defense of property he does not own]-ees.

He did not "cross state lines" with intent to shoot anybody. He did not even cross state lines to defend property from rioters - he and his sister were already there in Kenosha when the rioting broke out. And I think he and his friend were invited by a business owner to defend his property.

 

[Derec]

Even if they can prove it, how is it relevant anyway?
Should only matter whether Rittenhouse was defending himself.

The three Krauts being up to no good makes Rittenhouse's claim of self defense more credible.
Although, you are right - this should not be needed. The videos of the events show clearly that Rttenhouse was defending himself. However, juries are notoriously unpredictable and every little bit helps.