17 Year-old Blue Lives Matter Activist with AR 15 Charged With Murder After Two Killed at Protest

[Chew Toy McCoy]

I don't know how often this happens, but it's pretty astonishing how biased this judge is blatantly proving to be. It's like he can't help himself. Maybe he'll insist that he be allowed to also be the jury foreman. You know, just to be there to make sure they are following his biased instructions and overrule any viewpoint that is different from his.

 

[SuperMatt]

I don't know how often this happens, but it's pretty astonishing how biased this judge is blatantly proving to be. It's like he can't help himself. Maybe he'll insist that he be allowed to also be the jury foreman. You know, just to be there to make sure they are following his biased instructions and overrule any viewpoint that is different from his.

The juror that made the offensive Jacob Blake joke probably heard it from the judge.

 

[Pumbaa]

I don't know how often this happens, but it's pretty astonishing how biased this judge is blatantly proving to be. It's like he can't help himself. Maybe he'll insist that he be allowed to also be the jury foreman. You know, just to be there to make sure they are following his biased instructions and overrule any viewpoint that is different from his.

Giving “jury nullification” a new meaning… >.<

 

[yaxomoxay]

After today, no way that Mr. Rittenhouse will be convicted of any felony. He remains an idiot, but the case for self-defense was served on a silver plate by the Prosecutor himself. Of note, the defense case hasn’t started yet.

 

[lizkat]

I don't know how often this happens, but it's pretty astonishing how biased this judge is blatantly proving to be. It's like he can't help himself. Maybe he'll insist that he be allowed to also be the jury foreman. You know, just to be there to make sure they are following his biased instructions and overrule any viewpoint that is different from his.

Shades of the late Judge Julius Jennings Hoffman in the nearly year-long spring 1969-70 trial of the Chicago 7. An amazing piece of work. In that trial though the bias was against the defense and their counsel and Hoffman was perfectly content to let that hang out. The appeals courts eventually noted his openly derisive attitude towards defense and failure to appraise juror bias and also overturned all his sentencings.

One wonders about this judge in the Rittenhouse case. All I've really read about him is that he's the longest serving circuit judge in Wisconsin, don't really have a sense of what any bar associations may have thought of him.

I know with Hoffman it came out that something over 75% of the Chi Bar Association had categorized him as "unqualified"... yet there he was on the bench helping make a circus of the Chicago 7 trial and that's before any nods to the defendants for some antics of their own. What a world. How fragile the rule of law sometimes.

 

[User.45]

After today, no way that Mr. Rittenhouse will be convicted of any felony. He remains an idiot, but the case for self-defense was served on a silver plate by the Prosecutor himself. Of note, the defense case hasn’t started yet.

This case will create the precedent that will take us closer to a civil war. Rittenhouse will get a slap on the wrist, which will encourage more assholes to take the largest fucking gun they can find to a protest and get into altercations. The testimony made front page on reddit (didn’t watch the video, it’s late) but saw the people are already cheering.

So here we are, people going to protests armed and people get excited if the “right people” get hurt in the process.

 

[yaxomoxay]

This case will create the precedent that will take us closer to a civil war. Rittenhouse will get a slap on the wrist, which will encourage more assholes to take the largest fucking gun they can find to a protest and get into altercations. The testimony made front page on reddit (didn’t watch the video, it’s late) but saw the people are already cheering.

So here we are, people going to protests armed and people get excited if the “right people” get hurt in the process.

Let’s not exaggerate. The reason he’ll get a slap on the wrist - at most - is that the law is clear, and precedent already exists. The prosecution has absolutely no way to build a case and it shows. Speaking of Reddit, I checked a couple of subs about jurisprudence, and the “verdict” is almost unanimous that Mr Rittenhouse is in the right, legally speaking (I don’t think he is, ethically speaking). Even the NYT reports the difficulties that the Prosecutor has in establishing that Mr Rittenhouse broke the law. Now, again, I can’t stand Mr. Rittenhouse, but by the many “highlights” I’ve watched it’s evident that he didn’t break any law.

One thing that interests me, is that during the trial it transpired that the DA office didn’t allow a warrant because they feared that the police search would find exculpatory evidence in favor of Mr Rittenhouse. My understanding is that this might be illegal, but I am not 100% sure.

 

[User.45]

Let’s not exaggerate. The reason he’ll get a slap on the wrist - at most - is that the law is clear, and precedent already exists. The prosecution has absolutely no way to build a case and it shows. Speaking of Reddit, I checked a couple of subs about jurisprudence, and the “verdict” is almost unanimous that Mr Rittenhouse is in the right, legally speaking (I don’t think he is, ethically speaking). Even the NYT reports the difficulties that the Prosecutor has in establishing that Mr Rittenhouse broke the law. Now, again, I can’t stand Mr. Rittenhouse, but by the many “highlights” I’ve watched it’s evident that he didn’t break any law.

One thing that interests me, is that during the trial it transpired that the DA office didn’t allow a warrant because they feared that the police search would find exculpatory evidence in favor of Mr Rittenhouse. My understanding is that this might be illegal, but I am not 100% sure.

This is not an exaggeration.
1. Trial is not over. There were eyewitness reports posted in local media claiming that Rittenhouse pointed his gun at people prior to these events. So if we cared about the actual case, maybe not Reddit Lawyers should be the standard. I personally want to learn if those reports were true.
2. If you zoom out and think about the message the average gun nut will take away from this is: You can get away with murder as long as you created the situation where self defense can be claimed. Ironically the term chip on his shoulder comes from this, a person having a chip on their shoulder and if they bump into someone and the chip falls, they’ll start a fight.

Do you have a law degree, BTW or are you another Reddit lawyer?

 

[yaxomoxay]

This is not an exaggeration.
1. Trial is not over. There were eyewitness reports posted in local media claiming that Rittenhouse pointed his gun at people prior to these events. So if we cared about the actual case, maybe not Reddit Lawyers should be the standard. I personally want to learn if those reports were true.

It doesn’t seem that the witnesses corroborated that Mr Rittenhouse was an instigator. And here we’re talking about prosecution witnesses. Even with the first shooting, by the dumpster, everything - including FBI drone footage - points to Mr Rittenhouse being first threatened and the attacked. You get a very good point: the trial is not over, therefore mine is obviously just an opinion. Personally I was hoping he’d get some manslaughter charges for the first shooting, but from what I see even that will be very hard at this point.

2. If you zoom out and think about the message the average gun nut will take away from this is: You can get away with murder as long as you created the situation where self defense can be claimed. Ironically the term chip on his shoulder comes from this, a person having a chip on their shoulder and if they bump into someone and the chip falls, they’ll start a fight.

I don’t totally disagree with this, but people bringing guns and rifles at a protest (on either side, if there is a side), isn’t new. Even yesterday’s witness admitted not only to having a concealed handgun, but even having pointed it. However, I think you will concur that the trial is not - and shouldn’t be - about “what happens if the accused gets convicted / acquitted but about the law.

Do you have a law degree, BTW or are you another Reddit lawyer?

Reddit lawyer? I am not that low! My degree comes from decades of practicing law on random online forums, often in conversations in which most participants base their opinions on newspaper titles only or, in the best case, tweets.

 

[Herdfan]

This is not an exaggeration.

2. If you zoom out and think about the message the average gun nut will take away from this is: You can get away with murder as long as you created the situation where self defense can be claimed. Ironically the term chip on his shoulder comes from this, a person having a chip on their shoulder and if they bump into someone and the chip falls, they’ll start a fight.

As the resident "gun nut", there is no way I would go and create, or even seek out, a situation like that. It could just as easily been Kyle Rittenhouse laying in the morgue.

Not all of us sit around wondering how we can get away with shooting someone.

 

[yaxomoxay]

As the resident "gun nut", there is no way I would go and create, or even seek out, a situation like that. It could just as easily been Kyle Rittenhouse laying in the morgue.

Not all of us sit around wondering how we can get away with shooting someone.

I am not clear in one thing, and I haven’t seen any trial footage about it. Some claim that Rittenhouse just went there and asked for a firearm and got it. Others are saying that at the trial it was disclosed that during the morning he was helping cleaning the place and that he was asked (by the shady car dealers?) to stay there and that he then was given a weapon. Any idea which is which?

 

[SuperMatt]

Let’s not exaggerate. The reason he’ll get a slap on the wrist - at most - is that the law is clear, and precedent already exists. The prosecution has absolutely no way to build a case and it shows. Speaking of Reddit, I checked a couple of subs about jurisprudence, and the “verdict” is almost unanimous that Mr Rittenhouse is in the right, legally speaking (I don’t think he is, ethically speaking). Even the NYT reports the difficulties that the Prosecutor has in establishing that Mr Rittenhouse broke the law. Now, again, I can’t stand Mr. Rittenhouse, but by the many “highlights” I’ve watched it’s evident that he didn’t break any law.

One thing that interests me, is that during the trial it transpired that the DA office didn’t allow a warrant because they feared that the police search would find exculpatory evidence in favor of Mr Rittenhouse. My understanding is that this might be illegal, but I am not 100% sure.

Well then, it’s decided. The defense can rest, send the jury to deliberation, which should take 30 seconds, and he can be acquitted immediately.

Here’s a question I wonder about. Does one have a legal right to defend oneself with a weapon one is not legally allowed to possess?

I am not saying I believe these shootings qualify as self-defense, because running around in a mob with an assault weapon is not the action of somebody worried about their personal safety to begin with. Point an illegally-possessed gun at random people, then when they try to take your gun away, you shoot them… self defense? I don’t agree with that.

Don’t forget: the murderers of Ahmaud Arbery also are claiming self defense. It is perhaps sometimes a true defense, but when one is caught on camera shooting somebody, it is most likely their only defense available in court. The last-resort defense of an alleged killer caught on video.

 

[Herdfan]

I am not clear in one thing, and I haven’t seen any trial footage about it. Some claim that Rittenhouse just went there and asked for a firearm and got it. Others are saying that at the trial it was disclosed that during the morning he was helping cleaning the place and that he was asked (by the shady car dealers?) to stay there and that he then was given a weapon. Any idea which is which?

As far as I know, it was his gun. The first prosecution witness was his friend who bought it for him.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Here’s a question I wonder about. Does one have a legal right to defend oneself with a weapon one is not legally allowed to possess?

Yes, absolutely. No citizen has a duty to die or be victimized. Example: a lady steals a gun from a car. While walking home two men try to rape her. She can shoot them. She might be charged for unlawful possession, but certainly no homicide charge (another example is a very young kid shooting someone breaking in his house or committing violence on a family member).

. Point an illegally-possessed gun at random people, then when they try to take your gun away, you shoot them… self defense? I don’t agree with that.

From what I’ve seen, and feel free to correct me if I am wrong, it seems that Mr Rittenhouse didn’t point the gun until chased down by the first individual, which then lounged for the weapon after yelling “I am going to kill you”.

Don’t forget: the murderers of Ahmaud Arbery also are claiming self defense. It is perhaps sometimes a true defense, but when one is caught on camera shooting somebody, it is most likely their only defense available in court. The last-resort defense of an alleged killer caught on video.

I am not following that one, from what I’ve seen about it, I find hard to believe that the self defense argument will stand.

 

[yaxomoxay]

As far as I know, it was his gun. The first prosecution witness was his friend who bought it for him.

So who legally owns it? Mr Rittenhouse or his friend?

 

[Renzatic]

So who legally owns it? Mr Rittenhouse or his friend?

It sounds like his friend officially owned the gun, and was holding it for Rittenhouse until he came of age.

 

[SuperMatt]

Yes, absolutely

I don’t think there’s anything absolute about it. What if you stole somebody’s gun, and they try to get it back, you fear they are going to hurt you in the process, and you shoot them? You could say you feared for your life as the victim of your robbery attempted to hurt you to get the gun back. I doubt a jury would see it that way… but who knows?

Each situation is different. IMHO, speaking in absolutes is not conducive to a discussion of the topic, especially when it comes to the decision of 12 human beings listening to evidence with different lawyers, witnesses, and judges every single time.

BTW - there were definitely reports that Rittenhouse was pointing the gun in unsafe directions on that night. And he was illegally in possession of it. I find it odd that adults trying to take a gun away from an out-of-control teenager are considered to be attackers in this scenario.

 

[SuperMatt]

So who legally owns it? Mr Rittenhouse or his friend?

At the age of 17, it’s not legal for Kyle to own it, period. There’s your answer.

 

[Renzatic]

I find it odd that adults trying to take a gun away from an out-of-control teenager are considered to be attackers in this scenario.

The problem with this case is that the prosecution is doing a poor job of showing he was out of control.

Was he a minor who had brought a weapon he wasn't legally allowed to own across state lines to join in on a highly charged situation for which he had neither the professional training nor emotional maturity to deal with?

...well yeah, but he may still have justifiable cause to shoot and kill people if all he was doing was minding his own business!

 

[yaxomoxay]

I don’t think there’s anything absolute about it. What if you stole somebody’s gun, and they try to get it back, you fear they are going to hurt you in the process, and you shoot them?

That’s a different case and has little to do with the question I answered. The legality of the ownership of the weapon doesn’t limit the right to self defense, that’s my point. In the case you described above - which is Mr Rittenhouse defense on the first shooting - the owner is not the initiator of the act of violence, hence the self defense. That is, the legality of the possession is not the determinant factor.

You could say you feared for your life as the victim of your robbery attempted to hurt you to get the gun back. I doubt a jury would see it that way… but who knows?

Again, in the commission of a violent crime in which you’re the victim, you can defend yourself. So if someone is robbing a bank, you have the right to defend yourself.

Each situation is different.

Well, yes.

IMHO, speaking in absolutes is not conducive to a discussion of the topic,

It’s not an absolute, it’s just a fact. Ownership of a gun, knife, bazooka doesn’t limit the rights of self defense. The circumstances and context of the case might.

especially when it comes to the decision of 12 human beings listening to evidence with different lawyers, witnesses, and judges every single time.

Yes but that’s beside my point.

BTW - there were definitely reports that Rittenhouse was pointing the gun in unsafe directions on that night. And he was illegally in possession of it. I find it odd that adults trying to take a gun away from an out-of-control teenager are considered to be attackers in this scenario.

Reports maybe, anyone called by the prosecutor stated so? Because that’s what matters. Honest question because I haven’t heard it but, admittedly I haven’t listened to the whole thing.