I agree, people that go looking for trouble are successful at finding it. I don't go out looking for trouble.
Weapons type at trial
- Thread starter GEM
- Start date
- Status
I agree, people that go looking for trouble are successful at finding it. I don't go out looking for trouble.
Howland937
Member
I may be mistaken, but I'm under the impression there's a process required. Prosecutor presents evidence to a Grand Jury, who then decides whether or not to issue an indictment. If an indictment is issued, then the prosecutor uses whatever evidence is deemed admissable in order to try to win a conviction.
Is this not (in summary) true?
The prosecutor didn't gather the rifle and ammo as evidence, it was provided by LE. The judge ruled it admissable, and the prosecutor does what he can with what he has to try to prove guilt.
So, yes...the prosecutor uses whatever evidence as presented him and would be considered a fool for leaving those items out. He may be a fool in how he's handled this case, and we may disagree with how the evidence is used against the defendant (ourselves in the event we're found in a similar quandary), but it is his job to use that evidence, legally, in the way that best supports his argument.
Last edited:
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,611
That does not mean that it will not find you.
Madcap_Magician
Member
It would be real hard for the prosecutor to build a straight house of cards with as much slant in the deck he was playing with, that's for sure.
Tom-R2
Member
I was involved in an on-duty fatal shooting in 1984. Grand jury no-billed it so no criminal charges. Lawsuit against me and the agency in federal court eventually went to trial. I had used a Beretta 92, had a S&W 60 as a backup (never pulled or presented out of the concealed holster) and wearing body armor. Plaintiffs' attorneys tried to make a big deal about this huge powerful firearm with LOTS of rounds (capable of randomly shooting multiple people), plus more ammo on my belt, a second gun (to be a throw down gun if needed) and the body armor to stay in the fight to be sure to be able to kill my adversary before he could kill me. Yet their 'expert' witness against me happened to carry the same Beretta - for the same reasons I had chosen it - and later I found out one of the men on the jury owned one too. One of their attorneys during a break tried to strike up a conversation with me, saying his uncle used to be a Cleveland cop, and he would beat people every day with his wooden nightstick. He was trying to get me to say something in favor of randomly beating people being OK. Several times during the two week trial, they pounded stuff like this. Glances over to the jury showed them shaking their heads in disbelief at all of their stupid attempts to attack me. Jury deliberated 3-4 hours, verdict in my favor and the plaintiffs didn't get one penny. But they tried every day. With more of a 'woke' movement today, they may have more of an audience to listen to and believe some of their wacko claims and accusations. Be absolutely sure you can articulate what the assailant did that made you do what you did.
Deanimator
Member
What would lead a prosecutor to assert that beating someone in the head with a wooden club (skateboard) isn't deadly force?
Deanimator
Member
I'm pretty sure that using it in such a way that it perpetrates a fraud on the court doesn't meet the test of legality.
I have no idea how that might apply.
the Rittenhouse prosecutor tried to capitalize on a widespread bias against the AR-15, which is well known.
Deanimator
Member
However, you can vastly decrease those odds that it will by the choices you make.
In another forum, a poster complained about the treatment he received by law enforcement at a club which he described as having "a lot of fights and drug related activity", or words to that effect.
My response was, "If you KNEW BEFOREHAND that the venue was KNOWN for violence and drug sales, why were you there in the first place?"
Unless you live in Chicago, you can GREATLY reduce your chance of interactions with BOTH private sector criminals AND law enforcement merely by being judicious in the company you keep and the places you frequent.
If you VOLUNTARILY associate with known criminals and frequent the places where they congregate, your chances of interacting with them and law enforcement go up astronomically.
Choices have consequences.
Bad choices usually have bad consequences.
Deanimator
Member
It is the contention of THAT prosecutor that beating someone in the head with a skateboard does NOT constitute deadly force and therefore does not warrant a deadly force response. He has a similar attitude about pointing a loaded handgun at somebody's head.
First of all, prosecutors in my state almost never use Grand Juries. The prosecutor simply files a 'felony information' with the circuit court. (How is this legal, you ask? Because that particular clause of the US Constitution hasn't been incorporated to the States. That's a different discussion.) I mention this just to be clear about how much experience I have with Grand Juries -- none. With all of that said, the prosecutor may show the actual gun, or may show pictures of the gun, but in any event, either of the foregoing are clearly relevant to the trial and defense is unlikely to object unless there's a real question about the authenticity and reliability of the evidence.
danez71
Member
This isn't to contradict you nor swing the conversation.
My intention is to just shed and share some info.
The grand jury function and process is different in different states.
The link is to a 64 page write up about CA grand jury system written by a superior court judge.
The part I copied and pasted below was just to note that the grand jury function and process varies from state to state.
http://cgja.org/sites/default/files/the_california_grand_jury_systemedition3.pdf
Howland937
Member
My only court room experience was as a juror, on both a grand jury and a trial in Ohio. I didn't realize it differs in other states.
Thanks both, for clarifying.
danez71
Member
It stands to reason but to be honest, I never gave it much thought until I saw yours and Spats's posts so I can't say I 'knew' that either.
I'm glad you raised the issue.
As a juror, my mind would not be stuck on the weapon type even though other’s may; my mind would be stuck on traveling to an area, purchasing a firearm and then introducing myself and the displayed firearm into riot mayhem - what did he think was going to happen? I am an avid 2A and firearms advocate - I’m on his jury, he is going to jail - he started the falling dominos - he should not have injected himself into the lion’s den with an AR - again, the quintessential question to him is what did he think was going to happen?
Last edited:
danez71
Member
From my perspective, him going didn't give anyone any justification to attack him.
Sure, they could have and maybe should have called the police to report a person, maybe underage, walking around with a rifle.
But that's not justification to attack him just as it would not be reason for you to be attacked for open carrying with out threatening anyone.
Sure, they could have and maybe should have called the police to report a person, maybe underage, walking around with a rifle.
But that's not justification to attack him just as it would not be reason for you to be attacked for open carrying with out threatening anyone.
Are you contending that he was the initial aggressor? The testimony seems to have disproved that. Are you saying that he provoked another to shoot at him?
What can that have to do with guilt or innocence.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2002
- Messages
- 22,475
In self-defense the weapon is irrelevant and that is a separate issue. Prosecutor is hoping to salvage his case on the evil black rifle and its sole purpose of slaughtering babies. If all you had to defend yourself with was a RPG, you'd us.
The good thing about the case is it is helping to awaken others about the extremist leftist views and how dangerous they are. People will flee the left (along with CRT in the schools & the "mandatory" jab (and there's no vaccine available)).
The good thing about the case is it is helping to awaken others about the extremist leftist views and how dangerous they are. People will flee the left (along with CRT in the schools & the "mandatory" jab (and there's no vaccine available)).
Corpral_Agarn
Member
Are you kidding with this?
Madcap_Magician
Member
The overarching concern is that the main thrust of the prosecutor's case at this point has shifted to convincing the jury that Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Rosenbaum prior to Rosenbaum attacking him. If he can convince the jury that Rittenhouse was the initial aggressor, then it would be Rosenbaum who was privileged for self-defense when he lunged for Rittenhouse's gun, and then it would follow that Huber and Grosskreutz were attempting to stop a criminal. That's a little rough for the defense because Huber and Grosskreutz's actions were more clearly and less arguably assaults on Rittenhouse. But the prosecutor has figured that he doesn't need to defend those assaults if he can make Rittenhouse the initial aggressor against Rosenbaum.
I think to ward off this point, the defense needs to hammer home about the pre-existing threats by Rosenbaum and also the fact that Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse prior to Rittenhouse pointing his rifle at him even if the video stills the prosecutor shows are accurate, which is certainly up for debate. They would also need to emphasize that no matter what Huber and Grosskreutz though, Kyle would retain the privilege of self-defense as long as he was not actually the initial aggressor, even if Huber and Grosskreutz were acting in the good-faith belief that he was.
It's really kind of frustrating that so much circumstantial or irrelevant evidence about Rittenhouse's frame of mind has been admitted, while the prosecutor has been very good about keeping out some very interesting facts about Rosenbaum (that he was a convicted child molester, he had just been released from a hospital where he'd been admitted for psychiatric reasons, that his fiancee had told him not to go down to the riots, and that the reason he couldn't stay with his fiancee that night was because she had an order for protection against him), Huber (that he had a violent criminal history including domestic violence by strangulation), and Grosskreutz (that he was affiliated with a radical protest group that had committed prior acts of violence, he had a prior conviction for carrying a firearm while intoxicated, and that he was illegally carrying his Glock 27 because his permit was expired).
That opinion has nuances. I think most agree that it was not smart to go there. That doesn't change the legal mechanics of what happened,
Why go there? That is also complex. To be short:
1. Some folks want to show opposition to the politics and beliefs of the demonstrators/rioters and perhaps threaten them.
2. Some folks feel that civil society and government have failed to provide a justice based society where competent and just governmental forces protect you and your property. That, we know from history leads to a tribal, revenge, local nongovernmental 'enforcement' of societal rules.
3. It is a combination of both. Kyle was probably acting on both. Who knows. Add the known inability of youth to suppress emotional processing as compared to cognitive reasoning.
I think the incident points strongly to the failure of government to provide a justice society. Through incompetence or political beliefs they are unable to quickly (and fairly) stop property destruction and loss of life (in some cases). We have seen this many times (LA Riots, etc.). If that happens, the necessary consequence will be the the tribal, revenge, societies. One selling point of the Taliban was that they provide what was seen as quick, effective and somewhat fair justice in their areas as compared to the Afgan supposed government. Now their view of the rule of law is a different matter.
We've seen lots of SD motivated, property protection actions that have gone badly.
1. Zimmerman
2. Pharmacist and his kill shot on the downed robber.
3. Current Arbrey
4. Kyle Rittenhouse
All of these actors would have been better served by some restraint. Better governmental action is better than armed folks having to protect their neighbors. I know that this can happen in disasters and riots. But you don't have to look for it. I recall seeing a photo of a guy with a shotgun protecting his house after Hurricane Sandy in a small coastal town where my Grandmother used to live. Good for him but he wasn't on 'patrol'.
Why go there? That is also complex. To be short:
1. Some folks want to show opposition to the politics and beliefs of the demonstrators/rioters and perhaps threaten them.
2. Some folks feel that civil society and government have failed to provide a justice based society where competent and just governmental forces protect you and your property. That, we know from history leads to a tribal, revenge, local nongovernmental 'enforcement' of societal rules.
3. It is a combination of both. Kyle was probably acting on both. Who knows. Add the known inability of youth to suppress emotional processing as compared to cognitive reasoning.
I think the incident points strongly to the failure of government to provide a justice society. Through incompetence or political beliefs they are unable to quickly (and fairly) stop property destruction and loss of life (in some cases). We have seen this many times (LA Riots, etc.). If that happens, the necessary consequence will be the the tribal, revenge, societies. One selling point of the Taliban was that they provide what was seen as quick, effective and somewhat fair justice in their areas as compared to the Afgan supposed government. Now their view of the rule of law is a different matter.
We've seen lots of SD motivated, property protection actions that have gone badly.
1. Zimmerman
2. Pharmacist and his kill shot on the downed robber.
3. Current Arbrey
4. Kyle Rittenhouse
All of these actors would have been better served by some restraint. Better governmental action is better than armed folks having to protect their neighbors. I know that this can happen in disasters and riots. But you don't have to look for it. I recall seeing a photo of a guy with a shotgun protecting his house after Hurricane Sandy in a small coastal town where my Grandmother used to live. Good for him but he wasn't on 'patrol'.
Howland937
Member
It goes back to the same age old question that pops up here occasionally. If you think you're going into an area where risk potential is higher, why would you?
The problem is, while we can question the judgement of the defendant arming himself and being there, he had as much RIGHT being there as anyone else.
The actions being judged are those that occured while he was there. The rest is not relevant to his trial.
Kyle’s Dad lived in the city, he worked in the city and he was with group of people protecting a car lot. From what I can tell he didn’t do anything illegal and his troubles stem from leaving his group and going off to play medic/firefighter amongst a group of protesters and rioters that didn’t want him there. At that point he was greatly outnumbered and the most aggressive people in the crowd figured they could take advantage of him.
My best guess is that the prosecution doesn’t want 17 year olds out patrolling the streets with rifles and thinks he can make an example of KR. Whether he’s found guilty or not guilty it will make some think twice before doing the same thing.
My best guess is that the prosecution doesn’t want 17 year olds out patrolling the streets with rifles and thinks he can make an example of KR. Whether he’s found guilty or not guilty it will make some think twice before doing the same thing.
- Status