Kyle Rittenhouse Trial?

[wiscoaster]

I'm surprised to not find any discussion about the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. I used the forum search function and found nothing. Is this a proscribed topic? Or just hasn't been any discussion? It seems to me there are firearms legal topics suitable for discussion.

 

[Conelrad]

Stupid kid.

 

[Jim Watson]

Lots of stuff on Glock Talk and Pistol-forum.
Real coverage by lawyer Andrew Branca on LegalInsurrection.com

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

The fact that Rittenhouse took the stand indicates that the defense has already won the trial. The prosecutions own witnesses had already testified that it was self defense.
The prosecuting attorney knows this and was trying to get a mistrial. JMO of course.

I suspect nobody posts here because it is usually a waste of time. The posts are usually removed and the threads closed following any discussion. This one soon will be.

The first rule of the Legal Forum is you do not post on the Legal Forum.

 

[JJFitch]

The trial is fascinating to watch.

 

[wiscoaster]

The topic that interests me is the prosecutor going into great detail and effort with respect to determining where, when and how the gun was stored and who had control of it, also when, where and how and with what it was loaded and chambered, etc. etc. These are all legal issues, yes, but I fail to see or understand how they relate to proving or disproving lawful self-defense. Where the gun was and who had it the night before it was used seems to be irrelevant to me. In my state a "safe storage" bill has been introduced, so that's why that line of questioning caught my attention. How does safe storage relate to lawful self-defense?

 

[MEHavey]

When you have the facts, pound the facts.
When you have the law, pound the law.
When you have neither facts nor law, . . .
Pound the table to fill the void w/ extraneous dust that you hope obstructs viewing the lack of the first two.

Simple.


.

 

[Sistema1927]

You know that the prosecution is falling apart when the prosecutor tries to make hay of a defendant exercising his right to remain silent. The judge rightly jumped down his throat.

 

[mjsdwash]

I've seen a bunch, but in the "law&order" imply not state way on this forum.

 

[Spats McGee]

I have not been able to watch the trial, but I've been following what I can on the internet. As far as I can tell, it's been an unmitigated disaster for the prosecution.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

The prosecution never had a case. The charges were brought against Rittenhouse for purely political reasons.
End of story.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

Rittenhouse will likely win lawsuits against Joe Biden and others.

This is not a political statement. Especially after it is proven correct.

 

[whughett]

Still, as pointed out to me by a friend who’s following the proceedings, the young man doesn’t live in the neighbor or even the city. As noted he made a stupid decision some where along the line and put him self in harms way a decision he will have a life time to reflect on.

 

[Jim Watson]

As somebody else pointed out, his Father lives there, so he might be thought to have a basis for going.
Yes, I think he is young and dumb. At least he has survived to recover from the first and maybe the second.

 

[armydog]

I never laughed so hard at a trial before. The answers this kid had yesterday was hilarious. It was like a slap in the prosecutors face over his tactics....over and over.

I wish my self defense trial was funny. But I won in the end. I say I got the last laugh, but I think my lawyer did. lol

 

[Hartkopf]

I don't know if Rittenhouse is dumb. Was he protecting his father and his business? If so how could this be dumb? Would any of you let your dad get his head kicked in when you were young? (I admit to not having all the details)

From what I've heard; three people attacked Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse fired three shots, all hitting his target, no collateral damage.

 

[F-111 John]

I never laughed so hard at a trial before. The answers this kid had yesterday was hilarious. It was like a slap in the prosecutors face over his tactics....over and over.

I wish my self defense trial was funny. But I won in the end. I say I got the last laugh, but I think my lawyer did. lol

There was not much to laugh at yesterday with the horrendous conduct of the prosecutor, but I did literally laugh out loud at this exchange:

Prosecutor: "At some point as you get near to the 63rd Street Car Source, you start running toward that lot."

Kyle: "Towards the fire in the Duramax."

Prosecutor: "So you decide you need to run to the fire at the Duramax?"

Kyle: "Yes."

Prosecutor: "Why? What was so urgent?"

Kyle: "It was a fire?"

 

[Telekinesis]

The topic that interests me is the prosecutor going into great detail and effort with respect to determining where, when and how the gun was stored and who had control of it, also when, where and how and with what it was loaded and chambered, etc. etc.

These are all legal issues, yes, but I fail to see or understand how they relate to proving or disproving lawful self-defense. Where the gun was and who had it the night before it was used seems to be irrelevant to me.

How does safe storage relate to lawful self-defense?

The prosecutor is going into this because one of the other charges against Kyle is related to being in possession of a firearm by someone under 18. That brings all of the questions about how he came into possession of the gun into scope.

Also note that Kyle’s friend who stored the gun is facing charges for providing the firearm to Kyle. IIRC information from testimony in Kyle’s trial can be used as evidence in the subsequent trial against Kyle’s friend.

I don't know if Rittenhouse is dumb. Was he protecting his father and his business? If so how could this be dumb? Would any of you let your dad get his head kicked in when you were young? (I admit to not having all the details)

From what I've heard; three people attacked Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse fired three shots, all hitting his target, no collateral damage.

And this is why THR often doesn’t do well with live analysis of legal cases. The standards for the legal forum are pretty high on “know your facts and be able to cite them”.

No offense meant, but very little of the above post is factually correct. While Kyle did have family in Kenosha, his father was not associated with the car dealership. Kyle wasn’t protecting his father from getting his head kicked in that night.

Kyle definitely fired more than 3 shots. From his testimony: 4 into the first attacker, 2 rounds (misses) fired at the second attacker (the “jump kick man” who has not been found), 1 into the third (skateboard), 1 into the fourth (pistol).

While none of these errors make a difference about whether or not Kyle acted in self defense, this is how you get nonsense like the often repeated “Kyle traveled across state lines with a rifle to kill people” which is also factually incorrect.

 

[hso]

It seems to me there are firearms legal topics suitable for discussion.

Not really. Until the trial is over and a review in whole can be done, play by plays demonstrate nothing except what the Prosecution and Defense are willing to do to win the case in front of the jury. Misinformation and interpretations confuse the facts of the case. Their antics become the topic and people choose up sides and defend them. We will learn nothing of legal value until after the trial is over, people cool down, and some thoughtful analysis can take place.

The discussion with less stringent rules of fact and reason is https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/weapons-type-at-trial.897396/#post-12109836

 

[Spats McGee]

TBH, I would not have been happy if I had a teenage son who decided to go to a big protest like that, for any reason. Still, it doesn't really matter if KR's decision to be in that area, on that night, was dumb or not. What matters is whether it was legal or not.

This is a Self-Defense case, and kind of a rare opportunity for us here at THR. We can all basically watch the same trial, and compare notes. With that said, my take on it is that time and time again, the State's witnesses have proved SD for Rittenhouse. Gaige Grosskreutz, who was the Star Witness, testified on cross that KR didn't shoot when GG's hands were up, that KR shot him when GG pointed his (GG's) pistol at KR. Other witnesses pointed out over and over that KR was not an instigator, that he didn't shoot at people who weren't threats. I'm not licenses in WI, but if you don't have a SD claim when three grown men are chasing you in the middle of a riot, one is yelling 'kill him' and one hits you repeatedly with a skateboard, then you will never have a SD claim

 

[AlexanderA]

This is clearly trending toward a Not Guilty verdict. The takeaway for us as gun owners, though, is not to get into such situations in the first place. He may have tactically been in a self-defense situation, but strategically he went looking for trouble. In other words he was not totally blameless for what happened.

 

[Elkins45]

Rittenhouse will likely win lawsuits against Joe Biden and others.

This is not a political statement. Especially after it is proven correct.

Only if he’s found not guilty, and even then he would have to prove harm.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think he should ever have been brought to trial for what is clearly a case of self-defense and I sure hope he’s acquitted. Unfortunately for him there’s still the gun charge and unless the judge throws the whole thing out with prejudice he still might get gigged for that.

I like your optimism, but he still has some pretty big hurdles to jump before he starts cashing settlement checks.

This is clearly trending toward a Not Guilty verdict. The takeaway for us as gun owners, though, is not to get into such situations in the first place. He may have tactically been in a self-defense situation, but strategically he went looking for trouble. In other words he was not totally blameless for what happened.

Exactly. Everybody involved with this case did stupid things and all have suffered as a result. Some much more than others, but Rittenhouse didn’t do gun owners any favors that night.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

The takeaway for us as gun owners, though, is not to get into such situations in the first place.

As someone that carries a gun every day, I already knew that.
Take away from the whole situation is that police should be allowed to do their job. Law abiding taxpayers should not have to tolerate looting, rioting, vandalism, arson……
A perceived injustice exempts no one from the law.

Only if he’s found not guilty, and even then he would have to prove harm.

If I had to bet one way or the other I would side with Rittenhouse on both issues.

 

[F-111 John]

I'm not licenses in WI, but if you don't have a SD claim when three grown men are chasing you in the middle of a riot, one is yelling 'kill him' and one hits you repeatedly with a skateboard, then you will never have a SD claim

But do you have an SD claim while in the commission of a crime? Can you, for example, claim self defense if you shoot an armed guard who is pointing a gun at you while you are in the process of robbing a bank? No, of course not.

Perhaps through all of his cross examination of KR regarding how KR came to obtain the firearm, prosecution is attempting to establish that KR's possession of the rifle in public that night was unlawful, therefore he loses any claims of justification for any actions carried out with that firearm.

Is there a threshold, such as a misdemeanor vs. a felony, that must be crossed before claims of self defense are no longer valid? i.e. if you are attacked while jaywalking and defend yourself with deadly force vs. the bank robbery example above?

To me it is a clear cut case of poor judgement on the part of a 17 year old to put himself in that situation that night, but also a clear cut case of justifiable self defense.

Were I on the jury, the only thing that I would convict KR of would be violation of Wisconsin Statute 948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18, which is a Class A misdemeanor. However, the awkward wording of 948.60 3(c) might even acquit KR of that charge as well. I'm convinced that the exception in 948.60 3(c) doesn't apply to KR, but others that I respect are convinced that the exception does apply to KR.

 

[Kleanbore]

Rittenhouse will likely win lawsuits against Joe Biden

On what basis?