Kyle Rittenhouse Trial?

[armydog]

I'm curious about what you guys think the gun community in general will find as an acceptable outcome of this trial: if it goes to jury and the jury comes back with a guilty verdict on the underage weapons misdemeanor charge and not guilty on all the other felony charges, will the consensus be that's a just and acceptable outcome?

Clear cases of self defense by a kid who felt the need to protect an area the LE and the NG did nothing, so if he gets convicted it will send a message that your not allowed to take part in securing your community or anywhere else when the SHTF.... and by design. Ill be happy if he gets off on everything.

I really dont know if he thought this would all be fun and games but I don't think he understood that something that bad was going to happen or at least could happen to him. That town needed more adults to take action.

Why is so little being made of the lack of leadership and the government/societal breakdown that caused this kid to want to help in the first place. I was an infantryman at 17 years old so I don't see age really making a difference. But that is probably their only hope to get even one conviction which makes the government look even more pathetic.

 

[twarr1]

Prosecution is employing classic lawyer/politician tricks. Mention something clearly inadmissible, irrelevant or derogatory, the judge instructs the jury to ‘disregard’ and everybody pretends it didn’t happen and pretends humans can unhear or unsee things.
“I think I heard someone mention my neighbor/enemy/opponent is an axe murderer. Now I’m not saying he is or isn’t, just what I heard” - damage done.
When regular people do such things they are (or used to be) thought of poorly. When politicians or lawyers do it, they’re being ‘professional’ or ‘brilliant’

 

[CapnMac]

In the four-five online review/commentary I have been following, an interesting question keeps popping up. The prosecutor has considerable trial experience, SO, has he "gotten away" with shenanigans before, ust in less-televised trials?
There's a collateral question of just how many judges are as unflinching as the one in this case.

 

[wiscoaster]

In the four-five online review/commentary I have been following, an interesting question keeps popping up. The prosecutor has considerable trial experience, SO, has he "gotten away" with shenanigans before...

That's a really great question, and I'll bet it's something the judge is looking into over the weekend, since he hasn't yet denied the motion for a mistrial w/ prejudice.

 

[dogtown tom]

Why is so little being made of the lack of leadership and the government/societal breakdown that caused this kid to want to help in the first place.

Because its irrelevant to the crime KR is charged with.

If an armed man robs you, takes your $$$, do you think the rising rate of inflation and government economic policy has any bearing on the act of armed robbery?

 

[Styx]

Thanks for that research.

You are correct, and I am wrong. I misread 29.593 (1)(a) "Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval", and followed the link to 29.592(1) "Hunting mentorship program."

Looks like if Kyle did in fact have a valid hunting license from his state, he should be found not guilty of the weapons charge. It's a loophole carved out for 17 year olds only that I am sure that Wisconsin legislatures did not intend on carving out. Will not surprise me if the law is reworded, and the loophole is closed soon after this trail is done. Even if he is found guilty of the weapons charge, I do not see it standing on appeal as it moves up the judicial ladder.

 

[danez71]

But the nature of my crime may determine whether I am the initial aggressor, who ordinarily cannot claim SD. If I were robbing a bank (Aggravated Robbery in Arkansas), then I am the initial aggressor, and SD is not available to me. OTOH, if I were carrying some weed in my pocket without a Medical Marijuana card (also illegal in Arkansas), then I am 'in the commission of a crime,' but I may not be an initial aggressor. If I'm not the IA, then I can still claim SD, .... though my judgment on the situation may be questioned by the jury because of the weed.

Yes, but I doubt it would apply here. Had KR been attacked and picked up an AR laying in the street, that would apply, and likely get him out of the weapons charge. However, that's not what happened. He took the rifle to the riot, so that changes things.

Although I didn't ask for, or need, clarification, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to do so and your other inputs to this thread.

 

[armydog]

Because its irrelevant to the crime KR is charged with.

If an armed man robs you, takes your $$$, do you think the rising rate of inflation and government economic policy has any bearing on the act of armed robbery?

So a failure of the government to protect its community is irrelevant. Sorry, but this is not irrelevant. It is why he was there in the first place and it is why the rioters were there in the first place. Do you think he'd have shown up at the county fair on a nice calm evening with plenty of LE all over the place? No.

Your analogy was probably the worst one I have ever seen. lol

 

[Madcap_Magician]

So a failure of the government to protect its community is irrelevant. Sorry, but this is not irrelevant. It is why he was there in the first place and it is why the rioters were there in the first place. Do you think he'd have shown up at the county fair on a nice calm evening with plenty of LE all over the place? No.

Your analogy was probably the worst one I have ever seen. lol

It's relevant to the situation but not to Rittenhouse's legal prosecution or legal defense.

 

[danez71]

So a failure of the government to protect its community is irrelevant. Sorry, but this is not irrelevant. It is why he was there in the first place and it is why the rioters were there in the first place. Do you think he'd have shown up at the county fair on a nice calm evening with plenty of LE all over the place? No.

Your analogy was probably the worst one I have ever seen. lol

The police have no duty to protect as reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

[armydog]

The police have no duty to protect as reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

I know that. But when there are no laws being enforced, what is a community supposed to do? Oh hey, there's a chubby white kid, let's enforce the law on that kid. Ok then.

 

[danez71]

I know that. But when there are no laws being enforced, what is a community supposed to do? Oh hey, there's a chubby white kid, let's enforce the law on that kid. Ok then.

It not that I disagree with your personal sentiment, I just disagree that it's legally relevant.

 

[armydog]

It not that I disagree with your personal sentiment, I just disagree that it's legally relevant.

Ok. I hope some jurors are sharing that sentiment too.

 

[dogtown tom]

So a failure of the government to protect its community is irrelevant.

Good grief. Thats not the context in your post.
In respect to the charges against Kyle Rittenhouse yes, its irrelevant.

Most certainly, failure of a government to protect its community is shameful....but has zippity do dah to do with the charges KR is facing.

Sorry, but this is not irrelevant. It is why he was there in the first place and it is why the rioters were there in the first place. Do you think he'd have shown up at the county fair on a nice calm evening with plenty of LE all over the place? No.

Believe it or not, but people go armed in bad neighborhoods all the time.

Your analogy was probably the worst one I have ever seen. lol

You should be a lawyer. Really. All the lawyers representing Kyle are apparently morans.

 

[SharpDog]

My favorite part was when the prosecutor was alleging to Kyle that he was not acting in self-defense when the fellow pointed the pistol at him because he was not yet shot

 

[dogtown tom]

I know that. But when there are no laws being enforced,

How do you know that?
FYI, there WERE arrests made that night. That Kyle Rittenhouse's assailants weren't arrested may have to do with the fact they were either killed or seriously wounded.

what is a community supposed to do?

Act lawfully.

Oh hey, there's a chubby white kid, let's enforce the law on that kid. Ok then.

Huh?
It wasn't a random arrest or selective enforcement....Kyle Rittenhouse, by his own admission shot three people. The District Attorney felt it wasn't self defense and charged him with first-degree reckless homicide among other charges.

 

[armydog]

It's relevant to the situation but not to Rittenhouse's legal prosecution or legal defense.

I did not mean for it to sound like I was aiming at the lawyers for not making it their focus. I think his legal team is doing a great job. I was saying it in a manner as if this kid should not have even had to worry about the safety of Kenosha in the first place. And the failed leadership just got a pass when the violence ended. I will try and do better.

 

[armydog]

My favorite part was when the prosecutor was alleging to Kyle that he was not acting in self-defense when the fellow pointed the pistol at him because he was not yet shot

And the prosecutor was implying that if he was going to shoot KR, he could have done it from 10 or 20 yards away, so why should KR be worried in the least bit when he pulls the gun on him when he is right in his face. lol

 

[armydog]

The District Attorney felt it wasn't self defense and charged him with first-degree reckless homicide among other charges.

Yeah, you're right. The prosecutor is acting in good faith (sarcasm). Obviously he carefully watched the video and came to a reasonable conclusion. There is absolutely no agenda here. I'm over reacting when I think they are trying to rail road him. lol

 

[wiscoaster]

...The prosecutor is acting in good faith. ...

Sorry, I don't agree with that characterization. The prosecutor is acting to do whatever is necessary within what he's lawfully allowed to do in order to get a convicton. That's the nature of his job. And if he can push the bounds of what he's "lawfully allowed to do" and get that past the judge then he's going to do that. I don't equate that to "acting in good faith". This particular prosecutor perhaps pushed a little too far and got a well-deserved reprimand from the judge. Whether is has any effect on the trial outcome or not remains to be seen.

 

[dogtown tom]

Yeah, you're right. The prosecutor is acting in good faith. Obviously he carefully watched the video and came to a reasonable conclusion. There is absolutely no agenda here. I'm over reacting when I think they are trying to rail road him. lol

Huh?
I didn't write anything about the prosecutor acting in good faith. I didn't write anything about an "agenda" either.
Either you aren't reading my posts or you have difficulty with comprehension.

 

[SharpDog]

Sorry, I don't agree with that characterization. The prosecutor is acting to do whatever is necessary within what he's lawfully allowed to do in order to get a convicton. That's the nature of his job. And if he can push the bounds of what he's "lawfully allowed to do" and get that past the judge then he's going to do that. I don't equate that to "acting in good faith".

I agree, the prosecutor is a complete joke and in 95% of other jurisdictions / circumstances this case would never have been brought.

 

[armydog]

Sorry, I don't agree with that characterization. The prosecutor is acting to do whatever is necessary within what he's lawfully allowed to do in order to get a convicton. That's the nature of his job. And if he can push the bounds of what he's "lawfully allowed to do" and get that past the judge then he's going to do that. I don't equate that to "acting in good faith". This particular prosecutor perhaps pushed a little too far and got a deserved reprimand from the judge.

That was sarcasm in reply to being lectured by whoever that was.

 

[wiscoaster]

That was sarcasm in reply to being lectured by whoever that was.

OK, understood. This is a case of where emoticons can be helpful.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

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.

How terribly true. It's almost soul-crushing.

How long before this is removed?