# The Rittenhouse trial **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [November 4, 2021, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798 "2021-11-04T14:56:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 62
**Author:** ![aurora\_maire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aurora_maire/32/328_2.png) [@aurora\_maire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aurora_maire)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2021, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/1223 "2021-11-20T00:41:05Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Since over $500,000 was raised for Rittenhouse’s defense on GoFundMe (presumably more than the lawyer got paid,) what happens to the excess money? If the family hasn’t figured out grifting by now, I’m sure someone will be along shortly to show them how to get it, and take a cut. The people who donated will be fine with this. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2021, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/1224 "2021-11-20T00:59:31Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > > [@Loach](#): > > > > Precedent for self defense goes back hundreds of years. What have you been waiting for? > > It has historically been a more difficult defense to mount. At least for some people. I suppose in a way we are returning to our historical roots. Certain folks get to kill other folks. As case law, the result is what we would expect from precedent. If Rittenhouse was non-white and declared guilty then, yes, that would be a travesty. That’s not the trial that happened, though, and that’s fairly irrelevant to the matter at hand. For the trial that actually happened, where all parties involved were white, nothing spectacular happened from a legal nor precedential standpoint. In general, the trial seems to be big news more for the desires that it gives people to _have it be_ something racially charged. The reality is that it isn’t. It’s a “stand your ground” case, and a reasonably clear cut version of one. ---
**Author:** ![River\_Hippie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/river_hippie/32/26_2.png) [@River\_Hippie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/River_Hippie)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2021, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/1225 "2021-11-20T01:19:16Z")
My take is that Rittenhouse took his AR to the protest scene so he could parade around with his gun and look like a badass. I don’t believe he intended to shoot people. I don’t believe he thought anyone would challenge or confront him because he had his magic weapon and everyone would recognize his mastery of the scenario because he was armed with his cool ass gun. But, people did confront and challenge him, he panicked and shot some people. He should have stayed home but he didn’t. The people that confronted him should have steered clear of a kid with an assault rifle. They didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Sunny\_Daze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunny_daze/32/438_2.png) [@Sunny\_Daze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunny_Daze)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2021, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/1226 "2021-11-20T01:22:06Z")
I think you’ve got that right. The tricky part is that he played stupid games, and other people “won” the prizes. It feels like there should be consequences. In an open carry state, I don’t see how to fix this. ---
**Author:** ![eschrodinger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschrodinger/32/122_2.png) [@eschrodinger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschrodinger)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2021, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/1227 "2021-11-20T01:28:33Z")
What would the law that applies to these circumstances be in a non-open carry state? ---
**Author:** ![Sunny\_Daze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunny_daze/32/438_2.png) [@Sunny\_Daze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunny_Daze)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2021, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/1228 "2021-11-20T01:31:46Z")
I think Rittenhouse attracted attention by openly carrying an AR. I posit that visible weapons amped the variability of the situation and made violence more likely, not less. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2021, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/1229 "2021-11-20T01:36:33Z")
> [@Sunny\_Daze](#): > > I think Rittenhouse attracted attention by openly carrying an AR. I posit that visible weapons amped the variability of the situation and made violence more likely, not less. - I agree with that, but the controlling fact was (as CoolHandCox posted): > [@CoolHandCox](#): > > Right, in Wisconsin, the burden of proving Defendant did not act in self defense is on the State; whereas in other “classic affirmative defense” States the burden is on the Defendant to prove that he acted in self-defense. > > It’s a subtle, but big difference. Like NFL overturning a call via replay. Whatever was called on the field is pretty beneficial (ie, the initial burden). The burden is the call on the field is correct, unless replay can convincingly (or whatever the standard is) prove that the call was incorrect. Not impossible to overturn, but _harder_. For self defense comparisons, if the burden is on the defense, the “call on the field” is he did not act in self defense and the defense must prove he did. If the burden is on the prosecution, the “call on the field” is that Defendant did act in self defense and the prosecution must prove he did not. There really was no getting around this feature of Wisconsin law. And I suspect that those urging the federal government to bring criminal charges against Rittenhouse would be disappointed due to the fact that Rittenhouse apparently was acting in a way consistent with the laws of the state in which he was doing his chaos-tourism. Best hope for _some_ justice may be civil suits by the families of the men he killed (but even there the Wisconsin law will be on Rittenhouse’s side). ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2021, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/1230 "2021-11-20T01:45:36Z")
Da Kidd is in demand! > **[Paul Gosar says he will arm wrestle Matt Gaetz to decide who gets Kyle...](https://www.rawstory.com/republicans-kyle-rittenhouse-verdict/)** > > Kenosha protest shooter Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty of all state charges on Friday after four days of jury deliberations.The defendant stood trial after fatally shooting two people and wounding a third with an AR-15 rifle during "Black... But that’s okay. There will be plenty of Rittenhouses to fill the demand. > **[Kyle Rittenhouse verdict: Just what the right needs to create a thousand more...](https://www.rawstory.com/kyle-rittenhouse-verdict-2655766885/)** > > The only good thing that can be said about Friday's "not guilty" verdict in the case of Kyle Rittenhouse, the Kenosha shooter, is that the Trumpists are getting the icon they deserve.Forget that ever-present right-wing fantasy of a muscular Aryan... ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2021, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/1231 "2021-11-20T02:06:18Z")
> [@eschrodinger](#): > > > [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > > > I think this is incorrect, functionally they do. The burden of proof in these cases will generally hold that the prosecution must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did not act in self-defense. I would say that’s quite literally “having to disprove” it, although maybe there’s a English usage quibble afoot there, I’m not sure. > > No, I’m quite sure this is wrong. Looking for a cite. In states that require defendants to _prove_ the affirmative defense, there is no burden shifting to the state on that defense. The prosecution does not have to disprove it. If there’s sufficient evidence for a jury to find either way on the defense, it goes to the jury to determine if it’s been proved by the defendant by a preponderance. The risk of the evidence being in equipoise goes to the defendant – that is, if the jury decides that they can’t tell if it was self defense, then, in those jurisdictions, the defense _fails._ I mean I posted the Wisconsin jury instructions, it makes it quite clear that self-defense has to be demonstrated to have not occurred, by the prosecution, beyond a reasonable doubt. ---
**Author:** ![JoePockets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8dc957/32.png) [@JoePockets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoePockets)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2021, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/1232 "2021-11-20T02:06:39Z")
3 professional rioters meet up with there darkest dream! After today looting & burning will not be the same ! I don’t under stand looting & burning and never will. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2021, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/1233 "2021-11-20T02:10:27Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > > [@Babale](#): > > > > I’m pretty sure the mindset that led to lynching in the United States had to do with certain views on the different races and what their relationship with one another should be. YMMV. > > You’re absolutely right that it was rooted on their views on the nature of race and the relationships between different races but that in and of itself doesn’t explain the frequency of lynching between 1877 and 1939. One of the reasons lynching was so prevalent in the United States, particularly in the South, is because the people had no confidence in the ability of the system to deal with the “Negro problem.” When witnesses/participants of lynching were interviewed and asked why they didn’t let the judicial system do its job they often voiced fears that they couldn’t trust the courts to come to a “fair” verdict as the system was designed for civilized whites. Lynching as an American past time didn’t end because someone passed a law. They simply became too embarrassing to sustain and people grew confident that the legal system could control blacks. > > Not that I think being pissed off at the verdict means we’re adopting the attitude of those who lynched. You might be surprised to find out lynching has a broader conception than racist lynching. Racist lynching was motivated by racism, but there were widespread extrajudicial lynching in the United States and even in other parts of the Western world before the late 19th century. There are widespread extrajudicial lynchings in some parts of the world to this day–for example there are regions of Bolivia where the central government has a quasi-official policy of not sanctioning or condoning, but “not interfering with” what is called “traditional” forms of justice, but we would in many cases refer to these as lynchings. A lynching is an execution without due process, there was an epidemic of such things targeted at blacks, for the reasons we all know, that didn’t start to taper off until the 1930s and didn’t decline to be (thankfully) rare until 25-30 years later. However there have always been other types of lynchings as well. A lynching is an execution without due process of law, and is the core belief behind it, even above racial animus, is the belief that it is valid to kill someone due to the passions of the mob and outside the legal system. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2021, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/1234 "2021-11-20T02:22:52Z")
Hypothetical: you call someone a Mother\*\*\*\*er; in response they rush you in a rage. You decide discretion is the better part of valor and run; but you unfortunately trip and they catch up with you and start beating you. Only we’re not talking about a black eye, a bloody nose or a tooth knocked out: this individual shows every sign of intending to beat you to death. As a last resort you pull a clutch piece and shoot them dead. Now maybe you started it, but have you so completely forfeited a claim of self-defense that legally you’d be required to let them beat you to death? Or alternatively should some lesser sentence than murder be available in situations when the shooter is not completely blameless? ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2021, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/1235 "2021-11-20T02:29:33Z")
> [@eschrodinger](#): > > Yes. But not in Wisconsin. > > @Martin_Hyde > Patterson v. New York, 432 US 197 (1977) upheld placing the burden for an affirmative defense on the defendant, with no burden for the prosecution to disprove. (It was extreme emotional disturbance in that case). Dixon v. US, 548 US 1 (2006) upheld it for a duress defense. > > As long as the burden of disproving an element that defines the offense isn’t placed on the defendant, it’s constitutional. Ah. Found the cite. Martin v. Ohio, 480 US 228 (1987): > > (From the syllabus) > > > It is not a violation of the Due Process Clause for Ohio to place the burden of proving self-defense on a defendant charged with committing aggravated murder. There is no merit to petitioner’s argument that it is necessary under Ohio law for the State to disprove self-defense since both unlawfulness and criminal intent are elements of serious offenses, while self-defense renders lawful that which would otherwise be a crime and negates a showing of criminal intent. > > I don’t know which states do it this way, but some do, and it’s permitted by the Constitution. I can only assume you misread my initial post in this series–if you reread it you will note I said: > [@](#): > > Self-defense is an affirmative defense, the way it works in **many** States I had hoped I had made it clear I was not talking about all fifty states, but was commenting on the way it is done in many States. My initial comment was restricted to the States that operate in the way I described, and my subsequent comments were continuing along those lines. Never was I intentionally speaking about universal law–nor is it my habit to do so, it should be understood as the background to any legal discussion in the United States that we have 50 States, and 50 criminal justice systems, with significant variations in court processes and criminal laws (we also have a few other CJ systems like the Federal, several territorial systems, D.C.'s court system et al.) I’ve had a bit of trouble deciphering what exactly you’re on about since I haven’t clearly understood when you’re often just repeating things I feel I’ve already said, but in a sense that makes me think you’re expressing disagreement, and I can only assume the initial confusion stemmed from you being under the impression I was proclaiming some sort of _ex cathedra_ rule that applies to every State, which was not the case. I was intending to talk about the way “many States” with self-defense laws similar to Wisconsin operate. I also think I made it clear with my later many (most?) construction I was not asserting to know what actual percentage of States function this way. I do know, and this is actually where a lot of the knowledge comes from–from the Zimmerman case, Florida has a very similar self-defense construction to Wisconsin this is even without taking into account Stand Your Ground, despite all the media attention on Florida’s SYG law; it was not actual an element in the Zimmerman trial, Zimmerman’s defense did not assert privileges under SYG and did not request a SYG hearing pre-trial, as is their right if they wish to try and do so–Zimmerman was acquitted on the normal Florida construction of self-defense. The jury instructions in Zimmerman read: > [@](#): > > if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2021, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/1236 "2021-11-20T02:31:24Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Hypothetical: you call someone a Mother\*\*\*\*er; in response they rush you in a rage. You decide discretion is the better part of valor and run; but you unfortunately trip and they catch up with you and start beating you. Only we’re not talking about a black eye, a bloody nose or a tooth knocked out: this individual shows every sign of intending to beat you to death. As a last resort you pull a clutch piece and shoot them dead. > > Now maybe you started it, but have you so completely forfeited a claim of self-defense that legally you’d be required to let them beat you to death? Or alternatively should some lesser sentence than murder be available in situations when the shooter is not completely blameless? I don’t think there’s any state where you totally forfeit your right of self-defense just because you are the person who provoked a conflict, but the specifics end up being really important. Like you have very little right for example to shoot people while robbing a bank “because they’re trying to shoot you”, for a number of reasons. Them trying to shoot you is legal, you trying to rob a bank is not. In a sort of angry affray like you describe, in most states, despite being the provoker, the fact you attempted to disengage from conflict and were being violently assaulted would likely mean you would succeed in your self-defense claim, if the jury felt they believed it otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![tofor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tofor/32/13727_2.png) [@tofor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tofor)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2021, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/1237 "2021-11-20T03:09:01Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Like you have very little right for example to shoot people while robbing a bank “because they’re trying to shoot you”, for a number of reasons. Them trying to shoot you is legal, you trying to rob a bank is not. I don’t think you can shoot somebody just because they are robbing a bank. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2021, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/1238 "2021-11-20T03:12:20Z")
You can actually, it’s fairly well established that a bank’s armed guards can use lethal force to protect the bank. In fact I’d be interested to see if you could find a single case in the history of the United States in which someone in a bank was convicted of a crime for shooting a bank robber, regardless of circumstance. There isn’t AFAIK any special legal privilege to shoot people for robbing a bank, but rather the jurisprudence around self-defense is such that it’s almost a universal understanding that an armed bank robber is a lethal threat to everyone in the bank, and meeting that force with lethal force is inherent self-defense. In some States, like Texas, which allows lethal force to protect property, there is more of a specially delineated privilege in this regard, but I would be substantially surprised if you can conjure up even a single case of a bank’s guard or a police officer being convicted of a crime for shooting a bank robber in the process of committing an armed robbery. ---
**Author:** ![eschrodinger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschrodinger/32/122_2.png) [@eschrodinger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschrodinger)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2021, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/1239 "2021-11-20T03:18:10Z")
It sounds like we may have been talking past each other a bit. Coolhandcox brought up the type of self defense in which the defendant has the burden, and I commented both on the type Wisconsin has and the type some other states have, where the defendant has the burden. I may have misunderstood your response, and you obviously must have missed in my post 1199 that I was contrasting states where a defendant has to prove self defense with states where the state has to disprove it. I am well aware of jurisdictional differences. It’s what I was talking about. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2021, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/1240 "2021-11-20T03:41:20Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > That is what I was thinking of as a “classic” affirmative defense. Just to point out, the US as a whole is a common law country, and at common law or “classic” affirmative defence, the defendant just has to raise the offered defence and “clear the evidential burden” What about and will schools that was a favour? Racing a few rays for example, ie make it a live issue at trial. Once that’s done, the prosecution has to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2021, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/1241 "2021-11-20T04:37:53Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > The Supreme Court disagrees. On matters of law we can weigh your opinion vs that of the highest court in our country, and we will find one opinion far more meaningful. I haven’t been participating in this thread and that’s not a reply to me, but it caught my attention. I guess the truth of that statement depends on how you define “meaningful”. The pertinent aspect of a Supreme Court opinion is that it carries the authority to make it the law of the land. It is decidedly _ **not** _ that it infallibly embodies greater wisdom than a contrary opinion. What it tends to embody, in fact, rather notoriously and almost predictably, is the partisan divide between the justices and the political makeup of the Court at any point in time. For example, you cited _District of Columbia v Heller (2008)_ in your contention that gun-totin’ self-defense is somehow a Constitutional right. That was the one where Scalia declared that the part of the Second Amendment that begins “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” was mere decoration and could be ignored in determining what the framers “really” meant, despite this preamble being a plainly self-evident statement of purpose. It was, in short, an astonishingly asinine ruling in the opinion of constitutional scholars and as reflected in John Paul Stevens’ blistering dissent, an opinion held by four of the nine justices. It was clearly reflective of a post-hoc justification for a predetermined desire by the conservative majority to support and expand gun rights. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2021, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/1242 "2021-11-20T05:20:11Z")
I made clear from my post that while those are Second Amendment cases, that was not why I was citing them. What’s notable is that in several of those cases, for example jurists like Breyer, even acknowledge the “core right of self-defense.” This actually is not that controversial, self-defense is actually an incredibly well-established right in English common law, and has been reinforced as a broadly understood right for 245 years in the United States, in the colonial courts that predated our country, and has been enshrined in numerous statutes, some State constitutions, and numerous court rulings. My main reason for pointing out the Supreme Court was to emphasize how well it is established, because frankly I’ve had a lot of back-and-forth conversation with the person I was talking to (Crane) in this thread, where he has willfully and deliberately ignored or either rejected legal concepts that are not remotely political outside of the SDMB, but basically “well understood under the law.” My hope was by pointing out even the Supreme Court, which, as you mention, is frequently political and has divergent opinions on things, largely does not view self-defense as a controversial concept. Firearms ownership and possession? Sure, but that’s not what our discussion was about. The Second Amendment is ripe with controversy, but self-defense generally isn’t. The Second Amendment also, for what it is worth, is not directly relevant at all to Rittenhouse’s case, what’s telling is all of those recent Second Amendment cases speak to differing levels about the existence of a basic right to self-defense that’s a broadly understood right we have. If I had been making a Second Amendment, and not a self-defense argument, your post would have had more merit. FWIW the reason the Second Amendment isn’t relevant is Rittenhouse’s right to walk around the streets of Kenosha with a gun are due to Wisconsin laws and the Wisconsin state constitution, so the Second Amendment is not directly relevant. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798.md?page=61) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798.md?page=63)