# 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:** 64
**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, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/1263 "2021-11-20T13:33:03Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > his actions in this situation should be presented as a shining example of acceptable self-defense. Thanks for replying and for trying, but nope. It may explain why gun-totin’ Republicans are happy that he was acquitted, but it doesn’t explain the breathless hero worship. Explain this – what did he actually _ **do** _ that was so outstanding? > **[GOP Lawmakers Fall Over Each Other to Offer Jobs to Kyle Rittenhouse](https://www.thedailybeast.com/kyle-rittenhouse-is-acquitted-republican-lawmakers-fall-over-each-other-to-offer-him-a-job)** > > At least three MAGA Republicans reacted to Rittenhouse’s acquittal by fawning over the Kenosha shooter and offering him internships. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2021, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/1264 "2021-11-20T13:45:21Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Explain this – what did he actually _ **do** _ that was so outstanding? In a world where people are told that there’s something wrong with defending oneself, he defended himself. What he actually _did_ is the sort of thing that gets described as being tantamount to murder — or, in this very thread, _as_ murder — and he defended himself anyway, instead of letting himself be a victim. I’d gladly shrug and nod and limit myself to saying that, as far as I can tell, _he did nothing wrong_; but to the exact extent that people want to loudly argue that, _no, he did something wrong_, well, then, something something laudable applaudable, I guess. ---
**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, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/1265 "2021-11-20T13:48:35Z")
The judge, who appeared in a number of different instances to be biased in favour of Rittenhouse, and whose instructions to the jury to assess the evidence “through Rittenhouse’s own eyes” may have helped to significantly influence the jury, is apparently thrilled with the verdict: 🙄 > **[Judge in Kyle Rittenhouse trial praises jury as 'wonderful' after it reached...](https://news.yahoo.com/judge-kyle-rittenhouse-trial-praises-185740223.html)** > > Judge Bruce Schroeder said he "couldn't have asked for a better jury to work with" after jurors entered not guilty verdicts. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2021, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/1266 "2021-11-20T13:49:09Z")
What about marriage? Is that a constitutional right? Not mentioned anywhere in the text but everyone agrees it is. There is/was a disagreement over whether SSM was part of this right but nobody disputes this right exists. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2021, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/1267 "2021-11-20T13:50:34Z")
Judges say that to juries after every case. Your side is really grasping. ---
**Author:** ![velomont](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/8491ac/32.png) [@velomont](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/velomont)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2021, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/1268 "2021-11-20T13:55:59Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > then why are various folks on the _left_ siding against this guy so vociferously From my POV as a Canadian, without the same gun philosophy as our neighbours down south, some guy just showing up at at a protest/riot (or even one of our Stanley Cup riots) with such an obvious and visible weapon, regardless of whether it was being pointed anywhere in particular, would likely be seen as a threat. ---
**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, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/1269 "2021-11-20T14:08:39Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > What about marriage? Is that a constitutional right? Was the right to marriage ever challenged prior to the SSM challenges? When challenges finally reached the Supreme Court, it was settled by reference to the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. And the ruling was split right down the usual ideological lines. The 14th would have been interpreted very differently on this issue 20 or 40 years ago; go back far enough, and homosexuality itself was a criminal offense. Think aboujt it: how would the 14th Amendment have been interpreted regarding SSM in 1868 when it went into effect? How about in 1950? And even today, the conservative side of the court dissented on SSM, and it was the liberal side with the Kennedy swing vote that won the day. IOW, vague and non-specific amendments like the 9th or 14th that don’t really say very much that is objectively tangible cannot justifiably be dredged up as “proof” that the Constitution says something it actually doesn’t. What it’s interpreted to mean very much depends on the social zeitgeist of the times and one’s ideological values. Pointing to one of those amendments and saying that you see how it supports, say, the right to SSM or the right to self-defense, is like pointing to a cloud and saying “I see a bunny rabbit”. ---
**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, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/1270 "2021-11-20T14:09:38Z")
> [@velomont](#): > > some guy just showing up at at a protest/riot (or even one of our Stanley Cup riots) with such an obvious and visible weapon, regardless of whether it was being pointed anywhere in particular, would likely be seen as a threat. He’d be arrested on the spot and charged with some pretty serious firearms violations. ---
**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, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/1271 "2021-11-20T14:24:57Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Judges say that to juries after every case. Your side is really grasping. You would know better than me, but my impression is that judges routinely thank juries for their service, but that was not like that. This judge was positively ebullient, as if, you know, the jury had just brought him some very good news and he was real proud of them. That’s why the damn thing was newsworthy. ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2021, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/1272 "2021-11-20T14:32:37Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Was the right to marriage ever challenged prior to the SSM challenges? Loving vs. Virginia. ---
**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, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/1273 "2021-11-20T14:46:53Z")
Thanks, I should have known as that’s another famous one. And … settled by reference to the 14th Amendment, again. They were sentenced to prison on the basis of a Virginia law dating from 1924. That law survived for 43 years until the Supreme Court ruling. Not a lot of doubt how the Supreme Court would have interpreted the 14th Amendment with respect to interracial marriage 100 years ago. ---
**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, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/1274 "2021-11-20T14:54:41Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > What about and will schools that was a favour? Racing a few rays for example, Either the auto correct or I, have had a stroke. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2021, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/1275 "2021-11-20T15:00:01Z")
> [@Superdude](#): > > I wasn’t suggesting otherwise. My point was that @Martin_Hyde had said that there was no indication that Kyle had been looking for someone to shoot (paraphrasing). Maybe Kyle wasn’t that night, but he at least mentioned it a few weeks before. > > I completely understand why the jury wasn’t allowed to hear that. I’m not saying that it had an affect on the trial. Just that his having thoughts like that weren’t unheard of. > > Like I said, though, it’s just a shitty situation for everyone involved. On the other hand the jury also wasn’t allowed to hear about the violent and criminal past of the named victims. There are even (what I consider unconfirmed) reports that prosecutors knew who jump kick man is but he wanted immunity from other pending charges to testify. When you start allowing past actions into the case it takes away from an impartial view of the act itself. > [@wolfpup](#): > > > [@Loach](#): > > > > That is however exactly how courts have worked on many occasions. You can be justified shooting twice but the third is what gets you convicted. > > Here’s a version of exactly that. A police officer fired three shots at a teenager armed with a knife, which ultimately killed him. Then he fired six more. The initial shots were deemed sufficiently justified that he was acquitted of the murder charge. But he was found guilty of attempted murder for the next six, which were deemed not justified. That second volley cost him his career, his freedom, and pretty much ruined his life. > > [James Forcillo, officer who fatally shot teen Sammy Yatim on Toronto streetcar, gets full parole | National Post](https://nationalpost.com/news/full-parole-for-toronto-cop-who-shot-teen-sammy-yatim-on-empty-streetcar) That was Canada but there have been several similar cases in the US. They don’t completely equate with the Rittenhouse case. When dealing with police shootings they use a reasonable officer standard not a reasonable person standard. It’s a higher standard for police taking into consideration their training. It also takes into account that police are authorized at times to use force to do their job, don’t have the same duty to retreat, etc. ---
**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, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/1276 "2021-11-20T15:08:05Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > You would know better than me, but my impression is that judges routinely thank juries for their service, but that was not like that. This judge was positively ebullient, as if, you know, the jury had just brought him some very good news and he was real proud of them. That’s why the damn thing was newsworthy. I have seen judges thank witnesses, which is much more iffy. No biggie frankly. > [@Loach](#): > > On the other hand the jury also wasn’t allowed to hear about the violent and criminal past of the named victims. Rightly so. Since that was irrelevant. At the time of the transactions, the accused did not know about their prior violent history so they were not probative or disprobative of a whether he had a reasonable apprehension of a threat to his life or person. > [@](#): > > There are even (what I consider unconfirmed) reports that prosecutors knew who jump kick man is but he wanted immunity from other pending charges to testify. When you start allowing past actions into the case it takes away from an impartial view of the act itself. I hope they are false, since otherwise it seems the prosecution lawyers were trying to get disbarred. ---
**Author:** ![SuntanLotion](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/suntanlotion/32/16165_2.png) [@SuntanLotion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuntanLotion)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2021, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/1277 "2021-11-20T15:11:55Z")
My guess if that the right believes the left wants riots and many more as a means to anarchy and then martial law. So someone supposedly trying to bring law and order is seen as a hindrance to that. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2021, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/1278 "2021-11-20T15:15:37Z")
> [@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? As others have said, the details obviously matter, and in this case the initial provocation is pretty weak. I don’t think anyone would have a problem with someone _currently taking a severe beating_ defending themselves, especially over a mere word. But to adjust this hypothetical somewhat, does the provocateur in this case need to take a beating? After all, a single punch could incapacitate him, and then who knows what could happen. Should he be allowed to use deadly force before the other person gets within arms reach? I think this is where it gets thorny, and most people would say no – you shouldn’t be able to use deadly force against a hypothetical threat. And yet that’s the situation we’re seeing. People using deadly force against a hypothetical, specifically “if he reaches me he _might_ take my gun, therefore I can’t let him reach me.” ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2021, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/1279 "2021-11-20T15:17:12Z")
By your logic, the right to self-defense (and others not explicitly enumerated) didn’t exist until the 14th Amendment. That simply isn’t correct. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2021, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/1280 "2021-11-20T15:31:13Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > > [@wolfpup](#): > > > > You would know better than me, but my impression is that judges routinely thank juries for their service, but that was not like that. This judge was positively ebullient, as if, you know, the jury had just brought him some very good news and he was real proud of them. That’s why the damn thing was newsworthy. > > I have seen judges thank witnesses, which is much more iffy. No biggie frankly. > > > [@Loach](#): > > > > On the other hand the jury also wasn’t allowed to hear about the violent and criminal past of the named victims. > > Rightly so. Since that was irrelevant. At the time of the transactions, the accused did not know about their prior violent history so they were not probative or disprobative of a whether he had a reasonable apprehension of a threat to his life or person. > > > [@](#): > > > > There are even (what I consider unconfirmed) reports that prosecutors knew who jump kick man is but he wanted immunity from other pending charges to testify. When you start allowing past actions into the case it takes away from an impartial view of the act itself. > > I hope they are false, since otherwise it seems the prosecution lawyers were trying to get disbarred. I agree that it should not be allowed. Just pointing out that the past actions of the victims were not allowed in and they don’t have the same level of due process protection that the defendant has. I’m guessing that jump kick man story is true even though it’s only being reported by Fox and some local sources. Too much detail. Apparently the defense confirmed it to Fox and they had a lot of reasons to not lie in the last days of the trial. One of the local sources interviewed his estranged wife. Pictures are compared. It looks like him. I wish a more neutral party would confirm. ---
**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, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/1281 "2021-11-20T15:33:16Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > By your logic, the right to self-defense (and others not explicitly enumerated) didn’t exist until the 14th Amendment. That simply isn’t correct.   That’s not my logic at all. These various amendments, including the particularly nebulous 9th, were brought up by others in an effort to show that the Constitution guarantees the right of self-defense. No one has been able to show that it does, except via those vague wishy-washy amendments that can mean whatever the Supreme Court wants them to mean, as I’ve already demonstrated I think pretty plainly. And of course our old friend Antonin Scalia, who hallucinated that he saw that right in the 2nd Amendment. The right to self-defense exists as a matter of law, in different ways in different times and places, but it has a long history virtually everywhere. As a matter of _ **law** _, of enacted statute. I did bring up the 14th myself in one post, only to refute **UltraVires** ’ hypothetical about some draconian law that tried to totally ban the right to self-defense. I suggested that a rational SCOTUS would probably use the 14th to overturn such a law, but of course in reality no such law has ever been enacted and no such ruling was ever necessary. On a different note, I’ve been pretty active in this thread since I started chiming in, but I’m going to be pretty busy for part of the morning and most of the rest of the day so I won’t be responding much more today. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2021, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798/1282 "2021-11-20T15:40:14Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > As a matter of _ **law** _ , of enacted statute. No, it existed prior to, and outside of, any enacted statute. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798.md?page=63) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rittenhouse-trial/953798.md?page=65)