The Rittenhouse trial

Against students on campus - insane

They must. I was standing in the Nevada desert trying to figure out which way to face. A truck came by in the middle of the night and tossed me a cheese sandwich.

The Legal Eagle take:

He twists himself in knots to avoid saying whether the verdict was ‘right’ or not, but he makes it pretty clear that it was within the bounds of reasonable under the law. He also

Several things I found odd about his analysis. First, he speculates that the result could have been different if Wisconsin had a duty to retreat. That just seems unlikely to me given that Rittenhouse was actively running away and being chased immediately before each person he killed.

Second, he says, “If Rosenbaum, or Huber, or Grosskreutz had killed Kyle Rittenhouse, they might have been justified in using self-defense under the law.” While this may be arguable for Huber and Grosskreutz as was discussed at length in this thread, I just can’t see where there’s any evidence that Rittenhouse threatened Rosenbaum in such a way that self-defense would be warranted by Rosenbaum.

That’s because, conveniently, the guy whose testimony could have provided that evidence is now dead. That’s the secret ingredient in many of these self defense cases.

Right, I mean if Rittenhouse was dead Rosenbaum would need to be shown beyond a reasonable doubt he did not fear for his life, which with the same sketchy data would be hard to do for him. Rosenbaum would probably have a worse case for his defense than Rittenhouse, but reasonable doubt is a high bar, it seems like the jury didn’t have too much trouble determining Rittenhouse was not guilty. Maybe they have a little more trouble with Rosenbaum since he’s on video chasing Rittenhouse, but still conclude the prosecution hasn’t eliminated reasonable doubt.

KR turned and pointed a gun at Rosenbaum. He testified that he did it because he wanted Rosenbaum to stop chasing him. It’s possible that Rosenbaum would have had a self defense defense if he had shot KR then, if he had been armed.

And, as mentioned, we don’t know, from Rosenbaum’s point of view, what led up to that point. And if KR wound up dead, it would be only Rosenbaum’s story, just like now we only have KR’s story.

Huh? And a bunch of eyewitnesses, and a whole lot of video.

The most disturbing thing emerging out of the verdict is just how many people on the left are willing to ignore the evidence and the result of a jury trial. The kid was overcharged in the first place, the prosecution lied repeatedly to the jury and withheld evidence to get this kid convicted against all evidence. And when that didn’t work and Rittenhouse was acquitted, many people simply insisted that the system is broken and racist and the kid is obviously guilty.

This is the way lynch mobs behave.

The result of this trial should be that the DA is reviewed for overcharging the kid, and the prosecution investigated for prosecutorial misconduct.

Yes, like it or not, the Jury saw and heard all the evidence, which no one here has done.

I was a little surprised that no lesser charge was sustained, but i trust the jury.

I was referring to how the confrontation started, which, I thought there were no other witnesses to. Sorry if that was unclear. I may be wrong. Can you point me to any other evidence of how their confrontation started?

Also I have said nothing about the jury being wrong in this case. There can be evidence that allows for multiple interpretations by a jury. I was commenting on what evidence could have allowed a jury to find self defense if Rosenbaum had shot KR. This has been discussed extensively in the thread, that there could be successful self defense claims on both sides in some circumstances.

So, “people on the left” are wrong if they jump to conclusions about a jury trial that they didn’t participate in and are not fully informed about (a position that I tend to agree with, actually), but it’s perfectly fine for you to second-guess the events of the same trial that you didn’t participate in and are not fully informed about. Ookay.

Weren’t you the one justifying armed vigilantes taking to the streets earlier?

In order to claim self-defense the legal defense would have to show Rosenbaum wasn’t the instigator (or the prosecutor would have to be unable to show he was), which would have been much harder when Rosenbaum was the one chasing Rittenhouse down the street.

As I said–Rosenbaum’s case would be more difficult, but I’m not sure so much so that the prosecution clears the reasonable doubt bar. It would depend on the narrative Rosenbaum sold, we still only have video evidence of the final moments of the situation, Rosenbaum could claim Rittenhouse had brandished his rifle and was threatening people, and that he decided to attempt to disarm him to stop him from hurting people–but then Rittenhouse ran, he pursued, and they wrestled for the gun, Rosenbaum was able to get the gun and during the tussle Rittenhouse is shot.

He would be able to argue that disarming a dangerous gunman was a legal and valid thing to do (and it would be in the set of circumstances he described), and that the shooting was incidental to that. The prosecution always has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, period. Even in a case of affirmative defense, the prosecution still has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [In some States the defendant is required to prove their affirmative defense to a relatively high evidentiary bar, but a failure to prove an affirmative defense is not the same as the prosecution proving guilt of the underlying charges–it is possible a defendant could fail to demonstrate to whatever the State’s evidentiary standard is the affirmative defense, but the prosecution still remains unable to convince a jury of the specific elements of the crime.]

I don’t dispute any of that. I guess I just feel like the “might” in the quote we’re discussing is carrying a lot of water. I suppose it’s possible Rosenbaum “might” have been able to mount a successful self-defense claim, but I still think it seems like a stretch.

If it had been my call, I would have sent the Guard in with the shotguns loaded with bird shot, #8 or smaller.

How exactly am I supposed to tell the difference between KR as a good guy with a gun versus little man with a gun in his hand?

One consistent theme in this thread is that 2nd amendment enthusiasts think no one should bat an eye at a guy(s) walking around with long guns at the ready. KR could have at least had the rifle slung over his shoulder if the intent was to be armed but non-confrontational.

Apparently walking around with a pistol in hand is just open carry . . . for some.

Saw Rittenhouse on Tucker Carlson. Carlson describes the kid as bright. He reminds me more of an automaton with a built in tape recorder. It’s really sad. The kid is dull and poor. He is now thrust into the glitzy world of Tucker and Trump. He’s just a pawn in their game and I don’t think this will end well.

I will say Rittenhouse did himself no favors by meeting with Trump.

I’m sure he’ll have a place in Trump’s second Administration.