Kyle Rittenhouse trial set for early November .

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not saying they're the same.

The whole point of using the Ersland case as an example is precisely because it's very easy to see how they are two separate incidents from a legal standpoint even though they happened quite close together in time and all stemmed from one initial action. The whole Ersland sequence was instigated by an armed robbery and took much less time than than the interval between the first Rittenhouse shooting and the the other two. Yet the instigator of the armed robbery in which Ersland was the victim was, only seconds later, the victim of a murder which Ersland perpetrated.

The point is that it's possible for what seems to initially be all one continuous event to be legally distinct events, each of which has its own set of circumstances, each of which will be evaluated separately from the others that precede or succeed it.

That is, it's a mistake to assume that all three of the Rittenhouse shootings will be treated as if they are simply pieces of one big incident--it's quite likely that they could be separated into two, or possibly even three different incidents each of which could have legally distinct outcomes for Rittenhouse.
 
Update

Looks like the defenses self defense expert witness will get to testify but in a limited capacity and the prosecution will not call there expert to rebut . In that same hearing the prosecution was trying to stop the defense from labeling the victims as pedophiles , arsonist and/or whatever they’ve been convicted of prior . It was an interesting exchange with the judge and the prosecutor where the judge asked do you think it’s OK if you call Rittenhouse a cold-blooded killer in your closing arguments and the prosecution said I believe I have a right to . The judge responded , then why can’t the defense say similar things about other people if they believe they can prove it or something like that I forget his exact wording . This seems to indicate that although the defense cannot bring up the victims specific prior convictions they can refer to them as being people that would do such things . That actually seems kind of interesting to me I don’t know how you get away with calling somebody an arsonist or a pedophile without introducing evidence that would indicate they are guilty of those very things . The judge might have just been talking about what they can say in closing arguments I’m not sure .

It appears jury selection is still set to start on Monday . Not sure how long that would take but I’m assuming a few days . Barnes I believe is leading the jury selection for the defense. He has indicated he has some big time experts to help choose the jury which based on everything I’ve seen in his videos likely means he will have behavioral and body language experts monitoring each potential juror .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK5_2imyfo8
 
Last edited:
I also do not believe "things" that belong to other people rise to the level of using deadly force to protect. Pretty sure the law sees it that way too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No--but I also do not believe "things" that belong to other people rise to the level of using deadly force to protect. Pretty sure the law sees it that way too.
Click to expand...

C-mon , you know he never used deadly force to protect others property . As john has pointed out , the situation can change every second . Yes he was there to protect someone else property but he never acted violently towards anyone that was there starting fires or trying to vandalize the property . Only after he tried to escape and run from the protesters did he use his firearm in self defense .
 
No--but I also do not believe "things" that belong to other people rise to the level of using deadly force to protect. Pretty sure the law sees it that way too.
Click to expand...

That's a wonderful modern attitude and works most of the time in our modern world. However, there are exceptions, even in our modern world and the law (generally) does recognize them.

I note you state "things that belong to other people". does this mean you feel differently about things that belong to you???

Back in the days before the insurance industry, the theft or destruction of a person's "things" could result in their death, just slower and crueler than shooting them. There was no "social safety net" other than church charity, were and as it existed, and that was the reason you shot robbers, rustlers, and horse thieves, or hung them if you caught them alive.

today, its much different, but there are still situations where "things" can have immediate life or death consequences. One of those things, worth using deadly force to protect is something everyone on this forum will (or should) instantly recognize, and that is firearms.

Not because of the monetary value of the firearm but because of what it is capable of doing. If someone tries to take (steal) your gun(s), I think its wrong to consider them just things the insurance company will give you a check to buy a replacement with. Somebody wants to walk off with my TV or even my car, that's one thing. Taking a gun? No BARKING WAY! and, I think the law recognizes this, and considers it justified to use deadly force to stop the threat.

Of course every case is an individual, but in general stopping someone from stealing and/or using the gun they stole from you is considered a a situation where using deadly force can be a reasonable act.
 
stagpanther said:
No--but I also do not believe "things" that belong to other people rise to the level of using deadly force to protect. Pretty sure the law sees it that way too.
Click to expand...

Three observations:

1) As MG noted, Rittenhouse doesn't appear to have used deadly force in defense of property.

2) Shooting someone solely for stealing something that isn't his has all sorts of problems, but it also seems rare. A thief who does his thing while someone is present to resist is not merely a thief. It's an aggressive act, and the aggression isn't toward a mere thing.

3) Attempted arson isn't merely a property problem; it gives rise to an event that is itself routinely deadly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Even though arson is sometimes justification to shoot the arsonist,
KR did not shoot anybody for arson or property. (As far as I know) So why bring it up as a red herring? Seems like hyperbole,propaganda. Fake news,lies,and BS. I have zero respect for those who play that game. They are not interested in the truth.


The arsonist and his friends were highly PO'd that Good Citizen KR used a fire extinguisher to put out the fire.

I'm not perfectly clear on exactly what happened immediately next. There is something about a handgun,a gunshot, a threatening and perhaps drugged character...
I'm under the impression that KR acted because he was under threat of crowd retaliation. He feared death or great bodily harm.

It matters,IMO,that he did not put several people down. If he was there to kill people,he could have killed 20 right off the bat. He mostly just tried to leave.

IMO, the folks who attacked him played stupid games and won stupid prizes.

IMO, KR probably deserves a "Good Citizen Certificate of Appreciation"

But that might not be seen as "Woke"
 
Last edited:
This thread really should be closed. It's just going to be a continuous shout down party on anyone not voting the party line
Click to expand...

I disagree completely :eek: How's that for a shout down lol ;) JK . I think this thread is awesome because the trial is about to start and the very things we are debating here are very likely going to be what is presented in court . I've seen interviews with local officials saying many of the things Stag and others have said here . Kyle should have never been there , Kyle should not have had a gun , Kyle was looking for a fight etc .

These things are almost certainly going to be a big part of the prosecutions argument . Quite frankly how is saying those things not shouting others down when not towing the party line ? Last I checked there are in fact two party's to this trial .

I don't disagree that this thread can get out of hand but don't think we've even came close to that yet . My hope was to start this thread for us all to comment as we followed the trail daily . It will be fully covered on court TV so We all can follow along .
 
Last edited:
I stand with MG on this one. Shutting down the entire thread consisting of other peoples thoughts and opinions because of how YOU feel?? Kind of defeats the purpose of a forum. Don’t gotta stay, friend.

This thing has been interesting to me to the n’th degree. I only read clips and bits of KR’s situation, and being able to see how everyone feels and sees it, its been really helpful to me to understand what is going on. I am now more interested to see what happens with this.

I do not take a side with this, merely an impartial viewer.
 
I am amused (have to be amused, or ticked off) at the reaction to the judge's rule about not being able to refer to those shot as "victims".

And what amuses me most is some supposed legal expert referring to the ruling as both correct and incorrect.

This is yet again another example of the press reporting only that PART of the information that supports their point of view.

They are making a big deal about how the judge is preventing the use of the word "victim" by the prosecution but is "allowing" the defense to call them rioters or arsonists, which they see as unfair.

Yet its not unfair, they just want you to THINK it is, because they are failing to mention what ELSE the judge said. And that that was, essentially, that the defense could call them rioters or arsonists, IF THERE WAS PROOF THAT THEY ACTED IN THAT MANNER.

SO, once again the press wants you to think something other than what the judge said. Can't call the people shot "Victims" during the trial, because, simply they can't BE victims until after the trial establishes there was a crime. Can call them looters, rioters or arsonists IF you can prove that they did that, but not if you can't proove it. Judge isn''t requiring a conviction as proof that they were rioters or arsonists, only "proof" and in his court he IS the judge.
 
I believe this is the pre-trial hearing on motions that took place on Monday .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M4_uDwmMq4

EDIT : Wow the last 30 or 40 min was crazy . The prosecution REALLY got on the judges nerves when talking about one of the "victims" being the aggressor and that having no relevance in the case . The prosecution would not let that go and the judge got visibly upset . To the point it carried over to the next motion .
 
Last edited:
44 AMP said:
And what amuses me most is some supposed legal expert referring to the ruling as both correct and incorrect.
Click to expand...

I thought that was standard behavior for "legal experts". There has to be two views, at least, prosecution and defense. If they agreed would there need to be a trial? [Tongue planted firmly in cheek]
 
So what's your all's feeling on not calling the people shot victims

After watching that whole hearing I think I disagree with the judge . Not so much with his reasoning but more so that he is literally the only judge in that state with that rule .

If all other courts in the state , all other documents , all other local authorities , pretty much every person in all situations can refer to the people who die in an incident as victims . How is it far to restrict it in one and only one place ?

I get the argument made but it seems that same argument can be made for anyone not proven to be something and yet the judge is going to allow the prosecution to call KR a cold blooded killer and I'm sure many other variations of something similar will be allowed . There is no proof of that , it's not been established .

I don't like to use or even trust definitions found on Google anymore because many have clearly changed from what they were just 10 years ago based on which ever way the wind is blowing . That said

From Google
Victim : ( a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action. )

Seems pretty clear the word victim does not include guilt of any crime or even an intent . This issue seems like something the lawyers should hash out in front of a jury . If one side keeps using the word/term the other side should then help the jury understand the meaning as they see it .
 
Looks like he is getting the train treatment, railroaded...

Cant say this, or do that,hat the hexx ever happened to the judges oath of office. I guess it went the way of 50 or more US Senators, 4 or 5 Supreme Court justices on many issues.
 
So what's your all's feeling on not calling the people shot victims
Click to expand...

The word "Victim" implies the GUILT of another party. Its not appropriate to a fair trial. Its meant to prejudice the jury.

OK,MG, lets imagine you are home,on your computer,posting onTFL.
Your door is kicked in. An athletic 6 ft 4 in wild eyed person with a Katana rushes you ,sword raised above his head.
It just so happens you have a loaded 1911 next to your computer mouse.
You are quick an accurate with 4 rounds and he drops and dies.
The whole thing seems clear cut to you,but the prosecutor decides a trial is in order.
Is it appropriate,or fair to you,for the Prosecutor to refer to the late Mr Attacker as "Victim?"

How would YOU feel about that?

It would seem more accurate to describe the people KR shot as "Attackers" according to my perception of the event.

Now,if KR shot wildly,and an innocent person was accidently hit,I'd call that person a "Victim"

If KR just decided to chop down any masked person dressed in black, I'd call them "Victims"

But the guy who tried to bash KR with a skateboard, is an assaillant,not a victim. Remember,KR was trying to retreat .

So,MG, Are you sympathetic to the people rioting,smashing glass,burning out businesses,throwing molotov cocktails at police cars ,looting,and beating down old people with MAGA hats?

I'm just trying to understand the folks who want to lynch KR.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you object to the words I chose to state my case, I might have made my point. The words seem unfair when YOU are on the receiving end.

To use the word "Victim" in KR's SD case is akin to asking "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
 
Last edited:
OK,MG, lets imagine you are
Click to expand...

No lets not , my poor little feelers don't matter . Isn't that one of our biggest problems right not , feelings matter more then reality ?

That's not even the point in this specific situation . I'd feel the same way if everything was reversed . If the judge was the only judge that allowed the use of the word victim in the state , that would be just as wrong . It's not so much about the word and it's connotation . It's about the judge being the only judge with this opinion/rule . I even started my earlier post saying I understand the argument . Not sure why you think using me in an example would change my opinion ?

Interesting analysis by NYT.
Click to expand...

I finally was able to watch Stag's NYT linked video , It would not load on my phone so I had to watch on my PC . In general it seems to track with my understanding of events . The parts I found interesting was the opinions of those being interviewed . One that sticks out is the military guy that was there that night armed and hooked up with KR for a short time . This also goes to how the piece was edited together to maybe push a narrative . Right before the military guy says in the interview that Kyle was running wildly down the street with a gun and one of the "victims" basically was a hero for trying to stop him . Right before that scene they aired a video with a guy off camera saying/suggesting Kyle should have disarmed him self right after the first shooting , Basically give him self up right then .:confused:

Who thinks that's reasonable ? Someone fires a gun with in yards if not feet of Kyle as he's being chased right before Kyle fired and then 3 shots fired
immediately after and Kyle is supposed quickly render him self defenseless in all that confusion ? Can't wait for that cross-examination in court .

The one thing I'm most looking forward to is footage that has never been seen before . FBI overhead fixed wing surveillance is one I can't wait to see . The prosecutions states it proves Kyle was chasing Rosenbaum while the Defense says the same video shows Kyle running towards Rosenbaum and ultimately passing him which would indicate they both just happed to be running in the same direction in the same area . If that same video shows Kyle run past Rosenbaum and Rosenbaum immediately upon seeing Kyle start chasing him , I think that would be game over .
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top