Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

[bob]

Off Topic

We treat Rondeau as a joke, but she is evil.

Rondeau is malicious yet ineffectual.

* * *

I find it fascinating that when a court says something they like, it is the word of god that all patriots must obey.. but when courts fail to agree with them, it is the deep state suppressing the truth.

Zullo said it. Birthers elevate their beliefs, which are based on some sort of factual scrap, to above court rulings.

A Rittenhouse defamation lawsuit eventually will show "murderer" is a protected opinion, provided a defendant doesn't settle for nuisance value.

[Gregg]

: P&E comment:

[T]he term “killer” indicates someone who intentionally committed murder, of which Rittenhouse was acquitted.

Implicative opinions are defamatory!

Killer Kyle is factually correct. Acquitted or not he did in fact kill 2 people.

Defense moves for Summary Judgements on all counts of complaint.

[andersweinstein]

This discussion reminds of a death in the past year or two in which the death certificate stated that the cause of death was "homicide." For coroners, "homicide" has a meaning which does not connote criminal liability.

Right, there's no question he killed people and committed a homicide. People distinguish justifiable homicide from murder. Self-defense is one of several reasons commonly acknowledged for a justifiable homicide.

To me, the issue is similar to the one raised about the term "victims". There is literal truth, and then there are the connotations and implications standardly evoked when you use this or that term. It is possible to create a very misleading impression through selection, juxtaposition and omission while stating only literal truths.

f you say someone was a "killer" and stop there, you may speak the literal truth so that no one can fault you on that score. But you imply lots of things that may -- arguably -- not be accurate. For when you use this term, I think your audience is very unlikely to be left with a lively sense that you might be talking about an innocent victim forced into a justified killing by a threat on his life.

If it were a different case, with someone you sympathized with, whom you fully accepted killed only in justifiable self-defense, I think you would be very unlikely to just keep describing them as a "killer" and leaving things at that.

For that reason I think it's often disingenuous to keep insisting on the literal truth of this or that terminology. It is pretending there is not rhetorical work willfully being done by these word choices. Have your opinion, sure. But be honest about it.

ETA: I don't mean to be defending this character Rondeau in any way. I have no idea who that person is.

[Gregg]

Thank you, Maybenaut, for that clarification.

I defer to the knowledge of you and your elk in these matters. But it does not mean that the arguments advanced by lawyers and sustained by the judiciary practicing their crafts are sound. I find it hypocritical of the courts that lawyers and witnesses can use strong modifiers and verbs in their argument and testimony, yet they cannot refer to a decedent whose life ended prematurely at the hands of another as a victim. In fact, it is insulting to the decedent, his family, and The People that we have to scrounge up euphemisms and fancy locutions in order to be Judicially Correct.

I am not trying to be smart. To me words like aggressive, attack, point, threaten, ridicule -- there are zillions -- should also be disallowed at trial. Yet, I have seen and heard lawyers and witnesses use them. If those words are permitted, then victim should be too.

Apologies for the rant.

This is reason #436 why I can't be a Criminal Lawyer. I'd call them "the now dead people who interrupted the path of the Defendant's projectiles."

My guess Is that would get me in trouble.

[raison de arizona]

Right, there's no question he killed people and committed a homicide. People distinguish justifiable homicide from murder. Self-defense is one of several reasons commonly acknowledged for a justifiable homicide.

To me, the issue is similar to the one raised about the term "victims". There is literal truth, and then there are the connotations and implications standardly evoked when you use this or that term. It is possible to create a very misleading impression through selection, juxtaposition and omission while stating only literal truths.

f you say someone was a "killer" and stop there, you may speak the literal truth so that no one can fault you on that score. But you imply lots of things that may -- arguably -- not be accurate. For when you use this term, I think your audience is very unlikely to be left with a lively sense that you might be talking about an innocent victim forced into a justified killing by a threat on his life.

If it were a different case, with someone you sympathized with, whom you fully accepted killed only in justifiable self-defense, I think you would be very unlikely to just keep describing them as a "killer" and leaving things at that.

For that reason I think it's often disingenuous to keep insisting on the literal truth of this or that terminology. It is pretending there is not rhetorical work willfully being done by these word choices. Have your opinion, sure. But be honest about it.

Meh. I'm fully capable of believing someone in one case that was convicted is not actually a murderer, while believing someone in another case who was not convicted is one. The actual conviction is not necessarily what I base my belief on. It doesn't make me disingenuous or dishonest, it simply means that I don't always agree with a given verdict, guilty or innocent. And that's ok, and not actionable, I'm allowed my opinion.

[andersweinstein]

Meh. I'm fully capable of believing someone in one case that was convicted is not actually a murderer, while believing someone in another case who was not convicted is one. The actual conviction is not necessarily what I base my belief on. It doesn't make me disingenuous or dishonest, it simply means that I don't always agree with a given verdict, guilty or innocent. And that's ok, and not actionable, I'm allowed my opinion.

I don't see that what I said disagreed with any of that. But it could be the point was not clear.

[Uninformed]

Gee isn’t semantics fun. Two people are deceased because they were shot dead. They were killed, justified or not.

N.b. I am aware of the legal definitions/usage of murder, victim etc.

[pipistrelle]

Meh. I'm fully capable of believing someone in one case that was convicted is not actually a murderer, while believing someone in another case who was not convicted is one. The actual conviction is not necessarily what I base my belief on. It doesn't make me disingenuous or dishonest, it simply means that I don't always agree with a given verdict, guilty or innocent. And that's ok, and not actionable, I'm allowed my opinion.

Video showed him shooting someone who was down after he shot him, then walking away. I didn't need a jury conviction to have an opinion about that.

[noblepa]

How would they be referred? Simply as "the Deceased" or similar? And how would the guy who got his upper arm severely damaged been refereed to?

I don't have an answer to your question, but I do think that the word "victim" has certain inescapable connotations. If someone is a victim that means, in the minds of many, that someone did something bad to him. In this case, calling the deceased people victims in Rittenhouse's trial implies that someone murdered them, and since no was contesting the fact that the bullet that killed them came from a weapon fired by Rittenhouse, the implication is that Rittenhouse is the murderer. I think that is why the judge disallowed it.

In that case, I think, since the facts of the case were not really in dispute, the question was whether or not Rittenhouse was legally culpable for killing them or if he was somehow justified.

My personal opinion is that he was in a place he shouldn't have been, was hired by someone who shouldn't have hired him to do a job that shouldn't have been done, with a weapon he really shouldn't have had in the first place. Someone died because of all that. To me, it was less important whether or not he deliberately set out to kill someone.

BTW, have the families of any of the victims filed a wrongful death suit against the owner of the business (car dealership?), who allegedly hired Rittenhouse?

[Dave from down under]

1st shot caused him to start to fall
2nd shot was through his hand as he fell
3rd and 4th shot was to his back and were fatal

Killer Kyle made sure he was dead.

[neonzx]

[[ My personal opinion is that he was in a place he shouldn't have been, was hired by someone who shouldn't have hired him to do a job that shouldn't have been done, with a weapon he really shouldn't have had in the first place. Someone died because of all that. To me, it was less important whether or not he deliberately set out to kill someone.

BTW, have the families of any of the victims filed a wrongful death suit against the owner of the business (car dealership?), who allegedly hired Rittenhouse?

My memory is foggy at times, but I do not believe Kyle and his pal were ever legally contracted to protect that business, verbally or otherwise.

And the altercations took place far away from the business -- he needed to roam the streets with an assault styled weapon over his shoulder. But he was there to help; a medic. With no training. See.

[pipistrelle]

[[ My personal opinion is that he was in a place he shouldn't have been, was hired by someone who shouldn't have hired him to do a job that shouldn't have been done, with a weapon he really shouldn't have had in the first place. Someone died because of all that. To me, it was less important whether or not he deliberately set out to kill someone.

BTW, have the families of any of the victims filed a wrongful death suit against the owner of the business (car dealership?), who allegedly hired Rittenhouse?

My memory is foggy at times, but I do not believe Kyle and his pal were ever legally contracted to protect that business, verbally or otherwise.

And the altercations took place far away from the business -- he needed to roam the streets with an assault styled weapon over his shoulder. But he was there to help; a medic. With no training. See.

And if he needed protection, a sidearm would have been enough IMO. Nice summary.

[Frater I*I]

And if he needed protection, a sidearm would have been enough IMO. Nice summary.

He couldn't legally, most states require you to be 21 to carry a pistol....unless you're in the military...

[neonzx]

And if he needed protection, a sidearm would have been enough IMO. Nice summary.

He couldn't legally, most states require you to be 21 to carry a pistol....unless you're in the military...

It is Wisconsin. I think it's an anything goes state.

[Frater I*I]

It is Wisconsin. I think it's an anything goes state.

He's from Illinois though, 21 there...

[bob]

He couldn't legally, most states require you to be 21 to carry a pistol....unless you're in the military...

It is Wisconsin. I think it's an anything goes state.

You can possess a handgun and hunt(!) with it in Wisconsin when you are 18. Which he wasn't at the time.

[neonzx]

It is Wisconsin. I think it's an anything goes state.

He's from Illinois though, 21 there...

Yes, but he was in Wisconsin when it went down.

[Dave from down under]

Smith & Wesson M&P15 - perfect for hunting - humans.

[andersweinstein]

And the altercations took place far away from the business -- he needed to roam the streets with an assault styled weapon over his shoulder.

The Rosenbaum shooting took place on Car Source property. The business had three locations which Richards referred to as Car Source 1 2, and 3. Car Source 1 had all the cars on the lot torched the night before. Rittenhouse wound up taking a position across the street from that at Car Source 2, the one where people stood on the roof and police rolled by and tossed them waters. He roamed in the immediate vicinity south of the police line in his search for takers for his first aid services ("anyone need Medical?" again and again). He got separated from his escort Balch, was stopped by the police from returning to his "base" and got a call about a fire in Car Source 3, so grabbed a fire extinguisher and headed down the road to that lot, continuing to call out "anyone need medical". That is where Rosenbaum accosted him and he fled into the lot. His testimony was that he was on the way to make himself useful by putting out the fire in the car owned by that business.

[Dave from down under]

Combat Medic
Fire fighter
Vigilante
Killer
Actor
Poster Child of the right

Such versatility.

[Suranis]

Ya, he was going to put out the fire with a couple of plasters and shooting it with his gun.

[andersweinstein]

Ya, he was going to put out the fire with a couple of plasters and shooting it with his gun.

Seems more likely he was going to use the fire extinguisher he carried all the way there.

[raison de arizona]

Correct me if I am mistaken, but wasn’t the whole reason Rosenbaum encountered Rittenhouse is because Rittenhouse was using the extinguisher to put out a dumpster fire Rosenbaum lit, pissing Rosenbaum off?

[andersweinstein]

Correct me if I am mistaken, but wasn’t the whole reason Rosenbaum encountered Rittenhouse is because Rittenhouse was using the extinguisher to put out a dumpster fire Rosenbaum lit, pissing Rosenbaum off?

That was some initial speculation, but it was a little garbled. A little bit earlier in the evening there was a dustup between protestors and armed civilians at the Ultimate convenience store/gas station, captured on video. Someone from the gas station had walked over and extinguished a dumpster fire that folks including Rosenbaum and Ziminski had set, presumably to use as an obstacle against the slowly-advancing line of armored vehicles being used to push the protestors south, away from the courthouse/civic plaza where the protest started. And protestors crowded around them, erupting with shouts at the armed men gathered there, with Rosenbaum cursing and yelling at them ("shoot me, n***r") and acting like he wanted to start a fight.

BUT: Rittenhouse was elsewhere at the time (roaming around asking if people needed medical). He was not part of that interaction. Video shows him coming up to the gas station later, as the protestors move off (because police cars withdrew temporarily).

One of the armed men against whom Rosenbaum directed his anger looked and dressed a little like Rittenhouse, leading to speculation that maybe he had mistaken Rittenhouse for that guy.

Rosenbaum did seem to have a generalized anger against all the armed civilians protecting property. Balch and Rittenhouse both testified that Rosenbaum had said he'd kill them if he got them alone. But that exchange would have been elsewhere (at Car Source 2) and was not captured on video.

A bit later on Rittenhouse got the call, grabbed the fire extinguisher and started bopping obliviously South to Car Source 3. That's on video. Rosenbaum and Ziminski and jump kick man were already farther south, setting a fire in an overturned garbage bin in the middle of the road, because of course they were. As Rittenhouse drew near, Rosenbaum starts up and trots a little farther ahead, taking up a position between two parked cars, and running out at Rittenhouse as he went past. In testimony Rittenhouse described it as an ambush, with Ziminski walking up at him from the front with gun in hand (though not pointing), and Rosenbaum running at him from behind.

One might speculate that Rosenbaum was angry at the thought he might put out fires he wanted to set. Rosenbaum looks to have been a bit of a pyro . But it's speculation. Rosenbaum did not set the fire in the Duramax on the car lot. That was earlier and was captured on video also, but it was an unidentifable person in black clothing and mask.

[andersweinstein]

Oh one interesting reference I rely on about the case is video from a youtube user going by Orcanut, who stitched together lots of the video capturing Rittenhouse and events that evening into a single stream with timestamps. This got used in the trial, along with lots of other video just downloaded from public sources. I gather both sides stipulated to their acceptability, so the people who took the video never had to testify to introduce this evidence.

Without commentary or background info, it's a little hard to understand what is happening. Long stretches are kind of boring. Still I find it fascinating, like a Frederick Wiseman documentary.

Anyway, that dustup at the Ultimate starts at 1:10:30 in the video. The video starts at 10 PM local time, so that corresponds to 11:10 local time. Rittenhouse was interviewed by McGinnis at around11:36, goes off with Balch at 11:38, wanders around among protestors, one of whom ("yellow pants") hassles him while others don't look up from their phones. His prevented by police from returning at 11:42, starts running south with a fire extinguisher at 11:46 though soon slows to a walk, gets near Rosenbaum at 11:47, is accosted around 11:48:48 and starts running with the first shooting maybe 10 seconds later. Not every detail is clear -- there's a short gap just at the crucial moment of encounter. But its sort of mind-boggling to me how much detail we do have.