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

[p0rtia]

Sorry, no. There is no room for doubt that OJ was guilty. Blood evidence. Identification of shoes/pictures of OJ in the shoes. Just for starters. I don't think that's circumstantial evidence, and if it is, there is nothing lacking in circumstantial evidence.

However, I do agree that the two cases don't have much in common.

[neonzx]

Sorry, no. There is no room for doubt that OJ was guilty. Blood evidence. Identification of shoes/pictures of OJ in the shoes. Just for starters. I don't think that's circumstantial evidence, and if it is, there is nothing lacking in circumstantial evidence.

But, the GLOVE DOES NOT FIT.
(see how warped defense counsel can be lacking integrity -- they have to advocate for their client -- they present lies)

[realist]

But people are not required to agree with the verdict.

:P&E:

The [Twitter] trend “Killer Kyle,” which may have referred to Kyle Rittenhouse, was defamatory in that Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges over an incident in Illinois in November of last year.

[bob]

: P&E comment:

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

Implicative opinions are defamatory!

[Maybenaut]

I do see one pretty big disanalogy with the OJ case, though. That was a circumstantial case, something that leaves big space for doubt. But in the Rittenhouse case, there was a LOT of evidence. Every shooting was on video! I don't think the jury had the same room for factual doubt in his case.

OJ and Rittenhouse were both circumstantial cases (because almost every case is a circumstantial case).

Here’s how they differ: It was pretty clear that whomever killed Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman intended to murder them. From the State’s perspective there was circumstantial evidence that it was OJ who did it.

It was, as you say, obvious that it was Rittenhouse who killed the victims in Kenosha. From the State’s perspective there was circumstantial evidence that Rittenhouse had the mens rea necessary for criminal liability.

So it is, in my opinion, meaningless to label a case or evidence as “circumstantial.”

[Suranis]

I just mentioned OJ because it was another case where the clearly guilty party walked.

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

No Rondeau, it means someone who has killed someone. Or technically some animal. A Murderer is someone who has killing someone illegally.

[Ben-Prime]

: P&E comment:

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

Implicative opinions are defamatory!

I mean, I would think the word 'murderer' indicates someone who intentionally committed murder, a legal term. 'Killer' indicates someone who kills, a factual term. But I could be wrong.

[pipistrelle]

But people are not required to agree with the verdict.

:P&E:

The [Twitter] trend “Killer Kyle,” which may have referred to Kyle Rittenhouse, was defamatory in that Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges over an incident in Illinois in November of last year.

That's some fine journalism right there.

[humblescribe]

: P&E comment:

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

Implicative opinions are defamatory!

I mean, I would think the word 'murderer' indicates someone who intentionally committed murder, a legal term. 'Killer' indicates someone who kills, a factual term. But I could be wrong.

I happen to agree. But the trial judge in this case said that the individuals slain and the person wounded were not victims. My personal belief that if something befalls another that is not of their doing, they are by any definition a victim of the incident or occurrence.

I think that murderer and killer are distinctions with a difference.

[Maybenaut]

: P&E comment:

Implicative opinions are defamatory!

I mean, I would think the word 'murderer' indicates someone who intentionally committed murder, a legal term. 'Killer' indicates someone who kills, a factual term. But I could be wrong.

I happen to agree. But the trial judge in this case said that the individuals slain and the person wounded were not victims. My personal belief that if something befalls another that is not of their doing, they are by any definition a victim of the incident or occurrence.

I think that murderer and killer are distinctions with a difference.

That's not exactly what he said. The defense asked that the prosecutors and the witnesses not be permitted to refer to them as victims, and the judge agreed. The reason was that whether they were victims of murder or assault or whatever was the ultimate issue that was to be decided by the jury. That's actually pretty routine in a criminal trial, and if the judge had said no and Rittenhouse had been convicted, that certainly would have been a valid issue on appeal.

[andersweinstein]

I happen to agree. But the trial judge in this case said that the individuals slain and the person wounded were not victims. ...

That's not exactly what he said. The defense asked that the prosecutors and the witnesses not be permitted to refer to them as victims, and the judge agreed. The reason was that whether they were victims of murder or assault or whatever was the ultimate issue that was to be decided by the jury. That's actually pretty routine in a criminal trial, and if the judge had said no and Rittenhouse had been convicted, that certainly would have been a valid issue on appeal.

In fact, it was not even done in response to a defense request. It was apparently the judge's longstanding practice. Some of his explanation for it is quoted in this piece:

[Maybenaut]

I happen to agree. But the trial judge in this case said that the individuals slain and the person wounded were not victims. ...

That's not exactly what he said. The defense asked that the prosecutors and the witnesses not be permitted to refer to them as victims, and the judge agreed. The reason was that whether they were victims of murder or assault or whatever was the ultimate issue that was to be decided by the jury. That's actually pretty routine in a criminal trial, and if the judge had said no and Rittenhouse had been convicted, that certainly would have been a valid issue on appeal.

In fact, it was not even done in response to a defense request. It was apparently the judge's longstanding practice. Some explanation in this piece:

I think I assumed it was at the defense request, because the defense routinely makes that sort of request, at least where I practice.

[andersweinstein]

I think I assumed it was at the defense request, because the defense routinely makes that sort of request, at least where I practice.

Natural enough. Also it got lumped together in news reports with the prosecution's terminological request that the defense be barred from referring to members of the protestor group prejudicially as "rioters", "arsonists" or "looters". Both were discussed at the same pretrial hearing to consider motions in limine and led to a lot of outraged stories. But as I recall the judge first announced his practice at an even earlier pretrial hearing held on Zoom and it drew no attention at that time.

[humblescribe]

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.

[andersweinstein]

But as I recall the judge first announced his practice at an even earlier pretrial hearing held on Zoom and it drew no attention at that time.

To check my memory, I found what I was remembering. The judge's practice came up in the hearing in early February 2021 about Binger's motion to raise bail and have Rittenhouse arrested because he was no longer at the address he had given (he had moved to a safe house). Grosskreutz and representatives of the victims deceased including Huber's father attended. Binger introduced them as there "on behalf of the victims", prompting Schroeder to admonish him: "You know... you know I don't permit use of the term 'victim' before adjudication in this or any other case and I haven't for years. So please don't use that term. And I know this is an awkard situation but I do not permit the terms 'victim' or 'alleged victim' unless and until there's been an adjudication." This many months before the hearing that got all the press about this. So the defense would have known -- if they didn't already know from prior experience with Schroeder -- that they didn't need to make a request for this.

Starts 22:30 in this clip (link set to start at that point). ETA: Attorney Kimberly Mottley also lapses out of habit into referring to "all the victims" around 28:05, catches herself and draws a reiteration: "I'm sorry, its a longstanding rule, it doesn't apply just to this case, I never permit this and its been for years".

[Maybenaut]

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.

No apology necessary. It's a valid criticism of our system.

But it's not really as much about "judicial correctness" as it is about ensuring the defendant gets a fair trial and that he actually is afforded the presumption of innocence guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Calling the decedents and the wounded "victims" in a criminal trial presupposes guilt, and, in legal parlance, "invades the province of the jury."

To be clear, I'm not saying they're not victims. I'm just saying that it is impermissible for the parties and the witnesses refer to them as victims in front of the jury. I think the judge made some mistakes during this trial, but this wasn't one of them.

[Suranis]

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?

[bob]

How would they be referred? Simply as "the Deceased" or similar?

Usually by their last name (and a title, like Mr., Miss, Mrs., Dr., etc.).

A no-first-names (for anyone) rule is a standard trial practice.

[Suranis]

How would they be referred? Simply as "the Deceased" or similar?

Usually by their last name (and a title, like Mr., Miss, Mrs., Dr., etc.).

A no-first-names (for anyone) rule is a standard trial practice.

Oh cool. I was wondering that the other day.

[MN-Skeptic]

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.

To me, Rittenhouse is a killer. He performed the physical act of killing another person. The fact that the legal system did not conclude that he broke the law when he did that does not change the fact that, by his actions, he took another person's life.

[raison de arizona]

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.

To me, Rittenhouse is a killer. He performed the physical act of killing another person. The fact that the legal system did not conclude that he broke the law when he did that does not change the fact that, by his actions, he took another person's life.

I agree, and according to the first definition in Oxford, he is also a murderer. Fwiw “a killer”

6BCBA1FA-35DE-4269-AB88-A7F49EA8847A.png (130.19 KiB) Viewed 938 times

[Sam the Centipede]

It is true that the court did not convict Rittenhouse of murder.

But absence of conviction for a crime is not evidence of absence of a crime. Nor is sn acquittal proof of innocence. It was a murder. Rittenhouse wasn't convicted.

It is curious to see birthers so keen on this after their relentless spreading of unsubstantiated and even refuted nonsense about decent people, such as Barack Obama and his family.

But a nasty, murderous right-wing shit with no redeeming features: oh, now they must be kind to the white supremacists! We treat Rondeau as a joke, but she is evil.

[busterbunker]

Let's dismiss the nonsense comparisons to OJ.

Everyone rooting for OJ knew LAPD were Nazi punks.

Nazi punks fuck off.

[neeneko]

It is curious to see birthers so keen on this after their relentless spreading of unsubstantiated and even refuted nonsense about decent people, such as Barack Obama and his family.

But a nasty, murderous right-wing shit with no redeeming features: oh, now they must be kind to the white supremacists! We treat Rondeau as a joke, but she is evil.

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.

[Baidn]

It is curious to see birthers so keen on this after their relentless spreading of unsubstantiated and even refuted nonsense about decent people, such as Barack Obama and his family.

But a nasty, murderous right-wing shit with no redeeming features: oh, now they must be kind to the white supremacists! We treat Rondeau as a joke, but she is evil.

I had originally given Rittenhouse the benefit of the doubt, hoping that he fell into the category of "lucky repentant" that rare circumstance of someone who feels remorse for their actions but simply didn't want to go to prison and after skating by admits as much and does what they can to make amends and move past it. I knew then though that the stochastic terrorist groups on the right would be working hard to make him another Zimmerman success story: "go ahead and kill the other side, it's ok the system has your back!" and sadly they have succeeded more than I ever feared they would. To continue to defend him and to root for him to build success upon a pair of corpses instead of at best saying "he foolishly put himself in a bad place, panicked to tragic results and thankfully will be able to straighten out his life now" (an in my opinion entirely too charitable but at least arguable view) is to be a willing participant in the process of creating terrorist and any who do so have blood on their hands.