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

[Uninformed]

Where was Rittenhouse working that it made it more convenient to travel to Kenosha? His furloughed YMCA job was in Lindenhurst IL.

[Dave from down under]

Criminal with illegal gun deliberately shoots people.

The end.

[Maybenaut]

Where was Rittenhouse working that it made it more convenient to travel to Kenosha? His furloughed YMCA job was in Lindenhurst IL.

The New Yorker piece said he had just started a new life guarding job, but didn’t say where.

[bob]

I am not *speculating* about what is true and presenting my speculation as evidence.

Yet:

Someone from a nearby border town could *easily* have more connection to Kenosha than someone else who traveled to Kenosha from within WI.

Oh, the irony.

And "funny" how a town many miles away (and across a state line) is suddenly "nearby."

I think nothing about his motives is rendered more probable by the fact that he happened to cross a state line a mile from his house. If you say he traveled a long way, that could be relevant.

And heaven forbid someone uses rhetoric like "cross a state line" to convey that concept. Glad you're here to adjudicate everyone's rhetoric.

In point of fact, there is evidence he had connections to nearby Kenosha. He worked a job there. He had the buddy, Dominic Black, whom he knew well enough to stay over with.

A summer job and a singular buddy is an odd motive to assign yourself a "job" that the property owner didn't want.

But juries just love cases in which counsel overpromises and underdelivers.

[andersweinstein]

In point of fact, there is evidence he had connections to nearby Kenosha. He worked a job there. He had the buddy, Dominic Black, whom he knew well enough to stay over with.

A summer job and a singular buddy is an odd motive to assign yourself a "job" that the property owner didn't want.

I don't think it is well established that the property owner didn't want them there. There are conflicting statements from different parties, making the details of how they came to that gig very murky. It is understandable the property owner would want to disavow asking for their help in the wake of the shootings. But both Black and Rittenhouse gave statements to the police he did and also that he said he appreciated their help. They also mentioned the gig being coordinated through one Nick Smith who reportedly had worked for the owner. And the men were able to get on the roof and inside the shop. They have not been charged with trespassing or breaking and entering, so I think there is some suggestion they must have had the backing of someone in charge of the shop.

I expect the facts about how they came to be there will come out at the trial when people are under oath.

[andersweinstein]

Where was Rittenhouse working that it made it more convenient to travel to Kenosha? His furloughed YMCA job was in Lindenhurst IL.

The New Yorker piece said he had just started a new life guarding job, but didn’t say where.

A Kenosha News story says it was at the Pleasant Prairie RecPlex in Kenosha County. It says he had been employed there for only 20 days before the event. That is a detail I only just learned. That weakens one support for a claim to Kenosha connection that I have mentioned, so I will not put weight on that point in the future.

On the other hand, in the course of reporting on problems the new occupant faced, news reports identified his old home as in Anita Terrace apartments in Antioch. Google maps places his job an 18 minute drive from his home. It would take longer to get to downtown Kenosha. But again, per Washington Post video above, he didn't "journey" from home to the protests. Rather from Dominic Black's step-father's place somewhere within Kenosha.

[Foggy]

Criminal with illegal gun deliberately shoots people.

The end.

That's how I see it.

[Maybenaut]

Where was Rittenhouse working that it made it more convenient to travel to Kenosha? His furloughed YMCA job was in Lindenhurst IL.

The New Yorker piece said he had just started a new life guarding job, but didn’t say where.

A Kenosha News story says it was at the Pleasant Prairie RecPlex in Kenosha County. It says he had been employed there for only 20 days before the event. That is a detail I only just learned. That weakens one support for a claim to Kenosha connection that I have mentioned, so I will not put weight on that point in the future.

On the other hand, in the course of reporting on problems the new occupant faced, news reports identified his old home as in Anita Terrace apartments in Antioch. Google maps places his job an 18 minute drive from his home. It would take longer to get to downtown Kenosha. But again, per Washington Post video above, he didn't "journey" from home to the protests. Rather from Dominic Black's step-father's place somewhere within Kenosha.

See, this is what I don’t get. Why are you putting any weight on any of this stuff now? As you say, the facts are going to come out at trial. The jury is going to be limited to considering the evidence that actually gets introduced. And they will decide whether the state proved every element of every offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Don’t get me wrong, I think some of the issues in this case are interesting to talk about. For example, whether certain evidence is admissible is interesting to me, not because it makes a particular result more or less likely, but because it implicates Rittenhouse’s (and the State’s) right to a fair trial.

On the old board we talked a lot about Lin Wood and Pierce and the ethics of crowd-funded criminal defense. That’s interesting to me. And what the government has to prove to gain a conviction is interesting to me. I practice in the military, where the law of self-defense might differ somewhat from Wisconsin law.

But you seem to be focused on the result rather than the process. I personally find that frustrating because the result shouldn’t matter. If Rittenhouse gets acquitted after a fair trial, great, the system worked. If he gets convicted, he’ll get an appeal. If the appellate court overturns the conviction, great, the system worked. If they affirm the conviction, great, the system worked.

[bob]

I don't think it is well established that the property owner didn't want them there. There are conflicting statements from different parties, making the details of how they came to that gig very murky.

Mysterious "different parties" ... other than Rittenhouse, Black, the property owner, and the police:

Rittenhouse and Black both told police they volunteered to provide security for a business called Car Source. The owner told police he never asked them to guard his business.

Rittenhouse also said he believed it was a paid gig. And also also said he was there to cosplay medic. Jurors love inconsistent explanations.

It is understandable the property owner would want to disavow asking for their help in the wake of the shootings.

Yet more unsubstantiated speculation to support your preferred narrative.

The "evidence" that the owner wanted them there is Rittenhouse saying Smith said the owner had asked for protection. Classic hearsay, which could be used for a non-hearsay purpose but not for the truth of the matter asserted.

* * *

But you seem to be focused on the result rather than the process.

Exactly (although "seem" seems to be exceedingly polite).

I personally find that frustrating because the result shouldn’t matter.

It is safe to say you aren't the only person with these observations and frustrations.

[Dr. Caligari]

Criminal with illegal gun deliberately shoots people.

The end.

That's how I see it.

Having tried a few lawsuits during my career, I have often found that the actual evidence at trial often contradicts earlier expectations. What you said may be true, but it may (repeat, may) turn out to be not so cut-and-dried.

[Maybenaut]

But you seem to be focused on the result rather than the process.

Exactly (although "seem" seems to be exceedingly polite).

Well, I’ve been told that people only resort to using “clearly” or “obviously” to “cover the fact that they have no argument.”

[andersweinstein]

A Kenosha News story says it was at the Pleasant Prairie RecPlex in Kenosha County. It says he had been employed there for only 20 days before the event. That is a detail I only just learned. That weakens one support for a claim to Kenosha connection that I have mentioned, so I will not put weight on that point in the future.

See, this is what I don’t get. Why are you putting any weight on any of this stuff now? As you say, the facts are going to come out at trial. The jury is going to be limited to considering the evidence that actually gets introduced. And they will decide whether the state proved every element of every offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Don’t get me wrong, I think some of the issues in this case are interesting to talk about. ...

But you seem to be focused on the result rather than the process. I personally find that frustrating because the result shouldn’t matter. If Rittenhouse gets acquitted after a fair trial, great, the system worked. If he gets convicted, he’ll get an appeal. If the appellate court overturns the conviction, great, the system worked. If they affirm the conviction, great, the system worked.

OK. I went down a rabbit-hole of viewing videos and published reports and came away convinced that KR is not what most people think. I think he has a self-defense case with a decent chance of success. I find it a very interesting self-defense case in certain respects. I'm interested in discussing the issues about it as such.

But: I can't get there as long as so many people have prejudged the facts. All that stuff I would call the myth of the case. For example thinking that "yea right, very likely that this militia-looking kid who crossed state lines blah blah blah acted in self-defense, ha ha ha" is an attitude that is well-justified by the available evidence.

So I fall into being a kind of devil's advocate for his self-defense case to oppose that.

Do you think it is never appropriate to bring in facts and argue about what they support in this forum because a jury will ultimately decide? I mean, if people are thinking it's pointful to describe KR as arming himself for the journey to a state he didn't even live in to attend the protest, is it inappropriate to point out he has this or that response (lived near the border, didn't drive far, had this or that connection, didn't cross state line for that purpose)? But then people dispute me over that, I get sucked into responding, and off we go.

BTW the prejudice itself and the problems it poses for him also is interesting to me in its own right. We talk about the right-wing bubble or "epistemic closure" (inability to have views changed by evidence). But views of Rittenhouse look to me like an example of left-wing bubble think, epistemic closure of its own form.

[bob]

I can't get there as long as so many people have prejudged the facts.

Four-alarm fire at the irony-meter factory.


People here have vast experience with the "I'm not saying [x], I'm just asking questions...." routine.

[Dave from down under]

BTW the prejudice itself and the problems it poses for him also is interesting to me in its own right. We talk about the right-wing bubble or "epistemic closure" (inability to have views changed by evidence). But views of Rittenhouse look to me like an example of left-wing bubble think, epistemic closure of its own form.

I’m not left wing.. or right wing.. my politics don’t matter..

His reasons for his actions do not change his actions or the result of his actions.

My political beliefs don’t alter his actions nor the outcome of his actions.

[sugar magnolia]

You're making even less sense than usual and contradicting yourself all over the place. You want to discuss his self-defense case, and yet when real lawyers, with real law degrees, and real law practices discuss with you the real law that applies to self-defense, you either argue with them or throw in some random "but what if..." scenario. In a discussion of law, by real lawyers, of course what will be admissible and what a jury will consider is part of the discussion. It's how lawyers work. And yes, it is inappropriate to bring in facts and argue for their support if those facts have no bearing on the case, as the real lawyers are trying to "discuss" with you every time they tell you that you have misread the law or misunderstood how it is applied. That's what a discussion is.

[Maybenaut]

[

OK. I went down a rabbit-hole of viewing videos and published reports and came away convinced that KR is not what most people think. I think he has a self-defense case with a decent chance of success. I find it a very interesting self-defense case in certain respects. I'm interested in discussing the issues about it as such.

* * *

So I fall into being a kind of devil's advocate for his self-defense case to oppose that.

I, today, right now, might have an opinion about whether Rittenhouse does or does not have a viable self-defense claim, but it’s pointless to express it here because it relies too much on inferences that may or may not be drawn be drawn from evidence that might or might not ever get admitted at trial. I mean, it’s such a fact-intensive thing that it’s pointless to speculate about it.

Do you think it is never appropriate to bring in facts and argue about what they support in this forum because a jury will ultimately decide?

Well, not never appropriate. But it’s pretty clear that you think Rittenhouse was justified in killing two people and injuring a third. I mean, that’s what self-defense is, right? So it shouldn’t be terribly surprising that such a position is going to generate some push-back. Particularly when you criticize an experienced prosecutor for doing what experienced prosecutors routinely do.

So, yeah, it’s OK to bring in facts to try to generate some discussion about what those facts might mean. But don’t expect people here to assume you’re not arguing from a particular point of view, because it’s pretty obvious that you are. And some here might not agree with you.

I mean, if people are thinking it's pointful to describe KR as arming himself for the journey to a state he didn't even live in to attend the protest, is it inappropriate to point out he has this or that response (lived near the border, didn't drive far, had this or that connection, didn't cross state line for that purpose)? But then people dispute me over that, I get sucked into responding, and off we go.

That’s a pretty good example of what I’ve just described.

BTW the prejudice itself and the problems it poses for him also is interesting to me in its own right. We talk about the right-wing bubble or "epistemic closure" (inability to have views changed by evidence). But views of Rittenhouse look to me like an example of left-wing bubble think, epistemic closure of its own form.

Really? I’m curious. Did you feel the same way about Derek Chauvin? As I’ve said before, I personally hope that Proud Boys evidence stays out. I think it’s relevant, but I think it’s overly prejudicial (in the military the test is whether the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice - I assume it’s the same in WI, but I could be wrong). And I want Rittenhouse to get a fair trial.

To the extent that this case is colored by what you call “left-wing bubble think,” it’s because the people who have rallied to Rittenhouse’s cause are right-wing extremists (Lin Wood and the Proud Boys), and grifters (Whatshisname Pierce).

[andersweinstein]

Really? I’m curious. Did you feel the same way about Derek Chauvin?

No.

[andersweinstein]

I’m an appellate litigator. Many things are “clear” and “obvious.” Pointing that out doesn’t mean I’ve somehow lost the argument.

FYI a couple of profs did an empirical study! Abstract of their paper "Clearly, Using Intensifiers is Very Bad - Or is it?" :

Although scholars have generally found that overusing intensifiers (words such as clearly, obviously, and very) negatively affects the persuasiveness or credibility of a legal argument, no one has studied actual appellate briefs to determine whether there is a relationship between intensifier use and the outcome of an appeal. This article describes two empirical studies of appellate briefs, which show that the frequent use of intensifiers in appellate briefs (particularly by an appellant) is usually associated with a statistically significant increase in adverse outcomes for an offending party. But - and this was an unexpected result - if an appellate opinion uses a high rate of intensifiers, an appellant's brief written for that appeal that also uses a high rate of intensifiers is associated with a statistically significant increase in favorable outcomes. Additionally, when a dissenting opinion is written, judges use significantly more intensifiers in both the majority and dissenting opinions. In other words, as things become less clear, judges tend to use clearly and obviously more often.

These results could be interpreted several ways. It could be that overusing intensifiers actually renders a brief suspect and subject to increased skepticism by appellate court judges. Alternatively, it could be that the overuse of intensifiers is accompanied by violations of other writing conventions that further affect the credibility of the brief. Or, it could simply be that appellants or appellees with difficult arguments (arguments that they believe they are likely to lose) tend to lapse into an intensifier-rich mode of writing in an attempt to bolster the perceived weaknesses of an argument. All of these factors may combine to produce the result. Of course, since no causal relationship is shown, it could be a yet unidentified factor.

I see one of the researchers co-authored a book on the Science Behind the Art of Legal Writing. with stuff like this.

[Maybenaut]

Whatever. I’ve been doing this work for a long time. I win the cases I ought to win and lose the cases I ought to lose.

[Gregg]

Whatever. I’ve been doing this work for a long time. I win the cases I ought to win and lose the cases I ought to lose.

There you go again, just because you're objectively an expert doesn't mean you know more than what I learned on Youtube.

[Patagoniagirl]

Whatever. I’ve been doing this work for a long time. I win the cases I ought to win and lose the cases I ought to lose.

There you go again, just because you're objectively an expert doesn't mean you know more than what I learned on Youtube.

Gotcha beat. I watch Nancy Grace.

[bob]

Whatever. I’ve been doing this work for a long time. I win the cases I ought to win and lose the cases I ought to lose.

"Clearly," nothing screams "TAKE ME SERIOUSLY!!1!" more than off-topic pedantry.*


* Citation to authority forthcoming.

[Gregg]

This kids is why I refuse to argue Economics with anyone without a graduate degree in Economics, the Auto Industry with anyone who hasn't spent 10 years building cars and Helicopters with anyone who has never let a Wiener dog take the stick.

[Foggy]

Hay nao, I has a degree in International Economics from Georgetown University.

Sadly, half of what they taught me was wrong, and I forgot the other half.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

I see your Nancy Grace and raise you Alan Dershowitz.