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

[Suranis]

Ah probably the usual. A huge announcement, a flurry of grift bux, and then quietly forgotten as they hold up another flashy announcement.

This is reminding me of the old joke - the difference between God and a Judge is that God does not think she's a Judge.

[LM K]

FWIW, I could only stomach a bit of the coverage of the defendant on the stand. I know he's been coached; I know he is lying; I know he should be held 100% accountable for his actions. But I am very worried about the overall effect of him on the stand. It's that baby face of his and his obvious immaturity. He is still in way over his head. I think the defense knows he is their best shot because white privilege is a real thing and that damnable baby face of his will do herculean work for his case.
I do not envy the prosecution's job. The evidence is very strong against him, especially the ME testimony. And the drone video - man, it just blasts the ridiculous "ambush" theory to smithereens - but I worry it will still not be enough to overcome the "I'm just a widdle boy who got a-scaird" image.
Hoping for a good rebuttal case.
Thanks again for all the legal clarity.

I think Rittenhouse's youth, ignorance, and immaturity will definitely influence the jury. It's human nature.

As I've watched Rittenhouse on the stand, I realized he's immature for his age and he's not the brightest bulb in any room. If Rittenhouse was black, these facts would work against him. As a white man, Mr. Rittenhouse is likely to benefit from these traits.

But I think the prosecution will help the jury to stick with relevant facts to the case, none of which have to do with Rittenhouse's youth, immaturity, and perceived level of intelligence.

I wonder how many jurors have sons over the age of 14.

[Foggy]

I would hope judges were always on their best behavior, but especially when one knows their every move is being widely transmitted.

Exactly what I mean. He knows his every move is widely transmitted, and he acts like a spoiled brat. If a prosecutor crosses the line, it's perfectly possible for a judge to humiliate him beyond cruelty without ever raising his voice or losing his temper. But this nooper freakin' loses his mud on nationable Tee Vee.

Remember what I said about how angry people make mistakes? Remember what I said about how you are invariably better off if the other guy loses his temper, but you don't?

OK, I suggested that the prosecutor try to get Kyle to lose his temper. For whatever reason, he decided to get the judge to lose his temper instead.

We'll soon see the consequences of ignoring my advice!

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

I am catching up with the "journalist's" testimony. I notice in his videos that whenever he is videographing an area where you don't see a shitload of vigilantes carting their AR's around there is no violence happening. People are milling around, you hear occasional yelling, but by and large there is nothing like what happens when the vigilantes are around.

There is well documented evidence that the presence of guns amps up the tendency for violence in everyone involved, regardless of whether they are the ones who are armed or not. The out of control vigilantism is a growing problem.

Richie McGinnis testified on direct that seeing the AR15's "escalated" the situation. I don't remember his exact wording. I will locate. He was UNHAPPY about seeing Rittenhouse's AR15.

[Foggy]

My staff informs me that unless someone on the prosecution team is reading Fogbow, the chances are excellent that they aren't actually ignoring my advice inasmuch as they probably haven't seen it.

So, umm ... yeah. Maybe they're just being dumb.

[raison de arizona]

My staff informs me that unless someone on the prosecution team is reading Fogbow, the chances are excellent that they aren't actually ignoring my advice inasmuch as they probably haven't seen it.

So, umm ... yeah. Maybe they're just being dumb.

Not reading Fogbow, perish the thought! They are undoubtedly ignoring said advice, and at their own peril!

[Maybenaut]

My staff informs me that unless someone on the prosecution team is reading Fogbow, the chances are excellent that they aren't actually ignoring my advice inasmuch as they probably haven't seen it.

So, umm ... yeah. Maybe they're just being dumb.

I think Rittenhouse is more likely to cry than erupt in anger if the prosecutor tried to evoke an emotional reaction. That, of course, would backfire, which is why I think the prosecutor didn’t do it.

[Foggy]

What you do is, you needle him on a dozen different potential areas where he might be overly sensitive and when you find one that provokes a reaction, you strike. I've seen some DAs in California that were like surgeons digging here and there with the knife, until the patient gave out a hollah.

But I'm gonna drop it, 'cause nobody is listening and it's all going to Helena Handbasket.

I strongly fear he'll be acquitted next week.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

I am catching up with the "journalist's" testimony. I notice in his videos that whenever he is videographing an area where you don't see a shitload of vigilantes carting their AR's around there is no violence happening. People are milling around, you hear occasional yelling, but by and large there is nothing like what happens when the vigilantes are around.

There is well documented evidence that the presence of guns amps up the tendency for violence in everyone involved, regardless of whether they are the ones who are armed or not. The out of control vigilantism is a growing problem.

Richie McGinnis testified on direct that seeing the AR15's "escalated" the situation. I don't remember his exact wording. I will locate. He was UNHAPPY about seeing Rittenhouse's AR15.

4 takeaways from the first week of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial

On the stand Thursday, McGinnis described the atmosphere that night as dangerous and menacing, in large part due to the presence of so many armed men.

"It was clear to me it was a situation where it was likely something dangerous was going to happen, be it Mr. Rosenbaum grabbing it or Mr. Rittenhouse shooting it," McGinnis testified.

[raison de arizona]

Well if Foggy is scared, I'm scared. I'm hoping they'll split the difference and convict him on the lesser charges. Better than nothing. Which I'm also worried we're going to get.

Anyway.

[Kendra]

Key witness for the Rittenhouse defense Drew Hernandez attended the Jan 6th Capitol riot.

Shortly before Jan 6th. Drew Hernandez called for "bloodshed" and a "second civil war" at a rally with J6 organizer Ali Alexander.

[Maybenaut]

I strongly fear he'll be acquitted next week.

I guess this is where I differ from the rest of the world. It’s not that I don’t care about the result, but, yeah, I kinda don’t care about the result. What I care about is the process. Both sides are entitled to a fair trial, but if the judge is going to err, I’d prefer he err in favor of the defense because that’s what our constitution demands.

I get very frustrated when people scream about there being “no justice” when they don’t like the result in a given case. Just as in Chauvin, Zimmerman, the Bill Cosby appeal, and every other trial we’ve followed, there will be plenty of people screaming about how the system doesn’t work no matter what the result is, because their side didn’t win.

But that’s the nature of the adversarial system. We’re mere spectators. It’s the jurors who have to decide, the burden of proof is pretty high, and I wouldn’t call the self-defense claim frivolous, particularly as to Huber.

So I can live with the result, whatever it is, and feel that justice has been served. I may be a lone wolf in that, and that’s OK.

A-wooooooOOOoooooo.

[Ben-Prime]

I strongly fear he'll be acquitted next week.

I guess this is where I differ from the rest of the world. It’s not that I don’t care about the result, but, yeah, I kinda don’t care about the result. What I care about is the process. Both sides are entitled to a fair trial, but if the judge is going to err, I’d prefer he err in favor of the defense because that’s what our constitution demands.

I mean, I hear you, but for me, the nature and degree of the judicial error would matter, too. Now, IANAL, so I have no way of knowing except by watching the back and forth of IAALs I know and trust as to whether this particular judge's errors surpass the level of 'oops' that might be considered reasonable. I can simply say that from what I've seen, I would go out of my way to avoid his courtroom even as a spectator.

[Maybenaut]

I mean, I hear you, but for me, the nature and degree of the judicial error would matter, too. Now, IANAL, so I have no way of knowing except by watching the back and forth of IAALs I know and trust as to whether this particular judge's errors surpass the level of 'oops' that might be considered reasonable. I can simply say that from what I've seen, I would go out of my way to avoid his courtroom even as a spectator.

I haven’t watched the whole trial, so I can’t say how bad the errors are. From what I have seen, I agree with filly. His thumb is on the defense side of the scale. But I blame the prosecutor for some of that because he unnecessarily antagonized the judge.

Although I’m a defense attorney, I’m not a defense hack; I don’t think the defense is always right. But the judge is letting the defense get away with things he’s not letting the state get away with, it seems from my limited view.

The problem for the prosecution is that they really don’t have much recourse if the judge make a bad evidentiary ruling. They can’t file an appeal during the trial unless the ruling effectively ends the prosecution (we’re nowhere close); and they can’t appeal after the trial if Rittenhouse is acquitted. [Insert standard disclaimer about my only practicing in the military here.]

Maybe the good folks of Kenosha won’t re-elect this judge.

[Sam the Centipede]

So I can live with the result, whatever it is, and feel that justice has been served. I may be a lone wolf in that, and that’s OK.

No, legal process will have been served. That is not the same as justice being served, unless you redefine justice as nothing more than a procedural construct.

Rittenhouse is a nasty, evil, racist killer. If he is acquitted, it will be because the criminal justice system did not do its job of identifying him as such and taking appropriate action.

Your viewpoint is akin to saying "oh, the building had a structural safety certificate, so it doesn't matter that it fell down and killed several people". Or "the doctors did lots of tests which gave lots of valuable information, but never interpreted the tests or treated the problem so the patient died, but that's ok because the tests were made and recorded."

Valuing process over outcome risks entering a moral and ethical vacuum.

However, I too can live with any result. One shitty racist killer getting off isn't such a big thing when there are so many shitty racists (killers or no) plying their shitty racist trade. That's more of a concern than one otherwise unimportant shitbag who will probably come to a sticky end one way or another.

[Maybenaut]

So I can live with the result, whatever it is, and feel that justice has been served. I may be a lone wolf in that, and that’s OK.

No, legal process will have been served. That is not the same as justice being served, unless you redefine justice as nothing more than a procedural construct.

Rittenhouse is a nasty, evil, racist killer. If he is acquitted, it will be because the criminal justice system did not do its job of identifying him as such and taking appropriate action.

What?! Because 12 people who have been provided with the discretion to decide whether the state proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt exercise that discretion in a manner you don’t like means the justice system “didn’t do its job”? If “justice” means the result is pre-ordained, why bother with trials at all?

Your viewpoint is akin to saying "oh, the building had a structural safety certificate, so it doesn't matter that it fell down and killed several people". Or "the doctors did lots of tests which gave lots of valuable information, but never interpreted the tests or treated the problem so the patient died, but that's ok because the tests were made and recorded."

It’s not the same thing at all. Our adversarial system places the burden of proof on the state. It allocates to the jury the duty to decide whether the state has met its burden. Indeed, your examples could, in fact, lead to criminal convictions if the state charged the engineer or the doctor with criminally negligent conduct, and if the jury, after evaluating the evidence, found beyond a reasonable doubt that they were criminally negligent.

Valuing process over outcome risks entering a moral and ethical vacuum.

I don’t see it as valuing process “over” outcome. The process is the process, and if managed fairly and appropriately, it theoretically should lead to the “right” result. But there will *always* be people unhappy with the result, even if everything leading up to the jury beginning its deliberations goes their way. I’m sorry, I just can’t buy in to a system that’s driven by the result.

However, I too can live with any result. One shitty racist killer getting off isn't such a big thing when there are so many shitty racists (killers or no) plying their shitty racist trade. That's more of a concern than one otherwise unimportant shitbag who will probably come to a sticky end one way or another.

[p0rtia]

Sam speaks truth.

There are many ways to look at what is happening, and I value the wisdom of our generous lawyers and do not doubt that they are correct. They enrich my life daily.

But Sam speaks truth. Justice is fading all over the country. By design.

[Gregg]

If Kyle was a Black 17yo, he'd already be in prison. White privilege -- Wisconsin

That's pretty optimistic. If he was a black 17 year old the cops would have shot him when he tried to surrender.

[p0rtia]

If Kyle was a Black 17yo, he'd already be in prison. White privilege -- Wisconsin

That's pretty optimistic. If he was a black 17 year old the cops would have shot him when he tried to surrender.

Please. He would have been shot within the first ten minutes of appearing on the streets with that stupid rifle.

[Gregg]

If Kyle was a Black 17yo, he'd already be in prison. White privilege -- Wisconsin

That's pretty optimistic. If he was a black 17 year old the cops would have shot him when he tried to surrender.

Please. He would have been shot within the first ten minutes of appearing on the streets with that stupid rifle.

[jcolvin2]

No, legal process will have been served. That is not the same as justice being served, unless you redefine justice as nothing more than a procedural construct.

***

Valuing process over outcome risks entering a moral and ethical vacuum.

While we all want justice, the best we can do as imperfect humans is to have general procedures in place to (hopefully) make it likely that justice is reached in specific cases.
To paraphrase Robert Bolt from A Man for All Seasons, there is a danger associated with viewing justice as something separate and apart from the laws and procedures:

Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law?
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And, when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast – man’s laws, not God’s – and, if you cut them down – and you’re just the man to do it – d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.

[Dave from down under]

else we become like Kyle

[Ben-Prime]

No, legal process will have been served. That is not the same as justice being served, unless you redefine justice as nothing more than a procedural construct.

***

Valuing process over outcome risks entering a moral and ethical vacuum.

While we all want justice, the best we can do as imperfect humans is to have general procedures in place to (hopefully) make it likely that justice is reached in specific cases.
To paraphrase Robert Bolt from A Man for All Seasons, there is a danger associated with viewing justice as something separate and apart from the laws and procedures:

Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law?
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And, when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast – man’s laws, not God’s – and, if you cut them down – and you’re just the man to do it – d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.

I will simply note that I am normally the one quoting this play in my circle of friends, to the point where it's actually become a joke to most of my friends to ask what Robert Bolt's More has to say on the subject when any debate on *any* ethical matter comes up. So, yes, there is this.

Except, of course, that we must remember that this is one of literature's most famous examples of a wealthy, privileged, unethical cabal *taking advantage of the form of the law* to abuse it, break it, knowing they wouldn't be challenged, and railroad a man to his death.

[Slim Cognito]

Sam speaks truth.

There are many ways to look at what is happening, and I value the wisdom of our generous lawyers and do not doubt that they are correct. They enrich my life daily.

But Sam speaks truth. Justice is fading all over the country. By design.

This was my fear. I have now accepted it as the new reality. I wonder if this is how people in Russia feel. They know it's Putin's and the oligarch's world and they're allowed to live in it only as long as they (ahem) behave. So they muddle on, just trying to survive until the reaper comes calling.

(sorry I'm a bummer today. shit happens.)

[RVInit]

It seems to me that Sam is correct in pointing out that serving the judicial process and service justice are two different things. We always hope that serving, i.e. adhering to, the judicial process will bring about true justice, but that doesn't always happen. Human beings are involved. They bring their biases, prejudices, and predispositions with them into the courtroom and even into the jury room. We hope that because there are twelve jurors, they will keep each other honest in the deliberations. But we've seen juries go off the rails when the evidence was crystal clear. Look what happened with the Malheur case. The crimes were committed in plain sight with Bundy advertising those crimes with daily press conferences.

I will not be surprised to see this little ass wipe get off on almost every charge, even with the very powerful evidence against him on all but maybe one of the charges. They will probably have to find him guilty of illegally possessing the weapon, but that's pretty minor compared to killing two people and seriously wounding a third person, none of whom posed an imminent deadly threat.

This turd is lucky that someone did not shoot him from a distance after he shot twice at the man who jumped over him. That would have been justified under the premise of taking out a person that is a threat to yourself or others.