Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he hadn't been there, none of this would have happened.

He was there. It happened. He bares responsibility for his actions.

Period.

Don’t try that line of argument. The rioters went there to cause destruction and commit crimes. That’s far worse than a kid breaking a curfew.

Absolutely not. Burning a dumpster or a car is not worse than shooting or killing people.

How many people did Rosenbaum kill that night? Or Skateboard Guy?

How many people did the kid kill?

Yeah! Not to mention: the rioters were supposed to be there as part of an organized civil rights riot.

Arson is a constitutionally-protected form of expression, as is looting and vandalism. They were given “space to destroy” by the mayor and police. And they were there to support BLM.

So they had a right, but Rittenhouse didn’t.

Perfectly clear.

Did the rioters kill anyone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he hadn't been there, none of this would have happened.

He was there. It happened. He bares responsibility for his actions.

Period.

Don’t try that line of argument. The rioters went there to cause destruction and commit crimes. That’s far worse than a kid breaking a curfew.

Absolutely not. Burning a dumpster or a car is not worse than shooting or killing people.

How many people did Rosenbaum kill that night? Or Skateboard Guy?

How many people did the kid kill?

Yeah! Not to mention: the rioters were supposed to be there as part of an organized civil rights riot.

Arson is a constitutionally-protected form of expression, as is looting and vandalism. They were given “space to destroy” by the mayor and police. And they were there to support BLM.

So they had a right, but Rittenhouse didn’t.

Perfectly clear.

Did the rioters kill anyone?

If they did, one would hope they would be on trial for it, and exonerated if they found the shooting to be in self defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My impression, as someone with experience in both criminal defense and prosecution, is that these particular prosecutors are stuck trying a case that they know is terribly weak. The decision to charge Rittenhouse was likely made by their bosses to appease a certain public demand. But now they are in a bind trying to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when the evidence just isn't there. Imagine trying to prove up these charges when all the key witnesses to the incidents in question can offer testimony favorable to the defense. Rittenhouse will likely be acquitted of all charges. But it won't be because anyone took a dive. It will be because an impartial look at all the evidence provides ample grounds for self-defense and the prosecution could not get within a country mile of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Two people who were unarmed are dead at the hand of the only person that fired a gun that night.

This isn't a clear cut case in any way. A jury should absolutely be deciding if self-defense was reasonable.

I can't believe you have much experience in criminal defense or prosecution if you're contending that this case should not have been brought by the prosecution.

There is undisputed evidence that the first person shot-a clearly deranged individual-was the aggressor and that Rittenhouse only pulled the trigger when the individual chased him down and lunged for the weapon. That is self-defense under the legal standard. You do not have to wait until someone disarms you and then attacks you or others with your rifle until you use force. That is just not the law in any jurisdiction. With respect to the other two individuals who were shot, one was trying to split Rittenhouse's head open with a skateboard while he was on the ground in a vulnerable position and the other was rushing toward him with a pistol pointed at him. I do in fact have years of experience defending and prosecuting criminal cases. However one might feel about Rittenhouse walking around with a weapon that night are legally irrelevant. He had a right to defend himself and I expect the jury will reach that conclusion.

DP- I totally agree with you but it wouldn't surprise me if there is at least one or two of the same type of people on the jury as there are on this website who repeatedly make false claims about crossing state lines, shouldn't have been there etc plus buy into the provocation claim by the prosecution. My money is on a hung jury.

DP. If a provocation claim was put forward, then the evidence is disputed.

And you wonder why people are confused? Words have meaning.

I'm familiar with the provocation instruction, but I am not aware of any testimony during the trial that shows provocation on Rittenhouse's part, unless you think that him carrying the rifle was itself some sort of provocation. I do not believe it is. I don't believe any witness testified to Rittenhouse "provoking" the individual who chased after him (the man's name escapes me).

Yeah, i think the only real mistake Rittenhouse made that night is not understanding just how violent and unhinged the rioters were. If he had understood that his life was truly in danger then he probably would have been more obsessed about not getting separated from his friends, even if it was to put out fires or whatever.

It was his community so he felt safe there, but he wasn’t safe. That’s not his fault of course. The local council should never have allowed a situation where citizens truly weren’t safe in a part of their community.

No, HIS community was in Illinois. His dad lives in Kenosha, but that wasn't HIS community and not his to defend, particularly with an illegally possessed automatic rifle.

It’s a short drive from his moms house, he used to work a job there, and his dad still lives there. You’re insane to not call that his community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he hadn't been there, none of this would have happened.

He was there. It happened. He bares responsibility for his actions.

Period.

Don’t try that line of argument. The rioters went there to cause destruction and commit crimes. That’s far worse than a kid breaking a curfew.

Absolutely not. Burning a dumpster or a car is not worse than shooting or killing people.

How many people did Rosenbaum kill that night? Or Skateboard Guy?

How many people did the kid kill?

Yeah! Not to mention: the rioters were supposed to be there as part of an organized civil rights riot.

Arson is a constitutionally-protected form of expression, as is looting and vandalism. They were given “space to destroy” by the mayor and police. And they were there to support BLM.

So they had a right, but Rittenhouse didn’t.

Perfectly clear.

Did the rioters kill anyone?

They certainly tried to brain a minor with a skateboard, and shoot him with an illegally owned Glock handgun.

Let’s not forget: all 3 were criminals and/or mental patients released that very morning from the hospital.

But you go right on making those three your “social justice warrior-heroes.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ And he never expected that the rioters were so violent and unhinged that they would attack him even when he was holding a loaded rifle.

They attacked him because he used it.

They were defending themselves, just as Rittenhouse claims he was defending himself.

HE provoked the action. Are the others not allowed to defend themselves as well? Or is only the white kid with a gun allowed to defend himself?

Everyone was white. What is the left’s obsession with race?? You sound completely certifiable. EVERYONE WAS WHITE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My impression, as someone with experience in both criminal defense and prosecution, is that these particular prosecutors are stuck trying a case that they know is terribly weak. The decision to charge Rittenhouse was likely made by their bosses to appease a certain public demand. But now they are in a bind trying to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when the evidence just isn't there. Imagine trying to prove up these charges when all the key witnesses to the incidents in question can offer testimony favorable to the defense. Rittenhouse will likely be acquitted of all charges. But it won't be because anyone took a dive. It will be because an impartial look at all the evidence provides ample grounds for self-defense and the prosecution could not get within a country mile of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Two people who were unarmed are dead at the hand of the only person that fired a gun that night.

This isn't a clear cut case in any way. A jury should absolutely be deciding if self-defense was reasonable.

I can't believe you have much experience in criminal defense or prosecution if you're contending that this case should not have been brought by the prosecution.

There is undisputed evidence that the first person shot-a clearly deranged individual-was the aggressor and that Rittenhouse only pulled the trigger when the individual chased him down and lunged for the weapon. That is self-defense under the legal standard. You do not have to wait until someone disarms you and then attacks you or others with your rifle until you use force. That is just not the law in any jurisdiction. With respect to the other two individuals who were shot, one was trying to split Rittenhouse's head open with a skateboard while he was on the ground in a vulnerable position and the other was rushing toward him with a pistol pointed at him. I do in fact have years of experience defending and prosecuting criminal cases. However one might feel about Rittenhouse walking around with a weapon that night are legally irrelevant. He had a right to defend himself and I expect the jury will reach that conclusion.

DP- I totally agree with you but it wouldn't surprise me if there is at least one or two of the same type of people on the jury as there are on this website who repeatedly make false claims about crossing state lines, shouldn't have been there etc plus buy into the provocation claim by the prosecution. My money is on a hung jury.

DP. If a provocation claim was put forward, then the evidence is disputed.

And you wonder why people are confused? Words have meaning.

I'm familiar with the provocation instruction, but I am not aware of any testimony during the trial that shows provocation on Rittenhouse's part, unless you think that him carrying the rifle was itself some sort of provocation. I do not believe it is. I don't believe any witness testified to Rittenhouse "provoking" the individual who chased after him (the man's name escapes me).

Yeah, i think the only real mistake Rittenhouse made that night is not understanding just how violent and unhinged the rioters were. If he had understood that his life was truly in danger then he probably would have been more obsessed about not getting separated from his friends, even if it was to put out fires or whatever.

It was his community so he felt safe there, but he wasn’t safe. That’s not his fault of course. The local council should never have allowed a situation where citizens truly weren’t safe in a part of their community.

No, HIS community was in Illinois. His dad lives in Kenosha, but that wasn't HIS community and not his to defend, particularly with an illegally possessed automatic rifle.

It’s a short drive from his moms house, he used to work a job there, and his dad still lives there. You’re insane to not call that his community.

+1. Antioch is like 20 miles from Kenosha. I knew people who commuted to Chicago every day from Kenosha for work and that is more like 60 miles. It is strange to me how some people act like crossing the state line between Illinois and Wisconsin is akin to crossing the DMZ on the Korean peninsula.

[Anonymous]

I know this is Wisconsin, but is anyone else sort of shocked at how incompetent the prosecution is? It’s so disappointing.
Perhaps if the crime involved cheese or beer they’d have done better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know this is Wisconsin, but is anyone else sort of shocked at how incompetent the prosecution is? It’s so disappointing.
Perhaps if the crime involved cheese or beer they’d have done better.

I wouldn't judge these prosecutors too harshly based off this trial alone. Either you have the evidence or you don't. There just isn't much for them to work with here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this is Wisconsin, but is anyone else sort of shocked at how incompetent the prosecution is? It’s so disappointing.
Perhaps if the crime involved cheese or beer they’d have done better.

I wouldn't judge these prosecutors too harshly based off this trial alone. Either you have the evidence or you don't. There just isn't much for them to work with here.

Then they shouldn't have brought to trial. Malicious prosecution!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know this is Wisconsin, but is anyone else sort of shocked at how incompetent the prosecution is? It’s so disappointing.
Perhaps if the crime involved cheese or beer they’d have done better.

I have to wonder if the jury finds this prosecutor Binger as unappealing and frankly, repulsive as I do. He is snarky, he is sarcastic, and his closing argument had a plethora of lies and mistruths.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this is Wisconsin, but is anyone else sort of shocked at how incompetent the prosecution is? It’s so disappointing.
Perhaps if the crime involved cheese or beer they’d have done better.

I wouldn't judge these prosecutors too harshly based off this trial alone. Either you have the evidence or you don't. There just isn't much for them to work with here.

The fact that they brought this case to trial is reason enough to judge them harshly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this is Wisconsin, but is anyone else sort of shocked at how incompetent the prosecution is? It’s so disappointing.
Perhaps if the crime involved cheese or beer they’d have done better.

I wouldn't judge these prosecutors too harshly based off this trial alone. Either you have the evidence or you don't. There just isn't much for them to work with here.

The fact that they brought this case to trial is reason enough to judge them harshly.

Fair point. But I would just circle back to a point I made earlier about this case being charged for political reasons. These prosecutors work in the trenches. As with most high-profile cases, I suspect the charging decision was made by the District Attorney, who is an elected official and thus a politician by definition. Some sectors of the public were clamoring for charges and the DA responded. Then these guys get stuck with actually having to try the case, which means putting witnesses in the jury box and evidence in the record to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The problem is that once you look closely at the facts and ignore all the rhetoric, the evidence is sorely lacking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this is Wisconsin, but is anyone else sort of shocked at how incompetent the prosecution is? It’s so disappointing.
Perhaps if the crime involved cheese or beer they’d have done better.

I wouldn't judge these prosecutors too harshly based off this trial alone. Either you have the evidence or you don't. There just isn't much for them to work with here.

The fact that they brought this case to trial is reason enough to judge them harshly.

Fair point. But I would just circle back to a point I made earlier about this case being charged for political reasons. These prosecutors work in the trenches. As with most high-profile cases, I suspect the charging decision was made by the District Attorney, who is an elected official and thus a politician by definition. Some sectors of the public were clamoring for charges and the DA responded. Then these guys get stuck with actually having to try the case, which means putting witnesses in the jury box and evidence in the record to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The problem is that once you look closely at the facts and ignore all the rhetoric, the evidence is sorely lacking.

Follow up point -- I also suspect that these prosecutors would have been more than happy to plead this case down before trial, but either their bosses or the defense was unwilling to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this is Wisconsin, but is anyone else sort of shocked at how incompetent the prosecution is? It’s so disappointing.
Perhaps if the crime involved cheese or beer they’d have done better.

I wouldn't judge these prosecutors too harshly based off this trial alone. Either you have the evidence or you don't. There just isn't much for them to work with here.

The fact that they brought this case to trial is reason enough to judge them harshly.

Fair point. But I would just circle back to a point I made earlier about this case being charged for political reasons. These prosecutors work in the trenches. As with most high-profile cases, I suspect the charging decision was made by the District Attorney, who is an elected official and thus a politician by definition. Some sectors of the public were clamoring for charges and the DA responded. Then these guys get stuck with actually having to try the case, which means putting witnesses in the jury box and evidence in the record to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The problem is that once you look closely at the facts and ignore all the rhetoric, the evidence is sorely lacking.

Binger is the Asst. DA. He gets no say in the matter? Why isn't the head DA the prosecutor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this is Wisconsin, but is anyone else sort of shocked at how incompetent the prosecution is? It’s so disappointing.
Perhaps if the crime involved cheese or beer they’d have done better.

I wouldn't judge these prosecutors too harshly based off this trial alone. Either you have the evidence or you don't. There just isn't much for them to work with here.

The fact that they brought this case to trial is reason enough to judge them harshly.

Fair point. But I would just circle back to a point I made earlier about this case being charged for political reasons. These prosecutors work in the trenches. As with most high-profile cases, I suspect the charging decision was made by the District Attorney, who is an elected official and thus a politician by definition. Some sectors of the public were clamoring for charges and the DA responded. Then these guys get stuck with actually having to try the case, which means putting witnesses in the jury box and evidence in the record to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The problem is that once you look closely at the facts and ignore all the rhetoric, the evidence is sorely lacking.

Binger is the Asst. DA. He gets no say in the matter? Why isn't the head DA the prosecutor?

I honestly don't know where Binger falls on the ladder in that particular office. But most prosecutors are "Assistant DAs." A large office like Cook County (Chicago) will have hundreds of assistant DAs. A prosecutor, like anyone else, can always resign in protest or tell their boss to f&^% off but that tends to have a negative effect on one's career. It is as true in the legal world as it is anywhere else that s*** rolls downhill.