Firearms Talk banner
1 - 20 of 348 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,315 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
The criminal trial against Kyle Rittenhouse has begun.

This is about his actions during the rioting in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in August of 2020. The accusations are of reckless homicide, intentional homicide, and various weapons charges. The claim is his actions were justified self-defense.

PLEASE: Keep 'straight' politics out of this discussion. This thread is about the Kenosha trial against Rittenhouse as a case along with its implications for anyone in a similar self-defense / riot situation who'd get accused of the things the State is claiming. Perhaps we can keep this discussion open, here in the Legal & Activism forum area. If you want a different politics discussion, create a new thread over in the Politics forum area, please.


Kenosha County Case Number 2020CF000983: State of Wisconsin vs. Kyle H. Rittenhouse @ WCAA Wisconsin Courts.

Summary of charges:

  • 1 940.02(1) 1st-Degree Reckless Homicide Felony B
  • 2 941.30(1) 1st-Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety Felony F
  • 3 941.30(1) 1st-Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety Felony F
  • 4 940.01(1)(a) 1st-Degree Intentional Homicide Felony A
  • 5 940.01(1)(a) Attempt 1st-Degree Intentional Homicide Felony A
  • 6 948.60(2)(a) Possess Dangerous Weapon-Person < 18 Misd. A
  • 7 323.28 Fail to Comply w/ Emergency Mngt Order of State or Local Gov Forf. U

Opening statements were to begin today, Tuesday 2 November.

Jury seated for trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, opening statements set to begin Tuesday morning @ Fox News, 11/2/21.

Kyle Rittenhouse trial: Lawyer indicates client will testify at his own trial @ Fox News, 11/2/21.



OPENING STATEMENTS --

Prosecution's opening statements -- a recap
@ ABC News, 11/2/21.


Defense's opening statements -- a recap @ ABC News, 11/2/21.



EDITED, 11/19/21 -- to reflect the verdict, the discussion's title was changed from "Court case starting -- State of Wisconsin v Kyle H. Rittenhouse."
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,315 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
He was armed. And he did disregard the idea of an "emergency order" for people to go home. He'll have no defense for that. But then, it assumes such dictates to people ("emergency" orders like that) hold water, particularly with a protected right. (Kind of like saying that due to an "emergency" order people are commanded to muzzle themselves and not speak. Kind of like saying the Koreatown shop owners during the 1992 riots in Los Angeles had no right to be there to protect their neighborhoods from the looters and arsonists, merely because there was some blanket edict for people to go home.)

On all the rest, the claim is: it was in defense against rioters who targeted him personally, which he had every right to do when chased, cornered, when they attempted to "brain" him (shooting, skateboarding to the head, etc).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,551 Posts
A political prosecution of what may be one of the most clear cut self defense shoots of the decade.. this illustrates the lenghts the Marxists are willing to go to, to intimidate citizens from availing themselves of their rights.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
837 Posts
Folks - please remember this thread is in the Legal and Activism forum. It's going to be hard, but we need to keep politics out of this thread. We have a forum for political topics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: c3shooter

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,315 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
A political prosecution of what may be one of the most clear cut self defense shoots of the decade.. this illustrates the lenghts the Marxists are willing to go to, to intimidate citizens from availing themselves of their rights.
The one thing that the prosecution clearly has to show, though, at least so far as I can see, is that Rittenhouse actually caused the infliction of threats/harm to others ... either via severe "fighting" words, threats of shooting people or whatever ... at the point PRIOR to when he is shown on film running into that parking lot area being chased by another, a person who then apparently attempting to take his property from him.

If the prosecution cannot show Rittenhouse was the actual initiating aggressor, if the defense can show that others presented an imminent threat he fled from, then he'll have a shot at the jury seeing him as the victim of the cascade of chases by people and attempts to kill him.

Rough row to hoe, when the "battle lines" (in people's minds) have largely been fixed already. Likely the witnesses to the initial stages of that chase, too.

Given so long to think about it, I suspect the prosecution and/or defense has found at least a couple folks from before that initial "chased into the parking lot" video who can corroborate or refute the claims they're making. The prosecution, likely a few, else I'd think they'd have gone for a plea deal earlier. The defense, likely a few, else they'd have long since gone for a plea deal.

Judge estimates this trial will take < two weeks or so.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,891 Posts
Folks - please remember this thread is in the Legal and Activism forum. It's going to be hard, but we need to keep politics out of this thread. We have a forum for political topics.
Politics is activism!!! How do you separate the two????????? You can't discuss 'activism' with out discussing 'politics'! o_O
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
837 Posts
Politics is activism!!! How do you separate the two????????? You can't discuss 'activism' with out discussing 'politics'! o_O
We do it all the time. And we'll continue to do so in this thread.

Did you use enough question marks?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,315 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Politics is activism!!! How do you separate the two????????? You can't discuss 'activism' with out discussing 'politics'! o_O
It certainly ought to be possible to speak of this specific case and its RKBA implications without heading into the weeds of outright politics or legislation or legislators' stances.

Indeed, I specifically placed this legal case's progress IN the Legal & Activism forum area so that its intent would be crystal clear.

People can certainly create different discussions if the general politics is something people want to post about.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,315 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 · (Edited)
Whatever the outcome, this case will have far-reaching effects. The whole summer has revealed disturbing truths about our country. Sometimes the dragon wins.
IMO

The primary lesson: we, the People, are truly on our own. No better example than most of last Summer, for showing that. People are beginning to read into that what should be understood: be capable of surviving until the cavalry arrive, or not; decide. Millions are deciding properly.

The additional lesson: the State is not on your side, if daring to stand up to the howling mob. As in any basic criminal case, it's in the State's interests to find "a bad guy," not necessarily to achieve justice. Good warning, for those contemplating the risk-reward calculus involved in actually carrying arms in self-defense, let alone employing them. It ain't all a bed o' roses.


As you say, though, the real lessons go much deeper and are far-reaching. Perhaps if another 50M people arm-up, and heavily so, we can turn this tide via ensuring every little miscreant sees an upstanding citizen behind every bush to the point they'll stow it and go home. Maybe. That'll be a long road, getting from here to there. But if this case "proves" (to the satisfaction of the jurors) that Rittenhouse was the initiating aggressor, at the start of that whole "chase scene," then it'll be tougher for folks. People will have to take a hard look at their own willingness to go armed for self-defense reasons. If the accusers fail to make their case and he's acquitted, then perhaps the people will see the possibility of actually standing up to the "mob" and succeeding.

EDIT: clarification, grammar.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,891 Posts
We do it all the time. And we'll continue to do so in this thread.

Did you use enough question marks?
I disagree. The reason for activism is to change things and that is NOT possible without evolving/discussing politics. When you talk about 'this case' you will have to talk law, legislation/politics, and the POLITICS of the persecutor. Just the real world. There is no way to keep it 'sanitary' as many would like to do. It is called sticking your head in the sand and not facing reality. Just the thought of someone who has spent thousands of hours in the court room and been very 'active' is defense of OUR right of self-defenses. And I guess I used enough ? if it got your attn. ;) RE this case it is just another persecution not prosecution, like the Zimmerman/Martin case was, this was a clear cut case of self defense to any impartial reasonable person:mad:.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
837 Posts
I disagree.
As is your right.
The reason for activism is to change things and that is NOT possible without evolving/discussing politics.
And, yet, we will do just that in this thread.

Any political derailment of the conversation here will be met with moderation.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,727 Posts
Couldn't we just put a legal/courts forum behind the paywall? Lots of stuff that is legitimately pertinant to firearms in the category, but often cannot be separated , or at least often drifts into political ramifications.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
837 Posts
Couldn't we just put a legal/courts forum behind the paywall? Lots of stuff that is legitimately pertinant to firearms in the category, but often cannot be separated , or at least often drifts into political ramifications.
We already have a politics section for premium members. Ergo, we already have what you just asked for.

Is there anyone else interested in arguing with me about this? I’m offering a free all-expenses paid, three-day vacation to not here for anyone who thinks that’s a great idea. :)

Let’s put this thread back on-topic.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,341 Posts
I don’t see this case as anything more than either a justified shooting or some degree of murder. Motives of the prosecution are irrelevant and the outcome will be decided by a jury . I personally hope he is found innocent of all charges except the underage weapon possession.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,891 Posts
I don’t see this case as anything more than either a justified shooting or some degree of murder. Motives of the prosecution are irrelevant and the outcome will be decided by a jury . I personally hope he is found innocent of all charges except the underage weapon possession.
You obviously have spent very little time, or no time, in or around our legal system to say the 'motives of the prosecution are irrelevant'. The motives of the prosecutor, assuming he/she are not persecutors, are basically 90+% of the case. The DA has 100% control of what info is presented to the Grand Jury to secure an indictment and has, MANY times, withheld evidence which is favorable to the accused to get a guilty verdict. I have witnessed this first hand MANY times. If you have a 'woke/liberal secular progressive' DA they will disregard the truth and simply persecute the accused according to THEIR ideology. This is OUR system. It is terrible that it has come to this, but it is reality in many places in the USA. :(
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,341 Posts
Everything you said is true but you can’t pick the person that is prosecuting you . In the end you can only put forth your best defense. Irrelevant was probably a poor choice of words but the fact is there’s nothing he can do unless the judge finds the prosecutor has stepped out of line.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,315 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Everything you said is true but you can’t pick the person that is prosecuting you . In the end you can only put forth your best defense. Irrelevant was probably a poor choice of words but the fact is there’s nothing he can do unless the judge finds the prosecutor has stepped out of line.
His best defense, I'd think, IF he's actually innocent of the charges of assault/homicide that he's been accused with, is the truth. Cold and hard as it might be, with all the corroborating witnesses and evidence he's able to produce.

He and his attorneys have got to be prepared to flatly refute each accusation and show, prove, how each is a fabrication, spin, outright falsehoods. But if he can't, then it's going to be a colossal he-said, she-said thing. We can't have people running around the quiet countryside harming others, generally speaking. If he can't show he had every right to protect himself against unjustified attempts upon his life and property, that the initiating attempt of that whole string of attempts was unjustified and unprovoked ... well, he's probably going to go away for a very long time. Unfortunately, the guy who chased him and cornered him in that parking lot isn't around anymore to make his claims of why he began chasing the guy in the first place. But if THAT incident can be cast down, then every subsequent chase and attempt on his life can be chalked up to: they made the incorrect call based on assumptions, and thus were unjustified in trying to forcibly halt him.

Tough challenge, proofs. Mighty hard to come by. Particularly with the lawless tenor of things, last summer, how this incident got splashed all over the news as though he were some mindless psychopath interfering with the rioting. Without such corroboration, assuming Rittenhouse is telling the truth, then one might say "the fix" is already in.
 
1 - 20 of 348 Posts
Top