I’d love to ban guns. But in America it’s not illegal to have them. In some places you can wander around with them even. So just having it doesn’t constitute intent to shoot.
To me the intent is clear in this case.
1 Like
Eh, he purchased the weapon illegally (I think in IL, so he could face charges there for that crime.). But according to the judge it was legal for him to be there with a gun.
I think it was stupid as hell, but stupid is not illegal.
Yes agreed. It sounded a lot like kids giving money to older friend to buy alcohol illegally. Or perhaps cigarettes is a better example because I think you can legally smoke them just not buy them? So buying the gun and all that was illegal so yeah prison for that, I’m not sure what the sentencing guidelines are for that crime though, I can’t imagine it’s more than 10 years?
I think you have to change your frame of reference based on the state. I’m pretty sure it’s illegal to openly carry a gun in NJ so if I saw a guy wandering around with a rifle out I’d be thinking the police is on the way, but in WI if that’s legal then that’s how they’re happy to set up their society…
He really banned victims? That is kinda crazy. I didn’t know judges had authority to ban certain words like that
He’ll get off on the top counts and he should. Clearly self-defense for the last 3 times he fired. All 3 were after he had been chased, threatened and he fired at people who had demonstrated a clear physical threat to him.
The 1st shooting has video evidence of the guy, who had earlier threatened to kill Rittenhouse, attacking him and attempting to grab the gun. Not quite as clear cut as the others, but still pretty clear.
He should get convicted of the reckless endangerment. (If for nothing else than criminal stupidity.) But the sentencing guidelines on that for a kid with no prior record isn’t going to be much time. The guidelines would probably even lean towards no time and a diversion program. That won’t happen due to politics. The DA has already badly overcharged and demonstrated a willful ignorance for mitigating facts due to the pressure involved in this case.
Interesting part of that Tangle article I did not know was that this judge has longstanding rules about language usage regarding the term “victim” among others. I had seen commentary about the language rulings, but not that they were standard procedure for this judge.
2 Likes
Not just for this case apparently. It’s the job of the jury to decide if the deceased are indeed victims or not.
1 Like
After having served on a serious trial, I can say that you probably have no idea what verdict you would give unless you were actually on the jury. What is presented at the trial and what is covered in the media are usually vastly different things because of what evidence is admitted and excluded in pre-trial hearings, which as a juror you have no knowledge of, and should not be reading the news to get extra information.
As for the sentencing, that’s up to the judge.
I have served in a jury, but not on a highly publicized case. And yes, I thought it was obvious, but since it wasn’t, I will spell out: based on the information in the Tangled article and on Wikipedia (which have basically been my only sources of information regarding the case) I formed an opinion.
Yes, but as I said… drawing a conclusion based on what is in the media you are reading versus drawing a conclusion based on what is presented at the trial are not at all the same thing.
Had I known the full story in my trial versus just what I’d been presented with, I’d have thought MUCH differently about the situation.
1 Like
One of the things I learned from reading a few books like Ultimate Punishment is that the “justice” system is a far cry from anything related to the common citizen’s view of “justice”. The system is about following the rules and “winning” as much as you can for your side, period. This is because the incentives are all out of whack and lead to things like hiding the “full story”, as you illustrate, specifically so that jurors will specifically think MUCH differently about the situation.
3 Likes
I have to wonder if this is satire or if you haven’t paid attention to any of the details in this case.
Rittenhouse lived in Kenosha with his dad 50% of the time; the other half lived with his mom in a town in Illinois about 20 minutes away. Kenosha is right by the border. I wonder how many people saying “He CrOsSeD sTaTe LiNeS!” are in the NYC area, where thousands of people daily cross from NJ or CT to NY, or other areas that are near a state border (e.g. DC; Portland, OR; St. Louis, MO; Cincinnati, OH; anywhere in New England). Rittenhouse had other family and a job in Kenosha, too.
There’s a ton of video evidence from that night, and has been available since shortly after the incidents. Rittenhouse was on film from earlier in the night saying he was there in Kenosha to provide first aid and to defend property. There’s no evidence of intent to shoot and kill anyone. Kenosha was on fire from rioters. The first man shot by Rittenhouse was on video from earlier in the night making threats at him, then later - also on video - he was shot after chasing Kevin into a parking lot and lunging at him.
Rittenhouse then left that scene and was subsequently attacked by others. Those people may have thought they were stopping an active shooter, so I may have some more sympathy for them; however, from Rittenhouse’s perspective, he was defending himself from being attacked. The man who was shot and survived had pointed a (illegal) pistol directly at Kyle before Kyle fired and hit his arm.
Closing arguments are happening right now, live on YouTube, if you’re interested in learning something: WATCH LIVE: Closing arguments in the Rittenhouse trial for Kenosha shooting - Day 10 - YouTube
4 Likes
But wait, this Politifact article rated the claim that having the gun was legal as being “False,” even though a plain reading of the relevant Wisconsin statute indicates it was legal.
The article, laughably, even contains a statement by an actual attorney telling them why it was legal, which they ignore:
John Monroe, an attorney who specializes in gun rights, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that there’s an exception for rifles and shotguns, which is aimed at letting children ages 16 and 17 hunt, that could apply. But Rittenhouse wasn’t in Kenosha to hunt.
All they had to do was read the statute. Hey, wait a minute… why didn’t the prosecution do that? What is going on?
1 Like
They’re probably just misinformed by the professional misinforming media. There will probably be riots if Kyle is acquitted because the fact patterns of the case championed by the media were never true. The prosecution even charged him with a completely bogus charge of possession of a dangerous weapon that was dismissed. I can’t think it’s coincidence they did this while the media kept repeating the illegally possessed gun lie.
3 Likes
Citation needed. Granted, I’ll give it to you that there’s upside in making bogus, completely unprovable assertions: you can’t actually be proven wrong.
1 Like
Ok, you’re arguing something that is not what I am saying.
Based on what I know, I made a statement about what seems appropriate.
I am aware that the jury may be presented with more or less or different information than I have been, and this may affect their verdict.
FWIW, I researched my case after the fact and there was some potentially incriminating circumstances that were concealed from jurors that led me to believe that we were probably right to convict. And there was a tape recording of a police interrogation that was partially played in court, but that neither the prosecution nor the defense entered into evidence. So there was obviously material on the recording that neither the prosecution nor the defense wanted us to hear.
In court we heard snippets of interrogations with witnesses A, B, C, and D. For deliberation they gave us a cassette player and the recordings of the interrogations of witnesses A, C, and D, but not B. We went back to the judge and said “we’re missing B” and were basically told “no you’re not; do your best to remember it”.
So there was something on the recording of B’s interrogation that neither side wanted us to know, or maybe that the judge ruled was inadmissible. Wondering if it was something about a pregnancy and/or abortion. Just a guess. Seems like they could have made a recording that excluded that part, but they didn’t. 
Yeah, we don’t have a justice system; we have a legal system.
1 Like
Crossing state lines and wading into a riot with a loaded firearm?
Don’t know if it’s provable, I can’t be unconvinced it’s not true.
Most gracious interpretation, he went in with a loaded firearm to feel badass and still killed people.
2 Likes