August 31, 2020

"It’s like a funhouse mirror. People look at the same facts and have wildly different reactions. It is troubling because..."

"...when people are having such different reactions, I guess tragedies like this shouldn’t be a surprise. People are afraid of each other and that is a situation that creates danger for everyone."

Said Wisconsin Law School professor Cecelia Klingele, quoted in "Dueling narratives fuel opposing views of Kenosha protest shooting/Amid intensifying political divisions, Americans are debating whether the shooter’s actions were homicide or heroic" (WaPo).
The conflicting interpretations of the case are fueled by murky details about who fired the first shot and other key factors in the encounter, as well as the state’s broad legal standard for self-defense. Wisconsin, unlike some other states home to high-profile self-defense cases, does not have a “stand-your-ground law,” which absolves armed people of an obligation to retreat when threatened. Instead, Klingele said, a Wisconsin court will determine whether Rittenhouse reasonably judged the danger he faced and used an appropriate level of force in responding — a standard that can be highly subjective.
“People’s divergent reactions suggest that there’s a question here about whether the defendant acted reasonably in self-defense,” Klingele said. “It doesn’t surprise me that self-defense is being raised, but whether it will be successful is an open question.”...

[Rittenhouse's lawyer] described protesters as “a mob” that was “determined to hurt” Rittenhouse because he was protecting a business they sought to deface. He said Rittenhouse heard a gunshot behind him, turned and saw Rosenbaum “lunging toward him and reaching for his rifle.”...

Rittenhouse fled north on Sheridan Road, one of the city’s main thoroughfares, past throngs of people on the street and sidewalks, according to video, as people yelled, “Get that dude!” and “He shot him!” Rittenhouse stumbled and fell to the ground, then took aim at the people pursuing him. Several people hit him or tried to disarm him as he was on the ground. The law firm statement described Rittenhouse as “in fear for his life.”

One man, identified as Huber, 26, swung at Rittenhouse with his skateboard while trying to wrest the gun from the teen’s hands, prosecutors said. Rittenhouse shot Huber once in the chest and killed him, the complaint states. He then shot a third man — Gaige Grosskreutz, who was holding a handgun, the complaint says — striking him in the right arm.... [Grosskreutz's] attorney, Kimberley Motley, declined to answer questions about Grosskreutz’s alleged gun but said he was “not trying to attack” Rittenhouse....

If his attorneys take the case to trial... it may turn on the voluminous video evidence and the jury’s interpretation of it, said Abbe Smith, a law professor at Georgetown University who has been a criminal defense lawyer for more 30 years and is skeptical of Rittenhouse’s case.

“Every once in a while the crime is clearly depicted on video, but often it’s subject to interpretation,” Smith said. “Video is like a Rorschach test. Everybody sees something different. People see what they want to see.”
I presume the lawprofs quoted in the article discussed the burden of proof at trial but WaPo chose to omit it. The mysterious complexity of video is far less puzzling if you pose the question the way it will be asked of the jury: Is there reasonable doubt of Rittenhouse's guilt?

181 comments:

Temujin said...

Thank God we have our own house lawyer(s).

Todd said...

Having your "own truth" is the problem. There is no "own truth", there is just truth. You are free to have your own opinion but it is just that. That is why the left invented "own truth". As words, it appears to carry more weight that just your opinion.

Watching any/all videos of what happened (and continues to happen) there clearly shows a far left that is out of control. They are not looking for any meaningful change. They are looking to burn down the current system and replace it with Eden but they don't believe in God so it will be hell instead.

They are brutal children that are throwing a tantrum over not getting the dime store toy that they want NOW. It is past time for this thugs to be treated as they have earned.

cacimbo said...

What both sides should agree on is that private citizens should not need to defend businesses from raging mobs.We pay taxes to provide for state and local police, state and federal National Guard troops.I believe the Mayor and Governor deserve to be put on trial for failing to call in the necessary personnel to prevent this chaos.

Rick said...

Wisconsin, unlike some other states home to high-profile self-defense cases, does not have a “stand-your-ground law,” which absolves armed people of an obligation to retreat when threatened.

This is irrelevant anyway since Rittenhouse was retreating.

TML said...

All the other questions aside, I don't see how he wasn't acting in self defense. Now the prosecution has the painful task of deciding to bail on a loser or do the embarrassing walkdown from 1st Degree Murder to a gun possession charge. There is no way a jury convicts this kid of murder.

Wince said...

“Every once in a while the crime is clearly depicted on video, but often it’s subject to interpretation...”

Rittenhouse fled north on Sheridan Road, one of the city’s main thoroughfares, past throngs of people on the street and sidewalks, according to video, as people yelled, “Get that dude!” and “He shot him!” Rittenhouse stumbled and fell to the ground, then took aim at the people pursuing him. Several people hit him or tried to disarm him as he was on the ground. The law firm statement described Rittenhouse as “in fear for his life.”

Many video cuts published by the media fail to show when Rittenhouse before he fell was struck in the head from behind with an object in the hand of one of his pursuers, maybe a brick.

rhhardin said...

Funhouse mirrors don't give ambiguous images. She's thinking of Hans Christian Andersen's "Snow Queen." A mirror that makes every beautiful think look ugly. "Finally we have a way to see things as they really are." Where the other side doesn't use the mirror.

rhhardin said...

Kenneth Burke reads Keats's "Truth is beauty" as "turd is body."

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

And there does IMO appear to be a lot doubt, very reasonable doubt. Especially if the video evidence supports the narrative that everyone he shot was trying to either attack him or disarm him during an attack. Every one of these “controversial” shootings are a Rorschach. I think we can all agree that bringing a skateboard to a gunfight was a bad move by victim number two.

stevew said...

I do not know how you can watch the full video record and conclude that Rittenhouse didn't really fear for his life. It's not a matter of interpretation or opinion; he was chased down, stuff was thrown at him, he was hit with a skateboard, and a guy with a handgun came at him aggressively. Even if these folks intended only to disarm him, how, in those moments, would Rittenhouse know?

dustbunny said...

I love when Althouse analyzes questions of law and finds the most important issue is ignored or buried.

iowan2 said...

Innocent until PROVEN guilty, is so fascist.

The rioters demand sentencing before and investigation. The rioters demand police are fired and charged with murder, the day of the event, no investigation, no court hearings.When spox for the rioters do consent for an interview, they are never asked if the accused have rights.

Who do rioters think will step in to defend the rioters against aggression?

gilbar said...

Wisconsin... does not have a “stand-your-ground law,”

okay Law people; help me out!
if people are chasing you, and TRYING to Kill you (death by skateboard to the head)...
And you Run away...
Then, one of them trips you, and you fall to the ground...
AND, While you're on the ground, on of them tries to take your gun and KILL YOU with it...

What does "an obligation to retreat" have to do, with what happens next?

Wince said...

The mysterious complexity of video is far less puzzling if you pose the question the way it will be asked of the jury: Is there reasonable doubt of Rittenhouse's guilt?

What the Rittenhouse defense has is plenty of video of Rosenbaum saying "shoot me, [you] n-word" to the armed defenders over an extended period. That the short but muscled and aggressive ex-con Rosenbaum would then selectively attack the youngest and probably smallest of the armed defenders at a moment when Rittenhouse was separated from the group would probably be an easier sell to the jury.

Wa St Blogger said...

A lot of stupidity occurred that night.
1. The authorities should have done their duty and insured the peace. Fast action on rioting would have limited the rest of the stupidity.
2. The media should be held accountable for effectively yelling fire in a theater.
3. The boy should have stayed home. No reason to come out and defend property from mobs.
4. The boy should have left his weapon at home. Bringing a weapon to an uncontrolled situation is a good way to get in over your head, which is what happened to him. He was not sufficiently trained or experienced enough to handle what he got himself into. Most people would not have been.
5. Grabbing at a weapon in a tense and volatile situation? How stupid can you be? Fatally stupid, that is the answer.
6. Chasing a person with a weapon who has already demonstrated that he was willing to shoot someone. Then, attacking him with a skateboard. Another fatally stupid act.
7. Chasing someone with with a weapon while brandishing your own but not willing to fire it (or maybe he wasn't trying to take the kid out, as he says,), is stupid. He was rightly perceived as a threat, and that could have been fatally stupid, but he got lucky.

So, mostly stupid people playing stupid games winning stupid prizes (as the saying goes.)

However, the kids will be guilty mostly of stupidity and maybe recklessness, but not murder, how severe his punishment will be will depend on state law on self-defense.

But he was in no way a hero. Just an idiot who should have stayed home and could have died as a result of poor choices, but instead killed 2 people who might otherwise not have died. He will have to live with the burden of killing a human being, not easy for most.

Bima said...

Who wrote "we are speaking the same language but we're using different dictionaries"?

Left Bank of the Charles said...

I think the case will hinge on proving how it started. If Rittenhouse wasn’t justified in taking his first shot, then he is a fleeing felon and he can’t be justified in defending himself while fleeing. But I suspect the best the prosecutors can get is a manslaughter conviction.

Bima said...

Who wrote "we are speaking the same language but we're using different dictionaries"?

Michael P said...

It is curious to me that the "hero or homicide" narrative gets pushed -- that is a false dichotomy. To me, he pretty clearly used legally justified self-defense. He did not choose to be attacked, and shooting people is not in itself a noble goal, so there was no special courage or other heroic choice there. The courageous choices were to calmly go towards the police after the two shooting incidents.

Lucien said...

Is self-defense an affirmative defense in Wisconsin, for which the defendant bears a burden of proof?

Jamie said...

It's not going to matter. The media set the narrative in the same quick-setting concrete that the evil rioters in Seattle used on the precinct house door, only more effectively: far-right militia member armed with assault weapon guns down two protesters, maims a third. Facts will not penetrate.

There is no question that that initial narrative-setting is both incomplete and inaccurate - it's not a "both sides" thing in which one side could reasonably conclude that that narrative is the truth - yet one side will declare it so. We all know it.

SteveBrooklineMA said...

I find it disturbing that Rittenhouse was charged with homicide so quickly. The facts of the case are indeed murky. More is coming out every day. Shouldn't a reasonably thorough investigation be done before the guy is charged with such a serious crime? It seemed to me he was charged before we knew much of anything about what happened.

bagoh20 said...

You have to be delusional to believe he was not in reasonable fear for his life, and in fact he would have been killed, or at the very least beaten near death. And when they see the evidence of his character even right up though that day, the jurors will know he would only shoot in self defense. His assailants were there to do damage and hurt people and that's not disputable either.

buwaya said...

I dont see a way out of this. At a certain point peoples become too estranged to deal with each other rationally. Mere presence, or knowledge of existence, is sufficient to cause a killing rage. This starts in edge cases but the more it goes on the more "normal" it becomes.

I dont know if the outcome will be worse if the sides are evenly matched or if one side has such a preponderance as to be able to use the power of the state against the other.

I have been predicting a crisis for many years. Whether it is now already upon you I can't say, but something certainly is coming, and it seems soon.

In any case, the legal treatment of one case seems to me just a minor detail.

Larvell said...

“Stand your ground” is the only thing the media knows about self-defense law, is it must be mentioned prominently in any story. Preferably with a sniff at those rednecks who dreamed it up.

D.D. Driver said...

So my "own lying eyes" are actually just be funhouse mirror?

Todd said...

Rick said...

This is irrelevant anyway since Rittenhouse was retreating.

8/31/20, 7:51 AM


According to the legal "expert" that is only in "your movie"./sarc

Ralph L said...

Can Rittenhouse insist on a grand jury if one isn't required? I don't see how it could vote for a murder indictment.

Amadeus 48 said...

What the law profs say is reasonable but not determinative of the outcome. Our hostess raises a fundamental point: the burden of proof and the standard for conviction. And everyone on Team Woke will ask, will Rittenhouse benefit from white male privilege?

The sex offender and the domestic abuser will never lie quiet in their graves. St Jacob Blake will enjoy his millions but suffer from his paralysis. He’ll never stage another home invasion or steal another car unassisted.

wendybar said...

Yet, your governor told the president to stay out. I guess he likes the destruction.

bagoh20 said...

A violent armed mob chasing you is probably the clearest case of reasonable fear for you life that there could be. It's far more dangerous even an armed man breaking into your house, or an armed hold up, which allows you use deadly force. The mob knew he was armed, and still chased him. That's proof that they were deadly serious, and that the threat could not be stopped any other way.

Rory said...

People don't see different things in funhouse mirrors. Images are distorted, but the distortion is the same to everyone.

Come to think of it, it's the Post that's a funhouse mirror.

bagoh20 said...

There is going to be a lot more cases of this, and many will be far less clear cut than this one.

TreeJoe said...

Rittenhouse isn't being put on trial for whether or not he should've been there, or if he should've retreated. He's being put on trial for murder, specifically that he acted to murder others. And he's innocent until proven guilty under a reasonable doubt standard.

Please wapo and others stop re-writing our laws and due process rights to fit your agenda.

Spiros said...

In every single Antifa/BLM riot, the protesters confront the police immediately. The police lose control in every case. Law and order break down. And the widespread arson and looting and mayhem broadcast a tremendous failure on the part of our government.
Now Rittenhouse shows up and guns down a couple of these savages. If you believe that the protesters are right, that the government is illegitimate, racist, whatever, and should be torn down, than Rittenhouse is a murderer. If you believe the protests are wrong, Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. So is that it?

mezzrow said...

“If there’s somebody hurt, I’m running into harm’s way,” he said. “That’s why I have my rifle because I need to protect myself obviously.” - Kyle Rittenhouse, 17.

Trayvon Martin was 17 as well. There were trials after that incident, and the man that shot him was not imprisoned because he made a viable case in court that he shot in self-defense. There was unrest, but no city-burning riots like the ones we have seen. As now, the President of the United States was openly sympathetic to the plight of the young man and his family. How are things different now from then?

Two routes of alternate history.

1. What if the fatal shot had been fired by Martin that night?

2. What if the first shot fired that forced Rittenhouse to turn and respond had found its mark?

How would this look different, or would it?

I will also point out that both Zimmerman and Rittenhouse were armed to protect property, but discharged their weapons when it was clear that their lives were in danger. One of the many lessons of this, to me, is that a significant part of our polity is opposed to property, reinforced by the amazingly timely newly published pro-looting book referenced in recent days in so many places, including here.

Eventually, to me, it all fits together sort of like the continents do when you finally suss out what plate tectonics is all about. What's your conclusion?

Charles said...

I looked at Wisconsin Self defense law and while there is no "Stand your ground" statute I do not see any duty to retreat.

Also it seems self defense ties more to who started the altercation.

joshbraid said...

They are looking to burn down the current system and replace it with Eden but they don't believe in God so it will be hell instead.

This.

Mark O said...

On Wisconsin.

Big Mike said...

Kimberley Motley, declined to answer questions about Grosskreutz’s alleged gun but said he was “not trying to attack” Rittenhouse....

Of course not! He had a gun in his hand to scratch himself behind his ears.

Ralph L said...

Unsurprisingly, the WaPoo left out the criminal records of the dead but included praise from other rioters.

Big Mike said...

What Rick wrote at 7:51.

MayBee said...

People can and should have different reactions. That shouldn't be troubling at all. Of course self defense can and should be raised.

What troubling is there are riots going on in cities that you aren't really *allowed* to have different reactions to. If you oppose them, you are inciting them. If your business is burned down or boarded up, nobody wants to hear from you.
And if you look at the Jacob Blake video and say "I don't think he should have been ignoring the cops like that", you are racist.

But man....how much of this from the past few months would have been avoided if people would have just made better choices? It's like a movie in your head and you see the point (the inflection point!!!!) where things start on the path to really bad things happening.

George Floyd just gets in the cop car.
The guy in Georgia doesn't run.
Jacob Blake doesn't ignore the cops.
Kyle Rittenhouse leaves the gun at his friends house.

Nichevo said...

Is it so that one juror can keep him from being convicted? Also, what are odds of a change in venue, because will Kenoshans like to convict the Hero of Kenosha?

wendybar said...

Honey Badger don't care!!!

If I didn’t INSIST on having the National Guard activate and go into Kenosha, Wisconsin, there would be no Kenosha right now. Also, there would have been great death and injury. I want to thank Law Enforcement and the National Guard. I will see you on Tuesday! - Donald J. Trump
27m ·

Kevin said...

I presume the lawprofs quoted in the article discussed the burden of proof at trial but WaPo chose to omit it.

Gotta keep the rioters rioting.

Justified homicide against street thugs doesn’t do much for the cause.

phwest said...

Is reasonable doubt really the issue here? There's not going to be much doubt about the actual facts in the case, as there seems to be a ton of video evidence of the events. Instead, it is a legal question, do those circumstances meet the legal standard or not? Maybe this is getting a bit meta, but I understand the role of the jury at trial as the arbiter of fact, while the court is the arbiter of law. So it would seem to me that any doubt on the legal standards would be covered by the judge's instructions to the jury, and based on those instructions the jury's decision should come pretty quickly either way.

Balfegor said...

Isn't the middle ground the most reasonable position here? He shouldn't have been there, shouldn't have tried to play the hero by leaving his hometown and travelling to stand up to the mob. But at the same time, at least based on the video, he looks like he was running from that same mob in fear of his life, and fired out of fear. Neither hero nor homicide.

John Borell said...

The entire thing was a mess and, judging from all the video, Rittenhouse did not appear to be the aggressor.

Should a 17 year-old have been there with a rifle? Nope. He's a moron.

Should those other people have attacked him? Nope. They are dead and wounded morons.

In the middle of riot, should you try to disarm someone and expect not to get shot? Nope. Still dead and a moron.

Was law enforcement presence sufficient? Nope. There is "blood" on the hands of those in charge. Job No. 1 of the government is to secure our unalienable Rights. Utter failure here and all summer throughout the country.

There was plenty of idiocy to go around. Yep. Stupid decision after stupid decision after stupid decision.

But all in all, overcoming reasonable doubt is going to be difficult if the jury remains impartial.

Marshall Rose said...

What both sides should agree on is that private citizens should not need to defend businesses from raging mobs.

The corollary should also be self evident, that when those in government actively refuse to perform that function it is incumbent on the citizens to do so themselves.

Narayanan said...

so who built the funhouse and put up the mirror -
are these questions some one should be asking?

Paul Snively said...

Since rights are not conferred by the government, it matters not in the slightest (apart from their ability to exercise naked power, of course) what the court or jury, should they be brought to bear, decide about Rittenhouse. His right to self-defense is absolute, and the only competent judge of it is him.

William said...

On what basis is Rittenhouse charged with first degree murder? That does seem to point more to premeditation and malice on the part of the prosecutor than on the part of Rittenhouse.

daskol said...

If the article were interested in accurately portraying the legal drama, it would have been very brief indeed: there is OBVIOUSLY reasonable doubt. But that article's purpose is to sow doubt and confusion, not provide clarity or valid analysis. I don't blame the law profs who participated beyond saying, as a blanket rule, fuck journalists. Don't talk to most of them, because mostly they're liars.

Ralph L said...

I haven't seen anyone call Rittenhouse's shootings heroic.

Mike Sylwester said...

Democracy Dies in Darkness!

Banjo said...

Rittenhouse was running for his life.

clint said...

It seems like most people reached a conclusion about what happened long before all the facts were in. Remember that the first reports had a white supremacist militia traveling from another state to make trouble and then gunning down protestors who were either minding their own business or maybe setting fires. None of that turned out to be accurate, but people had already decided what they thought and felt about the incident.

It's worth watching the video from half an hour before the incident, when Rosenbaum was trying to start a fight and the much calmer protesters around him were holding him back and calling him off. Most people on both sides of the line there seemed very reasonable.

Gospace said...

cacimbo said...
What both sides should agree on is that private citizens should not need to defend businesses from raging mobs.


Well, it's close. One side feels that private citizens should not need to defend businesses from raging mobs.

The other side feels that private citizens should not defend businesses from raging mobs.

Two missing words is the disagreement.

Of course, there's a little bit more than that. One side feels there shouldn't be raging mobs. The other side is the raging mobs, in principle if not in person. Seems to include most Democrat politicians who are letting them run free.

chickelit said...

Even if Rittenhouse is guilty of some crime it appears that prosecutors overcharged him in the first degree. As Althouse points out there is room for reasonable doubt. If Rittenhouse is acquited of first degree murder there will be more blood.

Jeff Weimer said...

Scott Adams' "Two movies."

Based on what the videos and what I have read so far, it *looks* like self-defense.

The shooting in Portland looks like cold-blooded murder.

Jeff Weimer said...

Scott Adams' "Two movies."

Based on what the videos and what I have read so far, it *looks* like self-defense.

The shooting in Portland looks like cold-blooded murder.


(I apologize if this is a dupe, I got an error the first time I tried to post)

h said...

What's a little surprising in this (and many other current situations) is that a professional like Abbe Smith (for 30 years a criminal defense lawyer) cannot maintain his (her?) objectivity and tell us what the most effective defense might be, and how effective it might be. The wish is father to the analytical thought. Smith wants Rittenhouse to be guilty (presumably because that outcome is worse for Trump), and therefore cannot imagine that Rittenhouse would ever be found not guilty.

chickelit said...

Cacimbo wrote: "We pay taxes to provide for state and local police, state and federal National Guard troops.I believe the Mayor and Governor deserve to be put on trial for failing to call in the necessary personnel to prevent this chaos."

That is the bottom line and that is how we have prevented such chaos in the past. There must be a compelling reason why local governments are standing down and it had better be a good one.

Marc said...

I appreciate the perspective in this analysis:
https://www.bullshido.net/anatomy-of-a-catastrophe/

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

In self defense - he saved himself from certain death at the hands of the mob.

Included in that antifa arsonist mob - a white skinhead lefwing nazi with a criminal record who was spouting the N* word.

are we to shed tears for this a-hole? Leftist will. The hack press will and do.

MikeR said...

"Americans are debating whether the shooter’s actions were homicide or heroic" Haven't so much heard people say that he was heroic. I'm hearing more like, Well, if the city government won't protect its citizen, other people will start doing it themselves. And this kind of thing will happen.
Eat it, O wolves!

Static Ping said...

I do wonder if the fact that Rittenhouse was in illegal possession of a weapon makes a difference. I wouldn't think so as far as homicide and self-defense come into play, but then again I'm not a lawyer. I think a lot of this depends on what exactly happened beforehand. If Rittenhouse is waving his gun at the crowd and threatening people that makes a big difference than if there was an argument with no gun play or if the rioters attacked him unprovoked.

That said, we have come to the deplorable situation in our society where rioters are allowed to pretty much do whatever they want with minimal consequences, if any, but the normal people are now held the highest possible standards and are expected to just sit there and take it. This is a situation more appropriate for the sacking of a city than a functional nation.

Geoff Matthews said...

The only death that Rittenhouse could be reasonably prosecuted for is the first one. The second death and wounding were CLEARLY self defence. And I'm pretty sold on the fact that the first death was as well.

The only arguments that I've seen condemning Rittenhouse obscures the conditions of the shootings.

SDaly said...

There is no question of fact to be resolved. He did not "stand his ground," so that doctrine is irrelevant. He complied with the law by retreating, and was pursued. There were shots fired behind him, then he fell (thereby no longer able to retreat) and was attacked by a guy hitting him on the head with a piece of hardwood (a skateboard) with another standing next to him witt a gun.

The situation is not murky at all, and Prof. Klingele shows herself to be another professor unable to comprehend or state the truth. Par for the course.

Joe Smith said...

I can't speak to the first shooting as I don't think anyone has seen it.

Of the two shootings that I did see (skateboard guy and shot up arm guy) both appeared to be completely justified.

I've been on a few juries and I would never convict the shooter on those two.

Mike Sylwester said...

This [Wisconsin does not have a stand-your-ground law] is irrelevant anyway since Rittenhouse was retreating.

That consideration is too complicated for Wisconsin Law School professor Cecelia Klingele to understand.

Birkel said...

The problem for Democratics is too many people stil believe their lying eyes.

I wish Democratics get what they want.
A riot in every Leftist Collectivist enclave!

Popcorn in every conservatives' microwave!

Birkel said...

Apparently WaPo thinks the law in Wisconsin requires you to run faster than your attackers who are chasing you with weapons at hand.

Perhaps when the shooting starts in earnest, they will rethink their current collective position.

Joe Smith said...

@Althouse

Also, as you know AA, there is a huge problem with politicians making snap judgments in these cases, and blasting their opinions out to the world an hour or two after an event.

The other bigger problem (that I think actually hurts the state's case) is the over-charging of suspects in order to grandstand and/or virtue signal.

I was on a jury years ago. It was a prostitution case. Three or four hookers got together and rented an apartment so they would have a place to bring their 'clients.' Apparently it was cheaper than a no-tell motel.

The DA was an ambitious guy trying to make a name for himself. He wanted convictions on the regular prostitution charges, but also on a felony charge of conspiracy.

We convicted on prostitution in about three minutes. And we dismissed on conspiracy in about four minutes. There was nothing there, just hookers wanting a place to bring their johns and maybe crash for awhile. It was blatant overreaching. A girl's gotta work, right?

Michael K said...

Kimberley Motley, declined to answer questions about Grosskreutz’s alleged gun but said he was “not trying to attack” Rittenhouse....

I guess her client's statement that he was trying to kill him and would have emptied the magazine into him if not shot in the arm is not currently part of her case. The "alleged gun" must be what the magazine was about but maybe he had a copy of "Home and Garden."

Douglas B. Levene said...

Todd writes, "There is no 'own truth', there is just truth." As a lawyer, I can't agree. Witnesses always have different perspectives. I suggest you watch the movie "Rashomon" and get back to us.

rhhardin said...

Democracy dies in bad lighting.

Big Mike said...

buwaya said...
I dont see a way out of this.


Me either.

Jupiter said...

"One man, identified as Huber, 26, swung at Rittenhouse with his skateboard while trying to wrest the gun from the teen’s hands, prosecutors said."

Huber did, in fact, swing at Rittenhouse with his skateboard. That is a fact. What he was or was not trying to do is open to debate, although it is difficult to see how he could have been trying to "wrest" anything from anyone while swinging a skateboard with both hands. Whatever his intentions, what he managed to do was hit Kyle Rittenthouse in the head or shoulder with his skateboard, as video shows. Perhaps the prosecutor would like to try explaining his theory to me, while I "attempt to change his mind", by smashing a three-foot skateboard into his head and upper body. I'm no spring chicken, but I'd be happy to give it a go. I think I could at least alter its outer covering pretty dramatically.

William said...

The commenters here are well informed and well disposed towards Rittenhouse. They nonetheless repeat some factual errors in the narrative. Rittenhouse or the people defending him claim that he was in Kinosha because of his job as a lifeguard. He did not drive to Kinosha to take part in anti-riot activities. He was already there and stuck around to help out. The rifle was not his. It was provided for him.....These facts should be easily verifiable. I don't think he or his supporters would compromise his case by telling a lie. The fact that these facts are not facts in his case is a fact and shows how much the media control the narrative even among those favorably disposed towards Rittenhouse.

MayBee said...

The thing I don't know (does anybody) is what the first shooting is, when Rittenhouse is running from the crowd and it seems someone else is shooting. Who? Why?

Jeff Brokaw said...

“Get him!” as the violent mob descends on him ...

Hmmm. Not an expert by any stretch but it’s hard to imagine how a self-defense claim would not succeed, assuming an unbiased judge and jury. Which is asking a lot, I know.

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Wa St Blogger said...
A lot of stupidity occurred that night.
3. The boy should have stayed home. No reason to come out and defend property from mobs.
4. The boy should have left his weapon at home. Bringing a weapon to an uncontrolled situation is a good way to get in over your head, which is what happened to him. He was not sufficiently trained or experienced enough to handle what he got himself into. Most people would not have been.


Wrong, and wrong.

1: Rioters are the enemy of civilization. Coming out to stop them is an absolute moral good. Kyle was right to go out to stop them
2: If he had not had the gun, he would ahve been beaten, and / or killed. When you're going out to stop thugs, you shoudl always be armed.

They is no right to riot. There is no right to destroy other people's property. You have a right to peacefully assemble and seek redress of grievances. Once you stop the "peacefully" part, it is the right and duty of society and its individual members to shut you down if the government won't.

You don't want private citizens shooting looters? Then demand the government stop them.

No excuses. No "understanding." Understand that what teh rioters are doing is wrong, and stop it.

And if you can't do that, because your political party depends on the rioters and their supporters, then your political party needs to be destroyed.

tim maguire said...

As is so often the case when people start talking about a stand Your Ground law, it seems inapt here given that Rittenhouse did not stand his ground. He ran and was chased.

The part I'd like to learn more about is what happens when the gun is illegal. Rittenhouse may have been properly licensed in Illinois, but does that count in Wisconsin? And, if not, then does some form of the felony murder law come into play? That is, if it is illegal for him to have the gun, then could it ever be legal for him to use the gun?

Bilwick said...

In the case of conflicting narratives, I find it a good rule of thumb to see what the "liberal" or collectivist take on a subject is, and then assume it is incorrect and even dishonest until shown to be otherwise. The "liberal" Hive is like a latter-day Gang Who Couldn't (or Wouldn't) Shoot Straight. It's pretty much wrong about everything and seems to be impervious to facts or logical argument.

gerry said...

mezzrow, In Defense of Looting author Vicky Osterwell warns readers of her book to respect her property.

Jeff Brokaw said...

With the level of politics intruding on criminal cases lately — Soros DAs, escalated murder charges by Ellison in the Floyd case, no bail, no prosecution for shoplifting and vagrancy, etc — it seems to be time to put these rogue DAs and maybe the entire state prosecution machine on the hook for various types of overreach.

At some point on that journey, you have crossed the line into criminal liability. They are already declining to hold and charge rioters which is a political decision not a fair-minded criminal process decision.

Gospace said...

Looking over the comments- I see a lot of people are still unaware of some basic facts.

Kyle Rittenhouse did not travel to Kenosha to join in the defense of businesses. Kyle Rittenhouse works in Kenosha, as a community lifeguard, and had worked that day.

What did he do after work that day? He was helping to clean up graffiti. Volunteer work. Good citizen type stuff. He was asked by someone else to join the defense group.

There is some question as to whether he was legally able to possess the weapon. The consensus is leaning toward yes. And even so, there's another issue if I were a lawyer I would throw into the mix.

The government in Kenosha was allowing rioters free reign. IOW- failing at the job of governance. What do the people do when the government fails? They self organize- the people are the militia. And that's what they did. They self organized. And Kyle, at age 17, by Federal law, is a member of the militia. The militia is an armed force- and is supposed to supply it's own arms. So- 17 year old militia members can't be armed? I don't think that passes constitutional muster. If the government tells people- "No, you can't organize and defend yourselves when we fail to do so." then the government has lost all legitimacy.

IMHO, Portland is there. IMHO, some rope, lampposts, and assembly are needed there. Or maybe just some tar and feathering. (Recent discovery on my part- the tarring was with pine tar- that incredible sticky stuff, not hot tar...)

Bruce Hayden said...

“All the other questions aside, I don't see how he wasn't acting in self defense. Now the prosecution has the painful task of deciding to bail on a loser or do the embarrassing walkdown from 1st Degree Murder to a gun possession charge. There is no way a jury convicts this kid of murder.”

The legal problem is that initially, the burden of going forward with the self defense claim is on the defendant. If he doesn’t provide some evidence that he acted in self defense, then the jury can not hear a self defense jury instruction, and he cannot be acquitted based on self defense. Of course, in 49 states (all except Ohio, apparently), once evidence of self defense is introduced, the burden shifts to the prosecution to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. And absent a viable self defense claim, the prosecution often has an easy time proving some level of homicide, in a case where the other party dies. After all, the defendant did shoot the decedents, and they died.

One of the problems often faced in the past with self defense killings is that absent other evidence, the only way to get evidence of self defense before the court is to testify as to being in reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury, but once on the stand for this purpose, the prosecution can cross examine the defendant to their heart’s content. Much better to not have to testify, as a defendant. Prosecutors can ask all sorts of embarrassing questions if they can get you on the stand. But absent opening up the claim of self defense, the underlying homicide case is often fairly slam dunk.

This is part of why experts often suggest that if you are faced with using a self defense claim, that you make sure that there is an almost contemporaneous record of your claim. Best maybe to be the first one to call 911, and make the elements of the claim to the 911 operator. The recording of the call can then be used in court to open up the self defense claim. An option is to make the claim to the first officers on the scene. Their memories can be faulty, which is why a 911 call maybe preferable. But these experts also typically suggest that you not talk to the investigators who show up later, but instead invoke your rights to an attorney and silence.

I did find it interesting that the lawyers in Saint Louis who were arrested for threatening the violent crowd that had broken into their private neighborhood and were trespassing on their property, loudly declared their imminent fear of death or great bodily injury. The whole thing was, of course, being recorded by multiple participants, and the prosecutors would probably need those recordings to make their cases. And those recordings, in evidence, would open up their self defense claims.

As for the charge of first degree murder, I think there maybe some overcharging for political reasons (sound familiar?) But does WI have a rule that lesser included charges can be tried at the same time, without charging them? Many states have such rules, and it keeps prosecutors from having to charge 1st Degree, 2nd Degree Murder, Voluntary Manslaughter, etc. They get the jury instructions for the lesser included charges, if they want them, after the close of evidence. This gives them an easy backup position. I expect that even if they can overcome the self defense defense, the prosecutors would have a problem proving the requisite intent for First Degree Murder, butvmght have a chance at winning on a lesser charge.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

I'm prepared to believe that Rittenhouse did something so egregious before the first shooting that made the chasing and assaults on him justified, and therefore negates his self-defense claim ( in that same way that, if you start a fistfight, start losing the fight, and pull out a gun and shoot the other person, you can't then claim self-defense. )
But in order to believe that, I would need to see some evidence. None has been presented so far, or even suggested.

Bruce Hayden said...

“Trayvon Martin was 17 as well. There were trials after that incident, and the man that shot him was not imprisoned because he made a viable case in court that he shot in self-defense. There was unrest, but no city-burning riots like the ones we have seen.”

I think that you have the sequence of events a bit off. There is typically a preliminary hearing, where the defendant is formally charged, and where he pleads guilty, not guilty, etc. If he pleads not guilty, the next question is whether he should be eligible for bail, and if so, for how much. Zimmerman had strong ties to the community and presented little fight risk, so was eligible for release on bail. This defendant is from out of state, so may not be given the chance to make bail, since he may be tempted to flee back home. Some of the Soros funded DAs are apparently requiring zero bail for AntiFA and BLM terrorists and arsonists, and NY has apparently eliminated bail for minor (and often major) offenses. Plus, Biden staffers have been bailing out AntiFA and BLM terrorists.

wildswan said...

The first person killed was the lead person in a mob chasing Kyle Rittenhouse and the video shows that. The nearby police only responded in an armored car for fear of the same mob. If it was reasonable for the police to respond in an armored car, it was reasonable for Kyle to fear for his life as the lead member of the mob caught up with him. He shot this man.

The second and third persons shot were part of a mob chasing Kyle Rittenhouse because of the first shooting. Kyle was running away but tripped and fell so that leading members of the mob caught up with him. One jumped on Kyle and hit him with a skateboard as he lay on the ground and was shot; the other advanced on Kyle with a pistol and was shot. This mob member has since said he would like to have killed Kyle.

In summary, Kyle was running away from a mob but members of the mob caught up with him twice. In the first case, the leading member of the mob caught up with Kyle. In the second case, Kyle was on the ground or starting to get up when he was attacked and so he could not run. Was it reasonable for Kyle to fear for his life?

PS. Remember that Kyle was there, armed, because a mob, (thought by Kenosha residents to include people from Chicago and Seattle) was burning buildings in Kenosha, Wisconsin. This was a mob which the Kenosha police had stated that could not control or prevent from burning businesses. All businesses were being protected by armed citizens like Kyle who was a Kenosha employee though he lived in Antioch Illinois. Recall that the police were patrolling in armored cars. These were precautions - armed citizens, police in armored cars - being taken against the mob whose members were chasing and assaulting Kyle Rittenhouse. Was it reasonable to fear members of a mob which the police had stated they could not control?

Journalists say there was no mob but if there was no mob, then who burned the buildings in Kenosha, what group was videoed chasing Kyle Rittenhouse, who hit him with a skateboard, who pulled a pistol on him?

eric said...

The people saying Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there are either cowards or not familiar with the facts.

Rittenhouse works in Kenosha as a lifeguard. After work, he and his friend went to help clean up from a previous nights rioting. A local business asked for help in defense of his business.

For those who think it's wrong to stand up to rioters and help your neighbors, I sincerely hope someday all your shit is burned to the ground.

Kyle is a hero. And I'd be proud of any of my children who made the choices he made that night.

eric said...

The people saying Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there are either cowards or not familiar with the facts.

Rittenhouse works in Kenosha as a lifeguard. After work, he and his friend went to help clean up from a previous nights rioting. A local business asked for help in defense of his business.

For those who think it's wrong to stand up to rioters and help your neighbors, I sincerely hope someday all your shit is burned to the ground.

Kyle is a hero. And I'd be proud of any of my children who made the choices he made that night.

Bruce Hayden said...

“Kimberley Motley, declined to answer questions about Grosskreutz’s alleged gun but said he was “not trying to attack” Rittenhouse....”

Doesn’t matter Gross’ intent whatsoever. What matters is whether Rittenhouse reasonably believed that it was likely that Gross... might shoot him.

eric said...

Bruce Hayden,

I've read in Wisconsin law, prosecution has to prove it wasn't self defense.

I'm Not Sure said...

"There was plenty of idiocy to go around. Yep. Stupid decision after stupid decision after stupid decision."

There were three groups involved in those stupid decisions:

1. Rioters
2. Defenders
3. Government

Two of the three will have their lives messed up significantly, if they already haven't been. The other group? Not so much.

Nichevo said...

Rittenhouse did nothing wrong whatsoever.

Anyone criticizing his actions, especially with the many misstatements of fact here, e.g. that he brought the gun from IL or that it was illegal, has not read the statement of the defense:

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1299791270655582208?s=20

Read that then come again.

Heroic is not too extreme. Those insisting that he's not, indict themselves.

Those saying he couldn't handle it - he did handle it.

The men he killed needed killing, for his sake and for ours.

10/10.* He may have been the Strategic Corporal who, by being in the right/wrong place at the right/wrong time and deviating from the script, may have changed the course of the war.

God bless Kyle Rittenhouse!

And if he even faces a weapons charge, but the convicted felon Gaige Grosskreutz does not, then there is no justice.

*I had considered points off for only wounding Grosskreutz, but better he be left alive to run his mouth.

Sebastian said...

"People are afraid of each other and that is a situation that creates danger for everyone."

But not equal danger.

So far, most danger, physical and cultural, has come from the left.

Rittenhouse is the first serious non-left response, juvenile and accidental. But the non-left has not yet begun to fight back in earnest.

Jupiter said...

The really interesting development is that Rittenhouse's attorneys have published a statement outlining his defense. Unlike the prosecution, they are not required to reveal their theory of the case, and normal practice would be to keep quiet about it. Two possibilities suggest themselves;

1 - They want to get out in front of the lies and the outrageous, politically-motivated charges put out by this corrupt government, generating pressure for a favorable settlement.

2 - Like the prosecutors, they are using this young man to further their careers and policy goals.

Big Mike said...

I imagine that the prosecutors’ case will be something along the lines of “You have to convict this boy of homicide of the rioting will return, only worse.”

Narayanan said...

SteveBrooklineMA said...
I find it disturbing that Rittenhouse was charged with homicide so quickly. The facts of the case are indeed murky. More is coming out every day. Shouldn't a reasonably thorough investigation be done before the guy is charged with such a serious crime? It seemed to me he was charged before we knew much of anything about what happened.
--------------================
I am reading there is "extradition" from IL involved >>>> IL (D) can deny it and effectively keep him basement bound - too bad he cannot announce for President

Aggie said...

1. Rittenhouse lives nearby, across the state line, but he works in Kenosha and obviously is invested in the community - he was not a tourist who brought his gun looking for trouble. By other accounts, the gun was provided to him by the business owner or security team. His earlier activities that day included cleaning up graffiti left by the rioters and helping out damaged businesses. He was protecting Kenosha businesses at the request of the owners, and the police were supportive. This justifies his presence there.

2. The city leaders are the ones that are wholly responsible for the tragedy, similar to other municipalities across the nation. They have abdicated their sworn duty, shirked their civic responsibility, and violated the public trust. In so doing, they have transferred the power of their office to the rioters, conferring an unauthorized and false legitimacy. They have done this after first clearing the path by telling their police to stand down and in some cases, de-funding their departments. These are the villains in this morality play, make no mistake. Hold them accountable - they know better, and you know it. Don't let them pretend it's a higher morality they are answering; that is Fake.

3. Rittenhouse was obviously retreating by every camera angle. He first got himself in his quandary by providing First Aid to a rioter, and then being identified by that group as one of the business protectors. By then the police had inadvertently cut off his retreat. That's when they started chasing him (according to the accounts, which will be confirmed by the videos).

4. All this taken together, I think there is more than adequate reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse is convict-able on murder charges. (Not a lawyer though).

The most important point is #2, above.

Big Mike said...

Kyle Rittenhouse leaves the gun at his friends house.

My understanding is that it wasn’t his gun. He was there as an EMT. He should have turned down the gun, especially if he had no training.

Here‘s a scenario. You are holding a loaded rifle with a round chambered, pointed in a safe direction, trying to protect a store for a friend or a friend’s family. A group of rioters approach you. You warn them to back off, but three of them begin slowly but steadily moving towards you. Their hands are empty but they are cursing you and calling you every dirty name in the book. Legal to defend yourself by shooting at them? Yes ? No? If you don’t know for certain, why are you there?

Skeptical Voter said...

Pursued by three; shot two out of three. Hard to see this as a first degree murder case.
In Texas they would call this "needs more practice--but good shooting".

The Los Angeles Times would describe this as "right wing activist who idolized police"--they actually said that of Rittenhouse in this morning's paper--kills two innocent protesters.

And as for the Portland shooting "right wing activist killed by protesters".

For the Los Angeles Times there is no closed season nor bag limit for hunters of "right wing activists". Those right wingers are better off as dead meat.

Rick said...

Jamie said...
It's not going to matter. The media set the narrative in the same quick-setting concrete that the evil rioters in Seattle used on the precinct house door, only more effectively: far-right militia member armed with assault weapon guns down two protesters, maims a third. Facts will not penetrate.


The facts won't penetrate the left-media narrative. But there are going to be 12 (I think, is it 12 there?) people on the jury. It's unlikely there are more than a couple of extremists willing to claim what everyone else sees on video doesn't actually exist. It's unlikely the reasonable interpretation is overridden in the jury room.

DanTheMan said...

>>I haven't seen anyone call Rittenhouse's shootings heroic.

There were plenty of posters here on a similar thread saying that Rittenhouse is hero, and brave patriot.
My opinion is much the same as John Borell's, above.

Rick said...

William said...
On what basis is Rittenhouse charged with first degree murder?


I presume they will claim RH bringing the weapon with him indicates he wanted to kill someone. I think that assertion will fail to persuade anyone other than the far left for whom facts are irrelevant.

DanTheMan said...

For Rittenhouse, everything depends on the first shooting.

If that can be proven to be murder (which I seriously doubt) or manslaughter (which *may* a possibility) then the state can claim that victims #2 and #3 were trying to apprehend a fleeing killer, and the fleeing felon shot them, too.

Based on what I've seen, it looks like victim #1 was out of control and was literally trying to provoke people to shoot him. I think Rittenhouse was very likely justified in that first shooting.

But this would not be the first time a jury completely ignored all the evidence to reach an inexplicable conclusion. Just ask OJ Simpson.


Yancey Ward said...

I will clue these professors in since neither one quoted seems to understand this basic fucking fact: if you are chasing a guy, throwing things at him, and trying to catch him, you are threatening him with violence from his point of view, and certainly from the point of view of any really rational and honest person. A person is under no moral obligation to just accept the consequences of being caught by the people chasing him. In Rittenhouse's situation, how many of you can honestly say they would have taken the beating that was clearly coming his way. Rittenhouse was even being chased by a guy with a gun out in his hand.

I would have shot all three individuals, and I might not have waited as long as Rittenhouse did since I would probably have realized much earlier that I wasn't going to outrun them. In fact, Rittenhouse was extremely lucky that the skateboard didn't crack open his skull- the blow was definitely hard enough to kill him, but the blow landed on the shoulder and upper back instead of the head, and only because Rittenshouse ducked to avoid it. Huber didn't deserve a second try at it.

Rick said...

Bruce Hayden said...
“Kimberley Motley, declined to answer questions about Grosskreutz’s alleged gun but said he was “not trying to attack” Rittenhouse....”


If that were true his gun wouldn't have been in his hand.

Also the video clearly shows GK paused his approach when RH shot the skateboarder. In return RH does not shoot GK. Only after GK resumes moving toward RH does RH shoot him. RH signaled his restraint several times during events. He retreated from the first attacker, he called for help after that shooting, retreated again after realizing the crowd intended to continue the attacks. He fired in the second event only after being hit at least twice. He fired only at attackers. Then he held fire even as someone intent on attacking him paused.

For people complaining about his judgment he made the best decision a pretty large percentage of the time in conditions as stressful and chaotic as any person will ever face.

Achilles said...


The police were at this event. Rittenhouse tried to turn himself in on the spot.

They told him to go home.

If tried in Kenosha he walks.

The prosecutor is a piece of shit. The wapo is an enemy of civilization. So is everyone who works there.

What really makes leftists angry is they are cheering on rapists, murderers, and criminals while we have people like Rittenhouse on our side. He worked as a lifeguard that day. He was protecting local businesses from a bunch of animals. He was provided first aid to wounded.

I want to know how many of the people at these protests were recently let out of jail by Democrats due to COVID.

Todd said...

Douglas said...

Todd writes, "There is no 'own truth', there is just truth." As a lawyer, I can't agree. Witnesses always have different perspectives. I suggest you watch the movie "Rashomon" and get back to us.

8/31/20, 10:20 AM


You are welcome to your "opinion" as am I. I may could have used the word "fact" instead of "truth" but same/same. You have your opinion. You also have your perspective. You have what you "believe to be true".

All of these may be valid to you but that does not [for me] supersede my own opinion, perspective, or what I believe to be true. This goes both ways.

None of those things [for either of us] are above "the truth". The truth is comprised of facts. Everything else is a shadow of that.

If I recall (I am no lawyer) isn't the point of court to get to "the truth"? Not "someone's truth" but the truth? Or is that just so much "OK Boomer"?

n.n said...

The shootings were not heroic. Standing with your neighbors, in the classical defense of civil rights... is a time-honored tradition. The prosecution's burden is to prove a false premise a la Some, Select Black Lives Matter, Antifa, indigenous man, etc., and that the response was not in self-defense. Rittenhouse actions were measured, limited, and provoked.

Jupiter said...

John Borell said...
"Should a 17 year-old have been there with a rifle? Nope. He's a moron."

DanTheMan said...
"My opinion is much the same as John Borell's, above."

Are you guys, by any chance, sitting in the burned-out ruins of your places of business, sending us your final judicious thoughts before your batteries run down and you comment no more forever? I guess I'd be OK with that.

wholelottasplainin' said...

William said...
The commenters here are well informed and well disposed towards Rittenhouse. They nonetheless repeat some factual errors in the narrative. Rittenhouse or the people defending him claim that he was in Kinosha because of his job as a lifeguard. He did not drive to Kinosha to take part in anti-riot activities. He was already there and stuck around to help out. The rifle was not his. It was provided for him.....These facts should be easily verifiable. I don't think he or his supporters would compromise his case by telling a lie. The fact that these facts are not facts in his case is a fact and shows how much the media control the narrative even among those favorably disposed towards Rittenhouse.
*******************

Please tell us how any of these "errors" have any bearing on Rittenhouse being charged with murder, or on the debate whether he was engaaged in lawful self-defense.

Jupiter said...

"Pierce addressed a possible plea deal: “We’re going to trial. We’re going to win this case. If I’m the prosecutor, I drop these charges immediately. I think that this is a rush of judgment, and if I was the prosecutor, I would be terrified to take this case to trial. I do not believe that there’s a jury in this country that’s going to look at these facts and is going to find him guilty for murder.”

“It’s absolute 100 percent self-defense, and we’re going to prove it if we have to,” concluded Pierce. “It was legal for him to possess that weapon in Wisconsin.”

Laika said...

The hacker known as 4chan found the livestream Gaige Grosskreutz was filming at the time of the shooting.

Grosskreutz approaches Kyle and asks what he’s doing, and does not recognize Kyle as the shooter. Kyle is running towards the police line and responds that he’s getting the police.

Rioters start screaming “Stop him! He shot someone!” and we hear the gunshots offscreen. Clearly Grosskreutz dropped his phone but kept his gun.

The mob was not planning to hold Kyle to peacefully hand him over to authorities. They were about to dispense mob justice and Kyle would have been severely injured at best, dead at worst.

https://kiwifarms.net/threads/u-s-riots-of-may-2020-over-george-floyd.70231/page-4465#post-7234312

Greg The Class Traitor said...

Kimberley Motley, declined to answer questions about Grosskreutz’s alleged gun but said he was “not trying to attack” Rittenhouse....


Yeah, he was failing to attack Rittenhouse successfully. Totally different! /sarc

Greg The Class Traitor said...

If his attorneys take the case to trial... it may turn on the voluminous video evidence and the jury’s interpretation of it, said Abbe Smith, a law professor at Georgetown University who has been a criminal defense lawyer for more 30 years and is skeptical of Rittenhouse’s case. “Every once in a while the crime is clearly depicted on video, but often it’s subject to interpretation,” Smith said. “Video is like a Rorschach test. Everybody sees something different. People see what they want to see.”



So, Abbe Smith is a lying leftist weasel. Because what those words actually mean is that the chance that not even 1 of the jurors sees the same as the defense is pretty much non-existence. A mistrial or two, and then either the DA drops the case, or gets voted out of office.

Kenosha was 50 - 50 for Trump - Clinton in 2016. Supporting the rioters who burned their town is a great way to commit political suicide

mikee said...

I don't know what the law is in Indiana, but here in Texas if you and another person agree to fight each other, it isn't against the law. I believe it is called "mutual affray" in the laws, and covers such common situations as drunks brawling outside a bar or kids at school having a two person fight.

I am not so sure if it applies to hundreds of rioters ignoring police orders to leave the area, then being pepper sprayed, or using deadly force by both sides in a riot. /s

mikee said...

Whoops, my bad. Mutual affray is indeed a consensual bit of violence, but it is against the law in Texas. Who would have guessed?

RobinGoodfellow said...

“ Wa St Blogger said...
A lot of stupidity occurred that night.
1. The authorities should have done their duty and insured the peace. Fast action on rioting would have limited the rest of the stupidity.
2. The media should be held accountable for effectively yelling fire in a theater.
3. The boy should have stayed home. No reason to come out and defend property from mobs.
4. The boy should have left his weapon at home. Bringing a weapon to an uncontrolled situation is a good way to get in over your head, which is what happened to him. He was not sufficiently trained or experienced enough to handle what he got himself into. Most people would not have been.”

(3) Perhaps the rioters should have stayed home.

(4) He did leave the gun at home—someone gave him the gun in Kenosha.

Krumhorn said...

In addition to making the case beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecutors will need to persuade a jury of local citizens, many of whom will certainly appreciate that Kyle was attempting to protect a local business. Kenosha is now a hellscape of empty scorched streets including many longtime family businesses that will never recover. It only takes one juror to decide that the leftie mob will not control this vote during deliberations. It’s amusing that the prosecution will not be able to argue for a change of venue.

- Krumhorn

RobinGoodfellow said...

“Blogger tim maguire said...

The part I'd like to learn more about is what happens when the gun is illegal.“

As I understand it, his possession of the rifle is a misdemeanor under Wisconsin law. I don’t think this negates or restricts his right to defend himself.

DanTheMan said...

>>Are you guys, by any chance, sitting in the burned-out ruins of your places of business, sending us your final judicious thoughts before your batteries run down and you comment no more forever? I guess I'd be OK with that.

No, I'm not in the burned out hulk of my home or business. If they come to my place to burn it down, I suggest they don't send anybody they want back.

A few days ago, all we knew was that some teenager went to Kenosha and shot some rioters. That was all some folks needed to elevate him to Great Patriotic Hero. Given the failures of the leadership and police, I suppose that's understandable.

If Rittenhouse was responding to a specific request that he come and defend a specific business, then I will agree that he had a reason to be there, and his actions become much more reasonable. I've seen some reports that the rifle wasn't even his, and was given to him, which would also be very important in this discussion.

What I find curious is that the folks here I agree with on 99% of issues are now acting as if I don't automatically declare Rittenhouse a hero, then I am some sort of looter-loving commie pinko anarchist, and deserve to have my house and business burned to the ground.

I find that very surprising.

Bruce Hayden said...

“I've read in Wisconsin law, prosecution has to prove it wasn't self defense.”

That is the case in, I believe, 49 out of 50 states, the exception apparently being Ohio. And in those 49 states, the state not only has to prove that it wasn’t self defense, but must do so beyond a reasonable doubt.

But getting a self defense jury instruction isn’t automatic. The defendant has to show some evidence supporting self defense. After the defendant shows some evidence, the burden in most states then shifts to the prosecution to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

But also keep this in mind. Self defense, being a defense, works in reverse. Normally, every element of a charge (such as 1st Degree Murder here) must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to convict the defendant of a charge. But with self defense, the prosecution merely has to disprove one of the elements of self defense beyond a reasonable doubt for the defense to fail. One reason that a majority of the states have overridden and rejected the Retreat Doctrine (aka Stand Your Ground) is that defendants would often have to make split second decisions with narrowed focus due to the stress of the situation. Prosecutors could then spend months finding a plausible escape route. If they could sell that the defendant had a viable route to escape, and didn’t take it, beyond a reasonable doubt, the defense of self defense would fail, and the defendant would often be convicted of the underlying charge.


Bruce Hayden said...

“Bruce Hayden said...
“Kimberley Motley, declined to answer questions about Grosskreutz’s alleged gun but said he was “not trying to attack” Rittenhouse....”

@Rick - you are quoting me quoting someone else. I was clearly not making that statement, but rather was attacking it. My point was that Grosskreutz’s belief here is completely irrelevant. What matters is whether or not Rittenhouse reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of losing his life or of great bodily injury (which typically includes broken bones).

Rick said...

DanTheMan said...
A few days ago, all we knew was that some teenager went to Kenosha and shot some rioters. That was all some folks needed to elevate him to Great Patriotic Hero. Given the failures of the leadership and police, I suppose that's understandable.


Stupidly wrong, the video was widely available within a few hours.

then I am some sort of looter-loving commie pinko anarchist, and deserve to have my house and business burned to the ground.

You'd probably have less animosity toward you if you didn't lie about others' positions.

Michael K said...

If Rittenhouse was responding to a specific request that he come and defend a specific business, then I will agree that he had a reason to be there, and his actions become much more reasonable. I've seen some reports that the rifle wasn't even his, and was given to him, which would also be very important in this discussion.

What I find curious is that the folks here I agree with on 99% of issues are now acting as if I don't automatically declare Rittenhouse a hero, then I am some sort of looter-loving commie pinko anarchist, and deserve to have my house and business burned to the ground.


I think the "moron" comment (not by you but by your link) set some people off. I commented here that I thought it was pretty foolish for a kid to drive to a riot but that was before I heard about his job and how he was part of a group defending a business.

RobinGoodfellow said...

“ Blogger Big Mike said...
He should have turned down the gun, especially if he had no training.”

No training? Evidence would suggest that he had better training than the police. It appears every shot hit a target.

mezzrow said...

mezzrow, In Defense of Looting author Vicky Osterwell warns readers of her book to respect her property.

Any expectation of consistency from that source on this subject would be folly.

Point well made.

Big Mike said...

For those who think it's wrong to stand up to rioters and help your neighbors, I sincerely hope someday all your shit is burned to the ground.

@eric, +1

Freeman Hunt said...

"A few days ago, all we knew was that some teenager went to Kenosha and shot some rioters."

That was all we knew? I saw video the same night it happened via Twitter. Was very interesting to see how they reported it the following morning.

Jupiter said...

"What I find curious is that the folks here I agree with on 99% of issues are now acting as if I don't automatically declare Rittenhouse a hero, then I am some sort of looter-loving commie pinko anarchist, and deserve to have my house and business burned to the ground."

Your sentiments regarding commie pinko anarchist looters are your own business. But if you do not support those who resist them, you may eventually find yourself sitting in the ruins of your home or business, assuming you survive the riot in which they are destroyed. I will leave it to you whether you will have deserved it, although the people responsible won't. They are going to demand an apology from you, and you'd better come up with one, fast and fulsome.

Inga said...

“What I find curious is that the folks here I agree with on 99% of issues are now acting as if I don't automatically declare Rittenhouse a hero, then I am some sort of looter-loving commie pinko anarchist, and deserve to have my house and business burned to the ground.

I find that very surprising.”

Not at all surprising. I’ve seen other conservatives here cancelled for any divergent opinion from the majority. I always find it interesting to see the reaction of a conservative commenter when they get the mob “treatment”.

Ralph L said...

There were plenty of posters here on a similar thread saying that Rittenhouse is hero, and brave patriot.

Brave patriot, OK, but not a hero for saving his own life, even if they needed killing.

eric said...

Blogger RobinGoodfellow said...
“Blogger tim maguire said...

The part I'd like to learn more about is what happens when the gun is illegal.“

As I understand it, his possession of the rifle is a misdemeanor under Wisconsin law. I don’t think this negates or restricts his right to defend himself.

8/31/20, 1:28 PM


This appears to me to be incorrect.

Section c of the law says it only applies to rifles and shotguns if one certain section is violated (having to do with sawed off rifles and shotguns which this weapon did not appear to be) or two other sections which seemed to be dealing with hunting permits.

DanTheMan said...

If Inga is coming to my defense I must be totally wrong.

William said...

@wholelottasplainin: Perhaps I was insufficiently splainin: The media narrative is that Rittenhouse was some kind of officious busybody who drove fifteen miles to Kenosha with his gun to make trouble with the protesters. Apparently this is not true. He was in Kenosha because of his job. He stayed around after work to help clean up the debris of the previous night's riot. He was at that time asked to help protect a place of business that had previously been damaged. The gun was provided for him by the people who asked him to do this....Rittenhouse was not a vigilante as is being reported in the media. His instincts were more those of a good citizen helping out people asking for help than those of a vigilante looking for trouble....I would never vote to convict him of murder even if the left's narrative of him as some kind of vigilante was correct. But there's public opinion beyond juror opinion. He's not a vigilante. He's a decent kid who got caught up in some dark forces....He probably chose unwisely in accepting that rifle, but, if you want an example of a really stupid decision, look to those people who tried to take that rifle away from him.

Yancey Ward said...

I will just say this- I doubt either law professor has actually watched the available video. Once you actually watch it, you won't actually be in a funhouse mirror maze. That is me being generous to the two law professors from the article. My ungenerous statement would call both of them liars.

eric said...

What I find curious is that the folks here I agree with on 99% of issues are now acting as if I don't automatically declare Rittenhouse a hero, then I am some sort of looter-loving commie pinko anarchist, and deserve to have my house and business burned to the ground.

I find that very surprising.


Why do you find this surprising?

For over three months now we have seen our cities being burned. Over 30 innocent people have been killed. Many more have been assaulted. People have lost their businesses to looters and rioters and the employees have lost their jobs.

And your instinct is to wait for more facts to come out?

I guess my point is, it looks like the time for talk is over.

And who do I want on my team? The guy who will sack up and come help me defend me and mine, or the guy who wants to wait for all the facts to come in.
Kyle is an incredibly brave young man. Most kids his age are either sitting at home playing their Xbox or out in the streets rioting and looting for funsies.

He deserves our benefit of the doubt and our support.

I'm more surprised you don't see that. Or where this is going.

n.n said...

In Defense of Looting author Vicky Osterwell warns readers of her book to respect her property.

But I'm Progressive! Yes, you are.

Matt Sablan said...

Stand Your Ground wouldn't apply, since the kid WAS actively attempting to flee from all three attackers and withheld shooting until one was grabbing for his weapon, one had hit him while he was down, and one who had faked surrendering attempted to renew his attack.

It's one of the more clear cases of a strong self-defense available.

Michael P said...

To answer some questions:

It is unclear whether the law about firearm possession by children (Wis. Stat. s. 948.60) outlaws or clearly authorizes Rittenhouse's carrying his rifle -- 948.60(3)(c) would allow what he did if he was "in compliance with" s. 29.593. Otherwise, it was a Class A misdemeanor, and it became a Class H felony for whoever gave him the gun. I think the gun lawyers in that article are right: the law either allows his possession, or is ambiguous enough that lenity goes in his favor.

The state law on self-defense (s. 939.48), which includes when lethal force is allowed, does not impose a specific duty to retreat; Rittenhouse was retreating before each attack anyway. Notably, there is no limitation of the right to self-defense if Rittenhouse was committing a crime by carrying the rifle, and Rosenbaum probably offered the kind of provocation that ended any self-defense privileges.

Matt Sablan said...

"Innocent until PROVEN guilty, is so fascist."

-- In this case, self-defense is an affirmative defense. He's saying, "You got me. I did it. But, I had a legal reason to do it." So... in this case the burden of proof is a bit different than in a normal criminal case.

Rusty said...

He's no hero. He found himself in an untenable situation where he believed his life was in jeopardy. He did what was necessary. Doing what is necessary is often distasteful, never pleasant. Whatever the outcome he will carry this with him for the rest of his life. Poor kid. I wish him the best of luck.

Matt Sablan said...

"4. The boy should have left his weapon at home. Bringing a weapon to an uncontrolled situation is a good way to get in over your head, which is what happened to him. He was not sufficiently trained or experienced enough to handle what he got himself into."

-- I disagree. Witnesses say that the red shirt guy deliberately targeted the kid (knowing red shirt guy may have been a pedophile colors that), and that the red shirt guy chased him, despite, the kid having a weapon. If the kid did not have a weapon, he'd have still been chased. He just wouldn't have had anything to defend himself with. Hit him with the gun charge, and move on.

Likewise, every adult involved (from the kid's mom, to the mayor, to the three adults who attacked a kid) failed this kid at every turn.

TreeJoe said...

I've watched the kyle rittenhouse video more than a few times. Slowed, paused, freeze framed, etc.

I don't know what rittenhouse was doing beforehand. It seems likely he put out a dumpster fire and angered a mob of people who wanted to destroy and riot, but I'm not positive. I don't know about the first shooting.

What I do know is that the video(s) portray him as running down the middle of the street away from a crowd of people. He is attacked from behind and people are shouting to get him. They are attempting mob justice in the heat of the moment against a man they do not personally know, by all appearances.

Rittenhouse is attacked from behind and struck in the head. His hat flies off but he continues running. He appears to be hit again causing him to stumble and fall in the midst of a mob as AT LEAST 4 people come at him from 3 sides, at the same time. One is wielding a skateboard, another a gun. He is now on the ground and being attacked by multiple people while surrounded by an angry mob.

Any concept of "duty to retreat" is out the window. He can't.

Now the question is did he reasonably believe he had threat to his life or serious bodily harm. I would argue the presence of attack with a skateboard and another person with a firearm in hand would indicate that. The presence of a total of 6 actual assailants would argue that.

Maybe he shouldn't have been there. Maybe he was "asking for it" as if that's suddenly ok to say. But whether he was in the right to defend himself from assault by a mob is a different question.

n.n said...

Rittenhouse on our side. He worked as a lifeguard that day. He was protecting local businesses from a bunch of animals. He was provided first aid to wounded.

I don't have the source now, but he provided first aid to friend and foe, until the latter overran his position and forced him to defend his life.

Matt Sablan said...

"7. Chasing someone with with a weapon while brandishing your own but not willing to fire it (or maybe he wasn't trying to take the kid out, as he says,), is stupid."

-- Not true; the fake medic's friend admitted that the fake medic's goal was to kill the kid, not stop him.

n.n said...

re: first aid

Standing for civil rights and rendering aid is heroic.

DanTheMan said...

>>You'd probably have less animosity toward you if you didn't lie about others' positions.

What lies, please?

Did you see Jupiter's (someone I almost always agree with) post at 12:31?
If I think Rittenhouse should not have been there in the first place, then having my house and business burned down would be OK. No lie there, sorry.

In other threads, I've been accused of being on the side of the rioters, and excusing their behavior because I suggested having armed teenagers as a substitute for police doing their damn jobs was a bad idea. No lie there, either.

Maybe the commie pinko bit was over the top, but I was trying to make a point. It does seem that Rittenhouse is indeed a litmus test - 100% for or 100% against, no middle ground.

n.n said...

Pursued by three; shot two out of three. Hard to see this as a first degree murder case.

His objective was not to abort them, but to mitigate their progress. He did with a limited, measured response to their provocation and resistance.

Clyde said...

"Video is like a Rorschach test. Everybody sees something different. People see what they want to see."

I see a dead pedophile, a dead domestic abuser and a wounded felon with a firearm while intoxicated conviction. Funny thing: What were that odds that 3-of-3 of the guys shot were all convicted felons? Unless, as it seems, the vast majority of the rioters were already criminals in peacetime before joining up with the Antifa/BLM stormtroopers?

Clyde said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DanTheMan said...

>>That was all we knew? I saw video the same night it happened via Twitter.

I saw the videos that night, too.
None of the videos explained why he was there in the first place, what his connection was to the business he was defending, whether or not he bought the gun with him, why he shot guy #1, etc.

As I said then and I'll say again, if he was defending his home or business, I'd be right there helping him to reload. If it was the owner, same thing.

DanTheMan said...

>>But if you do not support those who resist them,

Jupiter, I DO support them defending what is theirs. I just think it's a bad idea for teenage minor to go to riots to defend something they may have only a marginal connection with.

Let me ask you a question, and yes it's serious question:
If what Rittenhouse did was good, would you be in favor of armed groups of 17 year olds going to Chicago or Portland to try to stop the killing there, too?

Known Unknown said...

"The guy in Georgia doesn't run."

I would not lump him in with the others. He was not being chased by police, but by citizens who had no concrete proof that he was breaking into construction sites. He didn't threaten them but they shot him anyway.

Rick said...

DanTheMan said...What lies, please?

That people didn't know the facts when they began pointing out those facts.

Here:

A few days ago, all we knew was that some teenager went to Kenosha and shot some rioters. That was all some folks needed to elevate him to Great Patriotic Hero.

In fact we knew from video almost immediately the media story was false, that RH was chased and attacked prior to his shooting anyone.

and deserve to have my house and business burned to the ground.

One person said this and you attribute it to the people you disagree with generally. It's a lie in regard to everyone except that person.

Rick said...

i I’ve seen other conservatives here cancelled for any divergent opinion from the majority.

No one is cancelled for their opinion. They're criticized similarly to how they argue. If you're an arrogant ass who misrepresents what others say they'll piss on you in return. Right Ken?

Rick said...

Bruce Hayden said...
@Rick - you are quoting me quoting someone else.


I understand. I was adding further support.

Jupiter said...

"It appears every shot hit a target."

I think he fired once at the first idiot who attacked him, white-pants guy. It appears it missed, but it came close enough he is probably no longer white-pants guy. He left rapidly, with the look of one recalling an urgent appointment in a distant locale.

NC William said...

I confess to being puzzled by all the folks (not necessarily in the comments here) around the country troubled/annoyed that Rittenhouse is from out of town (nevermind that the facts appear more complicated than that now with his day job in Kenosha).

It seems uncontrovertable that many of the rioters come from out of town. I think that is very well established everywhere these riots are occurring. Why would it be okay to bus in rioters, but no one from outside the locale can come to their aid?

Birkel said...

My disagreement with you, DanTheMan, was that you assume the police might do their damned jobs.

Evidence of that - in Leftist Collectivist cities - is lacking.

We are not where you and I would both prefer to be.
We must accept that reality.
One aide wishes to have a fight and the other side has less day than they would prefer.

That is the way it is.

And I hope the mostly peaceful protestors find time to protest in Royal ass Inga's neon.
She deserves to get what she wants.
I want her to be happy.

Qwinn said...

DanTheMan:

"A few days ago, all we knew was that some teenager went to Kenosha and shot some rioters."

That was never the case. As soon as the story came out, video was available. Maybe YOU didn't see them, maybe that's all YOU knew, but it's not other people's fault that you were behind and didn't see the evidence that made everyone else take the positions they took. You jumped to your conclusion from a position of ignorance, and when called out on it, rather than step down with some humility, you paint all the people who called you out as raging inflexible ideologues. Even Inga is siding with you. If that doesn't give you pause, well, then no one's reaction to you was mistaken.

Gahrie said...

What I find curious is that the folks here I agree with on 99% of issues are now acting as if I don't automatically declare Rittenhouse a hero, then I am some sort of looter-loving commie pinko anarchist, and deserve to have my house and business burned to the ground.

What Rittenhouse did was reckless and immature. Pretty normal behavior for a guy his age. He shouldn't have been there, no matter his intentions. Violent riots are no place for any teenager. However, he was the least at fault for what happened that night.

Gahrie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael K said...

Not at all surprising. I’ve seen other conservatives here cancelled for any divergent opinion from the majority. I always find it interesting to see the reaction of a conservative commenter when they get the mob “treatment”.

Yes, like LLR Chuck and a few other MOBYs. Inga, every time you post you look more the fool.

Jupiter said...

DanTheMan said...
"If Inga is coming to my defense I must be totally wrong."

And if you agree with me 100% of the time, you must be bat-shit crazy.

I misunderstood your position and in any case over-reacted. Please accept my apology.

Jupiter said...

"Violent riots are no place for any teenager."

In a year, he can join the Marines.

Jupiter said...

"If what Rittenhouse did was good, would you be in favor of armed groups of 17 year olds going to Chicago or Portland to try to stop the killing there, too?"

Kenosha is not Chicago or Portland. With that said, we are nearing the point where it will take armed groups of 18-to-22-year-olds, in uniform, to stop the destruction in Portland. Chicago is still another matter. Martial law and federal occupation won't fix Chicago. They're just fucked.

I do think Rittenhouse is a hero, in precisely the sense of one whose courageous and valiant deeds give hope and strength to others in perilous times. And do recall, after he shot that POS in the red shirt, he actually doubled back around and tried to render aid, until SkateBoy shouted at him to "Get the fuck outa here!".

Milwaukie guy said...

I fear we are at the beginning of the Bloody Kansas phase of our national nightmare.

The murder of the Patriot Prayer dude in Portland on Saturday night. Think about it, 600 vehicles drove from Clackamas to and through downtown Portland, legally. The right was trying to protest and de-escalate by doing something to avoid the clashes last weekend when Antifa/BLM attacked a Proud Boys/Patriot Prayer rally. The right was in vehicles and the left was on foot.

The right could have driven by, watched by Antifa/BLM. But, no, they had to murder a "Trumper Fascist." In those vehicle were probably 2000 citizens, many with CCWs and range training, probably a smattering of recent combat vets.

I will guarantee that there are a least two dozen guys in that caravan were sitting around Sunday, with beer and BBQ, thinking about what's next and retribution. Civil wars are ugly things and this is how they get started.

About a month ago I took my rifle out of the closet and I'm leaving it on my bedroom floor. [No children in the house.] Because I live right next to Portland and have had [white] BLMs and crazy homeless on the block recently.




Michael K said...

Chicago is still another matter. Martial law and federal occupation won't fix Chicago. They're just fucked.

I wish I could get my sister out of there. This weekend, a group was sitting outdoors at a restaurant 8 blocks from her house. A car pulled up and shot several of the people seated. Yes, they were all black but she has eaten there. One dead, several wounded. Her husband is badly disabled.

Drago said...

Inga the Russian Collusion Dead Ender: "Not at all surprising. I’ve seen other conservatives here cancelled for any divergent opinion from the majority."

Just another lie from the Kavanaugh is a gang rapist liar.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

He showed good sense for his age under pressure. Retreating puts the pursuer in a weaker legal position as the obvious aggressor(s). Being outnumbered by pursuing people yelling “Kill him!” also puts him in an obvious self-defense act. And he kept control of his weapon when they stupidly tried to disarm him. He saved his own life. Sounds like he has excellent counsel too.

Tina Trent said...

I wouldn't assume that those law professors said anything that WaPo didn't report.

Why assume anyone in today's academia isn't laboring solely to advance a leftist narrative? Academia abdicated all professional standards decades ago, and now it is verboten to deviate from the narrative. Lose a job to the mob that way.

DanTheMan said...

>>I misunderstood your position and in any case over-reacted. Please accept my apology.

Gracious of you to offer, but no apology required. We just have a differnce of opinion about whether Rittenhouse should have been there at all.

Social JusticeIsGay said...

Anyone who can't recognize Rittenhouse for the hero he is needs to leave the country.

Immediately and permanently.

Jason said...

Jupiter: In a year, he can join the Marines.

He can join the Marines NOW. :-)