A Victim, By Any Other Name
Photo by Derek Johnson from Milwaukee, America, CC BY 2.0
The prosecutor trying the criminal case against Kyle Rittenhouse for the shooting deaths of two men is not allowed to refer to the deceased as “victims”. The judge, Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder, says the word is too “loaded” and would prejudice the minds of the jury. The dead men may, however, be referred to as “looters”, “arsonists”, or “rioters” by Rittenhouse’s lawyers as they endeavor to prove self-defense.
The ruling is unusual but not unheard of. This is not new for this particular judge, who reportedly has a long-standing practice of prohibiting the use of the word victim in trial. He is not alone. Most prominently, back in 2004, a Colorado judge ruled that the woman who accused Kobe Bryant of rape could not be referred to as “victim” during his criminal trial. 1 The argument for disallowing the use of the word “victim” is that it presupposes guilt; in order for the accuser to be a victim, the defendant had to have committed a crime against him or her. Ergo, calling them “victims” is the same as asserting the defendant’s guilt. That’s exactly what prosecutors do when trying a case, but Judge Schroeder, and judges in other cases issuing similar rulings, thinks it too strongly implants the notion of guilt in the minds of the jury, when only the evidence should do that.
That’s fair enough, I guess, but what about the use of words like rioter, looter, or arsonist used to describe Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum, the men Kyle Rittenhouse shot and killed? The men have not been proven guilty of these things, either, but the supposedly susceptible-to-labels jury will be told that’s what they are. It’s crucial to Rittenhouse’s self-defense claim to paint the men he killed as a threat to his life. He will have the benefit of “loaded words” to assist him. The judge did add a caveat to the ruling that before such words could be used, the defense would have to provide evidence that they are accurate descriptors. The prosecution gets no such leeway to use the word “victim”, even if they present the evidence proving that’s what they are. 2
Go back to the Kobe Bryant case for a second, in which his defense was consent of the accuser. Pretrial hearings suggested that evidence would be presented that she’d had sex with another man or other men in the same 1-2 day period during which the alleged assault occurred. This was not to prove that Bryant had not penetrated her; he admitted he had. It was ostensibly intended to prove that the injuries she had were from her frequent sexual activity rather than a violent attack by Bryant, with the added bonus of showing that she slept around (though rape shield laws likely would have prevented a direct assertion of that). Could the defense have used words like “slut” or even simply “the promiscuous woman”, had the case gone to trial? Probably not. One would hope not.
There are times when the ordinary meaning of a word as the lay public uses it has meaningful differences under the law. For example, there is a difference between “homicide” and “murder”. Both refer to the death of one person at the hands of another. The difference is that not all homicides are murder, because murder refers only to particularly defined illegal homicide. A homicide that is found to have occurred as a result of legitimate self-defense is not illegal and therefore not murder. There are also illegal homicides that are not murder, such as inadvertently causing the death of another, depending on how a state defines manslaughter or involuntary homicide. If prosecutors here would refer to Kyle Rittenhouse as a murderer, that would clearly be a problem. He is not legally a murderer until a jury says so. But when is a victim legally a victim?
“Victim” can also have a legal definition. Wisconsin’s “Victim’s Bill of Rights” statute defines “victim” as “a person against whom a crime has been committed” or, if deceased, a family or household member. This can be interpreted as requiring a jury determination; as discussed above, it is not cut and dried that all homicides are the result of a crime. However, the same statute goes on to say that “victims” have the right to attend all hearings and several other rights that exist throughout the criminal justice process, not just post-verdict. The rights accrue without the necessity of a conviction. No doubt the Rittenhouse prosecution team raised this argument, apparently to no avail.
My initial reaction to the ruling was that it was absurd. After more consideration I have softened a bit as to the intent, though I still disagree. The prosecution can file an interlocutory appeal – that is, an appeal filed prior to the final judgment (here that would be a verdict, or sentencing in the case of a guilty.) Remember that the state cannot appeal a not guilty verdict even if there is error. But an interlocutory appeal will cause delay and is unlikely to succeed. Instead, if I were the prosecutor trying the case, I would work in the phrase “[the person] whom Kyle Rittenhouse shot and killed,” since those facts are not in dispute. Our friends Don Zeko and Burt Likko pointed out that using the names of the deceased can go a long way toward humanizing to the jury as well.
I suggested this approach on Twitter and an account I do not know took issue, implying I was obviously not a lawyer. It turned out his complaint was not that my suggestion was bad lawyering or an ineffective trial strategy, but that I was “behaving like a child and acting as if [Rittenhouse] randomly decide [sic] to shoot at these people.” He thought that using the plain words of the undisputed facts was the same as calling Rittenhouse guilty. My takeaway here is that it probably doesn’t matter much how the prosecutor refers to the alleged victims (a phrase which, incidentally, seems like a reasonable compromise on language). People will see the facts in one light or the other, which is why we have a jury. Banning the use of a particular word, so long as it is not inflammatory or legally inaccurate, underestimates the reasoning ability of the average juror – and I say that as someone who fully believes juries are in large part a crap shoot.
I am well aware of the odd and sometimes nonsensical things juries often fixate on3. Nevertheless, I disagree that the word “victim” creates some sort of insurmountable conclusion in the mind of a juror, any more than calling the accused the “defendant” — another word that judges have prohibited in the past — creates an implication of guilt. Even legally unsophisticated people understand normal courtroom parlance: the accused is the defendant and the person he or she is accused of harming is the victim.
For posterity. For the record, his criticism isn’t that it’s a bad trial strategy, but that it differs from his opinion of what the verdict should be. pic.twitter.com/QETA7iKsm8
— Nightmare on Em Street (@wvEsquiress) October 27, 2021
The who, what, where, when and how of this case is undisputed. What matters is the “why”, so I understand the defense’s goal here to neutralize the facts as much as possible. If the identity of the shooter were in dispute, I doubt the motion to prohibit the word “victim” would have ever been made. But it’s important to their case to scrub away any veneer of innocence with which the state may want to cover the deceased and establish that they, not Kyle Rittenhouse, are responsible for their deaths.
The judge’s ruling may seem like a victory for them. In the end, however, the facts are what they are, and our system demands we trust that the jury will focus on that, not semantics, to ensure justice be done.
- The trial never happened because the victim (and I have no issues calling her that) refused to testify. This was after her sexual history and mental health conditions were both brought up in pre-trial hearings as a means of attacking her credibility, and after she received hate mail and death threats and had her identity leaked to the public. The day of the dismissal, Bryant admitted he “now [understood] how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter.” He would later pay a reported $2.5 million settlement to the woman.
- The burden of proof should always be on the state to prove their case. There is a slight burden-shift when a defendant raises an affirmative defense as Rittenhouse has, but the heaviness of that burden varies by jurisdiction. Usually, self-defense must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence standard (“more likely than not”), which the prosecution would then have to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt.
- I once lost a DV trial as a young prosecutor because I failed to establish that two children, 5 and 6 years old, were scared when the car they were in with their mother was repeatedly rammed from behind by a truck driven by their father.
There are videos of what happened on line. They basically show the protesters (neutral words) chasing down Rittenhouse and him shooting ones who attacked him. The wiki is pretty damning too.
Now we have his choice to be there and their choice to be there, so that might complicate things.
Whether these specific rioters can be presented as rioters is an interesting question and presumably the issue will have to wait until we see what evidence exists. If we’re dealing with what Rittenhouse knew, then presumably he knew they (in general) were but not specifically. On the other hand maybe there’s a clue in the violence they were intending to inflict on him personally.Report
IIRC you can actually hear people pounding on cars all over the place during the videos. I don’t think there was any question that this happened right in the middle of the riot. As you say, whether the decedents in particular had been actively participating in the felonious vandalism or were just there to give moral support is less clear.Report
Yes, I watched the videos. I went through it all pretty thoroughly including the charges against him and wrote it up back when it happened.Report
“they were intending” is neat phrasing, because it gets away from the issue at hand: the actual violence Rittenhouse actually inflicted upon innocent people.Report
“Innocent” is even more loaded than “victim”.Report
At the time of their deaths they were not charged with, detained for, or convicted of any crime that was occurring when he shot them. Legally that indeed makes them both innocent and victims.Report
I don’t think “innocent” is a legal word. And as the article above says, “victim” implies facts not in evidence.Report
They were shot and killed by Mr. Rittenhouse. regardless of circumstance or their motivations, they are most definitely victims, and would be called such by the courts if they had been killed by anyone other then a fresh faced white teenager.Report
Did you read the article?Report
This judge never allows the word “victim”. This is pretty normal although it’s not a standard.Report
Are you talking about the innocent man trying to take his gun, the innocent man hitting him with a skateboard, or the innocent man threatening him with a gun? Or perhaps all three?
Now we also had other innocent people screaming for his blood from the sidelines and still others burning and looting… but since Rittenhouse did no violence to them that probably doesn’t count.Report
This seems totally reasonable to me, though I don’t know enough about the procedural rules of trials to say whether it’s correct. Whether they’re victims is the exact question to be decided in this trial. Whether they were arsonists, rioters, or looters is not. And from the reporting I’m seeing, the judge didn’t give them carte blanche to throw these terms around, but to use them in closing arguments, contingent on first presenting evidence that this is an accurate characterization. I got the impression that it was more of a statement that the judge wasn’t preemptively ruling it out, rather than actually granting permission.Report
Back when this happened, a common talking point I saw from the left was that it didn’t matter whether he had been attacked, because he was committing a crime by carrying a gun across state lines as a minor, and you don’t have a right to self-defense when committing a crime.
Putting aside the question of whether he actually carried the gun across state lines or whether that matters, this struck me as stupid and obviously reaching. Granted, if you break into a house and shoot the owner when he attacks you, you won’t have much of a case for self-defense. But obviously you shouldn’t forfeit the right to self-defense when you you’re attacked for reasons unrelated to lawful attempts to stop you from committing the crime you’re committing. Nobody would say that, e.g., a prostitute forfeits the right to self-defense if a john tries to kill her. The idea that an 18-year-old would have a legal right to use deadly force in self-defense but a 17-year-old in the exact same situation would not is clearly ridiculous.
And yet, when I looked up the Wisconsin law on use of deadly force in self-defense, it didn’t seem to draw that distinction, and says that the right to use deadly force in self defense doesn’t apply when engaging in criminal activity. I assume that this is just an oversight, but would a judge actually order the jury to interpret the law in this fashion?
https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2014/chapter-939/section-939.48Report
Actually, I think I may be misinterpreting that. It seems that the “criminal activity” clause is an exception to the castle doctrine provisions, and to the right to use deadly force in self-defense in general. So I think I was originally right: The talking point is nonsense.Report
FYI – I edited your comment because you said “Minnesota” when I believe you meant Wisconsin.Report
Thanks! I actually did mean Minnesota when I typed it. Then I remembered halfway through the comment that it was Wisconsin, but forgot to correct it.Report
Anyone know if the defense is allowed to bring up what miserable rotten excuses for human beings the “victims” were? Or is that prejudicial?Report
How would it be relevant, when the defendant did not know them or anything about them prior to the incident?Report
Odds are very good he knew they were rioters. Looters and/or arsonists is harder but not out of reach.Report
His knowing wouldn’t be relevant. You can’t shoot someone just because he’s a POS. However, where their character does matter, logically if not necessarily legally, is in trying to put together the the pieces and figure out what most likely happened. If we don’t know for sure whether Rosenbaum attacked Rittenhouse unprovoked, then the next best thing is knowing whether he’s the kind of person who might have done something like that.
I’m not a lawyer, so i don’t know whether that kind of character evidence is admissible in a situation like this. But logically it would be useful to know in the absence of higher-quality evidence about what happened just prior to the shooting.Report
Accurate terms where the facts are not in dispute.Report
That’s a classic Rule 404b issue. Rules vary by state but the federal rule prohibits the use of “prior bad acts” – presented to prove character and that the person acted in conformity therewith at the time in question – is prohibited. There are lots of ways around it though – using it to prove motive, plan, lack of mistake, etc. You can’t just use it to prove hey, this is a bad, violent person and therefore was being a bad, violent person at the time of the incident.
The judge decides what comes in or doesn’t and must always consider the probative value vs the prejudicial effect.
The rule usually comes into play when a prosecutor wants to introduce evidence of the defendant’s criminal history but it is applicable to any witness/alleged victim.Report
Huber, domestic abuser and Rosenbaum, child molester, the men that Rittenhouse shot and killed.Report
None of that was known to him, nor does it matter, and this is an argument that you would almost certainly make if the roles were reversed.Report
I was putting emphasis on “facts not in dispute”.
As for whether I would think that a domestic abuser and a child molester killing a teenager in the middle of a riot ought to have those facts be relevant as part of sentencing, I probably would.
(Not, you know, as part of their *TRIAL* for killing the teenager, of course. But as part of sentencing? Yeah. I think it’d be something worth reflecting on before deciding on how much probation these guys would need to be on.)Report
And they were tried and convicted of this before their murders when exactly?Report
Lemme google… This site here claims to have the receipts.Report
Ouch. From your link:
Rosenbaum was a registered sex offender who was out on bond for a domestic abuse battery accusation and was caught on video acting aggressively earlier that night. Huber was a felon convicted in a strangulation case who was recently accused of domestic abuse. Grosskreutz was convicted of a crime for use of a firearm while intoxicated and was armed with a handgun when shot. You can read their criminal records in full later in this article.Report
Thanks for bringing that forward.Report
For the record, neither Huber nor Rosenbaum is on trial here. Their guilt/innocence is orthogonal to Rittenhouse’s guilt/innocence.Report
Not according to the judge, or the defense. If they perceived it as being orthogonal the judge wouldn’t have sought to suppress the term “victim.” He clearly intends to give the defense an opening to pursue a self defense posture based on the unsavoriness of the deceased. He’s tilting the scales precisely because dead men can’t be tried.Report
I am not a lawyer but, if I was arguing in front of a jury, I would very much want the unsavoryness of allegedly dead people to be mentioned in any affirmative defense I’d be giving of my agency in their alleged deadness.Report
Just did a deep dive on Rosenbaum via that link.
“child molester” is an understatement. I’d say “child rapist” and likely “serial child rapist” (5 children all the same age and sex).
He’s got a pretty extensive record, especially if you include his behavior in prison.
Loves violence, kiddy-rape, the n-word, and starts fires. I’m somewhat amazed the Left is trying to describe him as an “innocent protester”.Report
You have just tried and convicted him in absentia the way Rittenhouse’s defense plans to do, apparently with judicial blessing. Well done I guess.Report
“In absentia”? Kiddy rape is from his convictions. Everything else is a combo of his prison record, his convictions, and his videos. Assuming I’m not looking at fake news, his record makes him look like a bad Hollywood movie villain.
If you need to spin that into “innocent protester”, then you’re in alternative reality/narrative territory.Report
I struggle to muster sympathy for anyone involved in this, Rittenhouse or the men he shot. They all played a very stupid game and won varying levels of stupid prizes. All I can do is shake my head at the people who think any of them merit a cause celebré for their personal politics.
Obviously this is not a legal analysis.Report
I have some level of sympathy for Rittenhouse trying to defend someone else’s property in the face of the authorities refusing to do so. If he were doing that in a more neutral setting (against a fire or flood), we’d see that as pretty noble.Report
Really, what decent man hasn’t at one point fantasized about becoming a Roof Korean? It’s not wise to act on it, but the impulse to stand as a bulwark between civilization and marauding hordes is not ignoble.Report
This is not how responsible people, and responsible gun owners in particular, think. Speaking as such a person I’d be happy to see him given the maximum sentence for any firearm infractions he’s proven to have committed, regardless of how the murder/self-defense issues play out. This stuff is not a game.Report
What decent person, when watching that officer kneel on a man’s neck, hasn’t fantasized about shooting a cop?
Y’know, to Set Things Right, and Enforce Justice, without all that bother of courts and trials and stuff?
That’s the thing about vigilantism, is that everyone gets to play. From abortion opponents gunning down a doctor to environmental activists trying to derail trains to devout nationalists striking at the Great Satan, everyone wants to be the hero of their own story.
I think its important to remember the stakes. Rittenhouse was asserting the right to kill people so as to defend property. Not lives, just property. That wasn’t even his.Report
What decent person, when watching that officer kneel on a man’s neck, hasn’t fantasized about shooting a cop?
*A* cop?
Not a specific one? Just, you know, something like Dallas?Report
“I think its important to remember the stakes. Rittenhouse was asserting the right to kill people so as to defend property.”
Did he, though? He didn’t show up as Gandhi, but he didn’t use deadly force until his life was in danger.Report
His life wasn’t in danger.Report
He was apparently being chased through the streets by a crowd, being struck, and had someone lunge at his weapon. If any of that turns out to be untrue, I could entertain your idea that his life wasn’t in danger.Report
Well, those people were just defending their own lives from the irresponsible, gun-toting wild child who showed up out of nowhere in their community.Report
You can tote a gun anywhere, no one’s in danger. You attack someone with or without a gun, someone’s in danger.Report
How, exactly, was he attacked?
Did they put hands on him? Point weapons at him? Throw items at him?
Did they run at him? Yell at him? Aren’t those actions legal?Report
I don’t want to paste the video link on this thread, because sometimes that puts up a direct link, and the video has a warning. You can go to youtube and paste watch?v=EYjG4uequWQ into the search for NBC’s breakdown of the footage.Report
We discussed it at the time. (I still haven’t watched it.)Report
I’d only seen stills and heard descriptions until today. I don’t want to be the guy who looks at stuff like that, but for Kazzy’s sake I wanted to give a good link. It’s explicit. If I were a prosecutor, I’d be talking a lot about the first one, which is hard to see on the footage. The second and third were unambiguous self-defense.
ETA: I’m glad to say I didn’t talk about it at the time. I’m a little frustrated that Kazzy was asking the same kind of questions. If there’s footage and you’re on a thread about what happened, it seems like an obligation to check it. I held off as long as I could and didn’t address specifics, until I did.Report
Actually, you can glean a lot of information by just listening to the video, if that’s less disturbing for you. The main difficulty is that you’ll hear a lot of unrelated gunshots. But the reporter talks you though the sequence fairly well.Report
That footage wasn’t their first encounter. If wiki is correct, the first one is the least sympathetic and the aggressor/instigator of all this.
I assume the prosecutors can keep the jury from finding out he was a serial child rapist. However the core dispute was he wanted to start fires and Rittenhouse kept putting them out. Worse, Rittenhouse kept attempting to disengage and he kept engaging.
Within the margin of error, there is room for the other two to be “innocent protesters” who thought they were doing the right thing by engaging Rittenhouse.
There is also room for all three of them to be violent people who saw the riot as a chance to run wild.
For all the talk about this being about civil rights, this works very well as being about law and order. You don’t need to be a racist to want your community to not burn and starting fires doesn’t mean you favor civil rights.Report
Agreed, the footage doesn’t capture everything. I’m just thinking that self-defense is an affirmative defense, and it’s clearly documented in the second and third shootings. You can construct a story for the first shooting being self-defense, but there’s room to argue.
For me, they could have all been paedos arguing over meth, as soon as a person is being assaulted and in reasonable fear for his life (or whatever formulation Wisconsin uses), self-defense is acceptable. I can construct a story where the mob thought they were doing the right thing, pursuing an active shooter. You shouldn’t do that, but maybe with the adrenaline they thought it was a good idea. For Rittenhouse, I don’t have to construct an explanation; he was in full retreat, then on the ground, then physically assaulted. I just don’t have that clear-cut information with the first shooting.Report
Oh, hey, have you seen the newly-available footage? It should completely exonerate him on the first shooting as well.Report
I have not… link?Report
I love how that became, like, a whole thing.Report
I still haven’t really seen anything that makes me think that Rittenhouse won’t be found not guilty.Report
A) I’m surprised it’s taken this long and I stand by my prediction that “argument before a jury” will take about a day and they’ll return a verdict the next morning, that it’ll be Second Degree Manslaughter, he’ll be sentenced to thirty years and serve ten.
B) I think the funniest thing in that whole exchange was this post.Report
My prediction is he’s found guilty of some gun charges (misdemeanor) and not guilty on the shootings.Report
Given their backgrounds, my off-hand expectation is the people shot weren’t members of that community and were there just to riot. Set fires and so on.Report
For which they deserved to be arrested. not executed.Report
No one is suggesting that they be executed. However if the police are unable or unwilling to impose order, what do you want to happen?
Do we let those who are attracted to violence run around and burn stuff down and attack people, or is it ok for civilians to defend themselves?Report
Kyle Rittenhouse had no property of his or his family’s to defend in Kenosha. He was too young to carry that rifle in public, much less possess it. And two men died by his hand.
Buildings are buildings. and order is not a universal concept. Changes doesn’t happen in order.
As to the police – if they were unwilling to take the time to arrest the troublemakers while allowing legitimate protest – and in Kenosha they weren’t – they deserve sanctions.Report
So in other words, Kyle didn’t have the right to defend himself?
The serial child rapist who is starting random fires has the right to beat up Kyle or even kill him?
The issue is not, “what happens to the police”, that’s trying to claim this situation can’t happen.
The issue is, “what are civilians expected to do in this situation?” Are they expected to take one for the team and let stuff burn? Do they need to let themselves be attacked? Given Rosenbaum’s history, does that extend to rape as well?Report
Rittenhouse had no business there. He willfully inserted himself into a situation where he didn’t belong, and broke the law while doing so, which makes him no better then any of those who engaged in looting or arson.
That the people he shot might most charitably be characterized as “outside agitators” is rather beside the point after that.
How many other people – attacked or not – killed people that night? And how many properties actually burned? because you keep misdirecting away from Rittenhouse’s role, much the same way his defense team no doubt will.
My values system prizes people over property. What does your prize?Report
This was the common accusation against the civil rights activists of the 1960s. Any violence that happened, or even if they were killed, was on them because they weren’t supposed to be there.
This doesn’t work as a principle. Walking down a dark alley in a crime ridden area is foolish, you don’t lose your right to defend yourself if you do. You especially aren’t giving a pass to criminals who are attacking you.
It is fine and appropriate to look at someone’s behavior leading up to the confrontation, but putting out fires and administering first aid are fine and legal as is registering people to vote.
My expectation is he’s found guilty of gun charges. However far as I can tell the crimes he broke are misdemeanors and very different from “looting and arson”.
Irrelevant. Having focused on the worst event of the night, we have the worst event. It’s like focusing on the lottery winner and then drawing conclusions on why everyone else lost.
Rittenhouse’s role was four-fold.
A) Being there when he didn’t need to.
Addressed up top.
B) Annoying the violent rioters by putting out fires and administering first aid.
This is the bulk of him inserting himself into the situation. It’s also legal and a good thing. What they were doing was illegal and not.
C) Being armed.
I’m not sure he’d be tried for this without the deaths and the cops were fine with him earlier.
D) Shooting people.
The most serious of his charges.
No one was shot over property. Valuing people can NOT mean saying a pissed off serial rapist has the right to abuse people for stopping him from being a firebug.
Yes, he would have been much happier if he was allowed to be violent. Him being unhappy doesn’t mean we should let him start fires or rape children. If he gets violent because he’s unhappy, then yes, anyone he’s attacking can shoot him.Report
City property valued at $2 million was destroyed by rioters, including garbage trucks, street lights and traffic signals.[5] Kenosha’s mayor requested $30 million in aid from the state to cover the extensive damage.[68] Damage to private property could be as high as $50 million, according to estimates from the Kenosha Area Business Alliance. This includes the 100-year-old Danish Brotherhood Lodge which was burned down when 40 buildings were destroyed and an additional 100 buildings damaged.[6][69] (wiki)Report
You’ve seen those arguments from radical leftists about how, in the face of relentless crimes like wage theft and oppression, riots and looting are a form of vigilantism, a way of restoring order?
I don’t support that argument, for the same reason I regularly criticize the “open carry/ stand muh ground” stuff, that uncontrolled violence never, ever, produces justice.Report
This is drawing a line between someone you don’t like (wage theft) to something else that is widely disliked (riots) and claiming one must cause the other.
Yes. Riots enable violent people to be violent.
With our current communication and transportation set up, riots or there potential will attract violent people to the riot.Report
The legality of burning carjackers to death is a matter of Cultural Relativism. If you support the idea that one culture is not better than another, then I enjoin you to recognize that this world does contain a Democratic State where it is legal to burn carjackers to death without a trial.
Society has the morals it can afford. Beware the loss of our economy, as the morals you thought we had, will shortly no longer exist. Already we are turning the unvaccinated into Second Class Citizens, not worthy of being allowed to freely travel or interact with the rest of society.Report
There is a large brick of missing time in Rittenhouse’s story.
We know he was going to go defend something.
Then he’s running down a street being chased by rioters.
It’s very easy to write whatever you want to in that gap to write whatever narrative you want. If he was wandering the streets looking for trouble, then that’s clearly a problem. If he was trying to stop someone’s house from being burned down, then that’s probably fine.
Yes and no.
There is “the system is fine with what’s going on even if you personally aren’t”. That’s the anti-abortion issue and the anti-war issue. For that we’re supposed to use the normal political process, which includes protesting.
Then there is “the system is NOT fine with what’s going on but can’t stop it”. That’s things like murder, rape, and arson. It’s also where things like “self defense” come into play.
If it’s “vigilantism” to shoot your would-be murderer, then yes, everyone gets to do that.Report
I’m reacting to the “Rooftop Korean” aspect, of using deadly violence to defend property theft.
Asking everyone reading this to reflect on their own thoughts, when watching video of looting.
What are you feeling? Anger? Rage? Do thoughts of “If I were there, boy, I would totally set things right by, um, er, shooting those guys!!”
Stop for a moment, and consider. These guys are stealing shoes and snack chips. And this motivates people into a murderous rage.
To spend the rest of one’s life saying, “Yeah, I took a human life, but at least the rack of Doritos at Rite Aid was saved.”Report
They are destroying lives and dreams. There is no getting back a burnt store, not when you don’t have insurance (and the people in Minneapolis didn’t).
And there’s no getting back a first edition signed copy of Snow Crash.
——————————————————–
There’s also no getting back the animal shelters, and listen to rioters cheering at the howls of animals dying before you get to say any of this. (or cutting beating hearts out of animals to eat for “power”).
Rioters that riot until they’re literally too hungry to riot, and have destroyed the food delivery infrastructure, as well as setting fire to the water treatment plant?
Peace Out Bro, your chauvinism is showing.Report
A client refuses to pay my invoice, threatening to destroy my life and dreams.
So of course, I walk into his office and shoot him dead.Report
I believe the proper treatment of ghouls is throwing them out windows, and you hire Teams of Trained Defenestrators for that (this generally occurs while the squatters are sleeping).
This, of course, occurs several years after you’ve turned off power to the squatters.
Name the city.Report
We could talk about the ethics of shooting looters, but these people aren’t on the video looting and he’s not on the video defending property.
Defending property is supposedly why he was there, very clearly the situation evolved after that and we are missing information.
The most likely missing info is he realized if he was going to “defend” that building he was going to have to shoot people so he tried to flee, however that’s just a suggestion.
The relevant videos don’t have him defending property. They have him fleeing the rioters defending himself.Report
I’m kind of really divided about this. What you are writing is obviously true . Yet, it seems bad for us upper middle class people who live in crime free neighborhoods to tell people living in less safe neighborhoods that they just need to learn to live with a certain amount of crime and violence with stoic resolve because reasons. It also seems bad that White and Black American liberals are telling Asian-Americans that they need to be collateral damage to the poverty created by systematic racism in Black neighborhoods.Report
In general, I agree with Chip re: Vigilantism. He wasn’t defending his self, family, or home from violence.
Had he stayed at that business and merely responded to people coming onto the property, I’d be surprised if there was even a trial. But he left the property and that muddied up the waters a lot. Muddy waters means he will stand trial.Report
You posted a quote from a firearm instructor on the big post on this issue that resonated. No one involved in something like this has their lives changed for the better, even if a acquitted.Report
He went out with an assault rifle and gloves on and went on the prowl looking for mayhem.Report
You’re not a “bulwark between civilization and marauding hordes” when you’re murdering innocent people, no matter how much you might want to fantasize otherwise.Report
Well, yes, obviously that’s true, but you’re going to have to spell out why you think it’s a pertinent thing to say here. Your thought process is, as usual, so scattered and illogical that it’s really very difficult to reconstruct the path you took to get from point A to point B and figure out where you went wrong.Report
Sure, if the facts were totally different there’s a good possibility I’d feel different too.Report
Odd as it may sound coming from me, I actually do have sympathy for the defendant. He was a kid in over his head with no business being where he was. He was apparently encouraged by his mother to be there, seeing as how she drove him. He put himself in a bad position and made bad decisions (IMO). Any lesson he may have learned was drowned out by the politically driven outrage on both sides making him a martyr instead of a cautionary tale. So now one side has to paint him as a monster while the other hails him as a hero, when what he is is a dumb kid who got himself into serious trouble, egged on by the political wars all around him.
Maybe it’s just my own position as the mother of a teenage boy, seeing his face still full with baby fat that makes me feel this way.
No one involved that night was doing the Lord’s work, of that I am certain.Report
I feel compelled to add, my son is 14 and I’m supremely confident he has way more sense – and better parenting – than Kyle Rittenhouse.Report
I hear you. I am a father, but not (yet) of a teenager. My emotional response is more along the lines of if my son did something so dumb and crazy I’d kill him myself (obviously not really). This is probably why I struggle to comment on the case.Report
I had no sympathy for him when this occurred, and i have no sympathy now. He was used by others as a pawn when this happened, and he’s still being used as a pawn now. He had no ability to make critical split second decisions about whom to shoot or not, and I doubt he has that ability now. He shot two men who may or may not have been attacking him, all because he believed his mom and others when they said this is how you go be a man in 2020.
Regardless of their alleged backgrounds (which he did not know about when he shot them), the deceased were humans and citizens. They may have been wrong place/wrong time. They may have been committing a crime – but even if that’s true its not a crime for which capitol punishment was or is permitted.
And frankly if a black man had done this he’d either be strung up (literally) until dead by the mob, or be on trial for the “senseless murder” of two innocent people.
This ruling serves no justice, and neither will this trial apparently.Report
What I think is happening is that the old common law notions of innocent until proven guilty and it is better for ten guilty men to go free than one innocent man be punished are running hard against a lot of modern political and social ideas. So not allowing prosecutors to refer to Kobe Bryant’s accuser as a victim makes sense to common law traditionalists but when you see sexually assault as a systematic problem against women and traditional common law notions of jurisprudence as helping rapists than the entire thing becomes a farce. Same with Kyle Rittenhouse. Not allowing prosecutors refer to the two people Rittenhouse killed as victims makes sense from a common law point of view but not from the perspective that the American Right has it’s worse instincts released by Donald Trump and fear growing violence in the United States.Report
The issue is not that the defense are getting these rulings in their favour, they should be getting them in their favour.
The issue is that this is just like when police officers get accused of crimes, they get fullest benefit of due process while ordinary accused get the full weight of the state crashing down on them.Report
Bingo.Report
A lot of people are revealing their true colors on this thread. It is not surprising.Report
Do you think that we, as a society, ought to use social shaming tools to herd them back into alignment with our preferred values?Report
Well, see, you have to understand . . .
We should definitely shame the ones that are breaking norms and committing morally questionable acts . . .Report
I don’t support fascists, the fascist-curious, or people hostile to democracy and rule of law.Report
Does that include, like, other countries or just this one?Report
Jaybird,
You are a troll. You are not particularly good or clever at it and you try and hide it between being cutely geeky on games. When called out on it, your reaction is the non-apology of the middle class class clown who has been asked to see the dean. An example of this is when I called you out on backing something from coup and fascist friendly Claremont Instittute and you “apologized” in a very small font for triggering me for some such.
You are not Socrates. You are not boldly or subtly exploring people’s biases and alleged or perceived hypocrisies. You are not a brave truth teller.Report
I’m just this guy, Saul.
I will point out that I do not see you as the Dean, though. Nor do I see you as speaking for her.
The thing I backed from the coup and fascist friendly Claremont Institute (read their wiki page here!), was an article about the cultural shift away from sex positivity. Our interaction (which I feel you have mischaracterized) is here.
I am not Socrates. I’m not really interested in biases and hypocrisies are only interesting to me if the person with them seems completely and totally unaware of them. I agree about the brave truth teller, thing. I’m more of a brave person who obliquely points at true things without, you know, committing to anything. Too dangerous, that.
Like, if we were in the Emperor’s New Clothes, I wouldn’t be the kid yelling “THE EMPEROR IS NAKED!”
I would be the guy who said stuff like “Oh, the ermine collar on his cape makes me wonder if he has a bunch of large ermines with regularly distributed spots or a bunch of small ermines that each have a relatively larger spot. Also, it’s very windy. I’d hate to be butt naked out here in the street on a day this windy! Talk about shrinkage! Anyway, I think it’s many small ermines.”Report
This is the most true and honest thing you have ever written about yourself. But it is not brave. It is also why Saul and I and other see you as a troll. We commit – right or wrong. You do not. Very occasionally its cute; mostly its annoying; of late its been trending into George Turner territory.Report
I tend to think that you guys are wrong but I also know that you guys are sophisticated enough to not be swayable by arguments (or, god help us, assertions) that you’re wrong.
So I’m stuck trying to get you to agree that it would suck to be outside butt naked in this weather. In theory. Not that anybody in their right minds would do so and not that anybody in their right minds would defend the idea of doing so. Why are we even talking about this?Report
So mostly your a guy who demands a lot of rigour from everyone else without bothering to put much effort in yourself.
Its intellectual rent seeking.Report
“I’m more of a brave person who obliquely points at true things”
1. Things you perceive to be true and often in ways that are oblique and hard to parse.
“without, you know, committing to anything.”
2. Refusing not to commit against Nazism or Fascism is not brave.Report
Does that include, like, other countries or just this one?
(For the record, if you are willing to say that there are people out there who do not display strong judgment when it comes to what they are willing to call Nazism or Fascism and use the terms merely to describe stuff that they don’t like, let me say that I agree that there are a lot of people out there like that.)Report
Why does it matter to you whether it includes other countries? This is a discussion about events here in the good ole’ US of A.Report
I care about whether you consider China a fascist country or not. If you consider “Standing up to the Fascists” a high priority issue (as it might be fair to say Saul does, being Jewish), then I have some news for you.
Yes, I could mention Alphabet and the Alphabet Agencies, if you’d rather talk USA.Report
I consider China, Russia, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Syria, North Korea, and Hungry authoritarian states which invoke various flavors of authoritarianism – including Fascism – to execute plans where by a minority stays in power and reaps both economic and political rewards. I’m sure with more coffee in me I could come up with other examples.
Domestically – since we are talking about the US in this thread – I see a Republican Party embracing these various flavors of authoritarianism – again including Fascism – in a quest to consolidate and enhance political power they can now longer attain through actual policies and elections.
I don’t know that I could fully speak for Saul, but my conclusion based on years worth of his writings here is he would mostly agree.Report
Philip,
Where do you rank dealing with these societies?
Will you champion the Republican/Corporate push for Higher Minimum Wage, over “Dealing with China?”
Do you think that giving kids free preschool is of a higher import than dealing with the Chinese shooting people on American Streets? (When the Chinese deem you illegal, that’s not just on Chinese soil). How about the millions of Chinese spies on American soil?Report
Millions of Chinese spies? The tradecraft problems would seem to be insurmountable in running that many spies.Report
Last year someone posted a list of them online, name by name. I ought not to make claims for the accuracy of said assessment.
You can assume that a lot of these are involved in basic corporate espionage sponsored by China, and need fairly little in terms of bribery and maintenance.
Others have family back in China, and can be debriefed when they return to the Mainland.
Some, I’m sure, are given “here’s what to accomplish” briefings… “More Anti-Global Warming Protests” seems to be one of them, China is actively funding this as an effort to cripple the American/European economy.Report
Million of spies that we know about by name? Just goes to show you that no spy agency can run that many spies and hope to get it right.Report
Because if there are obvious exceptions, caveats, and “well, you have to understands…” when it comes to other countries, I’d ask whether it’d be understandable if others similarly had obvious exceptions, caveats, and “well, you have to understands…”
It’s one of those things where if the opposition does not deserve any charity whatsoever while one’s own side deserves sympathy for how very complicated the world is, then that’s something that I’d like the person appealing to a universal rule to at least see how someone else could see it that way.
Do you not see how appeals to universal rules that only get applied to others might not be appeals that succeed at being appealing?Report
“’m more of a brave person who obliquely points at true things without, you know, committing to anything”
The arrogance right there is breathtaking.
Has it truly never occurred to you that you might be wrong? Or do you just assume whatever you believe MUST be the unquestionable truth?
Oh wait, of course it does. That’s why you won’t commit. You don’t want to look wrong in public — heck, you don’t even want to be questioned on it, lest you might face the mere possibility.Report
JS, “I might be wrong” is one of those thoughts that constantly haunts me.
It’s why I constantly push and prod my thoughts and argue with myself and look for weaknesses and novel thoughts that hadn’t occurred to me yet.
For the most part, when I find that I have completely misapprehended something, I try to figure out why and what I missed and, if it’s bad enough, I get rid of bad assumptions and struggle to replace them with better ones.
It’s why I find argumentation useful.
I mean, my gosh, how do you feel when you encounter people who are incapable of that sort of thing? Or actively resist it?Report
It sounds like you just want to cover your bases in case the fascists win.Report
Saul: THE GAME IS ITERATED. A WIN STATE IS NEVER, EVER ACHIEVED.Report
You mean you haven’t realized they’ve won already?
If the so-called deep state can take down any president that they dislike (herein including Trump and Carter, who were both hated), then we’ve lost.
Patriot Act Forever, your meta to the CIA, Alphabet turns over keyword-searches to the FBI and other Alphabet agencies (have you been a bad person and searched for…).Report
“I’m Just Asking Question” is the weakest of all possible types of arguments.
Followed closely by “Whattabout other countries?”
What everyone here is pointing out is that whenever there is a criticism of conservatives or Republicans, you leap into some sort of whattaboutery or bothsiderism or Hey Look Over there deflection.
The conservatives here are honest, but the claim that you are just standing outside and asking deep probing questions is insultingly ridiculous.
You like free markets but not free immigration, you like social liberalism but not to where it makes conservatives uncomfortable, and you see Trumpism as unpleasant but not threatening, at least not as threatening as mainstream liberalism.
That’s a summary of your stated arguments- just own it. This fan dance of “you can’t pin me down” is silly and wearisome.Report
“I’m just asking questions” is what you got out of that?
This is why it’s so much more rewarding to be opaque.
You like free markets but not free immigration, you like social liberalism but not to where it makes conservatives uncomfortable, and you see Trumpism as unpleasant but not threatening, at least not as threatening as mainstream liberalism.
Chip, I am one of the people who have argued for opening the borders more. I merely have acknowledged that doing this has costs and the costs will be paid by others and I am one of the people who get the benefits. I see Trumpism as unpleasant but inevitable.
And when I game things out, I see them ending in divorce or war and I am doing what paltry little things I can to divert the vector.Report
You’ve just affirmed everything that Saul has been saying and honestly it’s a bit disappointing.Report
Your statement is as accurate as most of your summaries of my positions.
And to the extent that this place is a glimpse into the future, I’m not seeing the democrats doing particularly well in 2022. (Of course, we still have a year and change between now and when it’s *REALLY* important.)Report
Same thing to you that I said to Saul. The “ignore” x is a more effective solution than trying to convince someone he’s a troll.Report
There is a reason Just Asking Questions is called JAQing off.Report
The most important thing about Trumpism is that it is unpleasant but not threatening to Jaybird. Liberals and/or woke people might confront Jaybird in ways that make him feel bad.Report
Confront? You mean, like, in the comment sections on a website?
Anyway, I hope Bidenism works out for you.
I hope you’re getting ready for what’s coming, though.Report
Wry irony and detachment is the safe space from which to enjoy the fruits of fascism without having to do the hard work of implementing it.
I’m actually thinking of that large body of white mostly male culture, marked by people like P.J. O’Rourke, Dennis Miller, and cultural pieces like South Park and the vast toxic wasteland of Reddit/ 4 Chan or for that matter, the Rose Twitter brand of leftists like Matt Taibbi.
Its unique, I think, to Americans who came of age in a time of peace and prosperity when there really were no great battles that might affect young white males.
The political and cultural posture is to stand outside the cultural battles, viewing it from afar with wry disdain for all the participants, noting their foibles and hypocrisy, mocking their sincerity.
The detachment is a privilege of course and privilege always aligns itself with oppression, even while it sneers at it for being vulgar.Report
Would you say that pretending to be on board with the whole successor ideology in the comments of a discussion website would be a good way to camouflage one’s fascism in the short-to-medium term?
Report
A bit of a digression, but do you really believe that “in the entire history of mankind, there has never been a political elite sincerely concerned about the well-being of regular people”? I’ve said before that I’d guess about 60% of all people think they’re doing good, 35% think their ends justify the means, and only 5% are consciously rotten. I don’t see why the elite would be any different. I guess a lot depends on who you consider “the elite” to be. The hangers-on and courtiers? Probably acting in their own interests, at least at this period and aspect of their lives. The contending monarchs, revolutionaries, and generals? Probably just like everyone else.Report
I’d probably agree with that but I’d caveat that there are people who have that among their tertiary concerns versus people who have it among their quaternary concerns versus people who don’t think about it at all beyond knowing that talking about such things is a great way to win public support.Report
That way smugness lies…or at least it can. That kind of thinking easily leads to the working assumption that everyone throughout history, and pretty much everyone today except for me, is disingenuous. It’s like virtue signaling without the effort of making a signal.Report
Throughout history? Probably not.
Our current political class? I’m not seeing a whole lot of primary or even secondary.Report
Who is being oppressed by this vast fascist undertaking?
Immigrants? Now that Biden is doing the same thing as Trump did, is it still fascist?
If it’s not the immigrants, who are we talking about? The police shooting people on Team Blue plantations?
Team Blue controls all three seats of power, are they abusing power to the point of fascism with it being Team Red’s fault again?Report
You say this, even as the Republicans are banning books and blocking college professors from testifying, while abortion is essentially unavailable in a handful of states; And the entire Republican Party has swung solidly behind the man who tried to steal the national election, and is making every attempt to do so again.
America is not a fascist place, but the trendlines are going in the wrong direction.Report
You can still buy them in stores, Chip.
Remember when we were discussing Dr. Seuss? You might be surprised to see who supported making books unavailable to children (if you don’t remember anything that happened more than five minutes ago).Report
If abortion counts then were we a fascist country before Roe? Our current restrictions look nothing like what we had before Roe.
I don’t know what “blocking professors from testifying” nor “banning books” is referring too.
Trump is a problem, however he’s out of office and is unlikely to ever hold office.
From the rhetoric you’d think we were having Kristallnacht (Night of Broken Glass) backed by the gov. Instead that sort of thing normally comes from the left (witness the 40 burned down buildings and 100 others damaged in this webpage’s incident).
To be fair BLM, to their credit, has realized just how much of a problem that sort of thing happening with their movement and is keeping better control.Report
Yes, at any given point in American history some group of people were oppressed and unable to live freely.
And we have in fact experienced several Kristalnacht type episodes.
The Tulsa Massacre, or one that I never knew about until recently, the 1871 Chinese Massacre in Los Angeles.
And if you need help with the book banning and silenced professors, just check Google or with your local Republican Party. They’ll fill you in.Report
Kristalnacht had 91 deaths.
1871 Chinese Massacre had 19.
Tulsa had 36.
BLM protests had 25.
Looking at the top 10 most books banned; 5 of them seem to be banned by the Left.
#2 (does not emcompass racism against all people)
#4 (inclusion of rape)
#5 (sexual misconduct by the author)
#7 To kill a Mockingbird (racial slurs, featuring a “white savior”, perception of the Black experience).
#8 Of Mice and Men (racial slurs and stereotypes)
I think we’re in BSDI territory rather than “creeping fascisms”. I also think 7 & 8 are on that list every year.
http://www.ilovelibraries.org/article/top-10-banned-and-challenged-books-2020Report
Probably worth noting JB posted the strongest link here.Report
Hey! I didn’t post it as a link, but I pointed to a YouTube breakdown of the actual shooting footage. Maybe that’s not as strong as Jaybird’s link to the backgrounds of the three people who were shot, and it’s definitely not as solid as Saul’s documentation of Jaybird’s fascism or Philip’s analysis of the white male power structure, but it’s got to count for something.Report
That video was… really something. I had not seen it before. One never knows what a jury will do but I think it will be difficult to convict him on murder or an assault/battery type charge in the shoots shown in the second and third segment. First segment it’s pretty hard to tell what’s happening.Report
Sorry you watched it. I’ve been on “puppy makes friends with squirrel” videos for the past couple of days, just to get my head right.
You can’t tell what a jury will think, and you don’t know what other evidence may be presented. But I wouldn’t want to be a prosecutor trying to present Rittenhouse as a maniacal killer.Report
You’re definitely in the top 10, maybe in the top 5.
However JB’s link uniquely points past the media’s unwillingness to go into these guy’s backgrounds, especially Rosenbaum’s.
There are major media sources that claim to want to show us what they were “really” like, but they’re puff pieces. Mentally ill, violent, serial rapist of children who starts fires isn’t mentioned.
The media is doing nothing to prepare the public that the defense will likely show Rosenbaum attacked Rittenhouse. That the judge had to rule on whether Rosenbaum could be called an arsonist because he’s an arsonist.Report
Add to Rosenbaum’s list of problems: He was homeless and recently suicidal.
That puts a different spin on his statements “shoot me”, and maybe even him going after someone armed.Report
You should start using the “Ignore” x. I’ve x’ed a few people, and it’s a pain because it interrupts the flow of the thread, but I’ve only used it for cases where my exchanges with the person never have any meaningful results. I come here to get a wide range of opinion, so I’m not going to cut someone out because I don’t agree with him, but only if there’s no likely benefit in any future exchange.Report
No matter how hard you clutch those pearls, they’re not going to turn into diamonds.Report
Our moral code for when violence is justified is complex and depends on a lot of factors.
What most of us don’t like to admit is that those factors include tribe and caste and cause.Report
Police officers, for example, can get away with murder.Report
Given what you offer here, disallowing the use of victim seems sensible, even if I don’t necessarily agree with it. I hadn’t thought of it in such terms and it is helpful to consider the legal definitions.
But I cannot square the circle that allows one set of loaded-and-unproven terms while disallowing another set of loaded-and-unproven terms, while insisting that how loaded they are and how proven they are is what matters.Report
Judge didn’t say the defense can use unproven terms, just that if they can prove it then they can use it.
That sounds hard but JB’s link up there suggests one of the dead guys was starting a fire and Rittenhouse’s dispute with him was he was trying to put it out.Report
wiki has a summation:
Protesters were recorded on video pushing a burning dumpster through a crowd, towards a gas station. A guard, dressed in similar clothing to Rittenhouse – a green shirt, cap, and bag – put out the dumpster fire, which enraged Rosenbaum, who shouted at the guard. More arson took place and was recorded on video. Someone with identical features to Rittenhouse – having the same build, clothing, and rifle; and also wearing brown shoes, blue gloves, and an orange medical kit – was then seen running with a fire extinguisher. According to Rittenhouse’s defense attorneys, the person with the fire extinguisher was indeed Rittenhouse, and what was not recorded on video was that he used it to put out one of the fires, which provoked a confrontation by Rosenbaum, who mistook Rittenhouse for the guard who had put out the dumpster fire earlier.
The beginning of the first confrontation between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum was witnessed by McGinniss to whom it seemed that Rosenbaum and other protesters were moving toward Rittenhouse, who was trying to evade them; Rosenbaum then tried to “engage” Rittenhouse, but Rittenhouse managed to avoid this by sidestepping and running away.
(Everything after this point is on video. Rosenbaum was the first guy who was shot trying to take Rittenhouse’s gun).Report
So Rosenbaum is on film starting a fire?Report
Apparently. Presumably this is why the judge was ruling on whether he can be called an “arsonist”.
JB’s link said he was also yelling “shoot me [n-word]” earlier.
For all the Lefty support for him and his activities, he doesn’t hit the radar as a true believer.Report
True story-
A relative of mine related a story from this morning.
He was at the grocery store parking lot, when a large truck pulled in, and proceeded to park diagonally across two spaces, then the driver got out and went walked towards the store.
The manager comes out and tells her to move her truck.
Words are exchanged. She then pulls out a handgun and dares him to force her.
He then pulls out HIS handgun and demands she comply.
My relative then pulls out HIS handgun and tells them both to stand down.
Cooler heads prevailed, and everyone disengaged.
Three people, waving guns around, threatening death.
Over a parking stall.
Social conservatives talk about a culture of life versus a culture of death, and anthropologists talk about societies where trivial slights escalate into deadly conflict because the primitive dysfunctional people are unable to resolve disputes any other way.Report
“Pulls out”, as in all three have concealed carry permits?Report
Imho “dysfunctional people who can’t resolve disputes without violence” describes criminals who go to a place to riot better than it does people who expect violence from them.Report
This was in a nice quiet suburban shopping center. The sort of community people move their children to, to avoid the crime and chaos of the inner city. And all three people were the average middle class folks you see at PTA meetings.Report
If this were in the news we could check up on that. As it is we’re in urban legend territory.Report
Over a parking stall.
More likely, initially, over the likelihood that if the truck is parked in a space where it barely fits, someone in a 20-year-old beater is going to go ahead and put a dent in it with their door because they’re just that pissed off. I haven’t seen it here in Fort Collins, but down in Boulder where the parking spaces are smaller by design people who are forced to try to squeeze into their car because of the giant pickup routinely ding the truck hard enough to get down to bare metal.
I recall having a discussion with someone about how they were going to respond, and they were generally leaning towards hiding out and then shooting whoever did it. My suggest of “Don’t drive your oversized pickup truck in Boulder” was dismissed out of hand.Report
Is this what they meant by “a polite society”? After all, in the end no one got shot.Report
yadda yadda good guy with a gun yadda yaddaReport
I’ve mentioned this many times, but the book that saying comes from starts with a thug who’s a crack shot insulting someone to provoke a duel and kill him.
But it’s a legal duel, so I guess you can’t call the dead guy a victim.Report
Its been my experience that the vast majority of people who carry guns carry them as props, for the purpose of displaying and issuing bluster and threats.
Did the woman (or Rittenhouse for that matter) really seriously think through the consequences of their actions? I doubt it. Because no police officer, or combat soldier or anyone trained in the use of deadly force would behave so recklessly, as if they really didn’t take the threat seriously.
Did either Rittenhouse or this woman consider being confronted by someone else with a gun? And no backup? Well, of course not.
They both just walked around with the blithe assumption that just flashing the gun would strike terror in the hearts of others, playing out like a John Wick movie.Report
Nope. Your opinion is based upon a squeaky wheel problem. You hear about those who bluster and intimidate because those events get reported to police and told as stories.
The millions of people who carry and never show their weapon, you never hear about them.Report
Here is a good essay on the limits of the American Justice system in dealing with people like Rittenhouse and Charlottesville murderers: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/10/kenosha-charlottesville-georgia-trials-justice-system-race.html
“A similar erasure is taking place in Charlottesville, where the plaintiffs in the civil trial against white supremacists have had to dust off the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 to enforce the civil rights of victims of racial hate in order to hold armed Nazi sympathizers to account. Yet jurors were being dismissed for cause for merely suggesting that white supremacist defendants were “evil” or, in the case of a potential juror, for admitting that “I lived here in this town. … I knew people that were assaulted, people were hurt. That poor girl is dead.” Another potential Black juror, who said she hoped she could be fair, was struck because according to Chris Cantwell—one of the white supremacists defending himself—“she seems to be very concerned about race. … She is worried about racism in all categories except against white people.” Yet a prospective juror who described Black Lives Matter as “a sham … lie-filled, I believe it to be strictly motivated toward unfair goals and nothing more than a bunch of people trying to take advantage” will be permitted to serve.
In other words, as far as jury selection goes, Black jurors who worry about anti-Black racism are deemed per se biased, unless they see racism against whites as equally problematic. The message becomes that the only qualified jurors seem to be those who express an openness to ideas about white supremacy and Nazism as a lifestyle choice. Judge Norman Moon has, to be sure, tried to focus jurors on whether they can be fair, as opposed to whether they have formed no opinions on Nazis, but to be open-minded about Nazis is not in fact a neutral legal position. We are all being asked to inhabit a world in which it must be.”Report
The white male power structure will maintain itself at any and all cost, including democracy and reality.Report
Link to the NYT’s video analysis. Includes more information on everyone involved. 2nd and 3rd victims look like they were there for civil rights. 1st just got out of the mental health hospital and has no civil rights history.
3rd guy (survivor) had some things to say, as did the GF (who was there) of the 2nd, and the militia leader and the city council leader who called for the militia.
IMHO the NYT did a good job at presenting all sides of this. It is something of a tear jerker so various trigger warnings.
https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000007409660/kyle-rittenhouse-shooting-video-analysis.htmlReport
Apparently, the prosecution introduced character witnesses on behalf of Anthony Huber.
Reports say that the defense introduced evidence about Huber’s character shortly thereafter where the prosecution withdrew the line of questioning.
This strikes me as dumb to the point where it’s malpractice.Report
Probably not. The prosecution has no doubt been talking to his loved ones, who paint a glowing picture of him walking on water. The media has taken that and run with it.
His GF (who was there) gives great interviews talking about how great a guy he was and how this was unnecessary and a tragedy.
He’s also the 2nd man in, who might reasonably have thought he was dealing with an active shooter. Even the counsel member who summoned the militia thought he died a great death. He hits the radar as a great guy who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The repeated domestic abuse, felony for “strangulation” (pled guilty), various no contact orders and court order to not possess weapons? That doesn’t get mentioned and you need to dig for it.Report
Well, the defense apparently brought up the criminal complaints against Huber in response to the prosecution bringing it up. The alleged complaints allegedly mention alleged threats Huber made to his alleged family.
They would have been better off leaving that stone unturned.Report
Yep, the prosecution withdrew the line of questioning.
Report
I need a legal type to explain what a “directed verdict” is, apparently.
Report
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/directed_verdict#:~:text=A%20directed%20verdict%20is%20a,a%20motion%20by%20either%20party.Report
Directed Verdict (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/directed_verdict). My guess is that the defense just got a witness to admit that they were doing something that would give the defendant legal justification for firing their weapon.Report
Thanks all for the definitions!
Now I’m wondering how this wouldn’t apply only to the one guy but… if that one guy was the lynchpin of “Rittenhouse was shooting mostly peaceful people in addition to the guys that attacked him”, maybe that’s enough for everybody?Report
That aside I really wonder if the prosecution is trying to tank this because at the end of the day they sort of don’t mind that Rittenhouse was there?Report
Now, granted, I’ve been saying that I didn’t see how a jury would do anything but acquit since way back when.
And, yeah, I thought that the malpractice was evident back on Friday.
But the prosecutor putting his face in his hands in the clip communicates more “how dumb are we?” than “hee hee hee, riot some more, jerks!”
But maybe that’s what they were going for.
At this point, we’re slipping from “they blew it” to “CONSPIRACY THEORY” territory, though.Report
It’s not “malpractice” if your boss gives you a very low probability of victory case and then you proceed to not win.
Prosecutor didn’t drop the ball, it’s just the only way he could win is if the defense screwed up.
There’s an argument that he shouldn’t have brought the case at all, but that wasn’t workable because of political pressure and community expectations.Report
Ethically a prosecutor should not bring a case they don’t think they can win. I don’t think we’re in that kind of territory though. Keep in mind the burden of proof for self-defense is on Rittenhouse, which will probably be the basis of acquittal of the most serious charges.
I actually think this kind of thing is exactly what the jury system should be used for. Rittenhouse made his own bed with this and deserves every bit of disruption to his life and hard scrutiny he is going through. If a jury of his peers decides he gets to walk away so be it but something like this absolutely ought to be prosecuted, every day of the week.Report
I think a prosecutor may drop charges at any time, or a defense may call for a directed verdict before putting on its defense, or a defense may call for a directed verdict at the end of its presentation. But – since the plea here is self-defense, which is an affirmative defense, the prosecution only has to demonstrate the facts of the case and the defense can’t call for a direct verdict after the prosecution. The prosecution has no obligation to demonstrate lack of self-defense.Report
This is a case that should have never been brought, that’s the prosecutors’ fault.
As it stands now, this case shouldn’t see a jury. That’s the court’s responsibility. Most courts are reluctant to do this, because it humiliates the prosecutors, unnecessarily maybe, and the depending on the laws of the jurisdiction, prosecutors offices are strong and might retaliate. Still, you gotta draw a line somewhere, and this case is well past it.Report
CNN has a good report here: https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/08/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-monday/index.html
Sounds a lot like Grosskreutz (the survivor) came very close to shooting Rittenhouse. He thought Rittenhouse was an active shooter, he pulled and pointed his gun, then he couldn’t bring himself to pull the trigger. He’s a paramedic, one assumes it’s against all his training.Report
I’m confused… were Grosskreutz’s hands up when he was shot? Was he holding a weapon? Are we at the point where Person X can shoot, Person Y can pull a weapon in response, and Person X can shoot Person Y in self defense?Report
Grosskreutz just testified that his hands were not up but pointing a weapon at Rittenhouse.Report
Yeesh, Kazzy, just watch the footage.Report
The riot is the root of all this. Grosskreutz apparently saw the first shooting or it’s immediate aftermath. Both Grosskreutz and Rittenhouse understood that Rittenhouse had the duty to surrender to the police.
But he’s in the middle of a riot and the cops aren’t there, so he needs to go find them. He marches off to do exactly that, but kept his gun because he might be attacked again. Grosskreutz followed him.
He does get attacked, three times, once by the dead guy with the skateboard, once by unknown-person-who-ran-off (Rittenhouse shot at him and missed), and once by Grosskreutz when he pointed a gun at him. Everyone else backed off. Rittenhouse got back up and continued to march down to the cops.
Then Rittenhouse found the cops and attempted to surrender. Amazingly, with people shouting that he’d shot someone, they told him to go away because they were busy and they drove off.
This was not the first time that night the cops beclowned themselves but whatever.Report
Grosskreutz also apparently testified that he recognized that Rittenhouse was in grave danger from the other attacks.Report
He intentionally decided that he personally wanted to be at that riot with a weapon.Report
Then he got shot after pointing his gun at Rittenhouse.Report
To be clear I have no sympathy for anyone involved in this. But let’s be real. There’s a very selective application of who assumed what risk going on. Had Grosskreutz shot first and killed or wounded Rittenhouse there’s a decent chance that Grosskreutz could be acquitted for self defense or defense of a third party.
Had it happened that way do you really believe that people defending Rittenhouse would be taking the same position for Grosskreutz? Or vice versa? I certainly don’t. That alone says to me that the law and the application of the law needs to be a disincentive to play this game in the first place.Report
My feelings as well.
The only conclusion anyone should takeaway from this is that it is colossal stupidity to go running around with a gun.Report
I agree. I’m not going to lose loads of sleep of Rittenhouse is acquitted. But I’m also not losing any sleep about his life being turned upside down no matter the outcome. The message the law should be sending is that people need to think twice before willingly putting themselves in these kinds of situations.Report
Honestly, the kid is gonna be dealing with the fallout of this for years, even if he’s acquitted. If he’s smart, he’ll legally change his name and make a determined effort to alter his appearance for the next few years, just to avoid the negative attention that is certain to follow him as he starts his adult life.Report
He could make this a career. Join the talk show circuit. Reportedly he already had lots of sympathy for the alt-Right so presumably he can get jobs as a celeb over there.
Now if he wants to be a normal civilian then he has problems… but I’m not sure he does want that.Report
The fact that it happened in a riot is one of those things that tells me that the entire situation was out of control.
That alone says to me that the law and the application of the law needs to be a disincentive to play this game in the first place.
The stupid game has stupid prizes. But the fact that there was a riot indicates that the breakdown happened a few miles up the road. The horse ran away. The barn burned down. The horse got eaten. By French people, I assume. The metal from the barn door is messed up but a decent smith could probably make it usable again.
But locking it, at that point, will be in “day late, dollar short” territory.Report
The riots went on long enough for the militia to be summoned.
For that matter I doubt we’re done with riots.Report
I would feel differently if we were talking about someone whose home or even livelihood was in the way of a rampage bearing down on them that they had no part in creating. It’s no excuse to go all Judge Dredd but I’m a lot less inclined to Monday morning quarterback something like that, regardless of what the law is. I don’t think this is that situation. Not when you have to ask your mom to give you a ride to the rampage from a good safe distance away.Report
Very true. Rittenhouse had no business being there in the middle of all of those other people who had no business being there.
The situation was lawless and mayhem.
The fact that it resulted in further lawlessness and further mayhem means that that sort of thing should be prevented beforehand rather than merely contained.
“How can we prevent more Rittenhouses?” strikes me as a question that has an important but ignored alternate framing and this alternate framing is equally important if not more important.
Because we will have more riots.
And we will have more Rittenhouses.
And we will look back at Rittenhouse’s body count with nostalgia.Report
I’m going to say something totally reactionary and I reserve the right to reverse it later. But at this moment in time I think everyone needs to know that no matter what happens, they may beat the rap but they won’t beat the ride. Hopefully that’s enough to minimize future incidents.Report
How many of the Kenosha rioters got the ride?
Without such knowledge, it seems to me that we have the option of ignoring the riots or minimizing the riots.
I don’t really like either of those options.Report
It is unreasonable to think some group can burn down 40 buildings without push back. It is reasonable that said pushback will become armed if given enough time.
It is reasonable to shoot a rapist resisting arrest + trying to take small children hostage. The real question is how can we do that without getting 40 buildings burned down?
Big picture we’re DEEP into “the election was stolen” territory. The narrative the rioters believed was wrong. For that matter the narrative that three innocent protesters got shot is also wrong.
When Rittenhouse gets off, either totally or with a hand-slap, we might see more riots.Report
In every riot, the violence is created by a small handful of hooligans (almost always young men) who rarely have any connection to the overall issue.
Some exceptions apply, but generally that’s why uncontrolled violence is always bad, because it lets those people rise to the surface.
If people watch this trial and the video and realize that any one of those guys could legally have shot any of the others, maybe rioting will seem a bit less of an adventure.Report
“…maybe rioting will seem a bit less of an adventure.”
I think we’d need to see more than one Rittenhouse case before that would happen. Young men are notoriously thick headed about such risk analysis.Report
Yes. Both men could reasonably claim self defense. And again, the root cause of that is the riot.
Absent the riot and we don’t have Rittenhouse unable to surrender.
We don’t have the mentally ill, suicidal, homeless, serial pedophile running around starting fires without the police stepping in. Him getting pissed at his fires being put out might result in him getting shot, but it would be the police shooting him.
For that matter, without the riot we don’t have 40 burned down buildings and another 100 just set on fire.
The politician who called in the militia had nothing but good things to say about the 2nd dead guy. Called it a good death or something like that, made it clear he thought that the dead guy thought he was dealing with an active shooter.
Grosskreutz is strongly in favor of gun rights, was there to medically treat both sides, and (from what little I’ve seen) impressive. It’s really easy to picture him being welcomed by the same segment that currently supports Rittenhouse.
So yes, I do think that.
Now if Grosskreutz had a history of mental illness, sex crimes, and starting fires I think they wouldn’t be supporting him.Report
That damn riot just sucked people in like a vortex I guess.Report
Relatedly, it strikes me that cops being able to say “I thought he had a weapon” as a justification for shooting and normal folks being able to say “He did have a weapon” as a justification for shooting is a far bigger threat to gun rights than any gun control legislation.
If it’s okay to shoot people who (might) have a weapon, it’s not okay to have a weapon.Report
There is a world of difference between “active shooter” and “has a gun”.Report
Kazzy, would you please, please watch the video? It’s not a claim about having a gun, it’s not having a gun, it’s chasing after someone as a pack and then when he’s on the ground pointing a gun at him.Report
Pinky,
I haven’t watched the video but, to a degree, I’m not talking about this particular case.
It increasingly seems like if the “right” kind of person claims they were afraid for their lives, all bets are off with regards to what they are allowed to do in response.
Sure, it’s easy to say, “Well, look at the particulars… look at the particulars…”
If I were a Black man and a gun owner, I wouldn’t feel I had the same gun rights as a White man. And we can say, well, look at those particulars. But it seems like particulars have a way of becoming generals.
To @InMD’s point, I’d rather both these guys face consequences than neither. Whatever makes more folks think twice before running towards a chaotic situation with a gun and thinking, “I’ll help out!”
Based on what I’m reading here, sounds like they both made an already dangerous situation worse.. They should both be held accountable. If not, we’re looking at that Chicago gang case recently discussed here. What was the term… mutual combatants or something?Report
“Pinky,
I haven’t watched the video”
wait
remember how mad at Jaybird you were because he wouldn’t watch the videoReport
In Kazzy’s defense, the trial clip above shows the prosecution’s case being garroted.Report
It’s just, Jaybird linked to the original discussion about this case, and you asked what happened, and the same thing happened above, and just now you’re talking about people who “might” have a weapon. I didn’t want to watch the video either, but I did in order to hold up my end of this discussion.Report
Pinky,
Do you have a link to the video you’re referring to? I’m not refusing to watch it… this is a case I haven’t followed super closely and it seems like every other comment here contains a link.
Again, I’m not so focused on the particulars of this case.
My confusion was because the link I did open that DarkMatter provided had the following:
“Gaige Grosskreutz, 27, testified that he unholstered his handgun on August 25, 2020, as he and a crowd followed Rittenhouse, who had just fatally shot another man. Rittenhouse fell to the ground, fired twice at an unknown person and then fatally shot Anthony Huber.
Grosskreutz, just feet away, put his hands in the air, videos show. He then saw Rittenhouse rerack his weapon — a motion that loads it for gunfire, he testified.
“Reracking the weapon in my mind meant that the defendant pulled the trigger while my hands were in the air, but the gun didn’t fire, so by reracking the weapon I inferred the defendant wasn’t accepting my surrender,” he testified.
Yet Grosskreutz did not pull the trigger of his weapon, he said.”
So, I see that he had a weapon and he had his hands up and I’m just trying to parse that out a bit. If there is a video that makes this clear, I’ll watch it.
But I think you think I’m making an argument I’m not. And maybe that is because the position I’m kinda sorta staking out isn’t applicable to this scenario, which might be obvious if I watch the video. So, if you have the link, I’ll watch it. I’m not refusing to or avoiding it. I’m just only following certain threads here and with only so much attention and am trying to make sense of what I see as a broader trend, which is that it seems like yelling, “BUT HE HAD A GUN” is increasingly accepted as a justification for using deadly force, which I think is a bad thing.Report
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iryQSpxSlrg
Is this the video? Is Grosskreutz the guy shot at the 20-second mark? If so, I really can’t tell exactly what’s going on there.Report
Yes to all that.Report
Video evidence shows Grosskreutz stopping and raising his hands, his pistol pointing in the air. Grosskreutz testified that he saw Rittenhouse re-rack his rifle to load a new round into the chamber.
“In that moment, I felt that I had to do something to try to prevent myself from being killed or being shot,” Grosskreutz testified. “I decided the best course of action would be to close the distance between the defendant and I, and from there, I don’t know … wrestling the gun, detaining the defendant, I don’t know … “ https://www.npr.org/2021/11/08/1053567574/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-gaige-grosskreutz-testimony-kenosha
I’ve got another link so I’ll put it in another post.Report
Warning Raw footage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iryQSpxSlrg
Grosskreutz is the last guy (with an orange object) who closed with Rittenhouse while he was on the ground. His actions were aggressive enough to get him shot even without him being armed.
6 to 8 people closed in on Rittenhouse, two got shot at (one killed), everyone but Grosskreutz backed off, and he waited a moment then dived in again.Report
Okay, so we were watching the same video.
Everything happened so fast that I can barely tell what Grosskreutz was doing.
“His actions were aggressive enough to get him shot even without him being armed.”
But this is what I’m getting at. Are we really okay with saying, “Well, you were acting really aggressive so you deserved to be shot?” Who defines aggressive? Does context matter? Would that same behavior outside the context of a riot justify being shot?
Look… you got a bunch of guys running around with guns in a highly charged, scary, overwhelming, and dangerous environment. I understand the impulse — legally, logically, morally — to say, “Welp, you run around with guns in that scenario, what do you expect to happen?” and wash your hands of it all.
At the same time, my impulse is to say, “You run around with guns in that scenario… did you really not expect to goto jail?”
And if their — EITHER OF THEIR — response is, “Well, I thought I was helping,” I think we ought to disavow them and anyone who thinks similarly that running around with guns in the middle of a riot is ‘helpful.’ Throw ’em both in jail.Report
If it’s so aggressive that the other person can reasonably think you’re about to kill them, then we’re in “claiming self defense in court” territory.
Outside of a riot, Rittenhouse disarms and everyone waits for the police. Handing himself over to the “protesters” was a non-starter.
Those would be the same protesters burning down buildings and one of whom just tried to kill him for the “crime” of putting out fires.
We jail people for murder and arson, we don’t for self defense. Nor is it illegal or unreasonable to put out fires or give out first aid.
The unreasonable people here are the rioters. Burning down 40 buildings is heinous.Report
Wait. One of your kids comes to you and says, ‘Dad, there’s a riot a few towns over. I’d like to go guard some random businesses. Even better my pal says I can borrow his rifle to do it.’ Your response is ‘Sure, that sounds reasonable’? Really?Report
It sounds risky as hell.
However the issue isn’t it’s risk, the issue is whether or not you lose the right to self defense if you do that.
It’s trivial to think of other risky-but-legal activities that are morally correct. Registering black voters in 1964 Mississippi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Chaney,_Goodman,_and_Schwerner
If your principles say that Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner could simply be killed because they were doing things to which criminals would violently object, then maybe the problem is with the principles and the criminals.Report
Dark, trying to put a minor traveling with a gun to guard a stranger’s used car lot in the same category as peacefully protesting for the rights of fellow citizens in the 60s is not something I can take seriously. It’s a wilfully obtuse framing and a terrible analogy.
And even then I do not think he gave up his right to self defense. But I do think that if you kill a few people in this sort of scenario you do give up the right to walk away without any consequences. And those consequences legitimately include being forced to take your chances with a jury. Even if he’s acquitted on the most serious charges, as I think he likely will be, he is not a victim of anyone but himself and maybe his moron parents.Report
I strongly disagree. What he was doing was putting out fires and handing out first aid. That’s legal and moral. Getting in the way of violent criminals and their widespread criminal activity is a problem, but not with legality nor morality.
The part that breaks the analogy is he refused to die at the hands of the violent criminals. Up until that point the analogy holds fine. Schwerner and the others could have killed their attackers and would have been morally and legally correct to do so.
Thus the trial. Killing people is a life changing event in general.
40 burned down buildings and another 100 damaged.
Everyone in that entire area is a victim of the rioters.Report
Why are you so eager to eliminate agency from this one single person even as you apply it vigorously to everyone else? It sounds like the leftists justifying the destruction itself. Things just happen I guess.
The destroyed property, as bad as that is, was not his business until he purposefully made it such. It’s the business of the police and the property owners, not his. No matter how many times you say ’40 buildings’ it does not change the fact that none of them were his or even remotely associated with him nor would he have been in any proximity to them if he’d been home where he should have been. Even by your own definition of ‘everyone in that area’ he is not a victim. He’s from another town in another state 17 miles away.
He also had no duty or expertise to put out fires or give medical assistance. This is the kind of thing a dumb kid says to rationalize, or even try to attach some valor, to completely idiotic behavior. Behavior like carrying a rifle into an area of civil unrest, which itself greatly increases the odds of being drawn into the conflict by mistake or otherwise.Report
The entire situation was one of lawless mayhem that law enforcement decided was best contained rather than ended.
That lawless mayhem happened within the containment zone is one of those things that gets me to say “well, that’s what happens in lawless mayhem containment zones”.
Assigning responsibility to people who willfully go into such zones is a great idea, I guess. How many lawless mayhem containment zone people got responsibility assigned to them?
I’m counting four.Report
I apply the same rubric to them I do to Rittenhouse. Yet people keep responding as though I think a different rule should apply, even when I expressly say that isn’t the case.Report
Okay. So you do. Fine. Do the authorities?
Have the authorities applied that same rubric?
If they’re failing do (either because they won’t do it or because they can’t do it), we’re in a situation where we have no authorities in the moment, only after the fact.
And that’s a double-buttload more concerning than whether someone steps up in the absence of authority acting.
Like, the problem is *THERE*. The problems that followed the original problem are secondary to the primary problem.Report
I guess I don’t understand how that kind of backwards looking approach is workable. We can’t have people saying ‘well I am anticipating that the authorities are going to fail to do their jobs therefore I am preemptively granting myself license to go do it how I think it should be done.’ That’s very different IMO from responding to an exigency you find yourself in through no fault of your own.
Now I personally think the people who engaged in the kind of crap we saw last year ought to be prosecuted. But if the authorities fail to do that for whatever reason then it’s a matter to be handled at the ballot box. That appears to be happening all over the country, and it would be happening I think whether or not Rittenhouse showed up that night.Report
I guess I don’t understand how that kind of backwards looking approach is workable.
Oh, it’s not.
It’s just that we’re forced to pick between unworkable kludges to a problem spawned by another problem.
Do you think that the summer of 2023 will have riots once it becomes apparent that Trump is the likely nominee and the Democrats have to choose between Harris and someone else?
Because my read on this situation is that we are going to see more mostly peaceful protests with news anchors standing in front of burning buildings saying that most of the people here aren’t doing anything illegal.Report
I do give him agency, I just think volunteering to put out fires and give first aid are good things.
I also think enabling lunatics like Rosenbaum is a bad thing.
You’re claiming putting out fires is a bad thing?
He got drawn into conflict by putting out fires, and the mentally ill serial kiddy rapist getting pissed at that.
There’s an argument Rosenbaum would have only beaten him up and with guns involved someone would die. However, trusting Rosenbaum’s good judgement or good behavior should be a non-starter.Report
You are ignoring the context.
Putting out fires & rendering aid is a good thing.
Putting out fires or rendering aid in a conflict zone without support (people to watch your back) is a bad thing, because it invites further conflict. There is a reason actual firefighters and EMTs don’t do such things until they have sufficient support that they can focus on their tasks, and it’s not cowardice.Report
Exactly.
In older buildings, they used to install cabinets with fire hoses, but fire departments discourage that now on the grounds that they do NOT want amateur firefighters trying to play the hero.
In a risky emergency situation what they want is for civilians to flee the area and let the people who know what they are doing handle the fire/ emergency aid/ crime fighting.Report
It is fine and wonderful for the authorities to handle these sorts of situations. The problem here was the authorities were not handling the situation.
And they’re STILL not handling it. The number of people charged with ANYTHING is one. If we ignore Rittenhouse, then the authorities have NO intension of pursuing criminal charges for anything done by anyone.
If you’re trying to discourage people from doing this, then that’s not how you do it.
If the authorities’ solution is to stand back and let disorder run free, then people will supply their own order.Report
“Maybe ‘Defund the Police’ was a bad slogan to adopt?”
“That’s really dishonest. Nobody was arguing that! Also, it didn’t mean ‘Defund’, it meant ‘reallocate’. And I stand by my stance that we should defund the police.”Report
Rittenhouse came with a crew, and wasn’t by himself until the end. Not sure how he got separated, my impression is he was trying to leave the situation entirely but that’s not firm.Report
I’m claiming that I don’t believe he was really there to give first aid and put out fires. I believe he was a fool kid making up an excuse to carry a weapon to where he knew there would be violence and disorder.
And no, I’m not saying putting out fires is a bad thing but that doesn’t mean I think teenagers should be the ones doing it unless there is absolutely no other choice. There are any number of perfectly good things that we nevertheless do not encourage randos with no competency to go way out of their way to attempt.
And where have you seen me once defend Rosenbaum? He was the police’s problem, and maybe the problem of the citizens of Kenosha who had no choice but to be there dealing with the rabble. Rittenhouse should never have encountered him because he never should have been there. Rosenbaum being a particularly awful person had 0 bearing on Rittenhouse’s decision to go to Kenosha and walk around with a gun. If the gas station owner had shot Rosenbaum under the same kind of circumstances Rittenhouse did I’d very likely have no issue but that’s not what happened.Report
BBC has more of Grosskreutz’s testimony.
Mr Grosskreutz, 27, was at the protest volunteering as a medic and said in court that he was affiliated with a social justice group called the People’s Revolution Movement, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
Under tense cross-examination on Monday, the defendant’s lawyer, Corey Chirafisi, asked Mr Grosskreutz: “When you were standing three to five feet from him with your arms up in the air, he never fired, right?”
“Correct,” Mr Grosskreutz said.
“It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him, with your gun, now your hands down pointed at him, that he fired, right?” Mr Chirafisi continued.
“Correct,” Mr Grosskreutz said.
He said he did not mean to point the gun at Mr Rittenhouse and also denied he had been chasing after the teen, who was aged 17 at the time.
Asked what was going through his mind as he got close to Mr Rittenhouse, he said: “That I was going to die.”
“I was never trying to kill the defendant. In that moment, I was trying to preserve my own life, but doing so while taking the life of another is not something I am capable or comfortable doing,” he told the court.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59216106Report
Imagine if Grosskreutz had pulled the trigger.Report
“An unknown assailant killed Mr. Rittenhouse during the mostly peaceful protest against police brutality.”Report
That’s why what Rittenhouse was doing was risky.
From his statements and the situation, my expectation is Grosskreutz would also be able to make a solid self defense claim.Report
That’s my point as well, that any one of these guys was completely justified in killing any of the others because “He had a weapon and I was afraid for my life.”
Which only highlights the idiocy of carrying a weapon in the first place.Report
No. Let’s look at them in order of encounter.
1) Rosenbaum has no claim for self-defense. A serial rapist cannot chase down someone, assault them, and then claim self-defense if he is forced to kill them.
2) Huber (dead guy with the skateboard) has something of a case, but not an easy one. For all the claims of “active shooter”, Rittenhouse wasn’t actively shooting when Huber engaged. If that State has a duty to attempt to flee then he has no case.
3) Grosskreutz’s case is much stronger because by then Rittenhouse had shot people and he and Rittenhouse were pointing guns at each other.
Now that’s assuming 8 rioters who are trying to strip someone of their gun while being cheered on by the bystanders is even slightly legal. If we’re in “robbing a liquor store” territory then no, even if the clerk foolishly draws on you, you can’t kill him and claim self-defense.
Rittenhouse has, by FAR, the best case for self-defense because everyone he shot physically attacked him.Report
I’ve been through basic active shooter training. Run, hide, fight. Not in sequential order, but in order of preference. You don’t run down the road after an active shooter.Report
There is a disconnect between the claims that he was believed to be an active shooter and him not actively shooting.
My impression is it was more basic than that, ‘he killed one of us, let’s get him’. That’s how we end up with a crowd following him down the street.
Now Grosskreutz had a real problem after everyone else started running away; he had a gun on him, he was at real close range, one of his fellows got shot and was on the ground.Report
To run after an armed person who just shot someone, you’ve got to be sure that you’re in the right and/or be surging with adrenaline (or some other chemical). I can understand either state of mind. Neither state of mind justifies doing it, though, and they both put the pursued in a situation where he may have to defend himself with lethal force.
If any of Rittenhouse’s pursuers had killed him (and it’s clear by their actions that it could have happened), they’d be charged with at least manslaughter, and the prosecutors would be having a much easier time than they are now.
Thing is, I hope I’d have the courage to pursue an armed killer, and risk my life disarming him. That’s probably the way they were thinking. But those intentions don’t justify their actions. The only guy who clearly acted with some restraint was Rittenhouse.Report
You have an … interesting … definition of restraint.
Kyle Rittenhouse lacked restraint when he crossed state lines to become an underage vigilante with a borrowed long gun he couldn’t legally possess. Frankly his mom lacked restraint in letting him do it but she’s not on trial. He lacked restraint when he decided to intervene in the riot, and he lacked restraint when he shot two men how posed a minimal threat to him and the property he was allegedly protecting. Whether his lack of restraint was greater or lessor then the people around him is beside the point. He left two people dead in his wake.Report
Whether his lack of restraint was greater or lessor then the people around him is beside the point.
“Selective demands for rigor” can be a red flag.
In pro-wrestling, it’s most obvious when the heels “cut the ring in half” and cut corners and fail to tag in and out but every single time the babyfaces so much as ball a fist the ref calls them on it and, when the babyface finally tags in his partner, the ref says it doesn’t count because he didn’t see it. The heels? They can do whatever they want.
It builds up a lot of heat in the audience.
They don’t make matches like that anymore, I tell you what.Report
Except for the people who physically attacked him, he shot no one. That’s in a crowd where the bulk of them clearly wanted to.
After having shot 3 people, his action was to go to the police and surrender, which is apparently what he was trying to do after shooting the first one.
I’m sorry, but the level of force he used, in each of the three instances, was probably appropriate for the situation. You don’t let the lunatic who was promising dire things earlier take your gun from you. You also don’t let the buddy backing him up take your gun either in the crowd baying for your blood.
You are on stronger ground when you argue that him inserting himself into the situation meant he had no right to self defense.Report
You mean, 8 citizens attempting to disarm an active shooter, which last i checked is legal.
What you’re doing here is retroactively assigning roles to people-
They were rioters, but Rittenhouse wasn’t. Really?
How was anyone to know this at the moment? No one saw Huber looting a store, or Rosenbaum lighting fires, and a bystander could easily just assume Rittenhouse was a looter and arsonist.
And anyone seeing a rioter running down the street carrying a rifle has a pretty strong claim to feeling threatened.Report
None of those 8 citizens is on trial.
The only one on trial is Rittenhouse and, apparently, the prosecution put its face in its hands when one of their main witnesses testified to pointing a gun at Rittenhouse immediately prior to getting shot by him (as well as testifying that, as a medic, he thought that Rittenhouse was in grave danger from the attacks from the two deceased mostly peaceful protesters).Report
He wasn’t an active shooter at the time. I can sympathize with people who convinced themselves he was, but he wasn’t.Report
That.Report
When you pull the trigger you are an active shooter, and you remain one until you lay down the gun.
Until then, you are just a guy in between shots.Report
I feel the same way about quitting smoking.
You never quit smoking.
You’re just in a place where it’s been a while since your last one.Report
Rittenhouse running down a street in a crowd of people after having shot one doesn’t come close to meeting the definition of “active shooter”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_shooterReport
He literally meets that definition.
He had just shot someone and to an observer who was not a mind reader, appeared to be fleeing, or searching for another victim.
Which once more is my point, that in a shooting, it’s never obvious who are the good guys and bad guys.Report
Which once more is my point, that in a shooting, it’s never obvious who are the good guys and bad guys.
Would a trial be capable of sussing that information out?
Are we cursed to be forever in a state of epistemic humility that demands we never reach a conclusion one way or another?Report
An active shooter is someone who is actively shooting people, as many as possible, at random because any one will do. Their purpose is to create dead bodies.
A guy walking down the street with a gun who could shoot lots of people (because they’re all around him) and is not doing so is not an “active shooter”. Words have meanings, so no, he doesn’t “literally meet the definition”.
He can be a murderer, he can be really dangerous, he can be other things. But the concept that he was actively slaughtering the crowd that he was in before they jumped him doesn’t match the video.
This is an acceptable mistake for Grosskreutz to make after Rittenhouse shot at two people in front of him, but not before that. Huber might have been able to argue that Rittenhouse was getting away with murder. If Huber had killed Rittenhouse, Huber couldn’t have argued self defense in a state where he had the duty to flee.Report
Notice how your definition depends on the state of mind of the shooter, which observers can’t possibly know.
So my point is that any reasonable person could witness Rittenhouse, in between shooting his first and second victims and draw any number of valid conclusions, including that he was witnessing a spree shooting, personal vendetta, gangland hit, or any one of a dozen other conclusions.
A witness had no idea what he might do after the next one, and had no idea what the intentions of the people chasing him were.
Which is all in service to my point that carrying a gun into a chaotic situation is colossal stupidity and will likely get you shot.Report
No, the definition depends on him actively shooting everyone he runs into.
There can be other reasons to stop him, probably even legal ones, but him being an active shooter who is spree killing the crowd isn’t one of them because he’s clearly not spree killing the crowd. Given that fact, I don’t see how Huber would have had any chance of claiming self-defense in a state where you have the duty to flee.
Openly carrying a gun certainly raised the stakes. Personally, I wouldn’t have gone at all.
Having said that, if you’re militia and you’re intending to stop rioters from burning down a few more dozen buildings, openly carrying guns seems like the way to do it. 17 miles away is within shopping distance (I drove further today). That sounds close enough to be within someone’s area of concern.Report
“He had just shot someone and to an observer who was not a mind reader, appeared to be fleeing, or searching for another victim.”
He was running away. If you’re running away, you’re not an active shooter. If you are searching for victims and you’ve got more than one round left, you wouldn’t be running away from a crowd. In the either/or of searching or fleeing, only one of those could apply here.
“Active shooter” means something. If you’re not actively engaged in attempting to kill people, you’re not an active shooter. And as I said above, the proper response to an active shooter is run, hide, fight. Not run after and fight. Never opt to run at an active shooter if you can run the other way, or hide.
So Rittenhouse was not an active shooter, and they acted in a way that they shouldn’t have toward an active shooter, but exactly the way you would if you’re in a mob attacking people you don’t like.Report
If I witness a man shoot someone and I give chase, is he legally allowed to shoot me?Report
You’re skipping stuff.
You corner him. Your friends are yelling for him to be killed. You start beating him up. Then you either point your gun at him or try to take his.
In that situation, having done everything you can to make it clear you will kill him, yes he is legally allowed to shoot you.Report
Yup. This is what I meant by restraint. If Rittenhouse had wanted to kill as many rioters as he could, there would have been a lot more dead bodies. If he wanted to not kill anybody unless he had to, he would have let himself be chased down and be moments away from life-threatening injury before he fired. The latter is what happened.Report
So even if I witness someone shoot someone, I’m not allowed to enforce my own justice, even if the authorities are nowhere to be found, is what you’re saying.Report
True! This is what made it wrong for Grosskreutz to go after Rittenhouse.
And when Grossgreutz pointed his gut at Rittenhouse, that arguably put Rittenhouse in a situation where he could shoot Grossgreutz in self-defense.Report
Why was it wrong for Grosskreutz to chase Rittenhouse?Report
Because even if you witness someone shoot someone, you’re not allowed to enforce your own justice, even if the authorities are nowhere to be found?Report
A citizen isn’t allowed to chase and apprehend a fleeing criminal?
Are you sure?Report
United States
In the United States, a private person may arrest another without a warrant for a crime occurring in their presence. However, the crimes for which this is permitted vary by state.[84] This procedure was criticized in the state of Georgia for the potential of abuse and racial bias after the killing of Ahmaud Arbery. As a result, Georgia repealed its citizen’s arrest law.
California Penal Code section 837:
837. A private person may arrest another:
For a public offense committed or attempted in his/her presence. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his/her presence. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he or she has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.
Use of force
In general, a private person is justified in using non-deadly force upon another if they reasonably believe that: (1) such other person is committing a felony, or a misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace; and (2) the force used is necessary to prevent further commission of the offense and to apprehend the offender. The force must be reasonable under the circumstances to restrain the individual arrested. This includes the nature of the offense and the amount of force required to overcome resistance.[97][98] In at least one state, a civilian may use reasonable force, including deadly force if reasonable, to prevent an escape from a lawful citizen’s arrest.[99][100]
I very much doubt that “one state” is Wisconsin, which is a “duty to retreat” state and not “stand your ground” (which wouldn’t apply here because Rittenhouse was trying to run away and therefore not the aggressor).
And there this (same link): Differing liability from police
Private persons are occasionally granted immunity from civil or criminal liability, like the police are, when arresting others.[102] While the powers to arrest are similar, police are entitled to mistake of fact in most cases, while civilians can be held to a stricter liability depending on the individual state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_arrest#United_StatesReport
Now all of this assumes the lynch mob was trying to “arrest” Rittenhouse. If they were that civic minded the first thing they should have done is stop burning down buildings.Report
The statement that I gave: “enforce your own justice”
The statement that you’re questioning: “chase and apprehend”
What will the proposition be in 30 minutes?Report
The chasing was fine, if a little risky. People doing that with their phones running is why we have such great videos.
If Rittenhouse had really been an active shooter it wouldn’t have worked out well for them but whatever.
Where Grosskreutz got into trouble was when he joined the group attacking Rittenhouse. I.e. pointing his gun at him and charging him. They were close enough for their feet to touch when he got shot.Report
Basically yes. There are exceptions which come down to being really sure you’re next, i.e. home invader, active shooter, etc.
This is why various people are reaching for “active shooter”, it justifies what they wanted to do or have happen.
Huber’s criminal record amounted to impulsive use of violence. I would think he was seeking to “enforce his own justice”, but another word for that is “lynch mob”.
Grosskreutz made several bad calls. He shouldn’t have had the gun, he’s not willing to use it so all it did was up the stakes. He decided that Rittenhouse was racking his gun and getting ready to fire (video doesn’t show that). So he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse and rushed him.Report
Is “lynch mob” also synonymous with “vigilante”?Report
Vigilante is singular while lynch mob is plural. Also…
Vigilante: a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.
Lynching: a form of violence in which a mob, under the pretext of administering justice without trial, executes a presumed offender, often after inflicting torture and corporal mutilation.Report
Yeah, deciding to undertake law enforcement without legal authority sounds like it leads to bad outcomes.Report
If the police are allowing the city to be burned down, “bad outcomes” is a certainty and it’s just a matter of picking which one.Report
Hmm, I guess if the authorities are allowing wage theft to go unchecked, eventually people will start to take matters into their own hands.Report
(Descriptive statement)
(Prescriptive statement!)
(Descriptive statement)
(Indignant prescriptive statement)
(Descriptive statement)
(Accusation)Report
Rosenbaum is the face of the riot and the person enabled to run wild because of people “taking matters into their own hands”.
At that point the options were watch stuff burn or deeply anger the serial rapist to the point where he tried to kill people.
His death was about self defense, not justice. Killing him was not “taking the law into your own hands”.
After that the only one clearly trying to enable law enforcement was Rittenhouse with his marching to the police to surrender.Report
How did Rosenbaum become the “face of the riot”?
Who decided that, and by what authority?
Is there video of any of these four people looting or setting fires?Report
Wiki says Rosenbaum setting fires and Rittenhouse and earlier another guy who looked like Rittenhouse putting them out was the cause of why their “dispute”.
For the other 3 I’ve heard nothing bad.
Fine, I was too clever. I’ll rephrase and expand.
The Left has glorious dreams and stories about the riot and rioting. You did it yourself just now when you suggested wage theft could lead to rioting. FAICT it’s supposed to be young people filled with outrage and righteousness protesting and going to far.
The reality is Rosenbaum. No history of giving a sh*t about lefty ideals, he just wants to r*pe children and set fires. Calling him an “innocent protester” doesn’t change that reality.
And it doesn’t change that if the cops can’t or won’t deal with him, it’s not taking the law into your own hands to stop him from killing someone.
You were correct earlier when you said “uncontrolled violence never, ever, produces justice.”Report
You’ve definitely latched onto him as a human worst-case scenario, and yeah, he does seem to fit that. But the living person who took the stand has got to be the public face of the riot, simply on the basis of exposure.Report
I’m not comfortable with Rittenhouse as the face of the riot.
Now maybe he works as a warning message to everyone in terms of what not to do.Report
There is a huge jump from “feeling threatened” to, it’s ok to physically attack him, take his gun, and… then what? Shoot him with it?
This feels a lot more like “street justice for someone who shot one of our team” than “disarming an active shooter who clearly isn’t shooting and is trying to disengage”.Report
They were both standing their ground.Report
See, you think you’re very clever for this allusion, but people already pointed this out back when that happened, and they were right.Report
Not clever, obvious as hell, Just like the fact that Rittenhouse is living George Zimmerman’s dream.Report
If it matters, Wisconsin is a duty to retreat state.Report
I’m pretty sure physics taught us two bodies can not stand the same ground at the same time.Report
Two angels can. Not that that applies here.Report
Right, he wasn’t gonna shoot the guy, in fact he was trying to give him the gun, barrel first, with his finger on the trigger…Report
Ehhh there’s a lot to unpack with that. Another person having a gun alone isn’t necessarily sufficient for a self-defense argument to prevail, though there are certainly situations where it might be. There’s also a question of how the jurisdiction handles duty to retreat, or if it recognizes one at all.
The police are protected by layers of statutes, case law, and bureaucracy. It isn’t apples to apples.Report
@InMD
Sorry, missed your reply here. It’s definitely more complicated than I made it, but my concern is that it seems to be getting less complicated.
I mean, the cops already seem to have carte blanche to shoot anyone with a gun or who maybe might have a gun. See: the guy in WalMart who was holding a gun he took off the shelf or the Castille shooting.
And some of this has to do with framing, but framing really matters.
If the Rittenhouse defense is (as many here have offered) that the presence of another gun was just one piece of the puzzle, I think we’re on solid ground.
But I’m also seeing the framing elsewhere as, “Well he had a gun so it was okay for Rittenhouse to shoot.” I don’t think we want that mindset adopted.Report
Wow. Wasn’t just “other people”. From the trial:
He says he moved his rifle behind him put his hands up, and walked toward a police cruiser.
Says he told the officer “I just shot somebody. I just shot somebody.”
Says the officer told him “Get the fuck back or you’re gonna get pepper sprayed. Go home. Go home. Go home.”Report
Well if that ain’t official sanction for murder…Report
Later tonight, when you’ve got an hour, everybody should check out Irving Younger’s 10 Commandments of Cross-Examination:
It’s a little under 50 minutes but the time will fly by. This is one hell of an informative lecture.Report
That was great.Report
I do not know whether the Prosecution was familiar with this vid, but the Defense sure as hell seemed to be.Report
Good news!
If we can get to the families of the jurors, maybe we can have the jurors find the correct outcome and get justice that way.Report
Someone has pointed out that the witnesses so far have all been prosecution witnesses.
Defense witnesses have not yet taken the stand.Report
(One might suggest that Huber turned out to be more of a defense witness than a prosecution witness.)Report
The prosecution having rested, now it is the defense’s turn.
Report
There are always different ways to look at things:
Report
I’m pretty sure this case has been the subject of the deepest dive in OT history. One droningly incessant claim of the right is that the mainstream press is biased. This case study really drives it home.Report
(thinks about Wickard)
(thinks about Raich)
(wipes away tear)
Yeah. I guess.Report
Deepest real-time dive?
(pats on head and gives ice cream)Report
This strikes me as bad.
Report
I have now confirmed that the prosecution is *NOT* familiar with Irving Younger’s 10 Commandments of Cross-Examination.Report
Another witness, videographer Richie McGinniss, described Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse and lunging for Rittenhouse’s gun. When prosecutor Thomas Binger pressed McGinniss to concede he didn’t know what Rosenbaum’s intent was, McGinniss had a pointed — and damaging — answer.
“Well,” McGinniss promptly replied, “he said, `F—- you.′ And then he reached for the weapon.”
https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-racial-injustice-wisconsin-kenosha-homicide-21bc78b702c2998ba227216aeebed2c5
Now the good news for the prosecution is the 10 Commandments is just for Cross-Examination. These were Direct (i.e. their own) witnesses so the 10 doesn’t apply.Report
The prosecution seems to be doing a pretty bad job. From what I read today, twice the judge told them not to do a specific thing and then they did that specific thing. Can any lawyers here weigh in on whether that serves some smart, strategic purpose? Or is that just bad lawyering?
If the latter, are we entering the “Are they stupid or are they evil?” zone (for various definitions of ‘stupid’ or ‘evil’)?Report
“Principled”Report
I’d probably put “principled” in the “stupid” category, if indeed that is where we find ourselves.Report
They’re losing. Badly. In public, so their personal *ss is on the line.
If they cheat, they may win.Report
I have never been a prosecutor but I think the mentality in a politically charged case is ‘get the win, who cares what happens on appeal.’ If they can get the jury to convict these guys will be out of the spotlight. I believe that is the playbook that was followed in, for example, the Cosby case. The difference there was that the judge went along with it.
But again, per the Ken White tweet, there are contentious moments in lots of cases. It’s hard to tell in the moment (and sometimes even in retrospect) what was decisive. Every lawyer has heard or heard of some real head scratching explanations from jurors. Like, that was what swayed you? But such is the system.Report
Rittenhouse has taken the stand.
From what I understand, this is really, really dumb.Report
Maybe he did really, really well in simulated cross examination.
I still remember the one time it was possible I was going to be called as a technical expert in a large legal proceeding. The simulated cross examination was a serious test of my ability to take nothing personally, stay exactly on point, etc. Fortunately, my boss was the one who got put on the stand.Report
There is livethreading here:
Defense appears to have the first crack at him.
It’s cross where where we see how inept the prosecution actually is.Report
Get ready for cross.
Report
From lawyerly comments, it is VERY traditional in a self defense claim for the central guy to take the stand. Like 20 out of 20 times it will happen.
And the defense promised the jury that he would.
Having said that, since then the Prosecution has managed to make the Defense’s case with the Prosecution’s witnesses, so there’s a LOT to be said for quitting while you’re ahead.
My expectation is this was Rittenhouse’s choice.Report
So it’s dumb in accordance with expectations.Report
Yeah, I hate breaking promises, especially professionally, but this seems to be the time for it. Apologize to the jury and stay quiet.
Now having said that, every time the Prosecution has gotten the ball they’ve dropped it. Rittenhouse might be earnest, convincing, and we’ve seen evidence that he’s cool headed while under pressure.Report
Whether to take the stand in a criminal case is the client’s decision. Most clients listen to their lawyers and are right to do so. And mostly they don’t testify. Usually for good reasons. (White-collar cases are often different, for a variety of reasons not worth getting into now.) We’ll see how this works out, and maybe someday we will find out whose idea it was and why.
EDIT: Apparently, the defense said early on that it would call him, so there was probably some strategy involved.Report
A callback to a conversation we’ve had before:
Report
It isn’t the norm but I can see why you might do it in a self-defense case. Only he can testify to the threat he felt. Still a risky move.Report
CJ has explained to me before that the feeling of being on a roll but being interrupted by the judge saying “speed it up” is one of the bad feelings.Report
It isn’t exactly what you want but judges say stuff. I wouldn’t over interpret it in any particular direction.Report
Not sure if Younger’s Commandments can be expanded to a meta-Trial theory… but this seems to violate at least 4 commandments given how the trial has gone so far.Report
“Rittenhouse has taken the stand.”
Report
Rittenhouse says one of the “protesters” was yelling “Get him and kill him.”
That was to Rosenbaum before he got shot.
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/national-international/rittenhouse-says-first-man-he-shot-threatened-to-kill-him/2727237/Report
It’s always hard to tell with these things on the internet, but I get the feeling A LOT of people are tracking this case.Report
The judge has asked the Prosecution to come into the Judge’s library twice so far in the cross-examination.
The jury has been dismissed at least once so that the judge can speak candidly to the prosecution.Report
More info on that. Also some of what Rittenhouse has said.
Sounds like he’s done a really good job, especially on cross.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kyle-rittenhouse-takes-witness-stand-rcna5103Report
Friend of the site Popehat has an observation for those who think that the judge is acting inappropriately or something or other (and goes on to compare judges to dogs):
Report
QUIT YELLING AT ME POPEHAT!!!!!Report
I know that if you’ve got a shot at a mistrial, you need to ask for a mistrial. (If you’re the defense, anyway.)
But jumping the gun is prolly a bad play.
Report
“But jumping the gun is prolly a bad play.”
one might suggest that jumping the gun is the whole reason we are having this discussion
(bah-DOOMP)Report
The WaPo is pointing out that this particular judge is pretty pro-defense.
Which, like, is sus I guess?
“If only our legal system was tougher on the defense!”Report
Local news claims defense will ask for a mistrial.
Prosecution seems to have realized they can’t win and are trying for a mulligan.
https://www.weau.com/2021/11/10/defense-witnesses-rittenhouse-badly-shaken-by-shootings/Report
I will grant that most of the people I follow on Twitter are inclined to side with Rittenhouse over the prosecution, but the stuff that leaks over from those inclined to side with the prosecution all seem to be yelling about how the judge is prejudiced and the prosecution is deliberately trying to throw the case.Report
“the judge is prejudiced and the prosecution is deliberately trying to throw the case”
Do you think they think they’re conspiracy theorists?Report
I have heard stories of people who have been burglarized ask the cops “are you going to check for prints?” and the cops said “you watch too much television”.
All that to say: the people who think that the judge is acting in an extraordinary manner as well as the people who think the prosecution is deliberately being bad at this are, I assume, people who have spent more than one Saturday in front of a Law & Order marathon.Report
This is a bad sign:
Report
Perspective:
Report
Released.
Thou shalt not use f*ck, sh*t, n*zi, or b*tch, with the missing vowels plugged in, even when quoting someone, unless you want to wait for a person with the appropriate permissions to fish the comment out of moderation. (I probably shouldn’t have such permissions from an editorial perspective, but they come with the technical maintenance privileges.)
As this is where I comment most frequently, I’ve pretty much taught my fingers to use the asterisk no matter where I’m writing those words. (And yes, it was a bit odd when I found that I’d written a sentence elsewhere about female dogs at my great-grandfather’s kennels with the asterisk.) While not a really old site, OT is old enough to have accumulated kruft from periods when those terms were problematic in one way or another.Report
Dang, misthreaded.Report
D*ng.Report
This is a test comment. I’m just curious as to whether the filter is smart enough to catch a dotless Turkish ı. No need to fish this bıtch out of moderation.
Edit: Not smart enough, it seems.Report
It’s just the stock WordPress filter. WordPress is written in PHP which, for practical purposes, is very limited about character sets. For example, in regular expressions, the meta value \w — characters that occur in words — matches only [A-Za-z0-9_]. Not even Latin 1.
OTOH, as I understand the history, the people who were egregious enough to get those words put in the filter were not the type who would have spent the effort to paste in, or type out Unicode or HTML encodings for, near-match glyphs.Report
nâzi
NΑZI (the capital “a” here isn’t an “a”).
NĄZI
If I pull in some of the better letters, they won’t display correctly unless you have the correct font loaded.Report
Weird. If I search for the offending word, the 1st and 3rd attempts are found but the 2nd is not.Report
How about “NANCY”?Report
“Does Freddie have a take on the whole thing?”, I hear you ask. Why, yes he does!
Report
Funny how he seems to delight in conflating intellectual understanding with approval.Report
Eh, if people in Group G have members that are approving of Proposition P alongside of people who are not arguing Proposition P, they want to point out, just are just asking whether Proposition P is really unthinkable alongside of people who are saying Proposition P is a distraction, Proposition Q is the important proposition and why aren’t you talking about that, then Freddie’s sin is that he’s assuming that everybody in Group G supports Proposition P when, really, only the ones on twitter do.Report
statistically few of the ones on twitter do as well.Report
But every single one of them ended up in Freddie’s DMs.Report
Haven’t been following this giant bucket of stupid; but it has occurred to me that I’m extremely grateful that my Demo’s and Presentations are not broadcast.
Twitter: Only Marchmaine could screw-up a simple add-on sale like this. The customer specifically told him not to mention that feature, but he’s constantly referring to that feature; doesn’t he get it? Sure, it’s the best feature in the solution, but they don’t care about it. That stupid question from the back of the room he just handwaved? That was the executive sponsor. Is he really parking questions until the end of the presentation? Nobody likes that. Hah! The demo is hanging… good luck selling that stuff. OMG, is he building his closing pitch around the product’s best feature that they don’t care about?
The only thing about sales is that there’s no referee… or everyone’s a referee… or maybe better, the real referee is hidden. Anyway, I’m glad no one watches me work.Report
Haven’t been following this giant bucket of stupid; but it has occurred to me that I’m extremely grateful that my Demo’s and Presentations are not broadcast.
All of the budget staff at my state legislature did several major presentations per session. Live, in front of the committee and the audience. And the live microphones that made the audio available on the internet. You tended to forget about the internet aspect, until you got back to your office from the committee room and there were eight voice messages already waiting.Report
Sometimes customers want to record the session and I’m like, ugh… y’all are barely paying attention live… but recorded?Report
Apparently it goes to the jury tomorrow.
Prediction:
They will not be deliberating on Monday as well
I don’t know whether they’ll deliberate to after lunch or not.Report
Whoops, this was inaccurate.
They’re still in the middle of discussing whether upscaling counts as photo manipulation.Report
They’re questioning the Esper? What next, they’ll go after the validity of the Voight-Kampff?Report
Your honor, I haven’t generated enough billable hours yet so I would like to talk so more and make the following arguments….Report
If this was my case, I’d be annoyed that the judge’s antics might detract from the very successful on the merits case I had put together.Report
There is that . . . . though normally its the defense that seeks sanctions on biases an issue and not the prosecution … prejudicial courtroom and allReport
Lest we forget, Rittenhouse committed two rathe serious crimes to put himself in this place. Once he did that Wisconsin law says he can’t use self defense. And yet here we are.Report
The Prosecution really messed up by allowing that particular affirmative defense.Report
You lost me. What (which?) “two rather serious crimes” did he commit?
So the judge and every lawyer involved in the case is wrong?Report
Minors are not allowed to possess firearms in public. He crossed state lines to do so.
They may be wrong. Or they may not care.
But Kyle Rittenhouse was and is no hero, and by committing crimes to put himself in that place, he opened himself up to a whole lot of trouble.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/895/ii/62/4/aReport
The actor was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity at the time he or she used the force described in sub.
I think this misreading “criminal activity”. If you are robbing a store and the clerk pulls a gun and you have to kill him, then you can’t claim self defense. If you have an outstanding parking ticket, then that’s irrelevant and you can.
Having said that, I said my expectation was he is convicted on some gun charges. His only defense seems to be the apparent blessing of the police which seems weak.Report
last I checked, carrying a gun in public when you aren’t allowed to is a criminal offense.Report
Is he being tried as an adult?
If he’s being tried as an adult, I could see the whole “he did this as a minor” vaguely immaterial.Report
The law in Wisconsin says you can’t open carry a firearm below 18. He open carried below 18. And crossed state lines to do it. Doesn’t matter how he’s tried.Report
Have the prosecutors hammered on that yet? My research tells me that they spent more time on Kyle playing vidja.Report
The misdemeanor weapons charges are a given, the defense doesn’t care if Kyle draws 30 or 60 days for those. The prosecution wants the murder charges — vigilantes not allowed here, period.Report
I think the issue is the one Philip identifies upthread, Wisconsin self-defense law has a complicated provision that could theoretically strip him of his self-defense rights. (Most states have some sort of provision, but only for felonies)Report
There is a disconnect between “not allowed here, period” and members of the town council inviting them and the police welcoming them.
Big picture I seriously hope the powers that be start to figure out if they give up their monopoly on the use of force the train instantly derails.Report
A question I asked at the time and think is relevant for the jury selection even now:
Is Kenosha a college town?
(And the answer is “Yes”.)Report
There is a disconnect between “not allowed here, period” and members of the town council inviting them and the police welcoming them.
Speculation here, but those actions are trivially easy for the town council and the police. The DA, OTOH, has a ton of work to do every time there are bodies on the ground. I wonder how much of the DA’s annual budget this case is taking up?Report
I think the point is a logical result of Freddie’s point, that if you invite chaos, you shouldn’t be surprised when chaotic things happen.Report
This is self inflicted. Given the absurd degree to which Rittenhouse maps onto self defense, and the absurd amount of evidence they have, the cheaper option would be drop the case.
Having said that, the DA’s budget presumably comes from the city and the big budget item here was dozens of buildings burned down and scores more damaged.
So big picture this case probably doesn’t matter except for sucking up the attention of the office, and they saved a lot of time by deciding to not charge the rioters.Report
This is self inflicted
Well, sort of. It’s an absolute dog of a case, and they probably know this, but they were likely also worried about the nuclear-grade temper tantrum the left would have thrown if they hadn’t charged him. And now they’re still facing one if they can’t get a conviction.
It’s a no-win situation.Report
There is a misdemeanor charge for weapons possession by a minor (under 18) that has a pending motion to dismiss. One of two conditions have to be met for this offense: (1) he was carrying a short-barreled rifle or (2) he’s not in compliance with regulations applicable to those under 17 years of age. He is 17. The statute looks like its pieced together from different puzzles.Report
Ugh. That leads to this argument:
“The law says under *17*. And he’s *17*.”
“The law says *UNDER* 17. And he’s not *UNDER* 17.”
“You know what they *MEAN*.”
“I know what they *SAID*.”
It’s good that they haven’t shown the jury but I wouldn’t mind a running rundown of the closest emoji representation of the faces of the jurors.Report
There was also a curfew violation charge that just got dismissed and its not even a misdemeanor. What would the juries reaction be to looking at five very serious homicide charges, plus out after curfew?Report
“What are you in for, kid?”
“Littering.”
and they all moved away from me on the benchReport
Too soon. By almost two weeks.Report
Sounds like the judge is allowing the defense to draft the jury instructions for the misdemeanor. Something like:
Is the defendant under 18?
If so, then is the defendant under 17?
If so, you must find him guilty on all five counts of homicide.
Else proceed to instructions on self-defense.Report
Probably should have flagged this as a joke. Reducing everything to absurdity.Report
What’s the deal with this “crossed state lines” meme? Crossing state lines is neither a crime nor evidence of evil intent. Legally, it’s really only relevant in the context of determining federal vs. state jurisdiction.
You’ve used the phrase “crossed state lines” three times in this thread alone, and I’ve seen it literally dozens times from various other people on social and other media. What exactly are you trying to insinuate with this? Why do you think that this is even a little bit damning?Report
Most people live far away from state lines and do the bulk of their life inside them. They’re trying to imply he was deliberately looking for trouble in some far away place.
The problem is Kenosha is three or four miles away from the border and Rittenhouse lived within shopping distance (although not walking distance).Report
The law you linked is the civil liability immunity provision of Wisconsin’s castile doctrine law. What it says is that you can’t be sued for use of force against people invading your home, business, or motor vehicle, and that there’s no duty to flee in such cases. This is not relevant to any criminal case, because it’s about civil liability, and it’s not relevant to a hypothetical civil lawsuit against Rittenhouse because nobody was invading his home, business, or motor vehicle.
I discussed and linked to Wisconsin’s criminal law regarding self defense very early in this thread. Here it is again. It does contain similar language, which is confusing, but, again, the “criminal activity” exception only applies to the castle doctrine portion of the law.
Here’s the self-defense provision:
This can be argued to imply a duty to retreat if possible; Wisconsin is not a stand-your-ground state. The castle doctrine provision discussed above does make an exception for this—there is no duty to retreat within your home. The commentary on the linked case says that while there’s no statutory duty to retreat, ability to retreat may be considered in determining whether use of deadly force was necessary.
However, so far all the evidence points to Rittenhouse making a good-faith effort to retreat, and only shooting when it became clear that this was not a viable option. The only other exception to the right to self defense, laid out in 939.48(2) (2). If you provoke an attack through unlawful conduct, you lose the right to claim self defense; however, this can be regained through a good-faith effort to retreat from the conflict.
Even if you’re desperate enough to make the ludicrous claim that open carry while being slightly underage is “unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack,” it does appear that Rittenhouse met the bar for regaining the right to claim self defense after provocation.
Legally, I don’t think this is even a gray area. Rittenhouse’s conduct appears to have been a textbook example of valid use of deadly force in defense of self under the provisions of section 939.48 of Wisconsin’s statutes.Report
It’s provocation that is at issue, and that statute identifies two different types of provocation:
“person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her” Self defense can be regained as you mention.
“person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant” Self defense is lost for good. This is more egregious conduct (though it includes otherwise lawful conduct).Report
Yes, that’s probably what the prosecutor was angling for, but this strikes me as extraordinarily difficult to prove, short of actual evidence of a concrete plan to do so.
Anyway, my main point is that the theory Philip is pushing, where carrying a rifle while underage (and something about state lines?) is a crime, and therefore Rittenhouse waived his right to self-defense, is not actually supported by law.
When you think about it, the implications of such a law would be pretty silly. For example, a young woman is walking down the street and a man jumps out of a van and pulls her in. Fortunately, she’s carrying a small pistol, which she uses to shoot him. However, the police discover a small bag of cocaine in her possession when they come to take the report. She was committing a crime when she killed her attacker, so now she can’t claim self defense? This is basically what Philip and his fellow travelers are arguing for.Report
Judge just tossed that charge.
Minors are not allowed to possess short barreled rifles or shotguns. This was not a short barreled weapon.Report
” And yet here we are.”
lol
George Floyd passed counterfeit, Eric Garner was selling loosies
AND YET HERE WE ARE
welcome to the republican party sir, your complimentary racism is on the table to the leftReport