Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[None]

Welp. I hope he gets voted out.

In Very Gerrymandered Wisconsin? Not a chance. This kind of judiciary behavior doesn't happen in a vacuum, and he could probably use any pushback about this trial as campaign material for how The Left is trying to cancel him.

[Vector]

Possibly of interest (anti-trans laws and inheritance of property according to English law).

[da_nang]

Kenosha trial update:

The jury instructions are in, and despite debate with the judge, the blurry "enhanced" images are still going to the jury.

I definitely feel the defense should have pushed harder today. Especially when the prosecution is not only putting in instructions on provocation  but also including lesser offenses. Almost certainly, the prosecution is going to spend a great deal of time to hammer in to the jury that the shooter provoked by threatening Ziminski/Rosenbaum, despite the fact that nobody--not even the Ziminskis--have testified that the shooter did threaten them, and despite the fact that the image--submitted in the eleventh hour--cannot possibly show what the prosecutor is insisting on beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defense should have objected more and the judge should not have been so lenient on the prosecution after all of the shenanigans the prosecution have pulled. Instead, it looks like the shooter now has to bet that the jury won't fixate on "shouldn't have been there" arguments that, while legally irrelevant, are almost certainly going to treated as provocation in the minds of some of the jurors. Lesser included offenses are also going to make it more likely for the jury to "compromise" to satisfy a juror's idea that the shooter should be made "guilty of something".

We know that some in the jury pool that weren't publically filtered out made statements that can cast doubt impartiality--statements on guns, for instance. Keep in mind that Kenosha County is about 50/50 democrat and republican (according to presidential election at least). Chances are there are going to be roughly equal of each party in there.

I don't recall at this moment if the judge has made a decision on the rifle possession exception in 948.60(3)(c). I'll have to go back and check at some point. There is testimony on the record that the rifle does not have a short barrel (and the shooter was 17).

I can only hope that if there is no acquittal then the judge will go for a mistrial with prejudice or will toss in a JNOV on charges that no reasonable jury can find the defendant guilty of (basically all of them given the evidence or lack thereof, and the poor performance of the prosecution). A conviction here would basically make the privilege of self-defense unreasonably difficult to exercise (in a duty-to-retreat state to boot), and would have chilling effects on people's legal exercise of their Second Amendment rights (open-carrying as provocation is pure hoplophobia).


In other, happier news, Steve Bannon has been indicted for criminal contempt of Congress (so the DoJ is enforcing it).

[Frumple]

If the privilege of self defense gets someone off the hook for killing people after the killer said they were going somewhere to kill people both before and after they did just that, its exercise probably needs to be made more difficult

Exercise of it probably wouldn't get any harder for folks that aren't murderous vigilantes associated with terrorist organizations anyway, even if there was a fairly hefty book thrown at the white supremacist killer in this particular case. Not that the heavier charges are likely at this point with how goddamn clownshoes this thing has been.

Mistrial probably would be pretty reasonable, though. Not with prejudice considering basically everyone from judge to defense to prosecutor probably shouldn't be within shouting distance of a courtroom, but giving the state a redo on this bloody clown circus would be a mercy for the judiciary, at this point.

[nenjin]

In the end, I think it will go one of two ways....

1. Acquittal.

2. Whatever he's actually found guilty of will be plead down to manslaughter, assuming it's above manslaughter.

Anything less than reckless endangerment feels like it sends the message to the rest of the country that it's ok to go looking for a fight. That it's ok to go where there's unrest and say "come at me, I'm ready." He is the poster child for why we shouldn't encourage it. Self-defense is not a license to put yourself in harm's way so you can do harm. That is the job of soldiers and police, and people defending their homes and property. Not someone's else. Rittenhouse and Grosskreutz are the perfect example: two civilians, both armed, both there believing they're there doing good, staring at each other having no idea WTF the other has done or is gonna do. Grosskreutz could have been killed simply for having a gun by Rittenhouse. The verdict needs to reflect that Rittenhouse created this situation by his presence.

And frankly anyone that isn't a badge or a soldier that's inserting themselves into a situation to "do good", and they come come strapped, is a provocateur IMO.

[Vector]

NY Times article warning about violence becoming the open norm in national politics

[MrRoboto75]

I'd argue congress got less productive once cane beatings were no longer a threat.

[LordBaal]

I was talking to a lawyer about this case. Of course he is not versed on USA laws even less on the specific laws of the state or county or wherever the guy is or all that shit happened, but I'll take that things in occidental laws migth have something in common and while specifics migth differ the general idea is more or less the same.

He told me that the best the defense can hope to acquire is manslaughter with some lessening conditions like he being a minor and the deed being in self defense. And this would be a dream to achieve.

He told me that if witness say he said he wanted to go out and shoot some people then he is thoroughly fucked because there is intention right there. Yes he did not meant it against someone specific but he did said it and then it happened because he put himself into that position.

Now the fact he waited until being assaulted by armed men is his only saving grace and such he can cling to self defense but that would only lessen to some degree the manslaughter or murder charge.

He deliberately went armed to a place of unrest. Everyone that came down armed to that shit is guilty at least of intention.

Also was pretty strong against calling the victim looters unless some solid evidence is provided. Assailants is fine...ish  since there is video evidence of their assault BUT since they were armed but did no made fire (as far as we know, dunno if that is the case) there is some space for the prosecution...

And this is a pretty conservative and far right lawyer. In the end he told me something along the lines of all of you (USA) have lost your minds.

[Vector]

Here's some more.

[Andux]

He told me that if witness say he said he wanted to go out and shoot some people then he is thoroughly fucked because there is intention right there. Yes he did not meant it against someone specific but he did said it and then it happened because he put himself into that position.

As far as I know, the clip of him saying that wasn't allowed into evidence, though.

armed men

Just to make sure we're all on the same page here:

• Victim #1 (Rosenbaum) was unarmed*, but evidently... I'm not sure if "psychotic" is technically accurate, but he was agressive and had serious mental issues.
• Victim #2 (Huber) just had a skateboard; not really an effective weapon.
• Victim #3 (Gaige) had a handgun.

* However, some other asshole seems to have fired a handgun nearby just as Rosenbaum was running toward Rittenhouse, moments before the first shooting; it's entirely possible that, at the time he pulled the trigger, Rittenhouse believed that Rosenbaum had fired at him.

[da_nang]

He told me that if witness say he said he wanted to go out and shoot some people then he is thoroughly fucked because there is intention right there. Yes he did not meant it against someone specific but he did said it and then it happened because he put himself into that position.

As Andux said, that's propensity evidence and is usually not allowed into court. Just because he wished he could do something doesn't mean he had the intent to do it at the time of the alleged crime, unless you have concrete evidence that ties to it e.g. a murder plot.

He deliberately went armed to a place of unrest. Everyone that came down armed to that shit is guilty at least of intention.

Not really. You cannot gleam an intent to use self-defense as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm just because he exercised his right to move freely and open-carry within Wisconsin (curfew charge was dismissed, rifle was legal to carry). Even when he said he wanted to protect property, that does not imply he wanted to do so with deadly force, or force in general, nor does it imply he cannot use deadly force in defense of his own person should those wishing to damage or steal property decide to take out their frustrations on his person by threatening him with imminent death or great bodily harm.

Evidence was presented that he was putting out fires and putting dumpsters back into place. No evidence was presented that proves beyond reasonable doubt that he used force or deadly force or threat thereof on another person in defense of property or at any other time that was not in defense of his own life. And no, open-carrying is not brandishing and therefore not a threat.

Also was pretty strong against calling the victim looters unless some solid evidence is provided.

It is standard practice, at least in Kenosha County, to not refer to the victims of an alleged crime as "victims" in court, so as to not unduly prejudice the jury. If there was no crime, then there were no victims of said crime. Similarly, the judge specifically told the defense that the alleged victims could only be referred to as rioters and looters etc. in closing arguments and only if there was enough evidence to prove it.

[LordBaal]

Interesting points. Did not knew all of them.

[voliol]

And no, open-carrying is not brandishing and therefore not a threat.

This has to be the weirdest part of US weapon attitute to me, that gun can be a (constitutionally protected) decorative trinket. Like I at least get the reasoning behind ”we want guns to protect ourselves/do a revolution in case the government turns evil”, because that’s at least a reason. A gun is an instrument of death and harm, of course carrying one is something you do with the intention of using it, or at least as an open threat meaning ”if you don’t listen to me/us it will be used”. You can’t just point towards the constitution and say ”hey look what’s written there” without thinking of why it is or should, that’s insanity. You don’t carry a gun just because.

[Rolan7]

A gun can, in theory, ward off violence.  If I'm going to a situation where it's likely I'll be beaten up, I might be able to prevent that just by carrying a gun.

Anyone who intends to shoot has a responsibility to be trained in its use but its mere presence does not necessarily lead to more violence.  The gun doesn't even need to be loaded to get ward off attackers, though that gets problematic if they respond with weapons of their own.

[Lord Shonus]

And no, open-carrying is not brandishing and therefore not a threat.

This has to be the weirdest part of US weapon attitute to me, that gun can be a (constitutionally protected) decorative trinket. Like I at least get the reasoning behind ”we want guns to protect ourselves/do a revolution in case the government turns evil”, because that’s at least a reason. A gun is an instrument of death and harm, of course carrying one is something you do with the intention of using it, or at least as an open threat meaning ”if you don’t listen to me/us it will be used”. You can’t just point towards the constitution and say ”hey look what’s written there” without thinking of why it is or should, that’s insanity. You don’t carry a gun just because.

The primary purpose of open-carry laws are to protect things like "loading a rifle into your car", "your shirt rode up and exposed your concealed carry", "you stopped for coffee on your way to the hunting area and didn't want to leave your gun unattended" or "you are in a situation right now where you have a concrete threat (not necessarily human - there's been a few cases where I wished I'd been carrying because of aggressive feral dogs)". Walking around with a slung rifle at all times is an unintended side effect.