Ritttenhouse Trial

Cclm, LPN · Nov 11, 2021

Wow. Prosecution being greasy rats! Trying to add in evidence previously deemed inadmissible. It's obvious they want a miss trial! So they have a second chance to not have witnesses that make them look bad!!

The defense should get a dismissal without prejudice!!

4 hours ago, Beerman said:

imo that's not being lenient, if he believed his life was in danger. That's finding he acted in self defense, and therefore is not guilty.

Always with the "white"!

toomuchbaloney · Nov 11, 2021

15 hours ago, Beerman said:

imo that's not being lenient, if he believed his life was in danger. That's finding he acted in self defense, and therefore is not guilty.

Doesn't the jury have to believe that Rittenhouse believed that he was in danger or do they decide if that belief was reasonable? Either way, it would be easy for the jury to surmise that Rittenhouse was really scared... and that's why he pointed his weapon at people a couple different times before he killed Rosenbaum.

Would the jury be likely to convict him with reckless endangerment if they believed that he was justified in shooting to save his life?

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/10/us/kyle-rittenhouse-charges.html

Cclm, LPN · Nov 11, 2021

Rittenhouse had no idea at the time what type of person Rosenbaum was but wow!

Perhaps he's a hero after all!

https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/2021/03/11/joseph-rosenbaum-sex-offender/

COUNT TWO: (SEXUAL CONDUCT WITH A MINOR UNDER FIFTEEN, A CLASS TWO FELONY, A DANGEROUS CRIME AGAINST CHILDREN)
On or about the 27th day of March, 2002, JOSEPH DON ROSENBAUM committed sexual conduct with a minor, by intentionally or knowingly engaging in an act of sexual intercourse with (second victim), a minor under the age of fifteen years, by penetrating the victim’s orifice with his member.

COUNT FIVE: (SEXUAL CONDUCT WITH A MINOR UNDER FIFTEEN, A CLASS TWO FELONY, A DANGEROUS CRIME AGAINST CHILDREN)
On or about the 27th day of March, 2002, JOSEPH DON ROSENBAUM committed sexual conduct with a minor, by intentionally or knowingly engaging in an act of sexual intercourse with (third victim), a minor under the age of fifteen years, by penetrating the victim’s orifice with his member.

This is 2 out of 11 charges. There is a direct section in which the actual police reports can be viewed for anyone taking issue with source.

toomuchbaloney · Nov 11, 2021

I guess if the jury should know about past history, this might be more relevant...

Evidence of Violence in Rittenhouse's Past

After all, only one person killed two people in Kenosha that night last August.

Beerman, BSN · Nov 11, 2021

52 minutes ago, Cclm said:

Rittenhouse had no idea at the time what type of person Rosenbaum was but wow!

Perhaps he's a hero after all!

https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/2021/03/11/joseph-rosenbaum-sex-offender/

COUNT TWO: (SEXUAL CONDUCT WITH A MINOR UNDER FIFTEEN, A CLASS TWO FELONY, A DANGEROUS CRIME AGAINST CHILDREN)
On or about the 27th day of March, 2002, JOSEPH DON ROSENBAUM committed sexual conduct with a minor, by intentionally or knowingly engaging in an act of sexual intercourse with (second victim), a minor under the age of fifteen years, by penetrating the victim’s orifice with his member.

COUNT FIVE: (SEXUAL CONDUCT WITH A MINOR UNDER FIFTEEN, A CLASS TWO FELONY, A DANGEROUS CRIME AGAINST CHILDREN)
On or about the 27th day of March, 2002, JOSEPH DON ROSENBAUM committed sexual conduct with a minor, by intentionally or knowingly engaging in an act of sexual intercourse with (third victim), a minor under the age of fifteen years, by penetrating the victim’s orifice with his member.

This is 2 out of 11 charges. There is a direct section in which the actual police reports can be viewed for anyone taking issue with source.

No, he's not a hero.

Beerman, BSN · Nov 11, 2021

2 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Doesn't the jury have to believe that Rittenhouse believed that he was in danger or do they decide if that belief was reasonable? Either way, it would be easy for the jury to surmise that Rittenhouse was really scared... and that's why he pointed his weapon at people a couple different times before he killed Rosenbaum.

Would the jury be likely to convict him with reckless endangerment if they believed that he was justified in shooting to save his life?

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/10/us/kyle-rittenhouse-charges.html

I don't know that it's true that the jury needs to believe both of those things. It seems they would usually go hand in hand. They do in this case. He was scared, and it was reasonable that he was.

I'm only aware of him pointing his weapon at one other person. And, at least in that instance it doesn't seem relevant.

To me, it doesn't seem likely he would be convicted of reckless endangerment. But that's not as clear cut.

The shenanigans pulled by the prosecution yesterday tell me they know they are in trouble. Not that I'm expecting it, but it wouldn't surprise me if the judge doesn't ever leave it in the hands of the jury.

toomuchbaloney · Nov 11, 2021

32 minutes ago, Beerman said:

I'm only aware of him pointing his weapon at one other person. And, at least in that instance it doesn't seem relevant.

To me, it doesn't seem likely he would be convicted of reckless endangerment. But that's not as clear cut.

We are aware that he pointed his weapon at Rosenbaum before running to the cars, turning and shooting him 4 times. We know that the fellows on the street said to the videographer that Rittenhouse was earlier behaving in an aggressive, authoritarian or intimidating fashion with his weapon. We know that Rittenhouse stopped and pointed the rifle at an unknown individual (was the guy standing on a car?). The people in the crowd may have witnessed other things, some of the protesters seemed to be provoked by the weapons. The messaging from the crowd to the "guards" reflected some tension...would you agree?

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/941/IV/30

Quote

941.30 Recklessly endangering safety.

(1) First-degree recklessly endangering safety. Whoever recklessly endangers another's safety under circumstances which show utter disregard for human life is guilty of a Class F felony.

(2) Second-degree recklessly endangering safety. Whoever recklessly endangers another's safety is guilty of a Class G felony.

History: 1987 a. 399; 2001 a. 109.

Judicial Council Note, 1988: Sub. (1) is analogous to the prior offense of endangering safety by conduct regardless of life.

Sub. (2) is new. It creates the offense of endangering safety by criminal recklessness. See s. 939.24 and the NOTE thereto. [Bill 191-S]

A bomb scare under s. 947.015 is not a lesser included crime of recklessly endangering safety. State v. Van Ark, 62 Wis. 2d 155, 215 N.W.2d 41 (1974).

Section 941.30 is a lesser included offense of s. 940.01, 1st-degree homicide. State v. Weeks, 165 Wis. 2d 200, 477 N.W.2d 642 (Ct. App. 1991).

A conviction under sub. (1) was proper when the defendant desisted from an attack but showed no regard for the victim's life or safety during the attack. State v. Holtz, 173 Wis. 2d 515, 496 N.W.2d 668 (Ct. App. 1992).

Quote

941.20 Endangering safety by use of dangerous weapon.

(1) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor:

(a) Endangers another's safety by the negligent operation or handling of a dangerous weapon.

(b) Operates or goes armed with a firearm while he or she is under the influence of an intoxicant.

(bm) Operates or goes armed with a firearm while he or she has a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance in his or her blood. A defendant has a defense to any action under this paragraph that is based on the defendant allegedly having a detectable amount of methamphetamine, gamma-hydroxybutyric acid, or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in his or her blood, if he or she proves by a preponderance of the evidence that at the time of the incident or occurrence he or she had a valid prescription for methamphetamine or one of its metabolic precursors, gamma-hydroxybutyric acid, or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol.

(c) Except as provided in sub. (1m), intentionally points a firearm at or toward another.

(d) While on the lands of another discharges a firearm within 100 yards of any building devoted to human occupancy situated on and attached to the lands of another without the express permission of the owner or occupant of the building. “Building" as used in this paragraph does not include any tent, bus, truck, vehicle or similar portable unit.

We'll see how the judge instructs the jury.

Beerman, BSN · Nov 11, 2021

9 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

We are aware that he pointed his weapon at Rosenbaum before running to the cars, turning and shooting him 4 times.

Was there testimony to this?

10 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

We know that the fellows on the street said to the videographer that Rittenhouse was earlier behaving in an aggressive, authoritarian or intimidating fashion with his weapon.

Unless the "fellows on the street" testified, we do not know this. And if they did, we'd still have to decide if they are credible, like any other witness.

13 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

We know that Rittenhouse stopped and pointed the rifle at an unknown individual (was the guy standing on a car?)

This is the one I'm aware of. In the big picture of everything that happened, doesn't seem relevant. The prosecutor didn't even spend much time on this. He spent as much time questioning why Rittenhouse didn't render aid to the attackers he just shot.

17 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

The people in the crowd may have witnessed other things, some of the protesters seemed to be provoked by the weapons. The messaging from the crowd to the "guards" reflected some tension...would you agree?

Doesn't matter.

17 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

We'll see how the judge instructs the jury.

toomuchbaloney · Nov 11, 2021

1 hour ago, Beerman said:

Unless the "fellows on the street" testified, we do not know this. And if they did, we'd still have to decide if they are credible, like any other witness.

Fair enough. We did hear them talking on the video, though.

1 hour ago, Beerman said:

This is the one I'm aware of. In the big picture of everything that happened, doesn't seem relevant. The prosecutor didn't even spend much time on this. He spent as much time questioning why Rittenhouse didn't render aid to the attackers he just shot.

The jury gets to decide if it was relevant. Questioning Rittenhouse about rendering aid may be related to the nature of the charges against him, I suspect.

2 hours ago, Beerman said:

Doesn't matter

It might matter to the jury if they are to decide whether it was reasonable for Rittenhouse to fear for his life and subsequently fire his rifle 4 times, killing an unarmed but aggressive man.

toomuchbaloney · Nov 16, 2021

The jury has this case now.

Beerman, BSN · Nov 17, 2021

On 11/15/2021 at 11:58 PM, toomuchbaloney said:

The jury has this case now.

What's your prediction?

toomuchbaloney · Nov 17, 2021

39 minutes ago, Beerman said:

What's your prediction?

I believe that the jury will be sympathetic and lenient.

Did the judge rule on the mistrial motion yet?