Ritttenhouse Trial

[nursej22]

The Rittenhouse trial has begun in Kenosha, Wisconsin. The prosecution is presenting first, but apparently the defense argument will be self-defense. So a 17 year old travels out of state with his rifle to a demonstration because he fears for his life? 

 

[toomuchbaloney]

The prosecution used video and testimony to give the jury a sense of what happened when Rittenhouse shot the first fellow.  Today.  A photographer/videographer for The Daily Mail provided testimony that was damaging to the defense right after lunch.  

 

[Cclm, LPN]

30 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

The prosecution used video and testimony to give the jury a sense of what happened when Rittenhouse shot the first fellow.  Today.  A photographer/videographer for The Daily Mail provided testimony that was damaging to the defense right after lunch.  

 

Wow. I'm surprised you posted that. Did that video and testimony mean anything to you:? I listened and watched with my eyes open. 

Summary/paraphrase in my interpretation.   The first guy he shot(Rosenbaum) was angry and aggressive. Even after Kyle verbalize "friendly" "friendly ". This didn't matter and the man proceeded to lunge or fall toward Kyle in what could reasonably be interpreted as a attempt to take Kyle's rifle.  This means the rifle could have been used against Kyle if this man was successful. There by Kyle could come to the conclusion that he needed to shoot this man to protect his life. 

[toomuchbaloney]

1 hour ago, Cclm said:

Wow. I'm surprised you posted that. Did that video and testimony mean anything to you:? I listened and watched with my eyes open. 

Summary/paraphrase in my interpretation.   The first guy he shot(Rosenbaum) was angry and aggressive. Even after Kyle verbalize "friendly" "friendly ". This didn't matter and the man proceeded to lunge or fall toward Kyle in what could reasonably be interpreted as a attempt to take Kyle's rifle.  This means the rifle could have been used against Kyle if this man was successful. There by Kyle could come to the conclusion that he needed to shoot this man to protect his life. 

The rifle was attached to Rittenhouse's chest with a tactical accessory that he had purchased and clipped to the weapon that day.  Rittenhouse knew that he could not drop and no one could take away his rifle.  The man running behind Rittenhouse was unarmed. The dead man had already thrown the plastic bag with personal items at Rittenhouse so he was empty handed when Rittenhouse turned around and shot him at close range. 

I think that the prosecution is building a case that it isn't reasonable to interpret that situation as requiring or justifying lethal force. I think the prosecution is demonstrating that the defendant didn't have the maturity or judgement to be openly carrying a rifle and involving himself in policing behaviors during a protest.  

There's no dispute that Rittenhouse decided that he needed to shoot each of the victims. He was afraid for his life he said.  The question is will the defense be able to make a case that 2 unarmed men posed a deadly threat to Rittenhouse? A threat that justified lethal force?

The second fellow to be killed did appear to try to disarm Rittenhouse, not realizing that wasn't possible, after Rittenhouse fell in the street running away from the scene of the first shooting.  But we haven't really heard much testimony about that second shooting yet. 

[Cclm, LPN]

2 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

The rifle was attached to Rittenhouse's chest with a tactical accessory that he had purchased and clipped to the weapon that day.  Rittenhouse knew that he could not drop and no one could take away his rifle.  The man running behind Rittenhouse was unarmed. The dead man had already thrown the plastic bag with personal items at Rittenhouse so he was empty handed when Rittenhouse turned around and shot him at close range. 

 

I'm not sure of that. There seems to be no indication of a strap is used  for the purpose of preventing someone from disarming you. The purpose is mainly for easy of carry. Regardless, it is still possible to grab a fire arm away from someone's possession even with a strap.  More of a sling. Some purses and bags are used in the same manner. That is there is a strap and that does not prevent purse or bag snatching. 

The fact he was at close range means that he was also in range to do bodily harm to Kyle. Even after Kyle vocalize "friendly " He either lunged or fell towards the gun as testified by the prosecution's witness. . 

https://www.shootingillustrated.com/articles/2018/9/3/rifle-sling-basics-operation-and-options

There was some question regarding the bag an it's contents. There had been simular looking bags that had been used for IED that Kyle and his friends saw that evening and as testified by his friend today. IMO I do not think it would be unreasonable to suspect that there may have been explosives in this bag either. Then there were the first gun shots that occurred and were not from Kyle.  Totality of circumstances. 

Not to mention it is established by Arial footage and witness testimony that Kyle was indeed running away. 

I'm wondering why the prosecution brought these witnesses. 

 

 

[Cclm, LPN]

59 minutes ago, Cclm said:

Gg

 

[toomuchbaloney]

1 hour ago, Cclm said:

I'm not sure of that. There seems to be no indication of a strap is used  for the purpose of preventing someone from disarming you.

That was in the testimony of the detective earlier in the day. I didn't say with the purpose of preventing someone from snatching the weapon but it certainly makes that more difficult.  There's different types of tactical slings. 

 

1 hour ago, Cclm said:

The purpose is mainly for easy of carry. Regardless, it is still possible to grab a fire arm away from someone's possession even with a strap.  More of a sling. Some purses and bags are used in the same manner. That is there is a strap and that does not prevent purse or bag snatching. 

The unchallenged testimony indicated that the tactical sling made it very unlikely that the weapon would be easily snatched from the owner.  

 

1 hour ago, Cclm said:

There was some question regarding the bag an it's contents. There had been simular looking bags that had been used for IED that Kyle and his friends saw that evening and as testified by his friend today. IMO I do not think it would be unreasonable to suspect that there may have been explosives in this bag either. Then there were the first gun shots that occurred and were not from Kyle.  Totality of circumstances. 

Yes. Rittenhouse's companion who was supposed to stay with Rittenhouse shared that speculation that was not verified by any evidence.  That very witness picked up that thrown bag at the scene and discarded it as benign and not a threat in anyway. The bag contained the personal items from the hospital discharge. 

 

1 hour ago, Cclm said:

The fact he was at close range means that he was also in range to do bodily harm to Kyle. Even after Kyle vocalize "friendly " He either lunged or fell towards the gun as testified by the prosecution's witness. . 

That's correct.  The question is was that perceived possibility of harm justification for lethal force? The defense has to prove that the unarmed man needed to be shot because that was the best way for Rittenhouse to protect himself.  Another way was for Rittenhouse to continue to flee...to return to his original location.

1 hour ago, Cclm said:



Not to mention it is established by Arial footage and witness testimony that Kyle was indeed running away. 

I'm wondering why the prosecution brought these witnesses. 

The aerial footage indicates that as the victim and the shooter enter the area of the car dealership, the victim is in the lead and he runs up between some cars and stops.  Maybe he decided that wasn't a good pathway, maybe he was waiting for the guy with the gun behind him. The shooter runs passed that point, left of the cars nearer the sidewalk and the victim comes back away from the cars and runs directly toward Rittenhouse who ultimately runs across the property to another group of vehicles and then shoots his pursuer about 3 seconds after an unrelated gunshot from another location.  

The prosecution called these witnesses because they tell the story of what happened from a variety of perspectives.  

We know that a 17 year old who was carrying an illegally obtained and possessed weapon while he took it upon himself to engage in public policing activities killed two unarmed people because he was afraid that he was in mortal danger. We all know that he shouldn't have had that weapon and that he shouldn't have been in that situation.  Now we just get to find out what sort of consequences he will experience for that. 

I like to listen to trials though...OJ's trial was the first for me.

[Cclm, LPN]

41 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

That was in the testimony of the detective earlier in the day. I didn't say with the purpose of preventing someone from snatching the weapon but it certainly makes that more difficult.  There's different types of tactical slings. 

 

The unchallenged testimony indicated that the tactical sling made it very unlikely that the weapon would be easily snatched from the owner.  

 

Yes. Rittenhouse's companion who was supposed to stay with Rittenhouse shared that speculation that was not verified by any evidence.  That very witness picked up that thrown bag at the scene and discarded it as benign and not a threat in anyway. The bag contained the personal items from the hospital discharge. 

 

That's correct.  The question is was that perceived possibility of harm justification for lethal force? The defense has to prove that the unarmed man needed to be shot because that was the best way for Rittenhouse to protect himself.  Another way was for Rittenhouse to continue to flee...to return to his original location.

The aerial footage indicates that as the victim and the shooter enter the area of the car dealership, the victim is in the lead and he runs up between some cars and stops.  Maybe he decided that wasn't a good pathway, maybe he was waiting for the guy with the gun behind him. The shooter runs passed that point, left of the cars nearer the sidewalk and the victim comes back away from the cars and runs directly toward Rittenhouse who ultimately runs across the property to another group of vehicles and then shoots his pursuer about 3 seconds after an unrelated gunshot from another location.  

The prosecution called these witnesses because they tell the story of what happened from a variety of perspectives.  

We know that a 17 year old who was carrying an illegally obtained and possessed weapon while he took it upon himself to engage in public policing activities killed two unarmed people because he was afraid that he was in mortal danger. We all know that he shouldn't have had that weapon and that he shouldn't have been in that situation.  Now we just get to find out what sort of consequences he will experience for that. 

I like to listen to trials though...OJ's trial was the first for me.

Those are some good points. I personally wouldn't carry a gun ever unless absolutely necessary.  I argued with my ex husband because he wanted me to learn to load and fire his rifles incase of an intruder.  I learned but told him I would rather not shoot someone for stealing my TV. 

So what you think about OJ? Guilty or not? 

We will see. He is definitely guilty of having an illegal firearm and he should not have been there. What was his mom thinking?  It is total cringe seeing Kyle act like a cop. . However IMO, I don't think that negates his right to self defense. 

However I cannot say that he intended on hurting anyone that night. He had some medical training in which he offered to everyone. The worst thing he had said that we know so far was "I love you too man", in response to  "F" you. It also seemed that other protesters had issue with Rosenbaum as well. Saying the N word and adjitating. (No one deserves to die like that). 

How do you see the guy with the skate board? Do you find that a little more along the lines of self defense? 

[toomuchbaloney]

7 hours ago, Cclm said:

So what you think about OJ? Guilty or not?

They found him not guilty.  The prosecution didn't convince the jury that he was guilty. 

 

7 hours ago, Cclm said:

How do you see the guy with the skate board? Do you find that a little more along the lines of self defense? 

The two people who were killed by Rittenhouse were unarmed.  The defense will need to prove that unarmed men posed a deadly threat to Rittenhouse. Otherwise it appears that Rittenhouse escalated a situation by running to a scene with an openly carried firearm and then discharged that firearm at an unarmed man after he became concerned for his own safety. The only people who were killed at that protest that day were killed by Rittenhouse, he was the source of the violence. 

Some states have laws prohibiting open carry of firearms, especially at public protest. We know that presence of a firearm can escalate a minor disagreement that might result in a fist fight or scuffle into a deadly encounter.  The prosecution is setting that stage already...that the gun wielding teen was an escalating element. The defense will have to prove that Kyle had no choice but to shoot that first fellow (rather than keep running). 

I'm guessing that self defense will be easier for the second death because Rittenhouse had fallen in the street and he was identified as an active shooter. It's surprisingly common for people to risk their lives trying to disarm gunmen in the USA, probably because we have such a lax attitude about possession of firearms. Anyway, after he had killed one person there were definitely people who wanted to disarm him.  

Rittenhouse is on trial but the armed "militia" was represented yesterday too and it wasn't represented very well.  

[Cclm, LPN]

3 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

They found him not guilty.  The prosecution didn't convince the jury that he was guilty. 

You will say the same for Kyle then if he's found not guilty?

The two people who were killed by Rittenhouse were unarmed.  The defense will need to prove that unarmed men posed a deadly threat to Rittenhouse. Otherwise it appears that Rittenhouse escalated a situation by running to a scene with an openly carried firearm and then discharged that firearm at an unarmed man after he became concerned for his own safety. The only people who were killed at that protest that day were killed by Rittenhouse, he was the source of the violence. 

I think it's been established that harm can be done without a weapon in past cases. Especially when there is a mob. A skate bored can be used to cause considerable bodily harm and death. It has not been determined if Kyle thought the bag thrown at him had explosives or not. I would argue that the average person would consider a riot with fire setting and projectiles thrown at police as violence. There has been no info in regards to another altercations or violence presented yet.  Not to mention Rosenbaum had several verbal altercations that night and had to be restrained by his companions several times. 

Some states have laws prohibiting open carry of firearms, especially at public protest. We know that presence of a firearm can escalate a minor disagreement that might result in a fist fight or scuffle into a deadly encounter.  The prosecution is setting that stage already...that the gun wielding teen was an escalating element. The defense will have to prove that Kyle had no choice but to shoot that first fellow (rather than keep running). 

Some may argue that a fire arm is a deterrent. Or that someone charging an armed person most likely has the intent to cause bodily harm as they are aware of the fire arm but still continue their assault. 

I'm guessing that self defense will be easier for the second death because Rittenhouse had fallen in the street and he was identified as an active shooter. It's surprisingly common for people to risk their lives trying to disarm gunmen in the USA, probably because we have such a lax attitude about possession of firearms. Anyway, after he had killed one person there were definitely people who wanted to disarm him.  

Rittenhouse is on trial but the armed "militia" was represented yesterday too and it wasn't represented very well.  

I agree. I would have objected to the commentary of the video. 

 

[toomuchbaloney]

21 minutes ago, Cclm said:

You will say the same for Kyle then if he's found not guilty?

That seems a silly question.  If they find him not guilty the verdict will be not guilty.  Why would it be a challenge to state what the verdict is? 

 

23 minutes ago, Cclm said:

I think it's been established that harm can be done without a weapon in past cases. Especially when there is a mob. A skate bored can be used to cause considerable bodily harm and death. It has not been determined if Kyle thought the bag thrown at him had explosives or not. I would argue that the average person would consider a riot with fire setting and projectiles thrown at police as violence. There has been no info in regards to another altercations or violence presented yet.  Not to mention Rosenbaum had several verbal altercations that night and had to be restrained by his companions several times. 

At least 2 of the armed militia have testified that Rosenbaum was loud and aggressive and that they did not perceive him as an actual threat. They were fellows with military experience in assessing threat.  The teenager illegally in possession of an illegally purchased firearm likely did not share in that threat assessment training or practice. 

26 minutes ago, Cclm said:

Some may argue that a fire arm is a deterrent. Or that someone charging an armed person most likely has the intent to cause bodily harm as they are aware of the fire arm but still continue their assault. 

Sure.  Presence of a gun is well known to escalate violence from fists to bullets...we have lots of experience with the general public and firearms in the USA.  Well trained gun owners anticipate that a visible weapon will influence the behavior of others in a public area...that influence is not necessarily positive.  Does it surprise you that people who are protesting police violence might have a negative reaction to the arrival of an armed militia to bark orders at them as if they have authority to police the streets? Protest is core to our democracy.  

Rittenhouse didn't know it but the unarmed man that he killed was suicidal...more of a danger to himself.  

34 minutes ago, Cclm said:

I agree. I would have objected to the commentary of the video. 

Which commentary on which video?

[chare]

Deleted.

[Cclm, LPN]

5 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

That seems a silly question.  If they find him not guilty the verdict will be not guilty.  Why would it be a challenge to state what the verdict is? 

I didn't want to assume. So I clarified.  

At least 2 of the armed militia have testified that Rosenbaum was loud and aggressive and that they did not perceive him as an actual threat. They were fellows with military experience in assessing threat.  The teenager illegally in possession of an illegally purchased firearm likely did not share in that threat assessment training or practice. 

I believe he was trained in gun operations and safety. Not police training but was versed in fire arm safety and operation. He wasn't of age so he is guilty of that! The military trained witnesses were just regular witnesses, not expert testimony correct? 

 

Yelling in people's faces saying "shoot me N word, shoot me" isn't a behavior that suggests he was a threat? That was their interpretation. It's interesting the empathy for someone yelling the N word repeatedly especially because he was white. A angry white man. 

Sure.  Presence of a gun is well known to escalate violence from fists to bullets...we have lots of experience with the general public and firearms in the USA.  Well trained gun owners anticipate that a visible weapon will influence the behavior of others in a public area...that influence is not necessarily positive.  Does it surprise you that people who are protesting police violence might have a negative reaction to the arrival of an armed militia to bark orders at them as if they have authority to police the streets? Protest is core to our democracy.  

 

5 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

It also known as a deterrent. Hence law enforcement. What's the saying? "A armed society is a polite society "? 

 

I believe he was stopping them from setting more fires and causing more damage. If they don't like getting barked at then they shouldn't damage private property that has nothing to do with police violence. Or commit crimes. 

Rittenhouse didn't know it but the unarmed man that he killed was suicidal...more of a danger to himself.  

I know I stated that. However it still could influence his behavior that night. 

Which commentary on which video?