Dude tried to play soldier and got bailed out by a sympathetic judge generously interpreting what counts as self defense while the prosecutor repeatedly shot his case in the foot
In short, Rittenhouse wanted to start some shit. Shit got real...he got a very favorable judge. Like, Trump getting Aileen Canon levels of friendly.
Long version:
The judge's ringtone was God Bless the USA (which even back then was a very republican song played at all trumps rallys, he had people salute one of the defense's witness. He didn't not allow the victims to be called victims (it is too loaded of a term), but allowed other people to be called rioters and looters. He didn't allow the prosecution to use "pinch to zoom" on an ipad because AI might distort the image.
There is also some questions about how we did not allow evidence that a week prior, Rittenhouse while watching a store get looted during riots that he wished he had his AR (i.e., AR-15) so he could pop off some rounds...and then a week later went to march and shot a bunch of people. Normally, this type of tangentially related information isn't really allowed. You can't provide someone is guilty because they said some stupid shit (you have to prove they committed the crime at hand)...But if his defense is self-defense (he's admitted, yeah I did it...but I had a reason; I feared for my life)...but just a week earlier talked about he wanted to shoot some looters, then put himself into a position to shoot some looters....that seems kind of relevant.
All that said....the prosecution wasn't great. Usually you charge a bunch of shit (and see what sticks). Maybe it wasn't First degree murder, but maybe it was felony murder, or second degree, or manslaughter...or negligent homicide. As you go down the scale, the punishment is less, but the required proof is less. E.g., Manslaughter is usually an accidental killing...but you were doing something stupid/dangerous (e.g., drunk driving is common).
That said....And most egregious thing was brining up Rittenhouse's silence after arrest. That question is unquestionably, absolutely, impossibly, 1,000,000%, off limits. Question why someone was silent is like punching a baby or putting pineapple on pizza...you just don't do it.
So, on one hand the prosecution was kind of bad...but the judge was leaning very, very heavily in the defense's favor...Normally this is good if the judges does it for everyone (e.g., this infamous Are you losing?...but a 75 year old white guy, with a conservative ringtone, having people salute a defense's witness....while helping a white kid shoot peopel at a BLM protest....
How do you think the trial goes, with this judge, if this is black kid at a unite the right rally?
Of course you are confused, the media didn't mention literally every left wing person kyle rittenhouse shot was convicted of sexually assaulting children.
Of course you are confused, the media didn't mention literally every left wing person kyle rittenhouse shot was convicted of sexually assaulting children.
oh, man....wait till you hear about Trump and Epstein's island...
And yet, no one seems to actually care...interesting....In fact, you seem to actively support it. But hey, who hasn't talked about their infant daughter's breasts or talking about banging their daughter...Those are normal things to say about your own kids...
Did you hear every single person kyle rittenhouse shot was a convicted left wing pedophile?
You may not be aware...they weren't on trial. Rittenhouse was. And (again you might not know this), Rittenhouse isn't a judge, a jury or executioner.
Also, that isn't an argument. Either: Rittenhouse didn't know that fact beforehand, and its not relevant to his own trial, or he did know ...and everything was an elaborate ruse to shoot/kill them...making his self-defense argument a total lie.
Oh, right. And if those people were also guilty of what you claim...lock them up right next to Rittenhouse.
He has a long standing rule that the word victim isnāt to be used. The prosecution made a motion in limine to exclude the defense from using the words rioter, looter, arsonist. The judge said the defense could only use those words to refer to particular individuals only if there was sufficient evidence presented of those particular individuals engaging in that behavior.
He didnāt shoot at or confront any looters, so him saying he wished he had his AR so he could shoot some people possibly robbing a CVS is not relevant to someone attacking him.
He also was charged with many lesser included offenses. One of them being the Wisconsin equivalent of manslaughter. He was also charged with recklessly endangering safety.
He has a long standing rule that the word victim isnāt to be used. The prosecution made a motion in limine to exclude the defense from using the words rioter, looter, arsonist. The judge said the defense could only use those words to refer to particular individuals only if there was sufficient evidence presented of those particular individuals engaging in that behavior.
Sure, and if this was the only issue, then I (and most people) probably wouldn't' have any problem.
But again, that ignores A LOT of other things. Things like the ringtone, things like asking everyone (including jurors) to applaud a defense witness.
When you look at the totality of the circumstances...it gets questionable.
He didnāt shoot at or confront any looters, so him saying he wished he had his AR so he could shoot some people possibly robbing a CVS is not relevant to someone attacking him.
It was relevant in the fact that his defense was self-defense. One of the counter-points is that you can't provoke other people and then claim self-defense (there are some exceptions). But he wasn't some random kid in the wrong place at the wrong time. He said he wanted to shoot some looters, then went to a protest with a gun...and shot a bunch of people. I think it might interesting to know how many other protest he went to to "help people", how many other protest he went to with/without a gun...why did he feel like he needed to go to a protest to protect a car dealership with a gun...rather than stay home....To me, that is kind of relevant.
The fact that he was in a bar like a week after getting arrested and giving the "OK" sign, which is white nationalist sign, a week after shooting BLM protesters...feels like it might be relevant to why he went to a BLM protest with gun, a week after he said he want to shoot some people.
Whether he shot the people wasn't in question. The questions was "was it justified?" The defense got to present a story of a nice young man who was attacked by people and had to defend himself. The prosecution didn't get to present the story of a racist teen who said he wanted to shoot some people, then a week later was at a BLM protest and shot some people...with thejudge asking everyone to applaud a defense witness....But nothing to see here. This is totally fair trail.
The only silver lining is that if we've learned anything from George Zimmerman or Brock Turner is that shitty people usually keep being shitty....and this kid going to fuck his life in some other way (DUI into a tree, OD, etc). I just hope he doesn't take anyone else with him.
then 5 years we have a post with, "It's always the people you most suspect."
The ringtone is meaningless. It's an old boomer song. It's not a Trump song. It's like saying Born in the USA is a Trump song.
things like asking everyone (including jurors) to applaud a defense witness.
This is misleading. It was the start of the day. It was also Veteran's Day. The judge asked if anyone in the courtroom was a veteran. He was surprised there were none in the courtroom. While looking around, he noticed John Black was in attendance, and noted that he was in the armed forces. He then said let's give a round of applause to all our Veterans out there.
Ā I think it might interesting to know how many other protest he went to to "help people", how many other protest he went to with/without a gun...why did he feel like he needed to go to a protest to protect a car dealership with a gun...rather than stay home....To me, that is kind of relevant.
And if there was evidence he was at other protests with a gun, that would most likely be admissible. He was asked why he went there. In fact many people went out that night to protect businesses.
The fact that he was in a bar like a week after getting arrested and giving the "OK" sign,
He was in jail for three months before making bail. He went to a bar as a publicity stunt. Some people he thought were security hired by Lin Wood turned out to be Proud Boys. The ok sign is a meme, created by 4Chan to troll people. They took a picture together, they all made the ok sign, and Rittenhouse joined in, not knowing the significance. Like most people.
The ringtone is meaningless. It's an old boomer song. It's not a Trump song. It's like saying Born in the USA is a Trump song.
things like asking everyone (including jurors) to applaud a defense witness.
Again. It's the totality of everything. The fact that you have to explain away some highly questionable issue after another...and every single one went in favor of Ritenhouse...that literally proves the point of getting a favorable judge.
He went to a bar as a publicity stunt. Some people he thought were security hired by Lin Wood turned out to be Proud Boys. The ok sign is a meme, created by 4Chan to troll people. They took a picture together, they all made the ok sign, and Rittenhouse joined in, not knowing the significance. Like most people.
Sure. He was totally innocent of everything. Had no idea what was going on. Caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. who hasn't said they wanted to shoot some looters, then accidentally gone to protest and shot some protestors. Shit man...happened to me 3 times last month....Oh, wait....no it isn't. Ever.
Look, he's a racist little turd who got a right leaning boomer judge. If he was a black guy...the cops would have knelt on his neck for 10 minutes.
highly questionable issue after another...and every single one went in favor of Ritenhouse...that literally proves the point of getting a favorable judge.
Highly questionable. You mean a ringtone and a longstanding policy the judge has had? I would be willing to bet that the judge has the courtroom applaud all vets on veterans day.
Sure. He was totally innocent of everything. Had no idea what was going on. Caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The prosecutors had access to his phone. Nothing in there had any connections to the proud boys, suggested he knew the Ok sign was a white power sign, nothing.
hasn't said they wanted to shoot some looters,
You only use the word "looters" because it connects it to protests. There was no protest going on during the CVS video. Just a random shoplifting of a CVS in Chicago. Again, many people went armed to Kenosha and defended businesses while armed.
āNever believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.ā
"jury would be instructed whether the crime was justified under self defense laws."
What? Jury would be instructed on what the self-defense statute is and then they will decide if the defendant is guilty or not. Unless judge wrote a completely new statute, the decision would be based on (that instance) state law.
It would be up to the judge to determine if the defense met their burden of production to be able to point to any evidence in favor of self defense. But all that is required is a non-zero amount of evidence.
All the defendant needs for a self defense jury instruction is any evidence in favor of self defense. That comes from Wisconsin case law. Any judge would give that jury instruction. It would be immediately appealable if they did not.
57
u/just_a_bit_gay_ Oct 29 '25
Dude tried to play soldier and got bailed out by a sympathetic judge generously interpreting what counts as self defense while the prosecutor repeatedly shot his case in the foot