Also in the news

[WigstonWanderer]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Possibly (though frankly I'm pretty sure there are some posters here who do support him and them), but apparently we can't agree that some of them were insurrectionists who wanted to overthrow the result of a free and fair election on January 6th.

 

So it goes.

Yes I think you’re right ☹️
 

I wonder if this is what it felt like in the thirties?

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Yes I think you’re right ☹️
 

I wonder if this is what it felt like in the thirties?

I don't really want to draw parallels there, what with Godwin's Law making discussions absurd and all...but I do wonder what is around the corner, especially with the additional factor of vital resource scarcity perhaps becoming an issue.

Edited 15 November 2021 by leicsmac

[WigstonWanderer]

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I don't really want to draw parallels there, what with Godwin's Law making discussions absurd and all...but I do wonder what is around the corner, especially with the additional factor of vital resource scarcity perhaps becoming an issue.

Haha

Had to look it up, and certainly some truth in it

Got a feeling that this time the wolf really is at the door 

Edited 15 November 2021 by WigstonWanderer

[Guest SO1]

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2021/11/infuriating-report-reveals-breathtaking-cover-up-of-us-airstrike-that-killed-syrian-civilians.html

Even the NY Times gets it right once in awhile. My country a force for democracy around the world.

[Paninistickers]

Delighted to see Nottm has lost its beloved high speed train. 

 

Hopefully, tho unlikely, the money saved will be instead ploughed into Ivanhoe and Coventry lines.....tho it seems more probable that the vile,  corrupt, scatterbrained blonde scumbag will give a green light allowing ministers to approve only schemes that benefit  tory marginals

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Feel free to give me a bollocking for the uncensored language, mods, but I think this one from what I've read is broadly accurate:

 

What have you read? 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

What have you read? 

https://www.newsweek.com/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-judge-bruce-schroeder-controversies-1648569

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/11/15/rittenhouse-trial-what-does-take-recuse-judge-explainer/8593149002/?gnt-cfr=1

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/judge-kyle-rittenhouse-trial-faces-backlash-asian-food-joke-rcna5392

 

NB. Sorry, mods.

 

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.newsweek.com/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-judge-bruce-schroeder-controversies-1648569

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/11/15/rittenhouse-trial-what-does-take-recuse-judge-explainer/8593149002/?gnt-cfr=1

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/judge-kyle-rittenhouse-trial-faces-backlash-asian-food-joke-rcna5392

 

NB. Sorry, mods.

 

Ah for a moment I thought I had missed something. You're clutching at straws there aren't you. In case anyone is wondering, here is the comment that  makes the judge a foaming-at-the-mouth KKK member:

 

"I hope the Asian food isn't on one of those boats in Long Beach harbor" 

 

Absolutely ridiculous. Have you been watching the trial? I recommend watching the Rekieta Law streams as there is some very good legal commentary on the case. The prosecution team has behaved appallingly and there may yet be a dismissal with prejudice given the massive constitutional violation (the prosecution brought up Kyle's silence under the 5th amendment which is a massive no-no) and then bringing up a topic that the judge had specifically ruled was off-limits. One charge has already been dropped because Wisconsin law permitted Kyle Rittenhouse to carry that firearm. The prosecution knew this but pursued it anyway. And generally the lies and half-truths from the prosecution have been awful to watch. The judge has actually been very lenient towards them, particularly when they introduced a blurry, low-res zoomed in image at the last minute and were allowed to tell the jury that it depicted Kyle pointing a gun at somebody (who did not even testify by the way), even though this was patently not true. Defence did a great job of debunking that. The prosecution's own witnesses have directly contradicted their claims which has been a massive own goal for them. Acquittal on all charges is a real possibility and if the jury is fair, that's what will happen. 

Edited 16 November 2021 by MarshallForEngland

[leicsmac]

51 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

Ah for a moment I thought I had missed something. You're clutching at straws there aren't you. In case anyone is wondering, here is the comment that  makes the judge a foaming-at-the-mouth KKK member:

 

"I hope the Asian food isn't on one of those boats in Long Beach harbor" 

 

Absolutely ridiculous. Have you been watching the trial? I recommend watching the Rekieta Law streams as there is some very good legal commentary on the case. The prosecution team has behaved appallingly and there may yet be a dismissal with prejudice given the massive constitutional violation (the prosecution brought up Kyle's silence under the 5th amendment which is a massive no-no) and then bringing up a topic that the judge had specifically ruled was off-limits. One charge has already been dropped because Wisconsin law permitted Kyle Rittenhouse to carry that firearm. The prosecution knew this but pursued it anyway. And generally the lies and half-truths from the prosecution have been awful to watch. The judge has actually been very lenient towards them, particularly when they introduced a blurry, low-res zoomed in image at the last minute and were allowed to tell the jury that it depicted Kyle pointing a gun at somebody (who did not even testify by the way), even though this was patently not true. Defence did a great job of debunking that. The prosecution's own witnesses have directly contradicted their claims which has been a massive own goal for them. Acquittal on all charges is a real possibility and if the jury is fair, that's what will happen. 

Nah, not clutching at straws, using hyperbole to make a point. Apologies if that wasn't clear.

 

With respect to the judge, that comment itself, along with certain other behaviour during the trial: https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2021/11/11/judge-in-rittenhouse-case-slammed-with-accusations-of-bias-heres-why/?sh=50a40bd04e9b

gives more detail - should be enough to raise questions about his impartiality.

 

With respect to the trial, you have something of a point in that the judge doesn't even have to have a lean because frankly the prosecution are doing a wonderful job of screwing things up. That being said, I'm not sure how the first killing can be in any way justifiable as self defence, but I guess American fuzz have been using "I feared for my life even though the was no direct capital threat to me" as a successful defence when they kill someone for some time, so it might happen again here - goodness knows Rittenhouse has sympathy among similar for "making the streets safer from those thugs".

 

If I might ask, what did you think of the incident as a whole? Was it ok for him to bring such a firearm across state lines? Should no one answer for the death and wounding of those people and are they entirely responsible for their own deaths?

[leicsmac]

In other news:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-59301167

 

A bit more conciliatory from both sides here, good to see.

[leicsmac]

But back on the previous:

 

"Ladies and gentlemen, other people in this community have shot somebody seven times — and it's been found to be OK. My client did it four times."

- Defense closing statement in the Rittenhouse trial.

 

Wow. Directly referenced the Blake shooting and that the officer was not charged, the event that kicked off the very Kenosha protests that Rittenhouse ended up getting involved in.

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Nah, not clutching at straws, using hyperbole to make a point. Apologies if that wasn't clear.

 

With respect to the judge, that comment itself, along with certain other behaviour during the trial: https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2021/11/11/judge-in-rittenhouse-case-slammed-with-accusations-of-bias-heres-why/?sh=50a40bd04e9b

gives more detail - should be enough to raise questions about his impartiality.

 

With respect to the trial, you have something of a point in that the judge doesn't even have to have a lean because frankly the prosecution are doing a wonderful job of screwing things up. That being said, I'm not sure how the first killing can be in any way justifiable as self defence, but I guess American fuzz have been using "I feared for my life even though the was no direct capital threat to me" as a successful defence when they kill someone for some time, so it might happen again here - goodness knows Rittenhouse has sympathy among similar for "making the streets safer from those thugs".

 

If I might ask, what did you think of the incident as a whole? Was it ok for him to bring such a firearm across state lines? Should no one answer for the death and wounding of those people and are they entirely responsible for their own deaths?

 

He didn't bring it across state lines, that was established as not true during the trial. In fact, all gun charges against him have been dropped. It's another one of the many factual errors many media outlets have kept putting out despite the fact that it is demonstrably not true. I think there will be some retractions once the case has ended because the chance of lawsuits is quite high.

 

Whether he should have been there is not relevant in terms of any of the charges and the jury is not allowed to consider that when reaching a verdict. It is an undeniable fact, accepted by both the the prosecution and the defence, that for several nights people had been rioting, looting, and setting fire to buildings and vehicles and destroying businesses. It's absolutely reasonable to protect your community from that sort of behaviour, especially if it appears that the police are not able to do it on their own.

 

I am personally terrified of guns, I cannot get my head around the fact that human life can be ended so quickly and efficiently by these things. But the US Constitution guarantees the right to have them and some states allow open carry. The gun was legally purchased by an adult and Kyle was legally allowed to use it (Kyle would not have been able to buy it himself but Wisconsin law allows him to carry it with the owner's permission). 

 

 

 

 

 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

 

He didn't bring it across state lines, that was established as not true during the trial. In fact, all gun charges against him have been dropped. It's another one of the many factual errors many media outlets have kept putting out despite the fact that it is demonstrably not true. I think there will be some retractions once the case has ended because the chance of lawsuits is quite high.

 

Whether he should have been there is not relevant in terms of any of the charges and the jury is not allowed to consider that when reaching a verdict. It is an undeniable fact, accepted by both the the prosecution and the defence, that for several nights people had been rioting, looting, and setting fire to buildings and vehicles and destroying businesses. It's absolutely reasonable to protect your community from that sort of behaviour, especially if it appears that the police are not able to do it on their own.

 

I am personally terrified of guns, I cannot get my head around the fact that human life can be ended so quickly and efficiently by these things. But the US Constitution guarantees the right to have them and some states allow open carry. The gun was legally purchased by an adult and Kyle was legally allowed to use it (Kyle would not have been able to buy it himself but Wisconsin law allows him to carry it with the owner's permission). 

 

 

 

 

 

Would you mind giving a citation for this?

 

With respect to the second paragraph, I think it's a bit inconsistent to suggest the jury cannot consider why he was there and then supply a reason yourself as to why you think he should have been there. Motive is important in criminal cases, as indeed you make out - "protect your community (his community, so far away, really?) - and so a jury might want to consider it.

 

One thing I think that we might agree on is that this whole business is incredibly polarising and I'm amazed that they managed to find twelve impartial jurors to sit in the first place. That being said, polarisation has been a staple of American life for a long time now, since some folks had the temerity to elect a black man to be President (look at how the other side responded to that eight years later), in fact probably long before that.

[rachhere]

I really hope that this debate for Nazanin leads to some positive action today. Over 5 years this has been going on now. 

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Would you mind giving a citation for this?

 

With respect to the second paragraph, I think it's a bit inconsistent to suggest the jury cannot consider why he was there and then supply a reason yourself as to why you think he should have been there. Motive is important in criminal cases, as indeed you make out - "protect your community (his community, so far away, really?) - and so a jury might want to consider it.

 

One thing I think that we might agree on is that this whole business is incredibly polarising and I'm amazed that they managed to find twelve impartial jurors to sit in the first place. That being said, polarisation has been a staple of American life for a long time now, since some folks had the temerity to elect a black man to be President (look at how the other side responded to that eight years later), in fact probably long before that.

His father lives in Kenosha, as do many of his family members. It's only just across the border. I'm afraid you've been misled by the phrase "across state lines" as it was used to imply that Kyle had travelled a long way to seek out trouble in a location he had nothing to do with when that is simply not true. 

 

"With respect to the second paragraph, I think it's a bit inconsistent to suggest the jury cannot consider why he was there and then supply a reason yourself as to why you think he should have been there. Motive is important in criminal cases, as indeed you make out - "protect your community (his community, so far away, really?) - and so a jury might want to consider it." 

 

It's not uncommon for a layperson to think like this but you could not be more wrong. What the jury "may want to consider" is of zero significance. The judge directs them as to the law, they are not free to impose their opinions onto that and make a verdict based on something that is not legally relevant. The question asked to them is whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self defence (since it is already agreed that he was the factual cause of death/injury). 

 

"Motive is important in criminal cases" 

 

Again, I understand why somebody would say this but it just isn't true. Guilty act (actus reus) and guilty mind (mens rea) are the components required to convict. Mens rea relates specifically to intent, not motive. The jury is not free to speculate on the motive and use that a basis for reaching a verdict. The judge actually brought up the fact that the state is under no obligation to establish a motive in his jury instructions, you should watch it. The reason why motive was brought up so much by the prosecution is because they are hoping that the jurors will think like you and impose their own moral beliefs onto the case. 

 

No reasonable jury can convict him. He clearly was in mortal danger; he was chased by someone who then tried to grab his gun. That makes them armed and justifies self defence. Another kicked him in the head while he was on the floor - that is potentially fatal. Another smashed him over the head with a skateboard while he was on the floor - that is a DEADLY WEAPON. And a third pointed a handgun at him. We have hundreds of hours of footage showing that he clearly acted in self defence. Whether or it's a good idea to be there in the first place is NOT relevant to the crimes he is accused of. 

Edited 16 November 2021 by MarshallForEngland

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

32 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

His father lives in Kenosha, as do many of his family members. It's only just across the border. I'm afraid you've been misled by the phrase "across state lines" as it was used to imply that Kyle had travelled a long way to seek out trouble in a location he had nothing to do with when that is simply not true. 

 

"With respect to the second paragraph, I think it's a bit inconsistent to suggest the jury cannot consider why he was there and then supply a reason yourself as to why you think he should have been there. Motive is important in criminal cases, as indeed you make out - "protect your community (his community, so far away, really?) - and so a jury might want to consider it." 

 

It's not uncommon for a layperson to think like this but you could not be more wrong. What the jury "may want to consider" is of zero significance. The judge directs them as to the law, they are not free to impose their opinions onto that and make a verdict based on something that is not legally relevant. The question asked to them is whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self defence (since it is already agreed that he was the factual cause of death/injury). 

 

"Motive is important in criminal cases" 

 

Again, I understand why somebody would say this but it just isn't true. Guilty act (actus reus) and guilty mind (mens rea) are the components required to convict. Mens rea relates specifically to intent, not motive. The jury is not free to speculate on the motive and use that a basis for reaching a verdict. The judge actually brought up the fact that the state is under no obligation to establish a motive in his jury instructions, you should watch it. The reason why motive was brought up so much by the prosecution is because they are hoping that the jurors will think like you and impose their own moral beliefs onto the case. 

 

No reasonable jury can convict him. He clearly was in mortal danger; he was chased by someone who then tried to grab his gun. That makes them armed and justifies self defence. Another kicked him in the head while he was on the floor - that is potentially fatal. Another smashed him over the head with a skateboard while he was on the floor - that is a DEADLY WEAPON. And a third pointed a handgun at him. We have hundreds of hours of footage showing that he clearly acted in self defence. Whether or it's a good idea to be there in the first place is NOT relevant to the crimes he is accused of. 

Sorry to quote myself. I'm not confident about the specific burden of proof regarding self defence in the USA or the state of Wisconsin and how it shifts and what standard of proof is required, it's possible that is not the instruction the jury receives so I am ready to be corrected on that. 

[leicsmac]

Firstly, I did some looking myself and it appears he isn't being charged on the gun charges, so fair enough there. I'm going to unpack this one piece by piece:

 

10 hours ago, MarshallForEngland said:

His father lives in Kenosha, as do many of his family members. It's only just across the border. I'm afraid you've been misled by the phrase "across state lines" as it was used to imply that Kyle had travelled a long way to seek out trouble in a location he had nothing to do with when that is simply not true.

 

Looking at the distance figures, Kenosha and Antioch are roughly 16 miles apart so it isn't far away at all, I'll concede the point there. I do wonder, however, if someone from, say, Nuneaton, would consider Leicester to be "their" home community that they needed to defend, even if they had family members living there.

 

10 hours ago, MarshallForEngland said:

"With respect to the second paragraph, I think it's a bit inconsistent to suggest the jury cannot consider why he was there and then supply a reason yourself as to why you think he should have been there. Motive is important in criminal cases, as indeed you make out - "protect your community (his community, so far away, really?) - and so a jury might want to consider it." 

 

It's not uncommon for a layperson to think like this but you could not be more wrong. What the jury "may want to consider" is of zero significance. The judge directs them as to the law, they are not free to impose their opinions onto that and make a verdict based on something that is not legally relevant. The question asked to them is whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self defence (since it is already agreed that he was the factual cause of death/injury). 

 

I find it interesting that a few days ago you were going on about words in a dictionary being descriptive rather than prescriptive and therefore subjective for the purposes of your argument, whereas here the word of the law is immutable and so whatever additional subjective information about a situation can simply be disregarded as "facts are facts" because they're written down as legal precedent, just like words in a dictionary. Either both are subjective, or neither, or you're not as impassive a legal observer as you're making yourself out to be in this particular instance and are just as subject to your own preconceived notions as myself or anyone else. This trial, whatever happens, is merely part of a larger conflict within the US that has been going on for a long time, and that cannot be separated from the "facts" of the case IMO. Which is why I wouldn't be on that jury in the first place and I'd be happy not to be - but then I think you would deserve no place on it if you were eligible either.

 

Speaking as an advocate for jury nullification, my own preconceived notion is that a jury can and should consider not only the facts of the matter but the law itself in every single case, because sometimes the law is unjust and, frankly, is an arse. Numerous examples of this exist throughout history.

 

10 hours ago, MarshallForEngland said:

"Motive is important in criminal cases" 

 

Again, I understand why somebody would say this but it just isn't true. Guilty act (actus reus) and guilty mind (mens rea) are the components required to convict. Mens rea relates specifically to intent, not motive. The jury is not free to speculate on the motive and use that a basis for reaching a verdict. The judge actually brought up the fact that the state is under no obligation to establish a motive in his jury instructions, you should watch it. The reason why motive was brought up so much by the prosecution is because they are hoping that the jurors will think like you and impose their own moral beliefs onto the case. 

 

See above. My take - maybe, maybe, I stress, they should.

 

10 hours ago, MarshallForEngland said:

No reasonable jury can convict him. He clearly was in mortal danger; he was chased by someone who then tried to grab his gun. That makes them armed and justifies self defence. Another kicked him in the head while he was on the floor - that is potentially fatal. Another smashed him over the head with a skateboard while he was on the floor - that is a DEADLY WEAPON. And a third pointed a handgun at him. We have hundreds of hours of footage showing that he clearly acted in self defence. Whether or it's a good idea to be there in the first place is NOT relevant to the crimes he is accused of. 

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/01/us/kyle-rittenhouse-shooting-victims-trial/index.html

 

I'll come to the first victim last, because that's where the most doubt lies IMO.

 

The second victim: "Huber appeared to reach for Rittenhouse's gun with his hand while holding his skateboard in the other, the criminal complaint said. As Huber tried to grab the gun, Rittenhouse pointed it at his body and fired one round, according to the complaint. Huber was seen staggering away and then fell to the ground, the complaint said. He died from his gunshot wound."

 

During his testimony, Rittenhouse said Huber was "holding a skateboard like a baseball bat," which he swung down, hitting Rittenhouse in the neck. Richards, the defense attorney, said before Rittenhouse shot Huber, the shooting victim "strikes him in the head" and is going for a "second lick," adding Huber's "other hand goes for the gun" in Rittenhouse's hand. DNA analyst Amber Rasmussen testified Huber's DNA was not found on Rittenhouse's firearm but said it was still possible he touched out.

 

The criminal complaint and Rittenhouses testimony appear to be inconsistent. No mention of Rittenhouse lying on the ground there, btw, just firing his weapon as someone grabbed for it.

 

The third victim: "During cross-examination by Rittenhouse's attorney, Grosskreutz said his handgun was pointing at Rittenhouse during the shooting. On redirect questioning by the prosecution, he clarified he never intentionally pointed his gun at Rittenhouse.

He said he saw Rittenhouse fire at Huber and then moved toward Rittenhouse, telling jurors his hands were up, holding his own gun and phone. Grosskreutz said he "thought there was a high likelihood that I would be shot myself." Richards, the defense attorney, argued Grosskreutz should have "retreated" and not confronted Rittenhouse."

 

I actually agree with the defence attorney here that Grosskreutz should have backed away and not escalated the situation by drawing his firearm. I'd agree with you that is self-defence.

 

And the first victim: "Several clips played during the trial captured Rosenbaum briefly chasing Rittenhouse in a Car Source dealership before Rittenhouse fired four shots at him. Kenosha Police Detective Martin Howard testified one of the videos showed Rosenbaum hiding as Rittenhouse approached the lot and then Rosenbaum beginning to follow him. Rosenbaum and Rittenhouse moved across the parking lot and appeared to be close to each other when loud bangs were suddenly heard and Rosenbaum fell to the ground, the complaint said. Dr. Douglas Kelley with the Milwaukee County Medical Examiner's Office testified Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum four times -- twice in the front, once in the back and once along the side of his head, and determined the fatal shot to his back came as his body leaned forward."

 

"Rittenhouse testified he knew Rosenbaum was unarmed when he ran at the teenager and said he pointed his rifle at Rosenbaum in an attempt to deter him, adding he knew pointing a rifle at someone is dangerous."

 

So Rosenbaum chases him, Rittenhouse, instead of continuing to flee, turns, points his gun at Rosenbaum in an attempt to scare him away and opens fire on a person who is unarmed and rather clearly does not present a capital threat to him. Of course, you might argue that Rittenhouse didn't know that and so he "feared for his life" - indeed, it's a cop using that same defence and not being charged with a crime that led to this entire situation arising in the first place. My take, however, is that if you kill someone that didn't present a capital threat to you, even if you thought that they did and later it turned out to not be the case, you should answer for it, otherwise it would be very easy for a lot of people to go to places tooled up, look provocative, shoot someone and then simply say that they feared for their life. Is that the kind of road we want to be going down here?

 

The first incident stands squarely in the field of what in the UK would be called manslaughter, IMO.

 

NB. This goes back to the discussion above - the law isn't infallible, and juries can and should be able to consider more than just the facts of a case. I think our worldviews differ there, but please, don't infer that your worldview is consistent and mine is not (and yes, that was an inference) when, in reality, neither of us are, because we're both human.

 

Edit: Or a jury should at least look at the facts of a case and perhaps interpret them differently - if that wasn't the case then we may as well do away with juries entirely and turn over deliberations to an artificial legal intelligence that simply had the facts of the case inputted in. Anyway, the jury has it now and are taking their time, so I guess we'll see soon enough - if they do acquit, I won't agree, but I will see why they did.

Edited 17 November 2021 by leicsmac

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Firstly, I did some looking myself and it appears he isn't being charged on the gun charges, so fair enough there. I'm going to unpack this one piece by piece:

 

Looking at the distance figures, Kenosha and Antioch are roughly 16 miles apart so it isn't far away at all, I'll concede the point there. I do wonder, however, if someone from, say, Nuneaton, would consider Leicester to be "their" home community that they needed to defend, even if they had family members living there.

 

I find it interesting that a few days ago you were going on about words in a dictionary being descriptive rather than prescriptive and therefore subjective for the purposes of your argument, whereas here the word of the law is immutable and so whatever additional subjective information about a situation can simply be disregarded as "facts are facts" because they're written down as legal precedent, just like words in a dictionary. Either both are subjective, or neither, or you're not as impassive a legal observer as you're making yourself out to be in this particular instance and are just as subject to your own preconceived notions as myself or anyone else. This trial, whatever happens, is merely part of a larger conflict within the US that has been going on for a long time, and that cannot be separated from the "facts" of the case IMO. Which is why I wouldn't be on that jury in the first place and I'd be happy not to be - but then I think you would deserve no place on it if you were eligible either.

 

Speaking as an advocate for jury nullification, my own preconceived notion is that a jury can and should consider not only the facts of the matter but the law itself in every single case, because sometimes the law is unjust and, frankly, is an arse. Numerous examples of this exist throughout history.

 

See above. My take - maybe, maybe, I stress, they should.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/01/us/kyle-rittenhouse-shooting-victims-trial/index.html

 

I'll come to the first victim last, because that's where the most doubt lies IMO.

 

The second victim: "Huber appeared to reach for Rittenhouse's gun with his hand while holding his skateboard in the other, the criminal complaint said. As Huber tried to grab the gun, Rittenhouse pointed it at his body and fired one round, according to the complaint. Huber was seen staggering away and then fell to the ground, the complaint said. He died from his gunshot wound."

 

During his testimony, Rittenhouse said Huber was "holding a skateboard like a baseball bat," which he swung down, hitting Rittenhouse in the neck. Richards, the defense attorney, said before Rittenhouse shot Huber, the shooting victim "strikes him in the head" and is going for a "second lick," adding Huber's "other hand goes for the gun" in Rittenhouse's hand. DNA analyst Amber Rasmussen testified Huber's DNA was not found on Rittenhouse's firearm but said it was still possible he touched out.

 

The criminal complaint and Rittenhouses testimony appear to be inconsistent. No mention of Rittenhouse lying on the ground there, btw, just firing his weapon as someone grabbed for it.

 

The third victim: "During cross-examination by Rittenhouse's attorney, Grosskreutz said his handgun was pointing at Rittenhouse during the shooting. On redirect questioning by the prosecution, he clarified he never intentionally pointed his gun at Rittenhouse.

He said he saw Rittenhouse fire at Huber and then moved toward Rittenhouse, telling jurors his hands were up, holding his own gun and phone. Grosskreutz said he "thought there was a high likelihood that I would be shot myself." Richards, the defense attorney, argued Grosskreutz should have "retreated" and not confronted Rittenhouse."

 

I actually agree with the defence attorney here that Grosskreutz should have backed away and not escalated the situation by drawing his firearm. I'd agree with you that is self-defence.

 

And the first victim: "Several clips played during the trial captured Rosenbaum briefly chasing Rittenhouse in a Car Source dealership before Rittenhouse fired four shots at him. Kenosha Police Detective Martin Howard testified one of the videos showed Rosenbaum hiding as Rittenhouse approached the lot and then Rosenbaum beginning to follow him. Rosenbaum and Rittenhouse moved across the parking lot and appeared to be close to each other when loud bangs were suddenly heard and Rosenbaum fell to the ground, the complaint said. Dr. Douglas Kelley with the Milwaukee County Medical Examiner's Office testified Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum four times -- twice in the front, once in the back and once along the side of his head, and determined the fatal shot to his back came as his body leaned forward."

 

"Rittenhouse testified he knew Rosenbaum was unarmed when he ran at the teenager and said he pointed his rifle at Rosenbaum in an attempt to deter him, adding he knew pointing a rifle at someone is dangerous."

 

So Rosenbaum chases him, Rittenhouse, instead of continuing to flee, turns, points his gun at Rosenbaum in an attempt to scare him away and opens fire on a person who is unarmed and rather clearly does not present a capital threat to him. Of course, you might argue that Rittenhouse didn't know that and so he "feared for his life" - indeed, it's a cop using that same defence and not being charged with a crime that led to this entire situation arising in the first place. My take, however, is that if you kill someone that didn't present a capital threat to you, even if you thought that they did and later it turned out to not be the case, you should answer for it, otherwise it would be very easy for a lot of people to go to places tooled up, look provocative, shoot someone and then simply say that they feared for their life. Is that the kind of road we want to be going down here?

 

The first incident stands squarely in the field of what in the UK would be called manslaughter, IMO.

 

NB. This goes back to the discussion above - the law isn't infallible, and juries can and should be able to consider more than just the facts of a case. I think our worldviews differ there, but please, don't infer that your worldview is consistent and mine is not (and yes, that was an inference) when, in reality, neither of us are, because we're both human.

 

Edit: Or a jury should at least look at the facts of a case and perhaps interpret them differently - if that wasn't the case then we may as well do away with juries entirely and turn over deliberations to an artificial legal intelligence that simply had the facts of the case inputted in. Anyway, the jury has it now and are taking their time, so I guess we'll see soon enough - if they do acquit, I won't agree, but I will see why they did.

Some excellent points here. The legal commentary I have seen says that Kyle had no "duty to retreat" and that even if he did, it would already be satisfied because Kyle was already running away for several seconds. No "duty to retreat" could oblige a person to carry on sprinting at full pelt from a perceived threat indefinitely. Rosenbaum lunges for the gun and Kyle fires. 

 

Rosenbaum was a capital threat. When you grab someone's gun, you are armed. And the test for self defence is in two parts - did the defendant believe his life was in danger, and was that belief reasonable? Kyle believed his life was in danger and clearly if somebody is grabbing your gun (especially given that Rosenbaum had threatened to kill Kyle earlier that night already) then that belief is reasonable. It has been established by forensics that Rosenbaum did grab the gun, so that is not in doubt. The "shot in the back" was another misleading phrase by the prosecution which Richards (defence lawyer) thankfully debunked in closing as it was consistent with Rosenbaum lunging at Kyle. 

 

About definitions, this is exactly why I insisted these different sources of "meaning" do not overlap! It is extremely important that legal definitions are consistent, predictable, well-explained and understood because they are being used as the basis for legal provisions and a person's basic liberties are at stake. Citizens have to be able to understand the laws of the land and the judiciary must be able to rule on the law fairly and consistently so that everybody receives the same treatment. If legal definitions are subject to opinion or natural changes in everyday spoken language, the legal system would be unpredictable and unjust. If there are no objective tests to establish whether or not a "murder" has taken place, for example, then conviction may simply be down to how the judge personally feels about it or the opinions of individual jury members, which is clearly not fair. That's why the law has developed a body of uniquely defined terminology which has diverged from the same words in everyday use, the alternative would be unthinkable. 

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

By the way, the defence has filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice. Very interesting. Unlikely that the judge will rule on it prior to the jury reaching a verdict because unfortunately I think he is already aware of the media and Twitter storm accusing him of bias. He could still grant it after the verdict though if Kyle is found guilty. The only difference is that the state can appeal if it's after the verdict but not if it's before. 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

Some excellent points here. The legal commentary I have seen says that Kyle had no "duty to retreat" and that even if he did, it would already be satisfied because Kyle was already running away for several seconds. No "duty to retreat" could oblige a person to carry on sprinting at full pelt from a perceived threat indefinitely. Rosenbaum lunges for the gun and Kyle fires. 

 

If Rittenhouse had no duty to retreat, then the man who drew upon him had no duty to do so either, as he had seen Rittenhouse shoot someone and could validly say he "feared for his life" too.

 

Again, either both are true or neither are.

 

6 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

 

 

Rosenbaum was a capital threat. When you grab someone's gun, you are armed. And the test for self defence is in two parts - did the defendant believe his life was in danger, and was that belief reasonable? Kyle believed his life was in danger and clearly if somebody is grabbing your gun (especially given that Rosenbaum had threatened to kill Kyle earlier that night already) then that belief is reasonable. It has been established by forensics that Rosenbaum did grab the gun, so that is not in doubt. The "shot in the back" was another misleading phrase by the prosecution which Richards (defence lawyer) thankfully debunked in closing as it was consistent with Rosenbaum lunging at Kyle. 

 

 

Is there conclusive forensic proof that Rosenbaum actually took hold of the gun? If so, kindly show it.  All I'm seeing is that he chased Rittenhouse and (possibly) reached for the gun. Rittenhouses own testimony says that he fired it to scare him off, and does reaching for someone's gun actually constitute a capital threat, or is there no "right to disarm a threat", as it were? The forensic officer quoted in that article said that it may or may not have happened. Let's not state opinion as fact, please.

 

10 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

 

 

About definitions, this is exactly why I insisted these different sources of "meaning" do not overlap! It is extremely important that legal definitions are consistent, predictable, well-explained and understood because they are being used as the basis for legal provisions and a person's basic liberties are at stake. Citizens have to be able to understand the laws of the land and the judiciary must be able to rule on the law fairly and consistently so that everybody receives the same treatment. If legal definitions are subject to opinion or natural changes in everyday spoken language, the legal system would be unpredictable and unjust. If there are no objective tests to establish whether or not a "murder" has taken place, for example, then conviction may simply be down to how the judge personally feels about it or the opinions of individual jury members, which is clearly not fair. That's why the law has developed a body of uniquely defined terminology which has diverged from the same words in everyday use, the alternative would be unthinkable. 

Yes.

 

Perhaps you might apply similar thinking to the legal definition of the word "insurrection" and state whether or not that is as set in stone as the definitions you describe here are.

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

If Rittenhouse had no duty to retreat, then the man who drew upon him had no duty to do so either, as he had seen Rittenhouse shoot someone and could validly say he "feared for his life" too.

 

Again, either both are true or neither are.

 

Is there conclusive forensic proof that Rosenbaum actually took hold of the gun? If so, kindly show it.  All I'm seeing is that he chased Rittenhouse and (possibly) reached for the gun. Rittenhouses own testimony says that he fired it to scare him off, and does reaching for someone's gun actually constitute a capital threat, or is there no "right to disarm a threat", as it were? The forensic officer quoted in that article said that it may or may not have happened. Let's not state opinion as fact, please.

 

Yes.

 

Perhaps you might apply similar thinking to the legal definition of the word "insurrection" and state whether or not that is as set in stone as the definitions you describe here are.

I don't recall the defence saying that Rosenbaum had a legal obligation to retreat. Wisconsin doesn't have a statutory duty to retreat but whether or not retreat is possible can be considered in the "reasonableness" component of self defence as I understand. The defence may have brought up Rosenbaum's failure to retreat in argument against the claim that it was reasonable for Rosenbaum to fear for his life. The video is clear anyway, Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse and did not stop. He lunged for the gun (the forensic evidence was in the trial, I don't know how to direct you to the exact moment, there is probably 100 hours of trial footage at this stage). 

 

"Rittenhouses own testimony says that he fired it to scare him off" 

 

Erm, have you got the transcript for that? From what I recall he said he turned around and pointed the gun at Rosenbaum so get him to stop chasing him. It was only after Rosenbaum continued and reached for the gun that Kyle shot him. And yes, when you reach for a gun, you are considered armed. Kyle was not a threat, he was running away. Any belief Rosenbaum had that his own life was in danger could not be reasonable. Not only that but the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rosenbaum did fear for his life. This is why they tried very desperately to demonstrate that Kyle pointed his gun at people prior to the first shooting. The judge was actually very lenient in allowing the jury to hear that as the video did not show what the prosecution said it did. It might come back to bite them as the motion for dismissal claims that the prosecution gave a lower quality video to the defence. 

 

Your last comment is a bit unusual. Of course the legal definition is very specific but I haven't read any case law on it so I don't know exactly what it is. No insurrection charges have been brought against anyone as yet so obviously even the prosecutors are not massively confident they couls get convictions based on it. In any case, I was arguing against the casual use of the word in everyday conversation and news media. If the courts decides that the legal definition of insurrection is satisfied, so be it. It's worth noting that the Insurrection Act itself contains more than simply the crime of Insurrection, so even if the act is used to prosecute someone, it may not specifically be for the crime of Insurrection. 

 

Edited 17 November 2021 by MarshallForEngland

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, MarshallForEngland said:

I don't recall the defence saying that Rosenbaum had a legal obligation to retreat. Wisconsin doesn't have a statutory duty to retreat but whether or not retreat is possible can be considered in the "reasonableness" component of self defence as I understand. The defence may have brought up Rosenbaum's failure to retreat in argument against the claim that it was reasonable for Rosenbaum to fear for his life. The video is clear anyway, Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse and did not stop. He lunged for the gun (the forensic evidence was in the trial, I don't know how to direct you to the exact moment, there is probably 100 hours of trial footage at this stage). 

 

"Rittenhouses own testimony says that he fired it to scare him off" 

 

Erm, have you got the transcript for that? From what I recall he said he turned around and pointed the gun at Rosenbaum so get him to stop chasing him. It was only after Rosenbaum continued and reached for the gun that Kyle shot him. And yes, when you reach for a gun, you are considered armed. Kyle was not a threat, he was running away. Any belief Rosenbaum had that his own life was in danger could not be reasonable. Not only that but the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rosenbaum did fear for his life. This is why they tried very desperately to demonstrate that Kyle pointed his gun at people prior to the first shooting. The judge was actually very lenient in allowing the jury to hear that as the video did not show what the prosecution said it did. It might come back to bite them as the motion for dismissal claims that the prosecution gave a lower quality video to the defence. 

 

Your last comment is a bit unusual. Of course the legal definition is very specific but I haven't read any case law on it so I don't know exactly what it is. No insurrection charges have been brought against anyone as yet so obviously even the prosecutors are not massively confident they couls get convictions based on it. In any case, I was arguing against the casual use of the word in everyday conversation and news media. If the courts decides that the legal definition of insurrection is satisfied, so be it. It's worth noting that the Insurrection Act itself contains more than simply the crime of Insurrection, so even if the act is used to prosecute someone, it may not specifically be for the crime of Insurrection. 

 

Sorry, with respect to the first paragraph, I was referring to Grosskreutz, not Rosenbaum. My meaning being that if Rittenhouse had the right to stand his ground with a weapon while fearing for his life, then so did Grosskreutz. Personally, I think neither did.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/01/us/kyle-rittenhouse-shooting-victims-trial/index.html

 

"Rittenhouse testified he knew Rosenbaum was unarmed when he ran at the teenager and said he pointed his rifle at Rosenbaum in an attempt to deter him, adding he knew pointing a rifle at someone is dangerous."

 

I hope that would be sufficient to suggest that Rittenhouse testified that he fired his weapon to get him to back off.

 

With respect to the last paragraph, I fear I might be repeating myself but I'm highlighting an inconsistency between believing written laws and the definitions it contains are immutable whereas everyday definitions for words are somehow significantly more flexible. Both are rather important definitives in how we live our lives in different ways and I honestly don't know why beyond ideological bias in this case you would prize one so much over the other.

 

Allow me to be frank - as I said, I wouldn't be on the jury for this trial even if I was eligible, because of my own preconceived views on the matter. I think that Rittenhouse should be doing time not only because I think what he did to Rosenbaum fits the legal definition of what we would call manslaughter, but also because doing so would deter vigilantism (feel free to argue the term if you like but IMO that's what it was) from groups and individuals that at best enable the status quo where institutionalised police brutality against people of colour in various parts of the US is a fact of life (which, lest we forget, is why this all happened in the first place), and at worst actively seek to perpetuate it by intimidating and flat-out harming those who would seek to change that status quo. But then, I never claimed to be impartial on this, and with all due respect, in spite of your considerable reading on the topic, you shouldn't either - nor appear to be.

 

However, having said all that, I'm also a strong believer in the idea of letting a thousand guilty men go free before an innocent man is wrongly convicted, so if the jury does decide that there is enough reasonable doubt and/or that Rittenhouse did act fully in self-defence and acquit him on that score, then I would understand that, too.

[String fellow]

Amazon UK are to stop accepting Visa credit card payments from 19th January. As someone who buys virtually everything apart from groceries from Amazon using a Visa credit card, I can hardly believe it. This will surely go down as a massive commercial blunder by Amazon.  

[st albans fox]

13 minutes ago, String fellow said:

Amazon UK are to stop accepting Visa credit card payments from 19th January. As someone who buys virtually everything apart from groceries from Amazon using a Visa credit card, I can hardly believe it. This will surely go down as a massive commercial blunder by Amazon.  

It depends who blinks first …..

[Suzie the Fox]

20 minutes ago, String fellow said:

Amazon UK are to stop accepting Visa credit card payments from 19th January. As someone who buys virtually everything apart from groceries from Amazon using a Visa credit card, I can hardly believe it. This will surely go down as a massive commercial blunder by Amazon.  

What, really.. why? Everything i buy from Amazon is on a Visa card.