Kenosha Shooter Kyle Rittenhouse

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Convincing 12 people it was murder, especially if an 18 year old could have gotten away with it, is going to be an uphill battle for the prosecution though.

The prosecution almost always have a harder job that the defense (which is as it should be). A prosecutor has to convince twelve people, a defense attorney only had to cause one person to have a reasonable doubt.

Boru

[paulpablo]

If the one guy he killed was a child molester then that's cool.

If the other guy who he killed was attacking him first I hope he gets away with all this.

[Mister Agenda]

You think it's exculpatory if someone who gets murdered later turns out to have a record for something bad that the shooter had no way of knowing about, nor did the person who tried to stop a shooter with no way of knowing the person shot was a bad guy?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

If the one guy he killed was a child molester then that's cool.

If the other guy who he killed was attacking him first I hope he gets away with all this.

No, it isn't cool at all. Think it through.

Boru

[paulpablo]

You think it's exculpatory if someone who gets murdered later turns out to have a record for something bad that the shooter had no way of knowing about, nor did the person who tried to stop a shooter with no way of knowing the person shot was a bad guy?

I dont have much of an opinion on Kyle I just like the fact a child molester was shot dead.

I dont know if the other person was a rioter out for random violence or if he was a random passerby who got shot.

[Rev. Rye]

If the one guy he killed was a child molester then that's cool.

If the other guy who he killed was attacking him first I hope he gets away with all this.

If he was going to hunt child molesters, he probably could have just stayed in Antioch and did some vigilante shit there.

[popeyespappy]

Convincing 12 people it was murder, especially if an 18 year old could have gotten away with it, is going to be an uphill battle for the prosecution though.

The prosecution almost always have a harder job that the defense (which is as it should be). A prosecutor has to convince twelve people, a defense attorney only had to cause one person to have a reasonable doubt.

Boru

True but you are missing part of the point. A 17 year old is only allowed to be in possession of a firearm in Wisconsin while accompanied by an adult. There are specific exceptions to this, but they don't apply here. Since Rittenhouse was committing another crime when he shot Rosenbaum he can't claim self defense under Wisconsin law. An 18 year old could though, and the defense is undoubtedly going to bring that up. Assuming this actually was a case of self defense that would put the jury in the precarious position of having to decide if the law is fair or not. i.e. Is it fair to send a 17 year old to prison for the rest of his life for something that would be OK for an 18 year old to do?

---

If the one guy he killed was a child molester then that's cool.

If the other guy who he killed was attacking him first I hope he gets away with all this.

The judge may or may not let Rosenbaum's criminal history be discussed at the trial. No he won't let the defense tell the jury he was a pedo who deserved what he got. He might let them talk about a violent criminal history though if the defense was arguing Rosenbaum attacking Rittenhouse wasn't out of character.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The prosecution almost always have a harder job that the defense (which is as it should be). A prosecutor has to convince twelve people, a defense attorney only had to cause one person to have a reasonable doubt.

Boru

True but you are missing part of the point. A 17 year old is only allowed to be in possession of a firearm in Wisconsin while accompanied by an adult. There are specific exceptions to this, but they don't apply here. Since Rittenhouse was committing another crime when he shot Rosenbaum he can't claim self defense under Wisconsin law. An 18 year old could though, and the defense is undoubtedly going to bring that up.  Assuming this actually was a case of self defense that would put the jury in the precarious position of having to decide if the law is fair or not. i.e. Is it fair to send a 17 year old to prison for the rest of his life for something that would be OK for an 18 year old to do?

---

I didn’t miss the point, because the nuances of this specific incident wasn’t the point I was addressing. It was an observation of the general, relative burdens faced by the prosecution and the defense in any jury trial.

And any jury verdict based on whether a particular law is ‘fair’ is likely to be set aside by the presiding judge or cause a mistrial. Jury verdicts are meant to be based on the facts in evidence and whether those facts merit action under established law.

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

If the one guy he killed was a child molester then that's cool.

If the other guy who he killed was attacking him first I hope he gets away with all this.

A persons criminal history should no bearing on a crime committed against and Ritterhouse was threatening people with the gun

[Rev. Rye]

And any jury verdict based on whether a particular law is ‘fair’ is likely to be set aside by the presiding judge or cause a mistrial. Jury verdicts are meant to be based on the facts in evidence and whether those facts merit action under established law.

Assuming, of course, that said judge is actually fair and isn’t working on his own agenda. Note the many examples from the Jim Crow South of white-on-black violence with overwhelming evidence of guilt that actually ended in acquittals. 

Or, Hell, there’s the fact that the big reason the NSDAP movement didn’t die in the cradle after the Munich Beer Hall Putsch was because the overwhelmingly Conservative Judiciary wasn’t very happy with the way the Weimar Republic was going, used the trial to give Hitler a Platform for his views (admittedly, Hitler did his best to hide his power level at the trial), and eventually sentenced him to what basically amounted to a writers’ retreat an hour from Munich for high treason because one of the judges had to remind the other four that the defendants had admitted to attempting to overthrow the government and that acquitting them under those circumstances would be fucking insane.

That said, I can’t see the judiciary of Wisconsin being that brazen.