Rittenhouse trial

K

Krgrecw

**NOT ACTUALLY RACIST
A Wisconsin judge ruled Monday that Kyle Rittenhouse's defense team is free to refer to the men he shot as "rioters," "looters," or "arsonists" during the teenager's upcoming trial — so long as they provide evidence.

Rittenhouse, 18, is charged with fatally shooting two men and injuring a third amid civil unrest in August 2020 following the police shooting of Jacob Blake.

Rittenhouse has pleaded not guilty and claimed self-defense, saying he opened fire on Joseph Rosenbaum, Anthony Huber, and Gaige Grosskreutz because they were chasing him.







It’s insane the charges against him haven’t been dropped. It’s a clear cut self defense case.
 
And the rioters that he shot cannot be referred to as victims. It looks like the judge understands what the situation was.
 
Jaw said:
And the rioters that he shot cannot be referred to as victims. It looks like the judge understands what the situation was.
Click to expand...

If you can’t refer to them in his trial as victims, why even bother with a trial?
 
mqt said:
If you can’t refer to them in his trial as victims, why even bother with a trial?
Click to expand...

Early results make it pretty clear the judge is trying to embarrass the DA for even taking it to court. I skimmed over a statement he made during a commercial break last night. The judge ain't happy. I'll try to find it.
 
curious why this isn't considered " censorship" ----

Or is censorship merely in the eye of the beholder ?

Or even better how does a judge get to determine what words can and can not be used ?
////

I'll take the answer off line
 
Jaw said:
Early results make it pretty clear the judge is trying to embarrass the DA for even taking it to court. I skimmed over a statement he made during a commercial break last night. The judge ain't happy. I'll try to find it.
Click to expand...

Seems crazy to me that a judge would be this flippant about a case of someone traveling with a rifle to keep the peace and ultimately shooting people. I think self-defense is a reasonable outcome of the case, but it hardly seems like a waste of time.
 
thethe said:
I wouldn't classify an attacking mob as victims.
Click to expand...

It’s all a matter of perspective, since I could classify a person who was shot to death as a victim. This is why we have trials.
 
Last edited:
57Brave said:
" ... his neighborhood area "

20 miles away ?
Click to expand...

Yeah - You didn't hang out close to your home?

You said 'across state lines' to imply he traveled far. Its another lying talking point the communist trash left uses.

It won't work.
 
mqt said:
Seems crazy to me that a judge would be this flippant about a case of someone traveling with a rifle to keep the peace and ultimately shooting people. I think self-defense is a reasonable outcome of the case, but it hardly seems like a waste of time.
Click to expand...

I imagine that underage possession of a weapon would be an easy guilty verdict, if that is what the DA wanted to charge him with. Proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse didn't feel a legitimate fear for his life in the scene we've all seen is significantly less realistic.
 
Jaw said:
I imagine that underage possession of a weapon would be an easy guilty verdict, if that is what the DA wanted to charge him with. Proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse didn't feel a legitimate fear for his life in the scene we've all seen is significantly less realistic.
Click to expand...

I agree, but I think given the actions he took that night, it’s certainly reasonable for him to stand trial. I’m actually somewhat surprised the DA went with first degree murder. Wouldn’t manslaughter be more apt here?
 
mqt said:
I agree, but I think given the actions he took that night, it’s certainly reasonable for him to stand trial. I’m actually somewhat surprised the DA went with first degree murder. Wouldn’t manslaughter be more apt here?
Click to expand...

Yeah, if he was going to charge him then manslaughter should have been the pick. I think the DA likely got caught up in the moment with everything else that was going on, or worried that lighter charges would bring about more rioting and end his political career.

All that said, I won't defend Rittenhouse for being there, and think his mother is guilty of child endangerment for bringing him. I just don't think that justifies beating him in the street, or nullifies his right to self defense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top