Incongruous media coverage of Rittenhouse vs actual testimony

[jinjuku]

One of the things we don't know is whether Rittenhouse had any interaction with the three before shooting them.

Rittenhouse had that night, some contact prior with Rosenbaum and Grosskreutz.

 

[Dude#1279435]

Again this isn't hard to figure out. There should be a charge on Rittenhouse for bringing a firearm to a protest. An AR-15 is pretty suggestive.

 

[GO-NAD!]

The elephant in the room is, of course, permissive firearms laws in the US. I'm actually surprised that there haven't been many more incidents such as this.

I understand that Vox has a left-leaning bias, but this stood out to me:

The trial and pretrial proceedings had already sparked a national outcry after Judge Bruce Schroeder decided last month that prosecutors may not refer to Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz as “victims,” and that defense attorneys could call them “looters” or “arsonists.”

Isn't it for the jury to decide if they are victims? And, if none of them had been convicted, or even charged, with looting or arson, how can it be acceptable for a judge to permit them to be labeled as such?

Don't misinterpret this as an indication of sympathy for them. It appears to me that some piss-poor judgement was exercised all around.

Kyle Rittenhouse’s tears

The 18-year-old who shot three men at a protest took the stand and resorted to a tried-and-true strategy for white men in trouble.

www.vox.com

 

[highfigh]

You are attempting to turn on the oven and bake only one goose.

Rosenbaum, Huber, Grosskreutz went because they wanted to insert themselves regardless of the fact they weren't needed.

In what world did they not have personal agency in all of this? Looking at the footage it's their own stupidity that created these outcomes. There were 1000's of other people Rittenhouse didn't shoot.

No, I'm not- too many people are looking at this as a clear cut case of self defense for Rittenhouse but that would be similar to someone defending their own life when they invaded someone's home, with the possibility of doing them harm in the process. None of them needed to be there. They all should have stayed the eff home.

I'm not saying he went there to kill a lot of people but his thinking was very wrong- he said he went, to protect businesses and render aid- must have seen himself as some kind of hero. We won't know what the others were thinking because they're dead and Grosskreutz is a bit of a liar, so.....

Also, you posted this reply after the judge gave the attorneys instructions about the jury and they will be considering lesser charges.

 

[highfigh]

What is your understanding / interpretation of 'dropped his hand'? There has been a lot of word play to beat around the bush to do anything but call a spade a spade.

I have my understanding. Just curious what yours is.

Watch the video- Grosskreutz is seen standing over Rittenhouse with his right hand raised, holding his pistol as Rittenhouse was sitting on the street, then the right hand was lowered just before he was shot. I'm not basing my comments on the reports, I was using the photos and video.

 

[jinjuku]

Watch the video- Grosskreutz is seen standing over Rittenhouse with his right hand raised, holding his pistol as Rittenhouse was sitting on the street, then the right hand was lowered just before he was shot. I'm not basing my comments on the reports, I was using the photos and video.

So that was the pointing/aiming of the pistol at Rittenhouse. That's all I was asking.

 

[jinjuku]

Isn't it for the jury to decide if they are victims? And, if none of them had been convicted, or even charged, with looting or arson, how can it be acceptable for a judge to permit them to be labeled as such?

Don't misinterpret this as an indication of sympathy for them. It appears to me that some piss-poor judgement was exercised all around.

This is another falsehood foisted upon you by media with an axe to grind.

What the Judge said is you can't call them victims because it would be prejudicial. You could however call them rioters, looters, etc IF you have evidence they could present to the court.

Here is where actually watching the proceedings and keeping up with the docket in PACER helps.

 

[jinjuku]

but that would be similar to someone defending their own life when they invaded someone's home

Wow now. That's a helluva stretch. I don't truck with random strangers on the street while I'm out and about minding my own business. If they're armed even more so.

 

[highfigh]

The elephant in the room is, of course, permissive firearms laws in the US. I'm actually surprised that there haven't been many more incidents such as this.

I understand that Vox has a left-leaning bias, but this stood out to me:


Isn't it for the jury to decide if they are victims? And, if none of them had been convicted, or even charged, with looting or arson, how can it be acceptable for a judge to permit them to be labeled as such?

Don't misinterpret this as an indication of sympathy for them. It appears to me that some piss-poor judgement was exercised all around.

Kyle Rittenhouse’s tears

The 18-year-old who shot three men at a protest took the stand and resorted to a tried-and-true strategy for white men in trouble.

www.vox.com

No, the real Elephant, which is being eaten by a Dinosaur, is the fact that gun laws were broken. Rittenhouse was carrying illegally, Grosskreutz had previously been charged with a misdemeanor offense of being in possession while intoxicated (check the WI CCAP link I posted yesterday) and his CCP had expired, so the only way he could be legal is if he was openly carrying. Huber hit him with a skateboard but haven't seen if he was carrying. It would be foolish to assume that nobody else in the crowd was carrying, legally or not, but none of them should have had a gun if they weren't trying to protect their home or business. Their justification that they were there to protect others is BS because they were part of an illegal assembly/riot and Kenosha had imposed a curfew, so NOBODY was there, legally.

You're surprised that more of this doesn't happen? Seriously? Have you not seen the number of "protests" that have occurred with looting, destruction and violence? These aren't law-abiding people doing this, many times, people from outside of the specific communities go in and cause things to escalate (Rittenhouse is one of those) and it's turning the country to shyte.

Let the jury decide, but if they cave in to the will of the people, it's on their heads if the place turns into another riot. The WI head dog catcher (not a fan of Gov. Evers) is sending the National Guard.

If this expands to Milwaukee, I'll be seriously pissed off. And, for anyone who thinks this crap is covered by homeowner's or renter's insurance, it's not. Businesses and car comprehensive covers it, though. Just another reason I hate the insurance industry.

FWIW, the Milwaukee PD placed barricades in the roads at the border of the city and any neighboring communities so people wouldn't drive into the city and there was a curfew during the 1968 riots, which was contained to a small area. Now, if a riot is expected, it's like a damn school field trip for some people.

 

[highfigh]

Wow now. That's a helluva stretch. I don't truck with random strangers on the street while I'm out and about minding my own business. If they're armed even more so.

Wait, you don't want random strangers out and about? Do you want people to be there only if you know them? How would someone mind their own business when they're in a riot?

Asking for a friend.

They were there illegally, intending to do something with their weapons. Whether it was to shoot or use them as a threat, it's illegal use of firearms. Going to a riot with the weapon, intending to use it for self defense? Give me a break!



NONE of them needed to be there, armed, or not, and as I posted, they were all there illegally.

 

[highfigh]

So that was the pointing/aiming of the pistol at Rittenhouse. That's all I was asking.

Yes.

 

[highfigh]

This is another falsehood foisted upon you by media with an axe to grind.

What the Judge said is you can't call them victims because it would be prejudicial. You could however call them rioters, looters, etc IF you have evidence they could present to the court.

Here is where actually watching the proceedings and keeping up with the docket in PACER helps.

I guess someone needs to ask if this is really a jury of his peers and I'd like to see the definition of 'peers' in this case.

 

[jinjuku]

Let the jury decide, but if they cave in to the will of the people, it's no their heads if the place turns into another riot.

Cave into the will of the left leaning or right leaning? I just want a jury system that will look at the information presented at trial and make a decision.

At this point I don't see how he gets convicted on the series 1 charges let alone the the now allowed series 2 charges for Huber that the Judge is allowing.

I'm not sure if your typo of 'on' or 'not'.

 

[highfigh]

Cave into the will of the left leaning or right leaning? I just want a jury system that will look at the information presented at trial and make a decision.

At this point I don't see how he gets convicted on the series 1 charges let alone the the now allowed series 2 charges for Huber that the Judge is allowing.

I'm not sure if your type of 'on' or 'not'.

I'm not even looking at any of this with a political eye- I don't care who's on the left or right, I want it to stop- the media are trying to push it to whatever side they're on, some are saying Rittenhouse or the three he shot are the victims and others are still trying to justify the rioting. Nobody is innocent in this, regardless of whether they were on the side, in their minds, of good, or bad. This idiot's mom needs to be slapped, too. Who in their right mind, would drop their 17 year old kid off at a protest that in all likelihood would turn violent as has happened so many times in Kenosha in recent years?

I posted it before, the DA never should have gone after the higher charges if they can't prove it.

 

[GO-NAD!]

This is another falsehood foisted upon you by media with an axe to grind.

What the Judge said is you can't call them victims because it would be prejudicial. You could however call them rioters, looters, etc IF you have evidence they could present to the court.

Here is where actually watching the proceedings and keeping up with the docket in PACER helps.

It appears to me that the judge is flipping the script on what is prejudicial. I would think that the fact that they were shot is evidence that they might be victims, just as much as their presence at the protest might be considered evidence that they were looters and arsonists.

Are these particular instructions from the judge something that the be known to the jury, or just the defense and prosecution? I don't have any opinion on Rittenhouse's guilt or innocence. It's just that this part of the article stood out to me.

 

[jinjuku]

This idiot's mom needs to be slapped, too. Who in their right mind, would drop their 17 year old kid off at a protest that in all likelihood would turn violent as has happened so many times in Kenosha in recent years?

I was wrong on this initially and corrected. She didn't drop him off. But that's really besides the point. Still not good parenting.

 

[jinjuku]

It appears to me that the judge is flipping the script on what is prejudicial. I would think that the fact that they were shot is evidence that they might be victims, just as much as their presence at the protest might be considered evidence that they were looters and arsonists.

Are these particular instructions from the judge something that the be known to the jury, or just the defense and prosecution? I don't have any opinion on Rittenhouse's guilt or innocence. It's just that this part of the article stood out to me.

I'm not sure if those conversations happened in front of the jury. Most likely not however. My buddies GF is a public defender. She says it's not uncommon to strike certain, loaded, terms from being used.

From what I've watched and read everyone is being referred to by their name, the deceasent, or defendant. If they have been referred to directly as rioters, or looters, I haven't seen it as of yet.

I think given the fact, and it is fact, the everything from dumpsters, to cars, to attempted arson on the court house, you could reasonably see at least the provision against the terms victim and murderer.

 

[GO-NAD!]

No, the real Elephant, which is being eaten by a Dinosaur, is the fact that gun laws were broken. Rittenhouse was carrying illegally, Grosskreutz had previously been charged with a misdemeanor offense of being in possession while intoxicated (check the WI CCAP link I posted yesterday) and his CCP had expired, so the only way he could be legal is if he was openly carrying. Huber hit him with a skateboard but haven't seen if he was carrying. It would be foolish to assume that nobody else in the crowd was carrying, legally or not, but none of them should have had a gun if they weren't trying to protect their home or business. Their justification that they were there to protect others is BS because they were part of an illegal assembly/riot and Kenosha had imposed a curfew, so NOBODY was there, legally.

You're surprised that more of this doesn't happen? Seriously? Have you not seen the number of "protests" that have occurred with looting, destruction and violence? These aren't law-abiding people doing this, many times, people from outside of the specific communities go in and cause things to escalate (Rittenhouse is one of those) and it's turning the country to shyte.

Let the jury decide, but if they cave in to the will of the people, it's no their heads if the place turns into another riot. The WI head dog catcher (not a fan of Gov. Evers) is sending the National Guard.

If this expands to Milwaukee, I'll be seriously pissed off. And, for anyone who thinks this crap is covered by homeowner's or renter's insurance, it's not. Businesses and car comprehensive covers it, though. Just another reason I hate the insurance industry.

FWIW, the Milwaukee PD placed barricades in the roads at the border of the city and any neighboring communities so people wouldn't drive into the city and there was a curfew during the 1968 riots, which was contained to a small area. Now, if a riot is expected, it's like a damn school field trip for some people.

What I'm surprised about is that there aren't more shootings at these protests/riots.

As with many (most?) laws, people tend to test the boundaries at which they will be enforced. And, with US firearms laws being quite permissive compared with most western countries, those boundaries get pushed that much further.

In any other western country, a SWAT team would have been all over Rittenhouse before it all went south. The fact that there were probably a $hitload of firearms in the crowd would likely make the cops shrug their shoulders, saying "What's the point?".

 

[highfigh]

I'm not sure if your typo of 'on' or 'not'.

It was supposed to be 'on'- fixed it.

 

[jinjuku]

Let the jury decide, but if they cave in to the will of the people, it's on their heads

Ok. What's 'the will of the people'. You sound like you are certainly closer to ground zero than I am. I'm unsure of the local temperature in this regard.