Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

[Dave from down under]

Either he was a vigilante or something even worse.

Why not both?

[sugar magnolia]

Nov. 1

Is there some way to watch it online? I'll have 7 hours or so to kill on Nov 1 and I have a laptop and headphones.

CourtTV is carrying it. I dunno if they have an app or website or what besides cable though.

https://lawandcrime.com/ has been carrying a lot of it live too, I dunno if they are doing the actual trial though.

Perfect. We have xfinity and can stream their channels, and Court tv is one of them. Thanks.

[qbawl]

I really wish Rittenhouse hadn't been there that night.

Seriously. He was a child. He had no business out there with an AR. He was failed by all the adults in his life.

My oldest brother was only a few months older when he answered Uncle Sam’s call. “Child” is an overstatement, but his mother is a piece of work.

I was 17 years and 3 months so I have some problem seeing him as a 'child'.

[Estiveo]

I have met mature & responsible 17 year olds, and immature 17 year olds I wouldn't allow to use a pair of scissors.

It's a spectrum, and Rittenhouse appears to be at the lower end.

[Gregg]

He was playing GI Joe.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

Court TV carries it on broadband and website.

[Slim Cognito]

Well played, RV.

[Estiveo]

Wait, I didn't know Anders was the judge in this case.

[AndyinPA]

[chancery]

That's nuts.

[RVInit]

So, the victims are guilty of crimes without even having a trial? I think rioting, arson, and looting are all crimes, so how can a judge in good conscience allow them to be essentially labelled as criminals when they have not been tried or convicted of any of those crimes? I wonder if this post is real or someone who knows they can trigger a bunch of people with this kind of nonsense.

Edit: Lookie what I found on a news report

Schroeder also denied Binger's request to bar the defense from referring to Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz as rioters, looters or arsonists. The judge said those terms would be allowed if the defense can produce evidence showing that's what they were.

I wonder what the judge will accept as "evidence" that they were rioters, looters or arsonists.

[raison de arizona]

So, the victims are guilty of crimes without even having a trial? I think rioting, arson, and looting are all crimes, so how can a judge in good conscience allow them to be essentially labelled as criminals when they have not been tried or convicted of any of those crimes? I wonder if this post is real or someone who knows they can trigger a bunch of people with this kind of nonsense.

"If more than one of them were engaged in arson, rioting, looting, I'm not going to tell the defense you can't call them that," the judge said.

The judge also ruled that the two deceased men and the injured man could not be referred to as victims.

"The word 'victim' is a loaded, loaded word," he said. "'Alleged victim' is a cousin to it."

https://abc7chicago.com/kyle-rittenhosu ... /11167589/

[bob]

So, the victims are guilty of crimes without even having a trial? I think rioting, arson, and looting are all crimes, so how can a judge in good conscience allow them to be essentially labelled as criminals when they have not been tried or convicted of any of those crimes?

Counsel may make arguments and draw conclusions, even forceful and distasteful ones, based on the evidence presented. Prosecutors routinely do this to defendants.

But this may be a case of being careful for what you ask: Victim blaming and shaming by defense counsel generally doesn't sit well with jurors.

I wonder what the judge will accept as "evidence" that they were rioters, looters or arsonists.

"The usual" evidence: percipient witnesses, possibly documentary evidence.

[RVInit]

Ah, ok. I didn't realize that was normal. If so, then I would assume prosecutors should be well prepared for how to handle that.

[bob]

Ah, ok. I didn't realize that was normal.

Normal-ish: The judge also could have ruled that a debate over whether the victims were also criminals would be a waste of time and confusing to the actual issues, i.e., whether the defendant unjustifiably killed and wounded.

(And, yes, I'm fully expecting a multi-paragraph "explainer" that no one requested on how the defendant could have believed he was defending others' property, which would "justify" using pejoratives to describe the victims.)

If so, then I would assume prosecutors should be well prepared for how to handle that.

Presumably. And this is a paper-law versus street-law situation: If Stern were here, he could provide insight into how litigators can bait their opponents into saying legally permissible but emotionally counterpersuasive things.

[raison de arizona]

Seems to me that even if they were rioters, looters, and/or arsonists, those crimes aren't punishable by death and Rittenhouse certainly shouldn't have been the executioner. But I suppose the argument wouldn't be that, but rather that they were bad dudes and Rittenhouse had to protect himself from them. Which of course begs the question of why a minor would put himself in the middle of a riot armed with an AR in the first place.

[Azastan]

Which of course begs the question of why a minor would put himself in the middle of a riot armed with an AR in the first place.

And if I were on the jury, I'd be wondering exactly that. Mind you, I've encountered a just turned 18 years old nut who strolled around supermarkets with his little AR 'because he could'. It's all about casually threatening people without saying a word.

[chancery]

Counsel may make arguments and draw conclusions, even forceful and distasteful ones, based on the evidence presented.

Sure, but it bothers me that the judge has ruled in advance of any evidence. Unless there was a proffer of what's expected, and the ruling is contingent on a predicate coming in. IANACrL.

[bob]

Sure, but it bothers me that the judge has ruled in advance of any evidence. Unless there was a proffer of what's expected, and the ruling is contingent on a predicate coming in. IANACrL.

Judges routinely do that, i.e., rule on only proffers or a preliminary showing of anticipated evidence.

But this was the prosecutor's motion (to preclude), so clearly the prosecutor anticipated there will be evidence to support the pejoratives.

[Maybenaut]

Sure, but it bothers me that the judge has ruled in advance of any evidence. Unless there was a proffer of what's expected, and the ruling is contingent on a predicate coming in. IANACrL.

Judges routinely do that, i.e., rule on only proffers or a preliminary showing of anticipated evidence.

But this was the prosecutor's motion (to preclude), so clearly the prosecutor anticipated there will be evidence to support the pejoratives.

Just to clarify, it was the prosecutor who wanted to call them looters, arsonists, etc.?

[bob]

Just to clarify, it was the prosecutor who wanted to call them looters, arsonists, etc.?

The prosecutor wanted to preclude defense counsel from using those terms. (The judge ruled the terms could be used if the evidence introduced at trial supported their usage. And, of course, reasonable inferences are permitted.)

[Patagoniagirl]

Just to clarify, it was the prosecutor who wanted to call them looters, arsonists, etc.?

The prosecutor wanted to preclude defense counsel from using those terms. (The judge ruled the terms could be used if the evidence introduced at trial supported their usage. And, of course, reasonable inferences are permitted.)

Isnt that generally decided by a ruling on a Motion in Limine out of the jury's presence? I may be misremembering. It's been many, many years. And, IANAL.

[Maybenaut]

Just to clarify, it was the prosecutor who wanted to call them looters, arsonists, etc.?

The prosecutor wanted to preclude defense counsel from using those terms. (The judge ruled the terms could be used if the evidence introduced at trial supported their usage. And, of course, reasonable inferences are permitted.)

Thanks. I don’t understand why the defense wants to make their client look more like a vigilante, but what do I know?

I’ve had many, many appellate cases where the defense went to the mat over an evidentiary ruling like this one, only for the prosecution to turn it against them. Many counsel on both sides fall into the trap of “if the other side wants to keep it out it must be good for us.”

[chancery]

Sure, but it bothers me that the judge has ruled in advance of any evidence. Unless there was a proffer of what's expected, and the ruling is contingent on a predicate coming in. IANACrL.

Judges routinely do that, i.e., rule on only proffers or a preliminary showing of anticipated evidence.

But this was the prosecutor's motion (to preclude), so clearly the prosecutor anticipated there will be evidence to support the pejoratives.

(The judge ruled the terms could be used if the evidence introduced at trial supported their usage. And, of course, reasonable inferences are permitted.)

Thanks Bob for your knowledgable commentary.

[bob]

Isnt that generally decided by a ruling on a Motion in Limine out of the jury's presence?

Generally, yes.

And in this case, it was. The prosecutor's request was made in a motion of limine. Out the jury's presence because there's no jury yet.

In this case, I think it was a good idea for the prosecutor to get ahead of this, instead of waiting for defense counsel to utter the words in front of the jury.

I will defer to the IAACrDLs' opinions on whether the prosecutor is setting a trap.