17 Year-old Blue Lives Matter Activist with AR 15 Charged With Murder After Two Killed at Protest

[Renzatic]

I might say that Rittenhouse was legally right in shooting, as for Arbery no way. To me that’s a case of murder and I do hope they get the maximum penalty because of their premeditated roadblock.

Problem is that two different cases are clustered together for political reasons.

I'll admit that the Rittenhouse case is a lot more vague from a legal standpoint.

 

[yaxomoxay]

I'll admit that the Rittenhouse case is a lot more vague from a legal standpoint.

I think it’s a bad case of idiocy together with mob panic. What a mess.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Prosecutor: “well we didn’t ask you to change your testimony”
Witness: “yes, you did.”
Prosecutor: “we did?”
Witness. : “yes you asked me to add information about Mr (name) because you have another lawsuit with him”
[silence]
Prosecutor: “you remember how the meeting ended?”
Witness: “yes, you told me that you’d be in touch with me”
Prosecutor: “so you don’t remember that we talked about your photography?”
Witness:”I do but that was at the beginning.”
Prosecutor: “it was?”
Witness: “yes when we were waiting on the other prosecutor”

Not verbatim but more or less precise. This must be the most awkward prosecution line of questioning ever.

 

[Renzatic]

I think it’s a bad case of idiocy together with mob panic. What a mess.

If it were just an isolated incident, I probably wouldn't be nearly as concerned about its outcome as I am. But I KNOW that there a fair number of people out there who are gonna treat this kid as a conquering hero, and use his eventual exoneration as an excuse to pull the same bullshit.

It's a terrible situation. The kid wasn't there for entirely altruistic reasons. He wanted to shoot people. Damn shame for us all that he was lucky enough to end up a situation where it could be legally justifiable.

 

[yaxomoxay]

If it were just an isolated incident, I probably wouldn't be nearly as concerned about its outcome as I am. But I KNOW that there a fair number of people out there who are gonna treat this kid as a conquering hero, and use his eventual exoneration as an excuse to pull the same bullshit.

It's a terrible situation. The kid wasn't there for entirely altruistic reasons. He wanted to shoot people. Damn shame for us all that he was lucky enough to end up a situation where it could be legally justifiable.

Agreed on all points. I am not happy about it and hopefully some legislation will come out of this.

 

[Herdfan]

If it were just an isolated incident, I probably wouldn't be nearly as concerned about its outcome as I am. But I KNOW that there a fair number of people out there who are gonna treat this kid as a conquering hero, and use his eventual exoneration as an excuse to pull the same bullshit.

It's a terrible situation. The kid wasn't there for entirely altruistic reasons. He wanted to shoot people. Damn shame for us all that he was lucky enough to end up a situation where it could be legally justifiable.

Surprise, surprise, but I am not. He was an idiot who was someplace he didn't need to be with a weapon he 1)shouldn't have had and 2)certainly shouldn't had with him. He could just as easily been the one in the morgue. He may skate legally, but his life will be a shell of what it could have been.

 

[User.45]

Ok, but you would agree that what the laws should’ve been is not part of the trial about Mr Rittenhouse culpability.

You told me I'm exaggerating. I'm just having a big picture approach to all of this because I'm starting to feel that today's handwringing means more shit my generation will have to (try to) fix. It boils down to this.
Gun lobby floods USA with weapons => weapons go unregulated and ""lost"" (again >250K guns/yr) => every fucking idiot gets armed => a leading cause of childhood mortality becomes gun violence (#3, beating cancer) => police gets to overcall the dangers of their job (yet ignore COVID, the actual #1 cop killer) => cops get justification to brutalize the citizens with nearly total impunity (lookup the population adjusted fatalities in US police custody and compare it Canada's murder rate) => people protest police violence => the extreme end of the spectrum causes trouble => provides sense of entitlement for this vigilante shit by Rittenhousoids => the legal system sides with Rittenhouse => positive feedback loop emerges.

I am not sure, but I have the feeling that the curfew “shields” Mr Rittenhouse, at least to a point. The protest was not an organized protest, with all the requirements of an organized event. In other words, independently on us agreeing or not with the protest, they should’ve not been there. The same way works for Rittenhouse. He should’ve not been there. The result is that neither party had a valid claim on “I can walk these streets”, which makes being there a sort of provocative act by default. Disparate violence and chaos made thing much worse. Idiocy by Rittenhouse & company made thing much much worse.

I'm pissed about this because if his victims were "rioters" then Rittenhouse is a "rioter" too.

To be honest, this type of sarcastic remarks make me chuckle but they can get frustrating. I wrote a post, and immediately two answers went into the “qualifications” subject. We’re on an anonymous forum. We’re sharing ideas. We’re discussing current events. We’re just talking the same way we’d talk to a few friends in front of a beer or coffee. There’s no need to be lawyers, or SME’s, to share ideas and opinions. That’s how people learn. Do we really have to preface all statements with “In my humble opinion”? Do we really have to be certified SME’s to say what we think?

Sure. You made a very simplistic statement on the situation (KR didn't break any law) you probably did not intend the way it read. But then I see you arguing 1st vs. 2nd degree murder and I get annoyed, because it depends on the state how such is defined.

----
Edit: I watched the snippets from the Grosskreutz testimony and I got even more pissed, because based on all the A-HAs I expected to learn that Grosskreutz was the one shooting before the first person was killed by Rittenhouse. He only testified to what we already saw on the video and what happened after KR already dropped 2-3 people. How the fuck is this exculpatory? Again, an idiot is running around with an oversized gun while the crowd is screaming active shooter, which totally changes the dynamics. And the reason I'm triple pissed is that after 2 virtual and 1 live hospital active shooter drills (run, hide...fight back if no other option), I actually am not surprised that people felt they had to fight KR because, well, 1) they didn't know his intent and 2) that fucking gun indicates that he has the power to kill anybody around before they could run away.

What the fuck is wrong with this country?!

 

[GermanSuplex]

You put this case up against the George Zimmerman trial, because there’s a lot of parallels. Zimmerman was armed, confronted an unarmed teenager and killed him. This kid was armed, was confronted, and then killed two people and shot another.

Two different states, but from a social perspective, I guarantee you there are few people who support Rittenhouse that also supported Trayvon Martin. Somehow, it was ok for this illegally armed kid to blast three people, but it’s not ok to protect yourself when an armed wannabe cop vigilante confronts you.

Rittenhouse will almost definitely get off light or altogether, but that will embolden other armed lunatics. You don’t need to be legally armed, you dont need to exercise any responsibility. Just arm yourself and go out looking for trouble, and shoot whoever confronts you when you find it.

The GOP is trying to normalize gun violence and murder. Take a look at Paul Gosar news today if you doubt that. This isn’t some Twitter rando, it’s a sitting member of Congress.

These people are nuts.

 

[Eric]

Maybe a question for @yaxomoxay but all signs appear to be that he will get off (from what rumors I'm hearing anyway) so why would they put him on the stand if they're so certain, isn't that normally a last resort?

 

[yaxomoxay]

Maybe a question for @yaxomoxay but all signs appear to be that he will get off (from what rumors I'm hearing anyway) so why would they put him on the stand if they're so certain, isn't that normally a last resort?

My understanding is that it works differently for self defense cases. I guess the defense wants to show that he was scared and all the bs that comes with it.

And honestly with this prosecution even Hitler would be acquitted. They self owned again today, multiple times, and the photographer destroyed them… on their own questioning.

 

[yaxomoxay]

You told me I'm exaggerating. I'm just having a big picture approach to all of this because I'm starting to feel that today's handwringing means more shit my generation will have to (try to) fix. It boils down to this.

I will reply tomorrow to the rest of this post, but here I want to apologize. I was referring to the idea that this will create a legal precedent (hence the rest of my original reply), not a political or a sociological element (stuff I desire not to discuss). By reading your reply and re-reading mine it’s clear that my usage of “to exaggerate” in this context was very misleading.

 

[Eric]

My understanding is that it works differently for self defense cases. I guess the defense wants to show that he was scared and all the bs that comes with it.

And honestly with this prosecution even Hitler would be acquitted. They self owned again today, multiple times, and the photographer destroyed them… on their own questioning.

Right, but putting your emotion and bias aside, when would a defense attorney ever have their defendant testify in an open and shut case? Would like to see you cite something here showing how common this is, as a professional I mean. Everything I read says they would never do it unless they felt had no other choice.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Right, but putting your emotion and bias aside, when would a defense attorney ever have their defendant testify in an open and shut case? Would like to see you cite something here showing how common this is, as a professional I mean. Everything I read says they would never do it unless they felt had no other choice.

“It’s practically a necessity,” veteran Kenosha attorney Michael Cicchini said. “The defendant is in the best position to say what he was feeling, what his fears were, what he was thinking in that moment. I’ve never had a client in a self-defense case not testify.”

As the prosecution rests, will Kyle Rittenhouse take the stand in his own defense?

For more than a week, Kyle Rittenhouse has sat at the defense table as his attorneys told jurors he was a well-meaning, if naive, teenager who killed two people and injured a third out of fear for …

www.chicagotribune.com

 

[Eric]

“It’s practically a necessity,” veteran Kenosha attorney Michael Cicchini said. “The defendant is in the best position to say what he was feeling, what his fears were, what he was thinking in that moment. I’ve never had a client in a self-defense case not testify.”

As the prosecution rests, will Kyle Rittenhouse take the stand in his own defense?

For more than a week, Kyle Rittenhouse has sat at the defense table as his attorneys told jurors he was a well-meaning, if naive, teenager who killed two people and injured a third out of fear for …

www.chicagotribune.com

Interesting, when querying Google on "court should the defendant testify" these are from the front page alone.

As a Wyoming criminal defense attorney, I can count on one hand the number of times I've had my client testify. As a rule, criminal defense lawyers will not allow a defendant to testify unless it is absolutely necessary.

Should a Criminal Defendant Testify at Trial? — #LadyJustice Speaks

In actuality, except for in a few cases, the question, "Should a criminal defendant testify at trial?" is pretty straightforward.

www.justcriminallaw.com

One of the dangers of a defendant testifying in a criminal case is that once he testifies, he has waived his right to remain silent and will likely be ordered by the court to answer questions if he refuses to do so after taking the stand. Criminal trials can be very emotional for defendants who have everything to gain or lose based on the verdict of the jury. This can be very stressful. Some people do not perform well under stress either because they become irritated, agitated or nervous. Another factor is the demeanor of the witness. Some people come off as credible and likeable while others appear cold and evasive.

When Should a Defendant Testify?

Unsure when to testify as a defendant? Trust Berry Law for guidance and strategic defense representation to make informed decisions in court.

jsberrylaw.com

Criminal defense lawyers generally advise our clients not to testify at trial. Too many things can go wrong.

When you testify at trial in a criminal case you open yourself up to having any prior bad acts introduced as evidence. These misdeeds, while unrelated to the crime a defendant is accused of committing, can be used by the jury to infer that the defendant committed the crime in question.

Should a Criminal Defendant Testify at Trial? - Fremstad Law

A criminal defendant has the right not to testify at trial. In all but a few cases, we recommend that they do not.

www.fremstadlaw.com

Sounds like they will not do it as a general rule unless they believe they have no other choice. We're clearly not going to get an objective opinion from you on this.

 

[SuperMatt]

Interesting, when querying Google on "court should the defendant testify" these are from the front page alone.

Should a Criminal Defendant Testify at Trial? — #LadyJustice Speaks

In actuality, except for in a few cases, the question, "Should a criminal defendant testify at trial?" is pretty straightforward.

www.justcriminallaw.com

When Should a Defendant Testify?

Unsure when to testify as a defendant? Trust Berry Law for guidance and strategic defense representation to make informed decisions in court.

jsberrylaw.com

Should a Criminal Defendant Testify at Trial? - Fremstad Law

A criminal defendant has the right not to testify at trial. In all but a few cases, we recommend that they do not.

www.fremstadlaw.com

Sounds like they will not do it as a general rule unless they believe they have no other choice. We're clearly not going to get an objective opinion from you on this.

I can see the argument for a defendant to testify in a self-defense murder case, since in those cases (as we discussed earlier), the defendant is basically conceding that they killed somebody. So then the defendant’s testimony could explain how they felt threatened, or describe the behavior of the people they thought were threatening them.

That being said, it can really backfire if you get caught in a lie, or if the cross-examination by the prosecutor exposes something you would rather not have exposed. I would think a teenager dumb enough to run around street protests with a loaded AR-15 would be highly likely to say something stupid on the stand, and that the defense attorneys would strongly suggest that he not testify.

Here is a story from the Ahmaud Arbery case in which one of the suspects changed his story, calling his credibility into question:

Testimony: Ahmaud Arbery slaying defendant changed his story

The man who initiated the chase that ended in Ahmaud Arbery's death rapidly changed his story to police on why he suspected Arbery was a criminal.

apnews.com

 

[yaxomoxay]

. We're clearly not going to get an objective opinion from you on this.

what the hell? You asked for an opinion, I replied based on my understanding and then you asked for any kind of supporting info, which I provided. Then you respond with generic articles that are not about self defense, and then you attack me like that? Seriously man. Do you think I have any idea if it’s a good or bad move for the defense? Jeez.

 

[Eric]

what the hell? You asked for an opinion, I replied based on my understanding and then you asked for any kind of supporting info, which I provided. Then you respond with generic articles that are not about self defense, and then you attack me like that? Seriously man. Do you think I have any idea if it’s a good or bad move for the defense? Jeez.

Which is clearly skewed and not based in fact. Regardless of this case it seems like something someone who claims to be associated with practicing law would know. There's no shame in claiming bias here, would just be nice to see you admit it.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Which is clearly skewed and not based in fact.

Which fact are you talking about? It’s a tactical decision by the defense. They will make it, either way. Some lawyers will say that it should be done, others will say it’s stupid. In a self defense case, the act (Homicide) is admitted already, so the question is mostly about the state of mind, which is the differentiator between this type of cases and others.

Regardless of this case it seems like something someone who claims to be associated with practicing law would know.

I don’t practice law. I work in gov’t and I deal with the law (not criminal law) but I don’t practice law.

There's no shame in claiming bias here, would just be nice to see you admit it.

I have no idea what to tell you, it saddens me you go against my character but so be it. I am used to it.

 

[Eric]

Which fact are you talking about? It’s a tactical decision by the defense. They will make it, either way. Some lawyers will say that it should be done, others will say it’s stupid. In a self defense case, the act (Homicide) is admitted already, so the question is mostly about the state of mind, which is the differentiator between this type of cases and others.

The fact that most defense attorneys do NOT want their clients to testify for the above mentioned reasons, it seems to be common knowledge but was looking for you to show otherwise and I would've actually listened due to your background.

I don’t practice law. I work in gov’t and I deal with the law (not criminal law) but I don’t practice law.

Fair enough.

I have no idea what to tell you, it saddens me you go against my character but so be it. I am used to it.

To me, this fucker should fry and that's my biased opinion. Yours appears to be he should walk, seems like there's no disagreement here. I was just under the impression that you knew more about this professionally and would offer up a more objective view but it seems like that won't happen, it's too politically charged.

 

[yaxomoxay]

The fact that most defense attorneys do NOT want their clients to testify for the above mentioned reasons, it seems to be common knowledge but was looking for you to show otherwise and I would've actually listened due to your background.

I don’t have a poll available. As I said, it seems to me that in self defense cases this is different than other cases because the act (homicide) is not in question.

To me, this fucker should fry and that's my biased opinion. Yours appears to be he should walk, seems like there's no disagreement here. I was just under the impression that you knew more about this professionally and would offer up a more objective view but it seems like that won't happen, it's too politically charged.

I would like for him to go to jail, but after listening to hours of the trial and after noticing that the prosecution is unable to even start an argument, I don’t see other way. My opinion of course, and I am ready to be proven wrong.

Just to give you an idea, I kind of see it like Bill Cosby. I’d love for him to rot in jail. I know he deserves to rot in jail. But the law is on his side - and there might be a reason for that (in Cosby’s case it’s clear here is less clear cut IMO).