DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Rittenhouse Trial

Men shot by Rittenhouse can be described as ‘rioters’ and ‘looters’ but not ‘victims,’ judge rules ahead of trial

Kyle Rittenhouse’s lawyers can refer to the men he shot as “rioters” and “looters,” but prosecutors still may not call them “victims” at any time during the teen’s upcoming murder trial, a judge ruled Monday.

Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder cautioned the defense team against using pejorative terms during opening statements, but he said they could use them in their closing arguments if the evidence suggested the men engaged in criminal acts.

“He can demonize them if he wants, if he thinks it will win points with the jury,” Schroeder said.

Rittenhouse has pleaded not guilty to the charges and says he acted in self-defense when he fatally shot Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber and wounded Gaige Grosskreutz in August 2020.

Then 17 and living in Antioch, Rittenhouse fired the shots while patrolling downtown Kenosha with an AR-15-style rifle amid the turmoil surrounding the shooting of Jacob Blake, a Black man, by a white police officer. Despite not being old enough to openly carry a gun, Rittenhouse volunteered as an armed security guard after businesses had been burned and vandalized during demonstrations held the previous night.

Schroeder earlier had ruled the three men cannot be referred to as “victims” during the trial because it would be prejudicial to Rittenhouse. Such rulings are not uncommon in self-defense cases where there is a dispute over who bears responsibility.

In allowing the defense to describe the people Rittenhouse shot in pejorative terms, the judge stressed that he had not changed his mind about calling them victims.

“The word victim is a loaded, loaded word,” Schroeder said.

The ruling — among the last issued by Schroeder before jury selection begins Nov. 1 — clearly frustrated prosecutors, who suggested the judge was creating a double standard by allowing Rosenbaum and Huber to be disparaged when they could not defend themselves.

“The terms that I’m identifying here such as rioter, looter and arsonist are as loaded, if not more loaded, than the term victim,” Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger said.

The defense intends to argue that Rosenbaum, in particular, posed a danger that night as he threatened to kill people and engaged in arson. None of the acts, however, occurred in the moments immediately preceding the shooting.

“The behavior of many people there was lawless,” defense attorney Mark Richards said. “Mr. Rosenbaum was at the top of that list.”

Schroeder indicated he would allow evidence of bad behavior that night by the men Rittenhouse shot because it could speak to how dangerous they would have seemed to the teen. Prosecutors failed to convince the judge that the defense wanted to sully Rosenbaum’s reputation so the jury could more easily justify the shooting.

“This is an attempt to tell the jury that Mr. Rosenbaum was a bad guy who deserved to die,” Binger said. “That’s really what’s going on here, your honor.”

Schroeder also rejected the prosecution’s request to block any evidence that local law enforcement provided water to vigilantes the night of the shooting and thanked them for their presence. In video taken before Rittenhouse fired his gun, officers in an armored vehicle tossed bottles of water to him and other armed civilians who were clearly violating the city’s 8 p.m. curfew.

One officer can be heard on the recording expressing his gratitude to the group.

“We appreciate you guys,” the officer said. “We really do.”

“I’m concerned this is going to be turned into a trial over what law enforcement should or shouldn’t have done that night,” Binger said. “And I don’t think that’s what this court or this trial should be deciding.”

In opting to allow the evidence, Schroeder said he wouldn’t permit the defense to argue the encouraging words reflected the police department’s overall opinion. It could, however, help explain Rittenhouse’s mindset that night.

“I would not let it be used to prove that the entire police presence on that evening appreciated Mr. Rittenhouse’s behavior or his presence,” he said. “Relevance is another matter.”

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news...25-3vr7rdlo6zbzhmdsz3bvol4kxm-story.html

So now when a killer guns down people, they can't be called victims during the trial? smdh

But "Rittenhouse fired the shots while patrolling downtown Kenosha with an AR-15-style rifle amid the turmoil surrounding the shooting of Jacob Blake, a Black man, by a white police officer." and "Despite not being old enough to openly carry a gun, Rittenhouse volunteered as an armed security guard after businesses had been burned and vandalized during demonstrations held the previous night" among other whitewashing language, sure makes this look like the fix is in and a killer will walk.

If I'm the prosecutor, I'd repeatedly refer to them as "the dead men," "the deceased," or "your targets." After all, it still is a murder trial. If I'm not allowed to refer to them as "victims," it's my responsibility to paint Rittenhouse as their killer.

Love how the judge placed his thumb on the scale. Not sure what his motivation could have been.

He was patrolling...

Yeah, it couldn't be that he's sympathetic to the killing of "certain people".

The kid should not have been there with a gun. But, the video clearly shows self defense. If the video is played I do not know how the kid will not be freed.

Doesn't matter what you call them.. He still had no right to kill them.. He himself wasn't in danger and he wasn't protecting his own home..

this makes sense but it goes deeper than that. i bet you can even agree on this.

first, he was underage, meaning he shouldnt be carrying a rifle anyway. then, crossing state lines with a rifle you aren't supposed to have in the first place is a straight up felony all on its own.

then, he goes there to protect SOMEONE ELSE'S property. not life, property.

when i saw the video just by itself, yea, im probably shooting at two guys trying to beat my ass with skateboards as well.

but there were a whoooooolle bunch of horrible decisions made prior to that. he intentionally put himself in a situation where the threat of violence multiplied.

intent matters.

So is this going to be one of those cases where it's more about what the prosecutor tries to charge him with than the act itself? Sounds to me like he's not going to get stuck with murder, but clearly committed a whole host of serious crimes leading up to the act.

Jc

So I break into someones house with a gun. They attack me, perhaps with their own gun. I shoot and kill them but it isn't murder because I was defending myself. I feared for my life. Is that what we are saying?

I do believe he committed crimes being there with a gun. Never should have happened but he was physically attacked and he only shot in self defense protecting himself. He should not have been there, he should not have been there with a AR-15, but he was and so was the rioters who chose to attack the kid and he defended himself. Not murder, but a series of bad decisions for sure.

baffling that anyone could think that.

Going off the definitions that I posted below, this is clearly not 1st degree murder. 2nd degree murder could be argued but based on the definitions below I think that would be hard to convict. I suspect manslaughter is probably the crime he committed.



Murder vs Manslaughter: What’s The Difference?
by Gabriel QuinnanAug 6, 2019

Manslaughter and murder are two of the most serious crimes you can be charged with. Between the two, murder is the more serious charge, but manslaughter also carries significant punishment if convicted.

From a legal standpoint, there is a very clear difference between murder vs manslaughter, and knowing which charges you face is critical when speaking with a criminal defense attorney.

Manslaughter
Manslaughter is defined as an unlawful killing that doesn’t involve malice aforethought (intent to seriously harm or kill) or extreme, reckless disregard for life. Because someone who commits manslaughter, by definition, did not intend to kill the victim, the punishment is less severe than for murder.

There are two types of manslaughter charges that can be brought against you: voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter.

Voluntary Manslaughter
Commonly referred to as a “heat of passion” crime. Voluntary manslaughter charges are brought against someone who:
Was strongly provoked under circumstances that could similarly provoke a reasonable person
Kills in the heat of passion resulting from that provocation
A typical example of voluntary manslaughter would be if you came home and unexpectedly found your spouse cheating on you, and you became so angry in the moment that you killed the person your spouse was cheating with.

Involuntary Manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter typically refers to an unintentional homicide resulting from criminally negligent or reckless conduct. It can also refer to an unintentional killing through the commission of a crime other than a felony.

The line between murder and involuntary manslaughter can sometimes be difficult to discern, mainly because an accidental killing due to extreme recklessness may constitute second-degree murder.

Murder
Similar to manslaughter, there are two different types of murder charges:
First Degree Murder includes felony murder and premeditated, intentional killings. This is the most serious crime you can possibly be charged with.
Second Degree Murder is defined as an unplanned intentional killing or a death caused by reckless disregard for human life.

Often the difference between being charged with first or second-degree murder comes down to intent, and there is often a very fine line between a first and second-degree killing. First-degree murder requires that a defendant plan and intentionally carry out the killing, whereas second-degree murder requires that the killing either be intentional or reckless and occur in the spur of the moment.


https://quinnanlaw.com/criminal-defense/murder-vs-manslaughter/

I think that's a fair assessment.

There is the fact that had he not have broken laws that placed him there with a rifle in the first place neither of those people would be dead. So no matter how anyone tries to spin this, he's certainly totally responsible for the event that took place.

I think this kid is just another white supremacist gun toting thug and should be put down like a rabid dog. Self-defense or not, this kid went looking for trouble and found it. He wanted this all.

Had a BLM protestor killed three of the gun toting WS thugs that night, they would have never made it to jail. The police handed this kid bottled water and let him walk around playing soldier all night. At the very minimum this kid should get sentenced on 2 manslaughter one and a felony assault charge. But they will probably go straight murder and his punk ass will be let off the hook.

That's kinda what I was getting at. He's responsible, but the prosecution also has a responsibility to make sure that what they charge will stick. It seems like some of the particulars here will make an otherwise easy case tougher.

It does no good if the prosecutor charges based on what 'feels right' and then gets tripped up in particulars.

I certainly do not disagree with you. I just see people say that he was doing nothing more than defending himself. Yet it was he himself who broke laws that set the entire stage of the event without which none of this would have ever happened.

And that's the rub, right? I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that going for a more fitting sentence (IMO) is REALLY running the risk coming up empty-handed, with the way the laws are written and with how this played out. Based on what I know of the case, I'd probably be a little more risk-averse in terms of charges to make sure I do nail him. Also make sure I get him on every single little thing he did leading up to the shooting.

Although, if he was not attacked by those rioters none of them would be dead now. Once attacked he does have the right to defend himself. He should not have been there but the rioters should not have been there either. Then the rioters choose to attack and he protected himself.

Had he have not broken multiple firearms laws he wouldn't have been there in there with a rifle in the first place. Had he not have been there none of this would have happened no matter how you spin it. We often hear how it's not those who follow firearms laws that lead to gun deaths. That is true. Here is a prime example of what happens when people do not follow firearms laws.

I agree the kid broke laws and should have never been there. he needs to be held accountable for the laws he broke. The rioters also were breaking laws and should have never been there. If thet would not have attacked the kid they would be alive. Even though the kid broke laws once attacked he still had/s the right to defend his own life. Those people rioting were burning building, beating, people, killing people and they choose to attack this kid. Was he looking for trouble. Yes, I think he was. But, the video shows him clearly attacked and using the weapon in defense and not shooting randomly at other rioters. He should face charges but not for what he did to those rioters. He had a right at the time he was attacked to defend himself.

At the end of the day, I think the law might actually be on your side in terms of the "defending himself" argument goes (not sure, though). The law doesn't always follow common sense, though. Dude armed/mounted up and went into a riot Rambo-style... just to turn around and claim self defense. Ridiculous.

Thousands upon thousands of people involved in those riots over the summer were arrested for their crimes as they should have been. He had no right to be there with a rifle in the street according to the very laws he broke. You seem to keep trying to avoid the fact that had he not have broken those laws in the first place none of this would have ever happened. His unlawful acts alone created the situation. Nothing else. If he's not there with a rifle this doesn't happen.

He should be charged for crossing a State line with a fire arm. I agree. There are probably other charges that he should be charged with. But, if you or I go somewhere we do not belong and break laws in doing so we are still not free game to be attacked. And, if we are attacked we do have the right to defend ourselves. The Kid should face charges, serious charges for the bad decisions he made. The rioters choose to physically assault the kid did they not? Watching the video I could see him fearing for his life. He defended himself with lethal defense. I have no problem with that. The rioters had that coming for assaulting the kid. He made mistakes. But, no mistake should ever open some one up to assault. The rioters had to right to be doing what they were doing and the ones who attacked him had no legal right to attack him.

You have to look at the letter of the law. Some states have a statute that if someone dies in the commission of a crime, those involved with committing the crime are guilty of murder. Since he was committing a crime while a situation arose where he had to defend himself, does that rule apply? The lawyers and jury have a tough job on their hands if it's not clear.

I have a real hard time buying the "he was fearing for his life" shtick based solely on the fact that he was there and armed.

Just look at jfanents post. The kid was committing a criminal offense. He broke the law and during the commission of breaking those laws he killed people. First he was not old enough to possess the weapon. Secondly he crossed state lines while possessing it. Anyone who believes the kid didn't go there with ill intent is fooling themselves. He was on a hunting expedition. Waiting for any excuse to kill someone. The cops who just passed him by and did nothing should also be held partly responsible.

Didn't his mom drive him there? IMO, she should be prosecuted.

You can do all of those things but it still does not make it open season on being attacked. You and I can make bad decision after bad decision and it still does not give anyone the right to physically assault us. At that time we do have legal rights to defend ourselves. He was attacked. I do not care what you think about the kid. He should be charged with a variety of crimes but he still had a right to defend himself once he was attacked.

Again I ask:

So I break into someones house with a gun. They attack me, perhaps with their own gun. I shoot and kill them but it isn't a crine because I was defending myself. I feared for my life. Is that what we are saying?

He did not break into anyone's house and neither did the rioters. He was outside and they were outside. There are no laws in this Country that would prohibit either party for being where they wre at the time. Both parties were in the progress of committing crimes. This kid crossed State lines with a fire arm, was not legal to carry that fire arm, I am sure there are other crimes committed. The rioters were in the process was damaging property that was not their own, they were also in the process of committing assault on this kid when he acted in self defense and shot his assailants. If he would have entered into the homes of the rioters then their attacking him would not be assault and there would be no self defense it would be plain and simple murder. That was not the case.

It would be interesting to see him address you or j's post. This happened while he was committing federal gun crimes.

So you are unaware that if someone is killed during the commission of a crime it's the one committing the crime that's responsible?

Both sides were committing crimes. As I said the kid should be charged with multiple crimes. Murder is not one of them because he was in the process of being assaulted. When being assaulted he has legal rights to defend himself.

Once again, it was the crimes Rittenhouse committed that created the situation and him being there in the first place. Your argument is, "Well after he committed crimes that put him there with a loaded gun, then after that other people committed a crime too."

The law you are referring to will not apply to this situation. It's intent is if you are involved in a robbery, and high speed chase, etc... and someone gets killed whether you committed the act or not you will be responsible for the murder. In this case, the kid committed crimes yes, but he was attacked. Not lawfully, attacked. The rioters had no legal right to attack the kid. They choose to do so. The kid then has the right to defend himself. The video shows that.

So if they can provide evidence that he went there with the intent to cause trouble it counts and if they can't it doesn't. I don't think it will be that hard to prove that intent and that some excuse of going to a neighboring state to help protect other people's property is a bunch of BS. We'll see.

You don't think so. I think it will be VERY hard to prove he went there with intent to shoot someone.

Agree. The video shows otherwise. He tried to run from each attack first and was tackled then fired. The video is the defendants main weapon. The Prosecution has to prove other circumstances that the video does not show. The video clearly shows self defense.

I don't know. These days there's almost always an internet footprint. Google searches and social media often time reveal a lot. The actual event itself may be overshadowed with his intent and laws he broke going there in the first place.