DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Rittenhouse Trial

Funny thing. I never said that. But of course you never let facts get in your way.

You talking about YOUR facts or the COURTS facts here?

WTH are you talking about? I never said what should or should not be allowed. I simply said with the things that weren't allowed. You aren't an English major are you?

Ask Daman about that. He trusts his own judgement more than a judge, and attorneys. Ask others, they know the law better than the judge and the attorneys, apparently.

Race has no place in this, as the shooter is white, the people shot were white. (to my recollection. If I'm wrong, I know I'll be called out on it.)

People keep saying "if he hadn't been there (rittenhouse) none of this would've happened." Probably correct.

On the other hand, if the people that chased him hadn't been there, or hadn't chased him and threatened him hadn't been there, none of this would've happened either.

I'm not an attorney, or a criminal attorney at that. My opinion means nothing, just as most on here. Let the law decide.

I trust Damans judgement, to be consistently wrong, but I do want to say the kid had the same right to be there as the thugs or you and I for that matter.

And you're far too smart not to see the hypocrisy going on here.

They had no idea if Aubry was armed or not. Even if he was open carrying, the men chasing him down need to be prosecuted.

I get why you're laughing, but I have yet to read a reasonable explanation on those decisions.

When you know someone is armed you know a threat is there. When you have no idea if someone is armed you're making an assumption someone is armed. Your imagination isn't the same as seeing someone is armed.

Reasonable to you or to a Judge?

You're expecting to get an actual straight forward answer to that from 40?

Perhaps your contorting 2 different cases. In the Rittenhouse case, he was fleeing. He was armed. If I'm correct, his first shot was when someone tried to take away his weapon. After that, he was leaving, fleeing/running. Attempted beating on his head with a skateboard. Also, someone pointed a gun at him.

In the Arbury case, as much as I can tell, 3 guys got out and chased a jogger, then shot him. No evidence of him being armed, at all.

Different situations.

Glad the trials will be/have been held. I'll leave it up to the attorneys, the judges, and finally, the jury.

EXPLAINER: Why did judge drop Rittenhouse gun charge?
By TODD RICHMOND
November 15, 2021

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — On the surface, it looked like prosecutors’ easiest task at Kyle Rittenhouse’s murder trial would be convicting him of a much less significant charge — being a minor in possession of a firearm.

Rittenhouse was 17 when he shot three people, killing two, with a semi-automatic rifle on the streets of Kenosha, Wisconsin, during a protest against police brutality last year. Prosecutors brought multiple charges against him, including first-degree intentional homicide, attempted homicide, reckless endangerment and the firearm possession count.

With legal experts saying prosecutors struggled to counter the Illinois man’s claims of self-defense, the best bet for a conviction looked like the gun charge. But Rittenhouse’s defense team dug up an exception to the prohibition and Judge Bruce Schroeder dismissed the count Monday, just hours before jurors got the case.

“It’s very significant,” former federal prosecutor Phil Turner, who is not involved in the case, said of Schroeder’s decision. “It sounds like he’d be guilty of that and he’d get a conviction. You can at least assuage the public you’ve got something as opposed to coming away with absolutely nothing, which is a distinct possibility in this case.”

Under Wisconsin law, anyone under 18 who possesses a dangerous weapon is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to nine months behind bars.

On its face, convicting Rittenhouse on that count looked like a legal slam dunk. No one contested that he was 17 the night of the protest in August 2020. Bystander and surveillance video clearly shows him walking around with the rifle strapped to his chest before the shootings, using the gun to shoot and kill Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber and wound Gaige Grosskreutz.

But Rittenhouse’s attorneys seized on a subsection of the Wisconsin law that states the ban on minors possessing dangerous weapons applies to minors armed with rifles or shotguns only if those weapons are short-barreled. The language stems from a bill that then-Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson signed in 1991. Lawmakers across the country were trying to find ways to curb gang violence around that time. Kenosha defense attorney Michael Cicchini said the law was likely intended to prevent youths from carrying sawed-off shotguns.

Rittenhouse’s AR-15-style rifle was not short-barreled.

They asked Schroeder to dismiss the possession count on those grounds at a pretrial hearing in October. The judge acknowledged the intersection of the statutes was murky but ultimately refused to toss the charge. He said he might revisit the defense request, however.

As Schroeder and attorneys from both sides debated the wording of jury instructions on Monday the defense renewed its request to dismiss the possession charge. Assistant District Attorney James Kraus argued that reading the statute to allow minors to carry any weapon except a short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun basically negates the prohibition on minors carrying weapons.

“I believe that this . . . essentially swallows the entire statute,” Kraus said.

But this time Schroeder dismissed the charge after Kraus acknowledged that Rittenhouse’s rifle wasn’t a short-barreled. The judge noted that prosecutors filed a “very nice brief” laying out their arguments but that it should have been clear he had a “big problem” with the prohibition statute.

He said prosecutors could have asked a state appeals court to rule on whether the charge was valid “all along.” Then he caught himself, noting that he never issued a ruling against the prosecution that might have triggered such a request until just then with closing arguments minutes away.

“I think it ought to have been mighty clear that I had big problems with this statute,” Schroeder said. “I made no bones about that from the beginning. And there always was access to the court of appeals all along here. Well, I guess that’s not fair for me to say because I was sitting on it. So shame on me.”

Cicchini, who is not involved in the case, said legal doctrine demands that when statutes aren’t clear they must be read in favor of the defense.

“This is the price the government must pay when it is incapable of drafting clear laws,” Cicchini wrote in an article discussing the doctrine.

Prosecutors can ask a state appeals court for clarifications and rulings in the middle of a case; they don’t have to wait until a verdict comes down. But usually prosecutors don’t make such a move unless a judge hands down an adverse decision, Cicchini said. In Rittenhouse’s case, Schroeder didn’t rule against Kraus until minutes before closing arguments began.

Turner, the former federal prosecutor, said prosecutors should have realized the issue wasn’t settled and headed Schroeder off by asking an appellate court for a ruling or filing more briefs.

“I’m hesitant to jump to the conclusion that the judge is doing something unfair to (prosecutors),” Turner said. “When the judge expressed skepticism early, they should have done something to make sure it’s clear. In a case of this magnitude, if I’m the prosecutor and the judge has expressed some skepticism or doubt about this, I’m going to do everything I can to sustain that count. When you heard early on there was some doubt, you’ve got to get on this.”

Prosecutors could immediately ask the court of appeals to stop the proceedings pending a ruling on the charge’s validity, but there was no indication Monday that they planned to do so.

Former Waukesha County District Attorney Paul Bucher downplayed the dismissal of the charge. He argued that it might even clarify the case for jurors.

“You’re talking about this extremely minor charge,” Bucher said. “(Prosecutors) are missing the boat. This is a homicide case. We had two individuals killed and one almost killed and they’re focusing on possession of a firearm. If the government thought this was the only count they could succeed on, yikes.”

https://apnews.com/article/why-did-...-charge-d923d8e255d6b1f5c9c9fc5b74e691fb

I know you are just playing your usual silly games but...

Since the Judges ruling is now public knowledge I assumed he disagreed with it. So I asked.

I've missed your deflection over the past year.

The Good Lord gave you two ears and one mouth, you should listen more than you talk.

Why do you Libs insist on making this thread about me instead of the trial?

I think if Kyle Rittenhouse were black, so many people would argue this case in a different way.
I think the reason that doesn't happen is there is a lot of hate for people who just happen to have white skin, and it's fashionable in this country to attack them out of pure racism. The prosecution going after this person shows a systemic bias of the government going after this person to publicly establish that a white person isn't safe anywhere in America, even if they are holding a whatever type riffle.

You sure like to listen more on some things and less on others.

And I'm not a lib.

I've been having substantive discussions all over this thread with people who are willing.

I think we're having a miscommunication here. That was my point. These are two entirely different cases with entirely different circumstances. None of us have any choice but leave it up to the justice system. This has however been a very odd trial with what would seem to be some strange rulings involved. In the end I have no way of knowing if it makes any difference in the final results.

Baw
snort
Haw
BawHawhahahahahaha

Good one!

Look and listen to FATE's posting of the Judges ruling.

It's all there for the reading. Why would I disagree with the Judge? It's his call!

Oh, goodness. This will put some heads on here spinning. You know, the guy that posted the laws, but forgot the subsections, etc.

I guess the keyboard legal experts are..............opinions.

Since I'm not a judge and it's very rare for another judge to go on record calling out one of their own, I think the answer is pretty obvious.

This is funny, but not the way you think it is.

Well I once was a Judge so that makes the answer even more obvious!

No, despite your ramblings, nobodies head is spinning. I'm willing to learn things and realize when I'm wrong or missed something. You may wish to try that once in a while. I think the law is crazy that would allow a minor to walk around in public with a loaded AK-47, but that's the law.

And yes, those who have no legal degree have opinions and can sometimes miss the nuances of the laws. Shocking I know.

I didn't know you practiced law.

Then what is your opinion on the judge's brain exploding when prosecutors used pinch-to-zoom on a video? When he wouldn't allow KR's social media posts about what he wanted to do to the rioters?

Yeah and he paid his gardener all that money too.

No no no, My community asked me to Judge a beauty pageant years ago and I accepted.

Well that's disappointing, if not surprising. My question(s) still stand, though. What do you think about those decisions?

Well, when I was a Judge, my decision was final.

Unlike this case, they can appeal.

That's what people say when they are upset that someone called them on Supporting Trump with all his lies...

It doesn't change the fact that he lies and misleads..

It doesn't change the fact that people clearly support a LIAR..

IT doesn't change the fact that all you can do is deflect.



Try this,,,,,, DUMB DUMB DUMB...

Trump derangement syndrome in action, folks!

Nice to know you finally learned.

You ARE aware, aren't you, that this thread is about Rittenhouse, and not politics? Or, should I say it's about Rittenhouse for everyone that that cares, and only about Trump for the delusional.

Thank you for sharing that article... I was surprised that charge was dropped as (I'm sure like most) I felt that was a pretty clear cut violation...

You and I both. Just ridiculous that this "technicality" has existed for thirty years and never been fixed. I wonder if it's been challenged before? What do these politicians and "lawmakers" do all day besides beg for money? What a joke.

Same. IIRC, I thought the judge also alluded to the fact that it was dropped because the prosecutor didn’t appropriately cite the legal violation, but I might be off on that.

The way I've read it, the timeline is as follows, in layman's terms:

DEFENSE asked charge to be tossed citing subsection at PRETRIAL
JUDGE kicks the can down the road saying "intersection of the statutes was murky"; said he may rule on it later.
TRIAL starts, defense renews request, states that the statute is basically "swallowed whole" by this subsection (basically true, imo)
JUDGE simply agrees and tosses charge, his words, from the article: (mine in parenthesis)


He said prosecutors could have asked a state appeals court to rule on whether the charge was valid “all along.” Then he caught himself, noting that he never issued a ruling against the prosecution that might have triggered such a request until just then with closing arguments minutes away. (In other words, "kicking the can" never gave the prosecution real impetus for approaching appeals court. Bottom line to me, the impression the judge gave initially is that the subject would be explored. I feel like the prosecution was a bit blindsided by the charge getting tossed so quickly.)

“I think it ought to have been mighty clear that I had big problems with this statute,” Schroeder said. (Then you should have stated that at the beginning) “I made no bones about that from the beginning. (Really?? You said the waters were "murky") And there always was access to the court of appeals all along here. (True, but you never gave any indication that should be protocol) Well, I guess that’s not fair for me to say because I was sitting on it. So shame on me.” (No, really, shame on you.)

He seems like a nice old man. He also seams like a bit of a clown in the courtroom at times. Both paragraphs above show him arguing with himself like he has a split personality. He seems pretty "goofy" overall but still likes to impress the court with his vast knowledge of the law of the land. Which makes it seem even stranger that he went Jekyll/Hyde on the weapons charge.

For the first time in my life I'm daydreaming about Lance Ito coming out of retirement.


Alas, the law is the law, in this case. They may want to put all their heads together (smash them together if you have to) and take care of this one. Doesn't make much sense to roll out the red carpet to the subjects you'd least want to bypass your gun laws. Some of these cities should be on cartoon network. Some, they let you burn it down while they bring you ice water; this one they want to have angry teens patrolling the streets with semi-automatic weapons. They thank them... and bring them ice water.

Crazy world.

What you 'think' is irrelevant, in this instance.
What you 'think' has nothing to do with this case or the discussion in this thread.

Kyle Rittenhouse isn't Black.
The people he slew weren't Black.
The Judge and counsel on either side weren't Black.
"Black/White" wasn't featured in either the prosecution's or defense's motions during the course of the trial.

This is just another one of your stupid, transparent attempts to turn a thread into yet another Tucker Carlsonesque "White Grievance" op.

Stop it.
It's dumb, it's ham-fisted... and it's as transparent as Saran Wrap.®

I never said he was found not guilty of the charge. I said the charge was dismissed, as in Rittenhouse no longer faces said charges in this trial and the jury can't consider that as a verdict option. I suppose the state could try to bring said charge forward in the future in a stand alone context, but in light of this dismissal due to the written law, it would probably be a frivolous attempt and a day late.

Don't get mad or frustrated with me because the prosecution couldn't make the charge stick. They have the same ability to read and understand the laws just as the defense team does.