The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha
-
If the burden is satisfied, in a civil trial, by establishing that Rittenhouse intentionally put himself into a situation which increased the chance of him shooting someone, then he'll lose the case. I suppose people will fall out politically in their answer to that question.
@horace said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
If the burden is satisfied, in a civil trial, by establishing that Rittenhouse intentionally put himself into a situation which increased the chance of him shooting someone, then he'll lose the case. I suppose people will fall out politically in their answer to that question.
And that will ultimately come down to do people have a right to defend their property during destructive civil unrest. In my world, of course they do. When some rioters are carrying firearms is it unreasonable for Rittenhouse to do so? Don't think so.
I think you can also make an argument that the rioters who came after him with firearms and other weapons intentionally put themselves there too. I don't think a trial will hinge on simple principles of 'if this, then that'. The rioters behavior will factor into it.
-
I'd certainly not find him liable in a civil trial, assuming no new revelations. I wonder what our left-leaning members think.
@horace said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
I'd certainly not find him liable in a civil trial, assuming no new revelations. I wonder what our left-leaning members think.
I don't think you'd find him liable, either.
-
@horace said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
I'd certainly not find him liable in a civil trial, assuming no new revelations. I wonder what our left-leaning members think.
I don't think you'd find him liable, either.
@doctor-phibes said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@horace said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
I'd certainly not find him liable in a civil trial, assuming no new revelations. I wonder what our left-leaning members think.
I don't think you'd find him liable, either.
I don't think anybody that can make that statement one way or another should sit on a jury... You can't know without sitting through the trial in the jury box and see the evidence and arguments as presented by the attorneys.
-
@doctor-phibes said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@horace said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
I'd certainly not find him liable in a civil trial, assuming no new revelations. I wonder what our left-leaning members think.
I don't think you'd find him liable, either.
I don't think anybody that can make that statement one way or another should sit on a jury... You can't know without sitting through the trial in the jury box and see the evidence and arguments as presented by the attorneys.
@lufins-dad said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@doctor-phibes said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@horace said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
I'd certainly not find him liable in a civil trial, assuming no new revelations. I wonder what our left-leaning members think.
I don't think you'd find him liable, either.
I don't think anybody that can make that statement one way or another should sit on a jury... You can't know without sitting through the trial in the jury box and see the evidence and arguments as presented by the attorneys.
You don't think that somebody that agrees with what Horace said should be allowed to sit on a jury?
No, I agree with you. If you come to the trial saying 'not guilty', or 'guilty', then you're not doing your job as a juror.
I was only joking
-
@lufins-dad said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@doctor-phibes said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@horace said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
I'd certainly not find him liable in a civil trial, assuming no new revelations. I wonder what our left-leaning members think.
I don't think you'd find him liable, either.
I don't think anybody that can make that statement one way or another should sit on a jury... You can't know without sitting through the trial in the jury box and see the evidence and arguments as presented by the attorneys.
You don't think that somebody that agrees with what Horace said should be allowed to sit on a jury?
No, I agree with you. If you come to the trial saying 'not guilty', or 'guilty', then you're not doing your job as a juror.
@doctor-phibes said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@lufins-dad said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@doctor-phibes said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@horace said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
I'd certainly not find him liable in a civil trial, assuming no new revelations. I wonder what our left-leaning members think.
I don't think you'd find him liable, either.
I don't think anybody that can make that statement one way or another should sit on a jury... You can't know without sitting through the trial in the jury box and see the evidence and arguments as presented by the attorneys.
You don't think that somebody that agrees with what Horace said should be allowed to sit on a jury?
No, I agree with you. If you come to the trial saying 'not guilty', or 'guilty', then you're not doing your job as a juror.
I think it would be impossible to find a juror who didn't have an initial opinion one way or the other. The question is can you leave that opinion behind and focus on what is presented at trial.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
Wow on so many effin levels...
First, here are the recent Twitter posts from the Chemistry and Biology Department of James Madison University. @Aqua-Letifer and @89th
And earlier they retweeted
My favorite part? "Two Beautiful Black Lives"
Uhmmm...
The Brad
-
Not sure who Amber Ruffin is but she (and the JMU chemistry dept) have clearly absorbed the false narrative the media loves to push. And this is the problem, people start to believe it as fact. Honestly, I don't think this will ever get better unless there was some miraculous media overhaul (wont happen) or media pushback (wont happen) or media truth enforcement (wont happen). The best scenario is to just stop watching
the newscorporate media. -
@doctor-phibes said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@lufins-dad said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@doctor-phibes said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@horace said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
I'd certainly not find him liable in a civil trial, assuming no new revelations. I wonder what our left-leaning members think.
I don't think you'd find him liable, either.
I don't think anybody that can make that statement one way or another should sit on a jury... You can't know without sitting through the trial in the jury box and see the evidence and arguments as presented by the attorneys.
You don't think that somebody that agrees with what Horace said should be allowed to sit on a jury?
No, I agree with you. If you come to the trial saying 'not guilty', or 'guilty', then you're not doing your job as a juror.
I think it would be impossible to find a juror who didn't have an initial opinion one way or the other. The question is can you leave that opinion behind and focus on what is presented at trial.
@mik said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
I think it would be impossible to find a juror who didn't have an initial opinion one way or the other. The question is can you leave that opinion behind and focus on what is presented at trial.
I'm honestly pretty hazy on the details of what happened. I haven't looked at any detailed reports, primarily because I find the whole media circus really disheartening and disgusting.
That being said, I'm pretty strong on letting juries decide, and sticking with it unless there's been some kind of miscarriage. I don't like the idea of civil trials undermining the results of criminal ones.
-
Wow on so many effin levels...
First, here are the recent Twitter posts from the Chemistry and Biology Department of James Madison University. @Aqua-Letifer and @89th
And earlier they retweeted
My favorite part? "Two Beautiful Black Lives"
Uhmmm...
@lufins-dad said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
First, here are the recent Twitter posts from the Chemistry and Biology Department of James Madison University. @Aqua-Letifer and @89th
BTW, you'd think a science department would care about empirical evidence and the pursuit of truth regardless of outcome.
-
@lufins-dad said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
First, here are the recent Twitter posts from the Chemistry and Biology Department of James Madison University. @Aqua-Letifer and @89th
BTW, you'd think a science department would care about empirical evidence and the pursuit of truth regardless of outcome.
@89th said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@lufins-dad said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
First, here are the recent Twitter posts from the Chemistry and Biology Department of James Madison University. @Aqua-Letifer and @89th
BTW, you'd think a science department
Only if you don't understand what's going on. If this really is baffling to you, I'd recommend looking into the Evergreen College shitshow. It's got nothing to do with what departments teach. It's a mix of extremist activism, useful idiots, and coercion.
-
@lufins-dad said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
First, here are the recent Twitter posts from the Chemistry and Biology Department of James Madison University. @Aqua-Letifer and @89th
BTW, you'd think a science department would care about empirical evidence and the pursuit of truth regardless of outcome.
@89th said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@lufins-dad said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
First, here are the recent Twitter posts from the Chemistry and Biology Department of James Madison University. @Aqua-Letifer and @89th
BTW, you'd think a science department would care about empirical evidence and the pursuit of truth regardless of outcome.
-
Wow on so many effin levels...
First, here are the recent Twitter posts from the Chemistry and Biology Department of James Madison University. @Aqua-Letifer and @89th
And earlier they retweeted
My favorite part? "Two Beautiful Black Lives"
Uhmmm...
@lufins-dad said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
Chemistry and Biology Department of James Madison University
idiots
-
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/23/politics/trump-kyle-rittenhouse-mar-a-lago-visit/index.html
Trump says Rittenhouse visited him at Mar-a-Lago
(CNN)Former President Donald Trump said he was recently visited at his Palm Beach, Florida, resort by Kyle Rittenhouse, the teenager who was acquitted last week on all charges after fatally shooting two people and wounding a third during protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin, last summer.
"He called. He wanted to know if he could come over, say hello, because he was a fan," Trump said during an interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity that aired Tuesday night.
Trump said Rittenhouse, 18, had left Mar-a-Lago "a little while ago," and Hannity had earlier said that his interview with Trump took place on Monday. During the interview, Fox showed a picture of Rittenhouse posing with Trump.
"He came over with his mother. Really a nice young man. ... That was prosecutorial misconduct. He should have not have had to suffer through a trial for that. He was going to be dead," the former President said.
-
@improviso said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
BTW, Wood is NOT his lawyer now. It looks like he might have been originally.
Ms. Rittenhouse claims on the podcast that two of #FightBack’s leaders—Wood and conservative firebrand John Pierce—latched onto her son’s case for their own personal reasons.
“They used Kyle to gain money, gain Twitter followers,” Ms. Rittenhouse told Law&Crime. “I felt now they didn’t care about Kyle.”
The mother has cut ties with #FightBack to start a new legal defense fund for her son under her control called FreeKyleUSA, and she claims that Wood and Pierce have ignored repeated requests to open up their books.
“He used my son’s image to make profit off of that. And I asked for an accounting of it. And I never got it. I was ignored,” Ms. Rittenhouse said of Wood in an interview with Law&Crime. “They used a 17-year-old kid’s image for their own political shit.”
“I asked Lin, where’s the money?” Ms. Rittenhouse recalled separately. “I wanted to see the books, like the accounting books.”
In an email, Wood denied receiving any request for an audit and said FightBack would be “perfectly willing to undergo any audit required by law.”
@george-k said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@improviso said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
BTW, Wood is NOT his lawyer now. It looks like he might have been originally.
Ms. Rittenhouse claims on the podcast that two of #FightBack’s leaders—Wood and conservative firebrand John Pierce—latched onto her son’s case for their own personal reasons.
“They used Kyle to gain money, gain Twitter followers,” Ms. Rittenhouse told Law&Crime. “I felt now they didn’t care about Kyle.”
The mother has cut ties with #FightBack to start a new legal defense fund for her son under her control called FreeKyleUSA, and she claims that Wood and Pierce have ignored repeated requests to open up their books.
“He used my son’s image to make profit off of that. And I asked for an accounting of it. And I never got it. I was ignored,” Ms. Rittenhouse said of Wood in an interview with Law&Crime. “They used a 17-year-old kid’s image for their own political shit.”
“I asked Lin, where’s the money?” Ms. Rittenhouse recalled separately. “I wanted to see the books, like the accounting books.”
In an email, Wood denied receiving any request for an audit and said FightBack would be “perfectly willing to undergo any audit required by law.”
-
@ivorythumper said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@larry said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
There's no one who would have a legal standing to sue HIM civilly. The parents of those he shot would be the only ones with standing, but they lost that footing the moment their son made the decision to cause rittenhouse to need to defend himself.
Do parents of adults have standing to sue for wrongful death in Wisconsin?
No idea. But we have been talking about the Rittenhouse case, and "wrongful death" isn't involved.
@larry said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@ivorythumper said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@larry said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
There's no one who would have a legal standing to sue HIM civilly. The parents of those he shot would be the only ones with standing, but they lost that footing the moment their son made the decision to cause rittenhouse to need to defend himself.
Do parents of adults have standing to sue for wrongful death in Wisconsin?
No idea. But we have been talking about the Rittenhouse case, and "wrongful death" isn't involved.
You wrote "There's no one who would have a legal standing to sue HIM civilly. . The parents of those he shot would be the only ones with standing, "
I'm asking if they have standing. And standing implies some civil tort to sue - such as wrongful death. What other grounds might they civilly sue for?
You can't just assert that parents have no footing because their idiot kid put Kyle in a position to defend himself. As a matter of tort, harm has a lower standard of circumstance and intent than criminal offense. That's for the civil jury to determine.
-
https://dailycaller.com/2021/11/09/wisconsin-kyle-rittenhouse-witness-trial-prosecutor-statement/
A key witness for the prosecution in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial testified Tuesday that he was asked to change his statement by the prosecution team.
Nathan DeBruin was taking photographs of the events the night that Rittenhouse killed two protestors and injured another, according to WISN.
Prosecutor Thomas Binger asked DeBruin to identify a person in a picture, according to DeBruin’s testimony.
When DeBruin didn’t know who the person was, Binger allegedly identified the person as Joshua Zaminsky.
Binger then set the phone face down before showing the photo again to DeBruin. He then asked a second time to identify the person in the picture.
“I just felt, I didn’t want to change my statement,” DeBruin told the defense attorney.
After being asked by Binger to change his statement, DeBruin told the defense team he hired an attorney.
Prosecutor James Kraus then began cross-examining the witness about his statement to police on the night of the shooting.
“We asked if you knew anything beyond that statement,” Kraus asked.
“Correct,” DeBruin responded.
“We didn’t ask you to change it?” the prosecutor then asked.
“Yes, yes you did,” DeBruin told the prosecutor.
@george-k said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
Link to videohttps://dailycaller.com/2021/11/09/wisconsin-kyle-rittenhouse-witness-trial-prosecutor-statement/
A key witness for the prosecution in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial testified Tuesday that he was asked to change his statement by the prosecution team.
I interviewed Nathan DeBruin, the Photochad from the Rittenhouse trial and he explained in more detail his rather shocking meeting with ADA Krause and ADA Binger leading up to the trial.
Is this prosecutorial misconduct? Is this witness tampering? Was Binger attempting to get a false statement from Nathan DeBruin for his trial against Kyle Rittenhouse or Joshua Ziminski?
Tough questions!
