IMO the prosecution in the Riddenhouse trial was poor. Why did they put on...

[brush]

the wounded guy who admitted he pointed a gun at Rittehhouse?

And they had no idea of the gun barrel length issue.

Then with Rittenhouse on the stand, a gamble taken by the defense, they couldn't prove that he was the the one who provoked the first shooting. The other two shootings could be seen as self defense as he was being chased and having stuff thrown at him. But the first one, no way. I guess that's what you get with local prosecutors.

Too bad the team from the George Floyd trial couldn't be flown in. They were excellent.

[radius777]

1. The judge is a biased right winger

who was on the side of the defense.

System racism reared its head here, with Rittenhouse being portrayed as 'the boy next door' who was simply 'fighting for what was right'.

The victims were white - but they were liberal whites fighting for the justice of PoC - thus the shooting and the case was always about race and justice in America.

[brush]

6. Yeah, good take.

[Hoyt]

10. I have no proof, but I'm not sure 2 of the 3 were fighting for justice.

“Richards also has worked to persuade the jury that Rosenbaum was a menace. He got a police detective to testify that at various points during the night, Rosenbaum armed himself with a chain he stole from a construction site, set a Dumpster on fire and was walking around wearing his shirt as a mask.”

https://abc7chicago.com/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-joseph-rosenbaum-kenosha/11242392/

The man shot, but not killed, was carrying his own gun for Christ’s sake.

Don’t know much about the victim with a skateboard. So he might well have been fighting for justice and just trying to stop an active shooter.


Ultimately, I think the punk Rittenhouse carrying a rifle was provocation and he should have been convicted, but the jury didn’t see it that way probably because of “reasonable doubt.”

[radius777]

23. There are anti-fascists who believe in meeting

force with force, and that the old methods of passive resistance don't work in the current age when faced with a violent right and militarized police.

So the fact that the victims have a checkered past or were themselves armed - does not change the fact that they were there as part of the protests against the shootings of Blake/Floyd/etc, nor does it absolve Rittenhouse.

[Hoyt]

37. Still not convinced. There are also people who like to go where there's trouble.

Whatever, they didn’t deserve to be shot by that pissant gunslinger.

[Lunabell]

2. I suspect the fix was in from the get.

Even if the prosecution put on a near perfect case, they would have lost in the right wing climate there.

[Progressive Jones]

11. Maybe the prosecution was part of the fix. nt

[Lunabell]

40. I don't doubt it.

[Amishman]

14. Agreed, that charge should probably have been tossed pretrial

Having it in the picture and then tossed late could have helped give the impression of the weakness of the prosecution's case.

I wonder if the only reason it was not dropped sooner was the widely circulated but incorrect early version of the events which harped on crossing state lines with an illegal rifle.

[Zeitghost]

4. Why would you be disappointed...

Why would you be disappointed that a key prosecution witness told the truth? Even if it was bad for their case. The point of a trial is to get to the truth, not convict.

[brush]

8. They shouldn't have put him on. Two people are dead and the killer walks.

Justice is what was sought. It didn't happen.

[Zeitghost]

13. Again

Why wouldn't you want as much truth as possible entered into evidence, including statements by the only person to survive being shot by the accused?

The testimony by Gaige had no bearing on the two murder charges.

[brush]

16. Are you kidding? You actually think that him saying he pointed a gun at the killer...

didn't influence the jury's thinking on the other counts. Please. No way he should been put on by the prosecution.

[Zeitghost]

20. So just to be clear...

You think testimony beneficial to the defense should not be disclosed by the prosecution?


I can't believe what I'm seeing here.

[brush]

22. Was justice done?

[Zeitghost]

29. Yes

If anything is at fault here, it is WI law. According to the well documented facts, including video, forensic and witness testimony and the WI law at play, the jury reached the correct legal decision.

That you're advocating for less truth to become known, simply to give the prosecution an edge should be your first hint that you are not pursuing justice.

[brush]

33. Forget about not putting the wounded guy on. I'm no lawyer and don't know...

what can and can't be done. If you believe justice was done, we have noting to discuss.

[Zeitghost]

34. You're making the correct decision to walk away

You have to stop digging at some point...

[brush]

36. Ok, smart guy, you think justice was done, check out this link.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216069989

[Zeitghost]

38. That thread is a joke

Last edited Sat Nov 20, 2021, 01:32 AM - Edit history (1)

It's well established that KR did not break any WI law with regards to possession of the rifle. Even the prosecution agreed to that when it was pointed out in court that his rifle did not meet the required definition layed out in the illegal possession law in WI.

[Polybius]

47. It influenced them for sure

As it should have.

[radius777]

24. The FULL truth should've been allowed in,

ie that Rittenhouse was a far-right white supremacist who went looking to 'do battle' with the left/antifa/BLM. Motive is a key element in any crime. Rittenhouse was not just some citizen minding his business, but an extremist looking for violence.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

39. Doing that would then open it up for the defense to bring up the past of Rosenbaum and Huber

And that would not have gone over well with the jury, especially Rosenbaum's record.

[Decoy of Fenris]

5. No prosecutor / judge / jury combo would have found him guilty.

The evidence was just too strong in Rittenhouse's favor. Video supporting him, prosecution witnesses supporting him, forensics supporting him.


I don't know how people thought he'd be convicted, in this courthouse or any other, given the evidence at hand.

[Amishman]

19. Jury is always a wildcard, but you are otherwise correct

As I said throughout the trial, what the law supports in this case is not in alignment with our sense of right and wrong.

By the letter of the law and particularly the video evidence, there was not much for the prosecution to work with. I think this is why they were pushing the limits so hard, hoping to gamble and come up with some misstep or revelation to give them more to work with.

[Kang Colby]

49. Why is this so hard for people to understand?...n/t

[Decoy of Fenris]

50. Because people tend to divide into "Us or them" rather than truth and supporting evidence. n/t

[Kang Colby]

53. SMH

There isn’t an “us vs them”…you either believe in the rule of law or you don’t. The evidence overwhelming favored the defense.

Prosecutor: “So, you play Call of Duty?”

Prosecutor: “Sometimes you just need to take a beating”

No jury was gonna convict that guy of murder 1 or 2. No way.

[Hav]

7. What you are basically hinting at

is that the problem wasn't with the prosecution but with the facts of the case. When the only surviving shooting victim makes one of the strongest cases for self-defense, then that should tell you something about what the prosecution had to work with.

[brush]

9. Bad decision to put him on the stand. Why in the world would you put on a witness...

that would help the defense?

[Hav]

17. They should have made the case for attempted homicide

without the testimony of the actual victim? I don't think it would have made their job easier.
Even without the testimony, there is also video evidence. I'm pretty confident that the defense could have called him as a witness as well without the prosecution doing so.

But you mentioned that you were looking for justice. Is that the case when you prefer that exculpatory testimony should have been prevented?

[brush]

21. Just one question, do you think justice was done?

[ripcord]

25. So you believe prosecutors should be able to hide exculpatory evidence?

They were required by law to share that evidence with the defense.

[Hav]

27. According to the law maybe but otherwise it's impossible to answer for me

because you can find fault for all parties and you can find reasonable claims for self-defense for all parties as well. It doesn't feel like justice or injustice because all parties have arguments on their side.
But I also don't think justice is served if you have to hide evidence that destroys your case.

I was hoping that the jury would have acknowledged the provocation part for the Rosenbaum shooting to find at least some form of guilt but they didn't agree and I don't know what the jury instructions told them.

[brush]

30. Ok, forget about not putting the wounded guy on. I'm no lawyer and don't know...

what you can and can't do, but it's glaringly obvious that with two guys dead and a killer walks, justice was not done.

Look for more cases like this. Why it's almost like qualified immunity.

[radius777]

28. and of course that is the bottom line

that pedantic types often miss in these discussions. Our system is a construct, one built upon white supremacy, that will tend to view right wing whites as 'wholesome' and those attempting to dismantle that system (ie, the protesters) as evil. That was how the judge framed the case, and the jury verdict so followed.

[brush]

31. Exactly. Not guilty on anythimg and two people dead.

[Meowmee]

61. Exactly

That is how the judge framed the case

[madville]

12. The prosecution was in a corner as far as the wounded survivor

If they hadn’t of called the wounded survivor, the defense would have called him to the stand anyway so having him as a prosecution witness was their only option.

The jury made the correct decision (arguably maybe not the “right” decision) under the state laws, that’s their job. The judge made a valid decision on the weapon charge based on the poorly written law.

That the other two were chasing him is correct, but it is also correct to say that one hit him with a skateboard and was attacking him (arguably justified if he thought he was an active shooter, we’ll never know) and the wounded survivor pulled a handgun while advancing on him.

[sarisataka]

15. It would have been very strange

For the prosecution to not call the only survivor of the three people shot. If the prosecution didn't call him, the defense might have.

They should have known however what his testimony would be and prepared for it.

[Dr. Strange]

26. At the risk of sounding conspiratorial...

I wonder if they did know. Grosskreutz has a suit against the city, and his testimony may have shot that down.

[fescuerescue]

18. Not putting that guy on the stand would have been worse

[doc03]

35. The fix was in from the get go nt

[thatdemguy]

41. the judge is a democrat

I am new here, but the travesty of this case prompted me to make an account. I keep seeing this said, and as another post I read earlier we need the truth.

If you look up the judge, he is a democrat, and was active with politics with the democratic party for years. We need to stop attacking him, as all we need is some repub running against him and using the hate he is getting letting the repub win. We need to stand with the judge, who is a democrat.

[brush]

44. Hard to believe he's a Democrat. Link pls.

[thatdemguy]

48. two links

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/16/1056181659/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-judge-bruce-schroeder-kenosha
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Schroeder

[krawhitham]

45. So what if he is a democrat, he is still a shit judge and that needs to be called out

[Zeitghost]

52. Other than the video zoom issue

Which was inconsequential because the stock video was seen and shows the scene quite well, the judge made very reasonable and professional rulings. He could have tossed the whole case after the serious 5th amendment violations, but didn't. His ruling on not calling those shot victims is consistent with other self defense cases (a "I did it because I had to" defense creates different rules than the "i didn't do it" defense). Tossing the weapons charge is consistent with the facts and was supported by the prosecution. The judge was fair.

[radius777]

55. The judge is an old white racist

who resents the BLM protests and views Rittenhouse as a hero - that clearly came across in the case. Rittenhouse was treated with kid gloves (even got to choose his jurors) in a way that some black/brown/white ally would not be.

A ruling that is consistent with the law is not necessarily justice.

[Zeitghost]

58. Do yo have proof of that?

What racist statements has the judge made? Link please.

And no, Rittenhouse did not pick his jurors, he blindly drew random numbers to select jurors. Conflating the two is dishonest.


When it comes to a conviction, rulings consistent with the law is the only way to get justice.

[radius777]

59. Justice and the law are two different things.

There was once a time when slavery was legal, when women could not legally vote, when black people legally were second class citizens who had little protections against lynchings etc.

The legacy of white supremacy lives on in our system, which was what BLM and the protesters who were killed by Rittenhouse were protesting against. The judge knows this and took a side - the side that has historically benefitted old white men like him.

[Zeitghost]

60. You can not convict

When the facts do not meet the legal threshold to do so and still claim you are pursuing justice.

Acquitting when a bad law is violated is in no way the same thing as convicting when bad law is not violated.

[marble falls]

46. Even if, no. What is your real concern?

[thatdemguy]

51. My concern is

Even if the judge made shitting rulings in this case, I would rather see a democrat judge than a repub.

If enough people get mad at this judge and dont support him a repub judge might be able to win the seat.

[JI7]

54. Michael Flynn is a long time Democrat also

[radius777]

56. +1. racist Dixiecrats who haven't changed their registration. /nt

[krawhitham]

43. He was put on because if they didn't the defense would have. No way around it, just get ahead of it

[ForgedCrank]

57. Those two idiots mucked up

this case from beginning to end. There were a couple of very grave offenses that even a rookie wouldn't screw up.
I am highly suspicious that they were directed to purposefully ass the entire thing up. It just seemed to me that someone higher up had already decided Rittenhouse was not guilty and wanted to make sure it happened.