Judge: Prosecutors can't show Rittenhouse link to Proud Boys

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP

By TODD RICHMOND

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A judge ruled Friday that prosecutors can’t argue that a man who shot three people during a protest against police brutality in Wisconsin is affiliated with the Proud Boys or that he attacked a woman months before the shootings, bolstering his position as he prepares for a politically charged trial.

Kyle Rittenhouse is set to stand trial beginning Nov. 1 on multiple counts, including homicide. The 18-year-old argues he opened fire in self-defense after the men attacked him. Prosecutors say they have infrared video from an FBI surveillance plane that shows Rittenhouse followed and confronted the first man he shot.

Kenosha was in the throes of several nights of chaotic demonstrations after a white police officer shot Jacob Blake, a Black man who was paralyzed from the waist down. Rittenhouse traveled from his home in Antioch, Illinois, about 20 miles (32 kilometers) to Kenosha on Aug. 25, 2020, in response to a call on social media to protect businesses there.

Rittenhouse shot Joseph Rosenbaum, Anthony Huber and Gaige Grosskreutz with an AR-style semiautomatic rifle, killing Rosenbaum and Huber and wounding Grosskreutz. Conservatives across the country have rallied around Rittenhouse, raising $2 million to cover his bail. Black Lives Matter supporters have painted him as a trigger-happy racist.



Kyle Rittenhouse appears in court for a motion hearing in Kenosha, Wis., on Friday, Sept. 17, 2021. Rittenhouse traveled from his home in Antioch, Ill., about 20 miles (32 kilometers) to Kenosha on Aug. 25, 2020, after seeing a post on social media for militia to protect businesses. Rittenhouse faces multiple charges in the August 2020 shootings in Kenosha. (Sean Krajacic/The Kenosha News via AP)


Read more: https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-police-trials-gun-politics-kenosha-8cd887f731ace320bf945f9524ceb252

[NurseJackie]

1. That doughy kewpie-doll baby-face won't do well in prison... I expect.

[TheRealNorth]

2. I think there will be someone that hangs the jury

Kenosha Co isn't Minneapolis. There will be at least one deplorable on the jury. Growing up, I heard stories about active KKK in Kenosha and Walworth counties.

[NurseJackie]

3. No lie... I know (knew, she's dead) a woman whose three children all have the initials K.K.K.

She swore that she wasn't a racist... and that it had nothing to do with the KKK, but I have my doubts. Even giving her the benefit of the doubt that she's "not a racist" it's inconceivable to me that she had no idea what the KKK is. Why would any parent saddle their kid with something like that? Insane.

She was from Stevens Point.

[NurseJackie]

39. She did indeed choose "K" names on purpose...

... I guess she thought it was cute or clever. I just have a hard time believing that the KKK never entered her mind (or that no-one in her family might have thought to mention it to her after the FIRST one.) Let's see... there was Ken K. Kline, Karmen K. Kline, Kim K. Kline (I think both the girls had the same middle name of Kay. I have no idea what Ken's actual middle name was.)

I wonder if they ever owned anything that was monogrammed. A tie? Handkerchief? Briefcase? Purse? Luggage?


(NOTE: I've changed the last name to protect the innocent)

[COL Mustard]

38. I Served With An African-American Officer In The Early 1980s Whose Initials Were KKK

He went on to a career in higher education, I believe, and has done very well at it. So it may just be coincidence. Or not.

[cstanleytech]

49. Could not it simply have been an issue of human stupidity? I mean I sure as hell have done things in

life or said things that after doing or saying them I later realized that they were completely avoidable had I been paying attention.

[NurseJackie]

50. It's possible. Anything's possible.

But I wonder how likely it is that nobody ever mentioned it to her or questioned her after the first one. A relative, her husband, a friend... somebody! Anyone! They were a strange family anyway.

[monkeyman1]

4. especially back in the 30's & 40's ! trump's ol' man was busted in '26 for kkk !

[INdemo]

22. He will passed around like a pack of Marlboro

[Calista241]

44. Yeah, we should just sentence him to getting raped on the daily. How enlightened we are. /s

[melm00se]

46. sarcasm

yes?

[maxsolomon]

54. Very 1st comment, too.

Can't stop those knees from jerking...

[msongs]

5. when a judge acts as defense attorney nt

[getagrip_already]

6. I'm not sure here....

A judge is within their swim lane when the decide if someone's associations, and even past accusations against them (not convictions), can be entered into evidence.

It can very much be prejudicial to a jury. It goes both ways. If they wanted to paint someone as a leftist jihadist, should a prosecutor be able to enter into evidence an ACLU donation and some unfounded internet troll charges?

It doesn't relate to the illegal act directly and is not even proof, just an indication.

I'm not a lawyer and not playing one here, but it seems to me that if I were being charged with capitol murder, I wouldn't think it was fair for unrelated associations and accusations to be piled on during a trial.

The prosecution should still be able to prove his actions were not in self defense. They should have plenty of evidence with his posts, emails, and text messages - which are admissible. The videos taken are also going to be shown.

It's not as bad as it sounds; at least to me (a dumb observer).

[Ponietz]

10. You're right

Prosecutors can’t show he was a member before the killings—that would be admissible to show motive, intent, and the like. But association after the fact isn’t enough. Rule of Evidence 404(B) proscribes the limited use of character evidence. Pretty straightforward.

[stopdiggin]

55. glad you pointed this out

and probably better than I could have. I might not like the way this has fallen - but I think there's every indication that it was probably the proper ruling.

[monkeyman1]

19. WTF ! totally bull shit ! have faith in the system , like kiss my ass !

[LiberalFighter]

7. If a militia was legitimate it would only be legitimate within the state they reside.

[emmaverybo]

8. The fix is in. NT

[Ford_Prefect]

9. The Rittenhouse lawyers are arguing that Rittenhouse shot in self-defense.

The accusation against Rittenhouse goes to the point that he provoked and threatened them first using his AR.

A jury unaware of the distinctions between those points might very easily say Rittenhouse should not have been where he was but did shoot in defense. Getting a jury to understand provocation is sometimes quite a challenge especially since most of us have seen wayyyy too much of fictional confrontations on TV and in movies where the situation is telegraphed and underlined by the narrative and the camera.

The case which needs to be brought is one of Civil Rights. Rittenhouse had no good reason to be on the street and armed. He wasn't protecting personal property or personal safety on his own ground. By his own admission in remarks made to police and civilians on the night he was there to "shoot some bad guys". A thoughtful public safety officer would have been wise to arrest him on the spot just to keep him safe along with anyone else on the street including other officers. Clearly the officers on patrol that night had other agendas.

I'm not asking for a particular kind of sentencing but this guy should not be on the street anywhere. He is a menace to the public and himself.

[Hoyt]

15. Agree. But I think the self-defense argument has a chance. Despise people

like that gun-toting POS punk. He started the whole situation.

But unless there is an unknown video in the car lot, the defense will show the video of the first victim chasing the armed pissant into the car dealer’s lot, implying Rit was attacked.

The second victim pulled his own pistol on the punk.

The third attacked him, as well.

Hope the prosecution is better prepared than in Trayvon Martin’s case, but I’m not convinced a murder conviction is likely. They might get him on a minimum gun charge, but that’s not justice.

In any event, no state should allow gunz at at protest.

[Ford_Prefect]

17. If there are witnesses not included in the video I wonder how they will be heard by the jury.

This is like when the bully provokes a kid when the teacher isn't looking and then the teacher only sees the reaction to the provoking, hence my remark about provocation.

Rittenhouse should never have been on that street nor armed on that street. The Police failed to keep order 4 times and should be prosecuted for it. They failed to prevent Rittenhouse from engaging the public with a weapon as much as if he'd gone into a school in the same condition. Their responsibility is very clear in this.

They also failed to protect the three people Rittenhouse murdered from his actions provoking the confrontations and shootings.

I have seen bullies bait people too many times not to see Rittenhouse as one of them. I have been there myself facing one down.

He knew he was carrying death in his hands and he had to know he was acting outside any law, and he thought the Police approved his presence and his intentions. He was there to get his adrenaline fix and the other nasty chemistry bullies crave from dominating other people.

He was there to be a predator and he succeeded.

[Hoyt]

23. Agree 100%. Plus, he's just a disgusting pissant. But, not getting my hopes

up for justice.

[Ford_Prefect]

37. It appears he baited the first man into attacking him.

If you bait a Bear and force him into growling and showing his teeth, and then shoot him because you were threatened, you created the threat intending to shoot the Bear all along. You were the predator, not the Bear. You went looking for and enabled the confrontation while carrying lethal force. There was only ever going to be one conclusion to that exchange.

Rittenhouse was underage and was not a sworn peace officer. There are rules of engagement written out in police procedure for circumstances like what happened that night. It is clear that Rittenhouse went out of his way to interfere with the protest with the weapon in hand. He wasn't invited to protect personal property or police officers. He wasn't entitled or required to be there. He wasn't there to help put out a fire with a bucket of water he brought. He was there to hunt people the way vigilantes have always done: as judge and executioner like a character in a video game.

[Orrex]

24. I was of the impression that self-defense during the commission of a crime isn't self-defense

He was carrying a weapon illegal for him to carry, after illegally transporting it across state lines.

[Hoyt]

25. Carrying weapons is legal in that state. And he might be convicted of youngster

carrying a weapon.

How much time do you think he will get for that, assuming defense is successful convincing just one juror that the punk was attacked by other people and he acted in self-defense? Not much, unfortunately.

Not on his side, but I’m afraid he might escape murder charge, just like George Zimmerman.

[Orrex]

27. I'd say the chance of him escaping the murder charge is somewhere upwards of 80%

And of escaping any jail time at all, higher than 50/50.

Certainly helps him to have a friendly, accommodating judge who's willing to go to considerable lengths to facilitate his defense.

[cstanleytech]

51. Small point. Just because the judge is making rulings in favor of the assholes lawyers

arguments does not mean that the judge is working to facilitate his defense.
As for there being a conviction? Well, I think he should be if it can be proven that he threatened (granted, carrying such a weapon is threatening but legally its not crime to carry weapons in public generally) any of the three that he shot and hopefully such evidence can be found to support that and win a conviction.

[DallasNE]

29. From The Article

"Prosecutors say they have infrared video from an FBI surveillance plane that shows Rittenhouse followed and confronted the first man he shot."

This sounds pretty darn damning to me.

[Hoyt]

42. I hope so. The first video they released showed a man chasing Rittenhouse, probably for good reason.

Here is a link to an article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that includes a video the defense "pieced" together and moderated to allegedly show that the punk was attacked. I'm sure it is completely objective.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2020/09/26/new-video-focuses-one-side-kyle-rittenhouse-shooting-kenosha/3537879001/

The video the article refers to is:

&t=1s

Personally, I'd stick the little pissant in prison for life for showing up with a rifle dangling from his neck, and double the sentence for wearing his hat backwards.

[intheflow]

40. A quote from the OP says prosecuters have tha tvideo.

"Prosecutors say they have infrared video from an FBI surveillance plane that shows Rittenhouse followed and confronted the first man he shot."

[Hoyt]

43. See post #42 above.

[monkeyman1]

20. with a borrowed ar-15 ! shouldn't have had the fucking thing !

well shit , next time I have a a piss'n contest with my neighbor , I'll just borrow a damn Cannon from the local national guard !

[DallasNE]

28. Rittenhouse Paid For The Gun

Making this an illegal straw purchase.

[niyad]

11. Weird question: is that smug little pos wearing a cap with something dangling off it?

He looks like he put on some weight.

And who appointed the judge?

[11 Bravo]

13. Appointed by Governor Anthony Earl (D) in 1983.

[niyad]

14. Thank you.

[Polybius]

26. Where do you see a cap?

I clicked on the link and he's not wearing anything on his head in any of those pics.

[niyad]

41. The image that I am seeing in the OP looks like he is wearing a cap of some kind,

with something dangling. Could just be my screen, which is why I asked.

[toughtony]

12. He won't spend a day in Jail

If he keeps showing up to court looking like this, the jury, will see him as a victim. It's all about perception here. Believe me we all know this criminaly insane psychopath is anything but a victim but the political atmosphere we live in including the overbearing outpouring of foxnews opinion hacks. All we need him to do now is to start crying "mommy, mommy, I'm innocent mommy"

And the judges, they can't be trusted either in this case. They've already shown way more leniency towards this killer than most other kid s that show up in court. The judge may be correct in this decision but given the amount of leniency they've shown, we can't be too sure his decision was not to favor the boy. After all his associations and past actions goes to his state of mind -- he's not as innocent as he looks--and his propensity for violence. There will be more rulings, we shall see.

[quakerboy]

16. I wonder how soon he will

murder again once they let him off.

[Rebl2]

21. Exactly!

[PSPS]

18. Judge Shroeder is determined to give Rittenhouse the kid glove treatment

On February 11, 2021, Judge Schroeder denied two requests by prosecutors to issue an arrest warrant and raise the bail of Kyle Rittenhouse, who is accused of shooting three men during a police brutality protest in the summer of 2020. Two of the men died. Rittenhouse moved for safety reasons without properly notifying prosecutors.

[ShazzieB]

30. This bit is encouraging...

"The 18-year-old argues he opened fire in self-defense after the men attacked him. Prosecutors say they have infrared video from an FBI surveillance plane that shows Rittenhouse followed and confronted the first man he shot."

I always thought the self-defense argument was a crock, but that sort of thing isn't always easy ro prove. This FBI surveillance video should help a lot!

[RVN VET71]

45. Was that the first man he murdered in his spree?

I know he murdered the skate board guy at close range, and I think the other guy pursuing him got shot in the arm. But if they got the goods on his first murder, he’s toast -- except for the very real possibility of jury nullification by a secret Trumpist.

[Sabrielo]

47. I disagree

His links to racist groups should be fair game.

[Evolve Dammit]

53. Anything less than murder conviction for Baby Face Nelson is a travesty; not betting though....

[LudwigPastorius]

56. "What you see, dear jury, is not a hardened racist flashing the White Power sign."

"Why, he's just indicating that everything is "OK" for people of all races and creeds in our great land of the free and home of the brave!"


I guess his lawyer will get to strike that bullshit argument out of his closing statement.