Kyle Rittenhouse, accused multi-murderer from Kenosha BLM shooting

[Thermal]

The exemptions exist. They should not simply be ignored. They too are plain language.

The judge even pointed out that the exemptions were nonsensical, and swallowed the statute. It was his basis for dropping the charge.

I agree that they had to be technically unenforceable, hence moot, but denying the intent of the No Minor Carry part seems opportunistic. Pretty sure Kyle didn't suss out the legalities before carrying that night.

 

[Ziggurat]

The judge even pointed out that the exemptions were nonsensical, and swallowed the statute. It was his basis for dropping the charge.

I agree that they had to be technically unenforceable, hence moot, but denying the intent of the No Minor Carry part seems opportunistic. Pretty sure Kyle didn't suss out the legalities before carrying that night.

The intent of the legislature doesn't matter if the law is moot.

But even if we accept that the intent was to prohibit minors from open carry, it would still be a malum in prohibitum law, and not a malum in se law. Which is why I'm not all that concerned by Kyle's failure to consult a lawyer beforehand.

 

[webfusion]

UPDATE: Kyle Rittenhouse is not enrolled at ASU.

He told Ashleigh Banfield in an interview with NewsNation that he took a “compassionate withdrawal” from two classes “because I got overwhelmed with trial coming on,” but that he plans to resume his education.

 

[Segnosaur]

It's more the deep pockets thing. It would be petty and expensive to sue an 18 year old with no assets and then hound him for life out of principle.

Of course if you think (like many do) that Rittenhouse was actually a murderer and should have been subject to real punishment for his actions, then you might think that hounding him for money might be considered a consolation prize. (Even if he will never be able to pay the full amount the courts might award.)

"You should be in jail... but we will have to make due with messing up your finances for the rest of your life".

 

[Segnosaur]

The judge even pointed out that the exemptions were nonsensical, and swallowed the statute. It was his basis for dropping the charge.

Dropping the charge might be more acceptable, had he done it earlier in the trial (when the prosecution would have had a chance to appeal his decision, and/or adjust their strategy.)

It was the last second "Now we are near the end I am dropping the charges" which bugged me so much.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Worms, centipedes, millipedes etc.
Also slugs, ewww.

Apparently hippos and rhinos too!
And for grins, let's add sea cucumbers, starfish, and my incompetent cat.

 

[smartcooky]

Dropping the charge might be more acceptable, had he done it earlier in the trial (when the prosecution would have had a chance to appeal his decision, and/or adjust their strategy.)

It was the last second "Now we are near the end I am dropping the charges" which bugged me so much.

Exactly. He literally had month to decide this, so you have to wonder why he waited until near the end of the trial if it wasn't to pull the rug out from under the prosecution's case in such a way that it made it near impossible for them to respond. IMO that is exactly why he waited.

Perhaps the prosecution could have immediately appealed that decision to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. They could have argued that the weapons charges were central to their case, and this would have held up the Rittenhouse trial until the WCA ruled or sent it back down.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Serious question: what do you think the intent of the law was that started with 'under 18 yo may not carry any dangerous weapon, including firearms'?

I'd say the intent of that law, as well as the other are reasonably clear... they just leave a grey area that is open to interpretation.

So this one says "kids can't go romping around with dangerous weapons" and the other implies "kids 16 and up are allowed to go hunting".

 

[smartcooky]

That cuts both ways. If Rosenbaum’s family sues, they can bring up his history as an insane pedophile, for example..

Nope. That can only happen if the defence can prove that Rittenhouse knew about them and knew their history before killing them. If their histories were unknown to Rittenhouse, then their histories are not probative. Introducing them violates the legal principle that disallows post hoc justification for murder.

 

[Thermal]

I'd say the intent of that law, as well as the other are reasonably clear... they just leave a grey area that is open to interpretation.

So this one says "kids can't go romping around with dangerous weapons" and the other implies "kids 16 and up are allowed to go hunting".

The fun part is that the No Minors with Weapons part also covers non-firearms weapons, like brass knuckles and nunchucks. If the judge's reading is correct, kids can carry those, too. So why have the statutory prohibition if it is globally negated by the add-ons? Seems to me the qualifiers should be subservient to the statute. In a Spirit of the Law state, they would.

My kid (freshly Esq-ed) agrees that wiggle room is often intentionally left, so as not to be so restrictive that it can be evaded with ease. But her reading of these Wisconsin laws is that it was quite literally the result of stupidity. No one bothered to proofread to see if they made sense when cutting and pasting amendments.

 

[Ziggurat]

Nope. That can only happen if the defence can prove that Rittenhouse knew about them and knew their history before killing them. If their histories were unknown to Rittenhouse, then their histories are not probative. Introducing them violates the legal principle that disallows post hoc justification for murder.

Nope. Again, Kyle can counter-sue for assault. Rosenbaum's propensity for violence and mental instability would be quite probative to his motivation to attack unprovoked. And Kyle's past history was just as unknown to Rosenbaum as Rosenbaum's was to Kyle.

 

[Ziggurat]

Exactly. He literally had month to decide this, so you have to wonder why he waited until near the end of the trial if it wasn't to pull the rug out from under the prosecution's case in such a way that it made it near impossible for them to respond. IMO that is exactly why he waited.

I agree that he shouldn't have waited till the end, but I disagree that this was the motive. It seems like the prosecution could still appeal. There was no verdict on the weapons charge since that was dismissed, so there's no double jeopardy in play by bringing back the charge if an appeal was successful. I don't think they will appeal because I think their appeal has little chance of success (plus prosecutorial misconduct is still in play which would make things harder for them), but I doubt the judge was trying to be devious. Waiting to the last minute to make a decision just seems like his style, which isn't a great style.

Perhaps the prosecution could have immediately appealed that decision to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. They could have argued that the weapons charges were central to their case, and this would have held up the Rittenhouse trial until the WCA ruled or sent it back down.

But it wasn't central to their case, and obviously so. Even if we assume that it was illegal for him to open carry, even if the charge wasn't dismissed, even if a jury convicted him on that charge, it wouldn't have constituted provocation, and it wouldn't have stripped him of the right to self defense. And none of Kyle's attackers knew he was under age, so they weren't motivated to attack him by seeing him break the law.

 

[Suddenly]

Nope. Again, Kyle can counter-sue for assault. Rosenbaum's propensity for violence and mental instability would be quite probative to his motivation to attack unprovoked. And Kyle's past history was just as unknown to Rosenbaum as Rosenbaum's was to Kyle.

Yeah. I'm not real sure that's the estate that should be suing.

There is also the issue that in a wrongful death action damages must be proven and a lot of that is tied into the value of a human life such as potential earnings, etc. So even if they establish liability there could be some sticky problems there because the whole "tearful family members testify about their loss" could present.... issues.


Which is the other reason Kyle cashing in would make a lawsuit more likely. If he were to come into 5 mil then these suits would/should be settled and there is no shortage of lawyers who would take it on contingency.

If he has no money the plaintiffs would need to finance a suit, Kyle probably raises a legal defense fund and it ends with a bunch of billable hours and a possible judgement suitable for framing and not much else.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yeah. I'm not real sure that's the estate that should be suing.

If he gets sued, he should absolutely counter-sue. Otherwise, yeah, definitely not worth the effort.

There is also the issue that in a wrongful death action damages must be proven and a lot of that is tied into the value of a human life such as potential earnings, etc. So even if they establish liability there could be some sticky problems there because the whole "tearful family members testify about their loss" could present.... issues.

Grosskreutz is suing the city. I haven't heard of any lawsuits against Rittenhouse yet. His acquittal doesn't prevent lawsuits against him, but they are a pretty good indicator that suing him successfully would be difficult. So we may well not see any.

 

[Suddenly]

If he gets sued, he should absolutely counter-sue. Otherwise, yeah, definitely not worth the effort.



Grosskreutz is suing the city. I haven't heard of any lawsuits against Rittenhouse yet. His acquittal doesn't prevent lawsuits against him, but they are a pretty good indicator that suing him successfully would be difficult. So we may well not see any.

I'm not sure liability would be that hard. Damages might be. Some level of negligence wouldn't be that hard to establish but there is also the degree of fault on the part of the injured and how that comes in plus negligence damages usually don't allow for punitives.

I'm mildly surprised nobody would go after the car lot. Sue Rittenhouse, allege the car lot was more or less his employer based on the claim he was given permission to help guard the place. Settle with the lot's insurance company. Keep 1/3. Go play golf.

I'm obviously not familiar with the details of Wisconsin tort law; like how they handle contributory/comparative or anything else so who knows.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm not sure liability would be that hard.

I think it would be. I think the jury would have to basically reach a different conclusion than the one in the criminal trial, that it wasn't self defense. If it is self defense, I don't think you can attach any liability. It is in principle possible for a civil jury to reach a different verdict, it happened to OJ, but I don't think such a jury will reach a different verdict.

I'm mildly surprised nobody would go after the car lot.

Oh, they may still. The fear of such a suit is undoubtedly why the owners lied about asking people to defend the lot.

 

[theprestige]

I think it would be. I think the jury would have to basically reach a different conclusion than the one in the criminal trial, that it wasn't self defense. If it is self defense, I don't think you can attach any liability. It is in principle possible for a civil jury to reach a different verdict, it happened to OJ, but I don't think such a jury will reach a different verdict.



Oh, they may still. The fear of such a suit is undoubtedly why the owners lied about asking people to defend the lot.

One recurring argument seems to be that Rittenhouse had no business being there that night, and that if he'd just stayed home then he would never have been attacked by a violent psycho. Thus, in a certain sense, it's his fault Rosenbaum is dead.

I don't buy that argument at all. But I can see how someone might think it could fly in civil court.

 

[Thermal]

One recurring argument seems to be that Rittenhouse had no business being there that night, and that if he'd just stayed home then he would never have been attacked by a violent psycho. Thus, in a certain sense, it's his fault Rosenbaum is dead.

I don't buy that argument at all. But I can see how someone might think it could fly in civil court.

The argument is not that he had no business there. Its that he went out of his way to put himself in a situation so dangerous that he prepared for shooting his way out of it (which he went on to do) for absolutely no reason other than to play Army. Which he played at the expense of other people's lives. Kenosha didn't need or request his hero for hire services, and private people shouldn't be contracting kids to sit on their destroyed buildings rooftops for "protection". He was not unwillingly caught in a killing situation. He brought the killing situation. .

 

[LondonJohn]

If he gets sued, he should absolutely counter-sue. Otherwise, yeah, definitely not worth the effort.



Grosskreutz is suing the city. I haven't heard of any lawsuits against Rittenhouse yet. His acquittal doesn't prevent lawsuits against him, but they are a pretty good indicator that suing him successfully would be difficult. So we may well not see any.

Too right it'd be difficult. The balance of probabilities standard in a civil case would, in effect, not be applicable to this particular incident. And that's because the entirety of Rittenhouse's culpability (and liability, in any civil suit) rests on the validity of his "self-defence" defence. Even in any civil case, lawyers for the plaintiff(s) would have to convince the court (just as in the criminal trial) that Rittenhouse must have been lying when he claimed he was acting in self-defence because he feared for his mortal safety just before he took each shot.

Unless counsel for the plaintiff(s) can do this - and I think there's little or no chance of that - then each and every civil suit will collapse. It will cost the plaintiff(s) a lot of money. Money they probably don't even have.

So even if, say, Rosenbaum's family wants to sue Rittenhouse, they'd first have to find a lawyer who was willing to advise them and present the case in court. But I'm not sure - given the very low odds of victory - that many lawyers would even want to take the case. After all, if they too believe there's very little chance of success, that means they'd eventually have to chase the plaintiff(s) for their far-from-insubstantial fees. Perhaps there's a lawyer somewhere who'd be prepared to take the case on a pro bono or no-win-no-fee basis....?

 

[LondonJohn]

The argument is not that he had no business there. Its that he went out of his way to put himself in a situation so dangerous that he prepared for shooting his way out of it (which he went on to do) for absolutely no reason other than to play Army. Which he played at the expense of other people's lives. Kenosha didn't need or request his hero for hire services, and private people shouldn't be contracting kids to sit on their destroyed buildings rooftops for "protection". He was not unwillingly caught in a killing situation. He brought the killing situation. .

But while all of that is true, it's simply irrelevant in the context of the homicides/assaults and Rittenhouse's defence to them.

Whatever one feels about Rittenhouse's motives and reasons, it's clear from the video evidence and witness testimony that Rittenhouse was being rushed/attacked each time when he reacted by raising his weapon and firing. And from that, coupled with the febrile and violent undertones on the streets that day, means that it proved impossible for the prosecution to convince the court that Rittenhouse's "self-defence" defence was a lie. The same will almost certainly be the case in any civil suit that might be brought against Rittenhouse.