Kenosha shooting suspect Kyle Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[Ten15]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/03/us/ky..._blogfooterold

(CNN)Kyle Rittenhouse was ordered Thursday to stand trial in the fatal shooting of two men and the wounding of another in August during protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

Rittenhouse appeared in a preliminary hearing via video conference, seated next to his attorney, whose motions to dismiss some of the pending charges against his client were denied by the court. He removed a mask over his nose and mouth at one point in the hearing while seated in his lawyer's office.

Rittenhouse faces charges that he killed Anthony M. Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum and wounded Gaige Grosskreutz during protests that followed the police shooting of Jacob Blake in Kenosha.

Kenosha County Commissioner Loren Keating, after hearing the testimony of a detective on the case, said the state had presented enough probable cause of felonies committed by the young man for the case to proceed to trial.

Rittenhouse will be arraigned January 5 in Kenosha County Circuit Court.

The 17-year-old faces two felony charges of homicide in the death of Rosenbaum and Huber, and a felony attempted homicide charge in the wounding of Grosskreutz.

Riettenhouse also is charged with possession of a dangerous weapon while under the age of 18, a misdemeanor, according to court records.

During the hearing, Rittenhouse's attorney, Mark Richards, accused prosecutors of presenting "a one-sided, stilted view" of events that night.
Richards introduced screenshots of surveillance video that he said showed his client acted in self-defense while being chased by a gun-toting protester. In another image, Rittenhouse appeared to be struck with a skateboard while on the ground.
Richards said the state had embarked on a "chaotic quest but the evidence is clear."

Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger said the state presented evidence showing Rittenhouse had committed a felony, and the question of self-defense was an issue for trial.

Binger also argued against Richards' attempt to dismiss the charge of possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under the age of 18, saying the teen "went running around the streets of Kenosha after curfew with a very dangerous weapon."

"We don't trust them (minors) with these weapons because of exactly what happened in this case," Binger said.

Rittenhouse was released from custody after posting $2 million in bail earlier this month. Attorney Lin Wood said in a tweet that Mike Lindell, CEO of My Pillow Inc., and actor Ricky Schroder helped raise the "required $2M cash bail" for Rittenhouse.

Two questions arise here.

How many years in prisons should he get for these deaths? It's clear we need justice after these tragic events.
How did he get 2 million dollars for cash bail? Very troubling that people actually contributed to this?

[Endus]

How many years in prisons should he get for these deaths? It's clear we need justice after these tragic events.

He armed himself illegally and inserted himself into what he at least presumed was a dangerous situation (as demonstrated by his choice to arm himself). That puts self-defense basically off the table from the get-go. It demonstrates pretty clear intent.

The actual year sentence is gonna be up to a jury and exactly what level of a murder charge they deem he should be convicted for, but I'd be shocked if it were less than 10 years, given that there's two murders and an aggravated assault, at a bare minimum. I think he deserves significantly more, but whatever.

How did he get 2 million dollars for cash bail? Very troubling that people actually contributed to this?

Bail bondsmen usually require, IIRC, 10% of the bond, so $200,000. Pretty reasonable expectation between family savings and donations by crazy fascist white supremacists.

[Rustedsaint]

It said where He got the 2 million from in your post, it’s from crowdfunding and thanks to a ceo/actor chipping in.
Kinda of a mixed feeling about this one, on one hand if he didn’t run around after curfew he probably wouldn’t been in this situation, but Then again the people who allegedly assaulted(op post states he was being chased by an armed protester) him before hand weren’t suppose to be out either.
Have to wait and see how this one turns out.

[beanman12345]

He armed himself illegally and inserted himself into what he at least presumed was a dangerous situation (as demonstrated by his choice to arm himself). That puts self-defense basically off the table from the get-go. It demonstrates pretty clear intent.

The actual year sentence is gonna be up to a jury and exactly what level of a murder charge they deem he should be convicted for, but I'd be shocked if it were less than 10 years, given that there's two murders and an aggravated assault, at a bare minimum. I think he deserves significantly more, but whatever.



Bail bondsmen usually require, IIRC, 10% of the bond, so $200,000. Pretty reasonable expectation between family savings and donations by crazy fascist white supremacists.

Bail bonds industry is prohibited in Wisconsin. He got the whole 2 million, from donations by crazy fascist white supremacists. I'm sure his family savings but very small % of that.

[jonnysensible]

Bail bondsmen usually require, IIRC, 10% of the bond, so $200,000. Pretty reasonable expectation between family savings and donations by crazy fascist white supremacists.

my pillow guy coughed up a bunch of it

[cubby]

He armed himself illegally and inserted himself into what he at least presumed was a dangerous situation (as demonstrated by his choice to arm himself). That puts self-defense basically off the table from the get-go. It demonstrates pretty clear intent.

The actual year sentence is gonna be up to a jury and exactly what level of a murder charge they deem he should be convicted for, but I'd be shocked if it were less than 10 years, given that there's two murders and an aggravated assault, at a bare minimum. I think he deserves significantly more, but whatever.



Bail bondsmen usually require, IIRC, 10% of the bond, so $200,000. Pretty reasonable expectation between family savings and donations by crazy fascist white supremacists.

@Ten15 & @beanman12345-

Ricky Schroeder put up the money.

Kyle ought to get life in prison.

[beanman12345]

@Ten15 & @beanman12345-

Ricky Schroeder put up the money.

Kyle ought to get life in prison.

Thank you for this. It was something that concerned me, I'm glad it was one guy who did it, and when Rittenhouse hopefully does show up in court then the money will be refunded to this guy. Concerned me that when it was gonna be a gofundme type fundraising bullshit where when the the 2 millions was refunded it would be split between the family and lawyer profiting off the murder of these 2 guys and attempted murder of the third. I mean people are free to just give his family all the money they want, but lin wood doesn't have the scruples required to return all the money donated for the bond. I hope when when Kyle enters the courthouse for his sentencing, it'll be his last day ever as a free man.

[Zeth Hawkins]

Based on video evidence and Wisconsin law, zero years.

[Stormspellz]

10 years per murder, as he crossed state line with an illegal weapon, drove aprx 45min, while looking for a fight, there is no self defense case here

[Doctor Amadeus]

Seeing as he is a Minor and considering where this trial is likely to take place, the shift in blame the mother and people defending Kyle seem to be taking I am guessing 5-10

[D Luniz]

Seeing as he is a Minor and considering where this trial is likely to take place, the shift in blame the mother and people defending Kyle seem to be taking I am guessing 5-10

just gonna point out how POC often get tried as adults younger than 17, so gonna be depressing interesting to see how that plays out

[postman1782]

Based on video evidence and Wisconsin law, zero years.

Then you didn't watch ALL of the video evidence, and don't know Wisconsin law, as Wisconsin is a "Castle Doctrine" state, and since he wasn't defending his own property, he will get lots of Time.

[Doctor Amadeus]

just gonna point out how POC often get tried as adults younger than 17, so gonna be depressing interesting to see how that plays out

Yep you are spot on, the media and some have already magically made Kyle just a baby and a good clean and confused kid blah blah blah bullshit! If a POC does the same what a Monster how could this happen. But Kyle OMFG how did society fail him.

[LilSaihah]

I expect he'll be acquitted.

Should he be?... Ehhh. Everybody in this situation is a grade-A retard.

[cubby]

Yep you are spot on, the media and some have already magically made Kyle just a baby and a good clean and confused kid blah blah blah bullshit! If a POC does the same what a Monster how could this happen. But Kyle OMFG how did society fail him.

Just more of the entitlement of systematic racism. Had this been someone not-white, he would have been gunned down in the street.

- - - Updated - - -

10 years per murder, as he crossed state line with an illegal weapon, drove aprx 45min, while looking for a fight, there is no self defense case here

If the prosecution is smart, they will throw the whole kitchen sink at him. Felony murder, 2nd degree, Manslaughter - plus the non-murder charges.

[TheramoreIsTheBomb]

give him the death penalty. he took lives.

[Krastyn]

Acquitted of the murder / assault charges, guilty of the gun charge.

As the laws are currently written:
- Carrying / using an illegal weapon does not preclude you from claiming self defense
- Going to a place you may suffer harm does not preclude you from claiming self defense
- You could post earlier in the day day that you're going to go fight somoene, and it still does not preclude you from claiming self defense

What matters is the specific situation, and what evidence is shown. What will work in his favor is the amount of video evidence showing him being chased, including by armed people, and people calling for others to inflict harm upon him.

Pretty much the entire case will come down to whether or not the jury thinks that if Rittenhouse had not shot Rosenbaum, would he have likely suffered serious bodily injury.

Before the usual folk cry "He must suffer great bodily harm, not just serious bodily injury", the legal definition of great bodily harm in Wisconsin is:

“Great bodily harm" means bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ or other serious bodily injury.

I think they will be able to find a few jurors who think that. Will likely come down to what other evidence is brought up in court that hasn't been shown yet.

While you can use an illegal gun in self-defense, it doesn't clear you of the fact you had the illegal gun. So he'll get convicted of that, which I believe is a max sentence of 9 months.

Along the lines of reasoning made here:
https://t.co/kC3UybMg1m?amp=1
https://lawofselfdefense.com/rittenhouse-1/
https://www.bloombergquint.com/gadfl...sted-gun-logic

[Endus]

Acquitted of the murder / assault charges, guilty of the gun charge.

As the laws are currently written:
- Carrying / using an illegal weapon does not preclude you from claiming self defense
- Going to a place you may suffer harm does not preclude you from claiming self defense
- You could post earlier in the day day that you're going to go fight somoene, and it still does not preclude you from claiming self defense

Choosing to carry a weapon into a particular situation when you don't normally carry a weapon shows intent; you are aware of some level of danger and are preparing yourself to react with violence.

If you've armed yourself and gone to that place, and then escalate the level of violence to lethal force at first blush, you can't argue self defense. Self defense requires you use the minimum force necessary to end the threat, and in Wisconsin specifically, lethal force is only justifiable in self defence if there's an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm (and, again, "great bodily harm" means permanent crippling/disabling/disfiguring, not just being hurt a lot).

And if you post that you're going to a place to get into a fight, and you end up getting into that fight? You can't claim self defense at all; you've admitted to intent and motive. If you were both planning to fight, there's no criminal charge; you both chose to beat each other up. If you went somewhere to provoke someone into attacking you, though? Yeah, this concretely defuses any possible claim of self defense. I have no clue where you got the idea it wouldn't.

What matters is the specific situation, and what evidence is shown. What will work in his favor is the amount of video evidence showing him being chased, including by armed people, and people calling for others to inflict harm upon him.

Horseshit.

The first shooting, he was chased by one guy, who was unarmed and never laid a hand on him. You can't construe that he posed a lethal threat to Rittenhouse.

The second and third shooting? Rittenhouse had already killed a guy. He was an active shooter, shooting protestors. You can't seriously be arguing that they weren't justified in bringing Rittenhouse down in that situation. You've got self-defense completely backwards, there; Rittenhouse did pose a clearly lethal threat, and thus they were entitled to use any level of force necessary to end that threat. They could have pre-emptively shot Rittenhouse, and that would've been a justified self-defense shooting. Not any of Rittenhouse's.

Pretty much the entire case will come down to whether or not the jury thinks that if Rittenhouse had not shot Rosenbaum, would he have likely suffered serious bodily injury.

Before the usual folk cry "He must suffer great bodily harm, not just serious bodily injury", the legal definition of great bodily harm in Wisconsin is:

I think they will be able to find a few jurors who think that. Will likely come down to what other evidence is brought up in court that hasn't been shown yet.

And that doesn't mean what you apparently think. That "serious bodily injury" is something on par with those other examples; it's included so there are no loopholes. If someone were to beat you bloody and leave you lying bruised and beaten in the street, unconscious, that's not "serious bodily injury", legally speaking.

You'd also have to demonstrate that Rittenhouse had a justifiable reason to believe that kind of harm was imminent. Rosenbaum yelled at him a bit and chased him a bit. That's it. Never laid a finger on him. There's no audible threat of violence made. That's a massive uphill battle to try and argue. It doesn't matter what Rittenhouse imagined Rosenbaum might do to him. What matters is if it was reasonable to think Rosenbaum was definitely about to hurt him that badly. Overactive imaginations are not justifications of self-defense, and a panicky kid shooting pre-emptively means that kid is a murderer.

Also, your sources are three opinion pieces, and the middle one's a lawyer whose entire blog is about framing self-defense claims in the most legally advantageous light. Listening to that kind of guy on these issues is like listening to a defence attorney when he says his client pleads "not guilty". Those arguments largely aren't going to survive contact with the prosecution's case.

[postman1782]

Acquitted of the murder / assault charges, guilty of the gun charge.

As the laws are currently written:
- Carrying / using an illegal weapon does not preclude you from claiming self defense
- Going to a place you may suffer harm does not preclude you from claiming self defense
- You could post earlier in the day day that you're going to go fight somoene, and it still does not preclude you from claiming self defense

What matters is the specific situation, and what evidence is shown. What will work in his favor is the amount of video evidence showing him being chased, including by armed people, and people calling for others to inflict harm upon him.

Pretty much the entire case will come down to whether or not the jury thinks that if Rittenhouse had not shot Rosenbaum, would he have likely suffered serious bodily injury.

Before the usual folk cry "He must suffer great bodily harm, not just serious bodily injury", the legal definition of great bodily harm in Wisconsin is:


I think they will be able to find a few jurors who think that. Will likely come down to what other evidence is brought up in court that hasn't been shown yet.

While you can use an illegal gun in self-defense, it doesn't clear you of the fact you had the illegal gun. So he'll get convicted of that, which I believe is a max sentence of 9 months.

Along the lines of reasoning made here:
https://t.co/kC3UybMg1m?amp=1
https://lawofselfdefense.com/rittenhouse-1/
https://www.bloombergquint.com/gadfl...sted-gun-logic

He wasn't defending himself though, he went there, illegally carrying a gun, and thought someone shot at him, because someone else fired in the air, which is why he got the 2nd degree murder charge for the first killing, then 1st degree after he killed the 2nd guy. Again, Wisconsin is a Castle Doctrine state, since he wasn't defending his own property, he was REQUIRED to run, and all the videos show that no one had touched him, til after he pointed his gun at people, illegally. And your shitty blog sites don't help your argument.

[Krakan]

Based on video evidence and Wisconsin law, zero years.

It seems the most likely outcome its telling that they immediately abandoned going for a murder charge... the video evidence clears him so heavily I can't really see him loosing the case. They might plead him out though.

- - - Updated - - -

He wasn't defending himself though, he went there, illegally carrying a gun, and thought someone shot at him, because someone else fired in the air, which is why he got the 2nd degree murder charge for the first killing, then 1st degree after he killed the 2nd guy. Again, Wisconsin is a Castle Doctrine state, since he wasn't defending his own property, he was REQUIRED to run, and all the videos show that no one had touched him, til after he pointed his gun at people, illegally. And your shitty blog sites don't help your argument.

I mean the videos clearly show him running and being pursued... one of the men chasing him was a convicted felon who pulled a weapon on him and he was assaulted.

I understand here that is just considered a friendly how do you do but I can't see a court interpretation of that as anything but deadly assault.