Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

[Jersey Girl]

That’s regarding the person who provides the firearm if I’m reading it correctly.

- Doc

You may be right. I wonder if any effort has gone toward finding the person who sold/gave/lent him the gun.

Christ, I'd never be a lawyer. Laws are written in the most cryptic way possible (I'm guessing to give lawyers something to argue about). Insert paragraph A in subsection B.

At the very least, he's guilty of a misdemeanor.

I believe they already know how he got the gun. I'll try to find something on that for you.

I posted the law on this thread but couldn't find one of the sub sections that was referred to in it regarding barrel length. I agree that the laws are written in a confusing way. Both the judge and the attorneys had issues trying to interpret it.

We really don't know what might be guilty of. The prosecution is dicking around with lesser charges that carry lesser penalties right now. Likely because the prosecution knows they are about to lose the case.

[Jersey Girl]

Nope. I don't care enough to watch it. Based on what I've heard about the judge, I have my doubts about it being a fair trial anyway.

I still want to know why his alleged PTSD is relevant to the outcome of the trial.


He was a minor carrying a firearm that he discharged killing people. Earlier in the thread, I quoted the Wisconsin law he broke from your post.

The judge is a racist because he said "Asian food " And possibly a Republican since he made a joke about the Long Beach supply chain crisis.

What's funny is that liberals usually favor judges inclined see for the defense. But not in this case.. i wonder why

What on earth is wrong with you that you are too lazy or disinterested to listen to what the judge actually said and yet you make comment as if what you are saying is true? It wasn't just the Asian food comment. I'll let you go hunt down the remainder of his remarks to see why he's being criticized.

[Jersey Girl]

I still want to know why his alleged PTSD is relevant to the outcome of the trial.

Good question.

No it's not a good question. The possible fact that he has PTSD has no bearing on the case whatsoever.

[Jersey Girl]

Good question. Maybe people think it speaks to whether he truly believed he was about to die or whatever.

If that's people's reasoning, that's insane. For one thing, the 'P' in PTSD stands for "post" meaning it's after the fact. He suffered significant, lasting trauma in the moment before he shot people?

And if he's that much of a snowflake, he certainly has no business carrying a loaded rifle.

Yes, fight or flight. PTSD has nothing to do with being a snowflake. Jesus, Schmo.

[Jersey Girl]

That’s regarding the person who provides the firearm if I’m reading it correctly.

- Doc

You may be right. I wonder if any effort has gone toward finding the person who sold/gave/lent him the gun.

This article explains how he got the gun. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/10/us/r ... rifle.html

[Jersey Girl]

It isn't relevant to the outcome of the trial and no one has claimed that.

If it's irrelevant, why are you arguing he has it?

Because some folks have claimed he was faking it in court.

[Some Schmo]

Good question.

No it's not a good question. The possible fact that he has PTSD has no bearing on the case whatsoever.

It had to be a good enough question for you to answer it. Otherwise, why bother?

Yes, fight or flight. PTSD has nothing to do with being a snowflake. Jesus, Schmo.

Fight or flight... while you're sporting a semi-automatic. OK, then. I mean, wtf did the kid expect? This is what the damned gun nuts don't get: how is anyone supposed to know who the damned good guy with the gun is?

It's supposed to be the boys in blue. Unless you're wearing a uniform, you look like an active shooter, no matter how well-intentioned you think you are.

Because some folks have claimed he was faking it in court.

I hope the tears were real. I hope killing people made an impact on him. I hope he feels awful about it and that it haunts him forever, and not just because he's in trouble. Maybe he does have a conscience.

I do remember when I was a kid and in trouble, pouring on the waterworks never hurt my case. So there's that.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

You may be right. I wonder if any effort has gone toward finding the person who sold/gave/lent him the gun.

This article explains how he got the gun. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/10/us/r ... rifle.html

It’s behind a firewall for me, even in incognito mode. Any chance you could copy and paste it so I can read the article? I’m kind of interested in who was the adult that played a role in this mess.

- Doc

[Some Schmo]

Kyle Rittenhouse’s trial has returned again and again to the semiautomatic rifle he used to kill two men and wound a third during the unrest in Kenosha, Wis., last year. The gun — a Smith & Wesson M&P 15 — and the decisions he made while carrying it in a chaotic protest zone figure prominently as the defense offers its case and Mr. Rittenhouse testifies.

One of the six criminal counts he faces is possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 (he was 17 at the time of the shootings). He has pleaded not guilty, but it remains to be seen how his lawyers will try to defend him from that charge.

The jury has seen plentiful video images showing Mr. Rittenhouse walking the streets of Kenosha on the night of Aug. 25, 2020, with the rifle dangling by the sling he bought at a sporting goods store that day.

Mr. Rittenhouse spent that evening with a group of people who said they had gone downtown to try to guard businesses from vandalism and arson. Several people in the group carried similar guns, which generally is legal for adults to do in Wisconsin, an “open carry” state.

That added to the peril in Kenosha, according to a witness who testified in the trial last week: Richie McGinniss, a videographer for the conservative website The Daily Caller, who visited a number of cities roiled by protests that summer.

“Any time that there are guns, that elevates the level of danger in my mind,” Mr. McGinniss said on the stand.

A friend of Mr. Rittenhouse’s, Dominick Black, was carrying his own semiautomatic rifle in Kenosha that night. Mr. Black testified that he used Mr. Rittenhouse’s money to buy a comparable rifle for him at a hardware store in northern Wisconsin in May 2020, when Mr. Black was 18 but Mr. Rittenhouse was underage. They took target practice together on land owned by Mr. Black’s family, Mr. Black testified.

Mr. Black is charged with two felony counts of providing the gun to Mr. Rittenhouse. He acknowledged on the stand that he was testifying for the prosecution in the hope of a lighter sentence on those charges.

Mr. Black testified that he kept Mr. Rittenhouse’s gun stored at his family home in Kenosha. When the unrest broke out in Kenosha, Mr. Black said, his stepfather took guns out of a safe in the garage and moved them into the house in case of a break-in. On the day of the shooting, before Mr. Black and Mr. Rittenhouse went downtown, Mr. Black saw his friend come upstairs with the rifle, Mr. Black testified.

Though Mr. Rittenhouse had not asked permission to take the gun along, Mr. Black said he did nothing to dissuade Mr. Rittenhouse from doing so when they went downtown, intending to help guard several used-car lots.

[K Graham]

Good question.

No it's not a good question. The possible fact that he has PTSD has no bearing on the case whatsoever.

When the defendant defends his actions based on the claim that he had a credible fear for his life, then being diagnosed with PTSD could clearly be used to strengthen that argument. Being in real "life/death" situations is what causes PTSD. If he doesn't really have PTSD then it begs the question, did he really believe he was going to be killed? And if not, then why take the lives of others? Since that is the basis of his defense, it seems relevant to me. But the prosecutor sucks so badly one has to wonder if he's wanting a mistrial.