Can you PLEASE appear at the courthouse and tell the jury this? PLEASE! Nobody testified to this and we did not make a picture of this. We need you. You are the only one with the information that could put this murderer behind bars. Do you need a ride to Kenosha? You have information and the testimony that the jury needs.
ETA: Please do not read more. Just say this to the jury, exactly the way you are saying it here. Under oath. We have no witness testimony of this yet. Thank you. Thank you.
Watching too much Fox News isn't good for you.
The video, which was shown to the jury during prosecutors' closing statements on Monday, is key to their argument that Rittenhouse provoked the encounter with Rosenbaum by pointing his AR-15-style rifle near him, prompting him to chase Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse testified that he feared Rosenbaum would steal his gun and use it to shoot him.
In the video, a man wearing yellow pants tells Rittenhouse that the teenager had just pointed a gun at him for standing on a vehicle. Rittenhouse responds in the video, "Yeah I did."
In court, he testified that he had not actually pointed his weapon at the man and said his admission on video was "sarcasm."
I’m guessing Judge Schroeder was aware of this ruling. If he was then it’d make sense why he didn’t accept the LEO’s testimony as evidence of a lawful curfew order existing.
- Doc
You need to read farther in the article. The judge also held that the sheriff had constitutional authority to order the curfew. The problem was that a bunch of citations were issued under a statute that didn’t give him the authority. So the citations were thrown out. But, according to the judge, the curfew itself was valid. In other words, the people who were cited got off on a bona fide technicality.
But, ruling by trial judges aren’t generally binding on other trial judges in a different case. If they were, the judge in Relief Society case would have been compelled to find the curfew valid.
I read the whole article, bit just c&p’d the relevant part, at least I thought it was. I wasn’t quite tracking where Beth got the authority to invoke a curfew, and based off your comments I had to re-read the article and then open the ruling to figure it out. I assumed there’d be a formal process from the Gov to Beth. I also got tripped up when the argument that authority ‘passed’ to Beth because the Gov sent National Guardsmen to Kenosha was denied, so I assumed the state failed to formally give the Sheriff authority to invoke a curfew. So, you’re right, the ruling clearly lays out that the Sheriff has the right to invoke a curfew based off the ‘nature of the office’ and the Wisconsin constitution. No formal process is required. *shakes fist* You win again, you devil!
I still don’t see how breaking curfew forfeits your right to protect yourself. Like, fine you get busted for a curfew violation, so write him a ticket or charge him with a misdemeanor if you legally can. But that offense doesn’t magically terminate all his constitutional rights. It’s akin to running a red light while being chased, but because you ran the red light you forfeit any right to self-defense. That’s absurd.
ETA: Please do not read more. Just say this to the jury, exactly the way you are saying it here. Under oath. We have no witness testimony of this yet. Thank you. Thank you.
According to the news
Prosecutors want a video of Kyle Rittenhouse accepted into evidence that they say shows him talking about wanting to shoot people, footage taken about two weeks before Rittenhouse fatally shot two protesters in Wisconsin and wounded a third.
Prosecutors want a video of Kyle Rittenhouse accepted into evidence that they say shows him talking about wanting to shoot people, footage taken about two weeks before Rittenhouse fatally shot two protesters in Wisconsin and wounded a third.
It’s kinda brain breaking. The idea is that the prosecution’s decision not to charge the defendant with a crime doesn’t waive its ability to prosecute the charges it decides to pursue. The prosecutor doesn’t have to charge R with a crime in order to prove something that negates a defense.
In R’s case, was he on private property without permission of the owner? If so, the prosecutor can argue he has no right to be where he was. He doesn’t have to charge him with criminal trespass to argue that R didn’t have the right to be on private property without permission.
Oh my brain broke a few pages back so don't worry about it.
What private property are we talking about?
Hypothetical private property. The right to be there isn’t relevant in the actual case. It’s an issue under stand your ground laws, which Wisconsin doesn’t have. It isn’t an issue under the general self-defense privilege.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
