[W:423]Ritterhouse just got a bump by a good judge

[ASHES]

Do not care about the state lines, the purchase was illegal, Rittenhouse possessing it on a city street was illegal. Killing 2 and wounding another is illegal.
Rittenhouse is cooked.

Why did you respond to my post then? I was speaking directly to the claim he brought the gun across state lines.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Nobody is charged with that. Why do people keep bringing it up? If there's ever a trial on the issue, rest assured I will be there.

Better question is; why’re you posting bull shit that it wasn’t a straw man purchase?

I’m willing to wager that the illegal purchase of the M&P15 will be brought up during the trial. Likely, repeatedly.

The minor, Rittenhouse had no legal right to purchase the firearm that he later used to kill two and seriously wound a third.

 

[ASHES]

Better question is; why’re you posting bull shit that it wasn’t a straw man purchase?

I’m willing to wager that the illegal purchase of the M&P15 will be brought up during the trial. Likely, repeatedly.

The minor, Rittenhouse had no legal right to purchase the firearm that he later used to kill two and seriously wound a third.

It's a red herring. It is not relevant to any of the charges he is facing, and allegations of a straw purchase absolutely will not be brought up at this trial.

 

[Buckeyes85]

Better question is; why’re you posting bull shit that it wasn’t a straw man purchase?

I’m willing to wager that the illegal purchase of the M&P15 will be brought up during the trial. Likely, repeatedly.

The minor, Rittenhouse had no legal right to purchase the firearm that he later used to kill two and seriously wound a third.

Even though I think this kid is an idiot and I question his self defense argument, I'm not sure how it is relevant to the prosecution how he came to own the gun.

I guess it could be argued this kid was hell bent on being a vigilante and his willingness to enter into an illegal gun transaction in order to follow thru with it is relevant?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

It's a red herring. It is not relevant to any of the charges he is facing,

It is absolutely relevant. Reckless kid conspires with legal adult to illegally purchase a firearm that he later recklessly endangers (1st degree, 2 counts) others with.

and allegations of a straw purchase absolutely will not be brought up at this trial.

Wanna bet?

 

[US&THEM]

It's a red herring. It is not relevant to any of the charges he is facing, and allegations of a straw purchase absolutely will not be brought up at this trial.

It will absolutely be brought into the trial, it shows Rittenhouse blatant disregard for the law.

 

[US&THEM]

Even though I think this kid is an idiot and I question his self defense argument, I'm not sure how it is relevant to the prosecution how he came to own the gun.

I guess it could be argued this kid was hell bent on being a vigilante and his willingness to enter into an illegal gun transaction in order to follow thru with it is relevant?

The rifle is why Rittenhouse showed up and was the weapon he used to kill 2 and wound one. How he was able to get it is relevant.

 

[ASHES]

Allegations of an uncharged crime? In a criminal trial? Good luck.

 

[US&THEM]

Allegations of an uncharged crime? In a criminal trial? Good luck.

It all goes to Rittenhouse’s character and demeanor, all relevant. Explain why you believe that to be not true?

 

[ASHES]

It all goes to Rittenhouse’s character and demeanor, all relevant. Explain why you believe that to be not true?

Rule 404. Character Evidence; Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Even though I think this kid is an idiot and I question his self defense argument, I'm not sure how it is relevant to the prosecution how he came to own the gun.

I guess it could be argued this kid was hell bent on being a vigilante and his willingness to enter into an illegal gun transaction in order to follow thru with it is relevant?

^^ This.

 

[TurtleDude]

In order to advance his claim of self defense the court allows the victims to be called arsonists?

hasn't that been established?

 

[SCrider]

It will absolutely be brought into the trial, it shows Rittenhouse blatant disregard for the law.

HIs gun supplier knew it was illegal
Black appeared to know it was illegal to give the rifle to his underage friend. He recalled telling Rittenhouse, "In all reality, you are not supposed to have that gun. That gun was in my name."

Friend who bought rifle Kyle Rittenhouse used in Kenosha shooting charged

A 19-year-old Kenosha man has been charged with giving Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, the rifle he used to kill two people during August unrest in Kenosha

www.usatoday.com

 

[RaleBulgarian]

hasn't that been established?

No, it hasn’t.

 

[Phys251]

The defense gets to call them rioters if the defense provides evidence that they rioted.

Likewise, the prosecution can call Rittenhouse a murderer, if they provide evidence that he murdered.

This ruling was neither controversial, nor wrong. It's standard in a lot of places, and should be standard everywhere.

Doesn't address the point of the prosecution being forbidden from calling the victims victims.

Painting them as anything else should be up to the defense, not a judge with his thumb on the scale.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Rule 404. Character Evidence; Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts

www.law.cornell.edu

Have you even read your own reference?

Right off the bat; (A) a defendant may offer evidence of the defendant’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it;

Chew on it for a minute or two.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Doesn't address the point of the prosecution being forbidden from calling the victims victims.

Painting them as anything else should be up to the defense, not a judge with his thumb on the scale.

Schroeder’s decision on that matter makes sense. A victim, by definition, is someone that is injured/killed as a result of another’s criminal act.

The defense, before they can refer to the two killed and one injured as rioters, looters, and/or arsonists, must provide evidence that they actually committed any of those crimes last August 24th.

 

[US&THEM]

Rule 404. Character Evidence; Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts

www.law.cornell.edu

2) Permitted Uses. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.

 

[ASHES]

Have you even read your own reference?

Right off the bat; (A) a defendant may offer evidence of the defendant’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it;

Chew on it for a minute or two.

Yes, in very narrow circumstances, when the probative value outweighs the prejudicial value, such evidence may be admitted. That isn't this. I don't see it being introduced.

 

[ASHES]

2) Permitted Uses. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.

How exactly would they introduce this evidence? They can't have Black testify to it, he would plead the 5th. Can't play the police interview, the defense can not cross examine the accuser.

 

[US&THEM]

How exactly would they introduce this evidence? They can't have Black testify to it, he would plead the 5th. Can't play the police interview, the defense can not cross examine the accuser.

Present the paperwork, Blacks statements, Rittenhouse’s public statements etc. why can’t the police interview be played in open court?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Yes, in very narrow circumstances, when the probative value outweighs the prejudicial value, such evidence may be admitted. That isn't this. I don't see it being introduced.

Internet lawyer babble.

 

[ASHES]

Present the paperwork, Blacks statements, Rittenhouse’s public statements etc. why can’t the police interview be played in open court?

It is an accusation of a crime that can not be cross examined by the defendant. Same with any statements by Black. The paperwork says Black bought a rifle. That is true. The fact there haven't been any motions regarding excluding such evidence, I would say it isn't admitted.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

How exactly would they introduce this evidence? They can't have Black testify to it, he would plead the 5th. Can't play the police interview, the defense can not cross examine the accuser.

Rittenhouse’s admitted to conspiracy in committing a federal felony.

 

[US&THEM]

It is an accusation of a crime that can not be cross examined by the defendant. Same with any statements by Black. The paperwork says Black bought a rifle. That is true. The fact there haven't been any motions regarding excluding such evidence, I would say it isn't admitted.

What the F are you babbling on about? The person who sold the rifle to Black will be called, Blacks video will be shown because the detective will testify and on and on.