Kyle Rittenhouse trial

Post Reply New Topic

“When he was shot” works.

But we use “victim” with all sorts of violent actions. Stabbing victim. Assault victim. It takes gymnastics to never use the word.

The person who holds the gun is the shooter, and the person who gets shot is the victim. For whatever reason it never took off to call them the “gunshot recipient.”

It's different in a court of law, the word does carry prejudicial connotations. When would it ever be necessary to use the word? It's always "X was doing Y when they were shot", not "X was doing Y when they were the victim of a gunshot wound", it's almost like that thing reporters do to soften police negligence, "the officers were re-holstering their firearms when one discharged" rather than "One of the officers negligently fired their weapon". The name escapes me at the moment, but it's generally recognized as a fallacy.

Running scenarios in my head, I can see how the descriptive testimonies can work.

In many ways, I’m just fascinated to realize that the one word we commonly use to describe the recipient side of the action is a also word with clear implications that won’t always fit.

I won’t touch the whole set of words the defense will be allowed to use beyond saying it makes me uncomfortable.

And I definitely won’t touch the potential for a self-defense argument.

I will go there. It seems inconsistent for the judge to not allow a potentially prejudicial word to be used at all by the prosecutors but allow a number of potentially prejudicial words to be used by the defense albeit conditionally.

It's perfectly consistent considering who is on trial, and that they're only allowed to use the words in question if they can demonstrate that they're accurate. If Grossenkruetz where on trial for being a felon in possession and/or rioting related offenses, I'm sure he would receive the same considerations to avoid a mistrial.



Lots of unsupported assumptions there, as KR was documented cleaning graffiti and otherwise peacefully volunteering earlier in the day, so a better characterization would be someone who wanted to help out, and chose to do so while armed (prudently, as it turned out). Not a soul would have been harmed had they not attacked KR first, as can be seen in the numerous videos of the incident, he just would have gone home after standing around with a slung rifle for a few hours, no big deal.



Again, many unsupported assumptions there, I initially came to this story fully expecting to see a bad shooting after the headlines along the lines of "MAGA Teen Guns Down Peaceful Protestors!", only to look at the video and go "hmm, this actually looks like legit self defense" after seeing how he was attempting to flee and being actively attacked when all three shooting occurred. You can argue all you want about what a bad idea his going there was, I won't disagree, it was stupid to put himself in harms way, but that cuts both ways, as the 3 that he shot also shouldn't have been there, and they definitely shouldn't have attacked a kid who was actively trying to get away from them. If you watch very carefully, Huber actually shoots himself after hitting KR with his skateboard, as you can clearly see that he's got his hand on the rifle barrel and pulling it towards himself when he's shot in the abdomen, which would fire the gun if a finger was on the trigger (which was the case).

Tldr; I don't care what team the kid is on, the video shows legit self defense, and people have been tying themselves in rhetorical knots for over a year now trying to say otherwise, most of whom know nothing about guns, law, or self defense statutes.

This was unusual consideration given. The odds of a mistrial had the word “victim” been allowed seems minute.


Yes unsupported, that is why I put it in an off topic box and said first thing it was about personal feelings. A person can want to help a business by washing graffiti and come to the scene with the hope of being attacked so he can shoot some rioters or more likely threaten them. His trying to run away does not disprove play hero intent. Getting into an actual situation is different.

When I mentioned teams it was not about you personally.

The more I dug into the case, the more complex I realized it was. Which is why I want to trust the judicial process. Yes I have opinions, but I don’t see them as solid enough to share. What I also don’t see are any heroes, just misguided idealists that I remember feeling (mostly) unintentionally worked together to escalate the situation.

What I am solid on: KR should have stayed home, and no one needed to die.

Regardless of the outcome of this trial, one thing is for sure....Kyle Rittenhouse is a psychopathic little s**t.

Hi defense team have been rather busy burying evidence that incriminates the little psycho

1. He has an association with the far right Proud boys
2. He has an association with the far right Kenosha Militia
3.a cellphone video taken weeks before the shootings in Kenosha in which Mr. Rittenhouse suggested that he wished he had his rifle so he could shoot men leaving a pharmacy.
4.In September, the judge denied a request from prosecutors to admit a video taken several months before the shooting that showed Mr. Rittenhouse hitting a teenager in the midst of a fight that involved his sister.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/27/us/k ... ctims.html

The same could also be said for those who were shot...

Shhh, adults are talking.

disgusting legalistic hair-splitting.

Yes and no, the self defense claim is fairly straightforward, the only iffy part is the start of the incident involving Rosenbaum, but I'm fairly confident that is going to be ruled justified based on the video and other video of Rosenbaum aggressively provoking other people that night. I think it's going to come down to the fact that KR was actively fleeing at the point of all 3 shootings, even the most restrictive states allow lethal self defense when cornered, nothing else really matters. Given his age and inexperience, it's actually pretty remarkable that KR only shot the people who directly attacked him, that he held fire on Grossenkreutz even though he had a pistol in his hand until Grossenkreutz made a move first, and that all 3 had previous criminal records (which doesn't make them guilty but provides insight into their character and lack of impulse control).

People just want to project their own politics onto this and can't get past the fact that it's not illegal to walk around with a slung rifle, aside from a potential minor in possession charge here due to the age of KR at the time.



The same could be said of everyone present that night.

Adults are talking.

No, it's actually not, it's a common ruling in criminal defense trials:

https://reason.com/2021/10/27/giving-ky ... a-scandal/


Links in the piece.



I understand it's not about me, but the mind reading annoys me, you don't know what he was thinking and have no way of knowing, and I find people projecting their own beliefs onto others to be an irritating fallacy with this case in particular. Why would a person who just wants to shoot people show up with a med kit and a spend the day cleaning graffiti first? Such a person could easily have taken pot shots from a building or from a distance and gotten away with it in the confusion and chaos of the riot, rather than standing guard at a business and hoping someone attacked them. The evidence doesn't fit your conclusion, so I suspect you're bending the evidence to fit a predetermined narrative.

It's rather insightful that his views (and those of others on the site) appear to align so well with what Mr Lincoln wrote about in 1837:

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mob_rule

people who should know better, side with the perpetrator of evil, indeed acting as cheerleaders for it. there is no justification for what that kid did. none. and people here with their smartassed self-impressed wordplay who belittle me as "not an adult" can go suck eggs for all i care.