By Debra Heine
A judge has ruled that the three men who were shot by Kyle Rittenhouse during a riot in Kenosha, Wisconsin, last year, may not be referred to as victims during the trial, but defense attorneys may refer to them as “rioters,” “looters,” or “arsonists” as long as they provide evidence.
“If more than one of them were engaged in arson, rioting, looting, I’m not going to tell the defense you can’t call them that,” Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder said. On the other hand, “The word ‘victim’ is a loaded, loaded word,” he said. “‘Alleged victim’ is a cousin to it.”
The judge also said that prosecutors may use their own harsh terms to describe Rittenhouse, such as “cold-blooded killer,” as long as they back it up with evidence.
Judge Schroeder met with prosecutors and Rittenhouse’s defense team on Monday to lay out the final ground rules on what evidence will be allowed in the trial, which begins next week.
Schroeder told lawyers that he’ll permit testimony from the defense’s use-of-force expert and video evidence showing that police welcomed Rittenhouse and others who were carrying guns to protect businesses during the riot.
The shooting took place on August 25, 2020 at around 11:45 p.m. near a car dealership in Kenosha, as antifa/BLM rioters rampaged through town for the third night in a row following the police shooting of 29-year-old Jacob Blake.
Rittenhouse, then 17-years-old, said in an interview that night that he was there to help people. “If somebody gets hurt, I’m running into harm’s way. That’s why I have my rifle. I have to protect myself obviously. I also have my med kit,” he told the Daily Caller’s Richie McGinniss.
He has been charged with killing two men—Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber—and seriously injuring another, Gaige Grosskreutz.
Court Commissioner Loren Keating set Rittenhouse’s bail at $2 million on November 2, 2020. With some celebrity help from attorney Lin Wood, MY Pillow CEO Mike Lindell, and actor Ricky Schroder, Rittenhouse was able to raise the money and was released on November 20.
Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger had argued in a recent motion that Rittenhouse’s lawyers should be banned from using the terms, since prosecutors will be banned from referring to the dead or injured men as “victims.”
But Schroeder disagreed, saying the two scenarios were not the same. It’s common for judges across the country to ban the word “victim” during trials, because it implies that a crime was committed and could therefore prejudice a jury against a defendant.
But since Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz are not the ones on trial, Rittenhouse’s defense team is free to describe them as “rioters,” “looters,” or “arsonists” so long as they provide evidence that the men were rioting, looting, or committing arson, Schroeder said.
Prosecutors also wanted the judge to block the defense team from using use-of-force expert John Black to testify that Rittenhouse acted in self defense. Schroeder denied that request, but told attorneys that “Black wouldn’t be allowed to testify about what Rittenhouse was thinking when he pulled the trigger or whether he definitively acted in self-defense.”
“I almost certainly am not going to permit an opinion from anybody on the ultimate facts of the case,” he said.
one must remember that the assholes he killed were trying to kill him. how simple does it get
In addition to looters and rioters they can also be referred to as scumbags, dirtbags, criminals, pedophiles and general undesirable pieces of shit
Rittenhouse removed only two, there is much more work to be done…
Just call them leftists. That sums it up nicely.
“The judge also said that prosecutors may use their own harsh terms to describe Rittenhouse, such as “cold-blooded killer,” as long as they back it up with evidence.” That would be challenged since two of those shot had guns of their own. Also, the guy that attacked him with a skateboard didn’t bring it to the riot to bust some fancy moves; he was going to bust some heads.
It’s pathetic this is even getting a trial. The restraints and restrictions on cops had created a lawless environment. Since this is the atmosphere the left wants, they should not be shocked or surprised when someone gets killed. Since the police aren’t allowed to deal harshly with the terrorist gangs, why should civilian militias be chastised for dealing with it?
Where Democrats are in control, crime is out of control. Democrats are not going to do anything about it, so others will have to.
The Wis. Law, unfortunately, clearly states Kyle wasn’t allowed to have a rifle as he was under 18.
Still, he is brave and bold in defending the innocent and he’s also blameless in the encounters that ended the life of two attackers and made an already beta-male antifa member even more so.
Rittenhouse needs to be pardoned of the possession crime and sent into the military, asap.
We need men like him on the ramparts.
Nathan some liberal lied to you
Wisconsin law does not forbid the open carry of rifles and shotguns for people under the age of 18 only applies when the rifle is “short-barrel”.
Allowing a child younger than 14 access to a firearm without permission of a parent or guardian is only a misdemeanor if the child uses that gun to harm anyone or to show it off in a public place, unless that gun was safely stored.
I pray the kid gets a fair trial, so far it seems the Judge does’nt have his head up his arse.
I’d check that. You have to have parental supervision for a slew of “weapons” if you’re under 18.
greg…yes greg….provided this in a previous comment:
It wasn’t super clear, but…clear enough.
Am I reading it wrong?
And as it is written, if that’s the real law, it’s yet another Blue State slowly encroaching on the 2nd Amendment.
12 year olds are allowed to hunt with really, really big caliber rifles.
Plenty of wars were fought by 17 year olds…or even younger.
My question is, if Kyle is being tried as an adult, does the caveat suddenly go away?
Greg as a reliable source? 😛
Hey, I’m not like him. I look at the data and if I’m wrong, I’m wrong.
But as with all law, it’s not so clear as it seems at first.
948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
The article you cited doesn’t talk about .60, but just .40. It’s an incomplete analysis, in my opinion.
The “Dangerous Weapon” seems pretty clear: you can’t have one if without parents around.
This is from the state legislature website, so the law as I’m reading is what it is.
Wait, I messed that up,. Ignore my other post. They explain .60.
You’re right. Kyle is good.
Nathan a 14 year old can buy a hunting licence and go hunting alone. They are not chasing squirrels up a tree or throwing rocks.
You can pass a hunters safety course online.
Commies are expert at spreading Manure.
Check the date Walker signed the bill mentioned in the article into law the same year.
OMG it gives the choice to the Parent! We are so screwed! Toddlers in the Woods with assault weapons!
Like the couple in St Louis on trial for using a Gun to Defend their property from Trespassers who broke down a gate the one pressing charges against them should be arrested and thrown in Prison for Life
New Rittenhouse Shooting Footage Shows Kyle Chased, Shot at Before Firing at Joseph Rosenbaum
Should be a game changer. When it comes to self defense there is no minimum age. If rosenbaum was raping a teenage boy and the boy killed him, self defense, hard stop…