Judges have way too much power

[Jarlaxle]

There should not even be a trial; the boy was attacked by three vigilantes bent on a lynching; all he did was defend himself. The vigilantes could have called the police but wanted to punish the boy themselves. What was the boy's crime? He wanted to volunteer to be an unpaid security guard, to do a good deed. Well, the vigilantes' desire for brutal fun got two of them killed; that seems like justice to me.

This.

[Bicycle Bill]

Jarl, lib — "an unpaid security guard"?   Seriously??   It's been said that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and with references like this in your prior post you certainly provide proof of that.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, although I think it's more a case of a kid with too much testosterone and an AR-15 wanting to be a "Macho Man" and it blew up in his face.   And of course two of the three people who YOU describe as "vigilantes" are dead — and since dead men tell no tales, we will probably never know the full story of what transpired and who first accosted whom and for what reasons.

For the record, though ... a 'vigilante' is defined as "a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate" — so if anything, the KID was the vigilante.   And since Kenosha wasn't even his own community, he actually becomes more of a transient man-at-arms than anything else.   I'm sure, if he was thinking of anything other than getting to posture with his bang-stick, he was seeing himself as a noble and virtuous paladin coming to right a wrong, misguided though his beliefs may have been.

But the fact remains that if the "unpaid security guard" had stayed south of the Wisconsin/Illinois border, none of this would have happened.

-"BB"-

[Burning Petard]

I have lived in Missouri, Michigan, Delaware and I don't remember any 'judge' role that was regularly listed on a ballot. Missouri had a system where the state supreme court judges would be appointed (as were the lower judges) but after a time they would be on the ballot on a pass/fail basis. If one was voted out, the Governor appointed the replacement.

as always my memory is no authority. Do your own research. snailgate.

[Crackpot]

You most not have been paying attention. District court justices are on the ballot in MI

[Long Run]

And once they become a judge, they almost never have anyone run against them.

[Jarlaxle]

Jarl, lib — "an unpaid security guard"?   Seriously??   It's been said that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and with references like this in your prior post you certainly provide proof of that.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, although I think it's more a case of a kid with too much testosterone and an AR-15 wanting to be a "Macho Man" and it blew up in his face.   And of course two of the three people who YOU describe as "vigilantes" are dead — and since dead men tell no tales, we will probably never know the full story of what transpired and who first accosted whom and for what reasons.

For the record, though ... a 'vigilante' is defined as "a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate" — so if anything, the KID was the vigilante.   And since Kenosha wasn't even his own community, he actually becomes more of a transient man-at-arms than anything else.   I'm sure, if he was thinking of anything other than getting to posture with his bang-stick, he was seeing himself as a noble and virtuous paladin coming to right a wrong, misguided though his beliefs may have been.

But the fact remains that if the "unpaid security guard" had stayed south of the Wisconsin/Illinois border, none of this would have happened.

-"BB"-

Kyle was attacked and only fired when his life was in immediate danger. (Indeed, he displayed poise and discipline of a veteran soldier.)

[ex-khobar Andy]

What we know: Rittenhouse journeyed 20 miles to the show, armed to the teeth; and he killed two people and wounded another. There is no dispute about these facts.

What some conjecture: he was a trigger happy under age idiot who wanted to get himself some liberal ass and he shot willingly and eagerly to accomplish this objective.

What some others conjecture: he was a responsible patriot who successfully defended himself and others against Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber and Gaige Grosskreutz who were bent on mayhem.

This is why we have trials. It's possible that the truth is somewhere between these extremes.

Unfortunately justice is binary. If Rittenhouse is (like George Zimmerman before him) found to be not guilty - because we want proof beyond any reasonable doubt before we find anyone guilty - then Messrs Rosenbaum and Huber and Grosskreutz will (like Trayvon Martin before them) be forever tagged as aggressive fuckwits who deserved all they got.

[MGMcAnick]

Yikes! Was that a justice of the peace I hope? I don’t know of any states that allow a felony level judge to be a non lawyer, but I suppose there might be some still. Most states now have judge training for all level state judges but of course there is only so much you can teach to non lawyers in a short period of time - I’ve seen and been victim of some truly idiotic rulings from Montana JPs who have no legal training requirement except a few weeks of judge school.

There IS training for judges, but I don't know how extensive it is. Yes a county judge does hear felony cases. AFAIK the Justice of Peace position no longer exists here. I've never heard of one.

According to Google:
A nominee for district magistrate (county) judge must be:
a resident of the county at the time of taking office and while holding office;
a graduate of a high school, a secondary school, or the equivalent; and
either a lawyer admitted to practice in Kansas or able to pass an examination given by the Supreme Court to become certified within 18 months.​

Butch the barber must have studied a lot harder than he did in high school.

I also knew a guy who served as a judge for several small towns in the area. Once every two weeks he made the rounds and heard traffic and other small cases in towns as small as 300 and large as 8000 residents. He died last year.

[Big RR]

As I recall, there are around 10 states which permit non lawyers to be judges (Including NY); indeed, as I recall, federal magistrates (limited jurisdiction judges with a term that expires) and bankruptcy court judges do not need to be lawyers, although most are.

[Bicycle Bill]

There IS training for judges, but I don't know how extensive it is. Yes a county judge does hear felony cases. AFAIK the Justice of Peace position no longer exists here. I've never heard of one.

According to Google:
A nominee for district magistrate (county) judge must be:
a resident of the county at the time of taking office and while holding office;
a graduate of a high school, a secondary school, or the equivalent; and
either a lawyer admitted to practice in Kansas or able to pass an examination given by the Supreme Court to become certified within 18 months.​

Amazing that the judge must be a lawyer or able to pass a legal exam, but when you have a case like Rittenhouse's the evidence and arguments are going to be heard and a decision handed down by a jury of twelve people who, in a worst-case scenario, are so uneducated in legal matters that they couldn't even SPELL the word 'lawyer'.

-"BB"-

[Sue U]

Amazing that the judge must be a lawyer or able to pass a legal exam, but when you have a case like Rittenhouse's the evidence and arguments are going to be heard and a decision handed down by a jury of twelve people who, in a worst-case scenario, are so uneducated in legal matters that they couldn't even SPELL the word 'lawyer'.

A jury does not decide questions of law;* a jury decides questions of fact, and then applies the law, as instructed by the judge, to those facts: "If you find that [some factual issue has been proven or not], then the law requires/allows you to return a verdict [for whatever]."


__________________________
* The only time a jury "decides the law" is in an instance of jury nullification.

[Scooter]

[Joe Guy]

I've watched some of the Rittenhouse trial on YouTube. The judge is a little wacky and seems to be on the side of the defendant. If you want to remain calm, don't read the comments under the videos.

I've seen the comment, "Kyle is a hero" written many times. The only reason I can think that anyone would call him a hero is that they believe that a minor who is illegally carrying a firearm and travels to another state where a riot is taking place and ends up killing two people and severely injuring another should be praised.

And since I think Kyle will likely not be convicted for killing anyone, I'm wondering if he can be found liable in a civil trial. And if he is, since he was a minor at the time, would his parents have liability?

[Sue U]

And since I think Kyle will likely not be convicted for killing anyone, I'm wondering if he can be found liable in a civil trial.

Yes. See, e.g. O.J. Simpson.

And if he is, since he was a minor at the time, would his parents have liability?

Most probably not, unless it can be shown that they either equipped, assisted and/or encouraged him to go to Kenosha. Although if he is found to be negligent, his parents' homeowners insurance (if they have any) would most probably be the primary source of recovery.

[Joe Guy]

And since I think Kyle will likely not be convicted for killing anyone, I'm wondering if he can be found liable in a civil trial.

Yes. See, e.g. O.J. Simpson.

And if he is, since he was a minor at the time, would his parents have liability?

Most probably not, unless it can be shown that they either equipped, assisted and/or encouraged him to go to Kenosha. Although if he is found to be negligent, his parents' homeowners insurance (if they have any) would most probably be the primary source of recovery.

Thanks for the response. I remembered the OJ civil trial but I didn't know if there might be some type of exemption for a minor.

[Econoline]

And if he is, since he was a minor at the time, would his parents have liability?

Most probably not, unless it can be shown that they either equipped, assisted and/or encouraged him to go to Kenosha. Although if he is found to be negligent, his parents' homeowners insurance (if they have any) would most probably be the primary source of recovery.

Didn't his mother do both of those things? (i.e., bought him a weapon he was not legally allowed to possess, and drove him from their home in Antioch, Illinois, to the riot unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin. [Not sure if mommy drove back to Wisconsin to pick up her baby after he shot three people and the police didn't bother to arrest him—despite his trying to surrender. He turned himself in in Illinois, after being charged in Wisconsin...presumably the police gave him a free ride back to Wisconsin for his arraignment?])

[BoSoxGal]

She must have because she was with him when he turned himself in to police. She should be liable for taking him there and encouraging him to break the law by running around with a gun.

What I would really like to know is why did Wisconsin not do a better job of putting on this prosecution? For the George Floyd trial the Minnesota AG’s office took the lead and hired outside counsel to assist the county attorney and they put on a textbook perfect prosecution.

This poor guy leading the Rittenhouse prosecution seems hapless - I can’t say I’ve watched a lot of the trial but what I’ve seen hasn’t been good and while the judge is clearly a showboat/asshole, the prosecution has made many errors to draw his ire. The Wisconsin AG is a Democrat - why didn’t he step in and provide assistance with this case? Major cases all over the country are often handled by AG’s office attorneys or with their assistance when a local office needs help, and most do. The Kenosha County DA is also a Democrat, and has been notably missing from involvement in this case, leaving it all to his assistant.

It’s all politics. It should be about justice but it never fucking is. Yes it can be very hard to beat a self defense claim depending on the statutes, but these victims deserved better and since Rittenhouse broke the law in the first place by being there with a firearm as a minor, the self defense statute shouldn’t even apply. A really good prosecutor should have been able to put on a better case.

[Sue U]

Didn't his mother do both of those things? (i.e., bought him a weapon he was not legally allowed to possess, and drove him from their home in Antioch, Illinois, to the riot unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin. [Not sure if mommy drove back to Wisconsin to pick up her baby after he shot three people and the police didn't bother to arrest him—despite his trying to surrender. He turned himself in in Illinois, after being charged in Wisconsin...presumably the police gave him a free ride back to Wisconsin for his arraignment?])

I really don't know who did what in this case; I haven't been following it because I just find everything about it so revolting. And even if mama is also culpably negligent for the assistance and encouragement she provided, the homeowners policy (if any) is likely the only source of recovery for damages in a civil case -- so a limit of $300k if it's like most policies, maybe there's $1M if they've got an "umbrella" policy, too, but not too many people have that kind of excess coverage. The interesting question is whether the homeowners carrier will be required to treat each of the three shootings as separate events, requiring a payout of $300k on each, or just one event for which there is a total of $300k available for all claimants. (I certainly know which one they'll argue for, but who knows, maybe they'll do the right thing for once, it could happen. Bah, it's an insurance company, who am I kidding?)

[Jarlaxle]

The DA saw just how weak the case was, so it was dumped off on this incompetent buffoon.

[Joe Guy]

....A really good prosecutor should have been able to put on a better case.

Yeah. I would expect a good prosecutor to be very happy that the accused is taking the stand. But I also believe in the parts of the trial I saw that the judge in this case has acted like a third defense lawyer.

The kid's excuse that he carried the AR-15 to protect himself tells me that he intended to use it. He knew he was going to a riot. I may be wrong but I didn't see anything about any of the dead people being armed. Just the guy that he mutilated. And even if that guy was going to shoot him, he could reason that Rittenhouse had just killed two people, right?

Rittenhouse wanted to play army or SWAT guy and intentionally put himself into a position where he expected to be threatened. If he hadn't been carrying the AR-15 (or not have gone there in the first place), he wouldn't be perceived as a threat by anyone. He is responsible for 2 deaths that would not have occurred if he was not out there after curfew being an idiot.

Underlying all of this is that the event was happening because a black man, Jacob Blake, had been shot by police. The armed vigilantes were there prepared to shoot people who were protesting the police shooting. Is anyone really surprised that two people were killed in that situation?