765
Comments (77)
sorted by:
42
Mrsattorney 42 points ago +47 / -5

Well, it's not relevant to the crimes for which he's charged. It's not relevant to his defense of self-defense either, unless he's going to allege they were trying to molest him.

26
AngeredKabar 26 points ago +26 / -0

As an average, non-lawyer, this makes sense.

When we found out about the criminal background of Kyle's attackers, it was just a commentary on the rioters at large.

13
Super_Dave 13 points ago +13 / -0

Seeing this common sense at the top of the comments makes me happy :)

8
NZ_Pede 8 points ago +8 / -0

At the time no one knew a thing about those assholes and saw what happened as 100% self defence. Knowing they were scum made Kyles actions more righteous

10
NvJohansson 10 points ago +11 / -1

Yet, the media spammed him fighting to protect his sister when he was 13...

8
rosie 8 points ago +8 / -0

That information was also disallowed by the judge.

3
NvJohansson 3 points ago +3 / -0

I know. But it circulated in the MSM.

2
AngeredKabar 2 points ago +2 / -0

Propaganda tactics dictate defamation.

4
NoMoreMao 4 points ago +4 / -0

It's relevant to show deviant behavior.

12
rosie 12 points ago +12 / -0

No, Kyle didn't know they were deviant. He knew only that they intended to kill him.

4
NoMoreMao 4 points ago +4 / -0

He didn't know but the jury should.

6
rosie 6 points ago +6 / -0

No. The jury is to determine whether a reasonable person in Kyle's situation was justified in doing what he did. That means they have to go according to what Kyle knew at the time.

1
NoMoreMao 1 point ago +1 / -0

I get what you're saying but Kyle wouldn't have had to make that decision in the first place if it weren't for the deviant pattern of behavior from the people he had to defend himself against.

5
rosie 5 points ago +5 / -0

The attackers could have been as innocent as doves before that day and it still wouldn't affect Kyle's right to self-defense. In other words, all you say is true, but it's not relevant to his defense.

2
NoMoreMao 2 points ago +2 / -0

It may not be in a corrupt court because a corrupt court doesn't consider cause and effect. That's why pattern pedophiles, rapists and murderers get out and do it again.

1
Jimmyjetfuel 1 point ago +1 / -0

Maybe, maybe not. I think that I saw a look of lust in some of their eyes!

3
45fan 3 points ago +4 / -1

It speaks to their proclivities. They were not random political protestors. They were men with violent backgrounds.

1
Ilanna 1 point ago +1 / -0

8n different circumstances, yes. In these there was no way Kyle could know their history so it couldn't impact his decisions.

3
GrayManNumber333 3 points ago +4 / -1

Bullshit. Kyle was defending himself. Showing that his attackers had a pattern of criminally attacking bolsters that this was an attack by them. Criminal history gets used in courts all the time.

7
HeavyVetting 7 points ago +7 / -0

If the attackers were on trial (which the surviving one should be) then their criminal history might be relevant. But Kyle's on trial and the only question was whether he acted reasonably in the moment, and if he didn't know their background then it's not relevant.

There was an interesting point that the first guy had loudly proclaimed he just got out of jail and wasn't afraid to go back, so that could potentially be relevant.

3
rosie 3 points ago +3 / -0

Unfortunately, that attacker's statement couldn't be clearly heard in the video, so there's no way to prove he said that.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
3
Mrsattorney 3 points ago +3 / -0

He might be able to show a pattern of violent assault, but child molestation is not relevant to the facts at hand, which is what the OP cited.

1
GrayManNumber333 1 point ago +1 / -0

Sounds like violent assault to me.

2
Mrsattorney 2 points ago +2 / -0

It's a sex crime...different animal.

2
rosie 2 points ago +2 / -0

No, criminal history of the DEFENDANTS gets used in the courts. Kyle had no way of knowing his attackers' criminal history at the time, so it didn't factor into his actions. All he knew is that these thugs were trying to kill him. They could have been pure as the driven snow before that night and it still wouldn't have affected Kyle's right to self-defense.

14
CovfefeNegro 14 points ago +14 / -0

Yeah, standard thing, every trial which I've sat on the jury it was handled that way, we only were allowed to know about priors after the trial, but before sentencing. An astute juror usually knows tho, if they pay attention to all the testimony.

Isn't relevant to his defense of his actions, he did not know the people he shot were felons or who they were, so it isn't necessary to inform the jury. The fact he shot criminals simply has no bearing on the fighting that evening, he did what he did for his own reasons, none of which have anything to do with the fact he shot criminals.

IF we desire the Rule of Law we must ourselves operate within the Rule of Law, Lady Justice is not supposed to be moved by anything other than the reality of that moment or moments in time when Kyle's actions occurred, not prior acts unrelated to him.

When the court has accepted the verdict then priors are considered in relation to punishment, not in relation to the question of guilt. First establish guilt, blindly and honestly, then examine a larger perspective for assigning punishment/corrections.

Why do you label 'them' as bastards, this is how you should want it to be, Fair.

https://files.catbox.moe/d00lrj.jpg

4
LazySusan 4 points ago +4 / -0

Yes you are right, this is standard.

5
BoughtByBloomberg2 5 points ago +5 / -0

The judge already granted the motion not to do so and granted the motion not to mention Kyle punching some girl for attacking his sister.

5
BrewSwillis 5 points ago +5 / -0

I bet if Kyle had a past criminal history, it would be fair game. Those people weren't his "victims", they were his attackers.

6
fskfsk 6 points ago +6 / -0

Yes, they're trying to introduce evidence that he used the racist OK sign to slander his character.

The defense should also be allowed to mention that a lot of the violent people at Antifa riots DO have criminal histories. Even though Rittenhouse had no information about those 3 people, he did know that there's a lot of violence at Antifa riots, which is why he brought a gun.

4
rosie 4 points ago +4 / -0

All moot. The judge already decided two weeks ago that neither Kyle's previous history nor the attackers' previous history was admissable.

5
HeadHoncho 5 points ago +5 / -0

The fact of the matter is that legally speaking, a child was attacked by a convicted child rapist.

The first aggressor recently served several years in prison for raping boys aged something like 9-11.

3
chahn1138 3 points ago +3 / -0

He shot a thief in the arm.

He shot a Wife Strangler in the lungs.

He shot a pedo in the crotch.

Kyle is a Hero for the Lord!

2
rosie 2 points ago +2 / -0

This is old news already. The history of the attackers is irrelevant. Kyle didn't know any of that history. All he knew is that they were trying to kill him. That's all that matters in self-defense.

1
k_the_c 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yep.

2
sustainable_saltmine 2 points ago +6 / -4

because they know its 100% relevant

4
rosie 4 points ago +4 / -0

It's not relevant. At all.

2
Mintap 2 points ago +2 / -0

They should look into exchanges of money that those instigating the mob were receiving.

1
rosie 1 point ago +2 / -1

Irrelevant.

1
Mintap 1 point ago +1 / -0

No, it is relevant. Rittenhouse and the people he was with were there because 1. local business asked them and 2. BLM community organizers wanted them there.

3
rosie 3 points ago +3 / -0

Had zero to do with Kyle's defending himself against three murderous thugs. They could have been pure as the driven snow before they attacked Kyle and it wouldn't have changed a thing as far as Kyle's actions were concerned.

1
Mintap 1 point ago +1 / -0

Oh sure, for the defense of Kyle.

I guess I was thinking about a counter suit against those who organized the mob.

1
rosie 1 point ago +1 / -0

Oh, I totally agree that should be done. But that's a completely different discussion.

2
Powdered_Sugar 2 points ago +2 / -0

As much as I would like those scumbags known for what they are, this is normal. A person's past actions are not indicative of their guilt in the current case unless they present a pattern of behavior, which they don't in this case. What they do do is invariably color the jury's perspective of the "victim" so as to make an unbiased deliberation basically impossible.

Free Kyle. He did nothing wrong and is a freaking hero. He was there to help people and these animals attacked him. They deserved what they got.

1
polsenOO7 1 point ago +1 / -0

A person's past actions are not indicative of their guilt in the current case unless they present a pattern of behavior.

Gee, I don't know how about you factor in the guy was chasing an underage minor across some streets in the dead of night.

As a parent, you should be concerned if you saw that happening to your kid. If you found out the guy that tried to run down your kid was a registered sex offender & pedophile, I would definitely want that to be brought up in court. Stating that my son was chased around by a potential repeat offender.

3
Powdered_Sugar 3 points ago +3 / -0

Solid point. However, it's pretty clear they were intent to do grevious harm more than molest. (A purely legal distinction. I know molesting does grevious harm.) As a result, the ruling is still technically correct.

Also, apart from the baseline assumption that most Antifa faggots are pedos, molesters, and all around bad dudes, Kyle couldn't have known about his history so it couldn't have played a role in his decision making.

2
Ilanna 2 points ago +2 / -0

The fact is that just by looking at someone you don't know their history. Kyle's actions have to be legally evaluated in that light. They were attacking him and he feared for his life.

Yes, the other stuff does matter, and I do care about it...but in the legal questions here they aren't relevant. If things were reversed and they were on trial, it might matter, but not as far as Kyle and his decisions on that night.

2
rosie 2 points ago +2 / -0

That could be brought up in court in a case against the attacker, but it has zero bearing on Kyle's defense.

1
FerkenBlerkin 1 point ago +1 / -0

Nah their criminal past doesn't have any correlation to their behavior that day... they were good samaritans looking to pat Kyle on the back, and he just shot them for no reason

2
rosie 2 points ago +2 / -0

No one here is claiming that they didn't have murderous intent. Anyone who looks objectively at the video footage can see that. The key is that Kyle had no way of knowing their background before he shot them. And their background didn't matter at all--they were actively trying to kill him. That's all that matters.

1
FerkenBlerkin 1 point ago +1 / -0

Even though Kyle didn't know their past, the prosecution can't allow that into the trial. It would never have been allowed because it highlights the not so peaceful history of these peaceful protestors

1
ARfreedom 1 point ago +1 / -0

That's rich coming from the same team that wanted to include Kyle's history in the court case.

1
johnqpublic864 1 point ago +1 / -0

You could tell by just looking at them and Kyle was a minor, so it's relevant. Plus it establishes that they're violent and Kyle's instincts were correct. And, get this, most jurors hate child molesters.

1
rosie 1 point ago +1 / -0

None of that is relevant to Kyle's self-defense case.

1
johnqpublic864 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yeah it absolutely is, dum-dum.

1
rosie 1 point ago +1 / -0

So because you have no idea how the law works, you resort to ad hominem?

Kyle couldn't "tell just by looking at them". It was dark and he had no time to look at anything beyond the fact that they were trying to kill him. He had no way to know their history, and none of it mattered anyway. They could have a pristine record before that day and nothing would have changed. The only relevant fact is that they were trying to kill him.

1
johnqpublic864 1 point ago +1 / -0

You have no idea how the law works. It IS relevant. Just because you watched a couple hours of Court TV doesn't make you a lawyer, Matlock.

1
rosie 1 point ago +1 / -0

So the defense lawyers and the judge in the case don't know the law, either?

1
Wolfebane84 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well, to be fair, there's no way he could have known about that when the incident happened.

So while it matters AFTER the fact, but DURING the incident he couldn't have known anything but that they were attacking him, which should be enough.

1
dougkeenan 1 point ago +1 / -0

FREE KYLE

1
djaeveloplyse 1 point ago +1 / -0

It is my opinion that if you drive drunk and run over a random person and kill them, but that person turns out to have been a child rapist, then you did not commit a murder or a manslaughter or any sort of crime- you just delivered justice in an unconventional way, and should be thanked for your service to humanity.

1
BidensWetNurse 1 point ago +1 / -0

Poor lad looks a lot older.

1
ThisIsHowItStarts 1 point ago +1 / -0

Everyone already knows. Everyone. They won’t be able to find a jury anywhere that doesn’t know with these three people were criminals who are you

1
BroadSunlitUplands 1 point ago +1 / -0

Most people probably don’t know anything about this case at all.

1
Rapala 1 point ago +1 / -0

This is a standard Motion filed whenever a past criminal record is involved. It's universally used by sides.

1
Redpillrambo 1 point ago +1 / -0

Fuck them, attempting to murder a child should be enough to justify their obliteration. The fact this wasn't their first try just shows us that we need to shoot to kill because these people will never see justice if we do not deliver it.

0
PepeAmericusMaximus 0 points ago +1 / -1

Tell him to go fuck himself, facts are facts.