Hacker News Reader

Comment by solarhoma | Hacker News Reader

The defense brought up one of the rittenhouse attackers was a sex offender to show they are an individual with less than good morals. Someone who would be willing to attack someone with the crowd. So, no, this piece of evidence is not immaterial.

Everything in this world is not race based. There are other nuances to the world that the MSM is hiding to push their race based fear mongering.

View on HN

You’re missing the point. We place people on trial for committing crimes, not for having “less than good morals.” Criminal courts typically exclude references to a victim’s character for precisely this reason: the goal is to determine whether a crime was committed, not whether the jurors would have personally liked the victim.

Character witnesses are extremely common[1].

The issue isn't whether the jury would have liked the victim. The question was "did the victim attack Kyle?". The fact that the victim had a known violent past is very relevant to that question.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/character_witness

The requirement for a victim’s character witness is that it be a “pertinent” trait. It’s not clear to me that a sexual crime (even an extremely serious one) provides is pertinent to an individual’s homicidal capacity, even if Rittenhouse was somehow aware of the victim’s prior conviction. Which brings us back to the parent’s original point.

A convicted child molester chasing and attacking a child on a public street at night does seem relevant.

The assailant was 0. Not standing trial as he was killed. 1. Threw something at Rittenhouse instigating the self-defense. 2. Running after Rittenhouse telling him he was going to take Rittenhouse’s rifle and kill him with it. And that was just one of the four people who attacked him that night.

Courts use a victim’s (or a perpetrator’s) character in almost every trial. The prosecution used Rittenhouse’s tiktok username and about me section as a way to paint him as a killer driven by fame. The goal is to determine if the person is guilty or not.

The point was "this person was attacking Rittenhouse, and is the kind of person who would attack someone". Rittenhouse was a clear cut, video-verified, and court-confirmed case of self-defense.

1. Rosenbaum wasn't on trial. He was Rittenhouse's assailant.

2. The defense needed to present a motive for Rosenbaum's having attacked Rittenhouse, and they felt his prior convictions helped establish that motive.

3. The judge did not allow the defense to bring up Rosenbaum's prior convictions in court.

> Someone who would be willing to attack someone with the crowd.

Would they, though? Because one is a criminal of one type, they are criminals of all types?

Edit: I am not defending a sex offender. I just don't think one crime is a gateway for all crimes.

>Would they, though? Because one is a criminal of one type, they are criminals of all types?

It's certainly not a 100% always the case sort of thing, but yes, crime stats show that this is generally the case.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com