Rittenhouse trial to start soon, Judge is laying out rules.

[imported_tajmahal]

Becase he thought the punk from Illinois was an active shooter and was going to start whacking people. Which he was. And did.

Only in self defense, but let's let the trial play out. You do believe in trials and legal
justice don't you ? Don't you?

 

[soundforbjt]

Defense has a trump-humper as a witness, she’s so typical and obvious.

 

[kt]

Because he knows what the law says?

What law says an underage person can legally carry a loaded gun?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

What law says an underage person can legally carry a loaded gun?

It doesn't make them guilty of breaking other laws. It would be a misdemeanor in Wisconsin.

 

[HomerJS]

It doesn't make them guilty of breaking other laws. It would be a misdemeanor in Wisconsin.

This might. So much for self defense
Kyle Rittenhouse fatally shot man who was in 'horizontal position,' pathologist testifies (msn.com)

 

[dank69]

Only in self defense, but let's let the trial play out. You do believe in trials and legal
justice don't you ? Don't you?

Worked out pretty good for OJ. You know you are running short on talking points when you have to resort to "he hasn't been convicted yet" as if not being convicted means anything.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

"he hasn't been convicted yet" as if not being convicted means anything.

You seem to think it does the way you keep saying Donnie wasn't convicted by the Senate.

 

[outriding]

Because he knows what the law says?

ignorance of the law is not an excuse

 

[Dave_5k]

This might. So much for self defense
Kyle Rittenhouse fatally shot man who was in 'horizontal position,' pathologist testifies (msn.com)

The cross-examine questions raised significant doubt to prosecution argument to me, with prosecution pathologist conceding wounds also consistent with someone lunging at the shooter, and conceding forensics of hand injury were consistent with Rosenbaum having had hand on the gun barrel when fired.

And even at half speed it looked like all 4 shots were in less than a second, not like he shot twice in front then paused to shoot in back with last 2.

 

[Luna1968]

every single witness the DA has put on the stand has backfired and clearly shows it was self-defense. It is crystal clear, so much so there are videos of people wanting to tamper with the jury.

 

[Dave_5k]

every single witness the DA has put on the stand has backfired and clearly shows it was self-defense. It is crystal clear, so much so there are videos of people wanting to tamper with the jury.

I am at times wondering about the prosecution. I’d say they have a weak chance still at the reckless endangerment charge, almost no chance at homicide charges, although one or both may very well end up with a hung jury.

I thought the judge might drop the illegal weapons possession charge, but as not dropped, jury will be stuck parsing the poorly worded statute, and more likely than not to convict on this - unless defense makes a clearer case than they did to the judge.

 

[Luna1968]

it's funny how the people in the opening pages of this thread were so out for Rittenhouse blood, calling the judge names and just plain idiotic posts about the case. Have gone radio silent. Arent facts grand?? especially the video from the FBI drone and ground-level video that absolutely show without any doubt it was self-defense.

 

[Luna1968]

I am at times wondering about the prosecution. I’d say they have a weak chance still at the reckless endangerment charge, almost no chance at homicide charges, although one or both may very well end up with a hung jury.

I thought the judge might drop the illegal weapons possession charge, but as not dropped, jury will be stuck parsing the poorly worded statute, and more likely than not to convict on this - unless defense makes a clearer case than they did to the judge.

the only crime Rittenhouse MIGHT get stuck with is the underage weapons charge.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Of course - It's all soooo crystal clear - :rollseyes

Say in an open carry state there is a baby faced teenager wearing a t shirt and a baseball cap on backwards walking down the street carrying a long gun. He is not carrying the gun slung on his back in the old style, or across his front in the new style. He is holding it at low ready with his finger on the trigger looking like he might possibly imminently fire. Say said teenager walks by a bank and the security guard out front of the bank see's this baby faced teenager walking by, carrying a weapon in this manner, and finds this suspicious and possibly threatening. Said security guard moves toward said teenager, pulling out his holstered weapon, at the same time questioning why this teenager is carrying his weapon in this manner. Said teenager sees this, and then proceeds to shoot dead the security guard. Now .... say 5 people walking by the bank - who are also armed - witness said teenager shoot dead the security guard - and THEY pull their personal weapons and point them at the teenager. Does this give the teenager the legal right to shoot dead all 5 people in self defense? He can claim self defense in the trial, but the fact that the 5 armed bystanders were all pointing their guns at him doesn’t exactly help his case, right?. Someone who has already killed somebody is lawfully allowed to kill the people trying to stop him? Because it’s self defense? What's the "good guy with the gun" to do?

If Rittenhouse were someone who DID just show up and start plugging protesters in cold blood, then I'm assuming people should be allowed to forcibly take his gun away and he shouldn’t legally be allowed to shoot them in response?. Correct? This whole case swings on perception. People thought he was an active shooter and were trying to stop him. That one of them pointed a gun at him doesn’t exactly negate any of that.

 

[Vic]

it's funny how the people in the opening pages of this thread were so out for Rittenhouse blood, calling the judge names and just plain idiotic posts about the case. Have gone radio silent. Arent facts grand?? especially the video from the FBI drone and ground-level video that absolutely show without any doubt it was self-defense.

No, what's funny is how some people support active shooters killing unarmed persons. After all the right-wingers defended Sandy Hook, it was assumed that was to protect the 2a. But turns out, you guys just approve of murderers as long they're on your "side." Pretty sick shit.

 

[Dave_5k]

Of course - It's all soooo crystal clear - :rollseyes
...
If Rittenhouse were someone who DID just show up and start plugging protesters in cold blood, then I'm assuming people should be allowed to forcibly take his gun away and he shouldn’t legally be allowed to shoot them in response?. Correct? This whole case swings on perception. People thought he was an active shooter and were trying to stop him. That one of them pointed a gun at him doesn’t exactly negate any of that.

Usual I am not a lawyer disclaimer, but I have been on the jury of a murder trial that claimed self defense - and we convicted of murder (in a different state). A couple points on Wisconsin law as this does vary somewhat by state:

For self-defense in Wisconsin, I understand that you have to show the defendant "reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm". And the State has the burden of "disproving self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt". e.g. https://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=192213

All subject to how a jury sees the evidence and interprets such instructions. But in the Rittenhouse case, the prosecution in my opinion has failed to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, and prosecution witnesses actually provided significant supporting evidence to both self-defense and that Rittenhouse faced imminent great bodily harm.

Not arguing that this is in anyway moral or right, just arguing how I see it under the law.

Edit: in your hypothetical mass-shooter case, if folks have reasonable belief that they are preventing imminent death or great bodily harm - e.g. from an active shooter, you are certainly allowed to shoot them under the same self defense arguments. But only if the threat is "imminent" - if the shooter has stopped shooting and is running away, and you attack or shoot them, that is assault or murder.

 

[Vic]

Usual I am not a lawyer disclaimer, but I have been on the jury of a murder trial that claimed self defense - and we convicted of murder (in a different state). A couple points on Wisconsin law as this does vary somewhat by state:

For self-defense in Wisconsin, I understand that you have to show the defendant "reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm". And the State has the burden of "disproving self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt". e.g. https://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=192213

All subject to how a jury sees the evidence and interprets such instructions. But in the Rittenhouse case, the prosecution in my opinion has failed to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, and prosecution witnesses actually provided significant supporting evidence to both self-defense and that Rittenhouse faced imminent great bodily harm.

Not arguing that this is in anyway moral or right, just arguing how I see it under the law.

Supposing for the sake of argument that all parties involved acted in reasonable self-defense, would a not guilty verdict here not mean that armed brawls that result in deaths are legal in WI?

It's hard to look at these kind of incidents IMO, and not see America descending into being like Brazil or the Philippines, where vigilante death squads roam the streets at night killing "criminals" without the slightest shred of due process while the public and the law look the other way. Is this what Americans want?

 

[Jaskalas]

No, what's funny is how some people support active shooters killing unarmed persons.

Who the !@#$ are you, to deny someone self defense?

It is a tragedy in America when, this day, one must turn to this source to quote the trial and demonstrate clear facts in this case.
Of course we saw video, last summer, of Rosenbaum's attack on Rittenhouse. We've all known this was self defense.

Are transcripts from the trial, from the prosecution's case, not enough for you?
Why do you keep lying?

Here's what Richard McGinness said he saw.​

​

PROSECUTOR: I mean you have no idea what Mr. Rosenbaum was thinking at any point of his life. You have never been inside his head, you never met him before. ​

​

MCGINNISS: I never exchanged words with him, if that’s what your question is. ​

​

PROSECUTOR: So your interpretation of what he was trying to do or what he was intending to do or anything along those lines is complete guesswork isn’t it. ​

​

MCGINNISS: Well he said f--- you and reached for the weapon.​

​

Well, there's that. So a convicted child molester with a long and violent criminal history runs up to Kyle Rittenhouse out of nowhere in the middle of a riot and tries to take his gun away. So Rittenhouse shot him. That's what happened. Those are the facts. Again, according to the prosecution’s own witness. And not just one witness.​

​

Today, the prosecution's medical expert, a man called Doug Kelly, testified that Joseph Rosenbaum appeared to be grabbing the barrel of Kyle Rittenhouse's rifle when Rittenhouse fired. Then yet another prosecution witness, this one called Ryan Balch, testified that Joseph Rosenbaum said out loud that he intended to kill Kyle Rittenhouse.​

​

BALCH: And I stepped in and told everybody, "chill out, calm down, stop doing that." I turned and had an exchange with one of the protestors and I kind of explained to that protester, I get what you’re trying to do but not this. And when I turned around, Rosenbaum was right there in front of my face yelling and screaming. And I said dude, back up chill, I don’t know what your problem is. And he goes you know what, if I catch one of you guys alone tonight I’m going to f---ing kill you."​

​

BINGER: And he said that to you?​

​

BALCH: Correct.​

​

BINGER: Did he say that to the defendant as well? ​

​

BALCH: Well the defendant was there – so yes.​

 

[Vic]

I'm just not inclined to accept a claim of self-defense from someone whose entire plan that night was to place themselves in the position of having to kill in self-defense. That's mens rea IMO.
I want law and order, and peaceful streets, and that starts IMO with not tolerating people who go looking for trouble and then cry victim when trouble finds them. And it also means not tolerating vigilantes.
But unfortunately, I've noticed an increasing trend among the right-wing of tolerating these bad actors who go looking with malice aforethought for ways to get away with murder by framing it as self-defense. From Rittenhouse to the UW shooter to Jeremy Christian to Michael Dunn to the movie theater popcorn shooter to the McMichaels. And many more. And it's not law and order. It's just bullshit. And it's counter to public safety.

 

[Maxima1]

Kyle sure did a lot of lying.
He lied that he was hired by Car Source.
He lied that he was an EMT.
He lied when he told one of the other guys he was with that he didn’t shoot anyone, even though he just had killed Rosenbaum.
He lied when he said he was gong to surrender to police.
Kyle doesn’t appear to be an honest person.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1457743830027948040

It's a chaotic situation, and people are shouting things about Kyle being the shooter.
It's a somewhat stronger and not 100% analogous example, but take the "only thing that you know is that someone shot someone else for some reason" scenario, and then add on that you see someone (or multiple people) running after you hear the gunshots, shouting "active shooter!" and pointing in a direction, and then an individual runs out wielding a firearm from the same direction. Even if that person acted in self defense, you're going to reasonably fear for your life and the lives of others.
The situation with Kyle is somewhere between not knowing anything and that.

They had minimal information on why there was gunshots which alone already would put it on shaky ground for even probable cause. Add in the time span, people around Kyle not scattering, and them yelling out following him that he shot some person, that puts the weight of evidence heavily for a shooting incident scenario in which someone specific got shot for some reason. Thinking what Huber was doing is reasonable is basically favoring a low threshold for threats.

Looks like you snipped the part that you wanted, ignored the rest. Good job!

😂 Gaige got destroyed and even the prosecution knew it from their reactions.

https://twitter.com/thevivafrei/status/1457774701673996298

 

[soundforbjt]

Must be wrapping up, Kyles on the stand, can’t wait for cross examination.

 

[Commodus]

It's a messy situation, to put it mildly, and I don't think either side is clean-cut here.

My beef, as Vic touched on, is that conservatives are trying to paint Rittenhouse as a hero. He's not. He's a dutifully brainwashed teen who went on a trip hoping to pick a fight... and let's be honest, he was likely itching to kill some liberals. Two people would still be alive if he hadn't left home.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

clearly shows it was self-defense.

On the part of the Punk From Illinois's three victims, I agree.

 

[soundforbjt]

And right on cue KR starts crying on the stand while giving his testimony, The DA will destroy him when he gets his turn.

 

[sportage]

Yes it looks a little rehearsed. And I’m sure it was.
They are trying to paint a picture but it will be up to the jury in the end.
Rittenhouse will probably get something but most likely under three years with actual time serve under 6 months. But who knows…. I wasn’t there and neither were you.