Kyle Rittenhouse Trial: Defense Rests. Resisting the urge to go full HT and just purge this crapshow of a thread. (1 Viewer)

The Commish said:

Um.....Zimmerman was chasing him around an apartment complex.  The second, much less convenient part is Martin wasn't on trial as he was dead. 

Click to expand...

Zimmerman NEVER chased Martin.  Zimmerman followed Martin in his truck and kept watch on him.  Martin approached Zimmerman's vehicle and circled around it. Zimmerman was on the phone with the non-emergency operator and was in the Truck.  Then Martin took off running and disappeared behind the buildings.  Zimmerman opened the Truck door and was getting out.  The operator then asked him if he was following him.  Zimmerman said yes, and the operator responded, we do not need you to do that, to which Zimmerman said OK.  He continued to talk to the operator for about a minute describing his location and giving her his number and where he should meet the officer.  At this time, Zimmerman had ever reason to believe Martin was long gone and Zimmerman was waiting around for the police.  That is all verifiable fact, but not at all how the media portrayed the events.  There was NEVER a chase on foot.

Now it gets a little speculative.  Zimmerman wandered back around the building where Martin disappeared supposedly looking for an address so he could tell the officer his exact location.  At that time Martin jumped him (according to Zimmerman).  You can choose to disbelieve that, but it fits their personal profiles.  Zimmerman was a complete wimp and a crappy fighter who could not fight his way out of a paper bag.  Martin was constantly in fights with multiple school suspensions, bragged about it on his facebook page, was a huge MMA fan, and even his older brother would text Martin asking to teach him to fight.  Zimmerman had a gun for a reason, he could not defend himself.  You can choose not to believe Zimmerman's account, but this was not a chase, that is a definitive fact.  Martin WAITED for Zimmerman and then confronted him.  How it started is speculation, but your account is nothing but a media-feed falsehood.

BladeRunner said:

The MSM strikes again!

Click to expand...

If you'd like to discuss this further, we can.  That case was basically the straw the broke the camel's back for me in terms of mainstream media in this country.  That case was basically the day I turned my back on mainstream media for good.  Prior to that, I had given excuses to different outlets (not all that different than what you see Tim offering up as explanations in threads today).  If you'd like my actual thoughts and not bits and pieces that have been cut and spliced and edited by people not me, I'd be happy to oblige, but this thread isn't the place for it.  

The ENTIRE Transcript of Zimmerman's call (My Commentary in CAPTAL  BOLD LETERS).  The conversation is 4:13 long.

Zimmerman: Hey, we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy-- it's Retreat View Circle. The best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.

Sanford PD Dispatcher (Sean Noffke): Okay, and this guy is he White, Black, or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks Black.

Dispatcher: Did you see what he was wearing?

Zimmerman: Yeah. A dark hoodie, like a grey hoodie, and either jeans or sweatpants and white tennis shoes. He's [unintelligible] he was just staring...

Dispatcher: Okay, he's just walking around the area...

Zimmerman: ...looking at all the houses.

Dispatcher: Okay.

Zimmerman: Now he's just staring at me.

Dispatcher: Okay--you said it's 1111 Retreat View? Or 111?

Zimmerman: That's the clubhouse...

Dispatcher: That's the clubhouse, do you know what the-- he's near the clubhouse right now?

Zimmerman: Yeah, now he's coming towards me.

Dispatcher: Okay.

Zimmerman: He's got his hand in his waistband. And he's a black male.

Dispatcher: How old would you say he looks?

Zimmerman: He's got button on his shirt, late teens.

Dispatcher: Late teens, ok.

Zimmerman: Something's wrong with him. Yup, he's coming to check me out, he's got something in his hands, I don't know what his deal is.

Dispatcher: Just let me know if he does anything, okay?

Zimmerman: How long until you get an officer over here?

Dispatcher: Yeah, we've got someone on the way, just let me know if this guy does anything else.

Zimmerman: Okay. These #######s they always get away. When you come to the clubhouse, you come straight in, and make a left. Actually, you would go past the clubhouse.

Dispatcher: So, it's on the left-hand side from the clubhouse?

Zimmerman: No, you go in, straight through the entrance, and then you make a left-- you go straight in, don't turn, and make a left. ####, he's running.

(THIS IS AT THE 02:10 MARK OF THE CALL.  YOU CAN HERE THE DOOR OPEN AT 02:15 AND CLOSE AT 2:20)

Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?

Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.

Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?

Zimmerman: The back entrance... ####### punks. These #######s, they always get away...

Dispatcher: Are you following him?

Zimmerman: Yeah.

Dispatcher: Okay, we don't need you to do that.

(THIS IS AT THE 2:28 MARK, YOU COULD HEAR ZIMMERMAN WAS MOVING THE 8 SECONDS PRIOR TO THIS BUT THEN STOPPED AT THIS POINT)

Zimmerman: Okay.

Dispatcher: Alright, sir, what is your name?

Zimmerman: George. He ran.

Dispatcher: All right, George. What's your last name?

Zimmerman: Zimmerman.

Dispatcher: And George what's the phone number you're calling from?

Zimmerman: [redacted]

Dispatcher: All right, George. We do have them on the way. Do you want to meet with the officer when they get out there?

Zimmerman: Yeah.

Dispatcher: All right, where you going to meet with them at?

Zimmerman: If they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the clubhouse. And uh, straight past the clubhouse, and make a left. And then they go past the mailboxes, that's my truck... [unintelligible]

Dispatcher: What address are you parked in front of?

Zimmerman: I don't know. It's a cut through, so I don't know the address.

Dispatcher: Okay, do you live in the area?

Zimmerman: Yeah, I... [unintelligible]

Dispatcher: What's your apartment number?

Zimmerman: It's a home. It's 1950-- Oh, crap. I don't want to give it all out, I don't know where this kid is.

Dispatcher: Okay, do you want to just meet with them right near the mailboxes then?

Zimmerman: Yeah, that's fine.

Dispatcher: All right, George. I'll let them know to meet you around there okay?

Zimmerman: Actually could you have them call me and I'll tell them where I'm at?

Dispatcher: Okay, yeah, that's no problem.

Zimmerman: Should I give you my number or you got it?

Dispatcher: Yeah, I got it. [redacted]?

Zimmerman: Yeah, you got it.

Dispatcher: Okay, no problem, I'll let them know to call you when you're in the area.

Zimmerman: Thanks.

Dispatcher: You're welcome.

(FOR THE LAST 1 MINUTE AND 40 SECONDS OF THE CALL ZIMMERMAN WAS JUST CALMLY TALKING TO THE OPERATOR.  MARTIN HAD TOOK OFF RUNNING 2 MINUTES AGO AND WAS OUT OF SIGHT.  WHEN WAS THIS ALLEDGED CHASE????  ZIMMERMAN WAS WAITING FOR THE POLICE.  ABOUT 1 TO 2 MINUTES LATER THE 911 CALLS STARTED ROLLING IN.  THIS ALL FITS ZIMMERMAN TIMELINE OF THE STORY, WALKING BACK BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS WHERE HE WAS JUMPED.  THIS FACTITIOUS CHASE IS A CREATION OF THE MEDIA, THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE THAT BACKS IT UP AND LOTS THAT PROVE IT NEVER HAPPENED.  NOT A SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE WAS ENTERED IN TRIAL WHICH SUPPORTED A CHASE.  I SUPPOSE DIAMOND EUGENE SUGGESTED THE CRACKER WAS CHASING HIM, BUT SHE WAS NOT EVEN THE REAL PERSON WHO WAS ON THE PHONE)

yikes.....sorry all.  Should have used stalking, following, searching for....anything but chasing apparently.  That seems to be a trigger word.  In hindsight, I blame myself for the careless use of words...again apologies to anyone trying to get anything useful out of this thread.

The Commish said:

yikes.....sorry all.  Should have used stalking, following, searching for....anything but chasing apparently.  That seems to be a trigger word.  In hindsight, I blame myself for the careless use of words...again apologies to anyone trying to get anything useful out of this thread.

Click to expand...

Not matter what word you insert into your statements:

You can get out and chase them around the buildings.  You can get in a fight with that person because of it and you can shoot them dead if they turn the tables and start whooping your ###. 

Click to expand...

They were false.  At best he spent 8 seconds getting out of his vehicle trying to look for Martin.  There were no chasing around buildings.  There was no getting into a fight.  There was no shooting them dead because they turned the tables.  That is all non-sense fantasy created by the media.  Hell, Donald Trump has far more evidence the elections were stolen compared to that crap.

BladeRunner said:

Again, what's missing in this side of the argument is the fact that Martin could have walked away.  The fact that Martin was followed is irrelevant.  If Martin attacked then he was the aggressor.  If you have the ability to flee, you're supposed to.

You don't get to claim self-defense if you have an avenue of escape but attack anyways.

Click to expand...

The truth of the matter is Trayvon ambushed Zimmerman and proceeded to brutally beat him up and would not stop despite pleas for help.  Trayvon had disappeared out of sight for going on 4 minutes when the confrontation started.  In that 4 minutes, Trayvon ran about 100 feet around the corner and stalked out waiting for Zimmerman.  Zimmerman finished the phone call and wandered around the building where he was ambushed.  This lie that Zimmerman was chasing Martin is definitively false.  At this point Martin was the Stalker. 

jon_mx said:

If anyone is really convinced I am wrong, I have $1000 that says none of the murder charges the prosecution has charged in this case stand.  Take any part of it you want.   

Click to expand...

Crickets from the peanut gallery that insists I am wrong about everything.  Gee, only 0.36% of cases end with acquittals.    Everyone should be lining up for free money on this one, if you really believe this isn't just a politically motativated railroading of an innocent kid.  

jon_mx said:

Crickets from the peanut gallery that insists I am wrong about everything.  Gee, only 0.36% of cases end with acquittals.    Everyone should be lining up for free money on this one, if you really believe this isn't just a politically motativated railroading of an innocent kid.  

Click to expand...

The "kid" might have a winning self defense defense. He might have had the best of intentions.  The prosecutor might be Nifong'ing him.  But he is not innocent!

jon_mx said:

Crickets from the peanut gallery that insists I am wrong about everything.  Gee, only 0.36% of cases end with acquittals.    Everyone should be lining up for free money on this one, if you really believe this isn't just a politically motativated railroading of an innocent kid.  

Click to expand...

I don’t think this is a politically motivated railroading, but like most others in this thread I’m not confident how the trial will go. 

jon_mx said:

Crickets from the peanut gallery that insists I am wrong about everything.  Gee, only 0.36% of cases end with acquittals.    Everyone should be lining up for free money on this one, if you really believe this isn't just a politically motativated railroading of an innocent kid.  

Click to expand...

Who in this thread has insisted you are wrong about everything?

bigbottom said:

Who in this thread has insisted you are wrong about everything?

Click to expand...

Both -fish- and The Commish have indicated I should shut up and have no idea what I am talking about.   But it is not productive to go there. 

The Commish said:

It's not offensive at all.  It IS a factor though.  It's telling that you start with that nonsense....putting words in people's mouth isn't a productive thing to do IMO.  I knew I shouldn't have asked the questions.  And I'll just say this.  I've seen the video.  It's a single perspective from an individual that most likely isn't edited.  I generally trust the reporter at this point.  I have no idea what happened before any of this happened, which is part of my point.  I have no idea what other people saw.  What their perspective is, which continues with my point.  I have no idea what the thoughts were going through anyone's mind there.....basically the complete opposite of you.  You have it all figured out using a video on youtube and the msm of this country (that you rail on at every turn by the way).

I'm just going to pass on any more of this stuff until the trial.  And NOTE....you may end up being 100% correct in your assessment/guess.  Time will tell.  

Click to expand...

bigbottom said:

Who in this thread has insisted you are wrong about everything?

Click to expand...

The above is the closest thing I said that could even be considered a comment on his position.  Of course, that gets in the way of his imaginary version of me, so I'm sure it was ignored.  I guess if you aren't on board 100% with the analysis and perspective then you're 100% against it.   

I DID tell him he's 100% wrong about my position and my view, and he is.  There's no need to put words in peoples' mouths and there's no need to fabricate positions that others aren't even remotely coming close to holding.  At this point I'm wondering if the lashing out and continued going on and on is an attempt to convince us or himself.

I didn't see this since I have him on ignore, but Jon wants to bet on the outcome of a murder trial?   Absolutely despicable.  

This is his pattern in every thread.    Post something, get called out as wrong, then claim that he's being persecuted.  Personal insults will follow shortly.  

-fish- said:

I didn't see this since I have him on ignore, but Jon wants to bet on the outcome of a murder trial?   Absolutely despicable.  

This is his pattern in every thread.    Post something, get called out as wrong, then claim that he's being persecuted.  Personal insults will follow shortly.  

Click to expand...

I wasn't wrong.

jon_mx said:

Crickets from the peanut gallery that insists I am wrong about everything.  Gee, only 0.36% of cases end with acquittals.    Everyone should be lining up for free money on this one, if you really believe this isn't just a politically motativated railroading of an innocent kid.  

Click to expand...

Genuinely curious: where'd you get this stat?

Zow said:

Genuinely curious: where'd you get this stat?

Click to expand...

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/11/only-2-of-federal-criminal-defendants-go-to-trial-and-most-who-do-are-found-guilty/

This is federal data, so it is probably a bit different than state criminal charges.  But only 2% of cases go to court.  Of those only 17% are acquittals, or 0.34% of the total number of cases.  I did not see similar data for states, and it would vary a bit from each state.  But I would assume about 10% of cases go to trial local/state cases and they win about 90%.  So the number is in the ballpark.

jon_mx said:

That is because there is no pretrial hearing where a self-defense claim can be presented in Wisconsin.  Some states like Florida you can present evidence and prevent the case from going to trial.  The judge made the correct ruling based on what the prosecution presented, but that is zero indication that there exists a case which shows Rittenhouse didn't act in self-defense.

If anyone is really convinced I am wrong, I have $1000 that says none of the murder charges the prosecution has charged in this case stand.  Take any part of it you want.   

Click to expand...

I'm intrigued (although maybe I should feel appalled but I'm numb to these situations). 

Define murder charges (specifically, list the counts in the charging document). If helpful I believe this is the current/correct charging document: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7047765-Kyle-Rittenhouse-Criminal-Complaint.html.  I would say counts 1, 3, 4, and 5 but want to ensure we're on the same page. 

Define "stand." I interpret your statement to be that there is a conviction on one of the counts as charged in the complaint. Again, though, I want us to be on the same page. I would concede that you would win if the court dismissed the "murder charges" at the conclusion of the state's case (I'm not sure of Wisconin's version of this). 

I would additionally suggest: 

- bet is moot if matter resolves itself via plea bargain at any point but for a subsequent proceeding where the "murder charges" were dismissed by acquittal or by the judge (upon a finding that the state failed to present evidence that a reasonable trial of fact could convict or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict) after the empanelment of a jury. 

- bet continues onward should matter result in a hung jury on at least one of the agreed upon counts defined as "murder charges" and there is a second trial (however, if there's an acquittal on most and state late dismissed for the reason that there is not a likelihood of conviction then you win)

- If there is a dispute @bigbottom is the referee (assuming he's willing). 

jon_mx said:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/11/only-2-of-federal-criminal-defendants-go-to-trial-and-most-who-do-are-found-guilty/

This is federal data, so it is probably a bit different than state criminal charges.  But only 2% of cases go to court.  Of those only 17% are acquittals, or 0.34% of the total number of cases.  I did not see similar data for states, and it would vary a bit from each state.  But I would assume about 10% of cases go to trial local/state cases and they win about 90%.  So the number is in the ballpark.

Click to expand...

Not to nit pick, but I don't think we can compare Rittenhouse's defense with that of the average "...And Justice For All" defendant.  

jon_mx said:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/11/only-2-of-federal-criminal-defendants-go-to-trial-and-most-who-do-are-found-guilty/

This is federal data, so it is probably a bit different than state criminal charges.  But only 2% of cases go to court.  Of those only 17% are acquittals, or 0.34% of the total number of cases.  I did not see similar data for states, and it would vary a bit from each state.  But I would assume about 10% of cases go to trial local/state cases and they win about 90%.  So the number is in the ballpark.

Click to expand...

The bold is a little bit misleading since there's probably some of those 98% of cases that were dismissed by the state in their entirety. Also, since this is federal, this includes the significant number of illegal re-entry cases that are nearly impossible to defend at trial and almost always plead out. 

But, nonetheless, I appreciate the ego-stroke.  

Zow said:

But, nonetheless, I appreciate the ego-stroke.  

Click to expand...

Batting above the Mendoza Line for defense attorneys?  

Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Batting above the Mendoza Line for defense attorneys?  

Click to expand...

Current Jacob DeGrom levels. 

Zow said:

The bold is a little bit misleading since there's probably some of those 98% of cases that were dismissed by the state in their entirety. Also, since this is federal, this includes the significant number of illegal re-entry cases that are nearly impossible to defend at trial and almost always plead out. 

But, nonetheless, I appreciate the ego-stroke.  

Click to expand...

8% are dismissed without going to trial.  My stat was the total number of cases vs. those that go to trial and result in acquittals.  

jon_mx said:

8% are dismissed without going to trial.  My stat was the total number of cases vs. those that go to trial and result in acquittals.  

Click to expand...

I understand that. 

Zow said:

I'm intrigued (although maybe I should feel appalled but I'm numb to these situations). 

Define murder charges (specifically, list the counts in the charging document). If helpful I believe this is the current/correct charging document: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7047765-Kyle-Rittenhouse-Criminal-Complaint.html.  I would say counts 1, 3, 4, and 5 but want to ensure we're on the same page. 

Define "stand." I interpret your statement to be that there is a conviction on one of the counts as charged in the complaint. Again, though, I want us to be on the same page. I would concede that you would win if the court dismissed the "murder charges" at the conclusion of the state's case (I'm not sure of Wisconin's version of this). 

I would additionally suggest: 

- bet is moot if matter resolves itself via plea bargain at any point but for a subsequent proceeding where the "murder charges" were dismissed by acquittal or by the judge (upon a finding that the state failed to present evidence that a reasonable trial of fact could convict or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict) after the empanelment of a jury. 

- bet continues onward should matter result in a hung jury on at least one of the agreed upon counts defined as "murder charges" and there is a second trial (however, if there's an acquittal on most and state late dismissed for the reason that there is not a likelihood of conviction then you win)

- If there is a dispute @bigbottom is the referee (assuming he's willing). 

Click to expand...

Yes, convicted on any one of the charges which are considered murder/homicide.  I don't think Wisconsin has a formal process for dismissing murder charges like Florida, which came about when stand your ground was implemented.

Zow said:

I'm intrigued (although maybe I should feel appalled but I'm numb to these situations). 

Define murder charges (specifically, list the counts in the charging document). If helpful I believe this is the current/correct charging document: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7047765-Kyle-Rittenhouse-Criminal-Complaint.html.  I would say counts 1, 3, 4, and 5 but want to ensure we're on the same page. 

Define "stand." I interpret your statement to be that there is a conviction on one of the counts as charged in the complaint. Again, though, I want us to be on the same page. I would concede that you would win if the court dismissed the "murder charges" at the conclusion of the state's case (I'm not sure of Wisconin's version of this). 

I would additionally suggest: 

- bet is moot if matter resolves itself via plea bargain at any point but for a subsequent proceeding where the "murder charges" were dismissed by acquittal or by the judge (upon a finding that the state failed to present evidence that a reasonable trial of fact could convict or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict) after the empanelment of a jury. 

- bet continues onward should matter result in a hung jury on at least one of the agreed upon counts defined as "murder charges" and there is a second trial (however, if there's an acquittal on most and state late dismissed for the reason that there is not a likelihood of conviction then you win)

- If there is a dispute @bigbottom is the referee (assuming he's willing). 

Click to expand...

Hmm.  From what I understand, imperfect self-defense isn't applicable to first degree reckless homicide at all, and would reduce the first degree intentional homicide to second degree.  So  if his belief that he was in danger was unreasonable and he acted with excessive force, he could still be convicted of second degree murder and you'd lose under the terms of this bet.

-fish- said:

Hmm.  From what I understand, imperfect self-defense isn't applicable to first degree reckless homicide at all, and would reduce the first degree intentional homicide to second degree.  So  if his belief that he was in danger was unreasonable and he acted with excessive force, he could still be convicted of second degree murder and you'd lose under the terms of this bet.

Click to expand...

Yeah that's why I'm trying to clarify with him. If unclear, I haven't accepted any terms of a bet just yet. I want to make sure we're on all on the same page. At that point I intend to evaluate whether it's a smart bet or not. 

In other words, "charges considered murder/homicide" is too vague and open to debate. 

jon_mx said:

Yes, convicted on any one of the charges which are considered murder/homicide.  I don't think Wisconsin has a formal process for dismissing murder charges like Florida, which came about when stand your ground was implemented.

Click to expand...

Please define, or at least identify, which counts those are and if lesser-included offenses would also be considered.  

jon_mx said:

Yes, convicted on any one of the charges which are considered murder/homicide.  I don't think Wisconsin has a formal process for dismissing murder charges like Florida, which came about when stand your ground was implemented.

Click to expand...

It may not, but I'm willing to bet (I could be wrong) that there's a procedural rule permitting the defense to motion for a judgment of acquittal at the conclusion of the state's case on one or all counts if the court finds that not enough evidence has been presented that a reasonable trier of fact could convict the defendant (or some similar standard). 

And this trial hasn't even started yet

The Commish said:

And this trial hasn't even started yet

Click to expand...

All this passive aggressive snarkinest.  You avoid saying what you really mean or directly talking to the person it is directed at so you can use your pathetic denial.  Oh, I am just waiting for the evidence nonsense.  Total BS, just like Zimmerman.  The trial is done and over, the evidence is all in, and from the facts there wasn't a chase, Zimmerman did not start the fight and it was not murder.  But you now spout a bunch of unsupported lies despite what the trial showed.  

Just in case anyone is interested, the final pre-trial in this case is tomorrow at 10:30 a.m. CST.  The live stream link is here: https://iframe.dacast.com/live/4dafbf46-ed15-c11c-fa22-a58262833632/f3655c56-e73a-7438-ad88-dcc59d913ed3

These links have been hit/miss in the past - best to double check tomorrow for Kenosha County, Branch 3 here: https://www.wicourts.gov/courts/livestream.htm

My prediction is that the November 1 trial date will be adjourned.

CletiusMaximus said:

Just in case anyone is interested, the final pre-trial in this case is tomorrow at 10:30 a.m. CST.  The live stream link is here: https://iframe.dacast.com/live/4dafbf46-ed15-c11c-fa22-a58262833632/f3655c56-e73a-7438-ad88-dcc59d913ed3

These links have been hit/miss in the past - best to double check tomorrow for Kenosha County, Branch 3 here: https://www.wicourts.gov/courts/livestream.htm

My prediction is that the November 1 trial date will be adjourned.

Click to expand...

That's certainly playing the odds. 

Standard stuff today. November 1 trial date is still on, but I think its at best 50/50 to go.  Parties are still engaged in discovery and seem to be cooperating with each other. Def is looking into an autopsy on one of the deceased and may retain an expert.  Prosecutor argued for more time to name a rebuttal expert if needed.  There will be a time crunch on the expert witnesses if they get into complex issues.  The next date is for motions on Sept. 17.  Just a hunch and I'm no expert by any means, but it seems to me the pre-trial motions could make or break this case for one side or the other so that might be a big day for Mr. Rittenhouse.

CletiusMaximus said:

Standard stuff today. November 1 trial date is still on, but I think its at best 50/50 to go.  Parties are still engaged in discovery and seem to be cooperating with each other. Def is looking into an autopsy on one of the deceased and may retain an expert.  Prosecutor argued for more time to name a rebuttal expert if needed.  There will be a time crunch on the expert witnesses if they get into complex issues.  The next date is for motions on Sept. 17.  Just a hunch and I'm no expert by any means, but it seems to me the pre-trial motions could make or break this case for one side or the other so that might be a big day for Mr. Rittenhouse.

Click to expand...

What means this?

The Commish said:

What means this?

Click to expand...

I think its possible there will be motions regarding the self-defense issues under the statute, what kind of evidence is allowed, how the jury will be instructed.  They can't just pile in a ton of phone videos from the evening with no foundation. 

For example, @jon_mx, who I think understands this stuff far better than I do, has stated the backgrounds of the deceased is relevant to the self-defense privilege.  I don't believe that's the case, but can't say for certain what will be allowed and what won't until the judge has ruled.

CletiusMaximus said:

I think its possible there will be motions regarding the self-defense issues under the statute, what kind of evidence is allowed, how the jury will be instructed.  They can't just pile in a ton of phone videos from the evening with no foundation. 

For example, @jon_mx, who I think understands this stuff far better than I do, has stated the backgrounds of the deceased is relevant to the self-defense privilege.  I don't believe that's the case, but can't say for certain what will be allowed and what won't until the judge has ruled.

Click to expand...

Legally the background does not matter unless the defendant knew the background.  But the reality is knowing  that the guy charging you is a psychopath who spent almost his entire adult life in prison,  that the fear of being severely injured was not only a rationale belief but a certain reality. 

I'm not getting into the argument of the legalities of it all but I hope the kid goes away for a long time.  In my opinion, he believes that he has the right to choose who lives and who dies and that is somebody that should be in prison.

CletiusMaximus said:

I think its possible there will be motions regarding the self-defense issues under the statute, what kind of evidence is allowed, how the jury will be instructed.  They can't just pile in a ton of phone videos from the evening with no foundation. 

For example, @jon_mx, who I think understands this stuff far better than I do, has stated the backgrounds of the deceased is relevant to the self-defense privilege.  I don't believe that's the case, but can't say for certain what will be allowed and what won't until the judge has ruled.

Click to expand...

Gotcha...

 

jon_mx said:

Legally the background does not matter unless the defendant knew the background.  But the reality is knowing  that the guy charging you is a psychopath who spent almost his entire adult life in prison,  that the fear of being severely injured was not only a rationale belief but a certain reality. 

Click to expand...

But that reality was not known at the time by Mr. Rittenhouse. 

jon_mx said:

Legally the background does not matter unless the defendant knew the background.  But the reality is knowing  that the guy charging you is a psychopath who spent almost his entire adult life in prison,  that the fear of being severely injured was not only a rationale belief but a certain reality. 

Click to expand...

I believe in the Jan 6th thread you would categorize this as a peaceful protestor.  

Dickies said:

I believe in the Jan 6th thread you would categorize this as a peaceful protestor.  

Click to expand...

One could say they were all tourists, protestors and Proud Boys alike.

Dickies said:

I believe in the Jan 6th thread you would categorize this as a peaceful protestor.  

Click to expand...

You are pretty clueless then. 

killface said:

I'm not getting into the argument of the legalities of it all but I hope the kid goes away for a long time.  In my opinion, he believes that he has the right to choose who lives and who dies and that is somebody that should be in prison.

Click to expand...

It was not Rittenhouse's choice.  Rittenhouse's choice was either him or them and Rittenhouse chose to live.   Rittenhouse will walk as he should.  Rosenbaum was a thug who got what he desevered.  

killface said:

I'm not getting into the argument of the legalities of it all but I hope the kid goes away for a long time.  In my opinion, he believes that he has the right to choose who lives and who dies and that is somebody that should be in prison.

Click to expand...

I agree. At a bare minimum he should lose the right to own a firearm ever again. He's a terrible gun owner. I don't care how young he is.

Dickies said:

I believe in the Jan 6th thread you would categorize this as a peaceful protestor.  

Click to expand...

No it would be categorized as just "horsing around" 

Kyle Rittenhouse was recorded weeks before the Kenosha shooting saying he wished he 'had my f---ing AR' to shoot at people leaving CVS, prosecutors say

In their motion on Wednesday, Prosecutors wrote that the new video, taken just 15 days before the Kenosha shootings, showed Rittenhouse "saw something, jumped to a conclusion based on exactly zero facts, and then threatened to kill someone based on his baseless assumption and wrongful interpretation."

Link to video

McBokonon said:

Kyle Rittenhouse was recorded weeks before the Kenosha shooting saying he wished he 'had my f---ing AR' to shoot at people leaving CVS, prosecutors say

In their motion on Wednesday, Prosecutors wrote that the new video, taken just 15 days before the Kenosha shootings, showed Rittenhouse "saw something, jumped to a conclusion based on exactly zero facts, and then threatened to kill someone based on his baseless assumption and wrongful interpretation."

Link to video

Click to expand...

he is  a folk hero to those on the right now.  Much like Trump he will always be a hero

McBokonon said:

Kyle Rittenhouse was recorded weeks before the Kenosha shooting saying he wished he 'had my f---ing AR' to shoot at people leaving CVS, prosecutors say

In their motion on Wednesday, Prosecutors wrote that the new video, taken just 15 days before the Kenosha shootings, showed Rittenhouse "saw something, jumped to a conclusion based on exactly zero facts, and then threatened to kill someone based on his baseless assumption and wrongful interpretation."

Link to video

Click to expand...

It's just an innocent misinderstood kid.

McBokonon said:

Kyle Rittenhouse was recorded weeks before the Kenosha shooting saying he wished he 'had my f---ing AR' to shoot at people leaving CVS, prosecutors say

In their motion on Wednesday, Prosecutors wrote that the new video, taken just 15 days before the Kenosha shootings, showed Rittenhouse "saw something, jumped to a conclusion based on exactly zero facts, and then threatened to kill someone based on his baseless assumption and wrongful interpretation."

Link to video

Click to expand...

The only people jumping to conclusions are the hypocritical dimwitted prosecutors.  Apparently Rittenhouse witness what appeared to be three thugs covered in black hoodies committing armed robbery and fleeing a store with goods.  How is that baseless?  If a police officer witnessed the same thing it would absolutely be reasonable cause.  The only thing that is baseless are these prosecutors thinking this has anything to with the shootings.   These morons characterize Rittenhouse as hunting down victims when it was in fact Rittenhouse being chased.  How dumb are Peoole?  

Rubiobot said:

It's just an innocent misinderstood kid.

Click to expand...

Indeed, a sweet pup who just does good deeds like wiping graffiti off walls left by BLM protesters and working as a lifeguard. I am surprised they haven't posted a picture of him in a boy scout uniform.