Kyle Rittenhouse trial set for early November .

Status
Not open for further replies.
Based on some video footage of Kyle Rittenhouse's advance towards a potentially hostile crowd --- imho --- Rittenhouse went out of his way looking for trouble...and he found it.
Click to expand...

I simply cannot grasp the logic of this line of thinking. I've seen it here before, and it appears the prosecution is also using this line of thinking in this case.

But, where does this logic go? Because KR went in the direction of 'hostile crowd' he loses his right to self defense? Did he regain that right when he tried to go in the opposite direction?

How does the situation apply? If I 'advance' into an area of a city I live in with a higher crime rate than where I currently am, is that me 'advancing' into a 'hostile area'?

Why is KR uniquely the one who bears this burden? Wouldn't charging at an armed man who had just shot someone else be patently 'advancing on a hostile'?
 
There is no "wrong place" for KR to be. As a Citizen,he can be wherever he is,heading in whatever direction he chooses.

He has a much right to be there as any of his attackers. (Who MAY have ridden in on some Soros funded bus,from out of state,as trained agitators)

What gives any of his critics grounds to say "He should not be there"?
 
(Who MAY have ridden in on some Soros funded bus,from out of state,as trained agitators)
Click to expand...
I heard from well-informed reliable sources from impeccable internet social media sites that Hillary Clinton herself was driving that bus.
 
HiBC said:
There is no "wrong place" for KR to be. As a Citizen,he can be wherever he is,heading in whatever direction he chooses.

He has a much right to be there as any of his attackers. (Who MAY have ridden in on some Soros funded bus,from out of state,as trained agitators)

What gives any of his critics grounds to say "He should not be there"?


He had as much right to be there as anyone else. That is correct. Don't know anything about the bus.
Click to expand...
 
Stag,you are working hard at being ridiculous.

I have no reason to believe the buses showed up at Kenosha,but over the course of nation wide "protests",such buses did show up.

My point was there were a lot of people at Kenosha who did not live in Kenosha.

What makes them more "Right to be there" than KR?

I'm NOT making a case for the WISDOM of a 17 year old kid,. I did plenty of unwise things from 14 through 25. Slowly,consequences educated me.

Today,I'll bet KR would opt for going Pike fishing "up North" with me rather than going to Kenosha. That might be Wisdom,hard won.

Rosenbaum "should not have been" where he was. Arguement?

Was KR WISE to take an AR-15? He may have been dead without it. Some folks got POd he put out the fire.

I would not be in a crowd of anarchists unarmed.At 17,he could not possess a handgun. I'm not clear if KR could carry (not own) a rifle. Wisconsin law would permit a person over 14 to hunt unsupervised with a long gun.

In any case, I'm not concerned with the frivolous ,irrelevant side issues and opinions about them.

The Armed Citizen is not armed because they wish to shoot people. KR likely did not take his AR-15 to shoot people in defense of property.

With the ideals of a 17 year old,he went to a dangerous environment.

Dangerous like being a fuel truck driver/contractor in Afghanistan.

Its not unwise to be armed for purposes of self preservation. To be armed for self preservation does not imply KR would shoot someone to protect a used car.

It seems a lot of folks are intellectualy challenged by that concept.
 
Do any of y'all believe Rittenhouse's statement to the prosecutor, when he said his Proud Bois buddies were only using laser pens
Click to expand...

Whatever I might believe is irrelevant. The only opinions that matter are those of the 12 jurors on this case.

Let's all refrain from second-guessing Rittenhouse's intentions, and let's not have this drift any further off course, please.
 
I would not be in a crowd of anarchists unarmed.At 17,he could not possess a handgun. I'm not clear if KR could carry (not own) a rifle. Wisconsin law would permit a person over 14 to hunt unsupervised with a long gun.
Click to expand...

Kyle could possess a long gun. The prosecution and the judge are misreading the law. Even you don't adopt a strict logical view of the law and think the hunting certificate reference makes it fuzzy and unclear, that must be resolved in favor of the defendant.

I seriously doubt any 16- or 17-year-old has ever been charged under this law before for carrying a long gun, and if they have it certainly was never appealed because the lawyers would've found case law if it existed.

For comparison, Minnesota right next door has a similar law for possession of firearms by minors, and a similar exception for long guns for 16yo-and-older. They have quirks: Minnesota restricts "assault weapons" (which they define), but Wisconsin doesn't. Wisconsin only restricts SBRs and SBSes.

Both the prosecution and the judge seem to want to put that possession charge to the jury, which indicates just how confused they both are about it, which supports even more dismissal on the basis that even if it's not clearly inapplicable, it's definitely an unclear law, which also requires dismissal.

None of the facts is in dispute. Kyle was 17. He was in possession of the AR-15. He was not hunting and had not taken a hunter's education course. The AR was a typical one, not a SBR. This is therefore a matter of law. Either the charge was invalid, or he is guilty. It is not for a jury to decide.

Meanwhile, the prosecution didn't mention adding Rittenhouse's choice of ties to the list of charges, so a conviction for that may not be in the cards either.
 
Does anyone, anyone have a salient point why the defense place Kyle on the stand???....
Click to expand...

So the jury gets to see him as a person, not "the defendant" who has a lawyer do all the talking.

This can go either way, its entirely dependent on how each juror reacts to the performance on the stand. Visual, and verbal.

Its considered a hugely risky tactic, one "wrong" look or word can cause a juror to make up their mind, right then. They shouldn't, but being humans, they often do.

Radio on my drive home today said the defense has rested. We'll see what happens next....
 
zincwarrior said:
Disagree there. He showed up to protect two sleazeballs' auto yard with an illegal (for him) gun, and then further got snookered into running through crowds of rioters.
Not show up-fine. Not leave the lot-fine. His life is ruined.
Interesting aside that the car lot owners weren't there.
Click to expand...
But no mention of the troublemakers having broken the law, amazing.
 
I was Watching that last part with the zooming in controversy . I saw that they let him testify and they introduced the imagery but I don’t remember them going over the imagery with him to explain who was pointing white where did they and I just missed it ?
 
LO7:
Why was the riot allowed to get to the point that it did in the first place???
Click to expand...
Kenosha isn't a huge town. I don't suspect that they have the resources to "lock down" much.
That said, the only pertinent question is "Was KR defending himself when he pulled the trigger that night?"
 
The power of editorialized headlines.

https://www.aol.com/news/kyle-rittenhouse-active-shooter-according-160503950.html

Read the headline.
Read the name.
Realize this was the man who actually had the gun to KR's head.
Remember his testimony:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Defense attorney: “You would agree your firearm is pointed at Mr. Rittenhouse correct?”

Grosskreutz: “Yes.”

Defense: “Once your firearm is pointed at Mr. Rittenhouse, that’s when he fires his gun, yes?

Grosskreutz: “No.”

Defense: “Sir, look…Does this look like right now your arm is being shot?”

Grosskreutz: “That looks like my bicep being vaporized yes.”

Defense: “It’s being vaporized because you’re pointing a gun directly at him, yes?”

Grosskreutz: “Yes.”

Defense: “When you’re standing 3-5 feet from him with your arms up in the air he never fired. Right?”

Grosskreutz: “Correct.”

Defense: “It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him with your gun, now your hands down, pointed at him, that he fired, right?”

Grosskreutz: “Correct.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Most people never read more than the headline
Most people never cross-check the information.
Most people . . . . .
 
I was just going over some of the testimony today and the defense called a police officer or crime scene tec (not sure) to ask about finding a loaded ejected round on the street or not . Was this about the theory Kyle had to clear a jam or about him charging the gun when on the ground before shooting Gaige ?

I'm not understanding the context or reasoning of the questions . It has been testified to that Kyle fired 8 shots and 22 unfired rounds were recovered from the "30" round mag . What is the question about ? This has been brought up multiple times and I'm not clear of the significant ?
 
Last edited:
The power of editorialized headlines.

https://www.aol.com/news/kyle-ritten...160503950.html

Read the headline.
Read the name.
Realize this was the man who actually had the gun to KR's head.
Remember his testimony:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Defense attorney: “You would agree your firearm is pointed at Mr. Rittenhouse correct?”

Grosskreutz: “Yes.”

Defense: “Once your firearm is pointed at Mr. Rittenhouse, that’s when he fires his gun, yes?

Grosskreutz: “No.”

Defense: “Sir, look…Does this look like right now your arm is being shot?”

Grosskreutz: “That looks like my bicep being vaporized yes.”

Defense: “It’s being vaporized because you’re pointing a gun directly at him, yes?”

Grosskreutz: “Yes.”

Defense: “When you’re standing 3-5 feet from him with your arms up in the air he never fired. Right?”

Grosskreutz: “Correct.”

Defense: “It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him with your gun, now your hands down, pointed at him, that he fired, right?”

Grosskreutz: “Correct.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Most people never read more than the headline
Most people never cross-check the information.
Most people . . . . .
Click to expand...
I watched that as he said it and was shocked--I think he was either very confused or decided to purposefully throw his testimony--because it directly contradicted previous statements. I've watched the videos many times and no matter how many times and angles--at least at the seconds between he goes hands-up and he gets shot by Rittenhouse--I don't see him pointing the gun directly at his head--ever--as is claimed by Rittenhouse. HOWEVER--at the moment Grosscreutz pulled his gun--that did conceivably bring justifiable self-defense for Rittenhouse up IMO since it was an immediate threat with a lethal weapon. Grosscreutz didn't connect the dots to argue he had seen two previous killings by Rittenhouse and therefore was trying to neutralize a possible mass-murder scenario. I think on the back end somewhere Grosscreutz is going to make some good money after this.
 
Last edited:
I was just going over some of the testimony today and the defense called a police officer or crime scene tec (not sure) to ask about finding a loaded ejected round on the street or not . Was this about the theory Kyle had to clear a jam or about him charging the gun when on the ground before shooting Gaige ?

I'm not understanding the context or reasoning of the questions . It has been testified to that Kyle fired 8 shots and 22 unfired rounds were recovered from the "30" round mag . What is the question about ? This has been brought up multiple times and I'm not clear of the significant ?
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Click to expand...
They were trying to impune the examination of Binger when he examined Rittenhouse for the timing of Huber's shooting and when he shot Grosscreutz. Binger suggested at one point that Rittenhouse "racked" his gun--why I'm not sure, but I'm guessing it established that there was time enough between the shootings to make "a clear headed decision" to shoot at Grosscreutz. I thought it was a good move by prosecution to bring in officer Bray (who I must admit my first thought was I might not mind being arrested and frisked by ;) ) and provide expert testimony that an AR doesn't always eject a live round when being cleared--defense was pressing hard on the issue that since a live round wasn't found at the scene prosecution was likely making it up and the racking never took place. IN the bigger scheme of things I didn't see what purpose that piece of the examination made other than the possible benefit of "techno mumbo jumbo" benefit of confusing the jury and casting doubt on the prosecution.

This issue of techno mumbo jumbo obfuscation became much more obvious--and much more serious, in the exchange concerning the enlargement of the drone footage. Defense went after that full-bore from the state's forensic examiner knowing full well the guy didn't have programmer-level knowledge of the software and how it interpolated the image's pixel's upon enlarging it. Nobody in that room did--with the possible exception of the defense's expert--who incredibly testified for the defense the accuracy of the same technology for their images/videos, despite the fact at the programming level the same or very similar algorithms are used. Defense scored a huge hit when they pressed the state examiner to admit that a processed image may have no relation to the original--which is absolute downright BS--and he probably knows it. Even the defense's video expert had a look of disbelief on his face as defense grilled him on that. Defense successfully suggested the software could "make stuff up arbitrarily" because the state's guy failed to define what interpolation actually meant--and does not actually replace or alter existing pixels in the original.
 
Last edited:
stagpanther said:
I watched that as he said it and was shocked--I think he was either very confused or decided to purposefully throw his testimony--because it directly contradicted previous statements. I've watched the videos many times and no matter how many times and angles--at least at the seconds between he goes hands-up and he gets shot by Rittenhouse--I don't see him pointing the gun directly at his head--ever--as is claimed by Rittenhouse. HOWEVER--at the moment Grosscreutz pulled his gun--that did conceivably bring justifiable self-defense for Rittenhouse up IMO since it was an immediate threat with a lethal weapon. Grosscreutz didn't connect the dots to argue he had seen two previous killings by Rittenhouse and therefore was trying to neutralize a possible mass-murder scenario. I think on the back end somewhere Grosscreutz is going to make some good money after this.
Click to expand...
That right there says one thing, the libs are just wasting money and tying up the courts on non-sense.
 
Defense scored a huge hit when they pressed the state examiner to admit that a processed image may have no relation to the original--which is absolute downright BS--and he probably knows it.
Click to expand...

In fact, what the defense accomplished was to establish that nobody in that room understand how the algorithms that ADD PIXELS to an expanded image work, and that a zoomed image can have no relation whatsoever to the original image.

They work fine for everyday 'look at her nice smile' stuff.

But the prosecution's entire case hangs on a low resolution drone image from distance that clearly does NOT show what they claim it shows.

The entire point of all this wrangling is that the prosecutions' case hinges on this video dropped on their doorstep a week ago when they have supposedly been 'investigating' this for over a year.

And the video absolutely does not show what they claim it to show.. that KR pointed his rifle at someone.

That is what the prosecution case boils down to at this point. That KR MAY have pointed his rifle at someone. Not that he wasn't justified to use deadly force to defend himself.

That pathetic Binger at this point is just desperately trying to salvage at least the charge of recklessness because they have been soundly demolished on the rest of the charges.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top