Kyle Rittenhouse trial set for early November .

Status
Not open for further replies.
mehavey said:
I fear that with the actual evidence so overwhelmingly coming out in KR's favor,
that the torch-bearing/rope carrying-mob has had its spotlight re-directed to
intimidation of the jury.

The judge could issue a directed verdict to that jury, but then the mob spotlight
would be shifted to him.

I do not see this ending well in any scenario.
Click to expand...
Nefarious factions pick and choose where they will wreak havoc and actual insurrection. Kenosha is one of those chosen areas. The whole ordeal should have not been allowed to happen in the first place. If your monitoring social media then you know the anarchists have been striving to incite mayhem from Judge Schroeder’s decision to offer Rittenhouse bail. I fault Donald Trump for not shutting this behavior down when it surfaced in Seattle and Portland after it became clear local and state officials would not restore order. Either this stops or what is left of the rule of law in this nation will disintegrate.
 
Last edited:
I haven't been able to watch the trial, but I've read some blog posts and watched some video clips of the trial. In particular, I've been keeping up with this through legalinsurreciton.com. From what I have seen, this has been a total disaster from the prosecution's side. After reading through the blog post on Day 5 or 6, I actually began to wonder if the prosecution is just taking a dive. It's that bad.
Click to expand...

I am just positing a theory here, but maybe not so much taking a dive as going through the motions of what actually happened. The prosecution isn't trying to manipulate the information in such a manner of an unrealistic interpretation. My guess is that the grand jury indicted Rittenhouse and somebody said "then we will prosecute this case" despite apparently not having a case that wasn't fully supported. So they are going through the motions even though apparently the facts aren't very supportive. This could be great for getting Rittenhouse an acquittal.

Well, I screwed up, found a reference. The prosecutor wanted to try Hale in the following example, but the grand jury opted NOT to indict (somehow after 25 years, memories fade). Correction made... https://www.csmonitor.com/1996/0325/25032.html

A similar thing happened in Texas when an obvious self defense case was prosecuted, the very first CHL case in Texas. This happened in Dallas about one month after people were licensed. A gentleman by the name of Gordon Hale was involved in a slight paint swapping moving accident with a truck with two workmen in it (I believe the driver and aggressor's name was Tavai, who weighed about 60-70 lbs more than Hale, FYI). Tavai pursued Hale through traffic and once he was trapped by traffic, Tavai got out and walked up to Hale's vehicle and punched him repeatedly through the window, breaking bones in Hale's face and permanently damaging the vision in his left eye. Hale did not shoot the aggressor at this time. The aggressor stopped what he was doing and headed back to his truck, but then had second thoughts and returned to strike Hale again, whereupon Hale shot Tavai exactly 1 time, killing him. The prosecutor wanted to prosecute Hale who had been arrested. Why? The primary witness to the case was the passenger workman who reported that his partner (Tavai) chased down and attacked Hale when they two vehicles touched each other when trying to merge into the same lane. The witness reported that his partner got out of the vehicle intent on beating Hale once he was trapped in traffic and that after doing so returned approximately half way back to his own vehicle before apparently changing his mind and decided to go back and do it some more, and then Hale shot him. Hale had suffered significant bodily injury in the first attack and defended himself in every aspect of the law. Hale was never the aggressor. Hale was acquitted. Why the prosecution wanted to prosecute a case of obvious self defense is unknown, except maybe if it was because of political reasons.

So maybe the prosecutor here isn't throwing the trial. MAYBE, and I can't believe I am saying this, he is actually trying to do what is right and present the facts without warping them into some convoluted different interpretation solely for the purpose of a win? He has been told he must prosecute and he is letting the jury actually draw their own conclusions.

In the grand scheme, if Rittenhouse gets acquitted on the murder charges, that may be the best thing for him, legally and/or publicly , better than not getting prosecuted.
 
Last edited:
Having actually watched some of the prosecutions' (plural) actions, I do not agree that they aren't trying to manipulate the evidence to get a conviction.

They are, IMO.

I watched replays of the testimony of the ME, and the cross and re-cross and it was a showcase of how bad the prosecution was at making things clear, and how good the defense was.

On re-cross, the prosecution desperately tried to present a different picture than what the defense had painted and they were shot down pretty spectacularly by their very own ME witness.
 
OMG , Kyle is taking the stand OMG what the heck are they doing !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
They stopped and went to recess because he started bawling. Lucky for him that can't wheel in the corpses of the people he shot and see just how traumatized they are from the experience.
 
OMG , Kyle is taking the stand OMG what the heck are they doing
Click to expand...

Someone pointed out that this really isn't a criminal trial, this is a political trial. Since that is the case, it requires the political show of him testifying.

IDK. seems like they had a pretty strong case without taking this risk.
 
It amazes me that people want to treat 17 yo like children that must be controlled and coddled, but think nothing of the fact that at the same age they can enlist in the military and engage in crazy dangerous activities... like jumping out of airplanes, for example.
Click to expand...

He just got coddled on the stand, so there's that.
 
Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to Law and Civil Rights. We try to keep threads narrowly focused here, so please avoid the hypotheticals, random speculation, etc. Stick to the topic at hand: the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, and the law surrounding self-defense.
 
First real catastrophic error IMO that I've seen Binger commit--he already had Rittenhouse on the ropes for saying he wasn't there to use lethal force to protect property--and in previous evidence submitted Rittenhouse had said that was his primary motivation. Binger got greedy and tried to administer a coupe de grace by getting Rittenhouse to admit he wanted to kill people as the reason he went--which even if true was a very stupid thing for him to press at this point in the trial. I bet defense will be quite happy about this.
 
First real catastrophic error IMO that I've seen Binger commit--he already had Rittenhouse on the ropes for saying he wasn't there to use lethal force to protect property--and in previous evidence submitted Rittenhouse had said that was his primary motivation.
Click to expand...

Conflation of lethal force to protect and force to protect. Kyle said he was there to protect but not primarily with a rifle as the tool to force compliance. It's a minute detail but you've been pretty bad at seeing things that aren't there and ignoring others like when the judge has alread (multiple times) rebuked prosecution for talking back and other poor behavior. And it's not a mistrial but a directed verdict and dismissal that is a more likely result rather than "mistrial." Likely dismissal with prejudice if the prosecution continues acting like a kumquat. It's a political case so the judge wants a jury verdict but the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates self-defense. Anything other than a not guilty is evidence of tainted jury at this point.
 
Metal god said:
OMG , Kyle is taking the stand OMG what the heck are they doing :eek: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can't watch this :(
Click to expand...
Yes, I am actually surprised at that. Then defense seemed to have put on a sufficient case. Maybe their client insisted.

And yes thats twice the judge has blown up at the DA. I thought the second time he was going to come unglued.
 
And yes thats twice the judge has blown up at the DA. I thought the second time he was going to come unglued.
Click to expand...

Yeah I just watched the video of that . wow guess Binger asked questions about the video of Kyle talking in a car at a drug store . Thinking he was seeing shop lifters and said something like he wished he had his AR ( to shoot them ? ) I've not seen that video/audio so not sure exactly what he said . I remember the motion and the judge at the time made it clear that even if Kyle said that he ultimately called the police and that's one of the reason he would not let that in . I forget but think it was the judge that said . It doesn't matter what you think or say if you ultimately do the right thing and call the police as Kyle did in that drug store incident . Meaning his actions matter more then his thoughts and that's how that incident was quite different then what Kyle is on trial for .
 
Last edited:
Staff has been very lenient so far but you've all been reminded, TWICE about sticking to the topic and L&CR rules.

IF this becomes necessary again, the thread will end, whether the trial has, or not.

Personally I think the entire "play by play color commentary" has been a waste of bandwidth, except where it actually touches on points of law and judicial procedure. PLEASE stick to that and save commentary on the courtroom tactics of both side for some other venue.
 
Double Naught Spy said:
So maybe the prosecutor here isn't throwing the trial. MAYBE, and I can't believe I am saying this, he is actually trying to do what is right and present the facts without warping them into some convoluted different interpretation solely for the purpose of a win? He has been told he must prosecute and he is letting the jury actually draw their own conclusions.
Click to expand...

No way. Not after his performance so far today. I don't know what his deal is but he's not seeking justice and he doesn't have some secret deal with the defense counsel to mutually not object to each other very much and just let the truth go where it goes. There's no possible way. He's a loose cannon who must win, either by getting a dirty guilty verdict or by forcing the judge to declare a mistrial or grant a dismissal with prejudice, so he can go on TV and whine about the judge just in time for his next run for DA.

Incidentally, there was no grand jury in this case. Wisconsin is one of those states that doesn't require them, and one wasn't used in this case.

What I think might be happening, rather than throwing the case or corruption, is that Kyle's mom persuaded Kyle that he must testify for moral redemption. Since she's paying the bills, she could nudge the lawyers in that direction even though they can't ethically go against clear contradictory instructions from their client. If she's persuaded Kyle he must testify and she's persuaded the attorneys that Kyle really wants to testify...
 
Staff has been very lenient so far but you've all been reminded, TWICE about sticking to the topic and L&CR rules.

IF this becomes necessary again, the thread will end, whether the trial has, or not.
Click to expand...

Can you give some context because I'm not seeing any issues . I'd like to know what post have been off topic or against the rules to be sure I'm not one ? Are you guys deleting them and that's why I've not seeing them or is it I don't understand the rules ?
 
Conflation of lethal force to protect and force to protect. Kyle said he was there to protect but not primarily with a rifle as the tool to force compliance. It's a minute detail but you've been pretty bad at seeing things that aren't there and ignoring others like when the judge has alread (multiple times) rebuked prosecution for talking back and other poor behavior. And it's not a mistrial but a directed verdict and dismissal that is a more likely result rather than "mistrial." Likely dismissal with prejudice if the prosecution continues acting like a kumquat. It's a political case so the judge wants a jury verdict but the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates self-defense. Anything other than a not guilty is evidence of tainted jury at this point.
__________________
Click to expand...
Well allow me to retort (as Samuel Jackson said in Pulp Fiction)!:rolleyes:
1) Binger ask Rittenhouse in totally unambiguous terms if he was there to protect property with lethal force--to which he responded no. He then went down the line asking the same question and got a negative for every question up until the self-defense affirmation. 2) The judge himself admonished Binger for provoking a mistrial--his words, not mine.
 
2) The judge himself admonished Binger for provoking a mistrial--his words, not mine.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected, I missed this part of the trial. Or I haven't made it to that part in the stream I'm watching. If prosecution is bringing non-kosher subjects into the trial, yes a mistrial. The prosecution and this judge have been at loggerheads this whole proceeding, I'm sure he's done with the shenanigans.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top