Kyle Rittenhouse trial set for early November .

Status
Not open for further replies.
A lot of online commenters were speculating that Binger was intentionally trying to provoke a mistrial when he brought up KR's silence following the shooting and his attempt to introduce evidence that the judge had previously ruled in-admissible.
 
"If they take this long to make a decision, they're going to decide to screw somebody." Joe Gould, Cinderella Man, 2005

2 days without a decision regarding 3 clear cut cases of self defense. Yea.. this is all political theater at this point.
 
Or a hung jury??? They either can’t make a unanimous decision, or if they come to a point where they can go back and say something, someone changes their mind…???
 
Ding, ding, ding sounds like a clear case for self-defense.
Click to expand...

Well that's not true at all , just look at stag and me . Him and I have went back and forth in this thread as well as a few PM and it's become clear as I pointed out earlier . We can look at the exact same data and come to the opposite conclusions even thought what we are looking at is not disputed . At this point I'm not even sure if that makes either one of us wrong because we both see our points as clear as day as to why we feel the way we do .

Now go into the jury room and based on no verdict yet there must be at least one of me and one of him on this jury . This goes to what I said pages ago now . This will be either a hung jury or split verdict with one guilty charge of reckless endangerment .

I say it that way because I feel there is at least one juror that has no plans on voting guilty on any of the charges and at least one juror that will not vote not guilty on any of the charges . I can see them saying " look I'll give you this if you give me that " type of thing . Is that right , no on either party's part but it might get them out of the room with some sense of dignity or at least the feeling of such .

Taking the gun and curfew charges off the table made that type of compromise a lot harder to get IMO . Although I don't think he's guilty of any of the charges . I think I'd consider giving the hold outs the gun and curfew charge if they'd vote not guilty on the rest . Not saying I would for sure but if offered to wrap things up . I would not dismiss it out of hand .

Now that those charges are gone it would be a much harder sale . I don't know the legal difference between a hung jury and a mistrial but as of right now I'd say one of those is much more likely then any conviction or acquittal . I can see my client in the room saying " Yeeeah but I just can't see past the fact he should not have been there with a gun "
 
It appears they withheld his identity from the defense .
Click to expand...

As I understand it, the prosecution is required to disclose to the defense any and every thing they plan to introduce in court. They don't have to tell the defense everything they know, only what they intend to use in court.

In other words, if they don't plan to, and don't bring it into court, they aren't breaking any rules not telling the defense about it.

as to the jury, its made up of people, who, no matter what they say about being impartial, do have personal concerns worries, fears, and sometimes political agendas. Its a sad fact that sometimes, there are people on juries that will vote either way not based on the evidence or anything other than just getting it over with so they can get out of there and go back to their regular lives.

which brings up another question, at what point does making threats move from protected free speech to becoming a criminal act? And, if its directed at the jurors, isn't that also attempted jury tampering as well??

Doesn't matter what the verdict is or even if there isn't one, the wackjobs on one side or both are going to use it as their excuse to cause trouble.
 
Jump kick man is one of the reckless endangerments criminal complaints/charges when Kyle fired two shots at him as he kicked Kyle in the head/face . I'm pretty sure that constitutes bringing it into the trial lol :p

EDIT , it's count #3

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/explainer-charges-kyle-rittenhouse-face-81177832

COUNT 3: FIRST-DEGREE RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING SAFETY, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON

Video shows an unknown man leaping at Rittenhouse and trying to kick him seconds before Anthony Huber moves his skateboard toward him. Rittenhouse appears to fire two rounds at the man but apparently misses as the man runs away.

This charge is a felony punishable by 12 1/2 years in prison. The weapons modifier again would add up to five more years.
Click to expand...

Note , the description of what was happening . wow
 
Last edited:
In other words, if they don't plan to, and don't bring it into court, they aren't breaking any rules not telling the defense about it.
Click to expand...

Which is a big issue over that drone video. The Prosecution had a 4k video, but provided the defense with a low resolution version of it. The defense had not seen the 4k version until prosecution showed it to the judge as part of closing arguments.

Defense cited that as the reason they filed a motion for dismissal with prejudice. Apparently they also later filed for dismissal without prejudice (which apparently means another trial).

Maybe someone can fill me in on how a video that shows up out of nowhere can be admitted as evidence without having the person who took the video on the stand to swear it was not altered in any way, etc. Seems like this video could have been edited and given to the prosecution and voila!
 
This trial is about the right of a law abiding citizen to be able to defend themselves when elected officials and law enforcement agencies make the evil decision to allow a given jurisdiction to be destroyed by bands of fanatical criminals for political purposes. That is what this trial is about.

I went into this skeptical about Mr. Rittenhouse. After observing this trial. I’m convinced he should be found not guilty. This case will be used as precedent one way or the other. We all have a vested interest in the outcome.
 
I found it interesting that the prosecution discounted testimony of threats to kill the defendant because it didn’t exist on video.

If this happened just a few years ago, none of this would have been on video.

This incident was well documented on video. The footage that I question is where the prosecution says he pointed his gun at people. I couldn’t tell either way, I can’t confirm for myself that he didn’t initially point the gun or not.

What I did see was the defendant was clearly being pursued when he was no longer a threat after the pointing event. I also saw the defendant show restraint when people put up their hands.
 
"This incident was well documented on video. The footage that I question is where the prosecution says he pointed his gun at people. I couldn’t tell either way, I can’t confirm for myself that he didn’t initially point the gun or not."

I happened to be listening to Fox on the radio today about the trial when it became clear they had a different trial on board. BUT- the testimony was being obtained from a former Navy Seal or police officer (I couldn't tell at that point) who was asked if, in his experience, did pointing a gun at a potential threat aid in deterrence. He answered positively. He clearly reported that simply pointing the weapon was a deterrent to the progression of an altercation. My immediate reaction was, "Where was this guy when Rittenhouse needed him?"

Hopefully, the jury will use common sense as requested by the Defense attorney. If one is in a situation of potential physical conflict and the opposition lifts a bat, chain, stick, knife, rock, brick, or any other object that is not available to you, is that not a deterrent? Having a gun known to be in possession pointed at you when you are 4 feet away after you've been chasing this person should reasonably be expected to have you stop your intended assault, don't you think?
 
Last edited:
He clearly reported that simply pointing the weapon was a deterrent to the progression of an altercation. My immediate reaction was, "Where was this guy when Rittenhouse needed him?"
Click to expand...

That was not necessary , as you point out . There is several videos of Kyle pointing his gun at people moving towards him in a threatening manor and it stopping them in there tracks . Some backed off and left and those people did not get shot . Others he pointed his gun at caused them to stop or pause ( Rosenbaum and Gaige ) but those guys then continued towards him after first stopping . Each of those guys were shot for doing so .

The prosecution brings that video in and all of a sudden Kyle for the first time all night points a gun at someone . They say this for provocation purposes . They now claim Kyle provoked Rosenbaum to chase . My point , a guy saying pointing a gun is a good deterrent would only hurt Kyle because it would be conceding Kyle pointed a gun at Rosenbaum or Rosenbaum's friends provoking them to give chase and fire that first shot .

To bad they didn't know this was coming until Kyle had already testified . As Kyle clearly shaped his testimony based on the witnesses and evidence in the trial . He could have said Rosenbaum's friend started to point his gun at Kyle and that's why he pointed his rifle at him real quick but the other guy stopped so Kyle stopped as well .

I'll add that the enlarged still frame of that video only has what they believe is Kyle in it . It does not show who he "may" be pointing the gun at . There's that and the tech did not compare the enlarged frame to the original .
 
I'll add that the enlarged still frame of that video only has what they believe is Kyle in it . It does not show who he "may" be pointing the gun at . There's that and the tech did not compare the enlarged frame to the original .
Click to expand...
BUT--both Kyle and his defense asserted many times that he was surrounded by a mob at that moment, so a reasonable person could assume sweeping with a loaded weapon would have knowingly occurred.
 
stagpanther said:
BUT--both Kyle and his defense asserted many times that he was surrounded by a mob at that moment, so a reasonable person could assume sweeping with a loaded weapon would have knowingly occurred.
Click to expand...
And?

The law on the use of deadly force allows the use of force and deadly force (i.e. up to and including deadly force) if the defendant (or, at the time of the incident, the victim -- as the judge correctly established at the start of the trial, assailants do not get to be described as "victims") reasonably believes that he is in danger of death or serious bodily injury. Pointing a firearm at someone without firing a shot falls within the spectrum of using deadly force. That doesn't make it reckless, which is what the prosecution is arguing.

Personally, I think it is entirely reasonable for a 17-year old youth (remember, most anti-gun groups classify people up to the age of 25 as "children" when they are killed by guns) to fear death or serious bodily injury when pursued and threatened by a howling mob. In assessing whether or not the fear of death or serious bodily injury is reasonable, we are supposed to view the incident through the eyes of the defendant. Rittenhouse was (and still is) a sincere, naive youngster who -- at the time -- apparently didn't have a lot of real world experience. He wasn't a former Marine with multiple combat tours in the sandbox under his belt. He was a kid -- a kid who was there because he wanted to help the community the majority of his family lives in.
 
Stag , Kyle retreated which means the pointing of a gun was no longer a threat to anyone . If someone comes up and punches you in the stomach and then runs off you do not get to chase him down and beat the crap out of him . The threat to you is over as soon as he turns and starts running away . You may be able to chase after him but you take the chance that he considers that a hostile act which would be reasonable since he just assaulted you . If you catch him he will be legally able to defend himself .
 
Last edited:
101combatvet said:
The real question should be, why would some idiot try to attack a guy with an AR?
Click to expand...
One scenario:

Because they feared Kyle Rittenhouse was an active shooter (according to one of Rittenhouse's victims in testimony in front of the judge -- who was shot in the bicep) on the rampage (shooting people willy nilly).
 
I did not see the defendant fire any shots in any situation where he wasn’t being actively pursued or attacked.
By the time the second person was shot the defendant had been struck by at least three people.
The last person shot, may have thought he was an active shooter. The defendant was also actively trying to reach the police line.

The events that lead up to the first assailant chasing the defendant are unclear to me, but the defendant was on the run the entire time of the three shootings, (four shootings, but he missed that person is my understanding).

Every shooting was on video, and in each case he was being chased or being attacked.
Doesn’t matter why they were going after him. What matters is the perception of the defendant.
 
I think some are confusing what was legal under those circumstance's and what may have been a better way . Kyle is not on trial for what he might have done better . He is on trail for was what he did legal ? Huge difference in the answers . We all know there was better things he could have done . Not be there , not bring a gun , not leave the buddy system , stay at car source where all the other armed guys were . The list goes on and on but as far as I can tell including the air dropped drone video at the last second . I have not seen anything he had done that was illegal that night to legally justify the attacks on him . If Kyle was not legally able to be attacked , he was legally justified to defend him self .
 
Open carry versus concealed carry...is a big difference.

Walking into a hostile crowd, by a civilian, with a locked an loaded AR --- imho --- Is just asking for trouble.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top