Kyle Rittenhouse trial set for early November .
- Thread starter Metal god
- Start date
- Status
Same as saying how a rape victim dressed or acted prior to being raped.
I don’t particularly like open carry, but I recognize a person’s right to do it.
The following is my own personal opinion:
The first person shot seen an AR carried by a dopey-looking kid that he could easily get from him.
I agree that the defendant would have been better off not being there. He would have not been in that situation if he wasn’t carrying an AR15. But, there is nothing inherently wrong with being there. I seen dozens of people carrying weapons. I heard way more gunfire (loud bangs) sounds than those the defendant fired.
The kid was tragically misguided,but where’s the crime in that?
It is ludicrous by any stretch that you must just “take a beating”
I don’t particularly like open carry, but I recognize a person’s right to do it.
The following is my own personal opinion:
The first person shot seen an AR carried by a dopey-looking kid that he could easily get from him.
I agree that the defendant would have been better off not being there. He would have not been in that situation if he wasn’t carrying an AR15. But, there is nothing inherently wrong with being there. I seen dozens of people carrying weapons. I heard way more gunfire (loud bangs) sounds than those the defendant fired.
The kid was tragically misguided,but where’s the crime in that?
It is ludicrous by any stretch that you must just “take a beating”
Unless both sides and the judge agree to a change of venue, the law generally requires the trial to be held in the jurisdiction the crime took place and that the "jury of your peers" are people from that jurisdiction.
If the judge can be convinced that a fair trial cannot happen, he can order the venue changed to someplace where a fair trial can (presumably) be held.
If not well, that's one reason there are Appeals courts...
Let's say you are in that situation and you turn a corner and see a kid (sorry, but he looks like a kid) with an AR, and you're carrying concealed. I can see a credible case for self-defense if you shot him for turning towards you. And he can claim self-defense too if he shoots you first.
That’s a what-if scenario. I never saw this kid hold his weapon in a threatening manner outside of him being pursued or attacked.
There is testimony that he did point a weapon at someone at the onset, but I couldn’t tell from the evidence.
After that, I seen the defendant holding the rifle safely, fleeing and showing restraint when people putting their hands up.
There is testimony that he did point a weapon at someone at the onset, but I couldn’t tell from the evidence.
After that, I seen the defendant holding the rifle safely, fleeing and showing restraint when people putting their hands up.
I'd say there would need to be a bit more to that but yes I can see something like that happening . I said this somewhere , the problem is the anti crowd demonizing guns and the fact carry is no longer common . It's not like in the old west guys walking around a corner got in gun fights daily because the guy around the corner had a gun as well . Making guns more and more taboo make seeing them in public more and more scary . That's the problem not guns them selves
The reason a full blown shoot out is more likely now then 100 years ago is because not enough people are carrying and we don't teacher our kids not to screw with the guy with a gun haha Although there were several people in the crowd that seemed to understand that .
rickyrick said:
This is garbage. There's one drone video with Brady issues and foundation issues that the prosecution claims shows Kyle pointing a gun at the Ziminskis, wrong-handed (he'd have to be holding the right-handed AR with his left hand on the pistol grip). There is the original of that video, a 50% speed version with interpolated frames, and multiple zoomed versions and a still photo taken from that video, and testimony by a cop who claims to have pinched to zoom on the video and "saw" a gun pointed at the Ziminskis.
That is clearly invalid. The judge looked at the prosecution's best version of the video many times on a 4k screen and didn't see what the prosecution claimed even with them telling him what to see and where, but still let it into evidence (over objections) on the idea that it's possible some jury might be able to see something he didn't see.
And the cop's testimony that he saw something the judge didn't see, also (obviously) in evidence. Despite that iOS's pinch to zoom allegedly (not sure on this) will do AI interpolation if zoomed beyond the native video resolution. Testimony about what a cop saw in a video that's in evidence seems like it should be excluded unless it can be reproduced for the court with the cop pointing out what they see, and where, in realtime.
It's ABSURD. All of this evidence and testimony is based on one video that CLEARLY doesn't show what the prosecution says, even by a preponderance standard, much less beyond a reasonable doubt. It's another situation like the Steele dossier: evidence laundering.
I think to answer the left handed question which in general I think is BULL . I'd use a weapon any way I could if I had to to save my life and loved ones . To claim as if the firearm can't be used in a left handed stance is simply a bad faith argument .
That said I think one way to find out what hand he was using would be to see what hand he was carrying the extinguisher in . If he was carrying the extinguisher in his left hand then he most likely had a right handed stance right after dropping it . The opposite would seem reasonable if he was carrying it in his right hand . The thing that has been lost in this is that it's a big movement to transition from left handed to right handed a heck of a lot more then charging the rifle and that should be noticed on video if it happened .
He shot Rosenbaum in a right handed stance which means he would have had to transfer the rifle from the left handed stance when pointing at saminski . I've not looked , do we see this transfer happen ?
Last edited:
That’s why I said that I can’t tell if he pointed the weapon. But there was testimony.
After the pursuit started, I saw the defendant handling his rifle pretty safely, in my opinion, for the circumstances that he was in.
The prosecution seems to be hoping that because he may have pointed the gun at someone he doesn’t have the right to self defense at any point beyond that.
Again, it is very clear that the defendant was on the run and/or being attacked in all of the shootings. That is very clear to me. More clear than before the trial. He did not point his weapon at anyone that wasn’t acting in a threatening way.
After the pursuit started, I saw the defendant handling his rifle pretty safely, in my opinion, for the circumstances that he was in.
The prosecution seems to be hoping that because he may have pointed the gun at someone he doesn’t have the right to self defense at any point beyond that.
Again, it is very clear that the defendant was on the run and/or being attacked in all of the shootings. That is very clear to me. More clear than before the trial. He did not point his weapon at anyone that wasn’t acting in a threatening way.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Doesn't matter what they thought or feared. Rittenhouse didn't know what they were thinking when they attacked him.Erno86 said:
In a self-defense case, the determination of whether or not the defendant's actions were reasonable and whether or not his fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury is reasonable must be made from the perspective of the defendant.
For the lawyers here or if you are 100% sure
What happens in a mistrial , Want happens to the defendant assuming it's without prejudice ?
Do they get to go home
Are they rearrested before leaving the court the day the mistrial is official
Do they go directly to jail and need to post bail again ?
How long does the state have to bring charges ? is it days , months or until the statute of limitations runs out on what ever crime is alleged ?
What happens in a mistrial , Want happens to the defendant assuming it's without prejudice ?
Do they get to go home
Are they rearrested before leaving the court the day the mistrial is official
Do they go directly to jail and need to post bail again ?
How long does the state have to bring charges ? is it days , months or until the statute of limitations runs out on what ever crime is alleged ?
Last edited:
Aguila Blanca
Staff
But it's not illegal.Erno86 said:
It would probably be more accurate to say that the trial should not have been held at all.Erno86 said:
The charges are state charges, so the trial would have to be conducted in Wisconsin. And I'll bet many of the demonstrators aren't from Kenosha, so I'm sure they would have traveled to wherever the trial might have been held.
The MSNBC "producer" (according to him) or freelancer (according to MSNBC) who was busted while tailing the jury bus was, I believe, from New York. It wouldn't have mattered to him where in Wisconsin the trial was held.
Assuming the mistrial is without prejudice (because of a hung jury for example), the custody status of the defendant usually stays the same but the judge can change the terms if he or she has a good reason to do that (exact procedures and standards will vary by state).
The judge sets the time for the state to determine if they will retry the defendant. In my experience, it's usually fairly short --- one or two weeks. But, this is anything but a normal case.
@487, Metal god stated:
@507, 44 Amp said:
For example, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 requires the government to disclose any statements by the defendant, results of tests, summaries of expert opinions, and more. It specifically excludes the statements of government witnesses until after the witness testifies on direct by referring to 18 U.S.C. Section 3500. That's where Congress made this delayed disclosure the rule. When I did some federal defense work many years ago, it was local custom for the government to provide those statements 24 hours in advance of a witness testifying. My state rules require earlier disclosure than the federal rules. I have no idea what the Wisconsin rule is.
Second point: The government is under an affirmative obligation to provide any material that is exculpatory and material to the defense under Brady v. Maryland. "Exculpatory" simply means evidence that would be helpful to the defense, including evidence that would be helpful in examining a witness. "Material" means the information has a reasonable probability of effecting the outcome of the trial in the defendant's favor. The information must be turned over in time for the defense to make use of it at trial. This is a due process right based on the U.S. Constitution.
If Metal god is correct on his information, there's a chance this could result in a new trial if KR is convicted (by a mistrial or via a post-conviction proceeding). We don't know how this witness might testify. Of course, that is not the scenario that KR wants.
Third point: Jurors are allowed to be obstinate and vote how they want to vote, even if it seems contrary to the evidence. And that obstinance is not grounds to throw a juror off the trial. Something more is needed. If the speculation is correct that the jurors could hear demonstrators outside and a couple may feel intimidated, then this could be yet another ground for a mistrial or reversal on appeal. I've seen multiple cases where a defendant has been granted a new trial because of outside influences --- from a fellow juror looking things up on the Internet to someone discussing the case with a juror.
While I have not followed the trial closely, I have not seen anything but Meal god's post about possible jury intimidation by protestors. And, I can't think of anyone who would know, unless the jury has said something to the judge.
@507, 44 Amp said:
First point: The procedural rules on exactly what the prosecution has to provide vary somewhat by jurisdiction.
For example, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 requires the government to disclose any statements by the defendant, results of tests, summaries of expert opinions, and more. It specifically excludes the statements of government witnesses until after the witness testifies on direct by referring to 18 U.S.C. Section 3500. That's where Congress made this delayed disclosure the rule. When I did some federal defense work many years ago, it was local custom for the government to provide those statements 24 hours in advance of a witness testifying. My state rules require earlier disclosure than the federal rules. I have no idea what the Wisconsin rule is.
Second point: The government is under an affirmative obligation to provide any material that is exculpatory and material to the defense under Brady v. Maryland. "Exculpatory" simply means evidence that would be helpful to the defense, including evidence that would be helpful in examining a witness. "Material" means the information has a reasonable probability of effecting the outcome of the trial in the defendant's favor. The information must be turned over in time for the defense to make use of it at trial. This is a due process right based on the U.S. Constitution.
If Metal god is correct on his information, there's a chance this could result in a new trial if KR is convicted (by a mistrial or via a post-conviction proceeding). We don't know how this witness might testify. Of course, that is not the scenario that KR wants.
Third point: Jurors are allowed to be obstinate and vote how they want to vote, even if it seems contrary to the evidence. And that obstinance is not grounds to throw a juror off the trial. Something more is needed. If the speculation is correct that the jurors could hear demonstrators outside and a couple may feel intimidated, then this could be yet another ground for a mistrial or reversal on appeal. I've seen multiple cases where a defendant has been granted a new trial because of outside influences --- from a fellow juror looking things up on the Internet to someone discussing the case with a juror.
While I have not followed the trial closely, I have not seen anything but Meal god's post about possible jury intimidation by protestors. And, I can't think of anyone who would know, unless the jury has said something to the judge.
Last edited:
Aguila Blanca
Staff
KyJim said:
There are still six alternate jurors hanging around the courthouse. If the judge is made aware that some of the active jurors are either refusing to or unable to deliver a verdict because of outside intimidation, could the judge simply toss those jurors, replace them from the pool of alternates, and have the jury re-commence deliberations?
Thanks KyJim , Seeing how the judge has not ruled a mistrial based on juror misconduct . I assume the reports I read were not accurate . However I'd like to piggyback on AB's question . If a juror is afraid/intimidated to vote a certain way . If that's the only reason , they'd vote for what ever but is concerned something bad would happen so they refuse to vote how they truly feel . Is that a mistrial period or can that juror simply be replaced .
I see it both ways . It seems reasonable just to switch the juror out . However the fear that specific juror had/has could have influenced the other jury members for the days they've been together . Which then could effect everyone's thought process in the jury room going forward .
I see it both ways . It seems reasonable just to switch the juror out . However the fear that specific juror had/has could have influenced the other jury members for the days they've been together . Which then could effect everyone's thought process in the jury room going forward .
stagpanther
New member
The obvious solution is to cross-examine the jury upon reaching a verdict. And then cross-examine those who cross-examine them--and so-on, until the desired outcome is reached.
- Status