Kyle Rittenhouse trial set for early November .

Status
Not open for further replies.
The answer to a question from Aguila Blanca is moot, now that Rittenhouse has been found not guilty on all counts. I think that was the correct result from what I know about the case. But I will answer AB's question anyway.

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?
Click to expand...

If that had been the case and the alternate jurors had not been reading the news, etc., then they possibly could have been substituted for jurors "tainted" by outside influences. That is somewhat dependent upon state rules. In my state, sometimes the judge will admonish alternate jurors not to discuss the case, etc. until after a verdict is rendered just in case a sitting juror gets sick, etc. But I can only remember 1 or 2 cases this ever happened.
 
I'm grateful its possible to get a fair trial in the USA despite the social and news media lynch mob.That includes the President shooting off his mouth,inappropriately.

I hope every member of the lynch mob chews their Crow slowly,without salt.

You were wrong. Own your fallibility. Try not to make the same mistake again.

I thought the Judge did a great job of keeping the Court Just.

The Defense team convinced both me and the jury.

I'm grateful for the idiot prosecutor for being such a loser. Fortunately the voters of Kenosha were able to see he is not made of the right stuff. Hopefully,he will never be a DA

I'm even grateful for Gaiges testimony. He played a part in the "Not Guilty" verdict.
I'm grateful for the courage of the Jury,to deliver the verdict.

This case serves all of us,who own a self defense firearm and just might find ourselves in Court after defending ourselves.

Kyle,while I myself would probably stayed away from Kenosha, a 17 year old gets to make a few questionable choices from the idealism of youth.
I truly believe your motives were good.
I'm glad you are alive. I'm glad you were declared "Not Guilty"

If I may suggest...Next time,go Northern Pike fishing.:)
 
Mayor Bill de Blasio said:
Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum are victims. They should be alive today.

The only reason they’re not is because a violent, dangerous man chose to take a gun across state lines and start shooting people.

To call this a miscarriage of justice is an understatement.

https://twitter.com/NYCMayor/status/1461761720939167745
Click to expand...

Please, please tell me this is grounds for a viable libel lawsuit. Yeah, he's a quasi-public figure, yeah, the prosecution made allegations that the media can use as cover if they're just reporting those allegations, but here de Blasio is stating completely wrong facts that were not claimed during the trial.
 
So legal folks,

Are there likely to be consequences for the prosecutions' behavior? I believe the judge told them that a day of reckoning was coming for something about that video.

How does the process work for trial attorneys if they do something wrong?
 
So legal folks,

Are there likely to be consequences for the prosecutions' behavior? I believe the judge told them that a day of reckoning was coming for something about that video.

How does the process work for trial attorneys if they do something wrong?
Click to expand...
The "day of reckoning" could have come by way of mistrial with prejudice, but that is now moot. It could come as a referral to the bar association for potential ethical violations, though courts don't usually refer conduct of attorneys for bar discipline unless it is a substantial violation. Not sure if it rises to that level. It might simply go away since Rittenhouse was acquitted.
 
Please, please tell me this is grounds for a viable libel lawsuit. Yeah, he's a quasi-public figure, yeah, the prosecution made allegations that the media can use as cover if they're just reporting those allegations, but here de Blasio is stating completely wrong facts that were not claimed during the trial.
Click to expand...

For what it's worth New Yorkers think of de Blasio as a bigger tool than anyone.
 
Please, please tell me this is grounds for a viable libel lawsuit. Yeah, he's a quasi-public figure, yeah, the prosecution made allegations that the media can use as cover if they're just reporting those allegations, but here de Blasio is stating completely wrong facts that were not claimed during the trial.
Click to expand...

I was just listening to a liable lawyer on this . The short take is likely no . He had two points 1) If they say anything that was brought up in court even if proven false Kyle would not have a case , even if you keep driving it home . 2) Kyle has been so defamed throughout this process it's unlikely any one claim would rise above as being so defamatory that it defames Kyle more then he already is . His basic answer was if Kyle were to come to him he'd tell him you don't have a case but might find an attorney that would bring one regardless but I'm not them .

Should we be expecting Kyle and whom ever on Tucker Carlson tonight ? I sure hope not , he needs to just go lay low for several months then speak if he so chooses . However I can see his attorneys talking him into an interview . IMHO he should release a heart felt statement thanking everyone that has believed bla bla bla , then go on vacation .
 
Last edited:
Apologies in advance for a stupid, tangential question, but it has been bugging me and I'm sure y'all will have a reasonable explanation.

There are pictures on several web news sites of the prosecutor handling (presumably Kyle Rittenhouse's) rifle. Here is one: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/bang-bang-binger/

The rifle lacks any sights in these pictures.

In pictures of Mr. Rittenhouse presumably taken on the night of the riot, his rifle wears what looks to me like a red dot sight, or at least a tubular optic of some sort.

Is there any explanation for the apparent discrepancy? Did Kyle go to a riot with a flat-top with no sights, or was the prosecutor handling a different rifle (not Kyle's), or did the authorities remove the sight for some reason?

I know this is irrelevant but I thought I'd waste a few seconds of your time and try to put my question to rest.

Thanks in advance for any thoughts on this.

PS I'm beyond delighted that he was acquitted, regardless of what I think of his judgement for being at the riot in the first place.
 
nice picture, no mag in the gun, but action closed AND finger ON THE TRIGGER anyway....:rolleyes:

I'm sure I'd face contempt charges but I cannot help but think that if he were pointing that gun at me, I'd stand, and (with empty hands in clear view) loudly ask the judge, Your Honor, would you PLEASE instruct "Alec Baldwin" there, NOT to point a gun at people in the courtroom?!"

:D

is that too "over the top?" would diving out of my seat and hitting the floor be better?? :rolleyes:
 
Yes , the rifle was equipped with a red dot on the night in question . The sight is in evidence in the same box of the rifle . As far as I know it was never said why it's no longer mounted . When Black testified they brought out the rifle and the sight to confirm it was Kyles rig .
 
44 AMP: Speaking to the Judge might be over the top, who knows?

Myself, I'd hit the floor without saying a word. Sometimes actions speak louder than words.

An AR with no mag and no ECI is still capable of firing the round in the chamber if there is one.

Metal god: Thanks! Good to know I was not imagining the red dot. As to why the sight was dismounted, that's probably less important to me than knowing that there was indeed a sight on the rifle and my eyes are not as bad as I'd feared.
 
I was wondering why they don’t use plastic inert guns in court. They exist, I’ve seen them and handled them.

I have no problem displaying the actual weapon in court, but acting out scenes in a crowded room should be a dummy gun.
 
Someone on the Rekieta livestream panel speculated that Binger was hoping to provoke an objection from the defense, just so that the prosecution could retort, "See how provocative pointing a gun at someone is?" If that was the goal, it failed. It may not have had any relevance to the case, but it would've been a golden moment for Binger if it had played out that way.

Even though his conduct is probably protected under prosecutorial privilege, I'd like to see him sued in civil court by the jurors for assault, or something like intentional infliction of emotional distress. Imagine if you do what Binger did to a jury, and one juror is a vet and has PTSD.
 
Wow! I need to rethink my imagined reaction (hitting the floor) based on that speculation. That would have played right into the prosecutor's hands.
 
A lot of people on both sides thought that this was an open and shut case.
Click to expand...

This is important when everyone feels qualified to talk about hypothetical "clean shoots" and armed self-defense. There was all sorts of talk around the Zimmerman case about "it was justified! He's gonna get off!"

And he did, but look at the road it took to get him there. Lawyers aren't cheap, and murder charges are a scary thing. He'll have a cloud over his head for the rest of his life.

When there's a shooting, there's usually grievous bodily harm or death. There's going to be an investigation. And if there's any doubt, there's going to be a trial. Things can get really messy from there.
 
Ok this question may need it's own thread but

How if at all do we think this verdict effects the SCOTUS cases out of NY on concealed carry . Is there an argument that depending on the verdict the SCOTUS would write it's opinion differently . I don't mean there specific ruling yes/no but how it's written . Meaning if they were to rule carry outside the home is constitutional and a core right . Maybe after this verdict they still rain it in some to not have this verdict and there ruling seem to say it's time to go back to the old west days and shootouts in the streets are just something we will have to live with in the future .

Or vise versa , Maybe because of this verdict they will not rule carry is constitutional outside the home . Fearing if they rule carry outside the home is constitutional that could be misunderstood as vigilante justice is gtg .

I'm not very good at writing and I have to say the above is some of the worst I've done compared to what I'm thinking and trying to get across . IDK I just feel this could effect that case in several ways , both good and bad for carry rights in America . I know the anti's are going to be making the argument this verdict and a SCOTUS ruling in NY could set back the safety of the citizens 200years . If that kind of talk gets loud enough , the justices are going to hear it and some will be effected by it .
 
Last edited:
Kyle had every right to be where he was as an American citizen to protest peacibly against bad law enforcement and carry the gun as he did for lawful self-defense as provided by Our Bill of Rights.

We need more American heroes like Kyle Rittenhouse and George Zimmerman.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As the charges were all dropped, it will be interesting to see if the DA'S office orders the rifle to be returned to him. :confused:

Case is closed, shouldn't be needed as evidence any longer.
 
Last edited:
The firearm is owned by Mr. black who is facing some charges of some sort I don’t I’m not sure what they all are but my guess is he never gets it back
 
Kyle borrowed the gun from Mr. Black? The rightful gun owner doesn't get his rifle back? There's no reason for that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top