Kyle Rittenhouse trial set for early November .

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have not closely followed this case, but wanted to explain why the prosecution may have introduced evidence of Rittenhouse's retreat and Rosenbaum's pursuit, etc. Actually, there are two reasons.

1. Idealistically, prosecutors are "ministers of justice" who, IMO, have the responsibility to present uncontradicted evidence of what really happened when that evidence exists. We can look back at the extreme example of what can happen to a prosecutor who ignores this responsibility in the case of the wrongful prosecution of the Duke lacross students. Although, that case did not go to trial, the principle is the same.

2. More practically, it is almost always better for the prosecution (or the plaintiff in a civil case) to present "bad" evidence in their case, rather than letting the defense present it in their case. The thought is, first, the prosecution is fair, thus building credibility with the jury. Second, it keeps the defense from "scoring points" with the jury. That doesn't mean the prosecution puts on the defense's case.
 
idealistically is one thing, and a noble thing to aspire to. REALITY can be, and often is somewhat different.

There are prosecutors who appear to believe their job is to win their case, and nearly everything else takes a backseat to that.

There are also prosecutors who don't feel the case is valid, but bring charges anyway because the political and social pressure of not doing so would harm their careers.

And there are prosecutors who will not bring charges they don't feel valid, no matter what the political/public opinion might be.

And every possible variation of all of these is possible as well.

I don't know what we've got here. I'd like to think the prosecution is just "going through the motions" but only they know their intent and strategy.

As Mark Twain is reported to have said, "A jury is 12 people chosen to decide which side has the better liar..." or something to that effect...
 
ghbucky said:
I am extremely cynical. I do not believe that the jury's decision will be based on the evidence presented to them.

I think the jury will convict based on the fact that there will be extreme efforts brought to bear to identify them and pressure them to believe their safety, and that of their community, depends on a conviction.

We seem to be in an era where justice is defined by the mob.
Click to expand...
To say the least, they are waiting for Biden to chime in.

Seriously, I was on a jury, and the evidence was clear cut, but the jury wanted to acquit. I sat there and convinced everyone that they were going to convict or we would be there for a long time; I wasn't going to cave in on what was right. Within two hours, all charges were guilty.

Please put me on that jury!
 
What I think is funny is some of the commentator on court tv . A couple are either stupid or were told this is the side you're going to advocate for so figure out how to put a positive spin on it . It's almost like watching the start of a sporting event . Each commentator has a team they will report about and they must say positive things even if that team has not won a game all year .

I get that may work in entertainment but not when comes to a court of law . Just say what you believe to be accurate , not what you think we or your boss wants to hear .

As far as I can tell this prosecutor is playing to the public , not the jury . He says they have clear FBI footage of Kyle chasing Rosenbaum . That testimony was secret and only those in the court room could see/hear it . yet today we get to see that footage on cross of the detective and it not only shows the opposite , it showed Rosenbaum hiding behind a car as Kyle passes then he comes out to chase Kyle as Kyle screams out FRIENDLY FRIENDY right away .

I think the prosecutor knew the FBI witness would not be seen or heard by the public . This way he can claim we don't have all the facts or simply knew this would cause doubt with the public . Also the judge told everyone there was not much time to go over the objection posed right before they adjourned . However right before leaving today he ( the prosecutor ) brought up the juror member telling a joke and want's him disqualified or what ever it's called . . The prosecutor knew there was no time for that but wanted that to be left hanging there for the public to think about over night .

Say or think what you want about Barnes but the more I see how this prosecutor works . I believe Barnes more and more on how he ( the prosecutor ) had been already trying this case in the court of public opinion for a year now . He (the prosecutor) knows this is a huge up hill battle to win and instead of doing what was right from the get go . He has decided to create confusion based on things he knows are not true . By the time he's done , there will be no doubt in the court but he will have completely confused the public . This will not be good for those that presumed Kyle guilty to begin with . I think the judge is wright in that it's important the public see and believe this was a fair trial , ( I don't think he should have said that in court for the media to feed on) . MSM has shown utter contempt for anyone that criticizes there work . Just ask Joe Rogan what happens when you shine a light on there misinformation . Huge mistake for the judge to call out the media this early , they will only double down on there lovely coverage .
 
Last edited:
AB , yeah that tracks exactly how I saw todays testimony . Also goes to my point of some court tv analyst thinking the prosecution had a good day or there was anything positive really for there side . The cross of the detective was devastating to there case IMHO . I know this is all way above my pay grade but I can't see where this prosecutor is going here . He MUST have a rabbit in a hat somewhere .

EDIT , Just saw part of a video of Barnes commenting on the trial today . He CLEARLY is still very upset with being kicked from the team . He had nothing good to say about the defense and pretty much is saying they are completely failing Kyle and Kyle is in big trouble . Thank god the prosecution is as bad as he is haha .
 
Last edited:
stagpanther said:
Rittenhouse is a killer.
Click to expand...
Yes, he is. He has admitted to killing two people. The question is whether he was justified in killing them in self-defense, or if he is a murderer. That is what this trial is about.
 
Ok so I watched about 80% of the trial yesterday , Looking through comments on the net it almost seem universal the defense team had a bad day . Does anyone here that has actually watched yesterday feel the same way ? I'm trying to find my blind spot on this because I don't see it the same way . Maybe I'm comparing the two sides rather the grading each individually . IMHO when you compare the prosecution to the defense yesterday there is no way the prosecution had a better day .
 
Last edited:
I haven't seen more than a couple minutes of the opening arguments.

I'd put more stock in your instinct than I would in the conclusions of internet advocates. To the degree this will be resolved by the jury, people who know the whole story and are on the internet to convince you aren't reliable reflections of jury reactions.
 
One might ask "where on the net"?
And perhaps "bad day" means "didn't destroy prosecution they way the previous day went". You know, like when your football team only wins by 3 instead of 35 in the previous game.
 
Where ? I’d say general searches and some YouTube channels I have general respect for there analysis . That’s might point , people and or sources I tend to go to had very different impressions of the days events. That’s why I’m asking because a few are actual lawyers so I must not be seeing thing correctly. Like I said all this is way above my pay grade .

Does anyone that felt kyle was guilty before the trial start . Do you guy think the prosecution is doing well and showing how kyle was recless and a muderer ?
 
Last edited:
Does anyone that felt kyle was guilty before the trial start . Do you guy think the prosecution is doing well and showing how kyle was recless and a muderer ?
Click to expand...
Binger is doing well--precisely because he's not only asking questions that build the prosecution's case--but at the same time is careful to bring up and acknowledge things that the defense may bring up as well. While this may seem like he's "shooting himself in the foot" on occasion--it takes away the "element of surprise" if the defense brings it up later as if there was a glaring error of omission on the part of the prosecution to hide something. I also listened carefully to Balch--the Iraq and Afghanistan vet--as he did his best to not cast a negative light on Rittenhouse, it seemed to me he really struggled at times between that and telling the truth in a way that might reflect badly on Rittenhouse. The part that most interested me was when the talk veered into the ballistics comparison of a Glock 17 to that of an AR 15 and Balch tried to pass off the AR's fmj as a less than ideal projectile that likely would just pass through someone without transferring it's retained energy unlike the Glock's hollow point. That really struck me as being a bit disingenuous and injurious to his credibility.
 
Last edited:
The part that most interested me was when the talk veered into the ballistics comparison of a Glock 17 to that of an AR 15 and Balch tried to pass off the AR's fmj as a less than ideal projectile that likely would just pass through someone without transferring it's retained energy like the Glock's hollow point.
Click to expand...

Agreed but I took that whole exchange as two guys that really didn't have the understanding of internal or external ballistics they think they do . I also thought the prosecution was setting up the endangered argument showing the ammo Kyle was likely using would easily pass through Rosenbaum and endanger others . This would go to the recklessness of Kyles actions .

I will agree that Balch was not forth coming with anything negative but really none of the prosecutions witnesses have been . Every witness has pretty much described a guy chasing another guy and when the guy would not stop chasing and got really close he got shot . There has been no dispute in the events as far as I've seen by either side . I really think the prosecution at the end is hoping the fact Kyle injected him self into the area when there was no "need" and he had a gun he should not have means it's all Kyles fault . Not needing to be there and should not of had a gun are not good enough reason IMHO to deny self defense . Kyle was giving up by retreating but Rosenbaum would not let him give up by continuing to chase Kyle . I don't think it's reasonable for Kyle to need to give up to the point of seeing what Rosenbaum would do if he got a hold of him .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top