Kyle Rittenhouse trial set for early November .
- Thread starter Metal god
- Start date
- Status
I would say that's inaccurate . There has been testimony Kyle did in fact put out fires and help patch people up that night and that's from the prosecutions witnesses . What do you think the defense witnesses are going to say what Kyle was doing that night ? If the defense does not just simply rest at the end of the prosecutions case . I'm sure the defense will have several witnesses testify on how Kyle made a big difference to them that night .
The prosecution tried to make it look like all Kyle did was yell out medical but never actually did anything medical related that night . That's understandable , why would they have there witnesses help Kyle's defense any more then they already have
. However Kyle/the defense has not put on there case yet and this has been my point all along . IMHO right not in a/this case we all should be thinking Kyle is guilty based on a strong showing of evidence by the prosecution . It should now be time for the defense to start poking holes in that evidence do give doubt . However there's already tones of doubt and the defense has not put one witness on the stand yet . The only way they loose is if they get cocky and put Kyle on the stand . When I say loose I mean guilty across the board . Right now I say the best the prosecution gets is a mistrial , maybe a conviction on one of the least damaging charges . No way guilty of any of the homicide charges .Unless some huge revelations comes forth . Dare I say it ..... If Kyle is convicted on all counts . I believe the judge will sentance him to time served at worst and at best vacate the verdict/s all together if that's what it's called .
Last edited:
The PROSECUTION also thought they were scoring points by saying that the night Kyle and the other armed people showed up there wasn't as much damage done, trying it intimate that their presence served no purpose.
I can't find where it happened, but apparently the defense attorney tripped a police officer and got him to admit that there wasn't as much damage and violence the night the armed citizens showed up as there was previous nights.
You may think KR shouldn't have been there, but that is you arguing he used poor judgement, not that he was reckless.
reckless
rĕk′lĭs
adjective
Acting or done with a lack of care or caution; careless or irresponsible.
Inattentive to duty; careless; neglectful; indifferent.
Rashly negligent; utterly careless or heedless.
I can't find where it happened, but apparently the defense attorney tripped a police officer and got him to admit that there wasn't as much damage and violence the night the armed citizens showed up as there was previous nights.
You may think KR shouldn't have been there, but that is you arguing he used poor judgement, not that he was reckless.
reckless
rĕk′lĭs
adjective
Acting or done with a lack of care or caution; careless or irresponsible.
Inattentive to duty; careless; neglectful; indifferent.
Rashly negligent; utterly careless or heedless.
First off he was not unarmed , second he engaged the shooter with his rifle from distance and cover behind his or someone's truck/car , third after all that he pursued him while still being armed , so no Stephen Wileford was not reckless at all .
It really is as if people only hear and see what they want to see .
I posed this question way back in post #28 . Nobody wanted to comment if I recall . At the time before the prosecution put on there case to date I really thought this could be a possibility . After a week of testimony I no longer believe this is possible outcome .
Me said:
A couple of comments relating to a number of deleted/edited posts:
1. The trial is about legality, about determining guilt based on evidence. People don't get convicted or acquitted based on whether what they did was smart or stupid or admirable or deplorable but because what they did was either illegal or legal.
2. Posts containing only a link without any commentary are driveby posts and are against TFL rules.
1. The trial is about legality, about determining guilt based on evidence. People don't get convicted or acquitted based on whether what they did was smart or stupid or admirable or deplorable but because what they did was either illegal or legal.
2. Posts containing only a link without any commentary are driveby posts and are against TFL rules.
Double Naught Spy
New member
The discussion of "reckless" seems to have devolved from a legal use of it to a debate of the colloquial use of it and I don't think you can reach a consensus as neither of you will have a definitionally superior argument in colloquial language.
Yeah, both can be said to be "reckless" in that they put their own lives in jeopardy without really taking that into account to accomplish their tasks. That could also be called bravery or stupidity, depending on how you want to frame it. That Wileford was in a tactically superior position does not negate him intentionally going in and acting in a dangerous situation without thought or care for what may happen to himself. Nowhere does he ever state while shooting that he had any concern at all for what was behind Kelley when he was shooting at Kelley. Reckless? From a colloquial definition, maybe so.
https://portall.zp.ua/video/exclusi...leford-describes-stopping/id-O4URpuu0KQ8.html
It should also be pointed out that when Wileford engaged Kelley, he did not see Kelley with an AR15, only a pistol. Kelley did not shoot at Wileford with an AR15, only a pistol.
Getting more to the point of colloquial "reckless" discussion, anybody out during rioting and protests could be said to be acting in a reckless manner. Engaging other people out during said events could be said to be reckless behavior from simply the standpoint of not using good judgment.
Lot's of "reckless" (non legal definition) things were going on in both situations, but those aren't really legal issues which is the point of the trial.
Good point. There can be a broad spectrum of reckless behavior in a riot.
After taking a deeper dive into the case I'm struck by the profiles of the men that Rittenhouse shot. None of them look like guys who endured police profiling, and they were part of a crowd who were destroying businesses of some people who probably did.
I've been critical of Rittenhouse for traveling to a riot that didn't directly impact his security. But that's also true of the guys that he shot.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Has this been proven?
Rittenhouse didn't travel to a riot. Lots of people plan in advance to travel to protests, some of which turn into riots. Lots of people plan in advance to travel to celebrations (e.g., sports) that turn into riots. I don't know of people who plan in advance to travel to riots unless they are planning the riot.
Rittenhouse didn't travel to a riot. He traveling to a protest.
Not exactly. Anthony Huber traveled a whopping 20 miles from Silver Lake to Kenosha.
Joseph Rosenbaum was a resident of Kenosha since 2019 https://conandaily.com/2020/09/02/j...19.,jumping, which was filed on July 30, 2020.
Gage Grosskreutz was of West Allis, and traveled roughly 40 miles.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ting-kenosha-what-we-know-victims/5654579002/
That the events "didn't directly impact" their security is questionable. The Kenosha protests were not against just the Kenosha PD, but against the police in general for real and perceived use of excessive force all over the country. Kenosha is/was not an isolated event, but part of numerous events as part of civil rights protests.
That's bull he knew exactly what he was going to . You don't bring an AR and med kit to a protest . Stop splitting hairs we are not the jury , we can take into account things they do not know . We are just talking here this is not a court room .
Speaking of the court room . I was watching some lawyers saying the defense should have let Hubers Aunt talk as much about what a life saving great kid he was instead of objecting right away . The theory was instead of a debate with the jury out of the room about Hubers past . It would have been let in for sure because of what the aunt was about to say .
That's a big risk right ?? Maybe the aunt says he was a great peaceful boy and the defense still doesn't get in those past allegations . So was that a mistake by the defense or good strategy to not allow the aunt to say anything on that ?
Last edited:
stagpanther
New member
That's not how I saw that exchange. It started as a lead-in by Binger characterizing Huber as "innocent", which defense objected to as prejudicing without evidence--and therefore opened the door to cross-examination by defense to Huber's past. A bit of a stretch IMO--but nonetheless a valid play and the judge asked Binger (or the other guy, forget his name) if he still wanted to stick with that and I think he decided to drop it knowing it could open up a potential Pandora's box of cross-examination of his past. The judge made a similar decision against defense when they pressed hard to characterize the nature of Rosenbaum's hospital visit as a mental hospital and the types of prescription medications he had been using. Despite the rather strange and inconsistent ruling by the judge in the beginning about "victim" being banned from being used by prosecution (while allowing rioter and looter to be used by defense), surprisingly I haven't seen anything notable ruled by the judge so far that I thought was unfair or clearly "slanted" in favor of one side or the other.
Last edited:
I've become convinced that Binger is intentionally throwing this case.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/...-blunders-create-opportunity-for-the-defense/
Why in the world would the ADA introduce into the record a question on Rosenbaum's medicated state if it wasn't to then allow the defense to probe into what medicines were in use?
The judge responded to the defense's request for the ability to cross examine on this topic, but the judge decided to let Ms Swart's knowledge of the topic be the guide, and ... she knew his medications and why he took them (bipolar disorder, depression and possibly sleeping problems). Something the State would HAVE to have known in advance, right?
So, defense got to question her knowledge and make note of what drugs he was on.
The defense has an opportunity now to paint KR as an innocent victim of a man with bipolar disorder under the effects of psychiatric medication and can presumably call in an expert witness to discuss the side effects of gabapentin (one of which is increased hostility per webMD).
https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/...-blunders-create-opportunity-for-the-defense/
Why in the world would the ADA introduce into the record a question on Rosenbaum's medicated state if it wasn't to then allow the defense to probe into what medicines were in use?
The judge responded to the defense's request for the ability to cross examine on this topic, but the judge decided to let Ms Swart's knowledge of the topic be the guide, and ... she knew his medications and why he took them (bipolar disorder, depression and possibly sleeping problems). Something the State would HAVE to have known in advance, right?
So, defense got to question her knowledge and make note of what drugs he was on.
The defense has an opportunity now to paint KR as an innocent victim of a man with bipolar disorder under the effects of psychiatric medication and can presumably call in an expert witness to discuss the side effects of gabapentin (one of which is increased hostility per webMD).
One thing I keep wondering about is why people keep bringing up the "talking point" used in the mainstream media about the judge allowing the use of "rioter" and "looter" exactly the same way the media said it, which is, WITHOUT including the rest of the judge's instructions about the use of the words "rioter" and "looter" which were, essentially, that those words could be used IF those actions could be proven.
"Victim" may not be used, UNTIL there is a verdict that a crime has been committed, I get that, easily. What I don't get is people ignoring the same judge's instruction that rioter and looter could only be used if those actions could be proven, as if he never gave them.
And then, arguing about how unfair it is to let the defense use those words.
The media originally reported exactly what the judge said, in full detail. Then a "legal scholar" or two stated how unfair the ruling was because of the defense being allowed to use rioter and looter and ignored the rest of the judge's instructions about those words in their "opinion" which they presented to the media, which of course has since repeated only the opinion of those "experts".
I consider this a "lie of omission" They know the truth, but are only telling the part of it that supports their agenda, omitting the part that doesn't.
What bugs me is people on the pro gun side of the issue repeating this when they should know better.
I as well .
My new theory is that Binger is hoping the defense files for dismissal ( or what ever it's called ) do to the prosecution failing to make there case beyond a reasonable doubt . This can be asked after the state rest or at the end of the defenses case .
Binger is hoping the judge throws it out ( or what ever it's called ) and Binger can sit on the steps of the court house blaming the judge for why a killer has walked free .
stagpanther
New member
Funny--I think Binger is doing an excellent job and it's the defense that is a bit lackluster considering the seriousness of the charges, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a mistrial or effort for dismissal based on some extraordinary irregularity considering how politically-fraught this trial is. At the end of the day I think the jury has to be unanimous to convict of the felony murder charges, and I think all that has to happen is place even a seed of doubt that the young white kid was afraid and they will not unanimously convict, at least of the more serious charges. I predict he'll do a little slap-in-wrist time but otherwise will evade homicide charges.
Stag Panther said:
Is race an issue?
Metal god said:
The defendant demonstrates why you should.
This happened over a summer in which many "mostly peaceful protests" would have benefitted from med kits and fire extinguishers, and the the capacity to defend oneself.
Last edited:
stagpanther
New member
Of course race is an issue--it's why all the protestors were there to begin with.
I find the med kit thing a bit bogus--after plugging Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse circles back and doesn't do a frigging thing to attempt to assist in first aid--and when asked to call 911 he instead calls his buddy and basically says (paraphrasing) hey baby, I tagged one! and then runs off.
I find the med kit thing a bit bogus--after plugging Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse circles back and doesn't do a frigging thing to attempt to assist in first aid--and when asked to call 911 he instead calls his buddy and basically says (paraphrasing) hey baby, I tagged one! and then runs off.
stagpanther
New member
I've been in the middle of an fluid urban gang firefight and even shot at, so I have at least a passing notion of what it's like. 1) unless you're stupid, you run for cover; 2) often nobody really knows, even the police, what is going on when masses of people are moving around and it's virtually impossible to know whether it's a good guy or bad guy that is discharging a weapon unless previous knowledge about the person(s) bearing the weapons is known. I've also been "swatted" when someone made a bogus phone call to the police and claimed that I had threatened to kill them. I ended up looking straight down the bore of a 40 S&W held mere inches away from my forehead, I could actually see the hollow point bullet and the finger on the trigger nervously twitch as I thought for sure my head was about to decorate the side of my house. We all like firearms for varying reasons--but once you enter the realm of potentially using them on other people you are in very serious territory.
Last edited:
stagpanther said:
That doesn't make it an issue in any of the shootings.
Since all three people shot and the defendant seem to be of the same race, the defendant's race shouldn't be an issue.
Given that KR appears to have offered people assistance before shooting Rosenbaum and that in a moment he would be fleeing that very crowd, failing to step into a hostile crowd to attempt first aid on a fellow he just shot doesn't make his carrying a medical kit "bogus". It could just be a reasonable (if late to develop) sense of self-preservation.
- Status