Kyle Rittenhouse trial set for early November .

[zukiphile]

Taking the stand allows the prosecution to cross-examine, yes? Why would they do this when the case obviously appears to favor Kyle?

My wild guess is that someone thinks that there is a danger that there's a strong "that boy should not have been there with a gun" contingent in the jury who needed to see this lad speak to dispel the notion that the defendant was a malicious tourist looking for a trophy to put on the wall.

Also, just because counsel does something in a case doesn't mean he made the right choice. Note the prosecutorial misconduct.

 

[KyJim]

And it's not a mistrial but a directed verdict and dismissal that is a more likely result rather than "mistrial." Likely dismissal with prejudice if the prosecution continues acting like a kumquat.

Another post partially addressed this by referring to the judge's reference to a mistrial. A mistrial means the current trial ends. The trial judge could retry the case or possibly bar retrial for serious prosecutorial misconduct, such as the state deliberately causing a mistrial because of its missteps. However, the state could appeal the order barring retrial.

A simple dismissal, on the other hand, would automatically bar retrial because jeopardy attaches when the jury is sworn. Even if the trial judge clearly erred in dismissing the case, the state would have no remedy.

As to why the defense would call KR when its case seems to be going so well---I can only say that, IMO, asserting self-defense to a charge is different than normal criminal cases. The burden is on the defendant to make an adequate showing of self-defense and it is extremely difficult to do so without the defendant's testimony. How does KR assert he was in fear of death or imminent bodily harm if he doesn't testify? Even if there is evidence to that effect already before the jury, some members of the jury may need his testimony to conclude he was acting in self-defense.

 

[Metal god]

As to why the defense would call KR when its case seems to be going so well---I can only say that, IMO, asserting self-defense to a charge is different than normal criminal cases. The burden is on the defendant to make an adequate showing of self-defense and it is extremely difficult to do so without the defendant's testimony. How does KR assert he was in fear of death or imminent bodily harm if he doesn't testify? Even if there is evidence to that effect already before the jury, some members of the jury may need his testimony to conclude he was acting in self-defense.

That's an interesting observation and one I don't have much to "retort"

It was brought to my attention that the entire defense team COMPLETELY ignored Kyle when he returned from the witness stand . I thought no , and sure enough NOTHING ! No hand shake , pat on the back , quick good job nothing I mean they didn't even look at him . I'm looking for video that's shorter then the whole days testimony to link but if you guys get a chance check that out .

I have this one which is a live stream right now . Look around the 1hr 52min mark
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gTginEg_4U

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Taking the stand allows the prosecution to cross-examine, yes? Why would they do this when the case obviously appears to favor Kyle?

My wild guess is that someone thinks that there is a danger that there's a strong "that boy should not have been there with a gun" contingent in the jury who needed to see this lad speak to dispel the notion that the defendant was a malicious tourist looking for a trophy to put on the wall.

Also, just because counsel does something in a case doesn't mean he made the right choice. Note the prosecutorial misconduct.

That prosecutorial misconduct may be exactly why the defense put Rittenhouse on the stand -- to short-circuit the prosecutor from using his closing remarks to [unethically] suggest to the jury that Rittenhouse didn't talk to the police and didn't testify "because he had something to hide" or "because he didn't want to admit his guilt." By putting him on the stand, the defense has let the jury see and hear from the kid that he IS just a kid. He's a kid who wanted to do something to offset the violence and destruction and, unfortunately, got swept up in it when the evil came chasing after him. He was in over his head and didn't know it until it was too late.

Let's hope the jury sees that.

 

[ghbucky]

It was brought to my attention that the entire defense team COMPLETELY ignored Kyle when he returned from the witness stand . I thought no , and sure enough NOTHING ! No hand shake , pat on the back , quick good job nothing I mean they didn't even look at him

I don't think congratulating him would have been a good look. Just IMHO.

From the bits I saw, the council never interacted with KR. The only person I saw him interact with was the woman on his left (his mother?).

At one point during his cross examination, the ADA commented that he was looking at his attorney a lot, which was of course objected to.

As to KR taking the stand, I saw someone comment that the vast majority of criminal cases where the defendant does not testify results in convictions. I have no idea if that is accurate or not.

 

[tyme]

The woeful lack of understanding of video technology is embarrassing. Someone please give the court a tutorial on computer video, compression, standard pixel interpolation (commonly bilinear and bicubic), neural net pixel interpolation, 4:4:4 and 4:2:2, camera artifacts (like lens flair, which is clearly visible in the disputed video), etc. Taking a few pixels as evidence of guilt is absurd to the nth degree. I'd argue against even regular zoom/enlarge interpolation, because even though it's not injecting more pixel information from a neural net, it can give false impressions about shapes or gradients. If a zoomed video isn't blocky, it shouldn't be used as evidence. The blockiness serves as a clear reminder not to take individual pixels, or single-pixel-width features, too seriously.

I don't know what the defense is smoking. Barnes says this is Richards's normal MO, to hardly ever object. I don't know what Chirafisi is thinking. Does he really think this defense is in the best interest of his client? Did Kyle (under influence of his mom, probably) insist on testifying, insist on not being protected very well on the stand? Is Kyle intentionally going for a trial by fire?

I can understand an aggressive prosecution of someone the State believes to be guilty. But this prosecution by Binger is political and malicious. It's sick. It's disgusting. It's an affront to civilization. People can't be killed simply because they're rotten, but Binger is more rotten, more damaging to civil society, than either Rosenbaum or Ziminski. He needs to be fired and disbarred. Rosenbaum and Ziminski you can see for what they are, a mile away. Binger is the serpent in the garden.

As Caro wrote, power corrupts but it also reveals. Binger sees this case as a ticket to real power, and he's dropped the façade of being a justice-minded prosecutor, enough so that most of us, and the judge, can see Binger's real face. And it's not pretty.

Nobody other than far-left MSM and activists, or people brainwashed by such, believes Kyle is guilty of anything other than being a naïve kid in over his head. The prohibition against instigating to justify lethal force is designed to apply to overt acts, generally criminal acts (with some additions, like overt verbal or behavioral insults that serve no other legitimate purpose). It's designed so that you don't find someone 50lbs heavier than you, insult their mother, and then shoot them if they take a swing at you. It's designed so that you can't pull a knife on someone, and then when they pull a gun you pull yours too and shoot them first. It is NOT designed to prevent a self defense claim if you go to a place for a valid reason when you know, or are apprehensive, that there are or could be some shady people there who have some likelihood of attacking you for no good reason, and you end up getting attacked for no good reason, and you defend yourself. That may be what some liberal idiot prosecutors think, and I personally wouldn't push my luck getting into such situations, especially not open carrying because sticking out in a dangerous environment is doubly foolish. But what I personally would do is not a guide of what's legal or what should be legal.

People have complex, and sometimes criminal thoughts. That's why it's a good thing most of us have well-functioning prefrontal cortices. There's part of most people that at times fantasizes about being a Punisher or a Light Yagami. If that disqualifies a self defense claim when there was no overt provocation, and furthermore after a full retreat, let's just end this charade and criminalize self defense and criminalize all weapons.

Even if someone cleverly engineered a situation where a non-overt act provoked an attack in order to claim self defense for a murder, finding someone guilty of that in court would require evidence so convincing that in most cases it couldn't exist. Even if that were what Kyle did, which doesn't appear even close to being the case since he was told to go to Car Source 3 (it wasn't his own spontaneous decision), it would still be improper for society to hold him to account for those deaths absent clear evidence of planning, because otherwise, convicting him or holding him liable for those shootings would be, in that counterfactual hypothetical, more damaging to society than letting him get away with it.

 

[Metal god]

I don't think congratulating him would have been a good look. Just IMHO.

I'm not thinking high fives or slapping butts but a wink , nod or any small acknowledgement would seem reasonable . They completely ignored him to the point of him looking around to find where to go for the recess and he finally made eye contact with the bailiff or some officer to escort him up .

 

[Double Naught Spy]

5.56 NATO? Nope -- it upsets (tumbles) on impact and breaks itself apart, basically shedding most or all of its energy in the target. (Unless, of course, you miss.)

That's the designed intent, and that's usually the way it works, however, that's not ALWAYS the way it works.

I've spoken with Viet Nam combat vets, and several have recounted, from personal experience that sometimes at very close and point blank range the 55gr FMJ they had (M193 round) would NOT tumble or break apart just drive a .22 cal hole all the way through.

I am frequently intrigued by claims of "design intent" on things like this. While I can find all sorts of sources that claim that the bullet was designed to tumble and break apart (as well as a host of other design claims), not a single one of these sources every cites actual designs or RFBs for a bullet to perform in such a manner. The bullet needed to be able to be supersonic beyond 500 yards and as it was .224 caliber, it was ballistically easier to accomplish with a longer (55 gr.) bullet than a lighter bullet. Longer bullets tend to be more prone to damage (coming aparet) when they are upset in different media (such as animal tissue), but otherwise I can't find anything to show how in the 1950s or 1960s the military was wanting a bullet designed to tumble and fragment. As far as I can tell, this was more of a secondary (unintended) terminal ballistics benefit to the intended external ballistics design. Maybe somebody has some better source material than what I can find, but the tumbling and fragmenting seems to be more fortuitous than intentional.

While I can't find original source material for this either, there was apparently intent to use a slow twist such that the bullet was just spin stabilized enough for good flight. So the tumbling aspect (when upset transiting a different medium) would not be so much a part of the bullet's design, but a barrel rifling design parameter. Early on, they were running 1:14 twist rate, but it was found that the bullets were not fully stable in flight in extremely colder temperatures and so the twist rate was sped up to 1:12 to increase the versatility of the platform across a wider range of environmental situations, but that also meant the bullet was more stable going into flesh...resulting in being less lethal because it wasn't as prone to tumbling and hence not as prone to coming apart - same bullet, different twist. This happened during the Vietnam conflict and certainly would account for some of the reports you mentioned of bullets NOT tumbling and coming apart in enemy targets, a problem noted again later with a different bullet and twist rate in Somalia.

I don't know what bullets Rittenhouse was using, maybe it has been mentioned, but even if he was using the original M193 55 gr. bullets, chances are he was not using an original 1:14 twist barrel that would be most likely to help produce the desired terminal tumble and fragmentation.

 

[stagpanther]

I don't know what bullets Rittenhouse was using, maybe it has been mentioned, but even if he was using the original M193 55 gr. bullets, chances are he was not using an original 1:14 twist barrel that would be most likely to help produce the desired terminal tumble and fragmentation.

Death was almost instantaneous for Rosenbaum and Huber, can't be denied that 5.56 Nato is a very lethal cartridge on humans, and generally very effective in bringing to bear and keeping on target. This is like the classic discussions of people that swear the AK is the better cartridge in combat--I wouldn't't know since I didn't serve and use them in combat--but I do know quite a few people that did--and none of them said they would trade their M4 for an AK when I asked them (given the choice that they could).

 

[stagpanther]

The woeful lack of understanding of video technology is embarrassing. Someone please give the court a tutorial on computer video, compression, standard pixel interpolation (commonly bilinear and bicubic), neural net pixel interpolation, 4:4:4 and 4:2:2, camera artifacts (like lens flair, which is clearly visible in the disputed video), etc. Taking a few pixels as evidence of guilt is absurd to the nth degree. I'd argue against even regular zoom/enlarge interpolation, because even though it's not injecting more pixel information from a neural net, it can give false impressions about shapes or gradients. If a zoomed video isn't blocky, it shouldn't be used as evidence. The blockiness serves as a clear reminder not to take individual pixels, or single-pixel-width features, too seriously.

I don't know what the defense is smoking. Barnes says this is Richards's normal MO, to hardly ever object. I don't know what Chirafisi is thinking. Does he really think this defense is in the best interest of his client? Did Kyle (under influence of his mom, probably) insist on testifying, insist on not being protected very well on the stand? Is Kyle intentionally going for a trial by fire?

I can understand an aggressive prosecution of someone the State believes to be guilty. But this prosecution by Binger is political and malicious. It's sick. It's disgusting. It's an affront to civilization. People can't be killed simply because they're rotten, but Binger is more rotten, more damaging to civil society, than either Rosenbaum or Ziminski. He needs to be fired and disbarred. Rosenbaum and Ziminski you can see for what they are, a mile away. Binger is the serpent in the garden.

As Caro wrote, power corrupts but it also reveals. Binger sees this case as a ticket to real power, and he's dropped the façade of being a justice-minded prosecutor, enough so that most of us, and the judge, can see Binger's real face. And it's not pretty.

Nobody other than far-left MSM and activists, or people brainwashed by such, believes Kyle is guilty of anything other than being a naïve kid in over his head. The prohibition against instigating to justify lethal force is designed to apply to overt acts, generally criminal acts (with some additions, like overt verbal or behavioral insults that serve no other legitimate purpose). It's designed so that you don't find someone 50lbs heavier than you, insult their mother, and then shoot them if they take a swing at you. It's designed so that you can't pull a knife on someone, and then when they pull a gun you pull yours too and shoot them first. It is NOT designed to prevent a self defense claim if you go to a place for a valid reason when you know, or are apprehensive, that there are or could be some shady people there who have some likelihood of attacking you for no good reason, and you end up getting attacked for no good reason, and you defend yourself. That may be what some liberal idiot prosecutors think, and I personally wouldn't push my luck getting into such situations, especially not open carrying because sticking out in a dangerous environment is doubly foolish. But what I personally would do is not a guide of what's legal or what should be legal.

People have complex, and sometimes criminal thoughts. That's why it's a good thing most of us have well-functioning prefrontal cortices. There's part of most people that at times fantasizes about being a Punisher or a Light Yagami. If that disqualifies a self defense claim when there was no overt provocation, and furthermore after a full retreat, let's just end this charade and criminalize self defense and criminalize all weapons.

Even if someone cleverly engineered a situation where a non-overt act provoked an attack in order to claim self defense for a murder, finding someone guilty of that in court would require evidence so convincing that in most cases it couldn't exist. Even if that were what Kyle did, which doesn't appear even close to being the case since he was told to go to Car Source 3 (it wasn't his own spontaneous decision), it would still be improper for society to hold him to account for those deaths absent clear evidence of planning, because otherwise, convicting him or holding him liable for those shootings would be, in that counterfactual hypothetical, more damaging to society than letting him get away with it.

Funny you have that impression--Kyle is the only one who comes close to putting a real human side to his defense IMO--far more convincing IMO than his defense attorneys, and I am one of those that you erroneously broadwash as a far left blah blah blah that thinks he was not justified in doing what he did, except maybe in the Grosscreutz shooting. The judge himself was careful to point out that ignorance of the law is not an excuse to be innocent of a crime, and that is where I feel truly sorry for Kyle.

 

[HiBC]

Shooting Rosenbaum while the reporter guy was pretty much right behind them in the line of fire . Im not saying I think he’s guilty of that . I believe that’s what 9 or 10 of the jurors will have to give up to get the other 2 or 3 to vote not guilty on all the other charges . There’s going to be IMO a couple jurors that will not leave with out Kyle being guily of something.

I'm certainly not a legal scholar,and I could be wrong.....I can learn something today.
My understanding is that we begin with a presumption of innocence
And the burden of proof is is proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The requirement of a unanimous jury vote is necessary for a "Guilty" verdict.

Doesn't "Presumption of innocence till proven guilty" preclude the necessity to be declared "not guity" by all 12 of the jury?

I understand a hung jury can cause a mistrial. They can retry the case.
But at some point,its a failure to prove guilt. Innocence does not have to be proved.

 

[zeke]

At least one self defense law in Wi

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The requirement of a unanimous jury vote is necessary for a "Guilty" verdict.

Doesn't "Presumption of innocence till proven guilty" preclude the necessity to be declared "not guity" by all 12 of the jury?

I understand a hung jury can cause a mistrial. They can retry the case.
But at some point,its a failure to prove guilt. Innocence does not have to be proved.

Strictly speaking, it is guilt that has to be proved. In a way, though, innocence does have to be [sort of] proved.

You are correct -- it requires all twelve jurors to agree in order to convict. It also requires all twelve jurors to agree in order to acquit but, even then, the defendant's innocence hasn't been "proven," it just means that the jury agree that the defendant's guilt has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If the jury absolutely can't agree, the result is a mistrial. That means the defendant's innocence, to whatever degree it exists, is still "presumed" -- it's not proven. A mistrial is also a Mulligan for the prosecution; if the state chooses to do so, they get a do-over.

In fact, comments I have read suggest that prosecutor Binger was intentionally trying to create a mistrial with his comments about Rittenhouse having exercised his 5th Amendment rights, and his leading questions about ammunition. He has obviously lost this trial -- badly -- and the speculation is that he's trying to force the judge to declare a mistrial so he can have his do-over.

And that's why the defense is asking that if the judge declares a mistrail, he do so "with prejudice," because that would mean the state would NOT get their Mulligan. However, as has been commented by attorneys on this forum, if the judge were to declare a mistrial with prejudice, the state could appeal that.

In the end, though, even when a defendant "wins" at a trial, his/her innocence isn't proved. The jury makes a finding of "not guilty," they don't make a finding of "innocent." I guess, in reality, once someone goes to trial for a criminal offense, from that point forward, for the rest of their life, their innocence is technically only presumed.

 

[Lima Oscar 7]

Inciters are saying Judge Schroeder is biased towards Rittenhouse. Inciters are saying this. Judge Schroeder is biased towards the rule of law. That’s what he’s biased towards.

 

[Spats McGee]

Does anyone, anyone have a salient point why the defense place Kyle on the stand???....

Juries always want to hear both sides of the story. They don't like defendants who don't testify.

 

[Erno86]

Based on some video footage of Kyle Rittenhouse's advance towards a potentially hostile crowd --- imho --- Rittenhouse went out of his way looking for trouble...and he found it.

Do any of y'all believe Rittenhouse's statement to the prosecutor, when he said his Proud Bois buddies were only using laser pens --- while targeting the potentially hostile crowd with lasers --- and not laser sights on there rifles?

Anybody who points a laser mounted sight on a rifle or a pistol at me...is sure to bring out some hostility in me towards anybody who did it --- Including any jokers in the hunting woods, who would point there scoped rifles at me by trying to identify a target; instead of using binoculars.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Do any of y'all believe Rittenhouse's statement to the prosecutor, when he said his Proud Bois buddies were only using laser pens --- while targeting the potentially hostile crowd with lasers --- and not laser sights on there rifles?

What "Proud Bois buddies"?

According to everything I have seen, heard, or read (except the prosecution), Rittenhouse had no affiliation with any Proud Boys until some of them bought him a beer on his 18th birthday -- which was well after the events, his arrest, and his being released on bail.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Originally Posted by Erno66
Based on some video footage of Kyle Rittenhouse's advance towards a potentially hostile crowd --- imho --- Rittenhouse went out of his way looking for trouble...and he found it.

If you were present anywhere in that mess in Kenosha, it would not matter which direction you went, there would be potentially hostile crowds. That would not matter if you were a resident, shopkeeper, or protester. Had Rittenhouse been going the other way, he would have been advancing toward potential threats. Had he stood still, some threats would have been advancing toward him and some moving away.

Do any of y'all believe Rittenhouse's statement to the prosecutor, when he said his Proud Bois buddies were only using laser pens --- while targeting the potentially hostile crowd with lasers --- and not laser sights on there rifles?

I have watched a bunch of this trial so far, but I apparently missed him talking about Proud Bois and lasers. Do you have a link for this?

Anybody who points a laser mounted sight on a rifle or a pistol at me...is sure to bring out some hostility in me towards anybody who did it --- Including any jokers in the hunting woods, who would point there scoped rifles at me by trying to identify a target; instead of using binoculars.

Well, don't be advancing on hostile people and you should be fine.

 

[Metal god]

Anybody who points a laser mounted sight on a rifle or a pistol at me.

The irony in the laser pointer/gun sight question is that the court room used laser pointers every day to identify things in court . That right there reminds the jury every day and practically every minute of the trial the very reason laser pointers could have been used that night to help point out people in the crowd . Furthermore Kyle's sight was a red dot as far as I can tell so what anyone was doing with "there" sight or laser pointer hours earlier is irrelevant to the case . I did not see any testimony showing any of the "victims" saying they were lit up by a laser that night and I'm 100% positive none of them said Kyle used a laser sight right before or during each incident .

I'll also add that I get what some are saying . If in that situation of being in the middle of chaos and I were to see a laser dot on my chest or person I would have some concerns . I'll also add , do my feelings really matter if what I "feel" is happening actually is not happening . If there's a laser dot on my person and I can't identify the source or where it's coming from specifically . Is there anything I can do about that ?

 

[Metal god]

I finally found something Kyle is guilty of . That's waring a tie that does not go with the rest of his outfit