101combatvet
New member
Those are the same people who would allow crime to occur right before their eyes and walk away.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Kyle Rittenhouse trial set for early November .
- Thread starter Metal god
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Those are the same people who would allow crime to occur right before their eyes and walk away.
This is taught in self defense classes across the country. If it isn't your problem and you don't know 100% of what is going on, then getting involved can be very detrimental to you, either physically, legally, financially, or any combination of the three.
stagpanther
New member
Maybe--but I doubt for very long--my prediction is even if he is found guilty and sentenced to do time he'll be out before ten years--probably around 5. This was a horse-trade thing right from the start IMO, and the judge clearly is slanted in defense's favor IMO.'I won't go for first degree"
'I won't go for aquittal'
'Ok, let's agree on 2nd degree'
KR is going to prison.
Those are the same people who would allow crime to occur right before their eyes and walk away.
I'm one of them. Want to know why?
Because in this very same case, you have a person who was on video physically assaulting KR ('jump kick man') that was never charged or sought.
You have another convicted felon in possession of a concealed handgun (this is at least the 2nd occassion he has done so) that also assaulted KR with the handgun, which I believe should be aggravated assault.
For GK's arresting documents look here: http://www.kenoshacountyeye.com/gaige.pdf
It should also be noted that on 05/10/2015 while putting this case folder together, I noticed GROSSKREUTZ's criminal history states he is a felony offender and has a disqualification for firearms on it. He should also be charged for Felon in Possession of a Firearm
GK was never charged even though there is clear video evidence of his crimes.
Lawful use of a firearm in self defense by a person with no criminal record is being vigorously pursued as a criminal act by the Kenosha DA while a clear criminal act by a felon with a lengthy record of violence is ignored by the same DA.
TruthTellers
New member
Yes, those people are the police and local/state government that didn't step in to stop looting, arson, and assaults. The riots last year were effectively government sanctioned crime where the only crime a person could commit was trying to stop it.Those are the same people who would allow crime to occur right before their eyes and walk away.
Metal God said:How does allowing a few lesser charges now stop Binger if Kyle is acquitted on all charges including the lesser charges from just charging again on another lesser charge like negligent manslaughter or what ever is next . If he can do it from 1st to 2nd , why can't he still do it from 2nd to 3rd . How again does allowing a lesser charge now stop the dominoes of charges from continuing ?
The idea, I think, is that the prosecution gets multiple bites at the apple within a single trial, but only the largest successful bite counts. They only get one trial though, unless you refuse to allow a lesser included offense to be presented to the jury. As part of one trial, you can only be sentenced for one charge per criminal transaction, right? So even with multiple offenses listed for each act, you're not really being put in jeopardy multiple times. Chauvin, who was charged with three homicide offenses for the single act, was only sentenced for Murder 2, even though the jury returned guilty for all three. In that case Murder 2, Murder 3, and Manslaughter 2 were subtly different in their elements, so they were lesser related crimes not lesser included crimes.
Suppose you're charged with crime A1, which has lesser included offenses A2 and A3. Suppose B1 is a related crime but with subtly different elements, and C1 is another crime with still other subtly different elements. They all address the same outcome, i.e. someone ends up dead.
The prosecution can charge A1 and B1, and they can add A2 and A3 later before the jury deliberates, but they may not want to because if they really believe in A1, giving a jury alternatives of A2 and A3 may sabotage an A1 conviction if the case for A1 is even slightly shaky or the defendant is at all sympathetic. They cannot add C1 later, because of the different elements; the defense has to be given notice of what elements to defend against well before the trial starts, i.e. in the filed information. Similarly, the defense could ask for A2 and/or A3 if the prosecution doesn't, because for the same reason the prosecution might not want to add them, it would potentially be good for the defense.
The way I understand it, the only way the prosecution gets to have a second trial for A2 and/or A3 is if they propose them as lesser included offenses in the first trial and the defense refuses to allow that. And if the prosecution only tries A2 and/or A3 and not A1 in the first trial, they can't add A1 later in the trial because as a greater crime it has additional elements the defense wasn't prepared to address at trial, and the prosecution can't file A1 after the conclusion of the first trial and have a second trial, because they never attempted to combine them in the first trial, which would be an unforced error on their part.
I think I’m starting to follow it better however my point is specific to this case and not the general idea of the lesser charges . In my opinion the case against Kyle went as good as it can go for him or as bad as it can go against him however you wanna look at it . My thinking is the lesser charges are easier to convict somebody on than the harsher charges so why would you want to give the jury in this case specifically an easier chance to convict you ?
I mean it seems like they were arguing like they charged him for intentional homicide and now they want to add an unintentional homicide ? Why would you give them the second option when the evidence clearly shows he wasn’t there to kill anybody . Even if you want to convict him of something and you think he shouldn’t of been there and he shouldn’t have a gun I don’t think anybody can conclude that Kyle went down to the protest intending to kill somebody . His intentions seem clear regardless of how naïve or poorly thought out they were .
That was kind of my point earlier in the thread . I don’t see how anyone for any reason could say I intentionally tried to kill the person And that somehow it’s a good thing at trial regardless of the charges . Kyle says he did not intentionally kill anybody and the prosecution tried to argue the fact that Kyle said he didn’t intend to kill anybody was a reason for the lesser charges .
This just seems odd when you think of the question in court , you answer yes I meant to kill them all , I can’t imagine that’s going to be good for your defense . So you say I never intended to kill anybody and apparently that’s bad for your defense as well so how the heck are you supposed to answer that question ?
I mean it seems like they were arguing like they charged him for intentional homicide and now they want to add an unintentional homicide ? Why would you give them the second option when the evidence clearly shows he wasn’t there to kill anybody . Even if you want to convict him of something and you think he shouldn’t of been there and he shouldn’t have a gun I don’t think anybody can conclude that Kyle went down to the protest intending to kill somebody . His intentions seem clear regardless of how naïve or poorly thought out they were .
That was kind of my point earlier in the thread . I don’t see how anyone for any reason could say I intentionally tried to kill the person And that somehow it’s a good thing at trial regardless of the charges . Kyle says he did not intentionally kill anybody and the prosecution tried to argue the fact that Kyle said he didn’t intend to kill anybody was a reason for the lesser charges .
This just seems odd when you think of the question in court , you answer yes I meant to kill them all , I can’t imagine that’s going to be good for your defense . So you say I never intended to kill anybody and apparently that’s bad for your defense as well so how the heck are you supposed to answer that question ?
Last edited:
My understanding is that while yes, lesser charges are easier to convict on, the defense has to allow them within a single trial or the prosecution gets to have a second trial for lesser included offense(s). Don't forget that it's a double-edged sword for the prosecution to request lesser includeds, as I think I mentioned, because adding a lesser charge substantially increases the chance that the state won't get a conviction for the greater charge.
Note that the defense can ask for lesser includeds as well.
The only way the prosecution can refuse lesser includeds, or the defense can refuse them without risking a separate trial, is if, given the facts in evidence, it's legally impossible for a reasonable jury to convict on the lesser without convicting on the greater crime.
This actually happened in this case for Reckless Homicide 1. The prosecutiion wanted reckless homicide 2. The difference is 1 requires an utter disregard for human life. The defense argued, and the judge agreed, that it would be impossible to recklessly and intentionally (which I think are mutually exclusive, but this judge wants to send everything to a jury) fire a gun at someone at point-blank range (facts in evidence at trial) without having an utter disregard for the intended target's life. So reckless homicide 2 was excluded for the Rosenbaum charge, even though it is a lesser included offense.
Note that the defense can ask for lesser includeds as well.
The only way the prosecution can refuse lesser includeds, or the defense can refuse them without risking a separate trial, is if, given the facts in evidence, it's legally impossible for a reasonable jury to convict on the lesser without convicting on the greater crime.
This actually happened in this case for Reckless Homicide 1. The prosecutiion wanted reckless homicide 2. The difference is 1 requires an utter disregard for human life. The defense argued, and the judge agreed, that it would be impossible to recklessly and intentionally (which I think are mutually exclusive, but this judge wants to send everything to a jury) fire a gun at someone at point-blank range (facts in evidence at trial) without having an utter disregard for the intended target's life. So reckless homicide 2 was excluded for the Rosenbaum charge, even though it is a lesser included offense.
stagpanther
New member
I watched that testimony--I'm pretty sure he denied having hired Rittenhouse--or that any of his family members had. Between the three of them (son, mother, father) they had the Car Source empire that included the son's Car Doctor. Once he met him in person, apparently Rittenhouse offered him marketing advice (presumably to be paid for). As I recall, the former employee that was asked to come and his friend he brought along to do fire-control watch were not paid anything.I seem to remember that they recalled the car source owner son . I assume this was to impeach him but I missed that testimony .
Last edited:
This just seems odd when you think of the question in court , you answer yes I meant to kill them all , I can’t imagine that’s going to be good for your defense . So you say I never intended to kill anybody and apparently that’s bad for your defense as well so how the heck are you supposed to answer that question ?
I completely agree. It doesn't seem reasonable to charge someone with reckless homicide (murder 2, utter disregard for human life) in a colorable self defense case, because it's an end-run around the typical self-defense concept. It does seem like in this case there's a separate jury instruction for self-defense privilege, that the jury will be able to apply to any of the homicides or attempted homicides. I don't think that's sufficient for reckless homicide, though. Consider how this plays out in the case of reckless homicide vs intentional homicide:
If the jury applies the self-defense instruction to an intentional homicide but thinks the defendant, although provoked, was objectively unreasonable, the jury lands on the mandatory lesser included of 2nd degree intentional homicide (equivalent of voluntary manslaughter in common law). That's fine. Everyone understands imperfect self defense results in manslaughter. But if the same self-defense privilege instruction is applied to reckless homicide, what happens if the jury thinks it was provoked but still objectively unreasonable? There's no mitigation, it's still 1st degree reckless homicide.
I hope for appeals based (roughly) on:
- Inapplicability of reckless homicide to an intentional firing of a gun at an intended person (target) resulting in that person's death. I don't know how this works, but it seems like that should taint all the other homicide and endangerment charges if he's found guilty of any of them.
- Prosecutorial misconduct.
- Error introducing that enlarged photo showing Kyle's "Loch Ness Gun" pointed at the Ziminskis.
- Insufficiency of evidence / Clear error of factual determination by the jury
My opinions about what someone else is thinking have little merit. They are observations of human nature.
When the media and popular opinion were presenting the lynch mob front,the car dealer folks disavowed him(KR) "Oh,no, we had nothing to do with him being here"
After evidence began to present KR in a more favorable light, among local business owners,KR may have emerged as somewhat a cult hero. This gave permission to those who disavowed KR to then claim "Oh Yeah!! He is OUR guy!" At least one of the car places claimed him. After the shooting,he was sheltered inside one of the car businesses,safe from the mob.
And our prosecutor? Beyond any aspiration he may have to being elected DA,
IMO,a hangover from being publicly humiliated by the Judge provides a different motivation to "get that guy" To "Win" To vindicate himself.
Serving Justice does not enter into it.
Binger brought it up himself in court,as the digital editing arguement was going on. " Yesterday,when you berated me ....." IMO,a pouting child and its all about Binger's ego. Vendetta.
This is not a 4th quarter football game. My team vs your team. Its about our right to defend ourselves.
Have you noticed how key "Mostly Peaceful Protestors" have guns? Without valid permit to carry? What is their "prohibitted person" status? Were they tested for marijuana or other drug use? Why not? The guy who pointed the Glock at KR should be subject to the same proctology as KR.
Maybe he "should not have been there" IMO,Rosenburg "Should not have been there" Had he not been there,this all may have been moot
I know, Ridiculous logic of a raving lunatic. But the same thinking as those who say KR should not have been there.
"Should" is an illusion based on my expectations.
They WERE there. Fact.not illusion. KR was attacked. KR defended himself.
At stake is YOUR right to defend yourself. And mine. How many of us write about our EDC? 9mm vs 45? In fact,much of TFL is about the Right to Defend Yourself.
KR could be you,or me. Next time.
When the media and popular opinion were presenting the lynch mob front,the car dealer folks disavowed him(KR) "Oh,no, we had nothing to do with him being here"
After evidence began to present KR in a more favorable light, among local business owners,KR may have emerged as somewhat a cult hero. This gave permission to those who disavowed KR to then claim "Oh Yeah!! He is OUR guy!" At least one of the car places claimed him. After the shooting,he was sheltered inside one of the car businesses,safe from the mob.
And our prosecutor? Beyond any aspiration he may have to being elected DA,
IMO,a hangover from being publicly humiliated by the Judge provides a different motivation to "get that guy" To "Win" To vindicate himself.
Serving Justice does not enter into it.
Binger brought it up himself in court,as the digital editing arguement was going on. " Yesterday,when you berated me ....." IMO,a pouting child and its all about Binger's ego. Vendetta.
This is not a 4th quarter football game. My team vs your team. Its about our right to defend ourselves.
Have you noticed how key "Mostly Peaceful Protestors" have guns? Without valid permit to carry? What is their "prohibitted person" status? Were they tested for marijuana or other drug use? Why not? The guy who pointed the Glock at KR should be subject to the same proctology as KR.
Maybe he "should not have been there" IMO,Rosenburg "Should not have been there" Had he not been there,this all may have been moot
I know, Ridiculous logic of a raving lunatic. But the same thinking as those who say KR should not have been there.
"Should" is an illusion based on my expectations.
They WERE there. Fact.not illusion. KR was attacked. KR defended himself.
At stake is YOUR right to defend yourself. And mine. How many of us write about our EDC? 9mm vs 45? In fact,much of TFL is about the Right to Defend Yourself.
KR could be you,or me. Next time.
I seem to remember that they recalled the car source owner son . I assume this was to impeach him but I missed that testimony . How did that go , was he impeached or how does that even work will somebody be filing charges or did he have a good answers ?
Yes. Defense introduced video of an interview that might've been the day after the car lot fire, in which Sam and Sal were on site surveying the damage and told the reporter that they lost 137 cars (a very specific number) and estimated the damage at 2.5 million. He testified, when re-called by the defense, that since being called by the prosecution, he'd reviewed the situation and the loss was 400k. Whether 137 destroyed cars are worth closer to 400k or closer to 2.5mil is an exercise for the reader (or jury).
Robert Barnes has, in youtube videos, alleged that the entire family is worried about tax fraud, insurance fraud, and possibly other things (civil liability for the Rosenbaum shooting at least). The corporate and tax structures of their businesses are allegedly very creative, and if they were misrepresenting their finances for tax reasons, their insurance claim might be fraudulent too, hence the sons' shiftiness on the stand.
What bothered me is that there's really good evidence that the sons are lying, but the defense didn't use it. Maybe they didn't have it or it got lost in the pile of evidence as they were preparing, or they have some other mysterious reason for not using it. The video is of someone walking south on Sheridan, walking right past Kyle and Dominick standing on the sidewalk of the property ("Car Doctor") with their rifles. It's still light out, so this was before curfew and before the protesters were pushed south away from downtown. It might have even been before the out of town militia members (Balch, Lackowski, Fiedler, Collett, Mertz) arrived. About 15-20 feet past Kyle and Dominick is a van parked close to the building, behind which there were multiple people talking, including at least one of the brothers clearly visible. Nick Smith testified about the van, but the video is incontrovertible proof that they were there, and aware of Kyle and Dominick standing around, armed, on their property.
The guy who pointed the Glock at KR should be subject to the same proctology as KR.
He is a convicted felon that is prohibited from having a weapon. No charges were brought forth after he produced it on video.
People had run criminal background checks on Gaige shortly after August 25th, and there's no official felony conviction on his record, although there is record of charges and prosecution for felony burglary without any clear resolution. Either it was a deferred prosecution (slightly more likely in my estimation, but what do I know) or it was expunged later (less likely in my opinion, because technically that would still bar him from a concealed carry license unless he got a Governor's Pardon, which I don't think he was eligible for).
The expunged felony theory is supported by two things: In his first DUI case (which also involved possession of a gun while intoxicated), the detective did a background check and noted that he was disqualified because of a felony record; also, the KenoshaCountyEye reporter(s) called the appropriate DA's office and asked about it, and they gave some answer that sounded like an expungement rather than a deferred prosecution.
The deferred prosecution theory is supported by Gaige being issued a concealed carry license, which, if he officially had a conviction entered on his record, would have required both expungement and a Governor's Pardon; that requires no pending criminal actions and 5 years passing since the end of your last sentence. I don't think he quite met those requirements before his first DUI, which would've reset the clock on waiting for a Governor's Pardon.
Take your pick. Either way there might be mild pro-crime corruption on the DA's part—how do you get a deferred prosecution if you're breaking windows at your ex-GF's new boyfriend's house, and how do you get a felony conviction expunged and a Governor's Pardon if you've got other criminal history before and after the felony—but nevertheless he does not currently have a felony record.
The expunged felony theory is supported by two things: In his first DUI case (which also involved possession of a gun while intoxicated), the detective did a background check and noted that he was disqualified because of a felony record; also, the KenoshaCountyEye reporter(s) called the appropriate DA's office and asked about it, and they gave some answer that sounded like an expungement rather than a deferred prosecution.
The deferred prosecution theory is supported by Gaige being issued a concealed carry license, which, if he officially had a conviction entered on his record, would have required both expungement and a Governor's Pardon; that requires no pending criminal actions and 5 years passing since the end of your last sentence. I don't think he quite met those requirements before his first DUI, which would've reset the clock on waiting for a Governor's Pardon.
Take your pick. Either way there might be mild pro-crime corruption on the DA's part—how do you get a deferred prosecution if you're breaking windows at your ex-GF's new boyfriend's house, and how do you get a felony conviction expunged and a Governor's Pardon if you've got other criminal history before and after the felony—but nevertheless he does not currently have a felony record.
PolarFBear
New member
2nd Amendment restricted?
Lots of points raised in the foregoing 18 pages of COMMENTS. MY QUESTION: The defendant is castigated that he should not have had a rifle on scene owing to his being under 17. Do the Bill of Rights only become effective at majority? Does a Citizen not have the right of "Self-Defense" as a God Given Right from birth? Facts welcome, opinions solicited.
Lots of points raised in the foregoing 18 pages of COMMENTS. MY QUESTION: The defendant is castigated that he should not have had a rifle on scene owing to his being under 17. Do the Bill of Rights only become effective at majority? Does a Citizen not have the right of "Self-Defense" as a God Given Right from birth? Facts welcome, opinions solicited.
stagpanther
New member
Judge is reading instructions to the jury right now--he has made it so confusing I don't think even a lawyer could accurately follow his instructions. He has given the standards for judging guilt or innocence, then gone back and changed them. KR is going walk.
Judge is reading instructions to the jury right now--he has made it so confusing I don't think even a lawyer could accurately follow his instructions. He has given the standards for judging guilt or innocence, then gone back and changed them. KR is going walk.
The court said he had 36 pages of instructions. I couldn't stay focused on that judge reading that much. That's rough.
Lol , I just watched two counts instructions hmm maybe it was 4 counts not sure . I agree with you guys , confusing and very hard keeping my eyes from glazing over . I think if they come back quickly it’s not guilty on all counts . If they take more then a day who knows what the results will be based on these instructions.
stagpanther
New member
The judge very specifically said in his first reading that under Wisconsin law all the defendant needed to do is be reasonably convinced to himself that he had grounds for self-defense in the most serious charges--whether it was factually true or not, than that alone was to be the determining factor in guilt or innocence. That was pretty amazing, and taken at it's word the defense rightly pointed out that would automatically preclude jeopardy of other charges. Only because Binger challenged the judge on the logical precedence in the law did the judge correct himself and re-instructed the jury. IMO the damage was already done, though.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.