Kyle Rittenhouse trial set for early November .

Status
Not open for further replies.
I can't believe the hash they made out of count 6 (possession of a dangerous weapon by a minor) though.

After months and months of improperly refusing to dismiss the charge (no facts were alleged in the complaint to support the charge, and the defense didn't dispute any of the facts that were alleged), which should've been thrown out as a matter of law at the prelim, then at the motions hearing in September, then at the motion for reconsideration at trial, the judge FINALLY threw it out FOR THE WRONG REASON after evidence was closed because the prosecution didn't present adequate evidence.

At least it's gone, and if the state re-charges it (can they? jeopardy already attached on it, right? I the judge threw it out due to insufficient facts that's not manifest necessity, is it?) the defense will have a fresh opportunity to make legally correct arguments.
 
zukiphile said:
The court said he had 36 pages of instructions. I couldn't stay focused on that judge reading that much. That's rough.
Click to expand...
They have to have a portion read, but, the Jurors get them printed to review in deliberation. I'd not read too much into what the Judge reads.

I have seen jury instructions printed in very clear, if-then, almost flow-chart type of format. When I heard them read in court I was confused, but reading them was simple.
 
Its up to the jury now, nothing more to be said here until they return with a verdict.

no matter what the verdict is, there are going to be a lot of people upset, and the more stupid segments of our society will think that is a reason to commit violent acts.

it's not.
 
When Binger says a reasonable person would not fear death or great bodily injury if being kicked in the face or hit over the head with a skateboard just makes my eyes gloss over . That is such an "unreasonable" statement it makes me question everything else he has said .

You are not required to asses the danger after the fact like we all get to here . Not only can being kicked in the face cause death or great bodily injury , you as the victim have NO idea how hard you are about to be kicked or what the damage will be . You also have NO idea if the aggressor will stop after one kick .

It just seems to me Binger hurts his arguments when saying things like that because it hurts his credibility on other things he may actually have good points on .
 
I might have been tempted to demonstrate in court just what hitting edge-on with a skateboard could do to a bone or two.
 
I might have been tempted to demonstrate in court just what hitting edge-on with a skateboard could do to a bone or two.
Click to expand...
I googled it just out of curiosity--I think one, maybe two people have been killed when a skateboard has been intentionally used as a weapon.
 
I think one, maybe two people have been killed when a skateboard has been intentionally used as a weapon.
Click to expand...

Nuff said , thanks for showing a skateboard is a dangerous and lethal weapon . I find it interesting and I mean this not in a negative way but in a truly puzzling way . Over the course of this thread it amazes me how you and I can see and read the same thing ( actual facts ) and draw completely different ( really opposite ) conclusions of said facts . I'm not even sure how that's possible .
 
I watched a portion of the prosecution, then the defense, and prosecution rebuttal until it ended at about 7:00 p.m. I found the prosecution's rebuttal to be totally disgusting.
I hope the jury picks up on the error when the prosecutor was relating all the people shot post-Rosembaum but included Rosenbaum in the list.

To relay on the weight of your case resting on bringing a gun to a fistfight is just one of the rebuttal arguments I found to be disgusting. Another was the claim that the lethal shot to Rosenbaum was the one "in his back" and he related it was either the third or fourth shot cries for clarity and authenticity. Not to mention prosecution totally ignores the 4 shots that took 0.739 seconds. Rittenhouse obviously and justifiably could not have engaged any mental process that would -or should have- changed that action.
 
I'm not even sure how that's possible .
Click to expand...
C'mon, you're a smart guy, as John Ska wisely observed we bring our own personal perceptions that tend to color how we interpret everything, there's a borderline that is easily crossed between what actually happened and what we "want" to have happened. I've been involved in several accident investigations--it was very rare that the majority of witnesses at the same place at the same time could agree on what they saw or the timing of the events--depending upon how they viewed what happened.
 
Once again,crime stats show fists and feet kill more people than rifles.
Include shotguns, long guns are roughly equal to fists and feet.

So if someone is kicking you in the head,you certainly can be in fear of your life.
Autopsies regularly list "Blunt force trauma" as cause of death.

What is wrong with using a gun to defend against death by blunt force trauma?
 
Let me ask it this way . Lets hit each other over the head with a skateboard . We both have 10 sec to complete the task from the start of the game . I go first , anyone want to play ? :eek: FWIW I'm 6'3" 270lbs , game on ;):)
 
Last edited:
I’ve seen what happens when someone is struck with a flying skateboard that got away from a skater. Those things can be as dangerous as getting beat with a hardwood gun stock. They are often laminated maple.
 
Maybe Kyle should have been like this guy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok9_EqP7DPg

or this guy
https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/lo...y-beaten-with-skateboard-has-died-sdpd/25005/

or this guy
https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/san-diego-skateboard-attack-caught-on-video/2644442/

or this guy
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1998-jan-21-mn-10682-story.html

That's just the first page on a google search . The prosecutor said something like sometimes you just need to take a beating :eek: what a scumbag , wonder what his DV clients think of that . The scary part is two of those happened not far from my house .
 
Aguila Blanca said:
Andrew Branca feels the defense's closing argument was weak: https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/...vers-a-disappointingly-weak-closing-argument/
Click to expand...
I thought the assistant da was bad. The guy doing the final rebuttal was an arrogant moron. Yes dear, there are right and left handed ar-15's. These boys be lucky if they are not prosecuted them own selves. Always thought prosecutors were supposed to be factual, but these guys are just pushing liberal platitudes as legal principles. They don't seem bothered to actually read the State Statutes, let alone string a coherent sentence together.
 
I thought the beginning of the defense closing argument was poor. I got the impression that Atty Richards was stumbling, rambling, and confusing as it seemed he was picking up puzzle pieces and trying to explain why he chose them as he deposited them in different areas of the puzzle.

The end was much better when he reviewed and explained all the photos and hopefully, that was enough to overcome the weak start.

The rebuttal by the prosecution certainly did not help their case.
 
I thought he started out slow to but I noticed when he was taking drinks of his water he was shaking pretty bad. He was very nervous I could tell and it took him a while to get in the groove
 
So I just want a little clarification--at the end of the day, if you are armed and someone comes running at you--for whatever reason--as long as you believe they are a threat to you, BAM--it's OK to waste them, anytime, anywhere?
 
Always thought prosecutors were supposed to be factual, but these guys are just pushing liberal platitudes as legal principles.
Click to expand...

People think so, but, its not so.

ALWAYS remember one thing about what is said in a courtroom, and that is, the only person under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is the one sworn in on the stand giving testimony.

The Prosecutor is NOT under oath.
The Defense council is not under oath.
And, neither is the Judge!

The entire point of our adversarial trial system is that both sides can make what ever claims they want, and then each side attempts to support their claims and debunk the other side's claims with evidence and sworn testimony.

As Mark Twain put it (roughly), a jury is a group of people chosen to decide which side has the better liar....:rolleyes:

So I just want a little clarification--at the end of the day, if you are armed and someone comes running at you--for whatever reason--as long as you believe they are a threat to you, BAM--it's OK to waste them, anytime, anywhere?
Click to expand...

here's your clarification,

NO, its not ok.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top