Rittenhouse trial

[R011]

1 hour ago, Yama said:

His intentions are not actually terribly relevant. I don't think he went in expecting to gun down people. But by bringing in a lethal firearm without maturity, training or experience to handle situations by other means than shooting people dead, his actions directly led to deaths which were otherwise completely avoidable and unnecessary, and which all the other armed people in the city managed to avoid.

See the recent accidental death in the Baldwin movie - nobody intended for a person to get shot for real, a series of reckless and dumb decisions just led to it.

The rifle apparently wasn't his, it was handed to him by some other equally reckless dumbass. What he should have done was to say "No thanks, I'm just 17, this time I'll stick with the pepper spray and keep close to you guys". There is a reason why most places have legislation preventing underaged people wandering around with deadly firearms, and Rittenhouse showed why such laws exist.

 

And then have been beaten, perhaps to death, by Rosenbaum.

And please tell us exactly in what way did Rittenhouse act immaturely once armed?  Did he go looking for trouble?  Did he shoot without cause?  Did he fire indiscriminately?

[rmgill]

I wonder if this is another example of people suffering from Gell-Mann amnesia. Tucker Carlson threw a stick in the rest of the MSM's spokes.

 

 

 

Edited November 10, 2021 by rmgill

[rmgill]

Who watched Kyle's testimony and the cross examination? 

Anyone wonder how the prosecutor can go through and do a frame by frame criticism of what took a few seconds, after he himself tried to run roughshod over basic 5th amendment protections? 

[T19]

this trail is a farce.   Everyone says it was self defence.   The DA caught trying to change testimonies.  The DA attacking his right to remain silent.   The DA tried to introduce excluded  evidence.     Its a show trail for the WOKE

[DKTanker]

31 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Who watched Kyle's testimony and the cross examination? 

Anyone wonder how the prosecutor can go through and do a frame by frame criticism of what took a few seconds, after he himself tried to run roughshod over basic 5th amendment protections? 

I watched most of it, I had to after watching the dumbest ass move of the entire trial, putting Rittenhouse on the stand.  It's like his defense team didn't take a step back and look at the utter carnage that was the prosecution's case.  Moreover, it was like the prosecutors knew he'd take the stand and what he'd say during direct examination.  I mean damn, the prosecution's cross of Rittenhouse was far better than the case they presented to the jury.  Not that the prosecution proved anything factual, but they did get Rittenhouse to admit to having told lies.  White lies perhaps, but lies nevertheless.  Oh, and they got Rittenhouse to say, "Yeah, I did, " about targeting Yellow Pants with his laser sight.

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, T19 said:

this trail is a farce.   Everyone says it was self defence.   The DA caught trying to change testimonies.  The DA attacking his right to remain silent.   The DA tried to introduce excluded  evidence.     Its a show trail for the WOKE

I saw a theory that the prosecution is deliberately trying to obtain a mistrial and in doing so, get a new trial, essentially a re-roll of the dice so they can 'adjust' their previous witness selection. 

That certainly has merit as a theory. 

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, DKTanker said:

I watched most of it, I had to after watching the dumbest ass move of the entire trial, putting Rittenhouse on the stand.  It's like his defense team didn't take a step back and look at the utter carnage that was the prosecution's case.  Moreover, it was like the prosecutors knew he'd take the stand and what he'd say during direct examination.  I mean damn, the prosecution's cross of Rittenhouse was far better than the case they presented to the jury.  Not that the prosecution proved anything factual, but they did get Rittenhouse to admit to having told lies.  White lies perhaps, but lies nevertheless.  Oh, and they got Rittenhouse to say, "Yeah, I did, " about targeting Yellow Pants with his laser sight.

That and the lying to the mob that he didn't shoot anyone. That was odd. Yeah. Mr Prosecutor, I'm sure that if a mob was out for your head and they asked what your name was, you'd be honest!

The line of questions on the functional use of different types of ammo was interesting. Seems like the judge knew that it was treading into bullcrap and called them out on it as well. "do you mean expanding bullets? Becuase there are exploding and expanding and they're not the same thing."

I really wish there was a cross examination for the prosecutor on the line of questioning vis a vis "well, he pointed the handgun at your head but he didn't fire. Why did you shoot him?"


I think the defense was trying to be sure that Kyle was cast as having gone there to help. that's why they called the car dealer owner again, to underscore that they were happy to have him there initially AND that they had claimed on local media that they'd had a great deal of damage. The fact that Robert Cobb had been beaten badly the night before, and other events had occurred, probably entered into the whole calculous of many of those who showed up to help. It was cited by the woman who was there. 

That the Car Source owners so thoroughly divested themselves from the folks that went there to help protect their remaining business is rather sad. Weak that they claim they had no request when there's photos of them happily welcoming the armed citizens. 

Edited November 11, 2021 by rmgill

[Ivanhoe]

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

That the Car Source owners so thoroughly divested themselves from the folks that went there to help protect their remaining business is rather sad. Weak that they claim they had no request when there's photos of them happily welcoming the armed citizens. 

Proof again that Rittenhouse was in way over his head. Rittenhouse risked his life to protect the property of weasels. The shootings all are looking righteous, but dang Rittenhouse is a train wreck looking for an intersection.

[Simon Tan]

Ryan...you clearly lack the virtuous power of gazing into someone's soul and understanding their inner desires. You are obviously not virtuous and so are unworthy of holding an opinion on the matter.

[rmgill]

I also played D&D and Call of Duty. And in those D&D games we killed all the orcs we could. And I have full metal jacket ammo. And I've even killed pretend people in pretend games. 

[rmgill]

 

[Simon Tan]

Orcs are just people of color, in their case green. 

[Simon Tan]

In Yurrup, the rule of law is whatever Brussels tell you it is. 

[DKTanker]

15 minutes ago, rmgill said:

 

Yeah, that was quite dramatic in real time when I watched it.  I imagine Judge Schroeder will not grant a mistrial leaving it for an appeal should there be a conviction on any of the counts.  Such is the threat of further riots and personal harm.  On the other hand Schroeder has been quite brave, imo, by holding the prosecution within the limits of the law.
I don't think the defense, and I question why not, asked for a dismissal of the murder charges after the prosecution rested their case failing to prove that Rittenhouse was not acting in self-defense.  Tangentially, and I don't think it can be repeated enough, I think the defense committed legal malpractice by calling Rittenhouse to the stand.  That said, Rittenhouse comported himself well.  I know I probably would have lost my cool half a dozen times as Binger twisted words and made implications about intentions.

[DKTanker]

7 minutes ago, Simon Tan said:

In Yurrup, the rule of law is whatever Brussels tell you it is. 

And in America a Leftist judge that presides over a kangaroo court is seen as heroic while a judge that refuses to allow a prosecution to railroad an accused deplorable is seen as rogue and unfit for the bench.

[R011]

4 hours ago, rmgill said:

I saw a theory that the prosecution is deliberately trying to obtain a mistrial and in doing so, get a new trial, essentially a re-roll of the dice so they can 'adjust' their previous witness selection. 

That certainly has merit as a theory. 

If that was the idea, it has backfired.  The defence asked the judge for a mistrial with prejudice - i.e. no do over.  The judge is thinking it over while the trial goes on.  The judge may well decide that given the weakness of the prosecution case, he may as well let Kyle be found not guilty.

[R011]

56 minutes ago, DKTanker said:

Yeah, that was quite dramatic in real time when I watched it.  I imagine Judge Schroeder will not grant a mistrial leaving it for an appeal should there be a conviction on any of the counts.  Such is the threat of further riots and personal harm.  On the other hand Schroeder has been quite brave, imo, by holding the prosecution within the limits of the law.
I don't think the defense, and I question why not, asked for a dismissal of the murder charges after the prosecution rested their case failing to prove that Rittenhouse was not acting in self-defense.  Tangentially, and I don't think it can be repeated enough, I think the defense committed legal malpractice by calling Rittenhouse to the stand.  That said, Rittenhouse comported himself well.  I know I probably would have lost my cool half a dozen times as Binger twisted words and made implications about intentions.

Normally, letting the client testify is a bad idea.  In this case, it seems to have worked.

[Yama]

11 hours ago, rmgill said:

Then why do you seem to be making such a big deal about knowing those intentions without knowledge?

I did not. You made it a big deal, I only mentioned it in passing.

11 hours ago, rmgill said:

So anytime anyone brings a firearm to defend themselves and others, they're contributing to actions that result in death and harm?
 

Rittenhouse was not 'anyone anytime'. He was underaged and obviously too immature and inexperienced to handle the situation which might arise when carrying a deadly firearm. If he wanted to defend himself, he could have done as I suggested - carry pepper spray and stay close to armed adult people.

11 hours ago, rmgill said:

You're doing a lot of victim blaming here and not enough excoriation of the rioters. 
 

Okay, how much excoriation would be sufficient?

11 hours ago, rmgill said:

A movie set is not the same thing as a place where folks are rioting and folks are trying to help stop the rioting or protect people and property.

'Stopping the rioting' is better left for law enforcement, there will be less casualties that way.

11 hours ago, rmgill said:

You keep making this point, but you fail to observe that Kyle ONLY shot people who were trying to harm him. This in a crowd of people who arguably had burned down property the previous night and had committed crimes of assault.

Why he was in such crowd of people, carrying a deadly firearm, getting into scuffles over a dumpster fire?

11 hours ago, rmgill said:

You argue he had no business in Kenosha. 

He worked there. His father lived there. Other members of his family lived there. Your point on this fails a sniff test.
 

He had no business there carrying a deadly firearm and getting involved in scuffles.

[Ssnake]

You still seem to argue that his motivation to be at the place play a big role in the degree of his guilt. You say that this isn't so, and yet you bring it up with pretty much every line of retort, that he shouldn't have been there in the first place, that he had no business there, that he was immature, that he should have left it to the police, that he should not have let himself separated from the rest of his group ... you're entirely focussing on everything that happened before he was targeted by some people in the mob for assault ... and my impression is, you do it so you vcan avoid discussing the one aspect that matters in this whole trial - that Rittenhouse had to run and fight for his life because his attackers - from a group of people who not only tried to set a gas station on fire, but who also violently attacked those who tried to prevent the disaster - demonstrably used or were immediately about to use deadly force on him, by their very own testimony (and from what could be seen on video for more than a year now).

Now, why would you do that?

[Simon Tan]

It's inspired by the antics of Mr. Binger.

[DKTanker]

5 hours ago, Yama said:

He had no business there carrying a deadly firearm and getting involved in scuffles.

For that matter neither did anyone else.  And by the way, he didn't get involved in any scuffles, the scuffles ambushed and chased after him.  Unless you think putting out fires and rendering 1st aid is getting involved in scuffles.  Then I don't think there is much hope for you or humanity.

Edited November 11, 2021 by DKTanker

[Ivanhoe]

7 hours ago, DKTanker said:

I don't think the defense, and I question why not, asked for a dismissal of the murder charges after the prosecution rested their case failing to prove that Rittenhouse was not acting in self-defense.  Tangentially, and I don't think it can be repeated enough, I think the defense committed legal malpractice by calling Rittenhouse to the stand.  That said, Rittenhouse comported himself well.  I know I probably would have lost my cool half a dozen times as Binger twisted words and made implications about intentions.

There are times where it sure looks to me like the remaining defense counsel have been bought off.

[DKTanker]

6 hours ago, R011 said:

Normally, letting the client testify is a bad idea.  In this case, it seems to have worked.

You've hit a low point in your life but suddenly things are starting to go your way, you can see light at the end of the tunnel.  So what you do, is you go to the nearest casino and you put everything you have of value, to include any future earnings and wealth you can leverage, and you put it all on black.  The roulette wheel spins and the ball bounces around finally settling on black.  That was a good move, right?  It worked, right?

[Stuart Galbraith]

They were already winning when Grosskreutz gave testimony. So yes, from one respect it was unnecessary. OTOH, they dont have to convince the public, they have to convince a jury, some with perhaps their own deep biases.

I think Rittenhouse breaking up like that on the stand (as the Defense must have known he would) almost certainly sold it to them, if they didnt buy it already. He looks what he is, a crazy mixed up kid who got himself into shit way over his head.

 

[DKTanker]

56 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

They were already winning when Grosskreutz gave testimony. So yes, from one respect it was unnecessary. OTOH, they dont have to convince the public, they have to convince a jury, some with perhaps their own deep biases.I

 

The entire jury doesn't have to believe the plea of self-defense, just one will do.  Moreover, if the defense team really believes the jury would be inclined to find a guilty verdict because reasons, they can always request a directed verdict from the judge.  

Edited November 11, 2021 by DKTanker