Kyle Rittenhouse Trial?

DrDeFab said:

The judge at Kyle Rittenhouse’s murder trial has dismissed a count of possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18

Click to expand...

That was probably the only charge on which he might have been convicted. That means he goes scot free. Stand by for the outrage and rioting.

The prosecutor could not understand how Kyle Rittenhouse could have a rifle but not a pistol?
Rittenhouse had to explain to the prosecutor he was too young to have a pistol but not too young to have a rifle.

Seems to me that the security guard that killed an unarmed woman at the Capitol has much more to answer for than this kid does and he got off without a scratch.
This is called double standard and it is very dangerous.

Spats McGee said:

The weapons charge was the only one that I ever thought might stick, and from what I understand, the statutes on that are a little ambiguous.

Click to expand...

I am not surprised.
I read the statute and several commentaries on it. It is poorly written and basically exempts almost everyone over 16 unless the gun is a short barreled rifle or shotgun.
Had KR been convicted of it, he almost surely would have appealed and won.

wiscoaster said:

It seems to me the prosecutor has gotten his act together on the first count. He made a pretty compelling summary to the jury before breaking for lunch. The defense is going to have to be pretty sharp this afternoon to show that it was reasonable for Kyle to believe that Rosenbaum was a threat worthy of lethal self defense, and particularly in light of firing four shots. That one is going to be pretty interesting.

Click to expand...

there was a NOTICEABLE lack of objections from the defense.

That prosecutor provides more testimony than the witnesses they put on the stand.

Spats McGee said:

Given the way this trial has gone for the prosecution, I imagine appealing any conviction is a very real possibility.

Click to expand...

If it comes to that I think an ineffectiveness of council argument would be his best grounds for appeal. It’s the only type of appeal as far as I am aware that might allow him to claw back some of his testimony, as well as overcome the issue of his defense counsel failing to preserve issues for appeal.

because as far as I am aware on appeal generally you don’t get to add any new information that is not already in the record and are forced to argue the existing record as if it is true.

these closing arguments by DA are asinine.

Kleanbore said:

I hope the jury agrees with you.

Click to expand...

I'm feeling like they will.

For some legal analysis there's this stream:


the number of times that panel shouts:
"that's not true!"
"where is that in evidence?!?"
"there's not testimony on that!"

the DA is making stuff up left and right.

There were times during this trial where my sphincter clenched up in sympathetic reaction to the Judge laying into the prosecutor. I would NOT have wanted to be on the receiving end of such a lambasting.

I'm hoping the jury caught onto the undercurrents of such matters when they were recessed for such matters. I know I certainly caught wind of the "wrongness" of some of those events before the judge said/did anything.

The State literally holds the power of life, liberty, and death, which is why the legal system in our country is set up the way it is. For them to violate the basic tenets of the legal system itself in an effort to be allowed to exercise that kind of power over any citizen is abhorrent. I'm hoping this is on the minds of the jurors, as well.

Honestly closing from both prosecution and defense is just a meandering mess. The defense missed an opportunity to be concise and brief, instead the closing defense attorney appears to be ad-libbing his way through his case notes without a clear list of points of law and fact and a clearly constructed argument.

Only the fact that that also describes the prosecution's closing arguments redeems it.

Madcap_Magician said:

Honestly closing from both prosecution and defense is just a meandering mess. The defense missed an opportunity to be concise and brief, instead the closing defense attorney appears to be ad-libbing his way through his case notes without a clear list of points of law and fact and a clearly constructed argument.

Only the fact that that also describes the prosecution's closing arguments redeems it.

Click to expand...

IDK, so far I think defense is doing okay.

Corpral_Agarn said:

IDK, so far I think defense is doing okay.

Click to expand...

Just the closing. For the most part the defense was solid the whole trial, just the closing appears to be an extemporaneous ramble.

Madcap_Magician said:

Just the closing. For the most part the defense was solid the whole trial, just the closing appears to be an extemporaneous ramble.

Click to expand...

I was speaking to the closing (at least what I've seen of it so far. I'm a few minutes behind).

I was actually a little shocked at the lack of objections by defense for the trial overall. My guess is they adopted a strategy of letting the jury see exactly what kind of guy the DA is.

But then, I'm no lawyer...

Spats McGee said:

I agree with this. The weapons charge was the only one that I ever thought might stick, and from what I understand, the statutes on that are a little ambiguous. In cases like that, of course, 'tie goes to the runner.' Ambiguity will be resolved in favor of the defendant.

With that said, there's some chance that the jury will feel the need to convict him 'of something.'

Click to expand...

Fine Figure of a Man said:

I am not surprised.
I read the statute and several commentaries on it. It is poorly written and basically exempts almost everyone over 16 unless the gun is a short barreled rifle or shotgun.
Had KR been convicted of it, he almost surely would have appealed and won.

Click to expand...

I agree with @Fine Figure of a Man

It was actually pretty clear from what I read. The law as written only applied to thoss under 16 and under without a carry permit.

wiscoaster said:

I think this guy is hurting the prosecution's case.

Click to expand...

What hurt their case even more was the fact that they had no case.

wiscoaster said:

If I was a juror I would totally discount whatever that (please excuse the characterization) "fat" guy on the prosecutor's team was saying -- he's obviously a sleazeball of no moral character. And not because of his figure, but because of what he says and how he says it. I think this guy is hurting the prosecution's case. Good!!

Click to expand...

I've run across the term "Fatlock" in another forum for him and I can't stop giggling over it every time I see him, now.

Both of the attorneys for the prosecution churn my stomach in their behavior.

What if - the kid gets acquitted of murder, and THR members go to Kenosha to protect others' property and somehow end up fatally shooting looters in the process - could said members use the very case as a precedent?

Imaaagiiine thaaat, what a rogue thought

D.B. Cooper said:

I wonder if the people who find humor in this understand that the right to a jury trial was listed in the Declaration of Independence. We literally fought a war to secure this right (and others).

Click to expand...

The same people who find humor in what I said probably also find humor in the fact that your screen name and profile pic are that of a hijacker and kidnapper. so..... pick your hill to be righteous on.