Kyle Rittenhouse Trial?

Status
Not open for further replies.
As an aside, when do we expect to see the other "firearms" legal questions from this case, and who does it"
  • Gaige Gross... GG- admitted conceal carry without a license. Admitted, under oath
  • Rittenhouse (really, Dominic Black's dad), and the issue of a straw purchase
  • if Rittenhouse is acquitted, do we go after GG for assault with a deadly weapon?
 
Since I worked and missed catching this live, and have only seen excerpts- is the actual law regarding self defense read to the jury, at some point? Not the prosecutor's interpretation, not the defense's, but someone (maybe the judge) giving the impartial definition of what a person is legally allowed to do, in whatever circumstance?

I ask this, because the last thing I saw was the prosecutor's rebuttal (which was rambling), but which stated something to the effect of "sometimes you need to take a beating", that it was cowardly to defend oneself with force that may harm/kill another.

I know he's trying to make his case, but I felt like he was blatantly misrepresenting the law. Felt like he was lying at that point, not about what Rittenhouse did, but what he COULD do.
 
there was a NOTICEABLE lack of objections from the defense.

That prosecutor provides more testimony than the witnesses they put on the stand.
Objections during opening and closing arguments are pretty rare. At least in Arkansas, the jury is instructed that 'statements of counsel are not evidence,' and the attorneys have much more leeway during arguments than they do during direct and cross examinations.

I don't speak for anyone else, but when I play defense, I've always found it difficult to pin down my closing argument until I've heard the plaintiff's closing. I might have a rough framework, but I spend the time during their closing making notes, so that I can be sure to respond to the points they make. Sometimes, that means I come across as meandering. Others, it looks like I know what I'm doing.
 
As an aside, when do we expect to see the other "firearms" legal questions from this case, and who does it"
  • Gaige Gross... GG- admitted conceal carry without a license. Admitted, under oath
  • Rittenhouse (really, Dominic Black's dad), and the issue of a straw purchase
  • if Rittenhouse is acquitted, do we go after GG for assault with a deadly weapon?
Most likely GG won't be charged. He's been a good little boy for the prosecutors. And the prosecutor already chose his scapegoat. Plus as a matter of record, the prosecutor called him and everyone else trying to beat down or kill KR a hero. lol
 
Objections during opening and closing arguments are pretty rare. At least in Arkansas, the jury is instructed that 'statements of counsel are not evidence,' and the attorneys have much more leeway during arguments than they do during direct and cross examinations.

I don't speak for anyone else, but when I play defense, I've always found it difficult to pin down my closing argument until I've heard the plaintiff's closing. I might have a rough framework, but I spend the time during their closing making notes, so that I can be sure to respond to the points they make. Sometimes, that means I come across as meandering. Others, it looks like I know what I'm doing.

I can understand that, especially the need to address and rebut the prosecution's closing arguments, since you won't get another chance. But Richards basically gave a speed run of going through every witness and providing commentary on that witness extemporaneously, even though it wasn't really necessary and the prosecution's close didn't address it. I thought Binger's close was inflammatory and factually full of errors, but he at least told a coherent story. I really thought it would be better if Richards had stuck to rebutting the specific inflammatory and factually wrong statements by Binger (i.e. "you give up the right to self-defense if you bring a gun to a fistfight"), impeaching Binger's credibility (without directly calling him a liar and an idiot - the way most of the trial went for Binger almost the best thing Richards could do would be to just step aside and let Binger hang himself), and hammer again on the legal elements of self-defense - the imminence, severity, and reasonableness of the threat from Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz.

I did like that Richards hammered Binger on the shift in the prosecution's case - how at the closing it now hinges on a single blurry video still that the prosecution says shows Rittenhouse provoked Rosenbaum's attack but that they only tried to hang the case on this after the rest of their case fell apart and all the prosecution witnesses ended up supporting the defense's narrative.
 
If I was on the jury, and being (I think) a reasonable person, and taking the entire circumstances of the moment into account, I would have to totally discount the prosecution's "provocation" argument as a disallower for a lawful self-defense. Further, if you're going to bring in provocation, you can't ignore the overwhelming amount of provocation coming from the other side.
 
Defamation/slander.
Calling someone a white supremacist in a political ad meets the standard in my non-professional opinion. We will see what the courts say.
Do you not think that Rittenhouse is affected negatively by the Biden political ad?
Proving slander or libel is easy. The problem with a law suit is that to win any kind of an award you need to prove damages. e.g "my employer fired me because of it" or "Several of my clients told me they would no longer do business with me". I doubt he has lost anything due to the comments. It's also possible win to punitive damages IF you can prove the statements were made with the intention of causing you financial harm or causing you mental anguish. That is extremely difficult to prove.
 
Last edited:
what basis, at this time?

A couple of basis. One is that the ADA communicating to the jury that Rittenhouse wouldn't speak to police, which is his Fifth Amendment right. There was a motion filed and I don't believe this has been ruled upon. In addition, in the ADA's closing argument, he presented to the jury that Rittenhouse shot people with "AR-15 that he knew he couldn't have." This is a false statement as the judge had already dismissed the illegal possession charge due the the fact the prosecution was unable to provide evidence that Kyle had unlawfully possessed the rifle.
 
Looks like Branca was as unimpressed as I was with the defense's closing argument, which was all-around terrible. Richards was needlessly combative, scatterbrained, and failed to deliver a coherent close that addressed exactly how Rittenhouse met all the legal standards for the justified use of deadly force.

Agreed, I'm not sure what happened there. I was watching it and was really disappointed.
 
The judge has dismissed the of possession of a dangerous weapon charge. The defense had argued a person of that age could carry such a weapon under Wisconsin law as long as it wasn’t a short-barreled rifle. After the prosecution conceded that the AR-15-style rifle didn’t have a short barrel, Judge Schroeder dropped the charge.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-could-kyle-rittenhouse-verdict-come-out-11637074669
The timing and sudden all-around knowledge about the situation appeared rather contrived by all concerned...not much of a fuss either way was to be made of this. Except that almost everyone who owns guns in Wisconsin (and maybe has had kids or been a kid, who hunts/shoots) had a pretty good grasp on this, I'd expect. We live in Illinois and my kids and I understand the law quite well (regarding lawful use/transport/possession by folks under 18 of long guns). I often joked with our girls that while they *COULD NOT* lawfully have pepper spray while under 18 under any circumstances, they COULD be armed with firearms in many situations, for example; when walking the dog in our yard, they could carry their Colt M-4's...but NOT a can of MK4 OC (and yes, of course, I told them to carry the &^%$# pepper spray when walking the dog (we had pitts running wild and threatening in our area) and that I would give answer if they were questioned. I run a bit afield of my point, and so forth...going to bed now!
 
Last edited:
Believe Rittenhouse NG on all 3 major counts.

He legitimately killed and wounded all 3 Commie/drugie/ dirt bags.Not to mention a criminal child pervert.

So he made the world a better place
Today.
 
Last edited:
There are 4 major charges. Typo? Because a conviction even the least of the felonies is serious and ruins his life if you believe that he is innnocent of all, in this case.

The compromise a fake choice if the goal is to punish him. Any felony conviction is a massive hit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top