wiscoaster
Member
It was initially closed, then reopened. I suspect an interim staff discussion resulted in a decision that it was a good topic. As I think in the main it has proven to be.....How long before this is removed?
It was initially closed, then reopened. I suspect an interim staff discussion resulted in a decision that it was a good topic. As I think in the main it has proven to be.....How long before this is removed?
Thank you for your analysis and feedback.How do you know that?
FYI, there WERE arrests made that night. That Kyle Rittenhouse's assailants weren't arrested may have to do with the fact they were either killed or seriously wounded.
Act lawfully.
Huh?
It wasn't a random arrest or selective enforcement....Kyle Rittenhouse, by his own admission shot three people. The District Attorney felt it wasn't self defense and charged him with first-degree reckless homicide among other charges.
From our perspective it is not possible to say with any certainty.If the prosecution can persuade the jury
If that happened I would be more terrified than surprised.And do not be surprised if the defendant os convicted on most counts.
I think your expectation of the prosecution's strategy from here on is correct. However proving intent is always a difficult and slippery hill to climb because you cannot see into another person's mind and even that person's description of what they were thinking at the time is colored by time and subsequent events. Intent has to be proved primarily by actions and behaviors and at this point there's nothing new the jury hasn't already seen that the prosecution can put before them. So I'm not sure that this strategy will get him convicted. (Or at least I sure hope it doesn't)....The jury instructions that have now been agreed upon include include an instruction on the subject of provocation. If the prosecution can persuade the jury that Kyle's pointing of the rifle before he was fired at constituted intentional provocation, the defendant will be stripped of the privilege of the legal defense of self defense, all other facts aside. ... Expect that argument o be made in the prosecutor's closing argument.
I’ll put a buck on guilty on the gun charge, not guilty on the rest OR hung.
However proving intent is always a difficult and slippery hill to climb because you cannot see into another person's mind and even that person's description of what they were thinking at the time is colored by time and subsequent events. Intent has to be proved primarily by actions and behaviors and at this point there's nothing new the jury hasn't already seen that the prosecution can put before them.
The prosecutor was making it seem like Grosskreutz pointing his weapon point blank at KR was not a big deal and he should not have been worried about Grosskreutz shooting him when Grosskreutz drew his weapon in some high retention position cause he could have shot him from further out if he wanted to. But for some reason if KR pointed his weapon at someone prior to the self defense, that is supposed to be a big deal. lol
It's all going to come down to intent in my opinion and like you said, it is hard to prove and allows a prosecutor to make up stories and you just have to sit there and take it. In my own self defense case, I was with my team downtown in a small city on a prominent holiday. I was asked to come along cause I didn't drink and to look after my buddies cause they can get stupid. Long story short, two guys with sharp and blunt weapons decided to attack one of my friends and I intervened after he was hit with the blunt weapon and stabbed and in the process of stabbing him again I grabbed the guy just in time and he ended up with a fractured skull and the other guy with a crushed jaw and concussion. And because of the unit I was in (a non conventional unit) I was made out to be a blood thirsty maniac out there for the sole purpose of hurting people. lol It was actually way worse than I'm making it out to be. I did make the mistake of talking to the detectives the next day. I didn't think I did anything wrong, but lesson learned and I still dream about a do over. There are a lot of similarities to this case and mine. Every single prosecution witness supported my story. It was explained to me that this prosecutor had a hatred for me and that was what it was all about. I got very pissed off at the detectives in the interview, I didn't show fear or take a plea after I was arrested. And the plea was basically the same as the max sentence. lol My defense was very short cause the prosecutor made our case for us and even their attempt at distorting the transcripts failed when they got the detectives to clarify the interview which was all in my favor. But I'll tell you what, when it came to the final day, your mind starts to play games. One minute your in the bathroom knowing your going to get off and when your sitting on a bench in the hallway, your in tears cause you know you're going to prison.
But in the end I wrote a note to the prosecutor when I left that state thanking him for making it impossible for the defendants to get an attorney to take their case in a civil suit. I felt intent was everything. I wondered what the hell did people think I was doing there in the first place? How could they not see this? How could they even get away with charging me? Granted, this case is a lot more serious and he put himself in the position for this to happen, but I think if the town wasn't on fire for days he would not have been there. It might not be relevant to some people as I have found out which is fine. But I hope this kid gets the chance to learn from this. I want to say I know he is going to get off, but I would not bet money on it.
I just don't think #2 is going to happen. I'd be shocked but these days, lately, everything that has been going on is shocking.I kind of think the same. I am most concerned about two scenarios: 1) The prosecutor is able to convince the jury that Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Rosenbaum before he was attacked. Most of the defense arguments would fail if that happened. The evidence for it is extremely flimsy, and that's why the prosecutor was arguing so fiercely about the drone surveillance video enhancements, which give a very fuzzy picture that they are arguing show Rittenhouse pointing his rifle at people prior to the first shooting. It's real fuzzy. If the defense is able to hammer the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard, I think Rittenhouse is acquitted. 2) I am concerned about a jury with a substantial number of people who feel that because of Rittenhouse's poor judgment in going to Kenosha as private EMS and security in the first place that they need to convict him of something.
Read that if the first shooting is not legit then, SD fails for the rest as the other folks were trying to stop an active shooter.
Since a felony conviction is a life changer, they want to get something to screw with him for a significant but smaller victory,
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).These are also people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty.
Apparently not so in WI for intentional provocation.in some states in which I have lived, the instigator of a fight can claim SD if he had broken contact and was trying to escape.
Do you think that trial court judges properly do that?To my eye, the Judge may be leaving it wide open to hear the verdict of the jury and decide that the jury was "tainted" by prosecutorial misconduct
How might a judge not "let a verdict stand" and how would his thoughts about an appeal enter into it?The judge may let the verdict stand being very confident in being overturned on appeal.
After a verdict?And might find the prosecutor in contempt, too
It's my understanding that judges have such tools at their discretion. If rarely used.Do you think that trial court judges properly do that?
How might a judge not "let a verdict stand" and how would his thoughts about an appeal enter into it?
After a verdict?
I was thinking about the video of him prior to the shooting where he is being interviewed by someone and he's pointing out his med supplies and not acting in an aggressive manner. He's not talking about shooting anyone that messes with him. He's not acting like a tough guy with an attitude. I think if KR was looking for trouble, he probably would not have been able to hide it so well when he was interviewed. I don't see him being that smart as to not show it. It may not mean much, but just something I thought about.I honestly don't see clear proof that Kyle acted in other than self-defense. I don't see the pointing of the rifle in the video (I don't see Kyle in the drone video, even after it being highlighted. That, combined with the holes in the prosecution's case, would lead me to not convict (and emotionally, especially not a 17 yr old). There's too much in doubt with this, to ruin a man's life.