Kyle Rittenhouse Trial?

[luzyfuerza]

This sub-forum is generally amateur hour; more entertainment than reliable information.

For those who might be interested in the observations of two experienced, practicing, criminal lawyers on the Rittenhouse trial, may I recommend the following discussion?

Hint: many of the issues discussed on THR by us amateurs are analyzed here by competent pros.

 

[Kleanbore]

s sub-forum is generally amateur hour; more entertainment than reliable information.

The moderators are not amateurs.

For those who might be interested in the observations of two experienced, practicing, criminal lawyers on the Rittenhouse trial, may I recommend the following discussion?

I am singularly unimpressed. If you want some good legal discussion of the trial, go to Attorney Andrew Branca. More substance, less palaver.

Hint: many of the issues discussed on THR by us amateurs are analyzed here by competent pros

They mention a few things, but not that which has now become the crux of the matter--whether the legal defense of self defense can apply at all.

 

[old lady new shooter]

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.

Branca did say yesterday that when Kyle's attorney was questioning the technician who prepared the "enhanced" photo, he got him to admit that a) he doesn't know how the software decides what color to make the pixels it adds to an enlargement; and b) he did not compare the "enhanced" photo with the original after doing the "enhancement" to see if it accurately reflected the original. I hope this gets stressed in the closing arguments.

 

[danez71]

@Styx @wiscoaster

Interesting article regarding the carrying charge in relation to all the statues being discussed.

Seems the judge isn't sure what to make of it and questions the validity of the carrying charge.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/judge-questions-rittenhouse-gun-charge-jonathan-turley

 

[Boattale]

The moderators are not amateurs.

I am singularly unimpressed. If you want some good legal discussion of the trial, go to Attorney Andrew Branca. More substance, less palaver.

They mention a few things, but not that which has now become the crux of the matter--whether the legal defense of self defense can apply at all.

For a guy that's not an attorney, you sure have and express a lot of opinions on matters of law.

 

[Styx]

@Styx @wiscoaster

Interesting article regarding the carrying charge in relation to all the statues being discussed.

Seems the judge isn't sure what to make of it and questions the validity of the carrying charge.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/judge-questions-rittenhouse-gun-charge-jonathan-turley

I heard of that, but if you read the statue, it's clearly obvious that there us a loophole for 17 year olds with a hunting permit that's recognized by Wisconsin.

 

[lsudave]

Just wanting to clarify something, I think it's been addressed but not sure here. In Wisconsin (state of record, for the trial),... if Rittenhouse is found to be in unlawful possession of the firearm, does that in itself disqualify him from using it in self-defense?

• shouldn't have had it, therefore engaged in criminal activity and this makes all actions criminal?

Or, can he be in illegal possession, and still be able to defend himself with it?

• shouldn't have had it, but it's lucky for him he did?

We're going on the premise that his life was indeed in danger in the second part. I would assume it was, based on everything presented. I don't think Rosenbaum was simply going to disarm him, I do think skateboard guy was trying to bash his brains out, and I do think GG was about to shoot him.

 

[danez71]

Or, can he be in illegal possession, and still be able to defend himself with it?

• shouldn't have had it, but it's lucky for him he did?

This.

Basically, if he wasn't the initial aggressor, he can claim self defense.

Illegal possession, alone, doesn't make him the initial aggressor.

The testimony doesn't seem, to me and many others, to indicate that he was the initial aggressor.

The jury is what matters.

 

[gtrgy888]

I have no harsh judgment for a kid being foolish in defense of business owners and residents. If the authorities had cracked down on curfew breakers, there would be no need for private citizens to protect property. The police brass should be on trial, not a traumatized kid who defended himself from anarchist rioters.

 

[lsudave]

If the authorities had cracked down on curfew breakers, there would be no need for private citizens to protect property

Yeah, it's amazing how all this gets glossed over. Rittenhouse wasn't strolling around after a big local sporting event, getting in fights with fans of the opposing team. People were coming out and rioting and destroying a community very close to him.
Forget the addresses and state lines, his house is closer to the place where the shootings occurred (terms of miles), than my house is to my place of employment (and that's still within the same city). They said 10 miles, right? I drive 18 miles to work.

There should have been a heavy police presence, if there were known 'protests' going to happen (and there were). You have the right to assemble and protest, that's fine. You don't have the right to destroy private property- and you lose the "moral high ground" when you are destroying property randomly, not even targeting your expressed subject of protest. Jeer at the police, if you want. Picket and march City Hall, if you are protesting what the government/police have done.

 

[lsudave]

So, Monday morning. I have to work, but will try to catch updates and recaps when I can. Let's keep this thread open, it's a fascinating trial with a lot of firearm-related questions other than what's currently been testified to.

I'm a bit surprised the defense didn't bring up an 'expert' on firearms, although I guess they didn't need to. I think when the prosecution started fussing about his ammo being "Full Metal Jacket" (gasp!), someone could have come back and stated that FMJ is the cheapest, basically range-load ammo. And that if Rittenhouse had loaded up some hollowpoints, that might have indicated he was anticipating trouble (buying specialty, more-expensive ammo designed for use on live targets). Maybe I'm seeing this through the eyes of a pistol shooter, but if one loads a mag with Blazer Brass 9mm, it's not necessarily defensive stuff. If one loads up with Gold Dots, there's more of an active thought process on possible usage.

 

[armydog]

Yeah, it's amazing how all this gets glossed over. Rittenhouse wasn't strolling around after a big local sporting event, getting in fights with fans of the opposing team. People were coming out and rioting and destroying a community very close to him.

I made the same point a page or two back in this thread and I got a lecture about how irrelevant this was to the charges, but at least one person was respectful. But one person on here seemed to think I was berating the defense attorneys for not making a big deal about it when I wasn't directing anything towards the legal team that I think is doing a great job. Regardless, I think the breakdown of the community has a lot to do with the case. I'd be surprised if all the jurors thought this breakdown was irrelevant. I'd be surprised if this wasn't mentioned in closing arguments to describe the intent of KR and that he wasn't there walking around with a weapon and med supplies just cause it was a Thursday.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

People were coming out and rioting and destroying a community very close to him.

I got a lecture about how irrelevant this was to the charges

It is irrelevant to Rittenhouse's case. It was also appalling. The residents of Kenosha should remember it at the ballot box but I doubt they will.

 

[armydog]

It is irrelevant to Rittenhouse's case. It was also appalling. The residents of Kenosha should remember it at the ballot box but I doubt they will.

From how liberal I hear Kenosha is, you're probably right.

 

[danez71]

I made the same point a page or two back in this thread and I got a lecture about how irrelevant this was to the charges, but at least one person was respectful. But one person on here seemed to think I was berating the defense attorneys for not making a big deal about it when I wasn't directing anything towards the legal team that I think is doing a great job. Regardless, I think the breakdown of the community has a lot to do with the case. I'd be surprised if all the jurors thought this breakdown was irrelevant. I'd be surprised if this wasn't mentioned in closing arguments to describe the intent of KR and that he wasn't there walking around with a weapon and med supplies just cause it was a Thursday.

I tend to agree.

I hope I was the one you referred to as being respectful and not lecturing.

To be a little more clear as to what I was trying to convey but probably didn't finish my thought well. It's not legally relevant in terms of the statutes he's being charge with. However, it could be very relevant in the jury's decision.

That works both ways though and is why you get verdicts that seem unjust too.

Jury could think "what was he thinking going there like that trying to stop mostly peaceful protests? Guilty!!" or Jury could think "He was attacked by thugs while trying to protect a city that the police and politicians were watching burn down by violent thugs."

Neither are relevant to the statutes he's charged with. But jury's are human and either line of thinking can influence the verdict.

 

[Waveski]

The residents of Kenosha should remember it at the ballot box but I doubt they will.

There are plenty of decent people in Kenosha. They watched their city burn for 3 nights while state and local government issued stand down orders. That is not easily forgotten.
I'll keep it just that brief rather than veering further off topic.

*** (I resided in that city at one time.)

 

[armydog]

I tend to agree.

I hope I was the one you referred to as being respectful and not lecturing.

To be a little more clear as to what I was trying to convey but probably didn't finish my thought well. It's not legally relevant in terms of the statutes he's being charge with. However, it could be very relevant in the jury's decision.

That works both ways though and is why you get verdicts that seem unjust too.

Jury could think "what was he thinking going there like that trying to stop mostly peaceful protests? Guilty!!" or Jury could think "He was attacked by thugs while trying to protect a city that the police and politicians were watching burn down by violent thugs."

Neither are relevant to the statutes he's charged with. But jury's are human and either line of thinking can influence the verdict.

Yes, you and one other person I should have added.

It was just a comment on the overall situation and I think about it the same as you stated. But i think the prosecution is making out KR's reason for being there to be more sinister and possibly video game related. lol The way he went on an on about the video games and trying to get KR to admit that some of his actions were related to the video games...well, I thought it was insulting. lol I'm listening to the trial and thinking, no, he's not there to kill people like in his video games, he's not there cause he just wants a chance to shoot someone with an ar15. Afterall, with the logic the prosecutor used that KR should not have been afraid of a glock 22 pointed at him point blank, because Grosskreutz could have shot him from much further away, the prosecutor should have realized KR could have shot anyone he wanted to at 300 meters plus.

Anyway, I hope the prosecutor doesn't get away with any of his tricks and deception.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

Branca did say yesterday that when Kyle's attorney was questioning the technician who prepared the "enhanced" photo, he got him to admit that a) he doesn't know how the software decides what color to make the pixels it adds to an enlargement; and b) he did not compare the "enhanced" photo with the original after doing the "enhancement" to see if it accurately reflected the original. I hope this gets stressed in the closing arguments.

I thought that was a mixed bag in terms of testimony. It's good that they got the limitations of the technology in, but I think the prosecution also got in some effective argument about this being a normal and commonly accepted technology.

I think a stronger argument for the defense would be to stop hammering on the limits of photo enhancing software algorithms and focus on the fact that the video stills the prosecution is trying to use to claim that Kyle was pointing his rifle at Ziminski (which they claim was the precipitating incident of unjustified use of force that privileged the attacks by Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz) is just a blurry mess that doesn't show anything clearly, must less beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact it quite arguably shows Rittenhouse holding his rifle at the low ready and not pointing it at anyone. It's just such a mess that I really don't think it's reasonable to draw any conclusion from those stills. And those are the ones the prosecutor thought were their best chance for a conviction.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

There are plenty of decent people in Kenosha.

I'm sure there are. The question is are there enough and how much effort will they put forth?
I said remember it at the ballot box but the real work starts now. Waiting until election day to get involved often results in nothing but bad choices on the ballot.

 

[browneu]

The judge dropped count six against Kyle.

 

[DrDeFab]

The judge at Kyle Rittenhouse’s murder trial has dismissed a count of possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18: https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rit...sha-homicide-a5ee515a50f77ea4993bf7176859ef57

IMHO, the third paragraph is probably a misunderstanding of the situation, but given the muddled nature of the statutes (as discussed here previously) that's not too surprising.

 

[GEM]

The instructions are descending in a cluster act of reproductive intent.

 

[browneu]

The instructions are descending in a cluster act of reproductive intent.

Do you mind explaining what you mean. I'm not an attorney and don't know what reproductive intent is.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Do you mind explaining what you mean. I'm not an attorney and don't know what reproductive intent is.

It's an overt sexual act frequently expressed by a precise organization of four letters, one of which is a vowel.

 

[wiscoaster]

Watching the live stream this morning renews my faith in the basic and inherent fairness of the U.S. Justice system. The attention to detail down to the meaning of individual words in the jury instructions is amazing.