• It's FREE to join our group and ALL MEMBERS ARE AD-FREE!

Wisconsin vs. Kyle Rittenhouse for murder in Kenosha *NOT GUILTY*

lawandcrime.com

Defense Says Kyle Rittenhouse Was Attacked 'in the Street Like an Animal'

During opening statements on Tuesday, a defense attorney for Kenosha, Wis. shooter Kyle Rittenhouse characterized the teen who killed two people and injured a third during civil unrest in the summer of 2020 as someone who pulled the trigger only after others attacked him "in the street like an...
lawandcrime.com lawandcrime.com



201001-kyle-rittenhouse-jm-0936.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Click to expand...
This is what I think happened. Rittenhouse dropped out of school, IIRC he said he got his GED, and had no real prospects. He wanted to be a big man so he decided he'd go into the thick of a bad situation and do something heroic that would get him in the papers. Whether that was saving someone's life through first aid or shooting someone who was going to kill someone else or stopping an arson. He said a couple of nights before when people were looting a CVS that he wished he had his gun. The judge wouldn't allow that fact in.

He went where he was, allegedly, supposed to go, but nothing was happening. So he moves on and gets into a bad situation, (I'm still unclear of what actually happened before he shot) and shot a couple of people. Suddenly his bravado drops and the reality of what he just did hits him. He walks off trying to turn himself in, but the cops ignore him. (Court TV has been paying a lot more attention to the Ahmuad Arbery case so this one has holes in it for me.)

The next day he goes to the cops and talks to them. One thing that I hate about some defendants is when they say they're sorry after they're caught. I'll give Rittenhouse props for turning himself in and feeling guilty. In footage of his police conversation he brings a trash can in with him. Supposedly this was because he threw up in the hall from being upset.

I believe his tears and nervous breakdown on the stand were genuine. The Court TV analysts all think it was honest too.

That said, he doesn't deserve to be let off. But for his bringing the AR-15 and walking away from where he was allegedly asked to be stationed, none of this would have happened. Once again I don't really know what happened just before he shot, but there might be a self defense idea in some jurors minds.

He never should have had an AR-15 at 17, he shouldn't have brought it with him (He said on the stand that he knew a bullet had already been chambered.), He never should have left his supposed area to guard and finally, he just should have stayed the #*(# home.

I think he truly regrets what he did. He found out being a big hero isn't that great. It's a lot different from movies and video games when you kill in real life. Because he tried to surrender himself that night, and that he turned himself in to the cops the next day, I'd give him a lighter sentence if I were the judge. Of course if I was the judge, actually presiding, I'd be a looney who shouldn't even be on the bench.

One thing I'd like to clear up is the judge saying the people shot could be referred to looters and arsonists. The Court TV analysts pointed out that the judge said they could only do that if they could prove that they had been looting and lighting fires.

One thing I did see last night is when the prosecution was cross examining a defense witness he tried to go into what type of "reporter" he was. He kept inching towards whether or not the "news" he worked for was a looney right wing group. The judge halted him and said this wasn't political and to stop the line of questioning.

Uh... this is a political trial and if the guy is a right wing nutjob his testimony is probably, at the very least, embellished.
 
Cousin Dupree said:
This is what I think happened. Rittenhouse dropped out of school, IIRC he said he got his GED, and had no real prospects. He wanted to be a big man so he decided he'd go into the thick of a bad situation and do something heroic that would get him in the papers. Whether that was saving someone's life through first aid or shooting someone who was going to kill someone else or stopping an arson. He said a couple of nights before when people were looting a CVS that he wished he had his gun. The judge wouldn't allow that fact in.

He went where he was, allegedly, supposed to go, but nothing was happening. So he moves on and gets into a bad situation, (I'm still unclear of what actually happened before he shot) and shot a couple of people. Suddenly his bravado drops and the reality of what he just did hits him. He walks off trying to turn himself in, but the cops ignore him. (Court TV has been paying a lot more attention to the Ahmuad Arbery case so this one has holes in it for me.)

The next day he goes to the cops and talks to them. One thing that I hate about some defendants is when they say they're sorry after they're caught. I'll give Rittenhouse props for turning himself in and feeling guilty. In footage of his police conversation he brings a trash can in with him. Supposedly this was because he threw up in the hall from being upset.

I believe his tears and nervous breakdown on the stand were genuine. The Court TV analysts all think it was honest too.

That said, he doesn't deserve to be let off. But for his bringing the AR-15 and walking away from where he was allegedly asked to be stationed, none of this would have happened. Once again I don't really know what happened just before he shot, but there might be a self defense idea in some jurors minds.

He never should have had an AR-15 at 17, he shouldn't have brought it with him (He said on the stand that he knew a bullet had already been chambered.), He never should have left his supposed area to guard and finally, he just should have stayed the #*(# home.

I think he truly regrets what he did. He found out being a big hero isn't that great. It's a lot different from movies and video games when you kill in real life. Because he tried to surrender himself that night, and that he turned himself in to the cops the next day, I'd give him a lighter sentence if I were the judge. Of course if I was the judge, actually presiding, I'd be a looney who shouldn't even be on the bench.

One thing I'd like to clear up is the judge saying the people shot could be referred to looters and arsonists. The Court TV analysts pointed out that the judge said they could only do that if they could prove that they had been looting and lighting fires.

One thing I did see last night is when the prosecution was cross examining a defense witness he tried to go into what type of "reporter" he was. He kept inching towards whether or not the "news" he worked for was a looney right wing group. The judge halted him and said this wasn't political and to stop the line of questioning.

Uh... this is a political trial and if the guy is a right wing nutjob his testimony is probably, at the very least, embellished.
Click to expand...
What i really can't believe is why there are no charges against his mom. What kind of parent would think that taking your minor child that has a loaded assault rifle, driving a few hours away and dropping them off in the middle of a riot was a good idea? No matter what side you are on.
 
Guess Who said:
What i really can't believe is why there are no charges against his mom. What kind of parent would think that taking your minor child that has a loaded assault rifle, driving a few hours away and dropping them off in the middle of a riot was a good idea? No matter what side you are on.
Click to expand...

In the police interview she starts crying when she finds out he's going to be charged with murder. Yeah, you're the one who dropped him off with a loaded AR-15, and this is a big surprise to you?
 
There are so many facts that I think are relevant that the judge wouldn't allow. The CVS thing, that Kyle went to a bar underage with his Mom after he was out on bond drinking beer while hanging out with the Proud Boys (wearing a t-shirt saying something like I'm f'g free), his SM posts, etc. And that right-wing "journalist" not allowed to testify about who he worked for. As soon as that guy said the protesters were ANTIFA, I knew he was slanted.

I also think his breakdown on the stand was real.
 
Cousin Dupree said:
In the police interview she starts crying when she finds out he's going to be charged with murder. Yeah, you're the one who dropped him off with a loaded AR-15, and this is a big surprise to you?
Click to expand...
Just found this, about to watch the vids. Wendy Rittenhouse, Kyle Rittenhouse’s Mother: 5 Fast Facts

Kyle became the poster boy of right-wingers and they celebrated him and raised lots of $ for him. Of course, none of that came out during the trial.
 
*(I haven't followed this case as close as others so looking at it without bias & applying the law, was he justified? I'm just not sure.)

www.msnbc.com

Kyle Rittenhouse's trial verdict hinges on Wisconsin's self-defense law

Generally, someone who provokes an attack is unable to use self-defense, but Wisconsin law is a little more generous.
www.msnbc.com www.msnbc.com
At the conclusion of Rittenhouse’s trial, the jury will be asked to apply Wisconsin’s law of self-defense. Under that law, deadly force is permitted if a defendant “reasonably believed that the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.” Reasonableness is to be viewed based on “the defendant’s position under the circumstances that existed at the time of the alleged offense.”

Generally, someone who provokes an attack is unable to use self-defense, but Wisconsin law is a little more generous, even contradictory. It provides that a “person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack, and who does provoke an attack, is not allowed to use or threaten force in self-defense against that attack.” That prohibition would seem to apply to Rittenhouse, whose alleged illegal possession of a semi-automatic rifle provoked others to attack him. Even then, however, the law says a defendant may still use deadly force if he reasonably believes he has no other means to avoid death or great bodily harm. What the law taketh away, it giveth back.

In this case, Rittenhouse can argue that even if he provoked others to attack him by openly carrying his semi-automatic rifle at a mob scene, he was still able to use deadly force under Wisconsin law because he reasonably believed he had no other alternatives at those moments to avoid death or great bodily harm.

✂️

But parts of his story didn’t quite add up. For example, he testified that at that time of the encounter with Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse was running back to a car lot with a fire extinguisher to put out a fire, yet on the way, he was asking people if they needed any medical attention. Who stops to offer assistance when you are racing to put out a fire? He also testified that he thought he had no choice but to shoot Rosenbaum, even though Rosenbaum himself was unarmed, because he was “cornered” and believed that Rosenbaum would take his gun and kill him and would have “probably killed more people,” an assertion that sounded speculative at best. Even if Rittenhouse genuinely believed these things, the jury may conclude his belief was not reasonable.
 
www.jsonline.com

Kyle Rittenhouse will argue self defense, but experts say proving it to a jury isn't easy

The Kyle Rittenhouse trial will turn on the claim of self defense, which experts say can be more complicated than it sounds.
www.jsonline.com
Interesting and informative read.

I do not think he will be convicted.
But he should NOT have been there. With a weapon. Thinking he's big and tough and "helping". The provocation part of the law could get him, but not likely. Especially with this judge and jury.

Regardless, HIS actions led to two deaths. If this underage teenager hadn't traveled to another state with an assault rifle to "help" they wouldn't be dead. For that alone there should be consequences.

www.jsonline.com

Judge opens path for jury to clear Kyle Rittenhouse on firearm possession charge

Kyle Rittenhouse was 17 when he killed two people and wounded a third during protests in Kenosha in August 2020. He has argued self defense.
www.jsonline.com
The judge in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial on Friday said he'll instruct the jury that unless the state proved the teen's AR-15-style rifle had an unlawfully short barrel, he can't be convicted of being a minor in possession of a firearm.

No such evidence was introduced, so it seems likely Rittenhouse will be acquitted on the one charge that seemed obvious to everyone but his lawyers who challenged it from the very start. It might not even get to the jury.



His fake crying was some of the worst acting I've seen. He has zero remorse. And now he's a "hero" poster boy for many.
Absolutely disgusting.
 
SheWhoMustNotBeNamed said:
www.jsonline.com

Kyle Rittenhouse will argue self defense, but experts say proving it to a jury isn't easy

The Kyle Rittenhouse trial will turn on the claim of self defense, which experts say can be more complicated than it sounds.
www.jsonline.com
Interesting and informative read.

I do not think he will be convicted.
But he should NOT have been there. With a weapon. Thinking he's big and tough and "helping". The provocation part of the law could get him, but not likely. Especially with this judge and jury.

Regardless, HIS actions led to two deaths. If this underage teenager hadn't traveled to another state with an assault rifle to "help" they wouldn't be dead. For that alone there should be consequences.

www.jsonline.com

Judge opens path for jury to clear Kyle Rittenhouse on firearm possession charge

Kyle Rittenhouse was 17 when he killed two people and wounded a third during protests in Kenosha in August 2020. He has argued self defense.
www.jsonline.com
The judge in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial on Friday said he'll instruct the jury that unless the state proved the teen's AR-15-style rifle had an unlawfully short barrel, he can't be convicted of being a minor in possession of a firearm.

No such evidence was introduced, so it seems likely Rittenhouse will be acquitted on the one charge that seemed obvious to everyone but his lawyers who challenged it from the very start. It might not even get to the jury.



His fake crying was some of the worst acting I've seen. He has zero remorse. And now he's a "hero" poster boy for many.
Absolutely disgusting.
Click to expand...

Hopefully there will be a hung jury and they'll re-try the case in front of a different judge.
 
The problem wasn't the judge the problen was the prosecutor, he sucked! I went into this trial thinking Kyle was guilty after watching the whole thing I think they should find him not guilty.

Kyle's mom did not drive him to this protest/riot. That just isn't true. She wasn't at the protest/riot and did not give him the gun. None of that is true. I think the judge did fine and when he got mad at the prosecutor he should have every single time. my opinion only of course.
 
Not that I think he should have been there or with a gun looks like lots of them should not have been there and you don't chase a boy that has an AR-15. You don't hit him over the head with a skateboard, you don't kick him in the head and face and you certainly don't point a gun at him.

The prosecutor sucked in this trial. the witness who survived the shooting didn't do very good either.
 
I’ve been watching this trial. It’s a reminder that in order to come up with an informed decision, it’s necessary to watch the trial and don’t go by media reports or internet gossip.
Even after testimony is given, the media just needs to leave out a fact that doesn’t fit their objective and it can light up an untrue narrative.

Really scary and sad.

JMHO
fran

PS… I see cities across the country are preparing for civil unrest if he’s found not guilty. I hope the judge and jury remain safe. The judge has received death threats for both he and his family. There are people outside filming the jurors as they leave each day. It’s called voter intimidation which is a crime.
 
fran said:
I’ve been watching this trial. It’s a reminder that in order to come up with an informed decision, it’s necessary to watch the trial and don’t go by media reports or internet gossip.
Even after testimony is given, the media just needs to leave out a fact that doesn’t fit their objective and it can light up an untrue narrative.

Really scary and sad.

JMHO
fran

PS… I see cities across the country are preparing for civil unrest if he’s found not guilty. I hope the judge and jury remain safe. The judge has received death threats for both he and his family. There are people outside filming the jurors as they leave each day. It’s called voter intimidation which is a crime.
Click to expand...
Boy that's the truth fran! I hope the judge and jury remain safe as well. I think one juror said it best, half the people are going to be mad regardless of what they decide.
 
fran said:
I’ve been watching this trial. It’s a reminder that in order to come up with an informed decision, it’s necessary to watch the trial and don’t go by media reports or internet gossip.
Even after testimony is given, the media just needs to leave out a fact that doesn’t fit their objective and it can light up an untrue narrative.

Really scary and sad.

JMHO
fran

PS… I see cities across the country are preparing for civil unrest if he’s found not guilty. I hope the judge and jury remain safe. The judge has received death threats for both he and his family. There are people outside filming the jurors as they leave each day. It’s called voter intimidation which is a crime.
Click to expand...

I used to work for a newspaper. The media just leaves me boggled most days. What we put on the Editorial page now masquerades as fact.
 
RoundPeg said:
I used to work for a newspaper. The media just leaves me boggled most days. What we put on the Editorial page now masquerades as fact.
Click to expand...
That’s why I haven’t really been following this case all that closely. It’s been tried in the media and there’s so much outside influence that to me it’s just a big hype! Will justice be done? I hope so. But justice outside of the court room has not been done at all.

I did see that the President had weighed in on it. I’m not quite sure if that was during the election or recently? Like I said, I haven’t really been looking at it that closely. I really don’t think that any president should weigh in on a trial that hasn’t even happened yet. Many presidents have done it, the first one I remember doing that was Nixon in the Manson trial. That’s just one example of why I feel that outside of the court room has been unjust. IMHO
 
fran said:
I’ve been watching this trial. It’s a reminder that in order to come up with an informed decision, it’s necessary to watch the trial and don’t go by media reports or internet gossip.
Even after testimony is given, the media just needs to leave out a fact that doesn’t fit their objective and it can light up an untrue narrative.

Really scary and sad.

JMHO
fran

PS… I see cities across the country are preparing for civil unrest if he’s found not guilty. I hope the judge and jury remain safe. The judge has received death threats for both he and his family. There are people outside filming the jurors as they leave each day. It’s called voter intimidation which is a crime.
Click to expand...
And this isn’t even the case where during jury selection some of the potential jurors said they were too scared to serve! This stuff has to stop. People need to start being held accountable for their threatening actions.

One of our basic constitutional rights is that we are innocent until proven guilty. The burden is supposed to be on the prosecution. If this isn’t held sacred, all of us will be in trouble.
 
Kimster said:
And this isn’t even the case where during jury selection some of the potential jurors said they were too scared to serve! This stuff has to stop. People need to start being held accountable for their threatening actions.

One of our basic constitutional rights is that we are innocent until proven guilty. The burden is supposed to be on the prosecution. If this isn’t held sacred, all of us will be in trouble.
Click to expand...
"Trial by mob rule". Welcome to the New World Order.

We have got to protect our constitution. Agreed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Forum statistics

Threads
3,279
Messages
297,760
Members
1,104
Latest member
G.R.A.
Back
Top Bottom