(W#4255)The trial of Kyle Rittenhouse for the intentional first degree homicide of 2, injuring of 1

[Cordelier]

He did. Your claim to the contrary is just a pure fabrication.

No, it's fact.... the demonstration was on Sheridan Road. Rittenhouse went back to Sheridan Road after shooting Rosenbaum.

He didn't have to.... he could have headed to 10th Ave, away from Sheridan Road.

 

[Lutherf]

OK. I guess Schroeder will make his final decision on charges tomorrow but here's what's being reported now -
https://www.twincities.com/2021/11/12/jury-to-get-to-weigh-some-lesser-charges-in-rittenhouse-case/

Also, with regard to that "enhanced" image from yesterday there is a decent image of what theyre talking about in the link below. There is also commentary on the whole thing but the only reason I'm using this link is because that's the only place I found anything decent to look at.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/...s-last-desperate-lunge-for-evidence-of-guilt/

 

[ASHES]

OK. I guess Schroeder will make his final decision on charges tomorrow but here's what's being reported now -
https://www.twincities.com/2021/11/12/jury-to-get-to-weigh-some-lesser-charges-in-rittenhouse-case/

Also, with regard to that "enhanced" image from yesterday there is a decent image of what theyre talking about in the link below. There is also commentary on the whole thing but the only reason I'm using this link is because that's the only place I found anything decent to look at.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/...s-last-desperate-lunge-for-evidence-of-guilt/

I want to see it in motion at that zoom level. I'll fiddle with the drone video later.

 

[SkyFox76]

It's obvious you're just lying now.

After he shot Rosenbaum, he took the shortest path possible to turn himself into the police and avoid getting curb stomped by the crowd. He wasn't waving his gun around at anyone, or doing anything other than trying to cover those three blocks before the crowd "craniumed" him.

It's that simple, no matter how many fantasy tales you want to spin.

I think after passing by those police the next shortest path would have been to sit inside of the boarded up CS and waited for police to arrive, considering at that point they were actively looking for him. Not heading back to his apt in Ill.

 

[GummyVitamins]

Lol there is no line of questioning. The facts show this kid who was promoted by the defense as a jr cadet of both police and fire, ran off while calling his buddy. And you're reasoning is, well other people probably did, and anyways, that takes longer.

I think it was in bad form to call his friend. But, I think it's important to recognize what was happening on the ground. The police set up a perimeter and they were not in any position to get anywhere quickly. Black, who had called him to go there, was with some friendly acquaintances who were armed and could help protect him until police arrived. Rosenbaum had a crowd of people who were friendly to his rioting ways who could have called 911 for his emergency services. Rittenhouse, at the point, was in fight or flight mode and all of his brain activity was being spent on survival. His best chance of survival was for his friends to meet him and provide security from the violent rioters.

This doesn't answer why he met up with his friends before turning himself into the police or anything else. Rittenhouse definitely made some questionable and immature decisions that night that led up to this encounter. Things like his alleged use of a laser on someone while at the time seemed like a cute way to be dismissive wasn't helpful. However, fortunately for Rittenhouse none of this makes any difference to his right to self defense. It's all irrelevant. The moment Rittenhouse fled from Rosenbaum any doubt that his actions were in self defense go out the window entirely. Rosenbaum was the aggressor. And with evidence that his hand was around the barrel of the gun when he was first hit gives him a very strong self defense case.

Additionally, McGinniss, was conscious of where the rifle was and that Rittenhouse may have to use it to defend himself so he began positioning himself out of the line of fire before the shots were fired. That says two things: 1. Rittenhouse's use of force was likely reasonable (or at the least somewhat expected by a bystander) and 2. the claim of endangerment is less strong.

Huber was hitting him over the head with a board and pulling on the firearm when he was shot. I can't imagine any jury doesn't think that was self defense. In no way was that first degree intentional homicide. That's out the window entirely.

Gaige Grosskreutz admitted on the stand that he was in possession of an illegal firearm at the time and Rittenhouse only fired at him when he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse. Additionally, the defense disproved Grosskreutz's lie that he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse because he re-racked his rifle prior to shooting him. There is a lot of video from that night and there was nothing captured on video or any unspent rounds on the ground. Every round was accounted for.

The curfew that was in place was very obviously not legal and was rightfully thrown out. The Sheriff had no authority to implement or enforce a curfew.

The possession of a dangerous weapon charge looks like it will either be given new jury instructions based on the common understanding of the language of the law rather than what activists want the law to mean or will be thrown out entirely. Based on a plain reading of the law Rittenhouse was not in illegally possessing the firearm that night.

This is a highly political case and the jury instructions will be important. This could be one of those things where the jury doesn't want to acquit on all charges, but it seems pretty clear that without all the unethical Binger shenanigans this case would be an easy open and shut self defense case that never should have had charges filed in the first place.

 

[ASHES]

I think it was in bad form to call his friend. But, I think it's important to recognize what was happening on the ground. The police set up a perimeter and they were not in any position to get anywhere quickly. Black, who had called him to go there, was with some friendly acquaintances who were armed and could help protect him until police arrived. Rosenbaum had a crowd of people who were friendly to his rioting ways who could have called 911 for his emergency services. Rittenhouse, at the point, was in fight or flight mode and all of his brain activity was being spent on survival. His best chance of survival was for his friends to meet him and provide security from the violent rioters.

This doesn't answer why he met up with his friends before turning himself into the police or anything else. Rittenhouse definitely made some questionable and immature decisions that night that led up to this encounter. Things like his alleged use of a laser on someone while at the time seemed like a cute way to be dismissive wasn't helpful. However, fortunately for Rittenhouse none of this makes any difference to his right to self defense. It's all irrelevant. The moment Rittenhouse fled from Rosenbaum any doubt that his actions were in self defense go out the window entirely. Rosenbaum was the aggressor. And with evidence that his hand was around the barrel of the gun when he was first hit gives him a very strong self defense case.

Additionally, McGinniss, was conscious of where the rifle was and that Rittenhouse may have to use it to defend himself so he began positioning himself out of the line of fire before the shots were fired. That says two things: 1. Rittenhouse's use of force was likely reasonable (or at the least somewhat expected by a bystander) and 2. the claim of endangerment is less strong.

Huber was hitting him over the head with a board and pulling on the firearm when he was shot. I can't imagine any jury doesn't think that was self defense. In no way was that first degree intentional homicide. That's out the window entirely.

Gaige Grosskreutz admitted on the stand that he was in possession of an illegal firearm at the time and Rittenhouse only fired at him when he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse. Additionally, the defense disproved Grosskreutz's lie that he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse because he re-racked his rifle prior to shooting him. There is a lot of video from that night and there was nothing captured on video or any unspent rounds on the ground. Every round was accounted for.

The curfew that was in place was very obviously not legal and was rightfully thrown out. The Sheriff had no authority to implement or enforce a curfew.

The possession of a dangerous weapon charge looks like it will either be given new jury instructions based on the common understanding of the language of the law rather than what activists want the law to mean or will be thrown out entirely. Based on a plain reading of the law Rittenhouse was not in illegally possessing the firearm that night.

This is a highly political case and the jury instructions will be important. This could be one of those things where the jury doesn't want to acquit on all charges, but it seems pretty clear that without all the unethical Binger shenanigans this case would be an easy open and shut self defense case that never should have had charges filed in the first place.

The laser pointer was a red herring. It wasn't done by Rittenhouse, it was done by one of the people on the roof with Black.

 

[Lutherf]

I want to see it in motion at that zoom level. I'll fiddle with the drone video later.

Branco does make one HUGE point with regard to the image (which would also carry over to the video) that I didn't notice myself at first. His comment that for the image to show Rittenhouse pointing the firearm up Rittenhouse would have switched to a left handed grip and we didn't see that at any point in any of the other video. My personal observation was that even if he did have the barrel up the weapon wasn't pointing at anyone not in a tree or on the moon. All that being said, the image is pretty much useless as far as anything definitive goes.

 

[SkyFox76]

I think it was in bad form to call his friend. But, I think it's important to recognize what was happening on the ground. The police set up a perimeter and they were not in any position to get anywhere quickly. Black, who had called him to go there, was with some friendly acquaintances who were armed and could help protect him until police arrived. Rosenbaum had a crowd of people who were friendly to his rioting ways who could have called 911 for his emergency services. Rittenhouse, at the point, was in fight or flight mode and all of his brain activity was being spent on survival. His best chance of survival was for his friends to meet him and provide security from the violent rioters.

This doesn't answer why he met up with his friends before turning himself into the police or anything else. Rittenhouse definitely made some questionable and immature decisions that night that led up to this encounter. Things like his alleged use of a laser on someone while at the time seemed like a cute way to be dismissive wasn't helpful. However, fortunately for Rittenhouse none of this makes any difference to his right to self defense. It's all irrelevant. The moment Rittenhouse fled from Rosenbaum any doubt that his actions were in self defense go out the window entirely. Rosenbaum was the aggressor. And with evidence that his hand was around the barrel of the gun when he was first hit gives him a very strong self defense case.

Additionally, McGinniss, was conscious of where the rifle was and that Rittenhouse may have to use it to defend himself so he began positioning himself out of the line of fire before the shots were fired. That says two things: 1. Rittenhouse's use of force was likely reasonable (or at the least somewhat expected by a bystander) and 2. the claim of endangerment is less strong.

Huber was hitting him over the head with a board and pulling on the firearm when he was shot. I can't imagine any jury doesn't think that was self defense. In no way was that first degree intentional homicide. That's out the window entirely.

Gaige Grosskreutz admitted on the stand that he was in possession of an illegal firearm at the time and Rittenhouse only fired at him when he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse. Additionally, the defense disproved Grosskreutz's lie that he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse because he re-racked his rifle prior to shooting him. There is a lot of video from that night and there was nothing captured on video or any unspent rounds on the ground. Every round was accounted for.

The curfew that was in place was very obviously not legal and was rightfully thrown out. The Sheriff had no authority to implement or enforce a curfew.

The possession of a dangerous weapon charge looks like it will either be given new jury instructions based on the common understanding of the language of the law rather than what activists want the law to mean or will be thrown out entirely. Based on a plain reading of the law Rittenhouse was not in illegally possessing the firearm that night.

This is a highly political case and the jury instructions will be important. This could be one of those things where the jury doesn't want to acquit on all charges, but it seems pretty clear that without all the unethical Binger shenanigans this case would be an easy open and shut self defense case that never should have had charges filed in the first place.

The bolded above--

Even once Rittenhouse was back inside the boarded up CS he took off. I know Smith testified something about police being on their way, but I didn't catch who called them. But if that fact was true he could have sat right there and been taken in for questioning. And if no one did call them, then why not?

And to the second bolded, I agree 100%.

 

[ASHES]

"It's common sense and judgement, Jim."

Mark Richards to James Kraus today. Getting the clip. That whole exchange was rather funny.

 

[maxparrish]

So, it's pretty clear to me he and his other heavily armed friends were operating as vigilantes (noble or not). The authorities came in what looked like tanks and riot gear and told them to move out numerous times, and they disobeyed the law. Again, some see that as virtuous with all the 'what are you supposed to do when no one is there to help those empty businesses (that never asked or paid for help)?'. End of day, they operated outside the law. What's worse, they antagonized and instigated other non weapon carriers to start something with them. Again, gang mentality. I watched other similar videos of armed men (during BLM), peacefully standing right in front of boarded up stores, and not engaging crowds at all. I could argue their intentions were more virtuous.

All that being said, I would agree that if that mental guy lunged at Rittenhouse and tried to grab his gun, one could argue he defended his life. Even though he disobeyed the law and was part of a party that arguably stirred up more trouble outside of the law. Those are lesser infractions. You are basically saying that it's ok to go stir up trouble and engage with others, while admonishing heavy artillery, but the moment someone challenges you back, you are perfectly right to fire. Maybe you could argue he specifically was not intentionally instigating others, but I watched footage of those he traveled and affiliated with, and they clearly were. He was just the one they chose that moment to engage.

That being said, I can't for the life of me understand how the same posters who are adamant about the defense angle, and forget all the motivations, the external events, and whatnot, only care about that moment he feared for his life, and reacted...

What about the guy who had an angry mob literally smash down doors and windows coming for him, to very illegally access members of congress, threatening to kill and hang members. And when that guy was under even worse duress and they were smashing down windows to get to him, he clearly told them to stop, they wouldn't, in response he fired under that horrific duress and fear for his life. And the kicker is he was legally authorized, trained, and paid to do so. The same people on this board lambasted, vilified, and demanded he get some retribution for it.

Why such a huge difference in viewpoints other than partisan?

It is clear that partisanship, or to be more exact, bigotry against those who bear arms as civilians, is a part of this trial. It is also clear that there is a segment of the population that can't stand open carry, and that views protection of private and public property by citizenry to be highly outrageous, and a threat to society and the public order. Partisanship, on behalf of "protestors" and those more violent and destructive, is an added layer to the bigotry.

Consider the prejudicial words you use "vigilantes", "gang mentality", "outside the law"... this animus is baked into your assumptions.

A thought experiment, let us suppose they were just people who wanted to act in the same capacity as civilian security guards, except doing it gratis without pay? Suppose one of them, also wanted to help people injured, and help fight property fires? In a non political context, this wouldn't be an issue, would it? In fact, it would be good Sarmatianism.

Deep down I think severe critics of Rittenhouse know that, so they feel compelled to color the narrative... a small group of people want to help a property owner, and so they become "vigilantes". If they do so in concert, they have a "gang mentality". If they verbally reply in like tone and content to those yelling for them to leave or else, they are "provacators". And if by their very presence with a firearm, just like many in the mob, are attacked by the mob...its their fault.

As I posted earlier, this is typical judge mentalism directed at the victim of a hostile mob, the belief that somehow the mob are innocent because they just had to do it, is blaming the victim for what is, in the end, the fault of those who attacked him.

Those killed or wounded had plenty of time to run away, not engage, or call 911. They had plenty of time to think about not charging an armed man from behind, and not bringing and brandishing there own firearm (as one did). Had they survived, and Rittenhouse had not, some couldn't have even come close to having a self defense claim.

You need to reflect on this.

 

[Noodlegawd]

I didn't think there was anything in that post that wasn't established fact. But if you want to call it "lies" that's on you.

No, that's on your obvious squirming to try to justify your lie with an obvious misrepresentation of facts.

 

[ASHES]

"It's common sense and judgement, Jim."

 

[Noodlegawd]

No, it's fact.... the demonstration was on Sheridan Road. Rittenhouse went back to Sheridan Road after shooting Rosenbaum.

He didn't have to.... he could have headed to 10th Ave, away from Sheridan Road.

Let's pretend for a second that he could have gotten to 10th Ave without running through the mob of lunatic who were just smashing cars. Then what? What was he supposed to do with dozens of raving lunatics chasing after him and nowhere to go?

 

[Noodlegawd]

I think after passing by those police the next shortest path would have been to sit inside of the boarded up CS and waited for police to arrive, considering at that point they were actively looking for him. Not heading back to his apt in Ill.

After which he almost immediately turned himself into the police, you mean.

 

[maxparrish]

Obviously, since Rittenhouse didn't stop, call 911 and render aid to the person he just shot he's guilty of 1st degree murder. It's that simple. The law is COMPLETELY clear. Wisconsin Statute 99.304 2(g) clearly states "when an individual shoots someone, even as a lawful act of self defense, they are guilty of 1st Degree Murder is, subsequent to the defensive action, they fail to call 911, fail to render aid and, at some prior point in the evening, have lied or misled another individual about anything."

You forgot about staying after curfew? That is a capital punishment crime right there!

 

[justabubba]

Kyle is alive and telling his tale. The only star crossed kids that night are presently and permanently, solitary confined inmates six foot deep Rosenbaum and skateboard Huber.






It's a free country, Kyle had as much right to be there as six foot deep Rosenbaum, skateboard Huber and Big Kreutz.

was it wrong of me to be anticipating the court clerk swearing in grosskreutz by asking him to raise his right hand?


i'm gonna burn in hell for that one, too

 

[SkyFox76]

After which he almost immediately turned himself into the police, you mean.

Spin it however you want. How many resources were wasted that night searching for the person who had shot 3 people, when he could have just waited 10 minutes (or less) for someone at CS2 to find a cop and tell them--the shooter is waiting for you down the block there. Not to mention all of the resources and time wasted getting him extradited BACK to Wisconsin because he fled to Ill. From Aug 26 until Oct 30 his money grubbing attorneys fought his extradition, but he transferred to Wi Oct 30 after a judges orders. So all that time wasted with him locked up when he could have waited 10 minutes. He was then released 20 days later.

And in all of that? The only person that benefited from ANY of that was John Pierce who the 2 million bond will go to after the trial.

 

[SkyFox76]

was it wrong of me to be anticipating the court clerk swearing in grosskreutz by asking him to raise his right hand?


i'm gonna burn in hell for that one, too

Somehow I think the people who he's treated in the past as a paramedic, maybe saved someone's life, aren't so amused.

 

[justabubba]

Wow, that's even stranger than my scenario. Was the guy screaming at rittenhouse, I'm a child molester and I'm coming for you? When did you find out about the child molesting?

are you now trying to pretend that the juvenile was not being stalked by a child molesting perv, just released from a mental institution?

that's your guy. defend him all you want. the piece of shit won't be stalking any more juveniles thanks to rittenhouse

 

[justabubba]

Somehow I think the people who he's treated in the past as a paramedic, maybe saved someone's life, aren't so amused.

yep, a paramedic who was aiming his pistol at a juvenile immediately after placing his hands in a 'i surrender' position

yea, defend him as well as the child molesting perv

 

[maxparrish]

"It's common sense and judgement, Jim."

Mark Richards to James Kraus today. Getting the clip. That whole exchange was rather funny.

For some reason it triggered a thought about McCoy and Kirk. I could almost hear McCoy saying that to Kirk...some very old neurons in my brain were triggered.

 

[justabubba]

So.. I take it you and @ASHES , since she like your post both agree he will be at least arrested within the next 3 months. I'm glad you both agree.

that post, misrepresenting what has been written, causes me to ask if english is your first language

 

[lurchadams]

that post, misrepresenting what has been written, causes me to ask if english is your first language

Oh, my English is fine - as is my vigilante bloodlust meter - and it's been "in the red" reacting to posts like yours in this thread.

 

[SkyFox76]

yep, a paramedic who was aiming his pistol at a juvenile immediately after placing his hands in a 'i surrender' position

yea, defend him as well as the child molesting perv

Is calling him a loudmouth belligerent idiot defending him? Just want to be clear.

 

[maxparrish]

Branco does make one HUGE point with regard to the image (which would also carry over to the video) that I didn't notice myself at first. His comment that for the image to show Rittenhouse pointing the firearm up Rittenhouse would have switched to a left handed grip and we didn't see that at any point in any of the other video. My personal observation was that even if he did have the barrel up the weapon wasn't pointing at anyone not in a tree or on the moon. All that being said, the image is pretty much useless as far as anything definitive goes.

Here is the extended dialog (paraphrased by Branca) on the video that is rather humorous:

Judge in front of the 4k TV.

Kraus: This is the unedited, exhibit 73.

Binger: Focus here at base of sign.

Judge: OK.

Playing the unedited, normal speed drone video.

Kraus: Our version is much clearer than this (using the defense version).

Defense Wisco: That's exactly what we got from you.

Judge: This doesn't show anything. This is what was provided to the defense?

Richards: Yes.

State trying to find their own, purportedly "better" version of the drone video.

Wisco: If your version is clearer, that means you didn't give it to us.

Kraus: It's just playing weird.

Yada...yada...yada (my comment)

(Branca Comment): All this nonsense alone should be enough to exclude.