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

[Grizzly Adams]

Because it is listed as an exception.

So somewhere in 3(c) it must speak to adult supervision in order to exempt minors from the section if they are under adult supervision, correct?

 

[US&THEM]

Agreed. But there's no law against that, and that's on the folks of that state, not Kyle.

Agreed. But there's no law against that, and that's on the folks of that state, not Kyle.
The jury has to believe Rittenhouse and his actions were just.

 

[maxparrish]

Yes, after watching his demeanor go from 'little kid crying', to 'adult rationale in legal technicalities of gun ownership', to 'strong technical understanding of ballistics', to then 'I don't know anything about it', I'm getting the feeling he's doing a rehearsed performance.

Unfortunately, it only takes resonance with one juror to get him off.

So far I've seen a great deal of animosity towards Rittenhouse to characterize his personality as that of a slick, cynical, callous youth, insufferably challenging loaded questions and presumptive characterizations.

Of course, that is how someone whose bias against him was deep seated before he trial began would see it. On the other hand, I see prosecutor asking and portraying questions in bad faith, provoking Rittenhouse to defend himself, on occasion slightly defiantly, other times cautiously.

Given the demeanor and highly aggressive and snide tone of many of the prosecutors questions I see nothing in Rittenhouse's reactions that are untoward.

Yes, he has had a year to examine video and learn details. He has had a year to become proficient in technical issues he may not have known at the time of the attack. Yes he has been prepped and rehearsed to anticipate questions and have answers and language appropriate.

However, nothing here changes the facts of self defense, nor exposes Rittenhouse as some kind of fraud. Whatever intent he had (and he may not even have been clear himself) is irrelevant to what he actually did and was done to him.

Underlying actions is the measure of crime, without it, motivations are irrelevant (as is personality on the witness stand).

 

[Chomsky]

Yup, slick as in smart ass.

That's what the difference in demeanor between his bar video and court chair, would seem to indicate.

So, which is the 'real' Kyle? The guy in the bar with only his friends? Or, the guy on the stand with the whole world watching? I tend to think we're more likely to act 'ourselves' when not in the public eye . . .

 

[gboisjo]

Seems the left plays solely on emotion rather than facts and evidence

And the right plays solely on the self defense evidence of a good guy with a gun taking down bad guys who had it coming ..never talking about the larger context of what occurred that night.

 

[GummyVitamins]

Because it is listed as an exception.

It's not an exception. The law specifically states who is impacted by the law. Reading comprehension is important and thankfully in this case the language is very easy to comprehend. It clearly states that the law ONLY applies to people who violate s 941.28 or ss 29.304 AND 29.593. Rittenhouse was not in violation of 941.28 and was not out of compliance with 29.304 and 29.593.

 

[US&THEM]

So somewhere in 3(c) it must speak to adult supervision in order to exempt minors from the section if they are under adult supervision, correct?

While participating in the exempted activities.

 

[Phys251]

I hope the Academy Awards watched that performance by Rittenhouse today and is seriously considering giving him an Oscar.

 

[SkyFox76]

If Dominic is the guy that stored his gun, you are absolutely right!

What a bullshit defense, "Dominic told me to get it!"

The prosecutor seems to be establishing a weapons violation, at least, and perhaps establishing some other form of culpability to occur later that night.

I also think Kyle is nuts for displaying his technical understanding of bullets to the degree he is. He should not be going there displaying expertise.

Ah, now Kyle's figured-out what the prosecutor did to him! "I don't know much about ammo"! Duh! Kyle's sandbagging!

--

Wow, bailed-out by the judge! I'm blown away! The judge saw the prosecutor had Kyle on the ropes, and immediate stopped it & broke for lunch! WTH was that about?

Yes, Black is the one who Kyle had buy the AR-15 for him. The statement Black gave to police was that they agreement was W Rittenhouse was going to get an FOID, the gun then transferred to her name and be kept in Illinois at the Rittenhouse apt. The problem with that is, in her TV interview she said she never allowed weapons in her home. Dominick then told police he wasn't sure when Kyle got the weapon while they were at the house, he didn't notice it until they were out at the car. In court though, he he said Rittenhouse went down the basement and came back up with the weapon, laid it on the kitchen table and stated grabbing medical supplies. And the FOID thing has morphed into they were just waiting on Kyle to turn 18.

And I'm calling absolute BS that Rittenhouse was under the impression he could legally have that weapon. Last night I posted this:

"But John Monroe, a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases, believes an exception for rifles and shotguns, intended to allow people age 16 and 17 to hunt, could apply."

"Tom Grieve, a Milwaukee defense lawyer who also specializes in gun cases, agreed the exception might apply beyond hunting, but said that part of the law is poorly drafted. He said he would argue to apply a rule of law that interprets ambiguous criminal statutes in favor of the defendant."

So these two lawyers who specialize in gun cases "think" it could be a an exception. Black and his dad both were going by the standard age of 18 law. Balch who is no newcomer to weapons also felt the age of 18 was law. But Kyle suggests he had better knowledge of the law than all those people. It's clear he's feeding off the statements AFTER that night to pretend he knew at the time there was this obscure loophole that even the judge has not ruled on.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

While participating in the exempted activities.

Is that a yes or a no?

 

[ASHES]

Uh, yes he is. That could figure into culpable negligence. There's reasons why 17 year olds can't legally posses firearms, and as the judge explained, 'ignorance of the law is not defense', nor does ignorance defend involuntary negative results of the ignorance (such as death or injury).

Straight-up, Kyle, on the stand, is displaying strong technical & legal understanding when it helps his case, and feigning ignorance and lack of understanding when it hurts his case. I would sense that as a juror, which is why I've noted, "He's a little too slick". But, I still think it will be difficult to get all 12 to convict.

Culpable negligence is not a factor in this trial. He is charged with recklessly and intentionally discharging his firearm.

 

[SkyFox76]

Which has nothing to do with whether or not he defended himself. He knows more about his firearm than a lot of people who carry firearms to protect themselves. I have members of my family who carry firearms in public for protection and they just know how to fire the gun and reload it. They couldn't tell you the first thing about the types of ammunition on the market or how far their firearm can shoot. Does that mean if they get attacked they aren't allowed to defend themselves?

It's reckless behavior. Especially in that type atmosphere.

 

[SkyFox76]

Does it matter? He just watched someone get shot in front of him and you want to criticize for not having the presence of mind to start recording at that moment? Come on.

I just find it unbelievable.

 

[GummyVitamins]

It's reckless behavior. Especially in that type atmosphere.

His mere presence is not reckless behavior.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

I just find it unbelievable.

And I, also an amateur photographer, don't. I actually sold a print a couple years ago. I guess that could make me a professional photographer to some. I still don't find it unbelievable that a person who just witnessed a homicide might not start clicking the shutter right away. Not even close.

 

[SkyFox76]

His mere presence is not reckless behavior.

Nope, you're right, he can go there with his little medic bag and stand there, run around, walk around and not endanger anyone. Heading there armed with a loaded weapon he's clearly not got any knowledge past, it's a gun, it's got bullets would be considered reckless imo.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Nope, you're right, he can go there with his little medic bag and stand there, run around, walk around and not endanger anyone. Heading there armed with a loaded weapon he's clearly not got any knowledge past, it's a gun, it's got bullets would be considered reckless imo.

Except reckless possession isn't a charge he's facing, is it? It's reckless discharge, right?

 

[Linuxcooldude]

There's what? A half dozen charges? Each charge will be litigated individually. There is no global, 'self-defense or not'. That statement displays a lack of understanding of the charges and the ways of jurisprudence.

No, it seems you want some sort of punishment dispite what the law says. Your basing his punishment based on the shootings, two deaths and an injury. That is independent to his other charges and should not be based on that.

 

[Lutherf]

So far I've seen a great deal of animosity towards Rittenhouse to characterize his personality as that of a slick, cynical, callous youth, insufferably challenging loaded questions and presumptive characterizations.

Of course, that is how someone whose bias against him was deep seated before he trial began would see it. On the other hand, I see prosecutor asking and portraying questions in bad faith, provoking Rittenhouse to defend himself, on occasion slightly defiantly, other times cautiously.

Given the demeanor and highly aggressive and snide tone of many of the prosecutors questions I see nothing in Rittenhouse's reactions that are untoward.

Yes, he has had a year to examine video and learn details. He has had a year to become proficient in technical issues he may not have known at the time of the attack. Yes he has been prepped and rehearsed to anticipate questions and have answers and language appropriate.

However, nothing here changes the facts of self defense, nor exposes Rittenhouse as some kind of fraud. Whatever intent he had (and he may not even have been clear himself) is irrelevant to what he actually did and was done to him.

Underlying actions is the measure of crime, without it, motivations are irrelevant (as is personality on the witness stand).

I'm going to take this one step farther. The demeanor of Rittenhouse is NOT emotional, even considering the breakdown. He is showing himself to be rational, intelligent and driven by conscience rather than by emotion. The prosecutor, on the other hand, has exposed himself as being more than a little inclined toward emotion, exaggeration and likely extreme animus toward the defendant.

 

[gboisjo]

Either it's self defence or its not.

That's not necessarily true, these are all the charges ..the Reckless Endangerment of Richard McGinnis might stick.

FIRST-DEGREE RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING SAFETY, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON

FIRST-DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON

ATTEMPTED FIRST-DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON

FIRST-DEGREE RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING SAFETY, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON

POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON BY A PERSON UNDER 18

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH AN EMERGENCY ORDER FROM STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT

 

[SkyFox76]

Except reckless possession isn't a charge he's facing, is it? It's reckless discharge, right?

He's not charged with being a lying dumbass moron either, that doesn't mean he isn't.

 

[ASHES]

That's not necessarily true, these are all the charges ..the Reckless Endangerment of Richard McGinnis might stick.

FIRST-DEGREE RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING SAFETY, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON

FIRST-DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON

ATTEMPTED FIRST-DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON

FIRST-DEGREE RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING SAFETY, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON

POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON BY A PERSON UNDER 18

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH AN EMERGENCY ORDER FROM STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT

FIFY

 

[Grizzly Adams]

He's not charged with being a lying dumbass moron either, that doesn't mean he isn't.

So your whole screed about how he was reckless going there with a gun has no relevance to anything then? Just your own sidetrack polemic? Good to know.

 

[TurtleDude]

What is funny about it? Only one person was armed with 30 rounds.

And you seem to think that alone should be illegal?

 

[Chomsky]

So far I've seen a great deal of animosity towards Rittenhouse to characterize his personality as that of a slick, cynical, callous youth, insufferably challenging loaded questions and presumptive characterizations.

Of course, that is how someone whose bias against him was deep seated before he trial began would see it. On the other hand, I see prosecutor asking and portraying questions in bad faith, provoking Rittenhouse to defend himself, on occasion slightly defiantly, other times cautiously.

Given the demeanor and highly aggressive and snide tone of many of the prosecutors questions I see nothing in Rittenhouse's reactions that are untoward.

You didn't see how he went from very technically knowledgeable on bullets & ballistics, to "I really don't know anything about it", once he caught on to where the prosecutor had led him?

Some jurors will pick-up on that.

Yes, he has had a year to examine video and learn details. He has had a year to become proficient in technical issues he may not have known at the time of the attack. Yes he has been prepped and rehearsed to anticipate questions and have answers and language appropriate.

Then why, after displaying technical understanding, did he quickly feign he didn't now anything. Frankly, he's lying, as you seem to support with your claims he 'educated himself'.

However, nothing here changes the facts of self defense, nor exposes Rittenhouse as some kind of fraud.
Whatever intent he had (and he may not even have been clear himself) is irrelevant to what he actually did and was done to him.

Underlying actions is the measure of crime, without it, motivations are irrelevant (as is personality on the witness stand).

The bolded is nonsense. Intent & premeditation is a defining characteristic of some of the charges.