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

[justabubba]

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.

while the entire post is informative, that portion shown above ^ offers a perspective that i had not considered or read
hope the defense will adopt the observation on monday

 

[justabubba]

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.

if i am carrying a heavy object, such as a charged fire extinguisher, once i drop that heavy object, i am then going to readjust my body as i proceed. i suspect that is going on with rittenhouse, which the prosecutor wants to claim as a pointing of the rifle [at individuals who are unable to be perceived in the offered video]

 

[justabubba]

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%.

who would arrive at fort apache first, the cops or the angry mob?

 

[justabubba]

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

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

are you saying i lied?!

 

[GummyVitamins]

Armed? of the three people he shot and the one he shot at twice, but missed, only one was armed and he was a legit EMT

Yes. Rittenhouse was not the first person to open fire. Many of the rioters were armed. And every person shot was trying to take his firearm from him. Also, Grosskreutz had an illegal firearm on him and was only shot when he pointed it at Rittenhouse.

 

[seymourflops]

Hearing about lesser charges today made my day ..I want this punk in jail. Judge will announce Monday before closing arguments I assume.

You mean because there is little hope that the jury will convict on the greater charges since it was so clearly self-defense?

You hope that the jury will take the opportunity to find a compromise, by convicting Rittenhouse of something - anything - now that the original charges are in the round file.

The story is getting confused in the media, with some outlets reporting that the judge has already agreed to the lessor charges and some stating the judge will rule on that on Saturday.

I believe that confusion is caused by this ruling that the judge did make today:

PROVOCATION

Under Wisconsin law, if someone provokes a confrontation they are required to exhaust all other options before using deadly force in self-defense. So if the prosecution can argue Rittenhouse was the aggressor, it could raise the bar for the defense.

But the defense can point to the evidence indicating that Rosenbaum was looking for trouble that night. Several witnesses told the court Rosenbaum was making death threats and that he chased Rittenhouse and lunged for his gun before the teen fired.

Rittenhouse himself testified that Rosenbaum, the first man he shot, threatened his life and grabbed the barrel of his gun.

Cafferty said the prosecution may try to argue that by provoking Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse also raised the bar for self-defense in the subsequent shootings of Huber and Grosskreutz, who prosecutors will say were trying to disarm the teenager.

U.S. judge in Rittenhouse trial says jury can consider teen provoked attack

The judge in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse said on Friday he would instruct the jury they can consider the prosecution's argument that the teenager provoked an encounter with one of two men he fatally shot during protests in Wisconsin last year.

www.reuters.com

I don't think the provocation ploy will work. Their evidence is a grainy video that they will argue shows Rittenhouse raising his gun.

The prosecutors over-charged in this case. Another lame prosecutors trick to coerce a plea deal. They charged him with "First Degree Intentional Homicide," for shooting a guy that was hitting him on the head with a skateboard?

I guess the trick isn't that lame, when used against poor defendants with public defenders for lawyers. The left, by it's hysterical condemnation of Rittenhouse, allowed funds to be raised for his defense. If the prosecutors thought Rittenhouse was guilty of come kind of recklessness or negligence, they should have been arguing that all along. They have argued that he fully intended to kill those men, not that he made a mistake or was acting recklessly.

I get that they left believes Rittenhouse became a murderer the minute he requested an AR15 to carry, and they assume that the twelve jurors must believe the same because it makes so much sense.

Sadly, this trick may work. But given the severe lack of talent and knowledge on the part of the prosecution team, I don't bet on it.

 

[ClaraD]

Yes. Rittenhouse was not the first person to open fire. Many of the rioters were armed. And every person shot was trying to take his firearm from him. Also, Grosskreutz had an illegal firearm on him and was only shot when he pointed it at Rittenhouse.

If you threaten someone with a firearm they don't have the right to try to disarm you? In what world?

 

[ClaraD]

You mean because there is little hope that the jury will convict on the greater charges since it was so clearly self-defense?

You hope that the jury will take the opportunity to find a compromise, by convicting Rittenhouse of something - anything - now that the original charges are in the round file.

The story is getting confused in the media, with some outlets reporting that the judge has already agreed to the lessor charges and some stating the judge will rule on that on Saturday.

I believe that confusion is caused by this ruling that the judge did make today:

PROVOCATION

Under Wisconsin law, if someone provokes a confrontation they are required to exhaust all other options before using deadly force in self-defense. So if the prosecution can argue Rittenhouse was the aggressor, it could raise the bar for the defense.

But the defense can point to the evidence indicating that Rosenbaum was looking for trouble that night. Several witnesses told the court Rosenbaum was making death threats and that he chased Rittenhouse and lunged for his gun before the teen fired.

Rittenhouse himself testified that Rosenbaum, the first man he shot, threatened his life and grabbed the barrel of his gun.

Cafferty said the prosecution may try to argue that by provoking Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse also raised the bar for self-defense in the subsequent shootings of Huber and Grosskreutz, who prosecutors will say were trying to disarm the teenager.

U.S. judge in Rittenhouse trial says jury can consider teen provoked attack

The judge in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse said on Friday he would instruct the jury they can consider the prosecution's argument that the teenager provoked an encounter with one of two men he fatally shot during protests in Wisconsin last year.

www.reuters.com

I don't think the provocation ploy will work. Their evidence is a grainy video that they will argue shows Rittenhouse raising his gun.

The prosecutors over-charged in this case. Another lame prosecutors trick to coerce a plea deal. They charged him with "First Degree Intentional Homicide," for shooting a guy that was hitting him on the head with a skateboard?

I guess the trick isn't that lame, when used against poor defendants with public defenders for lawyers. The left, by it's hysterical condemnation of Rittenhouse, allowed funds to be raised for his defense. If the prosecutors thought Rittenhouse was guilty of come kind of recklessness or negligence, they should have been arguing that all along. They have argued that he fully intended to kill those men, not that he made a mistake or was acting recklessly.

I get that they left believes Rittenhouse became a murderer the minute he requested an AR15 to carry, and they assume that the twelve jurors must believe the same because it makes so much sense.

Sadly, this trick may work. But given the severe lack of talent and knowledge on the part of the prosecution team, I don't bet on it.

if even one believes he is guilty and does not budge it becomes a mistrial and he can be tried again...in front of a different jury and perhaps a different judge.

 

[bubbabgone]

Am I the only one who noticed the Prosecutor appears to be grooming himself as a replacement for Gary Oldman as Commissioner Gordon?
Either that, or maybe in addition to, a position as legal correspondent for MSNBC.

 

[Noodlegawd]

The prosecution thus far hasn't proven he pointed a gun at anyone that I can tell. But, if they wanted to prove he pointed his rifle at the Ziminksis there's a very obvious next step... put the Ziminksis on the stand under oath. They won't do that because they know doing so would hurt their case more than help it. In which case the accusation should be dismissed by the jury.

It's all meaningless anyway. He had a good reason to point his rifle at Zeminski (he was armed, standing by a burning car, and blocking Rittenhouse's path), and even if the prosecution is trying to claim it was a provocation that would nullify the self defense claim, he overcame it by retreating.

 

[justabubba]

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

this is where you were defending him:

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

 

[seymourflops]

if even one believes he is guilty and does not budge it becomes a mistrial and he can be tried again...in front of a different jury and perhaps a different judge.

Hopefully for your side, different prosecutors, wouldn't you agree?

Am I the only one who noticed the Prosecutor appears to be grooming himself as a replacement for Gary Oldman as Commissioner Gordon?
Either that, or maybe in addition to, a position as legal correspondent for MSNBC.

Which one, Fatboy or Pornstache?

EDIT: Never mind, I just looked at a picture and you're right, Pornstache does have a resemblance to Gary Oldman.

 

[ASHES]

Hopefully for your side, different prosecutors, wouldn't you agree?


Which one, Fatboy or Pornstache?

EDIT: Never mind, I just looked at a picture and you're right, Pornstache does have a resemblance to Gary Oldman.

People have been calling him Littlebinger.

 

[ClaraD]

It's all meaningless anyway. He had a good reason to point his rifle at Zeminski (he was armed, standing by a burning car, and blocking Rittenhouse's path), and even if the prosecution is trying to claim it was a provocation that would nullify the self defense claim, he overcame it by retreating.

just because someone is armed you then have a right to point a gun at them? Is that what you are saying?

 

[Lutherf]

if i am carrying a heavy object, such as a charged fire extinguisher, once i drop that heavy object, i am then going to readjust my body as i proceed. i suspect that is going on with rittenhouse, which the prosecutor wants to claim as a pointing of the rifle [at individuals who are unable to be perceived in the offered video]

He was wearing a single point harness. In order to keep the weapon from banging around he needed to keep a hand on it and, usually, that would be on the pistol grip with his right hand (since he's right handed). He'd have had the fire extinguisher in his left hand which you can clearly see at 17:25 in the following video.



While this video doesn't show the exact scene in the "unicorn" video the prosecution wants to use it does show the events immediately after and at no point does Rittenhouse change his grip as he would have had to have done if the prosecution theory were true.

 

[seymourflops]

People have been calling him Littlebinger.

Oh, yeah!

That's the mayor from "The Wire."

Not sure who he's playing in that picture. I threw my TV away when my kids were little and I'm binge watching what I missed, now that they're out of the house.

Is that show any good?

 

[Noodlegawd]

just because someone is armed you then have a right to point a gun at them? Is that what you are saying?

Is that what I said?

 

[GummyVitamins]

while the entire post is informative, that portion shown above ^ offers a perspective that i had not considered or read
hope the defense will adopt the observation on monday

We will see. Although he was a witness for the prosecution I don't believe he filed a complaint against Rittenhouse. During his testimony he said he was very conscious of where the rifle was because he didn't want to get shot. And his reaction to Rosenbaum being shot wasn't one of shock or surprise. He didn't say anything along the lines of "I couldn't believe Rittenhouse shot him." Quite the contrary, he saw what was happening and took precautions for his safety. It's obvious when you're chasing someone with a firearm in an attempt to initiate a physical altercation the end result is going to be a struggle for the firearm. As the possessor of the firearm you have two options in that situation:

1. Use it to protect yourself.
2. Focus on protecting the rifle from being taken from you and likely receive a lot of physical punishment with the hope that you can weather the storm and maintain possession of the firearm.

Considering the situation with being outnumbered by the violent crowd and a man catching up to him for a struggle over his firearm, a man who twice previously said he was going to kill him, he elected to shoot. Nobody should be surprised Rittenhouse pulled the trigger in that situation. It was the right thing to do. The events leading up to him being in that position like showing up to the riots, heading out alone, etc are not relevant to the fact that at that moment in time he had a decision to make. He could either shoot or fight over his rifle while the crowd closes in on him with a man who has said he was going to kill him. That shooting is about as open and shut of a case of self defense as it gets.

 

[Lutherf]

People have been calling him Littlebinger.

Well, that photo doesn't do him any favors. It's Hitler gone two days without a shave.

 

[justabubba]

Hopefully for your side, different prosecutors, wouldn't you agree?


Which one, Fatboy or Pornstache?

EDIT: Never mind, I just looked at a picture and you're right, Pornstache does have a resemblance to Gary Oldman.

the judge put me in the mind of mister peepers (wally cox); his mannerisms, too

 

[GummyVitamins]

People have been calling him Littlebinger.

The Viva Frei crew?

 

[SkyFox76]

who would arrive at fort apache first, the cops or the angry mob?

Nick Smith testified that at the time Rittenhouse had returned to the CS2 that he knew the police had pushed all the protesters out of the area and he could see that from the roof. We also know Rittenhouse and Black made their way back to where Black's car was parked. So where is the angry mob?

 

[SkyFox76]

this is where you were defending him:

I thought you were meaning Rosenbaum, but yes, I defend the fact the man was a certified paramedic and that people who he treated were likely very grateful.

 

[justabubba]

I thought you were meaning Rosenbaum, but yes, I defend the fact the man was a certified paramedic and that people who he treated were likely very grateful.

what a hero
approaches a juvenile with a hand gun, positions it to fire at the kid ... right after he shows rittenhouse his hands-up 'surrender' signal
yea, keep defending that piece of shit

 

[SkyFox76]

what a hero
approaches a juvenile with a hand gun, positions it to fire at the kid ... right after he shows rittenhouse his hands-up 'surrender' signal
yea, keep defending that piece of shit

Ty I will.