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

[GummyVitamins]

Public Notice Reminder: Don't point a gun at the jury with your finger on the trigger, even if someone checked it.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Haha, one doesn’t need to be tough to be rational. Dude was 5’3

What is the height of the shortest person ever to commit murder?

 

[US&THEM]

What is the height of the shortest person ever to commit murder?

How tall is Rittenhouse?

 

[GummyVitamins]

How tall is Rittenhouse?

The answer to this question is about as irrelevant as the answer to the last stupid question you asked.

 

[GummyVitamins]

You can’t explain why or how Rosenbaum magically picked Rittenhouse.

The answer is irrelevant. I'm noticing the hyper-focus on irrelevant nonsense now that every position you've historically held about this case has been definitively proven false.

Rosenbaum is dead so we'll probably never know the answer to your irrelevant question. But, the prosecution suggested Rosenbaum may have picked Kyle because he was the smallest of the "militia." Personally, I think they were all too old for Rosenbaum, however, Rittenhouse was the closest thing to a prepubescent boy so he picked him.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Not at all. Rittenhouse fired as he turned.

Nope, as ASHES put up the video, he was fully turned around as you see the smoke plume.

 

[justabubba]

Three shots or more is not only reactive and proper, its a part of professional training. If you've seen police self defense or defense of others shooting, multiple shots are ubiquitous.

defense failed to note that in closing
a missed opportunity to strike the prosecution center mass

 

[justabubba]

Rittenhouse received zero training and how do you think a police officer or anyone with any real training would have handled that night? Double tap drills but as for being trained for how many shots that is untrue. You are teained to shoot until the threat is stopped. Hence when Kyle was coached to say exactly that.

wasn't rittenhouse in a police cadet program where he was issued body armor? if correct, it does not seem like a stretch that he may have received firearm training as well

 

[justabubba]

You can’t explain why or how Rosenbaum magically picked Rittenhouse. Poor little Kyle Rittenhouse who is bigger and armed was running and decided to shoot.

the perv had a thing for assaulting juveniles
his criminal record as a child molester attests to that reality

 

[justabubba]

I see a juvenile who wants to be an EMT, fireman and armed security walking around like he needs to matter

how awful that young people aspire to become first responders

when this country needs more corporate raiders and attorneys

 

[maxparrish]

A self defense attorney I deeply respect, Andrew Branca, believes that what was an otherwise very strong case for Kyle Rittenhouse has been damaged by an inexcusably weak closing. Indeed in his view (and increasingly mine) if KR is convicted on any of the charges, the injustice will almost certainty due to Mark Richards poor closing.

There are two broad categories of weakness. The first kind is that of the failure to meet the necessary goals of any defense, before any points by the prosecution are considered. The second kind is a failure to anticipate and account for perfectly foreseeable points the state would make on rebuttal - necessary since the prosecution gets the last word.

While a more detailed review is forthcoming from Branca, this is a summary:

1) Mark Richard's personae, and speaking to the jury, was his poor choice of tone, his gruff manner. And that was the angry and personal tone Richards directed at the prosecution. No doubt that anger was well founded, but nothing is to be gained by appearing as unlikeable than the prosecution.

2) The closing exists as a "one shot" opportunity to draw together a compelling narrative of innocence, to waste it so as to air personal grievances and frustrations with the prosecution is distracting and wasting time on what is an irrelevancy. Bitching at the prosecution does nothing to help RH, and a better tone would have been far, far, more effective.\\

3) The tone of “those rioters, looters and arsonists were all scumbags, and this prosecution is just a suit-wearing version of the same chaos!!!!!!” is venting that does nothing to sell the narrative of innocence to a jury that is looking at all this through entirely different eyes than those of the lead defense counsel. They want understanding and answers, not histeronics.

4) Pushing Kyle as someone heroic and ridding the streets of miscreants makes Kyle appear to the the "wanna be famous" motivated to act aggressively.

5) When the prosecution is fostering sympathy for those maimed and killed, you don't smear the victims (Duh). He came off as unsympathetic, which reflects on KR.

6) Rather he should have acknowledge they were all human beings, and the defense and Kyle wish all were alive, including Rosenbaum

7) He should have repeated pointed out that it wasn’t his client’s choice that these tragic events occurred—it was the result of the choices of those others, choices that compelled his client to exercise his privilege under Wisconsin law to defend himself from violent, life-threatening attack.

8) Acknowledge that perhaps those people who attacked Kyle, especially at the second location, might have genuinely believed that they were acting to stop some kind of active shooter. They were mistaken, of course, Kyle was as far from an active shooter as it was possible to be, for reasons you’ll detail in a moment. Perhaps even Rosenbaum’s attack was triggered by personal demons that nobody but he could understand, but which he found impossible to resist.

9) My biggest concern has been how the defense was going to educate the jury through the elements of self defense, while avoiding be drawn off into red herring arguments. Richards failed to methodically and in detail step the jury through all the elements and how they applied to the felony charges.

10) Branca says: "For each count, I would have made clear in plain language exactly what circumstances would lead Kyle to believe he was facing an unlawful forcible attack (Innocence), that the harm feared from that attack was either already being inflicted or apparently immediately about to occur (Imminence), how the nature of the threat presented an apparent risk of death or serious bodily injury (Proportionality), and how all of this was not just genuinely believed but objective reasonable (Reasonableness)."

11) Richards approached the "unarmed Rosenbaum" question as intuitive and self-evident, failing to address the issue with the specificity that a jury needs. He failed to address, through law, the falsehoods of Binger (e.g. that it could never be lawful for an armed man to shoot an attack who was unarmed). Richard's never made clear how deceptive this framing was.

12) Richards failed to define imminence to the jury.

There are many other flaws in his closing: failure to demonstrate "reasonableness" is from Rittenhouse's perspective, and from what is reasonable objectively; hand waving a "gun is a gun and a bullet is a bullet" when confronted with Kyles choice of weapon, etc.

The list of closing failures is quite extensive... and should KR actually come away without a conviction on any charge it will be a miracle. Indeed should be come away with just several lessor charges he should thank his lucky starts giving how the closing failed in just the manner I had long feared...

​

 

[justabubba]

A self defense attorney I deeply respect, Andrew Branca, believes that what was an otherwise very strong case for Kyle Rittenhouse has been damaged by an inexcusably weak closing. Indeed in his view (and increasingly mine) if KR is convicted on any of the charges, the injustice will almost certainty due to Mark Richards poor closing.

There are two broad categories of weakness. The first kind is that of the failure to meet the necessary goals of any defense, before any points by the prosecution are considered. The second kind is a failure to anticipate and account for perfectly foreseeable points the state would make on rebuttal - necessary since the prosecution gets the last word.

While a more detailed review is forthcoming from Branca, this is a summary:

1) Mark Richard's personae, and speaking to the jury, was his poor choice of tone, his gruff manner. And that was the angry and personal tone Richards directed at the prosecution. No doubt that anger was well founded, but nothing is to be gained by appearing as unlikeable than the prosecution.

2) The closing exists as a "one shot" opportunity to draw together a compelling narrative of innocence, to waste it so as to air personal grievances and frustrations with the prosecution is distracting and wasting time on what is an irrelevancy. Bitching at the prosecution does nothing to help RH, and a better tone would have been far, far, more effective.\\

3) The tone of “those rioters, looters and arsonists were all scumbags, and this prosecution is just a suit-wearing version of the same chaos!!!!!!” is venting that does nothing to sell the narrative of innocence to a jury that is looking at all this through entirely different eyes than those of the lead defense counsel. They want understanding and answers, not histeronics.

4) Pushing Kyle as someone heroic and ridding the streets of miscreants makes Kyle appear to the the "wanna be famous" motivated to act aggressively.

5) When the prosecution is fostering sympathy for those maimed and killed, you don't smear the victims (Duh). He came off as unsympathetic, which reflects on KR.

6) Rather he should have acknowledge they were all human beings, and the defense and Kyle wish all were alive, including Rosenbaum

7) He should have repeated pointed out that it wasn’t his client’s choice that these tragic events occurred—it was the result of the choices of those others, choices that compelled his client to exercise his privilege under Wisconsin law to defend himself from violent, life-threatening attack.

8) Acknowledge that perhaps those people who attacked Kyle, especially at the second location, might have genuinely believed that they were acting to stop some kind of active shooter. They were mistaken, of course, Kyle was as far from an active shooter as it was possible to be, for reasons you’ll detail in a moment. Perhaps even Rosenbaum’s attack was triggered by personal demons that nobody but he could understand, but which he found impossible to resist.

9) My biggest concern has been how the defense was going to educate the jury through the elements of self defense, while avoiding be drawn off into red herring arguments. Richards failed to methodically and in detail step the jury through all the elements and how they applied to the felony charges.

[truncated by bubba at this point to enable enough characters to post a reply]

​

while i might have preferred a closing more aligned in the order of the charges the jury will soon deliberate, i do not believe the defense left much on the table

during the rebuttal, i was suprised that the defense failed to object to the twice stated prosecution statement that rittenhouse failed to adequately retreat, when he had no legal obligation to retreat in his self defense efforts

the personal animus against binger was evident, but doubt that will adversely affect the jury, who probably dislike his imperious approach, too

 

[maxparrish]

defense failed to note that in closing
a missed opportunity to strike the prosecution center mass

That is an example of what has bothered me, even before closing. For example, does the jury understand that "recklessness" is not an open ended charge, that self defense justifies "recklessness" , that would would be "reckless" shooting in one circumstance isn't reckless when your life is threatened?

And yes, I was wondering why the prosecution kept repeating the crap about 4 shots, without the defense mentioning that its encouraged in professional training. Nor, by the way, have I heard the defense explain that one MUST slow down when entering a maze of cars, which is an utterly natural reaction to seek safety when trying to losing you pursuer. (e.g. thats what people do when chased by a cop, try alley ways, one way streets, duck into buildings, jump fences, etc.)

And how is it they let the prosecution get away with the impression that it is unlawful to kill an unarmed man, or that a self defense shooter has to have just the right ammo?

 

[Nilhus]

convicted rapist

In a country where the age of consent is absurdly high, some "rapists" are actually perfectly normal people that would not be considered "rapists" in a country like Germany or Japan.
Mentioning "convicted" doesn't carry any weight.

 

[bongsaway]

Someone not going to prison for bullshit charges is a win for everyone.

He's going to prison for killing two people, is that bullshit?

 

[Binary_Digit]

He's going to prison for killing two people, is that bullshit?

He didn't just kill two people, he killed two people in self defense. Context matters. Conveniently ignoring that context and pretending you're right is dishonest.

 

[Binary_Digit]

In a country where the age of consent is absurdly high, some "rapists" are actually perfectly normal people that would not be considered "rapists" in a country like Germany or Japan.
Mentioning "convicted" doesn't carry any weight.

The victims were five boys ranging in age from nine to 11 years old.

 

[bongsaway]

He didn't just kill two people, he killed two people in self defense. Context matters. Conveniently ignoring that context and pretending you're right is dishonest.

That remains to be seen, no? So, as it stands the only accurate statement is he killed two people? Your opinion is he acted in self defense, nothing more. I disagree. Let's see what the jury thinks.

 

[rahl]

Absolutely not, I watched the video and he stopped to turn and fired at an unarmed 5’3” man.

As you were shown in the slow motion video, he did not stop. He continued trying to retreat, even while shooting.

 

[Binary_Digit]

That remains to be seen, no? So, as it stands the only accurate statement is he killed two people? Your opinion is he acted in self defense, nothing more. I disagree. Let's see what the jury thinks.

That's a fair and honest assessment IMO.

 

[CaughtInThe]

This trial is like the OJ trial.

 

[CaughtInThe]

 

[ASHES]

Law and Crime stream is live, should be in court in about 15 minutes, then the jury will begin deliberations.


Link to stream

 

[Nilhus]

The victims were five boys ranging in age from nine to 11 years old.

I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. Lot's of such complaints are false and the evidence actually non-existent.

Regardless, the criminalization of this deed is absurd:
COUNT THREE: (FURNISHING OBSCENE OR HARMFUL ITEMS TO MINORS, A CLASS FOUR FELONY)
Wit: photographs of nude women including their genitals.

Felony? Seriously? Sounds like an ultra-conservative hellhole, similar to Saudi Arabia, possibly worse in some ways.

 

[GummyVitamins]

I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. Lot's of such complaints are false and the evidence actually non-existent.

Regardless, the criminalization of this deed is absurd:
COUNT THREE: (FURNISHING OBSCENE OR HARMFUL ITEMS TO MINORS, A CLASS FOUR FELONY)
Wit: photographs of nude women including their genitals.

Felony? Seriously? Sounds like an ultra-conservative hellhole, similar to Saudi Arabia, possibly worse in some ways.

That's the charge that caught your attention and not the one where he was thrusting his penis into the ass of an elementary school kid?