Prosecutors Move For Mistrial As Jury Has Been Tainted By Clear Video Evidence Of Kyle Rittenhouse

TreeFrogTrader said:
I will just say in general that - the prosecution having done what I said they would do- which is to request a second degree charge on the reckless homcide charge (the lower of the three original homicide charges- not sure what they call it in Wisconsin) that Rittenhouse is probably at considerable risk there, with the charge being moved to second degree, or being allowed.

The prosecution does not have a strong case for even that but I have to acknowledge that the jury may want to convict Rittenhouse of something substantial. Or not, but if they do, that is where they will go.

Basically the prosecution would be arguing/acknowledging that the kid may have feared for his life but it was not a reasonable fear or his response was not reasonable. The defense would be arguing that he had a reasonable fear and "did you expect him to just be beaten to death with the skateboard and being kicked in the face to find out if he really intended to do him severe bodily harm or kill him."

The jury will have to figure that out but if anyone on the jury wants to bag him that is where they will go. So the bad news for the prosecution is that even they know that those other charges are not going to fly. The good news for them is that the judge allowed this second degree charge and they get anothe bite at the apple. A smaller bite, but still sizeable.
More...

This is pretty good analysis.
 
UsualName said:
So my argument is that you all are caught up in the sensationalism of the event and the symbolism of your dear “rit” as a heroic figure of right wing culture. And I feel I’ve made my point when you admitted Rittenhouse was motivated by the lies of the right wing that there is a societal collapse happening and the narrative that civilians need to take up arms to assist a beleaguered law enforcement. It’s all lies and the outcome of what happened with “rit” makes that point - a 17 year old kid with a head full of lies sought to confront the “libs” with an assault rifle and ended up shooting 3 people, 2 of which he killed. It’s fucked up.

So the point about travel and it being out of state speaks to desire to engage “libs.” He was under no threat and was not sanctioned to be there nor requested to be there under any sanctioning authority.

So legally, what is his liability, if any in these shootings and killings?

Well we can establish he was conscious that he was wrongly in Kenosha. This is established by his lying to his mother telling her he was performing “medic duties” when in fact he sought out to act as “security” for a car dealership.

We can also establish he anticipated conflict because he was armed with an assault rifle meaning he did not intend to act watch but anticipated a need to engage with deadly force.

So what do we have so far? “rit” knowingly put himself into a dangerous and Un sanctioned position he knew he was not supposed to be at armed and prepared to engage people with deadly force. Is this right?
More...

Not going to speak to all the drivel above. Viewers are savvy enough to know that in no way did I "admit" to anything that Professor Kool Aid said I did.

"We can also establish he anticipated conflict because he was armed with an assault rifle meaning he did not intend to act watch but anticipated a need to engage with deadly force."

Nope. Having a gun in case it is needed does not establish intent to go out and kill or engage someone. Same with concealed carry. It is there if you need or want protection it is not legal evidence that you want to kill or pursue or engage someone that day. I take a life preserver with me when out in the boat. You would argue that I went out expecting to drown that day. No. You see me at
Walmart buying a smoke alarm. Your binary mind concludes that I am expecting my house to burn down that day. No.

You talk about liability. Heh. Although the scum he shot have no assets, that type of scum seldom does, and it would be a futile effort, they are the ones who should be sued for liability.
Rittenhouse is the victim here, not them. All three of them pursued Rittenhouse or prevented him from trying to leave - at least while they were alive. All they had to do was retreat. And all Rittenhouse tried to do was to retreat but they tried to kill him so that he could not. If any of those scumbags or their estates had assets there would be some serious legal action. Obviously, even though it would be a civil suit, if Rittenhouse is convicted of anything serious that would work against him. But acquittal would leave him free to sue for damages and wrongful infliction of emotional distressed. And the prosecutor has immunity. So it is a waste of time. But if you want to talk liability, that is where it is.

RITTENHOUSE WAS THE VICTIM.
 
TreeFrogTrader said:
Not going to speak to all the drivel above. Viewers are savvy enough to know that in no way did I "admit" to anything that Professor Kool Aid said I did.

"We can also establish he anticipated conflict because he was armed with an assault rifle meaning he did not intend to act watch but anticipated a need to engage with deadly force."

Nope. Having a gun in case it is needed does not establish intent to go out and kill or engage someone. Same with concealed carry. It is there if you need or want protection it is not legal evidence that you want to kill or pursue or engage someone that day. I take a life preserver with me when out in the boat. You would argue that I went out expecting to drown that day. No. You see me at
Walmart buying a smoke alarm. Your binary mind concludes that I am expecting my house to burn down that day. No.

You talk about liability. Heh. Although the scum he shot have no assets, that type of scum seldom does, and it would be a futile effort, they are the ones who should be sued for liability.
Rittenhouse is the victim here, not them. All three of them pursued Rittenhouse or prevented him from trying to leave - at least while they were alive. All they had to do was retreat. And all Rittenhouse tried to do was to retreat but they tried to kill him so that he could not. If any of those scumbags or their estates had assets there would be some serious legal action. Obviously, even though it would be a civil suit, if Rittenhouse is convicted of anything serious that would work against him. But acquittal would leave him free to sue for damages and wrongful infliction of emotional distressed. And the prosecutor has immunity. So it is a waste of time. But if you want to talk liability, that is where it is.

RITTENHOUSE WAS THE VICTIM.
More...

Not necessarily but I do agree with your post #90 by and large. So I don’t see the point in arguing when there is no need to flush it out further.

You accused me of being disingenuous in my concern for how rittenhouse ended up in such an ugly place at such a young age but I’m not being so. I can’t help but look at this kid with pity. He’s a stupid ass kid that was a victim in a certain way you’ll never admit to or see.
 
elderado said:
Liberalism is a mental disorder.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1459291293536776194
More...

Yeh, the other one I hear a lot that I do not see mentioned there is:

"One of the victims in the case confirmed to the prosecutor under oath and upon examination that he stuck his handgun in the defendant's face right before the accused raised his rifle and shot him ."

Raising that kind of objection is clearly right out the KKK playbook because the New Progressive Equity Constitution requires you to be killed first before exercising your right to defend yourself.

:cool:
 
Wisconsin governor authorizes dispatch of National Guard ahead of Rittenhouse verdict

Can someone explain to me.
If he is found guilty, is the Guard being called out because they expect the right wing / conservatives / Republicans will riot , loot and burn buildings
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top