Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Thread

[LindyAF]

Kyle Rittenhouse is the teenager who defended himself with lethal force from three rioters and looters who were chasing and attacking him during the blm riots in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Unfortunately, he has since been the subject of a political witch-hunt and as a result is facing murder charges. Jury selection for his trial will begin on Monday. I didn't see another thread on this topic, and I thought one should be made.

There's been a bit of good news already, with the judge ruling that the rioters who attacked Rittenhouse can be referred to by the defense as "rioters" and "arsonists" - both accurate terms - but the prosecutors cannot refer to them as "victims" but instead should use "alleged victim" per National File.

If you want to donate to Kyle Rittenhouse's legal defense fund, I believe you can do so here.

 

[Cherico]

If the trial is remotely fair then Kyle is going to walk.

This is one of the most cut and dry cases of self defense out there.

 

[prinCZess]

The “All we’re talking about is arson..." line seems like one of the most chowderheaded things for an attorney--who are ostensibly trained not to let loose with whatever chowderheaded thing pops into their head because of how it can make them and by extension their case look like idiots--to slip up and actually say. That's some 'mostly peaceful' while buildings burn in the background energy...But you expect lawyers to at least be more rhetorically savvy than CNN reporters.

Also, the situation seems exaggerated a bit--forget where I actually heard/read it first, but someone noted the use of 'arsonist, looters' and "rioters" was predicated on the defense showing evidence of those who were shot engaging in such. Which...seems entirely sensible.
Quote from one place--even a partisan one--summarizing that I found in brief search:

Judge: Men Shot by Kyle Rittenhouse Can't Be Described as 'Victims'

Two men shot and killed during street protests cannot be described as "victims" in the Kyle Rittenhouse murder trial because the term is "loaded," a Wisconsin judge ruled Monday.

www.newsmax.com

The judge advised Rittenhouse's team against use of pejorative terms to describe the three men shot, but also said such terms can be used in their closing arguments if evidence shows the men participated in criminal acts, the Post reported.

So, like...Defense still isn't supposed to throw the terms around willy-nilly to bias the jury and commit some travesty of justice as it's being portrayed by folks hostile to Rittenhouse.

Anyhow, based on the evidence I've seen Rittenhouse deserves to walk. I'd still caveat that because there remains some question over the first shooting and that really drives most of the situations in the case, and perhaps the jury will get more detailed or complete info than I've gotten in fits and spurts over the last year of this popping-up in news...But yeah.

I think the most aggravating thing is that most critical takes of Rittenhouse...really have not centered on actual facts of the case or those questions over the propriety of the first shooting and the actual issue. Seems like everyone in the peanut gallery critical of Rittenhouse appeals to 'crossed state lines' as if doing-so magically eliminates self-defense as a thing or just is ultra-lazy and takes the 'he had a gun and is therefore obviously evil' take (even as one of the men chasing Rittenhouse and drew a gun on him...also had a gun).

 

[LindyAF]

So, like...Defense still isn't supposed to throw the terms around willy-nilly to bias the jury and commit some travesty of justice as it's being portrayed by folks hostile to Rittenhouse.

Yes. IIRC there's video of Rosenbaum I think it was (one of the three rioters) lighting a fire near a gas station earlier that night.

 

[Captain X]

IIRC, one of the people who lit a dumpster on fire and tried to shove it into a gas pump kept hounding Rittenhouse after he put it out with an extinguisher. Incidentally, this person happened to be a convicted pedophile. This culminated in the pedo throwing a shopping bag that had items in it at him and then charging at him after shouting something along the lines of "get his gun!" Like most people in this situation, Rittenhouse shot this guy as he was running at him. He then apparently called someone who was not the police or a first responder. The crowd started building up around him, and there were several more calls along the lines of "get him!" so he made tracks. He managed to trip while running toward a police blockade, and several antifa types fell upon him. He shot and killed one who had attacked him with a skateboard, then pointed his rifle at another, who pretended to surrender, and pointed it at another person who ran away (IIRC). Then the guy who had pretended to surrender pulled a pistol out from somewhere and started to take aim at Rittenhouse, who got a snap shot off that misted the guy's bicep. That guy, as it turns out, was a convicted felon, and I remain puzzled as to why there were no charges ever filed on that guy, because as far as I know, as a felon, he should not have been eligible to own one, or have one on his person. Be interesting if that gets brought up in the trail at all.

Someone actually did a pretty good video breakdown with all the footage not long after it happened. Be cool if that gets used in the trial as well.

 

[bintananth]

The Judge presiding over the Rittenhouse case is known for allowing the defense a great deal of latitude most other judges won't permit and for coming down with very harsh sentences when the jury returns a guilty verdict.

 

[Vaermina]

Be interesting if that gets brought up in the trail at all.

The Defense will try, but I am not sure the Judge will allow it given there's no way for Kyle to have known.

 

[Captain X]

It would be more about what a farce the prosecution's case is to bring up the fact that this convicted felon was obviously armed himself with a firearm he should not have had and should therefore be on trail himself, yet isn't. Basically a "biased much?" argument against the prosecution.

 

[LindyAF]

I remain puzzled as to why there were no charges ever filed on that guy, because as far as I know, as a felon, he should not have been eligible to own one, or have one on his person.

The system doesn't go after it's own footsoldiers.

 

[bintananth]

The system doesn't go after it's own footsoldiers.

It is possible, but not easy, for a felon to legally own a firearm. Let the law handle this clusterfuck.

 

[Abhorsen]

remain puzzled as to why there were no charges ever filed on that guy, because as far as I know, as a felon, he should not have been eligible to own one, or have one on his person.

Didn't Rosembaum get killed? You can't convict a dead man.

 

[LindyAF]

Didn't Rosembaum get killed? You can't convict a dead man.

Rosenbaun (the arsonist) was killed.

Grosskreutz was the one with the handgun, and the one that survived (sans bicep).

Edit: From what I’ve read Grosskreutz was charged with a felony, but I’m not sure if he was convicted of it.

 

[Zachowon]

Alright.
The judge will not let the defense bring up the crimes the people shot committed.
They can say he was a felon, but not what he did, because that is using something nkt pertaining to the case to push the not guilty.

Now, this is a good thing, because if the argument thag Kyle knew was to come up, it could be argued it was vigilant justice and not self defense.

One has to account the prosecution can not call the people shot victims. They can refer them as anything else, but not victim.

 

[Captain X]

I think it would be relevant in as far as to illustrate exactly who he was defending himself against to show he really had no other choice.

 

[Zachowon]

I think it would be relevant in as far as to illustrate exactly who he was defending himself against to show he really had no other choice.

Saying he had felonies is enough.
Since that alone makes the guy unable to handle a gun.
Bringing up something not related to the case to try and sway the jury is not needed. From either side.

 

[Wargamer08]

Saying he had felonies is enough.
Since that alone makes the guy unable to handle a gun.
Bringing up something not related to the case to try and sway the jury is not needed. From either side.

All felonies are not created equal. Someone who did hard federal time for tax embezzlement gets a different response from me then a child rapist. Both are felons.

 

[Zachowon]

All felonies are not created equal. Someone who did hard federal time for tax embezzlement gets a different response from me then a child rapist. Both are felons.

OKay, you are proving the judges point with your statement.
Why should his felony be brought out when one, the guyis dead, and two, he should grab ahold of firearms because he is a felon.
All the defense needs to use is that he is a felon, and the judge agrees.

 

[LindyAF]

Jury Selection ongoing rn, livestream here:



Apparently some boomer said that he couldn't be impartial enough for the jury because he believes in the 2nd Amendment and the federalist papers. Holy shit people like this are cowardly retards. If he actually believed in the second amendment he'd be trying to sit the jury in order to defend the right to self defense, not looking for an excuse to get his spot filled by some antifascist freak who'll vote guilty no matter what.

If you get selected for a politically charged case like this and are a right winger than IMO you absolutely have a duty to represent yourself as best as possible in order to sit the jury. There are going to be left wingers who lied in order to sit it.

 

[Zachowon]

Jury Selection ongoing rn, livestream here:



Apparently some boomer said that he couldn't be impartial enough for the jury because he believes in the 2nd Amendment and the federalist papers. Holy shit people like this are cowardly retards. If he actually believed in the second amendment he'd be trying to sit the jury in order to defend the right to self defense, not looking for an excuse to get his spot filled by some antifascist freak who'll vote guilty no matter what.

If you get selected for a politically charged case like this and are a right winger than IMO you absolutely have a duty to represent yourself as best as possible in order to sit the jury. There are going to be left wingers who lied in order to sit it.

The dude also beilives in an unbiased trial.
He isn't a cowardly retard. He is an upstanding everyday citizen.

 

[Bacle]

Jury Selection ongoing rn, livestream here:



Apparently some boomer said that he couldn't be impartial enough for the jury because he believes in the 2nd Amendment and the federalist papers. Holy shit people like this are cowardly retards. If he actually believed in the second amendment he'd be trying to sit the jury in order to defend the right to self defense, not looking for an excuse to get his spot filled by some antifascist freak who'll vote guilty no matter what.

If you get selected for a politically charged case like this and are a right winger than IMO you absolutely have a duty to represent yourself as best as possible in order to sit the jury. There are going to be left wingers who lied in order to sit it.

No.

Lying under oath about your views, in an age is pervasive social media and internet monitoring, is the height of folly and a great way to screw Rittenhouse chances.

Sometimes I think you want people to do dumb shit to get in legal jams, and become martyrs for your causes, because you want civil conflict and want ethnic conflict in the US.