Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Thread - TRIAL CONTENT AND DISCUSSION ONLY

[Deadman William]

Jesus dude, I don't know if you just like arguing for the sake of it, or if you're just trolling, but you're reminding some of us of another leftist retard that got shown the door. This isn't hard: all three guys attacked him. The first guy unprovoked, and the last two in retaliation for what their friend got. Whether they were, themselves, rioting or not is pretty much immaterial to the salient fact that they all were the aggressors and got instant karma.

likewise, whether or not im a leftist retard is immaterial to the topic. and youre arguing against an argument i havent made. rittenhouse might be innocent, he might be a murderer. when it doesnt seem cut and dried to me, its odd that it is so cut and dried to others... and i suspect political bias plays a larger roll in what position people are choosing than the actual facts.

if i see bad arguments, i may point them out. mr. aug made a bad argument, i pointed it out. from what ive seen around here so far, thats very atypical for him.

[georgeib]

likewise, whether or not im a leftist retard is immaterial to the topic. and youre arguing against an argument i havent made. rittenhouse might be innocent, he might be a murderer. when it doesnt seem cut and dried to me, its odd that it is so cut and dried to others... and i suspect political bias plays a larger roll in what position people are choosing than the actual facts.

if i see bad arguments, i may point them out. mr. aug made a bad argument, i pointed it out. from what ive seen around here so far, thats very atypical for him.

Your point is loosely that association does not guilt make. Maybe, and maybe not. As those guys were seen rioting. Either way, all of that is immaterial. Did they, or did they not attack Rittenhouse is the only question. Getting caught up as to whether or not they can be called rioters is like arguing about if the color red is sweet or not.

[AndyLate]

Honestly, the only question is if the conviced child rapist attacked him. Everything else is on video. Skatr boi was self defense, as was disarming the cat pointing a pistol at him unless the first shooting is found to be a crime.

Andy

[WillBrink]

That's a seriously bad analogy.

It is a terrible analogy, but whether they were or where not actually involved in the "festivities" or not, will that be considered relevant to the case? I'm not an attorney, and don't know that state laws and such, but I'm assuming what will be considered relevant was whether there's enough evidence to convince a jury they attacked him, he was in the eyes of the law in legit fear serious bodily harm/death, and his use of deadly force then justified.

Will the defense attempt to use their behavior that night in general as evidence of intent to also go after the kid? Is that admissible?

I'm unclear on that, but I do know what we often think/assume will be used as evidence and should be, is often not. It does sound like the judge is not going to allow the prosecution to paint them as victims, and that's a good sign at least the judge seems to care it's a balanced trial.

I will be interested to see what the evidence shows vs what we know from the articles and such.

I tend to think he will get convicted of some minor charges but not on serious charges that will seem him in prison for any length of time.

I assume the prosecutor has developed a long list of charges to use as a bargaining chip to attempt to get the defense to agree to a lesser charge at some point once it gets down to that aspect of the case.

[georgeib]

Honestly, the only question is if the conviced child rapist attacked him. Everything else is on video. Skatr boi was self defense, as was disarming the woman beater unless the first shooting is found to be a crime.

Andy

At one point I did see a video of child molester chasing Kyle around some cars and before that taunting him, "Shoot me!" I don't remember the details now, but Kyle was actively trying to distance himself from the dude, on video.

[TomMcC]

It is a terrible analogy, but whether they were or where not actually involved in the "festivities" or not, will that be considered relevant to the case? I'm not an attorney, and don't know that state laws and such, but I'm assuming what will be considered relevant was whether there's enough evidence to convince a jury they attacked him, he was in the eyes of the law in legit fear serious bodily harm/death, and his use of deadly force then justified.

Will the defense attempt to use their behavior that night in general as evidence of intent to also go after the kid? Is that admissible?

I'm unclear on that, but I do know what we often think/assume will be used as evidence and should be, is often not. It does sound like the judge is not going to allow the prosecution to paint them as victims, and that's a good sign at least the judge seems to care it's a balanced trial.

I will be interested to see what the evidence shows vs what we know from the articles and such.

I tend to think he will get convicted of some minor charges but not on serious charges that will seem him in prison for any length of time.

I assume the prosecutor has developed a long list of charges to use as a bargaining chip to attempt to get the defense to agree to a lesser charge at some point once it gets down to that aspect of the case.

It's always a crap shoot when it comes to juries. What they will believe in this case is anybody's guess, considering the volatile times we live in. At least his attorneys can introduce evidence to the effect that these guys were malefactors trying to hurt him. From their backgrounds and the video, it's pretty obvious to most of us here that they were trying to hurt him bad or kill him without justification. I would think evidence pointing to the dead guys intent or malicious acts would be admissible in any self defense case or how else could it be proven who the good or bad guy is.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

And if does beat the state rap, how much you want to bet ole non-partisan Garland will file Fed charges?

Only Antifa would say that they are going to riot - to protest that it’s legal to shoot….. rioters…. Wonder how that would end.

Any thoughts on the length of the case? Done before thanksgiving? Christmas? I might be in that area to visit family and I won’t have my ‘anti anti-social gear’ with me.

I really hope we get to see the defense lawyer Barnes in action. He talks a good game on that Viva Frei legal podcast. Let’s see him in real time.

What an pivotal time. Kyle’s case and the NY gun case at SCOTUS.

[Deadman William]

Your point is loosely that association does not guilt make. Maybe, and maybe not. As those guys were seen rioting. Either way, all of that is immaterial. Did they, or did they not attack Rittenhouse is the only question. Getting caught up as to whether or not they can be called rioters is like arguing about if the color red is sweet or not.

negative - whether or not they attacked him is not the only question. it's ignoring half the question, and will not be ignored in court. those that attacked rittenhouse claim they attacked him for the purpose of subduing and disarming him after concluding he was an active shooter, having witnessed him shooting at others.

i take no sides. i wasn't there, and it's clearly obvious all reporting on the issue aligns with political bias. Right-leaning outlets essentially report rittenhouse is not guilty and report on evidence favorable to that claim; Left-leaning media reports that rittenhouse is guilty and report on evidence favorable to that claim. likewise, it's been my observation that strong opinions from individuals invariably split along political bias. in short: i don't trust either camp, both are lying. as with almost all things which split along political bias.

[georgeib]

negative - whether or not they attacked him is not the only question. it's ignoring half the question, and will not be ignored in court. those that attacked rittenhouse claim they attacked him for the purpose of subduing and disarming him after concluding he was an active shooter, having witnessed him shooting at others.

i take no sides. i wasn't there, and it's clearly obvious all reporting on the issue aligns with political bias. Right-leaning outlets essentially report rittenhouse is not guilty and report on evidence favorable to that claim; Left-leaning media reports that rittenhouse is guilty and report on evidence favorable to that claim. likewise, it's been my observation that strong opinions from individuals invariably split along political bias. in short: i don't trust either camp, both are lying. as with almost all things which split along political bias.

Good point regarding confirmation and political biases. However, I've watched the videos. He was pursued and attacked by child molester as he was trying to get away, and though it can be argued that skateboard and the one arm bandit were pursuing him because they reasonably believed him to be the aggressor in the earlier confrontation (perhaps not being privy to the entire picture), what will become germane is whether a reasonable person - who had just defended himself from an attack - again believed himself to be in danger of grievous bodily harm.

I think his entire defense is going to center around whether the first shooting was justified. If it was, it's going to be an extremely tall hill to climb to say that the last two weren't, as the video makes it clear that he's retreating and being pursued by a guy swinging a deadly weapon at his head, and a guy with a gun pretending to be a medic.

[AndyLate]

Political bias has nothing to do with the facts. One guy he shot was trying to crush his skull with a skateboard, one had drawn a firearm and was pointing it at him. Their motivation for attempting to kill him is irrelevant, he was acting in self defense. The prosecution should never have been allowed to charge him for those two actions.

The unknown at this point is the first shooting.

Andy