Kyle Rittenhouse trial
TheRobotLives wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
As to the "weapons possesion as a minor" charge - Why do I get the idea that I have to repeat everything (at least once) when attempting to have a discussion with you?
The documents point out that the curfew is legal.
The documents point out the citations were not legal, because they needed to come from a government body.
Perhaps, like the district attorney's office.
So, it appears like a curfew citation from the distinct attorney's office would be legal.
While you could be right, the documents do not get you there, and numerous media sources indicate Rittenhouse is being charged with a curfew violation.
I searched, and searched, and could not find the latest court documents.
I stand corrected: Apparently there was a 7th charge related to the curfew that was still open, but which was not discussed in court or published\referred to elsewhere.
Quote:
The Wisconsin judge overseeing the intentional homicide trial of Kyle Rittenhouse on Tuesday afternoon dismissed the seventh count against the teen. That charge alleged that Rittenhouse failed to comply with an emergency management order of a state or local government by failing to heed a curfew on Aug. 25, 2020, when he shot three people and killed two of them.
Lead defense attorney Mark Richards moved to dismiss the count after the jury broke for lunch.
“I want to put on the record now that the state intends to rest,” said lead prosecutor Thomas Binger.
Judge Bruce Schroeder used the jury’s lunch break as a natural pause during which to handle motions. Richards asked Judge Schroeder to confirm that the state had rested its case; the judge interpreted the state’s intention to rest as a de facto termination of the state’s case in chief. (Some of the audio of the proceeding was muted, so all of the conversation leading up to request by Richards was unclear.) Spurred by the judge’s request to get the motions out of the way while the jury ate, Richards wasted no time; he seized the moment by lodging a standard request made by defense attorneys after prosecutors rest their cases in chief.
“They have not put in any evidence regarding a lawful order for a curfew violation; we’ll be moving to dismiss that,” Richard said.
Lead defense attorney Mark Richards moved to dismiss the count after the jury broke for lunch.
“I want to put on the record now that the state intends to rest,” said lead prosecutor Thomas Binger.
Judge Bruce Schroeder used the jury’s lunch break as a natural pause during which to handle motions. Richards asked Judge Schroeder to confirm that the state had rested its case; the judge interpreted the state’s intention to rest as a de facto termination of the state’s case in chief. (Some of the audio of the proceeding was muted, so all of the conversation leading up to request by Richards was unclear.) Spurred by the judge’s request to get the motions out of the way while the jury ate, Richards wasted no time; he seized the moment by lodging a standard request made by defense attorneys after prosecutors rest their cases in chief.
“They have not put in any evidence regarding a lawful order for a curfew violation; we’ll be moving to dismiss that,” Richard said.
Source: https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/live-trials-current/kyle-rittenhouse/judge-dismisses-count-accusing-kyle-rittenhouse-of-violating-curfew-because-state-presented-insufficient-evidence/
During the McGinnis cross-examination, the defense attorney asked McGinnis if he was charged with a curfew violation, and he said "No".
So, I suspected that meant Rittenhouse was charged with a curfew violation.
_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.
Be the hero of your life.
TheRobotLives wrote:
During the McGinnis cross-examination, the defense attorney asked McGinnis if he was charged with a curfew violation, and he said "No".
So, I suspected that meant Rittenhouse was charged with a curfew violation.
So, I suspected that meant Rittenhouse was charged with a curfew violation.
That's now irrelevant, as the judge has dismissed the charge because the prosecution didn't bring evidence to support it (see my previous post).
TheRobotLives wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Having watched Friday's portion of the trial until they went to lunch, the witnesses for the prosecution gave the impression of assisting the defence more than the prosecution.
The discussion about character evidence regarding Mr Huber that the prosecution wanted to introduce before lunch (objections over which caused lunch to be taken at the time that it was) and regarding which legal discussions were held following the lunch break certainly didn't go well for the prosecution when the defence outlined the character evidence they wished to present (rather interesting, including a novel method he had used to have his brother tidy a room) as rebuttal - at which point the prosecution decided not to proceed along this line.
The discussion about character evidence regarding Mr Huber that the prosecution wanted to introduce before lunch (objections over which caused lunch to be taken at the time that it was) and regarding which legal discussions were held following the lunch break certainly didn't go well for the prosecution when the defence outlined the character evidence they wished to present (rather interesting, including a novel method he had used to have his brother tidy a room) as rebuttal - at which point the prosecution decided not to proceed along this line.
Yes.
However, it seemed like the car dealer's son was lieing, and that helped the prosecution by making it seem like Rittenhouse and crew were not asked to come to the car dealership.
The first 2 witnesses for the defence had something different to say on this matter...
Dox47 wrote:
OMG, the defense just had an obviously autistic witness testify, and the prosecution's cross did not go very well. I'll try and get the clip or a highlight reel, for obvious reasons I think people here should see it, it really was like watching all of the usual stereotypes about HFA play out in open court to great effect.
I'm guessing you're referring to the 3rd witness for the defence (The witness following 'Grambo")? I've just got to him on the stand.
Video is available of each section of questioning by each witness at https://lawofselfdefense.com/rittenhouse-trial-day-6-states-autopsy-expert-supports-self-defense-narrative-in-another-disastrous-prosecution-day/ - If it's the witness I think you mean, that would be Nathan DeBruin.
Off Topic
I've been watching the footage (with commentary by a range of lawyers) on the "Rekieta Law" Youtube channel - the commentary there is also interesting\informative
Edit: Yes, that appears to be the witness you were referring to... And it does not look good for the prosecution in this case, as well as in Mr Zaminski's (?) arson trial (just reached the point where they took a break).
Brictoria wrote:
Edit: Yes, that appears to be the witness you were referring to... And it does not look good for the prosecution in this case, as well as in Mr Zaminski's (?) arson trial (just reached the point where they took a break).
Yup, DeBruin wrecked them, that prosecutor clearly had no idea how to handle an HFA with a good memory and slight lisp, I almost wonder if the defense picked him as a witness for that reason alone. I wish I could find a good isolated highlight real of the cross in particular, I want to show it to some of my friends to demonstrate what I mean by certain autistic traits.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
TheRobotLives wrote:
Mikah wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
I hear the cross didn't go so well for the one armed bandit...
I heard the same. Perhaps there is hope for the Hero of Kenosha.
That's misleading.
What he said was .. Rittenhouse first pointed his rifle at him, and reloaded, then out of fear of becoming Rittenhouse's next victim, he drew his gun in self-defense, and Rittenhouse shot him.
This sequence seems to be true, since the defense did not contradict it.
The question:
Quote:
It wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him
with your gun, now your hands down pointed at him, that he fired, right?
with your gun, now your hands down pointed at him, that he fired, right?
And the answer:
Quote:
Correct
I hope DeBruin isn't a liberal, he just made a whole bunch of interesting new friends with his testimony:
That particular format and then the upvote button shows the path that meme took to get here, lol.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
Soliloquist wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
Mikah wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
I hear the cross didn't go so well for the one armed bandit...
I heard the same. Perhaps there is hope for the Hero of Kenosha.
That's misleading.
What he said was .. Rittenhouse first pointed his rifle at him, and reloaded, then out of fear of becoming Rittenhouse's next victim, he drew his gun in self-defense, and Rittenhouse shot him.
This sequence seems to be true, since the defense did not contradict it.
The question:
Quote:
It wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him
with your gun, now your hands down pointed at him, that he fired, right?
with your gun, now your hands down pointed at him, that he fired, right?
And the answer:
Quote:
Correct
Correct, and misleading, since it's taken out of context.
Rittenhouse pointed his rifle at Grosskreutz with the threat of "I AM GOING TO KILL YOU".
This provoked Grosskreutz to point his pistol at Rittenhouse (self defense).
Then Rittenhouse shot him.
This charge seems like an easy conviction for the prosecution, since it's not denied that Rittenhouse was pointing his illegally carried weapon at innocent people like Grosskreutz.
Imagine if Rittenhouse ran around your town, pointing his rifle at innocent people, and when they pulled out a weapon to try and defend themselves, then he kills the person, and argues .. it was self-defense.
_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.
Be the hero of your life.
Last edited by TheRobotLives on 10 Nov 2021, 4:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
TheRobotLives wrote:
Correct, and misleading, since it's taken out of context.
Rittenhouse pointed his rifle at Grosskreutz with the threat of "I AM GOING TO KILL YOU".
This provoked Grosskreutz to point his pistol at Rittenhouse (self defense).
Then Rittenhouse shot him.
This seems like an easy conviction for the prosecution, since it's not denied that Rittenhouse was pointing his illegally carried weapon at innocent people like Grosskreutz.
Rittenhouse pointed his rifle at Grosskreutz with the threat of "I AM GOING TO KILL YOU".
This provoked Grosskreutz to point his pistol at Rittenhouse (self defense).
Then Rittenhouse shot him.
This seems like an easy conviction for the prosecution, since it's not denied that Rittenhouse was pointing his illegally carried weapon at innocent people like Grosskreutz.
Oh my god, you really are in your own reality, aren't you? Did you not watch the cross of Grossruetz, or the video of the encounter, the same one that was used in the cross, that's been posted here multiple times? Grosskruetz had his gun out when he ran up, it's clear in the video you're clearly refusing to watch, you're making things up on the fly at this point.
Here's a still I extracted from the video where Grosskruetz clearly has his gun out as he runs up on Rittenhouse, as this still is from the exact moment Huber is shot and Grosskruetz is trying to halt his charge:
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
Dox47 wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Edit: Yes, that appears to be the witness you were referring to... And it does not look good for the prosecution in this case, as well as in Mr Zaminski's (?) arson trial (just reached the point where they took a break).
Yup, DeBruin wrecked them, that prosecutor clearly had no idea how to handle an HFA with a good memory and slight lisp, I almost wonder if the defense picked him as a witness for that reason alone. I wish I could find a good isolated highlight real of the cross in particular, I want to show it to some of my friends to demonstrate what I mean by certain autistic traits.
The lawyers in the stream I was watching had the opinion that because of his speach "problem", the prosecutors considered he would be amenable to their suggestions\desires - That the prosecutors considered his speach as an indicator of his mental capacity.
If you look at Andrew Branca's site the video below "The angry and bullying cross-examination by ADA Kraus:" is what you'd want (the video is about 30 minutes long).
Did you watch "Grambo's" (the previous witness) testimony before his?
Dox47 wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
Correct, and misleading, since it's taken out of context.
Rittenhouse pointed his rifle at Grosskreutz with the threat of "I AM GOING TO KILL YOU".
This provoked Grosskreutz to point his pistol at Rittenhouse (self defense).
Then Rittenhouse shot him.
This seems like an easy conviction for the prosecution, since it's not denied that Rittenhouse was pointing his illegally carried weapon at innocent people like Grosskreutz.
Rittenhouse pointed his rifle at Grosskreutz with the threat of "I AM GOING TO KILL YOU".
This provoked Grosskreutz to point his pistol at Rittenhouse (self defense).
Then Rittenhouse shot him.
This seems like an easy conviction for the prosecution, since it's not denied that Rittenhouse was pointing his illegally carried weapon at innocent people like Grosskreutz.
Oh my god, you really are in your own reality, aren't you? Did you not watch the cross of Grossruetz, or the video of the encounter, the same one that was used in the cross, that's been posted here multiple times? Grosskruetz had his gun out when he ran up, it's clear in the video you're clearly refusing to watch, you're making things up on the fly at this point.
Here's a still I extracted from the video where Grosskruetz clearly has his gun out as he runs up on Rittenhouse, as this still is from the exact moment Huber is shot and Grosskruetz is trying to halt his charge:
There's also these (featuring excerpts from his testimony at that time):
Dox47 wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
Correct, and misleading, since it's taken out of context.
Rittenhouse pointed his rifle at Grosskreutz with the threat of "I AM GOING TO KILL YOU".
This provoked Grosskreutz to point his pistol at Rittenhouse (self defense).
Then Rittenhouse shot him.
This seems like an easy conviction for the prosecution, since it's not denied that Rittenhouse was pointing his illegally carried weapon at innocent people like Grosskreutz.
Rittenhouse pointed his rifle at Grosskreutz with the threat of "I AM GOING TO KILL YOU".
This provoked Grosskreutz to point his pistol at Rittenhouse (self defense).
Then Rittenhouse shot him.
This seems like an easy conviction for the prosecution, since it's not denied that Rittenhouse was pointing his illegally carried weapon at innocent people like Grosskreutz.
Oh my god, you really are in your own reality, aren't you? Did you not watch the cross of Grossruetz, or the video of the encounter, the same one that was used in the cross, that's been posted here multiple times? Grosskruetz had his gun out when he ran up, it's clear in the video you're clearly refusing to watch, you're making things up on the fly at this point.
Here's a still I extracted from the video where Grosskruetz clearly has his gun out as he runs up on Rittenhouse, as this still is from the exact moment Huber is shot and Grosskruetz is trying to halt his charge:
What matters is what was presented to the jury.
In court, Grosskreut stated he did have a gun in his hand, however, it was never pointed at Rittenhouse, until after Rittenhouse pointed his rifle at him, and reloaded.
The defense attorneys did not provide any contradictory proof or arguments that these statements were false.
So, it appears Rittenhouse provoked Grosskreut.
Image if Rittenhouse pointed his rifle at you, and when you react by pointing your weapon at him, he kills you, and argues "it's self defense". No. It would be murder because he provoked you to defend yourself.
_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.
Be the hero of your life.
TheRobotLives wrote:
What matters is what was presented to the jury.
In court, Grosskreut stated he did have a gun in his hand, however, it was never pointed at Rittenhouse, until after Rittenhouse pointed his rifle at him, and reloaded.
The defense attorneys did not provide any contradictory proof or arguments that these statements were false.
So, it appears Rittenhouse provoked Grosskreut.
In court, Grosskreut stated he did have a gun in his hand, however, it was never pointed at Rittenhouse, until after Rittenhouse pointed his rifle at him, and reloaded.
The defense attorneys did not provide any contradictory proof or arguments that these statements were false.
So, it appears Rittenhouse provoked Grosskreut.
Please, just say that you're not paying attention, or just want to believe Rittenhouse is guilty facts be damned, this is absurd when that exact video was presented in court, and Grosskruetz admitted under cross examination that Rittenhouse held fire until he, Grosskruetz, did in fact point his gun at Rittenhouse. Here's the image they used in court when he admitted pointing his pistol at Rittenhouse at the moment he was shot:
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
Dox47 wrote:
Please, just say that you're not paying attention, or just want to believe Rittenhouse is guilty facts be damned, this is absurd when that exact video was presented in court, and Grosskruetz admitted under cross examination that Rittenhouse held fire until he, Grosskruetz, did in fact point his gun at Rittenhouse. Here's the image they used in court when he admitted pointing his pistol at Rittenhouse at the moment he was shot:
So, you think it's OK for Rittenhouse to run around a city, point his rifle at innocent people, and when they react by pointing their weapon at him, he can kill them?
_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.
Be the hero of your life.
Wisconsin law ...
"(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense"
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statut ... 939/iii/48
_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.
Be the hero of your life.