Kyle Rittenhouse trial

Post Reply New Topic

I thought the defense were winning?

They are, they're asking for a dismissal with prejudice, which would not allow him to be retried, due to gross prosecutorial misconduct. They might get it too, the judge was pissed.

Coming from NPR, that says something.

If he hadn't cried, you'd be calling him a stone cold killer showing no remorse.

I'm currently watching Mr Rittenhouse's testimony (I watched a portion of it last night) including where he broke down while recounting what led to his being chased by Mr Rosenbaum, and have reached the point where cross-examination begins.


I'm trying to avoid "spoilers" regarding what occurs in later testimony, but have seen a few comments on social media[1] from some repulsive "human beings" referring to Mr Rittenhouse as being "pathetic" for breaking down when discussing\reliving traumatic events he went though - the 6 lawyers discussing the feed that I am watching at that time stated that it appeared to resemble instances of PTSD they had seen previously, which may or may not be correct, but to call his reaction "pathetic" suggests those doing so have no compassion within themselves whatsoever.

[1] One such example being: https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrats/videos/kyle-rittenhouses-fake-crying-is-hilarious-and-infuriating/433303908437702/?_fb_noscript=1

Judge Schroeder is showing his bias

The prosecutor asked Rittenhouse “You have previously indicated that you wished you had your AR-15 to protect someone’s property, correct?” Binger asked after Rittenhouse testified that deadly force shouldn’t be used to protect property.

Binger explained to the judge once the jury was out of the room that he was trying to “impeach” Rittenhouse on his own testimony by bringing up a past event where the defendant allegedly said he wanted to shoot shoplifters", and thus, believed deadly force should be used to protect property.

Schroeder is using legal "mumbo jumbo" to discredit plausible "intent to kill" by claiming "just because someone did something on one occasion, doesn’t mean they’re going to do it on another occasion."'

I posit Schroeder is using subjective projection in trying to read Rittenhouse's intention using his own subjective beliefs when infact the evidence points to Rittenhouse's intention having causal impact on his actions.

Rittenhouse admitted he went to the car lot with his rifle to protect the car lot (property).

Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about, this was hashed out in the pre-trial arguments, which the prosecutor violated, thus endangering his case. This is not "legal mumbo jumbo" or a biased judge, it's clearly established law and Binger knows it.

I'd have expected the same result had the defence attempted to introduce the previous criminal records of those who were shot that night.

The previous attempt by the prosecutor to circumvent Mr Rittenhouse's 5th ammendment rights possibly contributed to the force behind the rebuke issued - arguing with a judge is alo considered unwise...

Listening to a group of lawyers discussing the case and what was happening has certainly been insightful.

It looks pretty real to me.

Exactly, but some people are just grasping at straws to justify their worldviews at this point, it's more embarrassing than anything.

Your dismissals are way too much confidence.

The prosecutor offered up enough meat for any juror to see guilt.

Some jurors may think he's guilty simply because he's a kid running around at night illegally carrying a rifle.

Seems like the outcome will be a hung jury, or a comprised verdict.

Jacob Blake and dozens of others joined outside the Kenosha courthouse to call for a GUILTY verdict for Rittenhouse.

"It was a circus. It was an act. You could tell by his testimony," said Bishop Tavis Grant of the Rainbow Push Coalition.

"I've been watching the entire trial and it breaks my heart to see a killer sitting there, and comfortable," said Johnson.

"You can't put lipstick on a pig, nor can you give this young man a haircut like Opy Taylor and think we gonna let him ride. He is a murderer," said Blake.


https://www.cbs58.com/news/dozens-join- ... -testifies

I didn't even need to label them.

I hadn't seen that one - I saw this one a few hours ago...

The reason it was inadmissible in the trial is because it would incriminate Rittenhouse with intent to kill. While not permitted to be presented, Rittenhouse was caught bragging that he would shoot protesters which makes his crying seem insincere (at best) given he knew (and we all know) i) no business requested his protection and ii) he knew exactly what he was doing arriving at a protest with a loaded weapon where he a) not supposed to be b) broke the curfew and iii) broke the law with weapon possession