Kyle Rittenhouse trial

Post Reply New Topic

There has been at least one major hint... https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=401047&p=8894615#p8894615

I'm surprised you weren't aware of\hadn't noticed it...

Well, there's this one too ...

Likely, the judge won't allow them to directly mention Rosenbaum is a felon (sex offender) , since it's not relevant, so they're possibly making it part of their defense.

“As a convicted felon and sex offender, he was unable to legally possess a firearm he was seeking to steal from my client,” Mark Richards, Rittenhouse’s defense lawyer told Oxygen.com on Thursday.
https://www.yahoo.com/now/kyle-rittenho ... 00332.html

It seems preposterous, yet, allows them to tell the jury that Rosenbaum is a felon (sex offender).

Judge Schroeder is playing games with Rossenbaum and Huber family it seems. Rottenhouse was recorded bragging to his militia buddies how looked forward to getting a rifle so he could shoot people. The good judge has deemed that piece of vital evidence inadmissible. The Defense want to hide that as it clearly shows he was trigger happy.

Rossenbaum's personal history has no bearing on the case but the judge seems to be letting the defence collect irrelevant information to allow the defence to frame the victims as criminals?

Is it inaccurate?

It's unlikely to be mentioned (objection due to relevency) given Mr Rittenhouse wouldn't have been aware of it.

The only time it may be referred to (as far as I can see) would be if the prosecution do something to cause it to be introduced, or potentially should there be a claim that because Mr Rittenhouse was under 18 (should that charge not be dropped) he shouldn't be permitted to claim "self defence" through the use of the firearm - given that as a felon, Mr Rosenbaum was also not permitted possesion of a firearm, yet attempted to gain possesion of it (grabbing for the barrel)...

It seems like a critical part of this trial will be arguing about what Rosenbaum was doing with his arm motion.

The prosecution has said he was pushing the rifle away, not grabbing for it.

So, there was absolutely no reason to shoot him.

The defense may argue Rosenbaum was trying to steal it (as discussed above).

So, it seems like they could introduce their version of what he was attempting to do.

!	Cornflake wrote:
	Clearly an interesting and complicated case - but please, no more suggestions that Rittenhouse should be raped in jail; that has the distinct whiff of a tar-and-feathers mob about it. I'd like to think we're better than that and can rise above such things.

There's also the eyewitness testimony of a reporter who saw what happened there and stated that Mr Rosenbaum lunged to grab the rifle (This is included in the criminal complaint)...

Source: https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/journaltimes.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/4/6f/46ff33b7-0bd7-55e6-8f2f-9ded0582862f/5f4933274cde9.pdf.pdf (2nd paragraph, page 4 of 5)

This wil be the third time I've posted a link to the information that is the basis for the charges.
Previous post referring to it was: https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=401169&p=8891545#p8891545
Prior to that: https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=389886&p=8597602#p8597602

Curiously, you've been active in both the threads, yet are seemingly unaware of what the prosecution's case is even about, given this document outlines the actual charges placed and the reason for doing so, and is the basis for the prosecution's case and associated trial.

At some point this goes beyond being seemingly accidental, and starts to appear an intentional effort to mislead\misinform people....

What I said is what the prosecutor has stated recently in court.

Your old links to non-relevant information indicates you don't understand legal proceedings.

The prosecutor doesn't care about the opinion of McGinnis.

Here it is ...

"Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger"

"Binger said Rosenbaum was probably trying to push the barrel of Rittenhouse’s rifle away."
https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-po ... 9524ceb252

There seems to be three levels of intent on trial here.
1. What was Rittenhouse's intent for being there?
2. What was Rittenhouses intent behind his actions on the night?
3. Was his response appropriate in response to his three victims?

The defense seem to have managed to cancel or re-write the first two points by making them inadmissible. Most notably eye witness accounts which they claim are biased or unreliable,
The last charge they are trying to cancel is gun possession but that one is going to be a little harder than the others.

On the third point the defense have been fortunate to have a judge who is entertaining their attempts to redirect Rittenhouse's crimes to his victims. By framing his victims personal lives in terms of their past it reminds me of similar attempts by the defense to frame Trayvon Martin, George Floyd or Ahmed Arbery or Breonna Taylor or Botham Jean as having criminal pasts despite their past having nothing to do with their deaths at the hands of white police or in the case of Arbery and Martin, white vigilantes.

The defense are playing a game using the law to get their client off. It worked for Zimmerman so there is every possibility it will work for Rittenhouse, especially given the judge seems amenable.

So yes, it doesn't surprise me they will attempt to show that Huber and Rossenbaum deserved to die based on subjective interpretations of hand motions or proximity where darling little Kyle felt scared enough to shoot one of them 4 times in the back.

It's a shame you felt the need not to provide anything to support the claim when you made it...

It will be interesting to see if they go down that route, given the criminal complaint is what the charges are based upon (and form the core of the prosecution), and Mr McGinnis is on the list of witnesses to be called in the trial, according to the last update a member of the defence team provided on their site... If someone claims a person was "probably" doing something, and an eyewitness states they were doing something different, which is more credible?

There is also the question of how would they introduce this in the trial... In questioning (who would they be questioning regarding this?) they run the risks of objections for (among others):

What sort of person could (or would) stoop to making those sorts of statements?

I’m just going to throw it out there that an article in my local paper included a very matter-of-fact statement that most legal experts believe there is an extremely good chance Rittenhouses actions will be ruled self-defense. There seems to be a lot of support for the idea the case there is strong.

My local paper isn’t considered conservative.

The article also addressed the unfortunate way Rittenhouse and his family are being drawn into radical ideologies that they had never held, and that Rittenhouse was not party to at the time of the shooting.

@cyberdad, I tend to be on the same side as you in most debates, but I really don’t like the name calling and tacky/disgustingly inappropriate joking you are using with Rittenhouse. He is innocent until proven guilty. Pease don’t undercut that. It undercuts your own arguments, as well.

It's way too early to be making any conclusions about self-defense, because, recently, the prosecutor dropped a bombshell and testified in court to Judge Schroeder that there's a FBI infrared video tape and it shows Rittenhouse chasing (provoking) Rosenbaum.

"Prosecutors say they have infrared video from an FBI surveillance plane that shows Rittenhouse followed and confronted the first man he shot "
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/st ... udge-rules

This video has not been released.

I am aware he was a minor at the time of the incident (which is another mitigating factor) and yes I apologise about my comments they were unnecessary.

However, I stand by my assertion that following the incident Rittenhouse's conduct shows a number of traits
1. He is on video prior to the shooting bragging about wanting a loaded weapon so he could shoot BLM protestors
2. Witnesses claim he and other militia were threatening protestors by aiming their weapons at protestors prior to the incident
3. After the incident he has shown zero remorse for his actions
4. He has attempted to flee any responsibility for killing two people and seriously injuring another
5. He claims to have been concerned about protecting property/keeping the peace but strangely did not turn himself in or inform the police or ambulance services that he may have killed people (I am 100% sure he knew he killed Rossenbaum after pumping him with bullets in the back). He could have easily called 911 or ambulance but demonstrated he didn't care., That's a sure sign of a psychopath right there who did not care he took a life.
6. While on bail he has been seen celebrating in open (ala George Zimmerman) pretending he did something heroic.

There's a number of things on trial here. There is a segment of the population (both in the US and overseas) who want him as the poster child for post-Trump right wing conservative resurgence. That philosphy hasn't just infected the US, its contaminating the airwaves as far away as Australia.

Well, the FBI footage appears to be less than overwhelming as regards to its potential use to assist the prosecution.

While it does show Mr Rosenbaum running with Mr Rittenhouse running along behind him at the beginning, at the point where Mr Rosenbaum changes direction\leaves the road, Mr Rittenhouse is around 10 metres (30 feet) behind him, with nothing obstructing his ability to see Mr Rosenbaum (no fence, vehicle, or crowd blocking view, for example).

Mr Rittenhouse runs past the point where Mr Rosenbaum turned off the road (indicating he wasn't being chased), and Mr Rosenbaum then comes out from where he had been and starts chasing Mr Rittenhouse. Regardless of whether Mr Rosenbaum thought that he was being chased, this appears to suggest that he was not being pursued, and the prosecution would now appear to have a harder job to prove that Mr Rosenbaum was being chased (or that by coming out from where he was, and chasing Mr Rittenhouse, that these actions were those of a person "defending themself" from Mr Rittenhouse, and not an act of aggression towards him).

Yeah, I'm honestly surprised the prosecution introduced that video, if anything it bolsters the case for the defense, unless they really are trying to throw the case because the whole thing is political and they never wanted to bring it in the first case. I heard there was some weirdness involving the possible existence of an HD version of the tape but that the FBI was being evasive about it, just something I heard and haven't followed up on, but potentially interesting.