The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha
-
wrote on 9 Nov 2021, 18:56 last edited by
It's a shame that Lin Wood turned out to be such a whacko. After his success with Nick Sandmann, he would be salivating after what's been said about Rittenhouse. Rep Ilhan Omar (D-Incest) called him a "domestic terrorist" who "executed people."
-
wrote on 9 Nov 2021, 20:12 last edited by
Ain't hard to follow a blueprint...
-
wrote on 10 Nov 2021, 01:16 last edited by
https://dailycaller.com/2021/11/09/wisconsin-kyle-rittenhouse-witness-trial-prosecutor-statement/
A key witness for the prosecution in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial testified Tuesday that he was asked to change his statement by the prosecution team.
Nathan DeBruin was taking photographs of the events the night that Rittenhouse killed two protestors and injured another, according to WISN.
Prosecutor Thomas Binger asked DeBruin to identify a person in a picture, according to DeBruin’s testimony.
When DeBruin didn’t know who the person was, Binger allegedly identified the person as Joshua Zaminsky.
Binger then set the phone face down before showing the photo again to DeBruin. He then asked a second time to identify the person in the picture.
“I just felt, I didn’t want to change my statement,” DeBruin told the defense attorney.
After being asked by Binger to change his statement, DeBruin told the defense team he hired an attorney.
Prosecutor James Kraus then began cross-examining the witness about his statement to police on the night of the shooting.
“We asked if you knew anything beyond that statement,” Kraus asked.
“Correct,” DeBruin responded.
“We didn’t ask you to change it?” the prosecutor then asked.
“Yes, yes you did,” DeBruin told the prosecutor.
-
wrote on 10 Nov 2021, 03:51 last edited by
Surely, the DA is tanking on purpose. Nobody can be that inept unless they try. Hard.
-
@taiwan_girl said in The FBI withheld exculpatory evidence:
I hesitate to bring "race" to this forum thread, but there was a recent article I saw.
From what I understand, after all of the shooting incidents, he walked past police carrying a rifle (or machine) gun, with people shouting that he had just shot people. Even with all that, he basically left the scene and went home.
No, he did not have a "machine" gun. He had a semi-automatic rifle. That's an important distinction. Fully automatic weapons (ie "machine guns") are almost impossible to get in the United States.
He did not go home, he told Illinois police and said that he had shot someone.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kenosha-protesters-killed-teen-kyle-rittenhouse-police-report/
A visibly upset 17-year-old accused of fatally shooting two demonstrators in Wisconsin told officers at his local police station in Illinois where to find an assault rifle he said he had used just two hours earlier to shoot several people, according to police records.
Kyle Rittenhouse cycled through a range of emotions, crying and vomiting several times, as he described to police what happened late on August 25 after he traveled to Kenosha, ostensibly to protect businesses from protesters following the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a 29-year-old Black man, Antioch Police Department records show.
"I shot two White kids," Rittenhouse said, adding that he had "ended a man's life."
And, from what the video says, he fired in self defense, after someone shot at him.
He shot (and killed) two white guys. Why bring race into it at all?
Don't get me wrong. This kid was an idiot, and what he did, bringing a weapon to Kenosha, which was probably illegal, is wrong.
But, that's not what the prosecution alleges. They're accusing him of murder.
First degree murder.
And the video shows something very different.
Why did it take over a year for this to be seen?
wrote on 10 Nov 2021, 09:52 last edited by@george-k said in The FBI withheld exculpatory evidence - The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
Why did it take over a year for this to be seen?
Isn’t he being tried by the state, not the Feds? Does the FBI have some responsibility to monitor all state prosecutions and provide evidence for one side or the other if they have it?
-
@george-k said in The FBI withheld exculpatory evidence - The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
Why did it take over a year for this to be seen?
Isn’t he being tried by the state, not the Feds? Does the FBI have some responsibility to monitor all state prosecutions and provide evidence for one side or the other if they have it?
wrote on 10 Nov 2021, 12:20 last edited by@jon-nyc said in The FBI withheld exculpatory evidence - The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@george-k said in The FBI withheld exculpatory evidence - The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
Why did it take over a year for this to be seen?
Isn’t he being tried by the state, not the Feds? Does the FBI have some responsibility to monitor all state prosecutions and provide evidence for one side or the other if they have it?
Good questions.
First of all, there is video that was provided to the prosecution. I don't know the circumstances of that transfer of evidence. Once that happens, however, the defense has the right to see it.
Secondly, why was the FBI flying drones (and, apparently, an airplane) at the scene to begin with? Is this SOP? Did they do this in Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis?
-
@jolly said in The FBI withheld exculpatory evidence:
Kid's a dumbass, but he should walk. It's clearly self-defense.
Yes on all three counts
wrote on 10 Nov 2021, 12:45 last edited by@jon-nyc said in The FBI withheld exculpatory evidence - The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@jolly said in The FBI withheld exculpatory evidence:
Kid's a dumbass, but he should walk. It's clearly self-defense.
Yes on all three counts
You and @Jolly forgot to mention that he was pretty damn solid, too. Debate all you want about whether he should have been there, but when the shit went down? Solid. I mean, there should be recruiters from the SEALS and Rangers waiting to talk to this kid in hallway.
-
@george-k I agree with what you say. No opinion (at this point) on self defense/murder, etc
My point was that if he were black, I do not believe that he could have walked past the police carrying a gun, with people telling the police he had shot people, and then he just continued on and returned to his hometown.
The police did not stop him, did not detain him, etc.
Just a random perspective.
wrote on 10 Nov 2021, 12:53 last edited by Mik 11 Oct 2021, 12:54@taiwan_girl said in The FBI withheld exculpatory evidence - The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@george-k I agree with what you say. No opinion (at this point) on self defense/murder, etc
My point was that if he were black, I do not believe that he could have walked past the police carrying a gun, with people telling the police he had shot people, and then he just continued on and returned to his hometown.
The police did not stop him, did not detain him, etc.
Just a random perspective.
So what? You believe? I wonder if they would have stopped a unicorn with a gun? Oh, wait..a unicorn can't carry a weapon. That has as much relevance to this situation.
-
@jon-nyc said in The FBI withheld exculpatory evidence - The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@jolly said in The FBI withheld exculpatory evidence:
Kid's a dumbass, but he should walk. It's clearly self-defense.
Yes on all three counts
You and @Jolly forgot to mention that he was pretty damn solid, too. Debate all you want about whether he should have been there, but when the shit went down? Solid. I mean, there should be recruiters from the SEALS and Rangers waiting to talk to this kid in hallway.
wrote on 10 Nov 2021, 14:39 last edited by@lufins-dad said in The FBI withheld exculpatory evidence - The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@jon-nyc said in The FBI withheld exculpatory evidence - The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@jolly said in The FBI withheld exculpatory evidence:
Kid's a dumbass, but he should walk. It's clearly self-defense.
Yes on all three counts
You and @Jolly forgot to mention that he was pretty damn solid, too. Debate all you want about whether he should have been there, but when the shit went down? Solid. I mean, there should be recruiters from the SEALS and Rangers waiting to talk to this kid in hallway.
Agreed, I found a nice summary video of what happened (about 3 minutes long) and was impressed he came out of that alive. I wish I could find it again, if I do I'll post it here. It makes the order of events pretty clear and removes bias (as much as one allows).
-
@taiwan_girl said in The FBI withheld exculpatory evidence - The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@george-k I agree with what you say. No opinion (at this point) on self defense/murder, etc
My point was that if he were black, I do not believe that he could have walked past the police carrying a gun, with people telling the police he had shot people, and then he just continued on and returned to his hometown.
The police did not stop him, did not detain him, etc.
Just a random perspective.
So what? You believe? I wonder if they would have stopped a unicorn with a gun? Oh, wait..a unicorn can't carry a weapon. That has as much relevance to this situation.
wrote on 10 Nov 2021, 14:47 last edited by@mik said in The FBI withheld exculpatory evidence - The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@taiwan_girl said in The FBI withheld exculpatory evidence - The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@george-k I agree with what you say. No opinion (at this point) on self defense/murder, etc
My point was that if he were black, I do not believe that he could have walked past the police carrying a gun, with people telling the police he had shot people, and then he just continued on and returned to his hometown.
The police did not stop him, did not detain him, etc.
Just a random perspective.
So what? You believe? I wonder if they would have stopped a unicorn with a gun? Oh, wait..a unicorn can't carry a weapon. That has as much relevance to this situation.
TG has a theory that black people are treated worse than white people in America.
It’s about time someone spoke up about this.
-
wrote on 10 Nov 2021, 14:49 last edited by
How is this trial still going on? How is this in any way not a total joke at this point?
-
wrote on 10 Nov 2021, 15:08 last edited by
Because of potential riots. Chicago has cancelled police days off this weekend, cops are not happy about it.
-
wrote on 10 Nov 2021, 16:02 last edited by
We need to get this out of our system. We need a just acquittal, and we need some temper tantrum riots that'll set an example that imbecilic outrage is no longer an acceptable reason to destroy city blocks.
-
Because of potential riots. Chicago has cancelled police days off this weekend, cops are not happy about it.
wrote on 10 Nov 2021, 16:11 last edited by@mik said in The FBI withheld exculpatory evidence - The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
Because of potential riots. Chicago has cancelled police days off this weekend, cops are not happy about it.
You mean the department that is understaffed due to their vaccine mandate?
-
wrote on 10 Nov 2021, 17:19 last edited by
-
wrote on 10 Nov 2021, 17:33 last edited by
The judge just ordered the jury out of the room and is ripping the prosecutor a new asshole.
-
The judge just ordered the jury out of the room and is ripping the prosecutor a new asshole.
wrote on 10 Nov 2021, 18:05 last edited by@larry said in The FBI withheld exculpatory evidence - The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
The judge just ordered the jury out of the room and is ripping the prosecutor a new asshole.
This is one pissed-off judge.
-
wrote on 10 Nov 2021, 18:52 last edited by
Why the fuck can't people just be honest and do the right thing? For politics? WTF WTF WTF???
-
wrote on 10 Nov 2021, 19:18 last edited by Horace 11 Oct 2021, 20:12
The prosecutor is playing to leftist pop culture, and probably has political aspirations.
What are the chances that a "diverse" judge, one who wants everybody to know that their perspective is super important and that's what makes them a good judge, would have this same reaction against this flouting of the law by the prosecution?
-
wrote on 10 Nov 2021, 21:43 last edited by
Rittenhouse is being cross-examined at the moment.
I don't know what the rules are in Wisconsin, but I know a bit about Illinois.
In cross-examination, the questioner is not allowed to ask anything that the original questioner touched upon.
For example, under direct examination imagine the following sequence:
Counsel asks witness under direct examination: "Did you see Mr. Jones steal the purse?"
Under cross, the opposing counsel asks: "Mr. Jones also stole an automobile, is that correct?"
Counsel: "Objection, your honor!"
Judge: "Sustained."