The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha
-
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."
-
wrote on 10 Nov 2021, 22:05 last edited by
Thread title changed to continue talk about the trial.
-
wrote on 10 Nov 2021, 22:32 last edited by
It would shock me if he was convicted of anything but the misdemeanor.
-
wrote on 10 Nov 2021, 22:33 last edited by
@jolly said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
It would shock me if he was convicted of anything but the misdemeanor.
The DA is making a case that there was no imminent threat to Rittenhouse's life when he fired his rifle.
A lot about "what the hell were you doing there anyway?"
-
@jolly said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
It would shock me if he was convicted of anything but the misdemeanor.
The DA is making a case that there was no imminent threat to Rittenhouse's life when he fired his rifle.
A lot about "what the hell were you doing there anyway?"
wrote on 10 Nov 2021, 22:39 last edited by@george-k said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@jolly said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
It would shock me if he was convicted of anything but the misdemeanor.
The DA is making a case that there was no imminent threat to Rittenhouse's life when he fired his rifle.
A lot about "what the hell were you doing there anyway?"
The first shooting was the guy that grabbed his rifle, no?
-
@george-k said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@jolly said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
It would shock me if he was convicted of anything but the misdemeanor.
The DA is making a case that there was no imminent threat to Rittenhouse's life when he fired his rifle.
A lot about "what the hell were you doing there anyway?"
The first shooting was the guy that grabbed his rifle, no?
wrote on 10 Nov 2021, 22:44 last edited by@lufins-dad said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
The first shooting was the guy that grabbed his rifle, no?
I believe so.
But, according to the DA, that was not an imminent threat.
-
@lufins-dad said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
The first shooting was the guy that grabbed his rifle, no?
I believe so.
But, according to the DA, that was not an imminent threat.
wrote on 10 Nov 2021, 23:20 last edited by@george-k said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@lufins-dad said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
The first shooting was the guy that grabbed his rifle, no?
I believe so.
But, according to the DA, that was not an imminent threat.
It was also the guy that twice threatened to kill him?
-
wrote on 10 Nov 2021, 23:29 last edited by
@lufins-dad said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
I called it!
This is why I love this forum. Your comment would get you banned on FB or Twitter.
-
@lufins-dad said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
The first shooting was the guy that grabbed his rifle, no?
I believe so.
But, according to the DA, that was not an imminent threat.
wrote on 10 Nov 2021, 23:52 last edited by@george-k said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@lufins-dad said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
The first shooting was the guy that grabbed his rifle, no?
I believe so.
But, according to the DA, that was not an imminent threat.
DA doesn't stand for Dumb Ass, does it?
-
@jolly said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
It would shock me if he was convicted of anything but the misdemeanor.
The DA is making a case that there was no imminent threat to Rittenhouse's life when he fired his rifle.
A lot about "what the hell were you doing there anyway?"
wrote on 10 Nov 2021, 23:53 last edited by@george-k said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
@jolly said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
It would shock me if he was convicted of anything but the misdemeanor.
The DA is making a case that there was no imminent threat to Rittenhouse's life when he fired his rifle.
A lot about "what the hell were you doing there anyway?"
That would apply to the first degree murder charge, since the DA must prove intent.
-
wrote on 10 Nov 2021, 23:57 last edited by George K 11 Nov 2021, 00:01
One of the things that the DA tried to introduce into evidence was a photo of Rittenhouse at a bar in Wisconsin, with his friends.
He was wearing a sweatshirt that said, "Free as Fuck!"
Judge denied it, saying that what Rittenhouse did FOUR MONTHS AFTER the incident is irrelevant.
-
wrote on 10 Nov 2021, 23:59 last edited by
The prosecutor should just enter into evidence that the defendant is a white conservative male, and be done with it.
-
wrote on 11 Nov 2021, 01:49 last edited by
There seems to be some thought that the prosecution is purposefully shooting for a mistrial?
-
There seems to be some thought that the prosecution is purposefully shooting for a mistrial?
wrote on 11 Nov 2021, 02:35 last edited by@lufins-dad said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
There seems to be some thought that the prosecution is purposefully shooting for a mistrial?
There is no way that's not happening.
-
The exception still applies. Transporting across state lines is a problem. Justice could charge him under Federal law, but if they do this after an acquittal, it would certainly have political fallout.
wrote on 11 Nov 2021, 09:03 last edited by jon-nyc 11 Nov 2021, 09:24@jolly said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
The exception still applies. Transporting across state lines is a problem. Justice could charge him under Federal law, but if they do this after an acquittal, it would certainly have political fallout.
Of course they should prosecute him on the transport charge, and his mother too for driving him, if the law allows it. That crime ultimately resulted in two deaths. If you didn’t charge it in this case, when would you?
(Assuming they can show the gun was transported from IL, last I recall that was in question but I haven’t followed this at all or read anything about it since last year)
-
@jolly said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
The exception still applies. Transporting across state lines is a problem. Justice could charge him under Federal law, but if they do this after an acquittal, it would certainly have political fallout.
Of course they should prosecute him on the transport charge, and his mother too for driving him, if the law allows it. That crime ultimately resulted in two deaths. If you didn’t charge it in this case, when would you?
(Assuming they can show the gun was transported from IL, last I recall that was in question but I haven’t followed this at all or read anything about it since last year)
wrote on 11 Nov 2021, 12:21 last edited by@jon-nyc said in The Kyle Rittenhouse trial in Kenosha:
Of course they should prosecute him on the transport charge
His attorneys in the double murder case maintain that Rittenhouse did not bring the assault-style rifle from Illinois to Wisconsin prior to last month's killings. They say the rifle was owned legally by a Wisconsin friend and handed over to Rittenhouse the afternoon of the killings as he and a friend tried to help police defend Kenosha businesses that came under siege by looters and vandals. They maintain under Wisconsin law it is legal for the friend, not a minor, to have provided the rifle to Rittenhouse.
Rittenhouse is charged with possession of a dangerous weapon, not with transport across state lines or possession of a stolen or illegal weapon.
Further, Rittenhouse's attorneys contend that he never crossed the Illinois border at all that day because he had slept at a friend's place the previous evening so he could go to work as a Kenosha pool lifeguard.
-
wrote on 11 Nov 2021, 12:28 last edited by
But...
https://heavy.com/news/2020/08/how-did-kyle-rittenhouse-have-gun/
A 17-year-old can’t legally own a firearm in Wisconsin except for hunting purposes and with the permission of a legal guardian, according to the Giffords Law Center. In Illinois, where Rittenhouse lives, people under 21 can only own a gun legally if a parent or guardian who meets the eligibility criteria to own a gun signs off on their child owning a gun.
Lin Wood!
open carry is legal in Wisconsin, but not for minors.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
