U.S. Topic -- Predictions for the Kyle Rittenhouse Trial?

[Fat is a type of crazy]

5 minutes ago, CFCjeff said:

Maybe we call them  Victims who burn ,loot, destroy property, hate the police, and especially want to whack you round the head with a skateboard and then pummel you to death,

Putting the trial aside do you want to live in a situation where an untrained kid, in weapon use and psychologically, takes on the role of the police.

Let us assume you are correct and one or more of the victims were a bit rough and deserved punishment. Is this the appropriate way to mete out punishment. I think not. Let the police do their job. 

Edited November 18, 2021 by Fat is a type of crazy

[candide]

Apparently, having killed people can open a new carrier path to him....????

"Matt Gaetz said his office is open to hiring Kyle Rittenhouse as a congressional intern if he's 'interested in helping the country in additional ways'"

https://news.yahoo.com/matt-gaetz-said-office-open-040843516.html

Edited November 18, 2021 by candide

[fjb 24]

5 minutes ago, candide said:

Apparently, having killed people can open a new carrier path to him....????

"Matt Gaetz said his office is open to hiring Kyle Rittenhouse as a congressional intern if he's 'interested in helping the country in additional ways'"

https://news.yahoo.com/matt-gaetz-said-office-open-040843516.html

Things are looking good for Rittenhouse. 555

[candide]

16 minutes ago, CFCjeff said:

Maybe we call them  Victims who burn ,loot, destroy property, hate the police, and especially want to whack you round the head with a skateboard and then pummel you to death,

What did the victims burn, loot or destroy?

[BuckAurelius]

Just now, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Putting the trial aside do you want to live in a situation where an untrained kid, in weapon use and psychologically, takes on the role of the police.

Let us assume you are correct and one or more of the victims were a bit rough and deserved punishment. Is this the appropraite way to mete out punishment. I think not. Let the police do their job. 

If only the police would do their job . . . That's the problem. They're not allowed to because the brass and the politicos in power don't want the optics of defying a BLM protest. Better to let the city burn, in their mind. Better to let the rioters and arsonists run amok than to deploy the National Guard and seem "pro-Trump" and enflame the righteous indignation of the cancel-culture herd. 

 

But I agree that a seventeen-year-old, with little to no training with firearms, is hardly an ideal candidate for a citizen resistance against an activist zealotry which torches small businesses as a protest against social injustice. The point is not to let the situation degenerate into that sort of scenario in the first place, which is exactly what happened in Kenosha, as elsewhere, because those responsible for maintaining law and order abdicated their responsibilities in the name of politics. 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

1 hour ago, Liverpool Lou said:

 

 

"The fact that the judge wouldn't let the victims be called victims but let them be called looters didn't help".

Jesus...    Yes, those facts, terrible things.   Let's keep facts out of trials!

 

 

 

24 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

That would be reIevant if I had said that "it is ok for the judge to not let victims be called victims", I did not say that, I quoted your comment, you said that!   I assume you cannot read.

I had said that the fact the judge did not allow victims to be called victims, but that they could be described as looters, is  not helpful i.e. not balanced or appropriate.

You have said 'Jesus...    Yes, those facts, terrible things.   Let's keep facts out of trials!'

The implication is that you either think I am trying to keep facts out of a trial and or that you think the judges descriptions of the individuals as looters is appropriate and therefore could be considered a fact. 

If I am missing something please let me know what your comment meant thanks.

 

Edited November 18, 2021 by Fat is a type of crazy

[BuckAurelius]

The fact that this jury is still out confirms my suspicion that there is little chance of selecting a jury from any jury pool in America in which you're not likely to get at least one or two people who care nothing about the factual evidence of the case and will assume a position merely based on the strength of their emotional and political persuasions. I feel sorry for the other jurists right now who are trying to speak reason and argue the evidence in the face of what amounts to a stone effigy who had its mind made up on day one. Seems likely we're going to get a jury hung on all counts because one or two people don't believe what their own eyes tell them from the video evidence. 

[cmarshall]

1 hour ago, BuckAurelius said:

The judge should have already issued a directed verdict regardless of whether such a decision would be "popular" or not. Given the transparently political motivation of the prosecution, the grotesquely inaccurate and skewed media coverage, and the complete lack of any credible evidence, it's irresponsible for a judge to let a case like this even get to the jury. 

Maybe you should read up on how the American criminal justice system is supposed to work.

[cmarshall]

1 minute ago, BuckAurelius said:

The fact that this jury is still out confirms my suspicion that there is little chance of selecting a jury from any jury pool in America in which you're not likely to get at least one or two people who care nothing about the factual evidence of the case and will assume a position merely based on the strength of their emotional and political persuasions. I feel sorry for the other jurists right now who are trying to speak reason and argue the evidence in the face of what amounts to a stone effigy who had its mind made up on day one. Seems likely we're going to get a jury hung on all counts because one or two people don't believe what their own eyes tell them from the video evidence. 

Did this insight into the workings of the Rittenhouse jury come to you in a dream?

[BuckAurelius]

2 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

Maybe you should read up on how the American criminal justice system is supposed to work.

"A directed verdict is a ruling entered by a trial judge after determining that there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to reach a different conclusion." A perfect description of this very case if there ever was one. There's a reason why judges in American courts have this discretion--it's very much a part of the "American criminal justice system," and has been for ages. 

[bbko]

42 minutes ago, candide said:

Apparently, having killed people can open a new carrier path to him....????

"Matt Gaetz said his office is open to hiring Kyle Rittenhouse as a congressional intern if he's 'interested in helping the country in additional ways'"

https://news.yahoo.com/matt-gaetz-said-office-open-040843516.html

Birds of a feather flock together.

[CFCjeff]

23 minutes ago, candide said:

What did the victims burn, loot or destroy?

On this occasion thankfully nothing, that opportunity was denied them by a true American hero.

[bbko]

Remember when you were 17 and shot 3 men, killing 2 with a semi-automatic rifle?  Neither do I.

[cmarshall]

7 minutes ago, BuckAurelius said:

"A directed verdict is a ruling entered by a trial judge after determining that there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to reach a different conclusion." A perfect description of this very case if there ever was one. There's a reason why judges in American courts have this discretion--it's very much a part of the "American criminal justice system," and has been for ages. 

I think it is possible that Schroeder will indeed interfere with the verdict in one way or another, although if he does so it will be because he is as biased toward Rittenhouse as you are, not because the evidence in the case is insufficient to support a guilty verdict on any counts.  Setting aside the verdict in a high profile criminal case almost never happens, just because it negates the fundamental principle that juries decide cases, unless the defendant waives a jury trial.

[BuckAurelius]

1 minute ago, cmarshall said:

I think it is possible that Schroeder will indeed interfere with the verdict in one way or another, although if he does so it will be because he is as biased toward Rittenhouse as you are, not because the evidence in the case is insufficient to support a guilty verdict on any counts.  Setting aside the verdict in a high profile criminal case almost never happens, just because it negates the fundamental principle that juries decide cases, unless the defendant waives a jury trial.

If the judge fails to overturn a guilty verdict in this case it won't be because "it negates the fundamental principle that juries decide cases." It will be because he's too craven to do what he knows is right because he doesn't want to suffer the wrath of the activist mob and the media. So he's banking on the jury to do the right thing, has expressed a sanguine optimism in their judgement, one I personally do not share. Nobody right now is probably more surprised than the judge that an acquittal on all counts hasn't already happened. It seems this optimism was misplaced. 

[cmarshall]

1 minute ago, BuckAurelius said:

If the judge fails to overturn a guilty verdict in this case it won't be because "it negates the fundamental principle that juries decide cases." It will be because he's too craven to do what he knows is right because he doesn't want to suffer the wrath of the activist mob and the media. So he's banking on the jury to do the right thing, has expressed a sanguine optimism in their judgement, one I personally do not share. Nobody right now is probably more surprised than the judge that an acquittal on all counts hasn't already happened. It seems this optimism was misplaced. 

It's always interesting how the right-wingers love guns, religion, and  authoritarian leaders making decisions for them instead of fundamentally democratic methods like trial by jury.

[BuckAurelius]

Just now, cmarshall said:

It's always interesting how the right-wingers love guns, religion, and  authoritarian leaders making decisions for them instead of fundamentally democratic methods like trial by jury.

I'm an atheist, pro-choice, pro drug legalization, staunchly for separation of church and state, and civil libertarian (not an economic libertarian). Not that it's any of your business, but you seem to assume you must be a "right-winger" in order to appreciate the actual evidence of the case. I have plenty of lefty friends who think this case is plainly one of self-defense. But I am also anti-mob and anti-mob-mentality, which predominates in this case, as it does in most politically charged debates. And the judge's ability to issue a directed verdict is precisely to be exercised in cases where the evidentiary merits of the case are null and the political bias extreme. 

[xylophone]

33 minutes ago, CFCjeff said:

On this occasion thankfully nothing, that opportunity was denied them by a true American hero.

You mean, by a crying half-wit with an automatic rifle who shot unarmed people – – strange how times have changed when people talk about this wimp/nutter as a "true American hero".

 

America is rotting from the inside, as has been seen by the January 6 Capital Hill invasion, and by the idiot who inspired it, and now they have this trial, overseen by a judge who is either biased or is a "sandwich short of a picnic".

 

Sad, very sad.

[Albaby]

On 11/15/2021 at 8:49 AM, cmarshall said:

Part of the disgraceful conduct of this case is that Rittenhouse has not been charged for his violations of weapons laws.  He obtained his gun illegally since he was below the age for a license.  And he carried across state boundaries, which is probably another offense.  Rittenhouse has also associated with white supremacists.  It is probably fair that that fact could not be introduced into the case, but we the public are fully entitled to consider it.  

 

He may be convicted for shooting Huber who only had a skateboard and therefore did not pose a threat to Rittenhouse's life.

 

I hope that Huber and the families of the murder victims sue Rittenhouse and are able to seize whatever income Rittenhouse ever acquires.

A skateboard to the head is not a threat? Rubbish, like the rest of your nonsense assertions.

[Albaby]

1 hour ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Putting the trial aside do you want to live in a situation where an untrained kid, in weapon use and psychologically, takes on the role of the police.

Let us assume you are correct and one or more of the victims were a bit rough and deserved punishment. Is this the appropriate way to mete out punishment. I think not. Let the police do their job. 

The Police were nowhere to been seen. The kid went there to protect life and property from rioting criminals. He was attacked, he defended himself. It's called self defense. Not Guilty. Simples

[ozimoron]

10 minutes ago, Albaby said:

A skateboard to the head is not a threat? Rubbish, like the rest of your nonsense assertions.

The evidence shows that Rittenhouse pointed his semi automatic rifle at a crowd of protesters. A very courageous hero, one of several attempted to disarm a probable mass shooter with only a skateboard and paid the ultimate price for his bravery.

 

Given that there were a number of armed vigilantes there that day who were not attacked it is reasonable to assume that Rittenhouse was only attacked because he engaged in provocation. There is not other rational explanation.

 

The young Proud Boy sought to make himself a hero in the same vein as Dylann Roof and in the eyes of some he succeeded.

Edited November 18, 2021 by ozimoron

[Mac Mickmanus]

6 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The evidence shows that Rittenhouse pointed his semi automatic rifle at a crowd of protesters. A very courageous hero, one of several attempted to disarm a probable mass shooter with only a skateboard and paid the ultimate price for his bravery.

 

Given that there were a number of armed vigilantes there that day who were not attacked it is reasonable to assume that Rittenhouse was only attacked because he engaged in provocation. There is not other rational explanation.

 

The young Proud Boy sought to make himself a hero in the same vein as Dylann Roof and in the eyes of some he succeeded.

False . Untrue 

[sqwakvfr]

The Jury is in a catch 22:  1) Apply the law and find not guilty of 1st Degree Murder 2) Guilty of 2nd Degree Murder or Manslaughter 3) Not Guilty on All Counts?  Either way protests will morph into riots and then looting.  This playbook was perfected in the summer of 2020.   Groups of people  in front of a courthouses can now intimidate juries.  I spent over 20 years in Law Enforcement and no way would I ever want to part of it again(as a witness, member of a jury, victim or of course never as a defendant).  

 

If the victims are white and the suspect is white then why is BLM there?  

[BuckAurelius]

7 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The evidence shows that Rittenhouse pointed his semi automatic rifle at a crowd of protesters. A very courageous hero, one of several attempted to disarm a probable mass shooter with only a skateboard and paid the ultimate price for his bravery.

 

Given that there were a number of armed vigilantes there that day who were not attacked it is reasonable to assume that Rittenhouse was only attacked because he engaged in provocation. There is not other rational explanation.

 

The young Proud Boy sought to make himself a hero in the same vein as Dylann Roof and in the eyes of some he succeeded.

What evidence exactly of Rittenhouse pointing a gun at a crowd of protesters? Please be specific. No witnesses attested to that, not one. The prosecution has a piece of blown-up drone footage in which Rittenhouse appears as a featureless blob in a hyper-pixelated soup. Yes, that's it. That's the evidence supporting the "provocation" case--the single, solitary, one piece of "evidence."

[Albaby]

10 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The evidence shows that Rittenhouse pointed his semi automatic rifle at a crowd of protesters. A very courageous hero, one of several attempted to disarm a probable mass shooter with only a skateboard and paid the ultimate price for his bravery.

 

Given that there were a number of armed vigilantes there that day who were not attacked it is reasonable to assume that Rittenhouse was only attacked because he engaged in provocation. There is not other rational explanation.

 

The young Proud Boy sought to make himself a hero in the same vein as Dylann Roof and in the eyes of some he succeeded.

On the contrary, the evidence (video and witnesses) clearly show self defense. Too long in the tropics?

[ozimoron]

7 minutes ago, BuckAurelius said:

What evidence exactly of Rittenhouse pointing a gun at a crowd of protesters? Please be specific. No witnesses attested to that, not one. The prosecution has a piece of blown-up drone footage in which Rittenhouse appears as a featureless blob in a hyper-pixelated soup. Yes, that's it. That's the evidence supporting the "provocation" case--the single, solitary, one piece of "evidence."

The video supplied by the FBI that the defense doesn't want the Jury to see. The defense has said they would have changed their story if this video evidence was available to them earlier,

 

         

Quote

He said that the defense would have approached things differently if it had received the better footage earlier and that it is now asking for “a level, fair playing field.”

https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-wisconsin-shootings-kenosha-ac4ff9ba75f00884ce6cd5e5932d5543

Edited November 18, 2021 by ozimoron

[Albaby]

2 minutes ago, BuckAurelius said:

What evidence exactly of Rittenhouse pointing a gun at a crowd of protesters? Please be specific. No witnesses attested to that, not one. The prosecution has a piece of blown-up drone footage in which Rittenhouse appears as a featureless blob in a hyper-pixelated soup. Yes, that's it. That's the evidence supporting the "provocation" case--the single, solitary, one piece of "evidence."

His defense team are now asking for a misstrial, based on the fact that the prosecution failed to reveal that clear vision of that footage is in their possession. 5'll get you ten....????????????

[BuckAurelius]

9 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The video that the defense doesn't want the Jury to see. The defense has said they would have changed their story if this video evidence was available to them earlier,

The jury has already seen that evidence--the piece of pixelated muck I already referred to. The defense was given an inferior version of this footage by the prosecution, and so were handicapped in their analysis of it, which is why they're currently complaining about it to the judge. So they don't want the jury to be mulling any further over this footage until the judge has made a decision about it. 

 

Of course they would have changed their story, since the first one was debunked even by their own witnesses. What does that prove? 

Edited November 18, 2021 by BuckAurelius

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, Albaby said:

His defense team are now asking for a misstrial, based on the fact that the prosecution failed to reveal that clear vision of that footage is in their possession. 5'll get you ten....????????????

While the circumstances surrounding the video are controversial there is no doubt that it shows Rittenhouse pointing his rifle at the crowd as alleged by the prosecution.

 

Whether fair or unfair, the truth is the truth.

Edited November 18, 2021 by ozimoron

[Mac Mickmanus]

6 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The video supplied by the FBI that the defense doesn't want the Jury to see. The defense has said they would have changed their story if this video evidence was available to them earlier,

The better quality video footage shows that Kyle was raising his arm in a friendly manor , rather than him raising and pointing his gun .