Kyle Rittenhouse

[thomas]

Judge in Rittenhouse Trial Receives Threatening Emails

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10196397/Scathing-emails-sent-judge-Kyle-Rittenhouse-case-reveal-threats-brand-racist.html

 

[Bingoloid]

On 11/13/2021 at 8:09 AM, PeteMoss said:

Witness Tampering?  A few days ago, the prosecutor dropped charges against Gaige Grosskreutz, who aimed his gun at Rittenhouse, for incidents that occurred after the shooting.

Looks like Gaige is not exactly an upstanding citizen.  Gaige was a convicted felon when he was carrying the gun he used to threaten Rittenhouse.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/11/breaking-exclusive-potential-witness-tampering-gaige-grosskreutz-felon-aimed-gun-kyle-rittenhouse-two-prior-charges-dismissed-prosecutors-days-trial/

Grosskreutz is not a convicted felon, that I've seen. He's apparently been an EMT/paramedic, and had pulled a CCW, although he'd let it lapse.

In any case, good hypothetical about this: what if the situation had been reversed, and Grosskreutz had shot Rittenhouse instead?

Nobody wants to talk about this, but only the reasonableness of the belief of the shooter matters. It's not a contest to prove who was the bad guy or which self-defense claim was the self-defensiest. Grosskreutz could have easily been exonerated for shooting Rittenhouse under the same set of facts.

Then there's the car dealership owners, who threw Rittenhouse and his friends under the bus. They obviously asked them to look after the place, but as soon as things got messy, denied having anything to do with it. This means something under Wisconsin's defense of property laws. They didn't give a single solitary fuck about Rittenhouse.

It's actually kind of hard to get the mind around how much this situation sucks and how lucky this kid has been. The prisons are full of people who claim it was self-defense, and some of them are telling the truth. Rittenhouse has the benefit of there being a strong body of evidence on his side and very little for the prosecution to work with, plus decent advocates (maybe not the greatest, but clearly listening and bothering to read and understand the law).

I give him 80/20 on beating all the charges, especially if someone in the jury room understood what was happening with that crime lab witness and is able to explain it to the others.

[Bingoloid]

This is a hot shit closing by Richards. He knows exactly where the limits are, showed up with his facts organized, and is just driving every nail all the way in.

If you hear anyone shitting themselves about the outcome, ask them to simply take some time to put the closing arguments on in the background.

[ginger]

29 minutes ago, Bingoloid said:

This is a hot shit closing by Richards. He knows exactly where the limits are, showed up with his facts organized, and is just driving every nail all the way in.

If you hear anyone shitting themselves about the outcome, ask them to simply take some time to put the closing arguments on in the background.

I was laughing at Binger's ridiculous redundant use of the term full metal jacket...because nobody on the jury knows hollow points cause more damage?

 

[PeteMoss]

1 hour ago, ginger said:

I was laughing at Binger's ridiculous redundant use of the term full metal jacket...because nobody on the jury knows hollow points cause more damage?

The Geneva Convention before WWII outlawed Hollow Points.  Only FMJ.

My father was in the Pacific.  The Japanese did not sign the Geneva Convention.  He said that they would shot the medics right in the center of the red cross on their helmets to show that they did not care..

He said that some Americans would file down the tip of the FMJ to turn it into a mushrooming bullet. 

[Bingoloid]

LMAO. This rebuttal is them throwing out their entire case and desperately trying to construct a whole new new legal theory and scream it at the jury with like thirty minutes left.

They literally said "forget about provocation, put all that aside". They already shoehorned that into the jury instructions because they knew it was all they had. This trial is incredible.

EDIT: Prosecution going out of their way to prove to the jury that everything the defense just said about their misconduct is true.

[ginger]

Confused... do the Zeminskis testimony provide exculpatory evidence ? Then weren't  the prosecution required to cut a deal? or provide the information in spite of 5th ammendment/

[Bingoloid]

20 hours ago, ginger said:

Confused... do the Zeminskis testimony provide exculpatory evidence ? 

As I heard it:

1) The Ziminskis are the best witnesses who can testify to some details vital the prosecution theory of how the fight started.

2) The prosecution did not put the Ziminskis on the stand, and the defense made a big deal about it. The best witnesses to a key part of the prosecution narrative weren't made available to enter evidence or be cross-examined. What doesn't the prosecution want them to say?

3) The prosecution tried to tell the jury that the Ziminskis can't testify because they're protected from self-incrimination, and have at least one trial coming up. The judge stopped the trial to figure out whether or not the jury should hear this.

4) It was the state's idea to adjourn Mr. Ziminski's case until after the Rittenhouse trial. Mrs. Ziminski has already been sentenced, so the prosecution tried to tell the judge she might have more pending charges, yet can't explain what those might be.

The implication here is that the prosecution did this on purpose to keep key witnesses out of court. (The prosecution could presumably also just give the Ziminskis immunity, if they wanted.) When the judge brought the jury back, the prosecution tried to keep explaining their 5th Amendment theory to the jury instead of letting it go, so the jury was sent back out.

The jury probably doesn't understand what happened, but they definitely understand the prosecution was up to something and the judge wasn't having it.

[ginger]

I still don't understand why the prosecution hasn't been obligated to provide their witness accounts as exculpatory evidence. They could have just pled the 5th on the stand to any self incriminating question .or enter a written statement?

[Bingoloid]

2 minutes ago, ginger said:

I still don't understand why the prosecution hasn't been obligated to provide their witness accounts as exculpatory evidence. They could have just pled the 5th on the stand to any self incriminating question .or enter a statement?

That would be what would normally happen, yes. The witness would assert the 5th Amendment themselves.

It's not really been shown that they have any exculpatory evidence. The defense wouldn't want to call in a witness who is hostile to the defense, and any prosecution testimony needs to be subjected to cross-examination by the defense.

So the looming question the defense asked on close was, just like you're saying, "Where was that guy, anyway? ISN'T THAT WEIRD?", and the prosecution tried to offer an explanation for their decision that doesn't really make a lot of sense.

This rebuttal is just really, really desperate and sad. The prosecutor is big mad. The jurors must hate this.

[Bingoloid]

New "Not-Actually-The-Law" Prosecution Theory: Everybody takes a beating sometimes, and Rittenhouse was a coward for not having a fistfight instead.

The real murder is me dying of laughter over here.

[ginger]

5 minutes ago, Bingoloid said:

New "Not-Actually-The-Law" Theory: Everybody takes a beating sometimes, and Rittenhouse was a coward for not having a fistfight instead.

The real murder is me dying of laughter over here.

Yes, I caught that too, except the defense showed on video there were guns EVERYWHERE. The kid was packing appropriately. 

[27 Time World Champions]

😳 😳 😳 😳 😳 😳 😳 😳 😳 😳 

 

[Bingoloid]

Shooting a juror is certainly one way for Binger to force a mistrial.

[FormerSomeone]

Someone has removed the sight(s) from that rifle.  Rittenhouse had a reflex sight in all the images.

[ginger]

2 hours ago, PeteMoss said:

The Geneva Convention before WWII outlawed Hollow Points.  Only FMJ.

My father was in the Pacific.  The Japanese did not sign the Geneva Convention.  He said that they would shot the medics right in the center of the red cross on their helmets to show that they did not care..

He said that some Americans would file down the tip of the FMJ to turn it into a mushrooming bullet. 

Sure. file in an x  dip in wax. doesn't everyone do it that way? (smirk lol)

[ginger]

51 minutes ago, 27 Time World Champions said:

😳 😳 😳 😳 😳 😳 😳 😳 😳 😳 

 

This guy ought to be shot. Automatic lose your case. Do not pass go...what are the chances there is a veteran on the jury?

[ndirish]

He looks like Alec Baldwin. 

[FormerSomeone]

3 hours ago, PeteMoss said:

The Geneva Convention before WWII outlawed Hollow Points.  Only FMJ.

My father was in the Pacific.  The Japanese did not sign the Geneva Convention.  He said that they would shot the medics right in the center of the red cross on their helmets to show that they did not care..

He said that some Americans would file down the tip of the FMJ to turn it into a mushrooming bullet. 

I think you mean Hague Convention of 1899.  "Declaration concerning the Prohibition of the Use of Bullets which can Easily Expand or Change their Form inside the Human Body such as Bullets with a Hard Covering which does not Completely Cover the Core, or containing Indentations"

Nothing in the Geneva Convention about hollow-points or their being forbidden.  Heck, you can use a flame thrower if you want.

Ask the FBI what they recommend after the 1986 Miami shootout.  I use what they use.  Gold Dot hollow-points.

[PeteMoss]

4 minutes ago, FormerSomeone said:

I think you mean Hague Convention of 1899.  "Declaration concerning the Prohibition of the Use of Bullets which can Easily Expand or Change their Form inside the Human Body such as Bullets with a Hard Covering which does not Completely Cover the Core, or containing Indentations"

Nothing in the Geneva Convention about hollow-points or their being forbidden.  Heck, you can use a flame thrower if you want.

Ask the FBI what they recommend after the 1986 Miami shootout.  I use what they use.

I saw a German bullet from WWI.  It was made out of wood.  It would splinter on impact and made a huge mess.

I stand corrected about the Hague Convention.

[ginger]

36 minutes ago, ndirish said:

He looks like Alec Baldwin. 

He has a really bad haircut.

[27 Time World Champions]

The question is whether or not a Wisconsin jury is capable of recognizing self-defense in the presence of clear evidence.

Expect to be disappointed. It's Wisconsin, not significantly different from Minnesota, where a man was convicted of BOTH murder and manslaughter for the same death.

[Bingoloid]

10 hours ago, 27 Time World Champions said:

Expect to be disappointed. It's Wisconsin, not significantly different from Minnesota, where a man was convicted of BOTH murder and manslaughter for the same death.

Except in Minnesota, that is entirely legally correct. The jury understood the charges just fine and that it wasn't their job to pick one. The three forms of homicide charged had overlapping elements and were not written to be exclusive. The system worked correctly: the prosecution brought facts from credible witnesses who stood up on cross, dismantled the alternative theory the defense had spread, and the defense ended up embarrassing themselves presenting more alternative theories that they had to admit were unsupported by any actual facts - and, frankly, that sounded stupid.

Here, I wouldn't say I'll be shocked if any of the charges stick, but I'd say it's probably leaning toward a full acquittal - today. If they don't come back today, anything could be going on in there. Either way, Rittenhouse is lucky. There's good evidence of what happened, he was able to get a decent legal team, drew a judge who takes the rules fairly seriously, and was willing to go to trial. No reason to believe things aren't working correctly here, too.

There's a reason they call cross-examination - when well-conducted - "the greatest engine for the discovery of truth". We can't see the jury's faces, but Kraus was absolutely seething during that rebuttal and I guarantee you he knows that they know the prosecution has been caught. When the prosecutor starts yelling at the jury, it's probably over.