Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys don't get it. The prosecution can show he lied. That he cheated on his girlfriend. That he stole money from his mom. It is not probative of his intent that night. It is not probative of state of mind when he pulled the trigger. Bad guy does not equal murderer.

He did administer first aid. He did have a first aid bag. Those two things are true as well. But they are also not probative of his state of mind when he pulled the trigger.

What is probative is people following him. People not simply threatening him but striking him, pointing a gun at him etc.

Welcome to law school evidence class. Some facts are true but not probative or germane. This is akin to when rapists got off because they convinced the jury the girl was a slut. Now that is no longer admissible evidence because it is irrelevant to determining whether a woman consented to sex with a rapist.

Again, it is complicated and this prosecutor is awful.

This is an understatement.
And, many of us knew the prosecutor was awful even before this trial began. The fact that he charged this person with crimes, given the evidence that has been presented is unforgivable.

He had to charge or the mob would have burned down the town.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys don't get it. The prosecution can show he lied. That he cheated on his girlfriend. That he stole money from his mom. It is not probative of his intent that night. It is not probative of state of mind when he pulled the trigger. Bad guy does not equal murderer.

He did administer first aid. He did have a first aid bag. Those two things are true as well. But they are also not probative of his state of mind when he pulled the trigger.

What is probative is people following him. People not simply threatening him but striking him, pointing a gun at him etc.

Welcome to law school evidence class. Some facts are true but not probative or germane. This is akin to when rapists got off because they convinced the jury the girl was a slut. Now that is no longer admissible evidence because it is irrelevant to determining whether a woman consented to sex with a rapist.

Again, it is complicated and this prosecutor is awful.

This is an understatement.
And, many of us knew the prosecutor was awful even before this trial began. The fact that he charged this person with crimes, given the evidence that has been presented is unforgivable.

He had to charge or the mob would have burned down the town.

I would expect it to burn if he gets off.

[Anonymous]

And it getting worse for Rittenhouse as his testimony is contradicting facts on the groud

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys don't get it. The prosecution can show he lied. That he cheated on his girlfriend. That he stole money from his mom. It is not probative of his intent that night. It is not probative of state of mind when he pulled the trigger. Bad guy does not equal murderer.

He did administer first aid. He did have a first aid bag. Those two things are true as well. But they are also not probative of his state of mind when he pulled the trigger.

What is probative is people following him. People not simply threatening him but striking him, pointing a gun at him etc.

Welcome to law school evidence class. Some facts are true but not probative or germane. This is akin to when rapists got off because they convinced the jury the girl was a slut. Now that is no longer admissible evidence because it is irrelevant to determining whether a woman consented to sex with a rapist.

Again, it is complicated and this prosecutor is awful.

Why is it ok for a 17 year old untrained kid to administer first aid to anyone? What a crock.

Ok Squirrel. It matters because it actually shows he had some positive intent. And you would want help from a 17 year old if that is all you could get. Don't be obtuse.

[Anonymous]

We already know the judge is biased - right from the get-go refusing to allow the people Rittenhouse shot as 'victims' and we also have this whackadoo prosecutor half the time arguing FOR Rittenhouse and setting his own witnesses up rather than prosecuting Rittenhouse. Complete sham of a trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys don't get it. The prosecution can show he lied. That he cheated on his girlfriend. That he stole money from his mom. It is not probative of his intent that night. It is not probative of state of mind when he pulled the trigger. Bad guy does not equal murderer.

He did administer first aid. He did have a first aid bag. Those two things are true as well. But they are also not probative of his state of mind when he pulled the trigger.

What is probative is people following him. People not simply threatening him but striking him, pointing a gun at him etc.

Welcome to law school evidence class. Some facts are true but not probative or germane. This is akin to when rapists got off because they convinced the jury the girl was a slut. Now that is no longer admissible evidence because it is irrelevant to determining whether a woman consented to sex with a rapist.

Again, it is complicated and this prosecutor is awful.

This is an understatement.
And, many of us knew the prosecutor was awful even before this trial began. The fact that he charged this person with crimes, given the evidence that has been presented is unforgivable.

He had to charge or the mob would have burned down the town.

I would expect it to burn if he gets off.

Probably. Sad state of affairs in this country right now and don’t think that won’t be in the juror’s heads as they deliberate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should not be trying to convict him of two counts of first degree intentional homicide and a count of attempted homicide That is a mistake. They have him on curfew, probably some form of possession of a firearm without a required license (he admitted to both of these on the stand), and can probably get reckless endangerment for being out with a gun like that during a riot.

But they want to make an example of him and put him in jail for life and the facts don't support that. Stupid.

Once you get past the terrible prosecution, think about what the facts are. They do support first degree homicide. So he was running all over the place. And? How many people brought AR 15s with them to set fire to some dumpsters? How many rioters and looters were running around with big guns like that? He intentionally brought that gun, not a concealed gun, with him. And he intentionally killed two of them and shot a third. None of that had to happen, it wasn't inevitable. He did it. Duty to retreat? Please. You're stuck in the 70s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys don't get it. The prosecution can show he lied. That he cheated on his girlfriend. That he stole money from his mom. It is not probative of his intent that night. It is not probative of state of mind when he pulled the trigger. Bad guy does not equal murderer.

He did administer first aid. He did have a first aid bag. Those two things are true as well. But they are also not probative of his state of mind when he pulled the trigger.

What is probative is people following him. People not simply threatening him but striking him, pointing a gun at him etc.

Welcome to law school evidence class. Some facts are true but not probative or germane. This is akin to when rapists got off because they convinced the jury the girl was a slut. Now that is no longer admissible evidence because it is irrelevant to determining whether a woman consented to sex with a rapist.

Again, it is complicated and this prosecutor is awful.

Why is it ok for a 17 year old untrained kid to administer first aid to anyone? What a crock.

Ok Squirrel. It matters because it actually shows he had some positive intent. And you would want help from a 17 year old if that is all you could get. Don't be obtuse.

He's a former lifeguard so probably knows basic first aid and CPR.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope cancel culture eats Rittenhouse alive if he isn’t prosecuted. Also the prosecutor sucks! How can a vigilante not be prosecuted?! Rittenhouse is pure garbage.

Yeah right, he's secured a job as Tucker Carlson's assistant or a commentator on Fox. He'll be good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We already know the judge is biased - right from the get-go refusing to allow the people Rittenhouse shot as 'victims' and we also have this whackadoo prosecutor half the time arguing FOR Rittenhouse and setting his own witnesses up rather than prosecuting Rittenhouse. Complete sham of a trial.

I know! He is completely biased.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should not be trying to convict him of two counts of first degree intentional homicide and a count of attempted homicide That is a mistake. They have him on curfew, probably some form of possession of a firearm without a required license (he admitted to both of these on the stand), and can probably get reckless endangerment for being out with a gun like that during a riot.

But they want to make an example of him and put him in jail for life and the facts don't support that. Stupid.

Once you get past the terrible prosecution, think about what the facts are. They do support first degree homicide. So he was running all over the place. And? How many people brought AR 15s with them to set fire to some dumpsters? How many rioters and looters were running around with big guns like that? He intentionally brought that gun, not a concealed gun, with him. And he intentionally killed two of them and shot a third. None of that had to happen, it wasn't inevitable. He did it. Duty to retreat? Please. You're stuck in the 70s.

Your theory of the case; your evidence supporting a conviction here, is:

“big guns like that” ??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So now the prosecution has established that KR is a liar.

How so? Explain. I haven't been following closely today.

What's the deal with this judge? He seems way biased.

I don't think he is biased but the prosecution has been very cavalier about things the judge ruled on. In several instances, the exact evidence had been briefed by the parties and the judge had ruled it was not admissible. And then the prosecutor would slip it in and the judge would react. Bringing in evidence that is inadmissible has two impacts. 1) it creates a solid basis for appealing any conviction. 2) It creates a basis for a mistrial which means the entire process starts over. Neither of those are good results. So yeah, the judge is getting testy with the Prosecutor. The judge is trying to save the trial.

As the judge has said, the prosecution has nearly "crossed the line" many times in this trial, and may have done so today with a line of questioning bringing in evidence that is not admissible.

At this point, I think the prosecution has lost the jury. The line of questioning this afternoon is all over the map. It almost seems as if their strategy at this point is to try to get Rittenhouse to slip up or lose his temper.

This trial is just pathetic. He should have never been charged. He should have never had to go to trial. This is just pathetic.

He should have been charged. He should have gone to trial in a better location than Kenosha -- they were having riots earlier. It's not a great place and it doesn't have great prosecutors.

So, because you don't approve of the prosecutors here the trial should have been moved? WTH?
Maybe they should find better prosecutors.

I wasn't speaking as a lawyer. I was noting that Kenosha seems to be pretty awful. First riots and then terrible prosecutors. As well as rioters, looters, and murderers. But no victims.

This is probably the first time the prosecutor has dealt with a well funded defense. It's a much easier job with public defenders and defendants willing to take plea deals to get out of jail

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope cancel culture eats Rittenhouse alive if he isn’t prosecuted. Also the prosecutor sucks! How can a vigilante not be prosecuted?! Rittenhouse is pure garbage.

RWNJs look out for each other.

[Anonymous]

Best outcome right now is a mistrial and then moving the venue to another city for the re-trial.

The fact that he's charged with intentional 1st degree murder but not manslaughter is just insane. WTF?

It really feels like the prosecutor's office is trying to throw the trial. Manslaughter is a much easier threshold to guilty, but the prosecution doesn't charge it? The fix is in, folks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And it getting worse for Rittenhouse as his testimony is contradicting facts on the groud

Rupar. Such a reputable "journalist" that he has his own Urban Dictionary definition. And, I use "journalist" very liberally.