Kyle Rittenhouse Legal Proceedings - Come for the trial, stay for….

What do you think will happen?

  • Guilty on all charges

    Votes: 282 8.8%
  • Full Acquittal

    Votes: 1,077 33.7%
  • Mistral

    Votes: 264 8.3%
  • Mixture of verdicts

    Votes: 479 15.0%
  • Minecraft

    Votes: 213 6.7%
  • Roblox

    Votes: 132 4.1%
  • Runescape

    Votes: 203 6.3%
  • Somehow Guilty Of Two Mutually Exclusive Actions

    Votes: 514 16.1%
  • KYLE WILL SUBMIT TO BBC

    Votes: 35 1.1%

  • Total voters
    3,199
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
So in Kyle's favour I get the strong impression that the judge is sincere in character and intelligent. And in combination with the fact that Kyle certainly was engaged in purely self-defence and against credible serious injury or death, that should lead to being found innocent.

However, the judge is also a bit weird and seems to be working out the law as he goes and in a very acadmic way. The whole thing about "if there were four children in your field of fire would you be obliged to move before shooting at your assailant". I'm not sure what the actual US law is on that but the analogy is a bad one. Firstly, the midst of a riot is not a comparable situation and secondly, Kyle had very limited ability to "choose his ground" as he was the victim and was on the ground when he was forced to fire.

I don't think the defence lawyer should necessarily be getting into the details with the judge. Well, maybe he has to but it's unfortunate in that it sets him up to be the one arguing with the judge while the prosecuting lawyer just sits it out.
 
Thank God the right wingers stuck to their principals. This is exactly why I hate the right, they're fucking pussies. They should have hid their power level until the actual trial. You think the left gave an inkling of a fuck when they put activists on the chauvin case? You're trying to box someone who's holding a knife. Absolutely fucking stupid.
TBF there were several liberals who PL'd out of there and all we need is one guy in there (who might've stayed quiet)
 
So in Kyle's favour I get the strong impression that the judge is sincere in character and intelligent. And in combination with the fact that Kyle certainly was engaged in purely self-defence and against credible serious injury or death, that should lead to being found innocent.

However, the judge is also a bit weird and seems to be working out the law as he goes and in a very acadmic way. The whole thing about "if there were four children in your field of fire would you be obliged to move before shooting at your assailant". I'm not sure what the actual US law is on that but the analogy is a bad one. Firstly, the midst of a riot is not a comparable situation and secondly, Kyle had very limited ability to "choose his ground" as he was the victim and was on the ground when he was forced to fire.

I don't think the defence lawyer should necessarily be getting into the details with the judge. Well, maybe he has to but it's unfortunate in that it sets him up to be the one arguing with the judge while the prosecuting lawyer just sits it out.
This is apparently the most senior judge in the area so he has a fair bit of confidence in his ability and control of the court. That he would be reviewing a law that he and the defense find vague and unclear is both important and very much needed. He has had a week of mulling over the issue and I doubt he is going to strike the charge of possession of the rifle at this point, I suspect has decided to kick it upstairs to appeals. I'm actually quite impressed that he managed to do the Jury selection in a single day, the Arbaury case is taking 11 days so far.
 
However, the judge is also a bit weird and seems to be working out the law as he goes and in a very acadmic way. The whole thing about "if there were four children in your field of fire would you be obliged to move before shooting at your assailant". I'm not sure what the actual US law is on that but the analogy is a bad one. Firstly, the midst of a riot is not a comparable situation and secondly, Kyle had very limited ability to "choose his ground" as he was the victim and was on the ground when he was forced to fire.

I don't think the defence lawyer should necessarily be getting into the details with the judge. Well, maybe he has to but it's unfortunate in that it sets him up to be the one arguing with the judge while the prosecuting lawyer just sits it out.
I think he made the analogy< with the children to demonstrate why a self-defense case can go saouth with the "endangerments of others". Though imho in the case of Kyle there are other circumstances like it was a fucking RIOT going on that night. This is going to bew a shit show of epic proportions. From what I see is that the defense will try to portray this as a clear cut case of self-defense which would mean Kyle walks free (at least of the murder charges). Of course he could be founds guilty of the possesion of a firearm though at least the lie that he brought if over states line was debunked months earlier.
 
Oh here we go. One sentence in and it's "an AR-15 style rifle".

And whilst I type this a second "AR-15".

We could have an AR-15 drinking came in this court case but I doubt anyone's liver could take it.

Aaaaaand as I am about to post this... "AR-15" again. I'd better post now before I get another.

EDIT: Got another "AR-15" whilst this was posting. Still counts! That's four in three minutes. And another "AR-15" whilst I was typing this edit.

EDIT EDIT: "AR-15" came again whilst this was posting.
 
If Kyle loses this case due to poor jury selection there needs to be a way to punish this lawyer for not utilizing free services that would have helped with better jury selection. I'm aware there's no method to do so but not utilizing more tools and information is bullshit.

He can appeal on the basis of poor counsel (difficult) and sue the attorneys for legal malpractice (also difficult). Other than that, not a lot of options.

What is it about that gun in particular that triggers the fuck out of people?

Years of (((programming))).
 
Prosecuting lawyer just described the guy hitting him with the edge of a skateboard as "unarmed", I think. Also trying to play down the pistol one of his assailants had as just a "gun". Honestly, if it's hand to hand a pistol is a lot better weapon than an AR-15.

Starting in on "life is more important than property".
 
Prosecuting lawyer just described the guy hitting him with the edge of a skateboard as "unarmed", I think. Also trying to play down the pistol one of his assailants had as just a "gun". Honestly, if it's hand to hand a pistol is a lot better weapon than an AR-15.

Starting in on "life is more important than property".
He mentioned Grosskreutz possessing a pistol. They need to hammer that he is a convicted felon during cross.
 
What is it about that gun in particular that triggers the fuck out of people?
It looks scary to non gun-owners despite pistols being far more used in homicides and clearly being made for shooting people rather than for hunting. But more than that, it's been bigged up by the anti-gun proponents as "nobody needs one". Also, they can pretend that AR stands for "Assault Rifle" (which it isn't unless modified) rather than Armalite which is the manufacture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back