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

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.

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.
That would be a reach.

Remember a curfew had been declared and the police were telling everyone to go back to their homes.

You cannot argue the people had a right to be there in light of a curfew. As their presence was illegal the state loses their civil rights violation argument.

Aka:
Their is no civil right to be in public when a curfew is in effect.
That and the three people he shot were whiter than he is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Creep3r
I can’t decide whether the prosecution is intentionally making the case the way they are to prevent another riot by making it obvious rittenhouse shot in self defense or they’re really this exceptional and think their case was sufficient to win. Maybe they aren’t used to having reputable and neutral witnesses come out for the defendant and can’t figure out how to deal with it. I’m curious if rittenhouse will call some sheriffs deputies in to counteract the city cops. The Kenosha Sheriff is based af. “Some people aren’t worth saving.” 57F26B0E-D83B-419E-93EF-B77649CE19C5.jpeg
 
In burgerland, a conviction requires a unanimous decision of 12 jurors using the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. In your scenario, if the poor MAGA schmuck was found at the scene but none of his prints or DNA were found on the murder weapon or whatever, that's reasonable doubt. That should be an acquittal.
Under such circumstance, a judge may also issue a directed verdict or a verdict notwithstanding judgment, to prevent a jury from issuing a guilty verdict that is objectively unreasonable.
If anything, I'd say the problem with activist juries goes the other way, towards letting obviously guilty defendants go for some racial agenda.
Case in point: Don King, who got away with killing someone in two separate cases.
 
I can’t decide whether the prosecution is intentionally making the case the way they are to prevent another riot by making it obvious rittenhouse shot in self defense or they’re really this exceptional and think their case was sufficient to win. Maybe they aren’t used to having reputable and neutral witnesses come out for the defendant and can’t figure out how to deal with it. I’m curious if rittenhouse will call some sheriffs deputies in to counteract the city cops. The Kenosha Sheriff is based af. “Some people aren’t worth saving.”View attachment 2692488
I think they're definitely gunning for him to be guilty. The DA is politically motivated as fuck, and I'm willing to bet that Binger thought he could make his career and become DA one day out of this.
 
The answer is ALWAYS a yes when you are dealing with a high profile case. There is literally no reason not to.
The only reason I could see is that if sequestering were to be expected, you'd end up with more people trying to get out of it due to the added inconvenience.
Thus increasing the likelihood of getting people who really want to be on that particular jury, as seen with the Chauvin case.

But yes, I'd agree that they should've sequestered them in this case.
 
Kyle has a legetimate (20% I'd say) chance at a directed verdict. I think the judge will go with the theory that if rosenbalm was justified then the other two almost had to be, so the real question is going to be about rosenbalm.
I'm pretty sure every charge save Minor in Possession pivots on whether or not Rosenbaum was self-defense. If Rittenhouse doesn't kill Rosenbaum, none of the other events occur. No McGinnis in the line of fire, no pursuit, no Jump Kick Man, no Huber, no Grosskreutz. All the defense has to do is successfully paint that as self-defense, and it knocks out all of the major charges at once. Conversely, if the prosecution can disprove self-defense, then their claims of concerned citizens shot as they tried to subdue an active shooter all have a chance to stand.

And I think both sets of lawyers are assuming this. Binger's fight to disallow from the record anything that may paint Rosenbaum as mentally unstable, violent, or with a criminal history has been to preserve the story that Rittenhouse stalked and murdered him. At several points, he has acted like Rosenbaum is more his client than the people of Kenosha County are, because if Rosenbaum was in fact a violent psychopath who was shot after chasing and cornering a kid with a rifle, then every other shot Rittenhouse fired was justified too.
 
Under such circumstance, a judge may also issue a directed verdict or a verdict notwithstanding judgment, to prevent a jury from issuing a guilty verdict that is objectively unreasonable.
If anything, I'd say the problem with activist juries goes the other way, towards letting obviously guilty defendants go for some racial agenda.
Case in point: Don King, who got away with killing someone in two separate cases.
Which goes towards the idea of "better that 99 guilty men walk than 1 innocent man be convicted." And also because the requirement for a unanimous decision. I'd rather have our current system instead of one where innocent people are written off as collateral damage.
 
I'm pretty sure every charge save Minor in Possession pivots on whether or not Rosenbaum was self-defense. If Rittenhouse doesn't kill Rosenbaum, none of the other events occur. No McGinnis in the line of fire, no pursuit, no Jump Kick Man, no Huber, no Grosskreutz. All the defense has to do is successfully paint that as self-defense, and it knocks out all of the major charges at once. Conversely, if the prosecution can disprove self-defense, then their claims of concerned citizens shot as they tried to subdue an active shooter all have a chance to stand.

And I think both sets of lawyers are assuming this. Binger's fight to disallow from the record anything that may paint Rosenbaum as mentally unstable, violent, or with a criminal history has been to preserve the story that Rittenhouse stalked and murdered him. At several points, he has acted like Rosenbaum is more his client than the people of Kenosha County are, because if Rosenbaum was in fact a violent psychopath who was shot after chasing and cornering a kid with a rifle, then every other shot Rittenhouse fired was justified too.
Isn't there some legal stipulation where breaking a lesser law is excused due to the circumstances?

Castle Doctrine aside, this would be like if Kyle were in someone else's house, an intruder broke in and attacked him, but he grabbed a rifle on the wall (that didn't belong to him) and shot him.

Yes, he wasn't legally allowed to have access to that gun, but under the circumstances, it was necessary. It would be like charging someone with reckless driving because they had to swerve to avoid an accident.
 
I can’t decide whether the prosecution is intentionally making the case the way they are to prevent another riot by making it obvious rittenhouse shot in self defense or they’re really this exceptional and think their case was sufficient to win. Maybe they aren’t used to having reputable and neutral witnesses come out for the defendant and can’t figure out how to deal with it. I’m curious if rittenhouse will call some sheriffs deputies in to counteract the city cops. The Kenosha Sheriff is based af. “Some people aren’t worth saving.”View attachment 2692488
It's what happens when you have no case but the local political machine is demanding a prosecution to save face. There's no underwater 4D chess going on here. There are lots of dirty cops and prosecutors that are willing to railroad innocent people in order to save or advance their careers.
 
Who do you folks think will have the most salty take if/when Kyle gets acquitted on most or all charges? Who you looking forward to going nuts? The Young Turks are freaking out already. I imagine black media will also go crazy as will CNN and MSNBC.
Jennifer Rubin, Max Boot, David Frum, Shannon Watts, and David Hogg.
 
Jennifer Rubin, Max Boot, David Frum, Shannon Watts, and David Hogg.
You can bank on the entirety of Rose Twitter flipping their shit so hard that some of them might even catch charges themselves. These mongs were openly trying to terrorize defense witnesses during the Chauvin trial, I can't imagine how assmad these fuckers will be if Rittenhouse walks for actually killing a few of their comrades in self defense.
 
You can bank on the entirety of Rose Twitter flipping their shit so hard that some of them might even catch charges themselves. These mongs were openly trying to terrorize defense witnesses during the Chauvin trial, I can't imagine how assmad these fuckers will be if Rittenhouse walks for actually killing a few of their comrades in self defense.
And if Kyle loses, they'll consider it open season on the chuds. So they're gonna flip shit, rain or shine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back