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.
You have to be next levels of stupid to try go towards someone pointing an AR at you and you're also trying to pull out a pistol.
Last week (wish I had timestamped it, it was insane), when Binger was questioning McGinnis (the state's witness), he actually tried to get McGinnis to agree that there are plenty of good reasons why a person might try to grab a stranger's gun. It was mind-boggling.
 
Prosecution should've pressed more on the "he racked his rifle" testimony. I can't find the other video, but the long video (starts from behind the mob, runs through Rittenhouse reaching police) shows:
- Rittenhouse shoots Skate&Die
- Grosskreutz stops advancing and puts his hands up
- Rittenhouse in sitting position
- Man walks between camera and Rittenhouse
- Grosskreutz advancing, Rittenhouse shoots him

At least in this video I think the prosecution could sow sufficient doubt that:
- Grosskreutz stopped and raised his hands
- Rittenhouse attempted to fire (impossible to definitively determine w/proper finger squeeze at that distance on that video)
- Rittenhouse "racked" rifle after failure to fire (obscured briefly by man walking through shot, tough to say definitively regardless)
- Grosskreutz advanced since at that point Rittenhouse was already trying to shoot him


I'd still consider it 100% self defense in light of everything else, but with what the prosecution has to work with at this point I think it wouldn't hurt their case to argue that Rittenhouse attempted to shoot a surrendering Grosskreutz
 
Last week (wish I had timestamped it, it was insane), when Binger was questioning McGinnis (the state's witness), he actually tried to get McGinnis to agree that there are plenty of good reasons why a person might try to grab a stranger's gun. It was mind-boggling.
The last thing you should do is try to grab someone's gun while they are aiming right at you. Unless you have superhuman-like reflexes, nobody, and I mean literally nobody, should ever try that shit.
 
Reading some of Gaiges tweetreplies make me want to gag.

gaigetweet.png
 
Prosecution should've pressed more on the "he racked his rifle" testimony. I can't find the other video, but the long video (starts from behind the mob, runs through Rittenhouse reaching police) shows:
- Rittenhouse shoots Skate&Die
- Grosskreutz stops advancing and puts his hands up
- Rittenhouse in sitting position
- Man walks between camera and Rittenhouse
- Grosskreutz advancing, Rittenhouse shoots him

At least in this video I think the prosecution could sow sufficient doubt that:
- Grosskreutz stopped and raised his hands
- Rittenhouse attempted to fire (impossible to definitively determine w/proper finger squeeze at that distance on that video)
- Rittenhouse "racked" rifle after failure to fire
- Grosskreutz advanced since at that point Rittenhouse was already trying to shoot him


I'd still consider it 100% self defense in light of everything else, but with what the prosecution has to work with at this point I think it wouldn't hurt their case to argue that Rittenhouse attempted to shoot a surrendering Grosskreutz
I suspect the prosecutor was afraid to press him too far out of the fear he would go full retard. Based on the cross, an entirely reasonable concern.
 
He's apparently accepted service of a subpoena. He's legally obligated to show up and he can be treated as a hostile witness. The jury can also infer the worst possible interpretation of anything he refuses to answer.
the thing is he doesn't have to be hostile. he has to claim that grutz didn't say it, he was lying on the fb post.
 
I suspect the prosecutor was afraid to press him too far out of the fear he would go full exceptional individual. Based on the cross, an entirely reasonable concern.
There's still a pretty good chance of that once his faggot friend takes the stand. It's very likely you'll see a situation where his friend will either have to commit perjury or throw grosstits under the bus.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back