Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha

[dowie]

I think the Jury will convict him of some of the lesser stuff the prosecution have been allowed to shove in at the last moment.

Many on the jury will be worried about the quite likely doxing and harassment they will receive if KR walks a free man

Quite plausible he could walk on all charges but the riskiest seems to be the skateboard + dropkick guy in the second shooting incident. A lesser felony is still a felony and in the US that can be quite a sentence still. I guess if he cops a lesser charge or two then they appeal and go for a mistrial, the judge didn't say too much/stopped himself but bringing up defendant's right to silence was bad... I mean what next; the defendant has hired a lawyer, must have something to hide?

The trial is very political, they've got the national guard on standby and some of the rioters were present in the courtroom.

 

[dowie]

re: the judge - pope hat is generally pretty left-wing but also a lawyer or former lawyer and happy to call out BS about the judge getting angry or being biased because he's gone off one etc.. what the prosecutors did re: trying to mention something that had been specifically objected to, for example, was unsurprisingly going to get the judge wound up:

(screen shots because of swearing)







And a public defender:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1459718973390573568

https://twitter.com/x/status/1459931140677062661

https://twitter.com/x/status/1459380939113607172

https://twitter.com/x/status/1459381001659027457

https://twitter.com/x/status/1459381020592164866

etc...

 

[dowie]

So what do we reckon? Case seems so polarising that you just need one entrenched person from either side to have a hung jury - so much reporting of it before the trial and rather dubious coverage that you could easily get a jury member who wanted Rittenhouse to go down before the trial started. Likewise, you could easily get someone with completely different rules, mega ****ed at all the damage the rioters caused and who might have pushed for not-guilty on the weapons charge too even if the law did support a guilty verdict.

Obvs they push juries to avoid it but a hung jury/mistrial seems like a strong possibility on some of the charges. (total lottery really they've still got like 18 jurors to choose from - presumably selecting 12 at random from them later today?)

Next likely IMO is perhaps acquittal on all, less likely than previously thought as they now have lesser charges to consider too. I also think the second shooting incident poses the most risk for convictions - 1st guy is ridiculous, some blurry enhanced photo as "evidence" of provocation and he's clearly a belligerent little psycho on film, the last guy was a total numpty on the stand and has footage of him pointing the gun before being shot... It's the jump kick guy and the guy with the skateboard that the prosecution have their strongest arguments for IMO.

Cheers, nice to see somebody reply without being a tit

Yeah, it's been bemusing at times to see some people simply can't just give straight answers, in some cases it seems they're just being belligerent for the sake of it, on other occasions, it's because they have a weak argument or no argument at all and so stick to vague assertions made without justification.

 

[dowie]

All I can say after skimming through both sides closing arguments is I hope I never have to be tried in front of a Jury..

From the evidence I've seen and listening to all the main witnesses, I think I'd come down in favour of it being self defence, but honestly listening to (mainly the prosecution, but the defence at times) arguments, it's just cobblers half the time.. you watch the video's and listen to the argument and wonder wtf they are smoking..

Yup, they try to twist anything they can, the video evidence is pretty clear but you only have to look at this thread to see how credulous some people can be* and if you have a good prosecutor who can tell a good convincing story during closing then there is still plenty of risk in spite of flimsy evidence.

*Like, imagine you're in a jury room and one juror makes some assertion/opinion but when asked for an explanation or argument they simply casn't provide one, it's their view, they can't explain it but they're sticking with it and they become entrenched.

 

[dowie]

Looks like the jury has asked to review the instructions re: self-defence... wonder if there are one or two Jono types on the jury, that could make things a bit difficult for them.

I agree, the argument is the exemption is around hunting and it is understood this is the intent, but the law only hints at this and doesn’t explicitly say it.

The defence made clear that they weren't arguing their point based on any hunting exemptions, they managed to avoid that -I thought they were attempting that ergo assumed it was going to be a slam dunk for the prosecution but the law is so badly drafter that 17 years old + 16+inch barrel on the rifle = legal too even if they intended for people to be 18 or over. Rittenhouse knew this and was arguing it on the stand also stating that it would have been illegal for him to have a pistol which he agreed would have been more practical as a "medic".

 

[dowie]

It was you that didn't understand the concept remember.

What didn't I understand exactly? Please do go ahead and be specific...

All I've asked you for is where you're going with one argument and what your argument is to back up assertions you made. That's got nothing to do with lack of understanding of anything else, you just repeatedly deflect/evade/avoid those sorts of challenges.

 

[dowie]

Has anyone kept up to date with it today? Just had a look now as I thought the jury was supposed to have gotten back to the Judge at 5pm and then be asked if they have a verdict or if they want to spend more time today or come back tomorrow etc... Doesn't seem to be an update yet though?

 

[dowie]

Lol they had a hot mic on and just cut the audio when they realised. The judge was doing trivial pop quiz with some jurors.I guess people in there need to be entertained somehow

Maybe they were... rural jurors?

LOL

 

[dowie]

Looks like the stream is up now - Judge just commented on the tumbler/raffle draw Rittenhouse did for the jurors - that prompted a bit of WTF??? And of course the inevitable comments on Twitter of but but if he was black he'd not be allowed to do that etc..

The judge has apparently let defendants do it for 20 years.

The jury wants more time, coming back tomorrow.

 

[dowie]

Yeah it's pretty shocking for chain of custody, I don't think there will be any real impact on this case though as the video doesn't really show anything significant.

I dunno, it's pretty key that the defence attorneys were given a low-resolution version of the video and the prosecutors had a high res version all along, not surprised they've filed for a mistrial there. That video is key to the very shaky argument the prosecution are making (based on some blurry stills) that Rittenhouse pointed his rifle at the paedo guy first and that that counted as provocation. The defence are arguing that that's bunk, thrown in some objections re: enhancement etc.. argued that he's right handed and would have had to switch to left hand etc..

But if there has been a higher resolution version in the prosecution's hands all along that the defence wasn't given and so didn't get the opportunity to review, make arguments around and given this is a key bit of evidence the prosecution are reliant on for their argument re: provocation then... FML, no wonder they're using it to file for a mistrial.

This youtuber claims to have a side by side comparison - not sure of the validity of this tho:

I guess IF the judge is considering it warrants it then he'd still rather hear the jury's verdict first.

Not read everything so apologies if this has been posted but some good updates/explanations here:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1461046753466232838

https://twitter.com/x/status/1461055738055467015

https://twitter.com/x/status/1461052240228139020

Also, the jury is taking its time, perhaps related to the number of instructions/number of charges and wanting to be thorough. Some (dubious) rumours of 2 holdouts on social media who feel intimidated etc.. but supposedly coming from a US marshal... yet this is a local (not Federal) case occurring in a county court so unless Feds are there for some special protection for jury then sounds like BS - the notion that some might be intimidated, however, seems quite plausible. Another possibility perhaps is that this is just so polarising so you might have some activist types who are adamant they want to send Rittenhouse down or some Jono types who will believe anything the prosecutors have said regardless of how plausible etc..

Could cause even more of a **** storm if there is a hung jury (mistrial without prejudice) or even a conviction on a lesser charge but then the judge declares a mistrial with prejudice (or indeed that occurs on appeal).

It seems quite likely that Kyle either walks away from this at this trial or only serves a sentence for as long as it takes for an appeal case.

 

[dowie]

As eccentric as the old boy is, I actually have respect for the Judge. He seems fair and is a good "referee" just as a judge should be. He's very much a "boomer" but I like his sense of humour. Yes this is a serious trial but it seems he's got enough experience to pull everybody back in line when required, just because you have a serious job dosn't mean you cant make the most of the situation.

Most of the commentary from lawyers is along the lines of - people objecting to the judge are just ignorant and have no idea what judges are like.

Lots of bluster online and in the media about the jurors being drawn from a hat by Kyle instead of a clerk... but this judge has done that for years, it's not a special thing for this trial and WTF does anyone think it matters - it's a random draw either way..

The victim's thing is a rule he has in his courtroom as standard, again not related to this case yet it's being used to show the judge is supposedly biased or a white supremacist yet he's had this rule in place for plenty of black defendants too.

Then some music on his phone is music tump has used in some of his rallies or something - firstly it shouldn't matter if the judge does vote Republican or support Trump, why shouldn't a Judge support one or other of the two presidential candidates? The notion that all judges should only be Biden supporters is just deranged. However, it's not like it's some music actually written for Trump nor necessarily some totally obscure piece. It's rather ridiculous as the Judge is, in fact, a democrat and was first appointed by a democrat Wisconsin governor.

It's all a cope by the same people who brought you nonsense about state lines or Rittenhouse's mum dropping him off at the riot etc..

 

[dowie]

Hm, asking for mistrial without prejudice now....

Sounds like they can't be that confident of a complete acquittal right now perhaps (or is that only if they get a guilty verdict?)

Well, they've already filed for a mistrial and the judge has delayed his decision so it becomes moot if there are acquittals on all charges, it could come into play (AFAIK) if he gets found guilty of one or more of the charges.

Unless the judge changes his mind and makes a ruling before the jury decides I guess.

 

[dowie]

Mentioned here too:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1461065884492046338

I mean LOL @ fox news having access to the high res footage but the defence team was sent the low res version... because they have an android phone and the prosecutors used airdrop??? and/or didn't realise that when e-mailing they'd compressed it or something????

 

[dowie]

I can see it being grounds for a mistrial if evidence has been withheld from the defence but do we really want a mistrial without prejudice?

They probably don't when there is a reasonable possibility that he gets not guilty on all charges but... IF he's found guilty of some of the charges then sure.

I'm not sure what happens if he's found not guilty on some and guilty on others and then a mistrial occurs - does double jeopardy apply to some of those or are all the charges still open for a new trial?

 

[dowie]

Some of their earlier behaviour was pretty dirty though - right to silence + excluded evidence (and got a rather angry response by the judge) - IIRC the defence did file for a mistrial with prejudice in relation to that.

 

[dowie]

You see him running away and bring chased and caught. After that is conjecture other then the physical evidence. But running away is hard to argue with in terms of self defense.

Yup, the prosecution argument relies on some very weak claim of provocation based on some blurry footage/stills etc.. (with some enhancement etc..) to claim that those bunch of pixes show him pointing a rifle first.

IF the jury are following the instructions then how can they really conclude anything beyond reasonable doubt re: the provocation claim? And IF they can't do that then the argument against self-defence is blown, he clearly retreated and the attack was unprovoked.

Of course, as can be seen on both twitter and in this thread people will have all sorts of bad takes on stuff like this despite lacking the ability to articulate a supporting argument for them or explain their reasoning etc... one or two jurors like that, digging their heels in and refusing to reason their way through their position and you have the mistrial.

Mistrials are rare, we don't really know what is going on in the jury room, they might simply be making sure to be very thorough. The safety issues/worries about threats might have caused things to drag out too either through them taking everything really slowly, not wanting to be seen to come back too soon or through some people being holdouts as a result of being scared of the resulting fallout.

 

[dowie]

The difficulty with the first killing is that he does stop running even though he still can continue.

He is running...until he is not and then turns and shoots Rosenbaum 4 times, killing him before he even lays a hand on him (and possibly not even his weapon - that isn't proven).

That's pretty dubious and was demolished during the trial - Rosenbaum catches up with him, after not stopping when he turned and pointed the rifle at him mid chase, Kyle reaches the parked cars and there is a mob the other side.

The key argument seems to be the claim of some initial provocation before the chase, if they don't have that then it's absolutely clear cut. This notion you have that he wasn't at risk of serious injury or death is just nonsense.

Funny how the only people shot on that night were shot by Rittenhouse. I haven’t been following the trial too closely

Unsurprising given the inane observation. Anything to add re: state lines etc.. perhaps?

 

[dowie]

Actually yes, he crossed state lines when he had no reason to do so. It could almost be suggested that he was looking for someone to shoot. Happy?

What do you mean he had no reason to do so? Why are state lines relevant vs someone else traveling a similar distance within the same state?

There was clearly ample room for Kyle to keep running in various directions.

That's just not true and the defence showed it.

Rosenbaum only catches up to him because Kyle chose to stop, turn and kill him, and even then Rosenbaum was still a decent way away from him (he had to lunge/leap to even come close to touching the barrel of Kyle's weapon, IF he even touched it at all)

Kyle didn't choose to kill him, Kyle had little option when he caught up and leaped forwards...

Also, nothing is clear cut when it comes to whether the force he used was reasonable. There is absolutely a good argument to be made for why deadly force was not necessarily reasonable in this situation.

Make it then... what's the argument?

You often make assertions then have nothing to back them up with. He'd already tried pointing a weapon at Rosenbaum mid-chase and that didn't stop him he had seconds to react, the guy had grabbed his rifle what is the argument for shooting not being reasonable in that situation?

 

[dowie]

There is absolutely a good argument to be made for why deadly force was not necessarily reasonable in this situation.

Make it then... what's the argument?

You often make assertions then have nothing to back them up with. He'd already tried pointing a weapon at Rosenbaum mid-chase and that didn't stop him he had seconds to react, the guy had grabbed his rifle what is the argument for shooting not being reasonable in that situation?

Then sure, enough, into deflection mode we go:

Also, what are you on about with no making arguments/backing anything up?[...].

IF there is absolutely a good argument to make there then just make it, you repeatedly make assertions about this case then when questioned you avoid/deflect etc.. as you've just done yet again.

So what, you run for a bit and then just give up and immediately resort to deadly force? That isn't reasonable in my opinion.

Why isn't it reasonable though? You're just making an assertion again without an argument. From Kyle's POV the guy has threatened to kill him, has caught up with him, pointing the rifle at him didn't work, he's and lunged/grabbed the gun... what should he have done instead? Why is it not reasonable to shoot at that point?

 

[dowie]

I'm not avoiding or deflecting anything.

You literally are though, yet again I get a reply with no clarification, you just deflect to being vauge... this time it's a general agreement with the prosecution.

You also seem to have this presumption that you are 100% correct and that YOU are a reasonable person.

No, I'm not presuming that I'm 100% correct, I'm open to change, however, yes I believe my current views are correct if I didn't believe that then why would I hold them? I don't think it's reasonable to repeatedly make assertions you are unable to back up or make arguments in support of... if when asked why you believe something or why you're making an assertion your response is to just deflect/avoid then you don't really have a very good position.