The US self defense by bearing arms is normalized in the US but very much abnormal most everywhere else.
Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
The US self defense by bearing arms is normalized in the US but very much abnormal most everywhere else.
Interesting, thanks for your comments.
I do wonder, aside from getting his perspective/justification re: self-defence if part of the reason the defence opted to get Kyle on the stand is because they might be angling for a sympathetic local jury - like his story might resonate - his dad lives there, he works as a lifeguard at the local pool, lots of his family live there, he was out cleaning up the town etc.. big emphasis on him trying to stop fires etc...
It seemed already that the prosecution case re: two of the shooting incidents (1st and 3rd) was already rather shakey but I don't see how they could get him out of the weapons charge and also the incident where he shot a second person also seems to be the riskier one. Maybe they're hoping plenty of the jurors are thinking along your lines and will see this as a kid who was angry at the destruction of the town etc.. If it's a small town like that then chance they might know of someone or know someone who knows someone whose business was destroyed etc..
Is the defence hoping they get some sort of jury nullification on the weapon's charge - if they're really sympathetic they might go not guilty on all charges.
Otherwise, I can't see how he escapes the weapons charge save for some convoluted 2nd amendment argument or some legal loophole we're not privy to yet + the second incident still seems risky with the skateboard.
The endangerment and weapons charges seem unlikely he will get out of, the other charges are looking good for the defendant atm...
I agree... He did well on the stand and the jury would be one of his peers ie from that area that may not have wanted the city to burn but they are still obliged to uphold the law.
... The argument about state lines is brought up many times. How he travelled across state lines with a gun to... I think the defendant is from antioch IL and he went to kenosha and worked in the area which is relatively close.
During the BLM protests there were many people that actually traveled from far away ie california to wisconsin to 'participate' in the protests and or looting/burning. Was it suggested 40% weren't even from the area~ might of been a statistic just thrown around.
It was hard being here in the UK and seeing/hearing about the town you grew up in going to hell. This 'thing' got turned very political, from the city's lack of use of force, to the waiting days to call in the national guard (but luckily they did else it would have been much worse), to having trump and Biden use it for political gain or try too.
Too much division going on there atm...
Last edited:
I can't see how he gets off of the possession of a weapon under the age of 18, it is a misdemeanor charge so maybe the jury will go with a suspended sentence or community service if they find for self defence with the 3 other major ones.
As for Rittenhouse himself and taking the stand, I thought he did well under the circumstances. The defence though, wow, felt to me as if they left him out there to cope with all sorts of shenanigans from the prosecution. As for the prosecution, started off badly - video games.. honestly??! - and went downhill. How many times do you see a judge admonish council like he did yesterday. Crazy. Felt to me as if the times the prosecution were making some valid points they then undid that by either rambling on and boring the jury thus nullifying whatever point they had made or just straight up making a completely stupid comparison straight after. I think they were skirting the line of being truthful and outright dishonest at times.
Closing arguments should be interesting
BTW where is the best place to watch this, I've only seen the highlights.
The time between the first and last shooting is about a minute. In every case he only fired while being attacked. You're dissecting this as if each incident was slow and calculated. It's impossible to change the narrative like when it as mostly caught on video and theres physical evidence of powder burns on at least one of those who were shot.
Proving he was there with intent, or illegally carrying, will be tough since the laws are vague and open to interpretation. They need to tighten up these laws but that won't help this case. He shouldn't have been there and it could inflame a situation having such a weapon. But that's our interpretation, the US opinions around open carry are very different to ours.
They need to do something to dissuade others from doing the same. But that's very much a political minefield with the gun lobby in the US.
Afaik this state requires an absence of reasonable doubt to secure convictions. That's going to difficult to get.
Definitely took some tough lines of attack and neutralised them without falling into the intended trap like this bit for example:
"And whoever has got that gun is a threat to everyone else"
https://youtu.be/68YzstX1ZP8?t=21423
Not really sure what the prosecution is up to - several of the lines of questioning while irrelevant and highly speculative if answered wrong would paint Rittenhouse in a bad light but at the same time have a high chance of throwing the whole trial through making it impossible for a just outcome.
Soldato
He didn't travel across state lines with a gun, he got the gun in Kenosha from a friend
There's usually a direct live feed from the likes of cspan, I've been catching it via various YouTube lawyers I follow. The only drawback with that is that occasionally they'll be talking over whatever question is asked.
Totally agree, which is why the defence was doing a terrible job during his testimony. They didn't step in and challenge some of the more bizarre lines of questioning and often it was left up to the judge to put a stop to some of the more pointless stuff.
I can only assume they don't think they've got a case and instead hoping to trip him up into incriminating himself for something.
The judge stepped in but didn't really put a stop to a lot of it.
Some of the objectional questioning was actually helping the defenses case which is probably why they didn't stop it.
This judge crucifying the prosecution over the 5th amendment makes me admire the USA's superior protections. Our awful system allows inferences to be made about a defendant's silence which has resulted in wrongful convictions.
This judge crucifying the prosecution over the 5th amendment makes me admire the USA's superior protections. Our awful system allows inferences to be made about a defendant's silence which has resulted in wrongful convictions.
Soldato
This case feels like an Ace Attorney case with the level of holes in the prosecution's case/evidence.
The holes are intentional. The trial is a circus for the consumption of the masses and they will consume it.
Ya was watching it and you can tell the prosecutor wanted and asked in a hundred different ways 'you wanted and tried to kill them' over and over... Kyle didn't bite.
Oh I thought I remember hearing that. Sounds strange but I assume the prosecution would know if rittenhouse owned a gun.
Soldato
No good doing that when the judge has already set things out.
Also. It makes it look like they are hiding something.
Last edited:
Soldato