Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha

Caracus2k said:
A prosecution case so weak and inept they resorted to questioning the defendant about playing online shooting video games!

Kyle also clearly didn't try to kill 'everyone', just the people who attacked him..

Click to expand...

One of the guys he shot at and survived even testified that Kyle only shot at him after he had pointed his gun at Kyle. The case is pretty open and shut but reading around there are some other charges that he will likely be fined for like breaking curfew etc, but murder? Lols prosecution are fishing for a route in but failing.
 
Freddie1980 said:
The prosecutor is so cocksure of himself even when he's getting blasted by the judge for being scummy, talk about making yourself look unlikeable.
Click to expand...
There is a lot of speculation by my American colleagues that because he is losing he is trying to force a mistrial so the prosecution gets a second shot at Rittenhouse. Problem is, the Judge is on to him and could force a mistrial due to prosecutorial misconduct which would mean no re-trial. It's a *very* fine line he is treading and there are already numerous reasons for appeal lined up should Rittenhouse be found guilty.
 
Energize said:
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.
Click to expand...

The UK system is better.

Inferences can only be drawn if a defendant raises something during the trial that they could reasonably of mentioned beforehand.

If people are innocent and can provide information to demonstrate this they should be telling the cops and not raising things at court that can't be properly be tested months or years after the incident in question.

As the caution says in England and Wales:

"you don't have to say anything, but it may harm you defence if you don't mention when questioned something which you later rely on at court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence"
Click to expand...

If complaints suddenly injected "new" information (that they could have reasonably of provided beforehand) mid trial a judge would have to deal with that by directing the jury. There's no good reason that defendants can't be treated to the same standard
 
I wouldn't be so sure he'll get the self defence verdicts needed myself, the US judicial system is pretty ****** at the best of times but with high profile cases it can be straight up plain weird going all the way back to OJ.
 
mrk said:
One of the guys he shot at and survived even testified that Kyle only shot at him after he had pointed his gun at Kyle. The case is pretty open and shut but reading around there are some other charges that he will likely be fined for like breaking curfew etc, but murder? Lols prosecution are fishing for a route in but failing.
Click to expand...

The 1st degree intentional homicide charge is stupid. Not sure why they even went for that considering they have no evidence for it AND the only possible bit of evidence showing a sniff of premeditation, hasn't been allowed anyway.

The reckless homicide and reckless endangerment are more realistic for some of the instances

For the reckless endangerment charge, they have a reasonable argument and reasonable evidence(I suspect part of this was the prosecutions questioning yesterday re the ammunition used)
 
Caracus2k said:
The UK system is better.

Inferences can only be drawn if a defendant raises something during the trial that they could reasonably of mentioned beforehand.

If people are innocent and can provide information to demonstrate this they should be telling the cops and not raising things at court that can't be properly be tested months or years after the incident in question.
Click to expand...

No that's definitely a worse system and people have been wrongly convicted in the UK and later had their convictions overturned because of it.

People should absolutely not be under an obligation to talk to the cops because any information given no matter how true can be wrongly contradicted by another person and then used against the defendant to imply they are lying.

the Supreme Court has “emphasized that one of the Fifth Amendment’s basic functions is to protect innocent men [and women] who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.” Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17, 21 (2001)
Click to expand...

Explained fantastically by this law professor.

 
Last edited:
Looks to me like the angry mob were asking for it.

Kyle was shot at, then fired 4 shots killing Rosenbaum, a scum bag who may also be a sex offender
Kyle was then chased by the angry armed mob, fired a shot in self defence but missed. He then shot Anthony Huber, someone who has a load of charges. Huber dies.

Gaige was then shot, another guy who had a gun pointed at Kyle
 
Last edited:
Guest2 said:
Looks to me like the angry mob were asking for it.

Kyle was shot at, then fired 4 shots killing Rosenbaum, a scum bag who may also be a sex offender
Kyle was then chased by the angry armed mob, fired a shot in self defence but missed. He then shot Anthony Huber, someone who has a load of charges. Huber dies.

Gaige then shot another guy who had a gun pointed at him.
Click to expand...
Good job we got Kyle around to hand out that justice! Amen brother.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom