Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha

[dowie]

Judge not happy at all with the opening questioning from the prosecutor - sends jury out and warns the prosecutor he's right on the border of a constitutional violation by bringing up defendant's right to remain silent.

 

[dowie]

Oh jeeze, the prosecutor tried to bring up the comments that weren't allowed to be submitted to evidence, the jury is sent away again... judge doesn't look happy

edit -

I guess the'yve got some angles for appeal - the potential constitutional violation + trying to bring in evidence that was specifically not allowed.

Defence says they'll file for mistrial if it happens again - judge shouting at him LOL

 

[dowie]

The judge is a bit of an ass tbh. It honestly seems that he is actively trying to disrupt the prosecutions case at every step.

Which is exactly what people were saying he was going to do before the trial even started!

Do you not understand why he was angry here? They're not just stopping the trial for fun, this sort of thing gives the defence grounds for a mistrial or potentially simply overturning everything on appeal so it's not surprising he's getting angry at the prosecution.

 

[dowie]

Are the prosecution trying to get this declared a mistrial because they've ****** up so much? Last 30 odd minutes have been nuts.

I did see some comment by one academic on Twitter that he thinks even the prosecutors don't really want this case to succeed that they're just going through it for show/politically etc...

That seems a bit wild to me but it does seem like they've overcharged and this guy really is pushing it with the judge - barely into his questioning and he's had objections leading to the jury being sent out twice and had to be admonished by the judge.

 

[dowie]

Prosecution making an excellent point right now.

LOL Jono

 

[dowie]

Keeping it vague and uninformative as usual - some point is being made which I think is good but I won't say what or why etc..

 

[dowie]

Can see where the prosecution is going with the bullet types - Kyle saying he doesn't know much, kinda indicating he's aware hollow points maybe cause more damage - prosecutor trying to emphasise or lead him onto a claim re: full metal jacket bullets passing through people vs hollow points stopping.. this is perhaps re: the reckless charge re: the journalists who was near Rosenbaum.

 

[dowie]

Same sort of comment, just declaring an opposite opinion.

No, not really - it was pretty clear what he was referring to, esepcially given I'd just commented on the same two incidents yet with your comment was about something unspecified point.

Almost like you are biased because you know exactly what i was talking about, yet took objection to me saying it was a good point

I don't though? Why not just make the argument? What was the point you were referring to and why do you think it was good?

As for obvious bias, that's very ironic coming from you especially given your previous comparisons and inability to answer when challenged on claims yesterday.

 

[dowie]

Literally the one that you and Dowie were commenting on and what the judge was berating them about.

i thought it was pretty clear what everyone was discussing but evidently not (or in Dowie's case, he is just being transparently and intentionally obtuse).

Eh? No, you're just (perhaps naively) assuming that everyone else knows what you mean when it's not always apparent at all - why not just provide clarification when asked instead of always making such a big song and dance about being asked for it. Even if you assume we know what point you were referring to (that wasn't clear) no one can mind read why you think it was a good point.

Note it wasn't apparent to the other poster either who then asked you too.

I'm not sure how deliberately breaching the judge's ruling is making a good point - especially when they're risking a mistrial or giving the defence an opening for appeal in doing so.

Surely you can see the distinction between muttering about wishing he had a gun to shoot some shoplifters while not actually having one.. venting etc.. vs actually being in the situation where he does have one. The US clearly has rules in place about the admission of such evidence which the judge referred to, there are apparently set criteria, which the judge referred to too, this doesn't seem to meet the standards for admission into evidence.

The prosecutor argued that the testimony opened up introducing it but the judge wasn't having any of that as the prosecutor still could have asked (and it was still denied) the defence also noted that when the prosecutor had opened up the possibility of introducing previously inadmissible evidence as a result of testimony they warned and/or checked first.

 

[dowie]

Oh look, you did know what i was talking about.

No, I didn't, which is why I asked. Again, I'm not a mind reader - why do you insist on making such a fuss over being asked about straightforward questions/clarification.

... and as i pointed out, i thought the prosecution made an excellent case considering one of the charges is first degree murder. I think its absurd that they aren't allowed to talk about his comments a few weeks prior where Rittenhouse looked at people ostensibly doing a similar thing to the rioters/looters and claimed that he wished he had his AR15 so he could shoot them. Two weeks later, he went and did just that. This case is all about mindsets/the use of deadly force/intentions etc. Not allowing evidence to show that Rittenhouse did at one point very soon before the event claim he wanted to shoot people carrying out crimes is silly.

The prosecution also very eloquently pointed out the double standards in terms of the defenses trumping up of the fact that Rosenbaum said he wanted to kill someone whilst not holding a rifle too.

Doesn't seem to be a very good point at all - I mean should we lock someone up if they've said they'd like to be alone in a room with Trump for just 5 mins etc.. or any other venting along those lines. You do understand that there are rules in place re: this sort of evidence?

Rather different to the defence pointing out a direct verbal threat made to an individual and then appearing to act upon it.

 

[dowie]

Your post indicates this is a lie.

What does? You're making no sense here at all?

What an absurd comparison.

You've never heard of anyone venting - or saying things out of frustration that they wouldn't actually act upon?

You're oblivious to why there might be rules in place to stop the admission of this sort of stuff in trials?

 

[dowie]

I thought putting Kyle on the stand was a bad idea but I don't think it could be going any better for the defence at this point lol.

I think the usual advice of the defendant not testifying in criminal trials gets flipped sometimes in the cases of self-defence... in this case, two of the other people are dead, the facts are mostly already known - not much new coming to the table. So what he was thinking at the time, how he perceived things, his explanation for his actions is kinda relevant to a self-defence claim.

 

[dowie]

Coming from the guy that tried to argue that chasing after a person that is armed is a logical move when you feel like your life is being threatened.

He acts like I'm a mind reader or something - literally just asking the guy a question will set him off with a load of deflection when he could just give a straight answer.

 

[dowie]

Minor point but Kyle isn't doing himself favours agreeing with the prosecutor's assertions of "need" - he could simply answer that things are useful... Like his rifle was useful, he didn't think he would be attacked but that it would be useful to have IF he was. Likewise being separated from the former infantry guy (?) prosecutor asserts Kyle felt he needed the presence of that guy when Kyle could have said now, he just felt it useful.

You know the crowd isn't friendly etc.. he could point out that some of the crowd weren't friendly. also shouting out "friendly friendly friendly" again he doesn't need to agree he knew the crowd wasn't friendly but that there was a chance etc... prosecutor is trying to claim he knew he'd get this unfriendly reaction.

Bit of a leap, he didn't know he'd get surprised by the guy with the gun + the mental guy.

 

[dowie]

Did the defence attorney just try to refer to "algorithms" as "logarithms"? Or was that just his accent?

He's complaining about apple tablets and some claim they enhance/add to the footage when using pinch to zoom.

 

[dowie]

There is no bad faith. I'm just interested to hear so many in this thread saying how stupid an idea it is to try and disarm someone who you might perceive as a threat.

No one has said that though - you're just being disingenuous... again. You've turned more specific claims into some general vague one... the sort of general vague argument you seem to love.

Chasing after someone who is fleeing/running away towards police with an assault rifle, not actively presenting a threat to anyone, as part of a mob screaming about "cranium" him etc.. seems like a very stupid idea.

 

[dowie]

Why are you assuming that everyone knew he was "fleeing/running away"?

Yet again I'm left wondering if you've watched any of the videos...

What if he was getting to a better vantage point?

A better vantage point from where exactly - do you see any hills etc..? He's running down a flat road, along the path the road is taking... towards police.

You are all just assuming that everyone there immediately thought "oh, he must have just shot that guy in self defense/by accident and now he is most certainly just being a nice old chap and running away to turn himself over to the police. Let us just let him be on his merry way".

No that isn't what I'm necessarily assuming everyone though, it's a pretty obvious conclusion and one that some might have (correctly) drawn but you're just making up quotes. I'm pointing out that he's fleeing/running in that direction... the main point being that he's running away/fleeing.

I think it indicates that a lot of you are not really thinking in depth about the possible thought process of people who find themselves in a situation such as this.

More like you're clutching at straws here.

 

[dowie]

LOL I wonder if they're going to ask about the TV and possible upscaling now?

 

[dowie]

You see once again, what you see on a video is ENTIRELY different to what someone might be thinking someone is doing in the heat of the moment in a highly stressful situation such as this.

"Yeh well the video shows him walking in that direction". So what. That isn't what i'm talking about.

Yeah, it's not sure what you're talking about - some fantasy/whataboutery re: running to a "vantage point" in the middle of a flat road?

 

[dowie]

Ive never said he was running to a vantage point. I'm talking about what people at that time may have thought he may be doing, in the panic of the moment. How do they know he isn't just moving away to potentially get more shots off at people but from a better distance to protect himself?

Yes I know you're talking about what people were thinking, you literally said that and you put forth some bizarre scenario re: them thinking he's fleeing to a vantage point... yet he's running down the middle of a road.

Of course, he's trying to get a better distance to protect himself, he's fleeing from them!

If you are not interested in discussing what everyone was possibly thinking at the time and their intentions, then that is fine. But that is pretty much the curx of this whole case.

Why is it? Tried to ask you this yesterday but you went into deflection mode and wouldn't elaborate.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, someone in that mob did believe he was fleeing to some vantage point or something then what? What does that matter to the case?

I'll remind you again that those people aren't on trial.