Kyle Rittenhouse trial set for early November .

[Metal god]

Looks like it's getting ready to start

Robert Barnes officially involved in the case , Right now leading public relations only and I think something to do with handling his defense fund . Reason he's only doing public relations right now is that he has a large public/online presence and if he's an official lawyer for Kyle it would restrict what he can say in public and the prosecution has been giving press releases that can influence potential jurors . Barnes has been countering those arguments in the court of public opinion . Later he will be involved in jury selection .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXJSa33VCN0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6frU...kp6WK8g_ZqCCYU

Recent Court hearing with self defense expert . Looks to me the prosecution is going to push the idea that if Kyle never had the firearm none of the events of that evening would have happened . So if they can show he illegally possessed the firearm that night , it was that in it self that started the dominos to fall .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CI9ZizuxPM

Evidentiary hearing .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTUYywzEK64

I've been looking forward to this trial and I believe it will be televised or streamed .

[Metal god]

Evidentiary hearing added to OP .

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Metal God

Recent Court hiring with self defense expert . Looks to me the prosecution is going to push the idea that if Kyle never had the firearm none of the events of that evening would have happened . So if they can show he illegally possessed the firearm that night , it was that in it self that started the dominos to fall .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CI9ZizuxPM

The New York subway shooter wasn't carrying legally, but all they managed to convict him of was carrying a firearm illegally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_N...ubway_shooting

If the guy with the skateboard hadn't had a skateboard, maybe he wouldn't have gotten shot. If the guy who pointed a gun at Rittenhouse hadn't had a gun, maybe he wouldn't have gotten shot.

I don't see that argument going very far. "Could'a, would'a, should'a."

[Metal god]

Yeah it seemed the prosecutor was leading the questions in a similar manner that anti-gun activist also argue . That simply having a firearm in itself causes or escalates violence therefore it’s logical that if nobody had Firarms there would be no violence .

[stinkeypete]

Living in Wisconsin, we get a lot of news that might not go nationally. The young man continues to make some bad decisions. I would not want to be his lawyer.
That said, I am for letting the jury hear the evidence and will abide by their decision. It's not a spectator sport, in my opinion.

[Aguila Blanca]

So, another Zimmerman?

[Metal god]

Living in Wisconsin, we get a lot of news that might not go nationally. The young man continues to make some bad decisions. I would not want to be his lawyer.

So, another Zimmerman?

Interesting .....

Seems Barnes was on to something . I've seen a few of his video's stating the prosecution has been trying to bring in evidence or motions that they knew were not going to be aloud in . His theory is that the state is trying to influence the jury pool . As I understand it very little to none of those things have been aloud in and yet it's all over the news in that area . This is the very reason Barnes is doing the PR part of this case right now .

One of the things I'm hearing and was brought up in court and denied was a motion to allow Kyles "affiliation" with the proud boy's in . Turns out there is literally no evidence of any affiliation with that group until 4+ months "after" the night of the shooting . As far as anyone can tell it's actually the proud boys trying to ride the coat tails of Kyle rather then him trying to be a part of there organization . The real issue is his original defense team did not help him in navigating through these types of leaches that will try to exploit him and his situation for there own gain .

He now has what will likely turn out to be a dream team behind him instead of the "CRACKIN" lawyer him self . There has been an up hill battle to overcome his poor early representation for sure but it does seem they are on the right track now .

Things the state wants in as evidence , evidence to what is unclear

Kyle used stimulus money to buy the firearm

Donor list of all that have contributed to his defense found

Pictures of him with leaches trying to get a photo op .

[Lima Oscar 7]

The use of a firearm in self defense should only take place when all other options are off the table. Even when legally justified, you may be held liable in civil proceedings. All options were not off the table. The young man should have not been there in the first place much less with a firearm. I don’t see this working out well for him.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Lima Oscar 7

The use of a firearm in self defense should only take place when all other options are off the table.

Where is that stated in law? The usual standard for the use of lethal force in self-defense is when you are in fear of loss of your life OR of severe bodily harm [injury].

Even when legally justified, you may be held liable in civil proceedings.

We are discussing the criminal case, not a potential civil lawsuit.

All options were not off the table.

What other options were still on the table? He tried running away and multiple assailants were chasing him down. When he shot the last two he was on the ground, being attacked by multiple, armed assailants.

The young man should have not been there in the first place much less with a firearm.

Why not? Was there a law that said he had no right to be there? Obviously, in retrospect it was unwise for him to have been there but was it illegal?

[44 AMP]

The young man should have not been there in the first place much less with a firearm.

Probably not, but that's not our judgement to make. And, it may not be the jury's judgement to make.

What a person should, or ought to have done is an opinion the law usually doesn't take into account, what the law is, (and should be) concerned with is what the person actually did, and if that violated any laws.

For one example, if someone starts a fight, and then escalates to a gun because they're getting their ass kicked, generally speaking, that person cannot use self defense as a valid reason for using the gun.

The opposite is just that, opposite. A person who is attacked (didn't start the fight) can be justified using a gun to defend themselves, providing other factors support it as well.

[Sharkbite]

Aguila beat me to it…

The first assailant tried to take his gun from him. As a former LEO, i can tell you, attempting to wrestle my gun from me will be considered a deadly attack and would be met with that level of response.

The guy that tried to hit him in the head with a skateboard…same thing.

As for him just being there. Im of the mind he was in a place that it was legal for him to be…smart? Maybe not, but legal

[HiBC]

My personal approach is to such a situation is far different than KR's was.
I don't go near such an event.But I believe KR has every right to choose differently than I do.
Would I,or would you,have been one of the Patriots who was at the bridge at Concord? Or Selma?
Those who made History were often "Fighting in the wrong place,at the wrong time,for a lost cause...and the sand was always blowing in their eyes..."

The use of a firearm in self defense should only take place when all other options are off the table. Even when legally justified, you may be held liable in civil proceedings. All options were not off the table. The young man should have not been there in the first place much less with a firearm. I don’t see this working out well for him.

Who gave you the authority to say he should not have been there? Why would his right to be there be any less than any other Citizen?. Please,make your case.
Why should he not have been armed? Seems like there were dangerous people there who assaulted him with deadly weapons ,pursued him,and qute likely would have killed or seriously injured him.
Can you prove to me he would be safe and uninjured had he been unarmed?
My Constitution,yours,and KR's says he has a protected Right to be armed.

Why are you not enraged by the masked people in black,carrying backpacks full of weapons and destructive devices? Who become a pack of violent wild hyenas if a Senior Citizen is walking to his car with a MAGA hat on? To beat him down and stomp his head? I wish that Old Man had a Glock on him.
Do you think a shop owner should not be armed,guarding his livelihood against looters and arsonists?

I reacall,in my lifetime,National Guard troops being deployed with orders to shoot looters.
In my concealed carry class,I was taught an arsonist in the act (a person with a lit molotov cocktail,for examplle) was open season. Check local ordinaces,and with your lawyer....don't take my word for it.Its fair to say lighting the fire endangers lives.

I'm 69 yrs old.some punk bashes me in the head with a skateboard,he is a mortal threat to my life. I cannot shoot him for revenge,but I darn sure can make certain he does not hit me again.

Why are these violent mobs of thugs so coddled by the media?
Because too many "academic" teachers and professors are proud of the activists they created..Some teachers prefer creating activists to creating students who can read and do algebra.
And some irresponsible politicians encourage mob violence.
Some parents know it is THEIR son or daughter burning police cars and throwing bricks at cops.

Lima Oscar 7, I agree,this may not go well for him. But any penalty may be a miscarriage of justice.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Sharkbite

The first assailant tried to take his gun from him. As a former LEO, i can tell you, attempting to wrestle my gun from me will be considered a deadly attack and would be met with that level of response.

The guy that tried to hit him in the head with a skateboard…same thing.

And the third guy was pointing a gun at him.

[Metal god]

Not sure how many watched that Evidentiary hearing but the judge brought up the fact that KR "did not have an option to call 911" , well he could have but because of the general lawlessness of the night it would not have done any good . It's the very reason he was there actually , the nights proceeding had violent protest and vandalism to include setting of fires .

In situations like that it's actually expected that the citizenry will step up and fill the void that LEO leave behind . It may very well be the whole point of militia's . KR was seen in several videos that night tending to injured people or helping others in numerous ways to include getting a fire extinguisher from down the street to help put out a fire at the very car lot he was there to protect .

It seems to me in a lawless state or situation KR did what appears to be what many if not most would not . That is put him self in harms way to help others when the law enforcement could not be counted on . It's sad that even people on "our" side of the firearms debate still can't help but to drink the cool-aid the anti's have been serving for so long .

To deaminize this kid for doing what most would not really does say a lot about the state of this country . I know I'd likely not have went and helped as Kyle did . Not because I didn't want to but for fear of what could happen in that type of situation . Thank god there are still a few brave Americans left in this country that are willing to step up when the government steps down .

[langenc]

Never heard of him. l'le on the jury.

[Lima Oscar 7]

Mr. Rittenhouse could have easily avoided the venue he was in altogether. He chose to be there. The entire situation was a manure show and bad things happen in manure shows. I see both sides of the argument and I see where it is none of my business. Again, he chose to involve himself in a chaotic situation and now he will pay the consequences. All of my formal firearms training has focused on how to avoid lethal force. You are truly guilty until proven innocent when you use a firearm in defense of your life and your loved ones. I carry every day. I am carrying now but it is not a subject I take lightly. The sad reality is you can do everything right and be in the right but still be prosecuted in some jurisdictions. I wish the best for Kyle Rittenhouse. Learn from his predicament.

[44 AMP]

You are truly guilty until proven innocent when you use a firearm in defense of your life and your loved ones.

Unless you just chose your words poorly your training has been deficient. NO one is found "innocent" when using a firearm for self defense. They are found "guilty" of performing the act (indeed, one must admit to that in order to use self defense as a defense in court), and then the court recognizes that you are "justified" in your use of deadly force. Or not, as the case may be.

Its a legal quirk, but in law, words matter more than in our casual conversations. Essentially what it boils down to is that you admit you shot someone (which is always a crime) and then, the court rules if you were justified in doing so, or not. If justified, there is no legal conviction of the "crime" and no legal punishment is attached. If you aren't found justified, then you are convicted of the crime and you do the time.

Whether or not is was a smart thing for him to be where he was, when he was, whether he should have been there is not relevant. He was there, and what happened, happened.

I expect the prosecution to paint him as "looking for trouble" in order to convince the jury his actions were criminal, and not justifiable. That's the prosecutors job, and some get very...expansive with what they say when seeking a conviction.

ALWAYS remember that the ONLY people under oath in a courtroom are the ones sworn in giving testimony. The Prosecutor is NOT under oath, and is not legally bound to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
And neither is the defense council, nor even the judge.

[Metal god]

If the guy with the skateboard hadn't had a skateboard, maybe he wouldn't have gotten shot.

In one of the links above the prosecution tried to insinuate there is a proper way to hold a skate board as a weapon and the skate board guy was not holding it in that manner . Sure there "might" be best ways to use a skate board as a weapon but to think if held a certain way it no longer can be an effective weapon or not cause great bodily harm is not an argument I would buy .

[oldbadger]

Originally Posted by Lima Oscar 7

Mr. Rittenhouse could have easily avoided the venue he was in altogether. He chose to be there. The entire situation was a manure show and bad things happen in manure shows. I see both sides of the argument and I see where it is none of my business. Again, he chose to involve himself in a chaotic situation and now he will pay the consequences. All of my formal firearms training has focused on how to avoid lethal force. You are truly guilty until proven innocent when you use a firearm in defense of your life and your loved ones. I carry every day. I am carrying now but it is not a subject I take lightly. The sad reality is you can do everything right and be in the right but still be prosecuted in some jurisdictions. I wish the best for Kyle Rittenhouse. Learn from his predicament.

Do you ever go out of the house without choosing to do so? I agree that the whole situation is a manure show, but even going to a convenience store in some areas might be the same, but we choose to go buy some soda. My understanding is that he went to help and, in fact, did so in some situations. He apparently wisely chose to go armed as you do (you said that you do) or things might have gone differently for him. People make choices...not all are smart, but he should not be killed or harmed because of a legal choice. He is not guilty of a crime in this setting until proven so by a jury. I would not have gone either unless I chose to go to help those who I know might be injured. You are right....in some situations he could still be in trouble civilly....and there are solutions that might mitigate that risk. What will happen to you should you have to defend yourself with deadly force if you venture out of the house?

[Double Naught Spy]

Mr. Rittenhouse could have easily avoided the venue he was in altogether.

Yes, lots of things could be avoid, but that doesn't mean they have to be avoided.

He chose to be there.

Which was in no way illegal or immoral.

Again, he chose to involve himself in a chaotic situation and now he will pay the consequences.

Maybe. Maybe not. How sad that a citizen took it upon himself to protect other citizens from harm, huh?

All of my formal firearms training has focused on how to avoid lethal force.

This really isn't about you.

You are truly guilty until proven innocent when you use a firearm in defense of your life and your loved ones.

He did kill 2 people. I am not sure how the local law reads per se, but quite likely killing another person is consider illegal, though there are exceptions to the law that allow for self defense. The trial gets to determine that.

I carry every day. I am carrying now but it is not a subject I take lightly.

Again, this isn't about you.

The sad reality is you can do everything right and be in the right but still be prosecuted in some jurisdictions.

That is called 'due process' and is part of the law.

I wish the best for Kyle Rittenhouse.

It doesn't sound like it.

[Lima Oscar 7]

Quote:

“ Mr. Rittenhouse could have easily avoided the venue he was in altogether. “

Yes, lots of things could be avoid, but that doesn't mean they have to be avoided.

You are absolutely correct and the consequences thereof may not be avoided either as Mr. Rittenhouse is discovering now.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Lima Oscar 7

Quote:

“ Mr. Rittenhouse could have easily avoided the venue he was in altogether. “

Yes, lots of things could be avoid, but that doesn't mean they have to be avoided.

You are absolutely correct and the consequences thereof may not be avoided either as Mr. Rittenhouse is discovering now.

Unfortunately, the tragedy and the travesty in this is that Kyle Rittenhouse didn't go there that night with the intention of being part of the problem, he went there with the intention of being part of the solution. As has been pointed out, prior to the first attack on him he helped several people, administered first aid, and wasn't being a threat to anyone.

The fact that he was attacked -- violently -- and has now been arrested and charged for defending himself is further proof of the old adage, "No good deed shall go unpunished."

[JohnKSa]

You are absolutely correct and the consequences thereof may not be avoided either as Mr. Rittenhouse is discovering now.

There's no question that actions have consequences.

The problem comes when it's stated or implied that because unwise decisions led to an situation, that actions taken in that situation by the person who made those decisions are therefore illegal, or likely to be illegal.

If a person walks home alone through a crime-ridden neighborhood late at night and is victimized and ends up killing the attacker, the fact that the initial decision was unwise and the consequences were perhaps predictable, doesn't have any bearing on the legality of the attacker's death. The legality of that death will be determined based on the specific circumstances of the actual interaction between the person and the attacker.

The fact that the person chose to do something stupid that resulted in an interaction that could have been avoided by making a different decision is irrelevant unless the specific interaction was instigated by the person. For example, if someone intentionally begins a confrontation with another person (as opposed to just being somewhere it wasn't smart to be) then that fact could possibly be relevant. It won't insure that the person starting the confrontation is in the wrong regardless of how things play out, but it could be a factor.

In fact, a person can even be breaking a law (sort of the ultimate unwise decision) and still have the legal right to self-defense, depending on the circumstances.

The use of a firearm in self defense should only take place when all other options are off the table.

Incorrect. The law does not require a person to exhaust all other options before resorting to deadly force. It only requires a person to exhaust all other REASONABLE options.

All options were not off the table. The young man should have not been there in the first place much less with a firearm.

These two statements do not go together.

The fact that he should or shouldn't have been there and perhaps shouldn't have possessed the firearm doesn't automatically mean he had other reasonable options available to him once he was actually in the situation.

You can't keep going back and back and back until you find a step that the person could have avoided and say that by taking that step they now bear the responsibility for everything that happens thereafter. This would be like saying that if you have a wreck, it's automatically your fault for deciding to go to the grocery store--because if you had stayed home the wreck wouldn't have happened. Or like saying that because a driver cut someone else off in traffic, they are guilty of homicide for the death of a passenger who was shot by another driver in the resulting road rage incident.

I'm a huge fan of avoidance as a valid self-defense strategy. It's way simpler and cheaper and safer than shooting it out. If I had been Kyle, I wouldn't have gone to the riots. If I had been Kyle's parents I wouldn't have allowed him to go to the riots. If I had been a friend, I would have advised him not to go to the riots.

But I absolutely do not agree with the implication that by going, he gave up the right to self-defense. That is simply not correct.

[44 AMP]

How far back do you play the "blame game"??

because the same limited logic applies no matter how far back you care to go.


If he hadn't been born it wouldn't have happened...
if his parents hadn't been born....and so on back to the beginning, all equally true and all equally MEANINGLESS.

[Double Naught Spy]

You are absolutely correct and the consequences thereof may not be avoided either as Mr. Rittenhouse is discovering now.

Yes, due process can be an ordeal, but it is part of the process set forth by law. Strangely, a lot of people don't go through it after using lethal force to help another or to protect themselves. As such, not all consequences will involve the court system.

Everything involves risk and will have some sort of consequences, but not all consequences are bad or negative.

You could argue that literally hundreds (if not thousands) of people made very poor decisions in volunteering for the Twin Towers rescue effort, coming in from all over the country to help, not to mention all those there occupationally. All of the volunteers could have easily avoided the situation, right? "The entire situation was a manure show and bad things happen in manure shows." Now, hundreds of volunteers are suffering the ill effects in various forms of having been exposed to quite a few toxic elements that made up the Twin Towers. They chose to be there...and now there are consequences.

If we, as society, stop helping out our fellow members of society during crises, then what is the point of having a society? Sometimes, the immediacy of need outweighs the concern for possible future negative consequences.