Kyle Rittenhouse trial set for early November .

[JohnKSa]

A couple of comments relating to a number of deleted/edited posts:

1. The trial is about legality, about determining guilt based on evidence. People don't get convicted or acquitted based on whether what they did was smart or stupid or admirable or deplorable but because what they did was either illegal or legal.

2. Posts containing only a link without any commentary are driveby posts and are against TFL rules.

[Double Naught Spy]

Chasing down and attacking a Man who is carrying an AR-15 is pretty flipping reckless.

That's exactly what Stephen Wileford did in response to the Sutherland Springs shooting. Was he reckless?

The discussion of "reckless" seems to have devolved from a legal use of it to a debate of the colloquial use of it and I don't think you can reach a consensus as neither of you will have a definitionally superior argument in colloquial language.

Yeah, both can be said to be "reckless" in that they put their own lives in jeopardy without really taking that into account to accomplish their tasks. That could also be called bravery or stupidity, depending on how you want to frame it. That Wileford was in a tactically superior position does not negate him intentionally going in and acting in a dangerous situation without thought or care for what may happen to himself. Nowhere does he ever state while shooting that he had any concern at all for what was behind Kelley when he was shooting at Kelley. Reckless? From a colloquial definition, maybe so.
https://portall.zp.ua/video/exclusiv...URpuu0KQ8.html

It should also be pointed out that when Wileford engaged Kelley, he did not see Kelley with an AR15, only a pistol. Kelley did not shoot at Wileford with an AR15, only a pistol.

Getting more to the point of colloquial "reckless" discussion, anybody out during rioting and protests could be said to be acting in a reckless manner. Engaging other people out during said events could be said to be reckless behavior from simply the standpoint of not using good judgment.

Lot's of "reckless" (non legal definition) things were going on in both situations, but those aren't really legal issues which is the point of the trial.

[Mainah]

Lot's of "reckless" (non legal definition) things were going on in both situations, but those aren't really legal issues which is the point of the trial.

Good point. There can be a broad spectrum of reckless behavior in a riot.

After taking a deeper dive into the case I'm struck by the profiles of the men that Rittenhouse shot. None of them look like guys who endured police profiling, and they were part of a crowd who were destroying businesses of some people who probably did.

I've been critical of Rittenhouse for traveling to a riot that didn't directly impact his security. But that's also true of the guys that he shot.

[Double Naught Spy]

After taking a deeper dive into the case I'm struck by the profiles of the men that Rittenhouse shot. None of them look like guys who endured police profiling, and they were part of a crowd who were destroying businesses of some people who probably did.

Has this been proven?

I've been critical of Rittenhouse for traveling to a riot that didn't directly impact his security.

Rittenhouse didn't travel to a riot. Lots of people plan in advance to travel to protests, some of which turn into riots. Lots of people plan in advance to travel to celebrations (e.g., sports) that turn into riots. I don't know of people who plan in advance to travel to riots unless they are planning the riot.

Rittenhouse didn't travel to a riot. He traveling to a protest.

But that's also true of the guys that he shot.

Not exactly. Anthony Huber traveled a whopping 20 miles from Silver Lake to Kenosha.

Joseph Rosenbaum was a resident of Kenosha since 2019 https://conandaily.com/2020/09/02/jo...y%2030,%202020.

Gage Grosskreutz was of West Allis, and traveled roughly 40 miles.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ms/5654579002/


That the events "didn't directly impact" their security is questionable. The Kenosha protests were not against just the Kenosha PD, but against the police in general for real and perceived use of excessive force all over the country. Kenosha is/was not an isolated event, but part of numerous events as part of civil rights protests.

[Metal god]

Rittenhouse didn't travel to a riot. He traveling to a protest.

That's bull he knew exactly what he was going to . You don't bring an AR and med kit to a protest . Stop splitting hairs we are not the jury , we can take into account things they do not know . We are just talking here this is not a court room .

Speaking of the court room . I was watching some lawyers saying the defense should have let Hubers Aunt talk as much about what a life saving great kid he was instead of objecting right away . The theory was instead of a debate with the jury out of the room about Hubers past . It would have been let in for sure because of what the aunt was about to say .

That's a big risk right ?? Maybe the aunt says he was a great peaceful boy and the defense still doesn't get in those past allegations . So was that a mistake by the defense or good strategy to not allow the aunt to say anything on that ?

[stagpanther]

So was that a mistake by the defense of good strategy to not allow the aunt to say anything on that ?

That's not how I saw that exchange. It started as a lead-in by Binger characterizing Huber as "innocent", which defense objected to as prejudicing without evidence--and therefore opened the door to cross-examination by defense to Huber's past. A bit of a stretch IMO--but nonetheless a valid play and the judge asked Binger (or the other guy, forget his name) if he still wanted to stick with that and I think he decided to drop it knowing it could open up a potential Pandora's box of cross-examination of his past. The judge made a similar decision against defense when they pressed hard to characterize the nature of Rosenbaum's hospital visit as a mental hospital and the types of prescription medications he had been using. Despite the rather strange and inconsistent ruling by the judge in the beginning about "victim" being banned from being used by prosecution (while allowing rioter and looter to be used by defense), surprisingly I haven't seen anything notable ruled by the judge so far that I thought was unfair or clearly "slanted" in favor of one side or the other.

[ghbucky]

I've become convinced that Binger is intentionally throwing this case.

You’ll recall that all evidence of Rosenbaum’s psychiatric issues, including his that-day release from the mental ward of the local hospital, had been excluded from the trial by Judge Schroeder, primarily on the grounds that Kyle lacked personal knowledge of those matters at the moment he defended himself against Rosenbaum’s attack. Had Kyle known, the information would have been relevant to his own state of mind, but he did not.

Suddenly, however, ADA Kraus asked Ms. Swart if Rosenbaum had taken his medication that day.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/1...r-the-defense/

Why in the world would the ADA introduce into the record a question on Rosenbaum's medicated state if it wasn't to then allow the defense to probe into what medicines were in use?

The judge responded to the defense's request for the ability to cross examine on this topic, but the judge decided to let Ms Swart's knowledge of the topic be the guide, and ... she knew his medications and why he took them (bipolar disorder, depression and possibly sleeping problems). Something the State would HAVE to have known in advance, right?

So, defense got to question her knowledge and make note of what drugs he was on.

The defense has an opportunity now to paint KR as an innocent victim of a man with bipolar disorder under the effects of psychiatric medication and can presumably call in an expert witness to discuss the side effects of gabapentin (one of which is increased hostility per webMD).

[44 AMP]

Despite the rather strange and inconsistent ruling by the judge in the beginning about "victim" being banned from being used by prosecution (while allowing rioter and looter to be used by defense),...

One thing I keep wondering about is why people keep bringing up the "talking point" used in the mainstream media about the judge allowing the use of "rioter" and "looter" exactly the same way the media said it, which is, WITHOUT including the rest of the judge's instructions about the use of the words "rioter" and "looter" which were, essentially, that those words could be used IF those actions could be proven.

"Victim" may not be used, UNTIL there is a verdict that a crime has been committed, I get that, easily. What I don't get is people ignoring the same judge's instruction that rioter and looter could only be used if those actions could be proven, as if he never gave them.

And then, arguing about how unfair it is to let the defense use those words.

The media originally reported exactly what the judge said, in full detail. Then a "legal scholar" or two stated how unfair the ruling was because of the defense being allowed to use rioter and looter and ignored the rest of the judge's instructions about those words in their "opinion" which they presented to the media, which of course has since repeated only the opinion of those "experts".

I consider this a "lie of omission" They know the truth, but are only telling the part of it that supports their agenda, omitting the part that doesn't.
What bugs me is people on the pro gun side of the issue repeating this when they should know better.

[Metal god]

I've become convinced that Binger is intentionally throwing this case.

I as well .

My new theory is that Binger is hoping the defense files for dismissal ( or what ever it's called ) do to the prosecution failing to make there case beyond a reasonable doubt . This can be asked after the state rest or at the end of the defenses case .

Binger is hoping the judge throws it out ( or what ever it's called ) and Binger can sit on the steps of the court house blaming the judge for why a killer has walked free .

[stagpanther]

Funny--I think Binger is doing an excellent job and it's the defense that is a bit lackluster considering the seriousness of the charges, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a mistrial or effort for dismissal based on some extraordinary irregularity considering how politically-fraught this trial is. At the end of the day I think the jury has to be unanimous to convict of the felony murder charges, and I think all that has to happen is place even a seed of doubt that the young white kid was afraid and they will not unanimously convict, at least of the more serious charges. I predict he'll do a little slap-in-wrist time but otherwise will evade homicide charges.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Stag Panther

... the young white kid was afraid ...

Is race an issue?

Originally Posted by Metal god

That's bull he knew exactly what he was going to . You don't bring an AR and med kit to a protest.

The defendant demonstrates why you should.

This happened over a summer in which many "mostly peaceful protests" would have benefitted from med kits and fire extinguishers, and the the capacity to defend oneself.

[stagpanther]

Of course race is an issue--it's why all the protestors were there to begin with.

I find the med kit thing a bit bogus--after plugging Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse circles back and doesn't do a frigging thing to attempt to assist in first aid--and when asked to call 911 he instead calls his buddy and basically says (paraphrasing) hey baby, I tagged one! and then runs off.

[mehavey]

For those who have survived a a close-combat gunfight, you already know the immediate psychological/physiological aftermath.

For those who haven't... please look it up.

[stagpanther]

I've been in the middle of an fluid urban gang firefight and even shot at, so I have at least a passing notion of what it's like. 1) unless you're stupid, you run for cover; 2) often nobody really knows, even the police, what is going on when masses of people are moving around and it's virtually impossible to know whether it's a good guy or bad guy that is discharging a weapon unless previous knowledge about the person(s) bearing the weapons is known. I've also been "swatted" when someone made a bogus phone call to the police and claimed that I had threatened to kill them. I ended up looking straight down the bore of a 40 S&W held mere inches away from my forehead, I could actually see the hollow point bullet and the finger on the trigger nervously twitch as I thought for sure my head was about to decorate the side of my house. We all like firearms for varying reasons--but once you enter the realm of potentially using them on other people you are in very serious territory.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by stagpanther

Of course race is an issue--it's why all the protestors were there to begin with.

That doesn't make it an issue in any of the shootings.

Since all three people shot and the defendant seem to be of the same race, the defendant's race shouldn't be an issue.

I find the med kit thing a bit bogus--after plugging Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse circles back and doesn't do a frigging thing to attempt to assist in first aid...

Given that KR appears to have offered people assistance before shooting Rosenbaum and that in a moment he would be fleeing that very crowd, failing to step into a hostile crowd to attempt first aid on a fellow he just shot doesn't make his carrying a medical kit "bogus". It could just be a reasonable (if late to develop) sense of self-preservation.

[stagpanther]

Given that KR appears to have offered people assistance before shooting Rosenbaum and that in a moment he would be fleeing that very crowd, failing to step into a hostile crowd to attempt first aid on a fellow he just shot doesn't make his carrying a medical kit "bogus". It could just be a reasonable (if late to develop) sense of self-preservation.

And that's why there's a trial--two sides of the same equation, though I still find KR's lying about his qualifications and employment status--no doubt about it, he lied prior to any action--makes his pretensions dubious.

That doesn't make it an issue in any of the shootings.

Maybe, maybe not. It is known that KR has an affinity for militia groups with known white supremacy views--both before and after the Kenosha event.

[Double Naught Spy]

I find the med kit thing a bit bogus--after plugging Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse circles back and doesn't do a frigging thing to attempt to assist in first aid...

Would you try to administer first aid at a location in the open where people are trying to harm you? I think not.

[mehavey]

I've been in the middle of an fluid urban gang firefight and even
shot at, so I have at least a passing notion of what it's like.

I'm afraid that's not quite the same as being actually in a gunfight for your life.

"Very Close Source" experience after a shotgun engagement inside a room in
Falujah during the Surge in which his soldier survived ....

". . . he left the room, walked out the front door, and started throwing up...."

[ghbucky]

It is known that KR has an affinity for militia groups with known white supremacy views--both before and after the Kenosha event.

source?

So, we are now saying that a white kid shooting white people means the white kid is a white supremacist?

[WeedWacker]

Re: kyle and militia groups.
Panther is referencing a picture of Kyle with proud boys. IIRC it's a similar situation to the BRCC issue. It's a guilt by association situation which requires people to jump to conclusions and assume they know things to be true that likely are not.

[Metal god]

It is known that KR has an affinity for militia groups with known white supremacy views--both before and after the Kenosha event.

This is 100% inaccurate based on pretrial motions . The prosecution could not establish any ties to any extremist groups prier to the shooting . This is why you don't see any of that in the trial . I'd also agree that since all that are involved are white-ish there would be very little relevance either way .

It wouldn't be to different if a person robbed a straight couple on the street and the judge allowing evidence in showing how the robber hates gay people .

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by stagpanther

Maybe, maybe not. It is known that KR has an affinity for militia groups with known white supremacy views--both before and after the Kenosha event.

Even if that were true, what does that have to do with whether he validly employed deadly force in self-defense?

[ghbucky]

Even if that were true, what does that have to do with whether he validly employed deadly force in self-defense?

1000% this. Someone may hold opinions a lot of people don't agree with. That has absolutely no bearing on their right to self defense.

[Metal god]

Well it appears that the prosecution finally figured out how to prep a witness . Gaige is testifying like LEO does . Turning and talking directly to the jury .

[44 AMP]

My understanding it that various "militia" groups sought Kyle out during the time between the shooting and the trial. Kyle suddenly had a lot of "new friends" and naturally posed with them for pictures. I doubt he considered how those pictures might be used by people who weren't his new friends. though I think his lawyers should have.

As to what he did, or failed to do right after the shooting relating to his intentions before the shooting, that crap will only fly with people who've never been in a life and death situation, or been properly trained about what happens after one. And it doesn't have to be a gunfight.

Forget what people say about what a "reasonable person" or a "person with good intentions" would do. Right after (and for a few minutes after) the event, NO ONE is a "reasonable person". Not the first time, anyway. The body is full of the fight or flight hormones, most notably, adrenalin. and your "normal" thought process IS affected by it.

Everyone has a reaction. How much and what kind is going to be as varied as the person and the circumstances together create. Some people shake. Some might vomit. some just kind of wander about a bit confused about some things. NO ONE is in "their right mind" at that point in time. Prosecutors/defense lawyers will try to convince a jury of people (who are presumably in their right minds) that a person in that situations should do "x" and not doing it means something about their intent but that's BS. That's their opinion, and one not supported by medical fact. If you've ever been in a really dangerous situation, do YOU remember exactly what you did or didn't do, and why, immediately after the crisis moment passed? Or for the next few minutes?? Few do. After a car accident I was in. (and more than just a fender bender) I didn't realize that while talking to by boss on the phone afterwards (telling them I wasn't going to be at work, and why) that I was standing in the middle of the road doing it, until someone one led me to the side of the road...I was perfectly lucid and aware, about talking to work, and totally unaware I was standing in the middle of the road with my wrecked car on the shoulder. EVERYONE has a different level of reaction.

As to rendering medical aid to someone I just shot?? I'm not doing that. Nor am I legally required to. If that make me a cold heartless uncaring SOB, then that's what I am.