Kyle Rittenhouse makes bail

[Moped]

I think he gets off the murder charges (I'd honestly vote to aquitt), but he was still underage and should have not had that rifle to begin with and that charge I don't think he gets off of.

[Defender]

9 minutes ago, Moped said:

I think he gets off the murder charges (I'd honestly vote to aquitt), but he was still underage and should have not had that rifle to begin with and that charge I don't think he gets off of.

The judge in the case admitted that Wisconsin law is "unclear' on that, and is reserving judgment until he can further review the statutes.

[WillyK]

2 hours ago, Defender said:

The judge in the case admitted that Wisconsin law is "unclear' on that, and is reserving judgment until he can further review the statutes.

Kinda off topic but there probably shouldn't be a law so unclear that a judge isn't even sure what it means. 

[Chucktshoes]

26 minutes ago, WillyK said:

Kinda off topic but there probably shouldn't be a law so unclear that a judge isn't even sure what it means. 

There shouldn’t be any laws so unclear the average person isn’t sure what it means. 
 

If we can write technical manuals for the military to service aircraft at a 6th grade reading level, we can write laws at that level as well. 

[Omega]

25 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

There shouldn’t be any laws so unclear the average person isn’t sure what it means. 
 

If we can write technical manuals for the military to service aircraft at a 6th grade reading level, we can write laws at that level as well. 

I think it is done on purpose, if laws were easy to read, lawyers and judges would be less needed.  Besides, laws are sometimes written by politicians (or special interest groups) with little to no concept of law.

[Chucktshoes]

16 minutes ago, Omega said:

I think it is done on purpose, if laws were easy to read, lawyers and judges would be less needed.  Besides, laws are sometimes written by politicians (or special interest groups) with little to no concept of law.

It’s absolutely on purpose.  

[Defender]

1 hour ago, Chucktshoes said:

There shouldn’t be any laws so unclear the average person isn’t sure what it means. 
 

If we can write technical manuals for the military to service aircraft at a 6th grade reading level, we can write laws at that level as well. 

We can, but we can't make the judicial system use them correctly.

[Defender]

Apparently the prosecution's star witnesses aren't quite what they expected.  Just saw this: 

https://tennesseestar.com/?s=rittenhouse

 

Antifa Agitator Admits He Advanced on Rittenhouse and Pointed His Gun at Him Before He was Shot

November 9, 2021 Admin

The antifa agitator who was shot in the arm by Kyle Rittenhouse admitted on Monday that he was shot only after he had advanced on the teen and pointed his gun at him. Gaige Grosskreutz took the stand on the fifth day of the Rittenhouse trial, hoping to strengthen the prosecution’s case against the teen. Instead, one of the prosecuting attorneys was seen literally face-palming during his cross-examination.

Defense attorney Corey Chirafisi also forced Grosskreutz to admit that he’s “affiliated” with the violent Peoples Revolution, a Milwaukee-based communist militia group; that his gun permit had expired; that he had lied to the police shortly after the shooting; and that he has $10 million staked on Rittenhouse being found guilty.

Grosskreutz testified earlier that after hearing the initial gunshots, he had only followed Rittenhouse because he believed he was an active shooter. He also said that even though he was armed with a handgun, he did not intend to shoot Rittenhouse.

Edited November 9, 2021 by Defender

[deerslayer]

Hmmmmm, active shooters typically shoot at crowds of people instead of running away from them.  I bet the defense began salivating when they heard this guy was going to testify.  What was the prosecution thinking?

[E4 No More]

"He also said that even though he was armed with a handgun, he did not intend to shoot Rittenhouse."

If a stranger was pointing a gun at me under these circumstances I wouldn't care to try to decipher what his intentions were. He'd be dead meat. There would also be a small "YES!" if I later found out he was a commie.

[Defender]

4 hours ago, E4 No More said:

"He also said that even though he was armed with a handgun, he did not intend to shoot Rittenhouse."

If a stranger was pointing a gun at me under these circumstances I wouldn't care to try to decipher what his intentions were. He'd be dead meat. There would also be a small "YES!" if I later found out he was a commie.

That's how most LEO involved shootings happen.  One thing that really amused me in the report above, was this comment."one of the prosecuting attorneys was seen literally face-palming during his cross-examination."

Edited November 10, 2021 by Defender

[Alleycat72]

The only thing he did wrong was pull that last shot a little to the left. 

[E4 No More]

19 minutes ago, Defender said:

That's how most :EO involved shootings happen.  One thing that really amused me in the report above, was this comment."one of the prosecuting attorneys was seen literally face-palming during his cross-examination."

Yeah, that was funny to watch. A real "DOH!" moment.

[Defender]

I just saw a video of one witness testifying for the defense who was initially a state witness u til they tried to get him to wrongly change his police statement. To reflect something he did not know at the time he wrote it. That’s so wrong and, to me, one of the things wrong with our justice system these days.  Prosecutors want a win, not justice.  They form an opinion based on their politics, then try to figure a way to win, not seek out justice.

[OLDNEWBIE]

Rittenhouse isn't explaining himself very well. I / we all understand deadly force and why, how and when you shoot but the jury may not.

 

[Erik88]

I don't understand why they put him on the stand. That's pretty rare and usually only when the defense is desperate. This case is winnable without him on the stand.

[OLDNEWBIE]

38 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

I don't understand why they put him on the stand. That's pretty rare and usually only when the defense is desperate. This case is winnable without him on the stand.

For sure, he even has a sympathetic Judge but his answers to the prosecution's lame questions...

The kid is a bit goofy, pretend EMT etc. and put himself in a bad situation. Could play bad with Jury even though shootings were  justified.  Won't watch more except  highlights. Wife doesn't like me yelling at the TV.

[No_0ne]

Without having watched any of the coverage, or being privy to his lawyer's strategy or thoughts, my inclination is that I wouldn't have put the kid on the stand.  He's always struck me as being a bit "off", doesn't come across as overly intelligent or able to think on his feet very fast, so there's no way I would have allowed him to testify, especially in what's likely to be the first of several trials (if he's not initially acquitted).  It would be interesting to hear his lawyer's reasoning for this ...

[Garufa]

Rittenhouse is young, stupid, and impressionable.  To be expected for his age.

I’ll not prognosticate on the outcome of the trial but I’d be surprised if he didn’t get nailed for a weapons charge to the extent allowable. 

[Miltech]

I thought he did well, came off believable (to me). A jury may see differerntly of course. There is no doubt in my mind it was a valid case of self defense. An older wiser person likely would not have put himself in that position.  He had as much right to be there as anyone else.

I doubt that any adult would have presented himself better in either  the confrontation or on the stand. 

[Omega]

All evidence so far supports the defense, even a layman can discern that.  While I also feel he should not have testified, many legal talking heads seem to think it was necessary to prove his claim of self defense.  As I stated, every video shows just cause for the use of deadly force, even the remaining criminal POS says he was worried about Kyles safety, a lie I am sure, but none-the-less he testified to that.

[Jeb48]

I heard some of the grilling by the prosecutor trying to get Rittenhouse to admit to using explosive hollow point rounds and Rittenhouse telling him they were not explosive and did he mean expanding and the prosecutor saying no explosive. It went on for awhile could have almost been a comedy act with the prosecutor being the joke. 

[FrankD]

13 hours ago, Jeb48 said:

I heard some of the grilling by the prosecutor trying to get Rittenhouse to admit to using explosive hollow point rounds and Rittenhouse telling him they were not explosive and did he mean expanding and the prosecutor saying no explosive. It went on for awhile could have almost been a comedy act with the prosecutor being the joke. 

watching him get grilled on the stand was painful, I don't think many people are prepared/capable of not getting grilled by professionals and them trying to cross your words and thoughts for hours at a time.   I know at 18 I definitely was not.  Regardless of the outcome, definitely opened my eyes to what could occur if one was to ever be in a real self defense situation.

[tacops]

Juries are unpredictable.  This DA is a soup sandwich.  Rittenhouse comes off as a touch of wannabe with good intentions and a boyish face.  All of which could be well received if there is a mom or two on the jury.  For the most part he answered well and avoided most of the trap questions, almost too well to the point of looking rehearsed.  He got a little rattled on some pressure questions when he could have scored big and made the DA look even worse.  This is expected though for his age and circumstance.  It is not often that I root for the defense but this is one of those occasions.  I was surprised how well he handled the situation that night.  "If you have a case, argue the case.  If you have no case, just argue."  This usually applies to the defense but it seems to be the DA's approach on this one. 

[QuackerSmacker]

22 hours ago, Garufa said:

Rittenhouse is young, stupid, and impressionable.  To be expected for his age.

I’ll not prognosticate on the outcome of the trial but I’d be surprised if he didn’t get nailed for a weapons charge to the extent allowable. 

Guess I would fine tune that to the notion that the most probable outcome is guilty on the weapons charge, but with a suspended sentence.  But the prosecution has been so sloppy and arrogant that the jury may just toss the whole thing.  If this was a bench trial it would have been over a couple days ago with not guilty on all counts.