Kyle Rittenhouse makes bail

[Chucktshoes]

1 hour ago, QuackerSmacker said:

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.

With regards to that weapons statute, even if he ends up convicted on that one, the groundwork was laid at the start of the trial for it to be tossed as void for vagueness.

[midtennchip]

On 11/10/2021 at 5:38 PM, No_0ne said:

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 ...

I have avoided posting about this case, but now that the case is almost over (closing arguments start tomorrow), I thought I would share some thoughts:

1.  Rittenhouse testifying -- in the vast majority of self-defense cases, there is no choice.  The defendant has to say he was in fear for his life.  The Defendant is the ONLY person who can say what was in his own mind.  Yes, the overwhelming amount of evidence here points to self-defense and this case has video evidence and witnesses that most self-defense cases will never have.  Nevertheless, only Rittenhouse can say he was in fear.  So, I suspect the defense attorneys felt they had to follow the normal course.  Now, with that said, the attorneys may have had Rittenhouse testify about too many issues.  On cross-examination, the prosecution generally is only allowed to cross-examine on the issues Rittenhouse testified to on direct examination.  Had Rittenhouse just gotten up there and said "I was in fear" and then ended the direct examination, he might have avoided some uncomfortable cross-exam questions.  That said, with the publicity and scrutiny on this case, I think the attorneys wanted to get a lot of details in that only Rittenhouse could testify to.  While we would love to believe that juries follow the judge's instructions and only look at the evidence that was actually presented at trial, they DON'T.  Juries always have questions in their own minds they want answered.  If the attorneys don't anticipate those questions and put the answers into evidence, the juries WILL fill in the blanks with their own thoughts.  I've seen it happen too many times and I've talked to too many jurors who say they do it.  So, I am sure the attorneys felt the need to have Rittenhouse answer those questions.  Normally in a criminal case, you do worry about the defendant testifying, but as I can tell, Rittenhouse didn't have any skeletons in the closet other than some really bad decisions.

 

2.  General Thoughts -- this case should be a wake-up call to anyone who even thinks about using a gun in self defense.  The current political climate is making even clear-cut self-defense cases hard.  What I see as problematic in this case is that Rittenhouse inserted himself into a volatile situation.  Should he have even been there?  Whether you agree with Rittenhouse's decision or not, you have to know that some jurors will see those decisions as contributing to the situation.  As we say in the legal profession, "bad facts make bad law" and this may be a classic example.  Had Rittenhouse been in his own home and defended the home in the same manner (i.e., going outside, engaging the protestors, etc.), I think this situation would have been totally different.  But he purposefully put himself into a situation where (i) he felt the need to have a gun to defend himself and/or property and (ii) he knew (or should have known) that violence was already occurring in that location.  Therefore, it should have been foreseeable that force might be used at some point.  Like it or not, there are jurors everywhere who will hold that against him. 

In short, be very careful about the situations you get into.  Do everything you can to avoid HAVING to use a gun.  Circumstances change in an instant, often with no ability to control it. 

[Grayfox54]

I hate to say it, but I think the poor kid is toast. MSM and every liberal with a keyboard convicted him within hours of the shooting. This trail is just for show. 

His only chance is for a hung jury and the prosecutor deciding not to retry. 

As for me, I believe the kid is only guilty of poor judgement for going there in the first place. 

Edited November 12, 2021 by Grayfox54

[midtennchip]

6 minutes ago, Grayfox54 said:

I hate to say it, but I think the poor kid is toast. MSM and every liberal with a keyboard convicted him within hours of the shooting. This trail is just for show. 

His only chance is for a huge jury and the prosecutor deciding not to retry. 

As for me, I believe the kid is only guilty of poor judgement for going there in the first place. 

I fear the same thing.  We've already seen one high-profile conviction that wasn't supported by the evidence, and I fear the political pressure will have a significant effect on this jury.  The pressure clearly appears to have infected (yes, I spelled that right ) the prosecution.  The DAs have gone way beyond zealously doing their jobs. 

[midtennchip]

On another note (for those interested), this trial has been very interesting for us lawyers.  Our profession is going the same way as the general public.  Way too much emotion and hysteria taking over everything.  Watching the DAs and the Judge going at it is comical, but unfortunately, not surprising.  We are seeing more and more of these types of tense exchanges between attorneys and between attorneys and judges.  Unfortunately, a sign of the times and appears to only be getting worse by the day.

[No_0ne]

Interesting observations, and many good points made Chip.  For those of you who don't know, Chip is a real, live, blood-sucking vam-  errr. lawyer ...

[Hozzie]

Not that we may not already be doomed as a country, but if there is not at least 1 person on that jury that has the sense to see this for what it is, we are worse off than I thought.

 

[peejman]

11 hours ago, midtennchip said:

Juries always have questions in their own minds they want answered.  If the attorneys don't anticipate those questions and put the answers into evidence, the juries WILL fill in the blanks with their own thoughts.  I've seen it happen too many times and I've talked to too many jurors who say they do it.  So, I am sure the attorneys felt the need to have Rittenhouse answer those questions.

General question for you....   Is there any feedback loop for questions a jury (or juror) has?  Can they tell the judge or attorneys that a topic hasn't been addressed to their satisfaction and request more information?

[OLDNEWBIE]

Watched a highlight or two from yesterday.

Anyone notice yesterday the bearded witness on video evidence  was grinning  quite openly when the prosecution was fumbling over exploding/expanding bullets?

He was a Veteran I believe and no one else in the Jury was when the Judge asked. Hopefully they at least  have some basic knowledge of firearms so as to decipher all the anti-gun misinformation being spewed.  Misinformation designed to paint kid as a ruthless killer out for maximum damage.

 

Edited November 12, 2021 by OLDNEWBIE
Spelling

[hipower]

12 hours ago, No_0ne said:

Interesting observations, and many good points made Chip.  For those of you who don't know, Chip is a real, live, blood-sucking vam-  errr. lawyer ...

Hey...give him a break! My oldest friend, best man at my wedding, and general pain in the butt...was a shyster of a personal injury sort...and a pure, dyed in the wool, flaming liberal dem! 

But a nice guy and I miss him.

[Alleycat72]

2 hours ago, peejman said:

General question for you....   Is there any feedback loop for questions a jury (or juror) has?  Can they tell the judge or attorneys that a topic hasn't been addressed to their satisfaction and request more information?

On the ones I was on, the answers were very limited to what was in the trial. No new information only clarification for the judges instructions. I've only been in court about 12 times and only one was a murder trial so....

[AuEagle]

[Sleep profit]

2 hours ago, AuEagle said:

 

[E4 No More]

The trial is showing to many that it will end in an acquittal. So what does the mainstream media do? They are now attacking the judge.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/11/us/kenosha-judge-bruce-schroeder-asian-food-comments/index.html

https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-wisconsin-kenosha-homicide-0f514cc4c04762bf42cccb5f2473b76c

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/04/1052485234/a-look-at-bruce-schroeder-the-judge-in-the-kyle-rittenhouse-trial

[midtennchip]

5 hours ago, Alleycat72 said:

On the ones I was on, the answers were very limited to what was in the trial. No new information only clarification for the judges instructions. I've only been in court about 12 times and only one was a murder trial so....

Generally, this the case in every trial.  The jurors have no ability to ask for more testimony or answer questions about the facts.  Jurors can ask the Judge to clarify a question about the jury instructions the Judge gives them.  Jury instructions explain what the law is and generally what the jurors are being instructed to decide.  But the jurors don't get to ask for more testimony. 

In my experience, even when the jurors ask for clarification on a jury instruction, the judge often says "just read the instruction again."  

Today, the Rittenhouse trial was all about the jury instructions, so if anyone is interested in what that sounds like in a real criminal trial, today's videos are pretty much what happens in all trials to some degree.

[Quavodus]

You know what they say, the scariest words in the English Language are, Trial By Jury. 

[deerslayer]

On 11/11/2021 at 9:19 PM, midtennchip said:

In short, be very careful about the situations you get into.  Do everything you can to avoid HAVING to use a gun.  Circumstances change in an instant, often with no ability to control it. 

And reduce/eliminate unnecessary trips through woketopia jurisdictions if at all possible.  If forced to use a gun there, one is more likely to face a prosecutor feeling political pressure or jurors who frown on people having the audacity to defend themselves against criminals.  

[midtennchip]

16 hours ago, deerslayer said:

And reduce/eliminate unnecessary trips through woketopia jurisdictions if at all possible.  If forced to use a gun there, one is more likely to face a prosecutor feeling political pressure or jurors who frown on people having the audacity to defend themselves against criminals.  

Absolutely!  This situation may never have arisen in a true "red" jurisdiction, but if it had, I hope the DA would fight off the political pressure to prosecute.  

[Nikiski Dave]

Part of the problem that led up to Kyle defending his life was that Gutless Governor Tony Evers told the Kenosha and the Sheriffs Departments to stand down when the rioting started. Fire Departments were told to stand ready and they would be told when they were to come to the scene. Did not happen. Kenosha has had a history of problems. How do I know? I lived there 45 years. Got friends in the Police and the Sheriffs departments. Have sons in them also. Gutless Govenor Evers is a Dummycrap if that tells you anything. Look at other Dummycrap run States, Washington, Minnesota, New York California...... A child pedophile was shot while trying to touch a minor, give Kyle a medal and we can all go home.

[FUJIMO]

[Grayfox54]

I saw in the news today that the Governor has put the National Guard on alert. Closing arguments begin Monday and the trial is winding down. If the kid is cleared, I'd almost bet the libs will be rioting in the streets. Just like what started this whole mess.   

[Moped]

1 hour ago, Grayfox54 said:

I saw in the news today that the Governor has put the National Guard on alert. Closing arguments begin Monday and the trial is winding down. If the kid is cleared, I'd almost bet the libs will be rioting in the streets. Just like what started this whole mess.   

Sadly, it wouldn't surprise me.

[Nikiski Dave]

9 hours ago, Grayfox54 said:

I saw in the news today that the Governor has put the National Guard on alert. Closing arguments begin Monday and the trial is winding down. If the kid is cleared, I'd almost bet the libs will be rioting in the streets. Just like what started this whole mess.   

Gutless Governor Evers wouldn't let the National Guards out the last time. President Trump ordered them out and the media crucified him while the mob was looting and burning Kenosha. Where was Alec Baldwin when they needed him?

[Alleycat72]

LOL

https://youtu.be/l1BWSUXrwXY

Edited November 15, 2021 by Alleycat72

[Erik88]

12 hours ago, Grayfox54 said:

I saw in the news today that the Governor has put the National Guard on alert. Closing arguments begin Monday and the trial is winding down. If the kid is cleared, I'd almost bet the libs will be rioting in the streets. Just like what started this whole mess.   

Maybe they'll storm the capital.