General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOkay, as a lawyer, I feel a need to interject
The prosecution blew it. Its a given that this nut job went to WI looking for trouble. OMG, but lets turn it into whether this poor teenager can protect himself? Thats not what it was about and any objective observer should see that. It was never about self defense! Why would he have to defend himself from a situation he should never have injected himself into? But the prosecutor fell into the there are riots trap and focused on whether the defendant felt threatened. Of course he did, subjectively, but of course he created the threat. And the prosecutor exacerbated the problem by not seeking leave to address evidence that had previously been excluded. Rookie mistake by a non-rookie. Sorry, the prosecutor seemed woefully unprepared. This is just the tip of my analysis. Sorry for being contrarian.
OAITW r.2.0
(24,504 posts)He telegraphed exactly what guns rights folks expect. A 17 YO can kill other folks, as long as he's on "their" side.
onetexan
(13,043 posts)ShazzieB
(16,426 posts)And as long as said 17 year old is white. Don't forget that all important requirement.
OAITW r.2.0
(24,504 posts)Haggard Celine
(16,846 posts)fucking things up on purpose? That maybe he's on their side?
Srkdqltr
(6,297 posts)Patton French
(758 posts)But I dont think so. I cant get in his head.
MustLoveBeagles
(11,612 posts)I think it's more likely that the judge tied both hands behind his back pre trial as far as what could be admitted into evidence. Thus he felt he had no other choice but to take these huge risks with the weak case he was left with. That's my take anyway. Take it with a huge grain of salt. I'm not a legal expert.
On a personal note I've had a very sinking feeling about this case even before jury selection. I had the same feeling of dread on election night 2016. Around 8:30pm that night I got a sudden feeling of dread that things wouldn't go well for us. Every time I get this feeling the worst always happens. I'd love to be proven wrong in this case.
Haggard Celine
(16,846 posts)The judge is very obviously biased. Seems to me that he's determined to deliver a not guilty verdict. I guess he really doesn't need the help of the prosecution when he's already taken away the prosecution's best hope of winning the case. The kid is going to walk.
Grasswire2
(13,571 posts)Why doesn't the jury get to hear all evidence?
MustLoveBeagles
(11,612 posts)I wish I had the answer.
TomSlick
(11,100 posts)Never ascribe malice to anything that can be adequately explained by simple incompetence.
mountain grammy
(26,624 posts)but that really describes Joe Manchin ..
harumph
(1,902 posts)malicious people to feign "incompetence" after getting caught to avoid the implication of mens rea. Relatedly, ivy league educated Tom Cruz and Josh Hawley "pretend" to be everyman and say reallygoofy shit (yuk, yuk) - but they're smart as shit and extremely dangerous.
I've never held much regard for that axiom.
TomSlick
(11,100 posts)the last thing a DA needs to advance his carrier is blowing a high profile case.
I have a different opinion than the thread starter. I think if the prosecutor wanted to blow the case, he would have concentrated on aspects that aren't crucial for the case the defense wants to make.
Haggard Celine
(16,846 posts)They already have the judge in the bag, and he's just about cut off all of the prosecution's routes to success. Enlisting the prosecutor's help would be overkill, I think.
Dr. Strange
(25,921 posts)Haggard Celine
(16,846 posts)Hav
(5,969 posts)You can find thousands of pictures of people doing this gesture without them being white supremacists (who happen to use a similar or this gesture).
This image in particular was cropped out of a collage of pictures showing people, including one with Obama, doing this gesture to highlight how stupid the claim is that a person doing this is clearly making the white power sign.
Shellback Squid
(8,919 posts)Patton French
(758 posts)I dont think theres any question the judge is sympathetic to the nut job murderer. But if you watch his rulings on objections, hes very careful to appear fair. And hes very careful in front of the jury.
Hav
(5,969 posts)but as a lawyer, do you really think that self-defense goes almost completely out of the window just because he wasn't supposed to be there and he also did something illegal in the process? That's hard to believe.
I think the prosecutor did the only thing he could by trying to question the self-defense angle.
Patton French
(758 posts)cadoman
(792 posts)No one died the previous nights. Kyle goes there and starts acting out Call of Duty in real life and all of a sudden three people are dead?
Fact: If you go to a place you shouldn't be then you are doubly responsible for the shit that you do there. GQP should know this shit because they are the party of "personal responsibility". Where the fuck is the responsibility for Kyle and his goon friends harassing and intimidating people with fucking assault weapons? Where the fuck are the consequences for them going into the street during a protest? Where the fuck are the consequences when they stop protest activities or steal protest materials? Where the fuck are the consequences for pretending to be a fucking EMT? If Kyle was such a fucking EMT why didn't he help any of the protesters he fucking shot?
I'm hopeful the jury sees through the bullshit of this fucking blubbering kid and this borderline KKK judge.
And BTW throughout all this we forget about the first victim, the one that people marched for, whose name we should most remember in all this: Jacob Blake.
My point exactly. It seems to me the prosecution lost sight of that very basic and obvious fact.
Alexander Of Assyria
(7,839 posts)Bettie
(16,110 posts)because they didn't want the case brought in the first place.
TomSlick
(11,100 posts)Most lawyers' egos would not allow taking a dive in a publicized trial. I think the guy may simply be incompetent.
Beaverhausen
(24,470 posts)Patton French
(758 posts)And why have a firearm (AR15) if you dont intend on using it. Seems kind of a no brainer, no?
LiberatedUSA
(1,666 posts)If brining a gun for Kyle means he was going to use it, then the same standard must be put on the others who brought guns.
cadoman
(792 posts)The protesters aren't on trial. Kyle Shittenhouse is.
The protesters didn't fire their weapons. Kyle Shittenhouse did.
The protesters had defensive handgun weapons, not thirty round mass murder weapons like Kyle Shittenhouse did.
The protesters tolerated the assault weapon carrying terrorists there for as long as they felt safe and eventually they no longer felt safe and had to disarm Kyle Shittenhouse out of, wait for it, SELF DEFENSE. Instead of peacefully accepting a citizen's arrest of his terrorist actions, that would have brought safety to the area the level of prior nights, he elected to become an active shooter and go full on Call of Duty.
LiberatedUSA
(1,666 posts)if our side brings a gun, it is ok. That is what I get from your post.
DVRacer
(707 posts)At least one round because that was one of the triggers that led to the first shooting. It was in the video and about 20-30 feet from KR.
LudwigPastorius
(9,155 posts)He wouldn't allow the prosection to pinch-to-zoom the shooting footage on an iPad for the jury to actually see what was going on.
The judge bought the defense lawyer's bullshit that Apple uses "artificial intelligence" to manipulate the images when zooming in. Then he allowed a whole 20 minutes for the prosecution to find an expert to refute that assertion.
The judge is clearly biased toward the defendant.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/10/22775580/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-judge-apple-ai-pinch-to-zoom-footage-manipulation-claim
Patton French
(758 posts)But the prosecutor cant pass it all on the judge. If you havent faced an asshole judge, you havent tried many cases.
monkeyman1
(5,109 posts)Gaugamela
(2,496 posts)I was thinking something similar today watching to trial. If Rittenhouse had showed up at the protests unarmed and grabbed someones gun to defend himself, Id say ok hes a stupid scared kid who shouldnt have been there but give him a break. But he brought an assault rifle he couldnt legally possess in order to act out a hero fantasy and play self-appointed cop and got into bad situation that was easily predictable and now hes trying to back-pedal. I figure the defense strategy is to limit conviction to illegal possession of firearms. The prosecutor figures thats a given, and if he pounds on it thats all hell get. So his strategy is to undermine the self-defense angle and get a manslaughter conviction.
spanone
(135,844 posts)**PayWall**https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/as-kyle-rittenhouse-trial-nears-end-judges-decisions-from-the-bench-come-under-scrutiny/2021/11/10/93cd45c6-3dad-11ec-9ef1-5cd499f0a123_story.html
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)Patton French
(758 posts)He was there to look for opportunities to engage.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)Unless you are there protest or riot.
Everyone else needs to stay clear.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)Dr. Strange
(25,921 posts)Unless you are there protest or riot.
Everyone else needs to stay clear.
I can't go to a riot or protest unless I'm part of the riot or protest?
Like if Westboro Baptist is having a protest, then I can't go and make fun of them? Or counterprotest? Or even watch them? I can only go if I join in their protest?
This seems weird.
pinkstarburst
(1,327 posts)We have too many guns. Guns should never be allowed at protests. Trying to split hairs over so and so was granted permission to be at this "riot" and so and so was not is never going to fly. There should never have been a riot at all. And there should never have been a single gun at one. We have lost the argument the moment our case hinges on KH not having permission to be there but a horde of angry rioters being allowed.
traitorsgalore
(1,396 posts)Corruption rules most places in the U.S.. At least some of the 1/6 traitors are getting long sentences.
Johnny2X2X
(19,066 posts)Every time the prosecutor tried to talk about why Rittenhouse was there , what was his motive, the judge stopped him. The defense's version of why he was there is all the jury has to go on, the judge ensured that. The defense says he was there to help provide first aid to people, that's the only version the jury got to hear. Not that he was there to provide security, protect property, or defend people, but the judge only let it be known he was there because he was trained in first aid and wanted to treat people...
The only first aid kit he brought with him was some gauze. Says his gun was to protect himself. And that's that as far as the judge is concerned, every time the prosecutor tried to bring up why he was really there the judge stopped him.