Family behind Kenosha car dealership says Kyle Rittenhouse wasn't asked to guard their property

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Two brothers from the family-owned car dealership Kyle Rittenhouse said he was guarding on the night of the Kenosha shootings testified on Friday that neither had requested armed protection that night, from Rittenhouse or anyone else.

Sahil and Anmol Khindri said they both encountered Rittenhouse and other armed men on August 25, 2020, the day of the shooting, but only briefly.

The Khindri brothers' testimony is significant for prosecutors' efforts to paint Rittenhouse as a vigilante who recklessly and needlessly brought an AR-15 rifle into a dangerous situation. Rittenhouse's defense attorneys have sought to portray their client as a Good Samaritan who was providing much-needed protection to a family business that had requested it.

Rittenhouse is charged with fatally shooting two men, one of them in a Car Source parking lot, and injuring a third. He has pleaded not guilty and said he opened fire in self-defense because the men were chasing him.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/family-behind-kenosha-car-dealership-says-kyle-rittenhouse-wasn-t-asked-to-guard-their-property/ar-AAQn9Zg

[WarGamer]

1. Interesting factlet...

But irrelevant to the law in regards to the case.

The video tapes will tell the story and hopefully the Jury is instructed thoroughly about the law and how it applies to the acts.

[The Magistrate]

2. After The First Shot, Sir

He had no more right to self-defense than any felon fleeing an outraged crowd of bystanders galvanized by his crime.

The first shot was one that would be taken only by an idiot who shouldn't be carrying anything more lethal than a popsicle stick

The people who chased after him after he gunned down his first victim ought to receive commendations --- they did what citizens ought to do when faced by crime in the open, and did so against an armed man they knew was a killer..

[WarGamer]

3. I'm not a law professor so I don't know such things...

I just hope the jury is well taught (instructed).

[The Magistrate]

4. Neither Am I, Sir

But I know that if someone fucks a person up in the alley out back, if I chase after him and he turns and fires a pistol, it's murder if he shoots true, and one more charge on the sheet if he doesn't.

[WarGamer]

5. Again, I'm not qualified to have an opinion...

But logic says... IF the first shot was found (by the jury) to be legit...

Then the subsequent threats to his life may have allowed the use of deadly force.

I'm not on the jury and I'm not educated in the legal field so I'm just a bystander and hope the system produces the correct and true verdict, whatever that may be.

[Amishman]

10. Based on the information presented at trial, the first shooting appears to fall under self defense

Rosenbaum is shown on FBI drone thermal video as the pursuer / aggressor leading up to the shooting and Rittenhouse did attempt to retreat.

Wisconsin statute 939.38(2)(b) confirms that by attempting to retreat he did gain (or retain, depending on your interpretation of earlier events) the right to self defense.

We have both video and witness testimony that Rosenbaum was lunging at Rittenhouse.

This case will however underscore the gaps between what is legal and what is right relating to this type of situation.

[The Magistrate]

15. I Quite Agree With Your Closing Comment, Sir

"If the law supposes that, the law is a ass - a idiot".

[localroger]

18. Rosenbaum might have been pursuing because KR had been pointing the gun at people

That is a legitimate reason to try to relieve a potentially dangerous person in a volatile situation of their weapon. Of course Mr. Rosenbaum can't testify to his motivation, what with being dead and all that, but it seems likely that ALL of the people KR thought were "threatening" him were actually trying to disarm him.

It seems inevitable that KR will do at least a little time because he had no reason whatsoever to have the gun at all in that state. ("Hunting" can cut it if you are in a wildlife area with a hunting permit. KR had neither excuse for possessing the gun.) Had he simply not had the gun he illegally had, none of the shootings would have occurred and, very likely, neither would have any of the "threats" KR perceived which were all very likely triggered by the fact that he had the gun at all or that he had been seen using it to kill someone.

And while I'm sure anyone who expressed this opinion would be weeded out in jury selection, frankly I cannot look at those pictures of KR galavanting through the streets with his gun before the shootings without feeling like he was LOOKING for someone to "defend." He looks very much like a person who would be dangerous enough in that emotional state if not stupid, but even more dangerous because so obviously very stupid.

[yardwork]

27. This might be persuasive to a jury, though.

Rittenhouse claimed that he was asked to participate in protecting the business. Turns out that's a lie. That undermines his entire defense.

[BradAllison]

6. They will be smeared

Take a guess how.

[Deuxcents]

7. How did this kid obtain his weapon

How is it he’s able to travel interstate with his weapon ? Who is funding him to go from Wisconsin to these places to “protect”? How old was he when this happened?

[Ilsa]

8. I think his mommy gave it to him for reaching his goal of ten gold stars.

You know, the ones the teachers used to hand out.

[maxsolomon]

32. That was the initial story

but it's not accurate. We need to be accurate with the facts in this case, so we're mad at the right people when he walks and becomes a RW gadfly.

[Ilsa]

34. I should have used the sarcasm smiley.

Did his mom take him to Wisconsin?

[maxsolomon]

35. No. She's a piece of work, but she was in IL.

He was driven there and back by his friend Dominic Black, who also bought the MSSA.

older article: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-kyle-rittenhouse-mother-kenosha-20201110-ikckkevit5epzjydc52szyog34-story.html

[xmas74]

9. Supposedly his sister's boyfriend gave him the weapon.

The weapon was supposedly kept at the friend's stepfather house in Kenosha.

Antioch,IL where Rittenhouse is from is less than a half hour from Kenosha,WI. I don't know why he thinks Kenosha is his hometown because people from Wisconsin tend to hate when Illinois residents cross the state line. We call the FISH or FIBs or several other names.

And I heard that the dealership never asked a single member of the so-called "Kenosha Militia" to protect that lot. The founder of that militia group was a former Kenosha council member who moved outside of the city and tried to lie about his residency. He's also a huge Trump humper.

(Born and raised in Kenosha,still have family and school friends in the area and I'd like to move back someday.)

[Straw Man]

21. Ostensibly legally.

How did this kid obtain his weapon

How is it he’s able to travel interstate with his weapon ?

Supposedly, he obtained it from a "friend" in Wisconsin, where it was legal for someone his age to possess it. Apparently he never traveled interstate with it. I wonder if investigators have been able to locate this "friend." He was 17 when it happened.

[SergeStorms]

11. So the judge allowed...

the Khindri bothers to be called, "owners"?

Just checking.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

12. Point being, sir, the accused paints himself as a guard requested by the dealership...

and no, he wasn’t. Not a good look for a an accused murderer to begin a trial with by being exposed as a liar.

“The Khindri brothers explained that their parents owned three car-related properties along Sheridan Road in downtown Kenosha, and that both brothers had arrived at their parents' properties that day to inspect damage from previous nights of protests.“

These two witnesses were called as they were eyewitness the night of the alledged murder…there being no issue at trial who owned the dealership, totally irrelevant.

[Jedi Guy]

14. Even though it's a lie, I'm not sure it'll matter to the murder charges.

I think his self-defense claim will hold. He had no business being there, but Rosenbaum was the aggressor in the confrontation, and he tried to flee both times, a crucial component to claiming self-defense in legal terms. If the prosecution can provide definitive proof that he went there with the intent of killing people, they'd better bring it out. Otherwise reasonable doubt will result in the self-defense claim succeeding.

[cadoman]

24. if you have no business being in a place, how is a claim to self defense is illegitimate?

[Jedi Guy]

26. The issue is that it wasn't illegal for him to be there.

He didn't break any laws by going there. If he'd broken into a home to rob it and then shot the homeowner in "self-defense" when confronted, the claim would fall apart right there. So when saying he had no business being there, what's meant is that he had no reason to be there.

The only crime he committed prior to the shooting was being a minor in possession of a weapon carrying it across state lines. So the only way I can see this ending in a guilty verdict is if the prosecution has ironclad evidence that he went with the intent to kill people. None of the reporting I've seen thus far has indicated that that's the case.

Based on what I'm seeing, I just don't think the prosecution is going to clear the reasonable doubt hurdle with the jury.

[SergeStorms]

25. That was just a dig...

at the judge ruling the unarmed people that stupid kid executed couldn't be called "victims", because that was prejudicial, while anyone who peacefully attended the protest could be called "rioters" or "looters".

I guess the intended joke missed it's mark.

Hey, you can't win them all.

[Jedi Guy]

28. You know that's not true, right? The last bit about "rioters" and "looters"?

I keep seeing this pop up on DU and stated as though it's fact, and it's not.

The judge advised the defense against describing the three men who were shot in that way but said he would allow it if the defense can present evidence that they were engaging in those actions. That crucial bit on the end always gets left off.

It's also standard practice for that judge not to allow the prosecution to describe people as victims and not something he came up with just for this particular trial.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

29. Correct sir. In a courtroom details matter and there are formal rules of evidence, so

unlike social media it is like living on another planet.

[Jedi Guy]

30. It really bothers me to see that kind of "selective reality" happening here.

Those assertions have been making the rounds in just about every thread about this trial and are patently untrue. It's the sort of "lie by omission to present the reality we prefer" that the right engages in (along with their outright fabrications), and that's exactly the reason we shouldn't engage in it. I suppose the more charitable view is that the assertions indicate a lack of knowledge of the legal system, but the facts are readily available for anyone who bothers to look.

It also sets up the "trial was rigged from the start" argument which will no doubt be trotted out repeatedly should Rittenhouse be found not guilty on the murder charges, which is looking likely at this point based on the evidence presented thus far. I don't see how there's a ton of difference between "the trial was rigged because we didn't get the verdict we wanted" and "the election was rigged because we lost." Both assertions demand some really compelling evidence to back them up, and when untrue, both are very damaging to our society.

To your point about social media, thank God verdicts aren't decided by the Twitterverse.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

36. The imperfections of a real trial pale in comparison to the imperfections of social media

or any media trial, yes.

Criminal law is amazingly complicated, I trust in the justice system to deliver, in the main, the correct outcomes. Not always of course, but to your point about making pre-verdict judgments before the verdict is indeed akin to crying election fraud before the election has happened.

Personally have no idea, not being judge or juror, what the outcome will be as going to have to wait for all the admitted evidence (as opposed to the disallowed, inadmissible evidence that all media puts into the pot despite that) to be aired, as it is being aired before judge and jury and a few media sitting brought every second.

[localroger]

19. Very few businesses in the US are attended in person by theri owners

It would be legitimate for a manager or other custodian employee to request protective services. The Khindri brothers were apparently the only ones on-scene in a position to do that, and they say they didn't. That means nobody did, which means KR is lying.

[Vinnie From Indy]

13. If the Khindri's admit to giving permission to Rittenhouse or any of his buddies...

... they would be on the hook for damages if the death of Rosenbaum is found to be a crime by the jury.

I wonder if they have already consulted an attorney about the death that occurred on their property.

[localroger]

20. They would be bigger fools than the fools who have themselves as a client...

...if they did not at least consult a lawyer for advice about their upcoming testimony. But no competent lawyer would advise them to lie, only to possibly take the 5th amendment in certain circumstances which they didn't do. Damages would be bad, but jail for perjury would be even worse and then there would be damages too.

[Straw Man]

22. Yup.

Any business owner that would admit to giving permission for an unsupervised, uninsured, and untrained 17-year-old with a firearm to provide "security" for their establishment would have to have their head examined. And kiss their liability insurance goodbye forever.

[keithbvadu2]

16. Was one of those killed shot in the back?

[Jedi Guy]

31. Rittenhouse fired four shots, hitting Rosenbaum (first victim) in the "groin, back, and left hand."

Bullet fragments also left a minor wound on his forehead, among other places. From that description, it sounds like Rosenbaum was facing in one direction when shot the first time and ended up facing in the opposite direction when shot for the last time. I don't see how one could be shot in the back and the groin otherwise. Presumably video and/or forensic evidence could clarify the exact sequence of events and determine where exactly the shot to the back occurred in the sequence.

[keithbvadu2]

33. Thanks. So many different versions.

[SMC22307]

17. K&R

[maxsolomon]

23. when White Militiamen see cars, they have to protect them.

it's a natural impulse.