Society/Culture Kyle Rittenhouse

[ChappyUK]

Now, is he going to make an argument that just storing a weapon for use when you cross the state line intending to use it in a dangerous situation (or a similar wording) is as good as taking a weapon across state lines? I’d say that has merit.

Why does an argument need to be made? The case is closed.

 

[Power Raid]

But to rely on a well funded police and state guard you have to have faith in the government directing them. Pity that the US Government has gone to the dogs.. allowing rioting and looting

100% agree that the social systems and government are failing the US

What I will also say is if you let the nutbags of either the left or right rise, you justify the rise of the opposite force….,..this has never resulted in anything positive

 

[Jafa]

Why does an argument need to be made? The case is closed.

Because they have been outed in their constant lying and they need to double down.

 

[Osho]

Now, is he going to make an argument that just storing a weapon for use when you cross the state line intending to use it in a dangerous situation (or a similar wording) is as good as taking a weapon across state lines? I’d say that has merit.

May well need to adjust his description to match the facts as revealed in court. First step will be confirming DOJ's scope and authority in this case to be able to do what, if anything.

 

[Jupes]

And if you’re Black in the US and are carrying a bag of Skittles you can be shot multiple times in the back.

because i'm sure that's all there was to it. perhaps he took the skittles across state lines.

 

[Back One Out]

Is it possible now that rabble rousing, property destruction, arson, assault, battery and culpable homicide will be less now during protests?
Is it possible now that state police forces will be empowered to keep order at protests?

Not if it's an election year and the rioting takes place in a city with a Democrat mayor.

 

[Chief]

spewing all kinds of rubbish

Lol.

 

[Back One Out]

Now, is he going to make an argument that just storing a weapon for use when you cross the state line intending to use it in a dangerous situation (or a similar wording) is as good as taking a weapon across state lines? I’d say that has merit.

So we're back-pedaling now on the "he took a weapon across state lines" rubbish?

Dangerous situation, huh? Is this how you described the BLM rioting last year? Funny how they were described as "peaceful protests" when that suited a particular narrative.

How do you figure Rittenhouse intended to use his rifle? You make it sound like it was a premeditated shooting. He didn't ask that Rosenbaum lunatic to threaten to kill him and then chase after him and attack him. He wasn't using Jedi mind tricks on the other people to attack him straight after that and try to beat him to death with a skateboard and point a loaded 9mm pistol in his face.

I'm bit confused why people think their own personal feelings about guns and vigilantism are relevant to this case. Of course, people are entitled to their opinions. But the laws in most American states permit untrained people to openly carry a gun and walk into a protest/riot. How else would you defend property against mindless looters and anarchists if the police have been given orders not to engage with anyone? Would you hold up a hand-written sign saying "Black owned business" and prayed they looted and burned the next building ???

Instead of barracking for a life sentence for Kyle Rittenhouse, all you concerned citizens of the planet should concentrate on changing America's gun laws. That would be a more productive use of your angst.

Here's a map showing the states (in green) where it's legal to openly carry a loaded rifle.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/68/Open_Carrying_US_long_guns.svg/680px-Open_Carrying_US_long_guns.svg.png

 

[eaglespremiers]

Indeed, the judge was chosen because he would be a good judge, bipartisan acceptance. It was fascinating watching the trial. It is also good folk can watch it, there is no good excuse now for getting the details wrong about what happened. It also makes the jury decision more understandable to the broader community. I wonder though what behaviour a televised trial changes - relating to the Judge, was he more chatty for the cameras, were his admonishments of the prosecutor camera aware? I noticed at one point he cut himself short when having a crack at Bingham. I also was not impressed with his articulateness, his umming and uhhing and stop start speech patterns. But as long as he protects the integrity of the law it probably doesn't matter. The pros of a televised trial comprehensively outweigh the cons.

There are 2 questions I have - who was the state witness that never turned up and remained in anononimity during the trial, and is not sequestering the jury the norm rather than the exception?

He stopped because he was about to suggest Binger might have given the defence grounds for a mistrial with prejudice and thought better of directly pronouncing strategy to the defence.

Also the witness I believe you are referring to is Maurice Freeland:

Kyle Rittenhouse trial: Identity of mysterious 'jump kick man' revealed | Fox News

Maurice Freeland is the man who was caught on video kicking Kyle Rittenhouse, according to defense attorneys

www.foxnews.com

The fact that he wasn't called but was known to the prosecution speaks volumes to their integrity in this case.

 

[Present Not Past]

because i'm sure that's all there was to it. perhaps he took the skittles across state lines.

He killed him because he was black. If you're a white male in the US that's okay because to white men like George Zimmerman, black men are scary and can be shot. And that's how the white Florida jury saw it as well.

 

[Osho]

He stopped because he was about to suggest Binger might have given the defence grounds for a mistrial with prejudice and thought better of directly pronouncing strategy to the defence.

Also the witness I believe you are referring to is Maurice Freeland:

Kyle Rittenhouse trial: Identity of mysterious 'jump kick man' revealed | Fox News

Maurice Freeland is the man who was caught on video kicking Kyle Rittenhouse, according to defense attorneys

www.foxnews.com

The fact that he wasn't called but was known to the prosecution speaks volumes to their integrity in this case.

Makes sense, with prejudice = no retrial, correct?

 

[eaglespremiers]

Makes sense, with prejudice = no retrial, correct?

That's right. Tantamount to misconduct from the prosecution.

 

[Jupes]

He killed him because he was black. If you're a white male in the US that's okay because to white men like George Zimmerman, black men are scary and can be shot. And that's how the white Florida jury saw it as well.

is this satire?

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

You should follow your own advice.

Oh, and learn to disseminate news from a variety of sources instead of believing the lies from whatever shitty sources you currently consume.

(I'm guessing... The Guardian is one of them???)

He reads it so no one else has to. We should thank him.

 

[Osho]

He stopped because he was about to suggest Binger might have given the defence grounds for a mistrial with prejudice and thought better of directly pronouncing strategy to the defence.

Also the witness I believe you are referring to is Maurice Freeland:

Kyle Rittenhouse trial: Identity of mysterious 'jump kick man' revealed | Fox News

Maurice Freeland is the man who was caught on video kicking Kyle Rittenhouse, according to defense attorneys

www.foxnews.com

The fact that he wasn't called but was known to the prosecution speaks volumes to their integrity in this case.

He stopped because he was about to suggest Binger might have given the defence grounds for a mistrial with prejudice and thought better of directly pronouncing strategy to the defence.

Also the witness I believe you are referring to is Maurice Freeland:

Kyle Rittenhouse trial: Identity of mysterious 'jump kick man' revealed | Fox News

Maurice Freeland is the man who was caught on video kicking Kyle Rittenhouse, according to defense attorneys

www.foxnews.com

The fact that he wasn't called but was known to the prosecution speaks volumes to their integrity in this case.

Going back to Maurice Freeland. If he was not to be presented in court, how can he be part of charges? Is a document affidavit or similar able to proxy for his presence, eg, if he is indisposed in a hospital?

 

[Jafa]

He killed him because he was black. If you're a white male in the US that's okay because to white men like George Zimmerman, black men are scary and can be shot. And that's how the white Florida jury saw it as well.

Zimmerman is Hispanic (and identifies that way). The media tried desperately to label him as white.

Also - witness accounts suggest that Trayvon was beating Zimmerman prior to being shot. Your assertions are pretty thin.

 

[eaglespremiers]

Going back to Maurice Freeland. If he was not to be presented in court, how can he be part of charges? Is a document affidavit or similar able to proxy for his presence, eg, if he is indisposed in a hospital?

The typical expectation is that a witness is required to give their evidence orally in court and be cross-examined on that evidence.
Anything less is ordinarily considered a breach of due process and should be excluded. In some civil situations (say an asbestos client with advanced mesothelioma who may not make it to the final hearing) the client's statement may be video recorded for the final hearing, however, the Respondent's counsel would also attend to cross-examine as part of that recording.
I think that the police can still charge Rittenhouse on the basis of the video evidence, but it limits the charge to a visual assessment by the jury (as well as the defence's sole version of events) which makes it difficult for the prosecutor to provide any inference that is not plainly available on the recording.
You'll note that they charged Rittenhouse for recklessly endangering the safety of Richard McGinnis based on the video evidence despite McGinnis not requesting to bring any charges against Rittenhouse (in fact, he works for Tucker Carlson who is a strong supporter of Rittenhouse and will interview Rittenhouse early next week).

In reference to Freeland, had this incident occurred in Victoria the prosecution is under an obligation to call all material witnesses to allow for the narrative to unfold for the court (unless there is good reason not to do so) and call evidence that is both favourable and unfavourable to its case. The prosecution failed this basic test several times over the last couple of weeks.

 

[eaglespremiers]

DOJ to investigate the decision.

Judiciary chair wants DOJ to review Rittenhouse verdict: ‘A miscarriage of justice’

Nadler, Biden responses show divide among white Democrats over handling of race

www.independent.co.uk

In the first part Nadler shows he clearly didn't watch the trial. Slightly embarrassing for the gentleman.
“Justice cannot tolerate armed persons crossing state lines looking for trouble while people engage in First Amendment-protected protest,”

Sounds like a case of malicious prosecution.
When does he think this is going to lead? If it ends up in the Supreme Court how does he think the conservative majority will deal with him?
There's a fairly compelling argument that the DOJ do not have the authority to action anything in any event.

 

[Osho]

The typical expectation is that a witness is required to give their evidence orally in court and be cross-examined on that evidence.
Anything less is ordinarily considered a breach of due process and should be excluded. In some civil situations (say an asbestos client with advanced mesothelioma who may not make it to the final hearing) the client's statement may be video recorded for the final hearing, however, the Respondent's counsel would also attend to cross-examine as part of that recording.
I think that the police can still charge Rittenhouse on the basis of the video evidence, but it limits the charge to a visual assessment by the jury (as well as the defence's sole version of events) which makes it difficult for the prosecutor to provide any inference that is not plainly available on the recording.
You'll note that they charged Rittenhouse for recklessly endangering the safety of Richard McGinnis based on the video evidence despite McGinnis not requesting to bring any charges against Rittenhouse (in fact, he works for Tucker Carlson who is a strong supporter of Rittenhouse and will interview Rittenhouse early next week).

In reference to Freeland, had this incident occurred in Victoria the prosecution is under an obligation to call all material witnesses to allow for the narrative to unfold for the court (unless there is good reason not to do so) and call evidence that is both favourable and unfavourable to its case. The prosecution failed this basic test several times over the last couple of weeks.

As always, good stuff EP.

This McGinnis situation is interesting. Was the state trying to ruffle defence feathers, divide them, force an error?

 

[Mr Blicavs]

How has race crept into this thread.... there is nothing racial about what Rittenhouse did. He shot 4 white men, 2 of them rapists... one of them a kiddie raper at that. Shame on you race hustlers.

 

[SSwans2011]

This entire thread seems to be predicated on a fallacy that people are arguing that not guilty isn't the correct verdict to be reached by the letter of the law. It's a massive strawman, shit all people have actually mounted that argument.

You can simultaneously think Rittenhouse is an a-hole that deserves to face consequences for his actions while also not being guilty by the letter of the law.

 

[Chief]

So we're back-pedaling now on the "he took a weapon across state lines" rubbish?

I didn't read the rest, sorry.

No I just suggested what he might be going for.

 

[eaglespremiers]

How has race crept into this thread.... there is nothing racial about what Rittenhouse did. He shot 4 white men, 2 of them rapists... one of them a kiddie raper at that. Shame on you race hustlers.

Probably didn't help that a couple of posters mentioned MSNBC earlier in the thread.
They have had a particular bent about this case, Rittenhouse and ideological implications from the start.
It has blinded almost all of their perceptions about the actual evidence posited in the trial and the legal implications that flow therein.

This entire thread seems to be predicated on a fallacy that people are arguing that not guilty isn't the correct verdict to be reached by the letter of the law. It's a massive strawman, sh*t all people have actually mounted that argument.

You can simultaneously think Rittenhouse is an a-hole that deserves to face consequences for his actions while also not being guilty by the letter of the law.

Probably a good point to keep in mind.
I have never owned a gun, I do not recall ever shooting a gun and maybe never will.
I cannot fathom a situation where I would attend a riot armed with any weapon, let alone a gun. I will make no comment on Rittenhouse as a person but as a non-legal opinion it appeared to be unwise in a location of civil unrest, armed and clearly resisting the crowd.
Having said that the essence of the law of self-defence is a central component of the justice system in every state of America, and our Australian states as well.
Commentators and celebrities are now keen to tear down the justice system because it did not result in the outcome they desired under the guise of "progress".
But this right to self-defence must persevere.

As always, good stuff EP.

This McGinnis situation is interesting. Was the state trying to ruffle defence feathers, divide them, force an error?

Outside of a successful defence (i.e. self-defence) it was an easy charge to add as it was available on the evidence.
What I've found with prosecutors here in Victoria is that they tend to stack as many charges as possible on to the charge sheet and then on the indication that the defendant might plead (on the first return date/directions hearing, for instance), they will offer to remove a number of them if the defendant pleads to the remainder.
It's a tried and true tactic of negotiation much like a real estate agent asking for a higher price than they think the house is worth or a family law solicitor sending a letter to the other side demanding their client get a larger percentage of the asset pool than the Family Law Act 4-step approach would entitle them to. Unfortunately prosecutors are not immune to using a similar approach.

 

[Osho]

He killed him because he was black. If you're a white male in the US that's okay because to white men like George Zimmerman, black men are scary and can be shot. And that's how the white Florida jury saw it as well.

If you're looking for examples of race driven murder, there are plenty of examples that hold up to scrutiny, why choose a case that is full of holes and open to serious skepticism?

For example, this case, despite happening nearly 70 years ago, it still makes one tremble with shock and anger. If one looks there are similat cases that trail into more recent history. Holding up probable fake examples may discount the real examples in the eyes of people for who you are wanting to show the reality.

Woman who triggered 1955 Emmett Till murder lied about harassment

The white woman who testified black boy Emmitt Till had physically and verbally harassed her, resulting in the boy's brutal murder, has confessed she lied.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Sweet Jesus]

This is ridiculous...