Kyle Rittenhouse - The Truth in 11 Minutes

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Yeah, I got to be the jury forman on one the jury's I was on also. I'm a natural tyrant like Hog so I was okay with that.

All I really remember about the experience to the 2nd time was I stood up to read the jury's findings to the judge/court.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

View attachment 411027

This is what he learned from "law school".

 

[lawgator1]

you still have to present evidence he went there looking for trouble.

There has been plenty of that, video and his own statements.

you also have to counter that he took a medic kit with him (he was trained to use it) and was actively removing graffiti - both run counter to his intent to provoke confrontation.

Yes, the prosecution has to "counter" that. But it does not in and of itself prove guilt or innocence. Its just one more fact for the jury to consider.

what specific evidence has established that he went there looking for trouble other than he was armed?

Actually, I have a question about that. In another incident he said "Bro, I wish I had my AR with me, I'd fire rounds at them." I have not been able to determine whether that made it into evidence.

 

[vols4sure]

Even if he was looking for trouble, how does that eliminate his right to defend himself against others that are obviously also looking for trouble? Even if he was stupid, that doesn't mean he should stand there and get beaten or shot.

Beat me to it. To clarify, if Rittenhouse provoked the confrontation, it would change the analysis and make it very hard for Rittenhouse to prove self defense. However, lawgator has not argued that Rittenhouse did the initial provocation just that he is criminally culpable because it could be inferred that he wanted confrontation.

 

[volinbham]

Yes, juries are routinely instructed that they may draw inferences from the record. It literally happens every day, in every single trial. The jury hears the evidence and from the full force and effect of it (that's a quote) infers facts, including intent. That is human nature.

If it were otherwise, if a Defendant took the stand and said "I did not intend x," then no matter how strong the evidence to the contrary, the jury could never convict for a specific intent crime.

The evidence here was that this young man expressed a desire to insinuate himself into the situation. He armed himself. He traveled at least some distance to do so. He did not have a personal stake in what was going in, i.e. he did not have property at risk and was not protecting any particular person. He appeared excited to be part of the event/riot/protest, whatever word you want to use.

And he shot three people.

A reasonable inference is that he went there hoping for a confrontation that would allow him to shoot people with whom he disagreed. A jury could easily come to that conclusion.

The counter from the defense is that the actions of the persons shot were an intervening cause of his reaction. A jury could easily make that inference as well.

Consider Person 1 in traffic who is cut off. He is armed. He follows Person 2 who cut him off for 10 miles and then walks up, gun in hand, to complain. Person 2 is startled, acts aggressively and pulls out his own gun, causing Person 1 to fire, killing him.

A jury could reasonably conclude that Person 1 sought a confrontation with Person 2 and bears criminal liability of some kind for the death of Person 2.

you went from "looking for trouble" to "looking for an opportunity to kill people" and call that a "reasonable inference"?

he's not being charged with "looking for trouble".

 

[volinbham]

.

 

[newyorkvol]

what specific evidence has established that he went there looking for trouble other than he was armed?

Actually, I have a question about that. In another incident he said "Bro, I wish I had my AR with me, I'd fire rounds at them." I have not been able to determine whether that made it into evidence.[/QUOTE]

It was not[/QUOTE]

Wasn’t that what the dust up was yesterday with the judge?

 

[GAVol]

you went from "looking for trouble" to "looking for an opportunity to kill people" and call that a "reasonable inference"?

he's not being charged with "looking for trouble".

He's on the edge of something akin to the old "Women who dress like that are asking for it" argument just because of the politics of the situation.

 

[volinbham]

Actually, I have a question about that. In another incident he said "Bro, I wish I had my AR with me, I'd fire rounds at them." I have not been able to determine whether that made it into evidence.

It was not[/QUOTE]

Wasn’t that what the dust up was yesterday with the judge?[/QUOTE]

It was one of them. The other was him questioning him about not saying thing when arrested.

 

[tnmarktx]

If i were the prosecution I'd make it more about just him wanting to be involved to promote whatever agenda he had. Let the jury decide what the agenda is. Could be specific "He hates black people rioters." Could be general "He hates rioters."

Either way its the same point: he went there "looking for trouble." The argument is that if you do that and provoke the very response you sought, then it is disingenuous to claim you were only defending yourself. Up to the jury to decide whether that is correct or whether, even if it is, the actions of the persons shot sufficiently intervened to make his actions lawful and justified.

In other words you'd argue something totally unrelated to the actual case. Instead, you'd sling sh!t on the wall and try to get an emotional decision based on anything but the law. You're basically admitting that you're morally corrupt and would do anything to ruin those that disagree with you politically

 

[ClearwaterVol]

"A reasonable inference" is not a fact. Were I on the jury, I wouldn't get into inferences. My judgment would settle on this question: was he in fear for his life? If the answer is yes, then he's justified to defend himself. Let this be a lesson to all the other would be thugs out there: be careful threatening someone's life. That someone just may be armed. Trayvon Martin would have been well served to have heeded my warning

You say you would not get into reasonable inferences and then proceed to settle the trial on the basis of a reasonable inference.

I just can't with you people.

 

[volinbham]

He's on the edge of something akin to the old "Women who dress like that are asking for it" argument just because of the politics of the situation.

Yep. If you dressed like a hooker, went into a bar and flirted with the guys then shot a guy that was trying to rape you; apparently it's a "reasonable inference" that you went there looking to be raped...

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Did someone testify the kill shot was in Rosenwhateverthe****hisnameis's back?

 

[volinbham]

Did someone testify the kill shot was in Rosenwhateverthe****hisnameis's back?

not that I heard

 

[vols4sure]

You say you would not get into reasonable inferences and then proceed to settle the trial on the basis of a reasonable inference.

I just can't with you people.

What is wrong his statement given the burden being on the prosecution and our criminal system being based on the "beyond a reasonable doubt standard"?

 

[RikidyBones]

Did someone testify the kill shot was in Rosenwhateverthe****hisnameis's back?

That can happen without him retreating. That's probably the case given the prosecutor didn't even attempt it.

 

[DynaLo]

So all three of the people at one point had a gun in their hands, right? Hard to convince me Ritt's life was not in danger.

Technically, yes. Two people with hands on the same firearm is technically joint possession of the firearm.

Rittenhouse stated that if Rosenbaum had taken his rifle he thought Rosenbaum would kill him with it.

Looking at the videos, if Huber had gotten possession of the rifle it’s likely that Grosskreutz would have killed Kyle with the Glock since he ran up with it loaded and pointed at Kyle.

 

[n_huffhines]

It's pretty pathetic that this is the case that would cause anybody to think think our judicial system is becoming draconian. As far as injustices go, this is a nothing burger. He shot people and we had a trial to see if he was justified. Big fkn deal. God, do you guys even know what happens every day in the CJS? Innocent people go to prison all the time. We make criminals out of thin air by limiting basic freedoms. But bc Rittenhouse shot people and had to face a trial, we have a banana republic all of a sudden. You can't make this **** up.

Just another day in America

 

[DynaLo]

There has been plenty of that, video and his own statements.



Yes, the prosecution has to "counter" that. But it does not in and of itself prove guilt or innocence. Its just one more fact for the jury to consider.



Actually, I have a question about that. In another incident he said "Bro, I wish I had my AR with me, I'd fire rounds at them." I have not been able to determine whether that made it into evidence.

No. Not allowed due to being a totally different event at a totally different time. Judge ruled no relevance to this case.

This was from before the August 2020 events and was of Kyle and a friend talking about the active looting happening at a CVS store.

 

[DynaLo]

Did someone testify the kill shot was in Rosenwhateverthe****hisnameis's back?

ME stated it was the final of four shots and could be considered consistent with Rosenbaum being in a lunging forward and falling down motion.

Shot one was in the hand holding the end of the rifle barrel. Shot two in the groin/pelvic area that shattered the pelvic bone. Shot three grazed the head and shot four entered from the back area.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

ME stated it was the final of four shots and could be considered consistent with Rosenbaum being in a lunging forward and falling down motion.

Shot one was in the hand holding the end of the rifle barrel. Shot two in the groin/pelvic area that shattered the pelvic bone. Shot three grazed the head and shot four entered from the back area.

I wasn't watching or keeping up with the trial at that point. This is George Zimmerman, jr. He's not gonna get convicted of the most serious stuff, but he's going to have a hard time living with himself.

 

[JOEY'S ALL VOL !!!]

Not shocking at all to see the stances taken on this case by some on here, politically driven all the way. Apparently there are some on here that would have you believe that they would have stood there and let someone shoot them or beat them to death with a skateboard because that would be the right thing to do. If that’s truly the case, what a bunch of cowardly morons. It’s self defense and it’s just not that complicated.

 

[Sea Ray]

Sea - I'd qualify that a bit further as 'did the defendant have a rational or justifiable fear of injury or death?' Otherwise, we're left with a justification - used by police and civilian alike - to whack people based upon emotion, ignorance, or malice not tempered by logic or law. I generally agree with your intent, though.

(And that's not an invitation for the anti-police brigade to hijack the thread.)

I have no argument with that. I don't agree with LawGator's bit about whether he was looking for trouble. If such an argument could be made, it'd be detrimental to young black males who may be canvassing a neighborhood looking for a house to rob. If that gives one justification to kill them "cause they had it coming" then the racist divide will increase

 

[CagleMtnVol]

This prosecutor is the poster child to the phrase my dad likes to say....

"Educated-Idiots"

 

[RikidyBones]

I wasn't watching or keeping up with the trial at that point. This is George Zimmerman, jr. He's not gonna get convicted of the most serious stuff, but he's going to have a hard time living with himself.

Rittenhouse isn't Zimmerman Jr.