Originally Posted by JMintzer

Well, I guess there was no reason for a trial, since you're so sure of what happened...

Are you available for other trials? It could save the justice system a lot of money!

Under cross examination by defense, the prosecution star witness testified he was chasing Rittenhouse with his Glock. His gun was pointed at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse fired. Video from the FBI corroborates what Rittenhouse said about the shootings. A clear case of self defense when an angry mob is chasing you. The prosecution saw it was losing the case and tried for a mistrial by breaking constitutional protections so it could retry him.The judge gave a stern rebuke to the prosecutor calling him brazen. But the judge could declare a mistrial with prejudice, issue a directed verdict or nullify a guilty jury verdict because of jury intimidation. It’s all on video or live TV unedited

[manaboutown]

Originally Posted by dwoodley1975

The judge needs to be taken off the case.

Great judge!!!

The prosecutors need to be disbarred!

[Two Bills]

I think the word 'victim' used in any trial is biased against the accused person.
It infers that the defendant is the sole perpetrator before any evidence is offered to the contrary.
I do not think the word should be allowed to be used in any trial, before evidence of proof, or a conviction.
Been watching recordings of trial, and find whole thing riveting.
I also find it quite funny how those who would hang Mr Baldwin from a lamp post before trial, and those who defended him, are now diametrically apposed in this case.

JMTC.

[Eg_cruz]

Originally Posted by Trayderjoe

So a 17 year old (at the time of the incident) is arrested and labeled a white supremacist and guilty of murder by many, all without the benefit of trial. At trial, the star witness for the prosecution admits that Rittenhouse did not shoot him UNTIL HE POINTED HIS GUN AT RITTENHOUSE. Another PROSECUTION witness testified that the PROSECUTION tried to get him to change his statement, and the judge had to admonish the prosecutor for attempting to violate Rittenhouse’s constitutional rights to remain silent.

And what are some concerned about? Whether Rittenhouse actually cried during his testimony. Really? I mean, really? If anything, people should be questioning the potential prosecutorial misconduct and the rapid rush to judge a person absent facts and a fair trial. How dare a prosecutor attempt to introduce that the defendant chose to remain silent until he took the witness stand, and yet there are people who are not outraged by the prosecutor, but they apparently are ready to mock the defendant over his crying. What I saw and heard was not crying, but an attempt to control his emotions at which point the judge granted a recess so that the defendant could compose himself.

I guess lessons weren’t learned after the Nicholas Sandman debacle, hopefully Kyle Rittenhouse has attorneys lined up to drop lawsuits. Given that some of those proclaiming his guilt also attacked Nicholas Sandman, one would think the judgement/settlement against these people should be significantly higher.

Well said

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

No. He wasn't injured, he isn't dead, and there is no living person from this event who has committed any crime against him. He is a victim perhaps of white supremacists, the proud boys, and his own mother. But at this particular event, at the riot where he admits he shot and killed two people? No. He's not a victim.

So, when a person is chased down by rioters, things thrown at him and being smacked in the back of the head repeatedly with a skateboard and kicked while on the ground, and then a gun aimed at him, that does not make him a victim? Interesting perspective. So, if a person is a racist, he can't be a victim but if he is a child molester or a rapist, or just a violent thug, he will be a victim? Is this a special theory based on one's ethnicity?

[Eg_cruz]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

Well, I guess there was no reason for a trial, since you're so sure of what happened...

Are you available for other trials? It could save the justice system a lot of money!

Well put

[MDLNB]

Apparently, there are some on here that feel that one should not defend themselves from being beaten and possibly even murdered in the street. I certainly hope that no one has a family member that is a victim that has to run for his life because he attempts to do his civic duty, patriotic duty of helping his fellow man. Find this young man guilty and it will discourage brave young people from running into a fire to save a child or even a pet, assist an accident victim or even enlist in the military. Apparently, some folks believe that towns should be burnt down to demonstrate their opposition to a view. When your female family member is being assaulted by some thug, I hope that witnesses do not turn a blind eye away from the incident instead of defending them. Hopefully, if someone attempts to carjack you, a good neighbor will be there to assist and not go about his merry way, thinking it is not his business.
As for any association with a white supremacist group, it wouldn't matter to me if the rescuer is a member of the KKK or the Black Panthers. One shouldn't be picky about those that attempt to assist them when their homes are burning.
I have observed the trial on this young man and think that he should be acquitted. I have little doubt that they will still find him guilty of illegally in possession of a firearm. Funny, but other states(30) only have such age restrictions on handguns. I also feel that if they are trying him as an adult that charge should be dropped.

Case closed!

[J1ceasar]

I wonder how many demonstrators were arrested ?

Originally Posted by dewilson58

How to pis* off a judge and lose your case.

Quite entertaining yesterday.

I've got some popcorn and ready for today.

[Eg_cruz]

Originally Posted by dwoodley1975

The judge needs to be taken off the case.

Why…..because of your bias against the defendant

[spd2918]

2 thugs / rioters died because they tried to kill a man. That man defended his own live. I have no issues with that.

I do have issues with a system that destroys an innocent young man's life for political reasons.

I do have issues with a media that labels a young man a white supremacist and omits information to its viewers for political reasons.

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by spd2918

2 thugs / rioters died because they tried to kill a man. That man defended his own live. I have no issues with that.

I do have issues with a system that destroys an innocent young man's life for political reasons.

I do have issues with a media that labels a young man a white supremacist and omits information to its viewers for political reasons.

[dewilson58]

Maybe someone told him there are blanks in the gun, so it's not his responsibility.

[Love2Swim]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

I'm sure that is true. However, so far no one has suggested, or announced, or proclaimed that this kid has been diagnosed with any such thing, or claimed that he's incapable of shedding tears.

And he has plenty of talent in "expression emotions." That blubber-fest would have been convincing, had there been tears.

He admitted to lying about his claim that he was an EMT. So we know he's fully capable of lying, and understands what lying means, and that he knows the difference between "misstating" something and flat out lying about something on purpose.

His mother drove him, while he was a minor child, over state lines with a semi-automatic weapon, for the express purpose of attending what he believed would be a riot (since, why else WOULD he bring a semi-automatic weapon with him over state lines)?

He knew he was going to a violent situation. He brought with him the means to kill people. He killed not someone, but two people. He maimed another. He has bragged about his affiliations with white supremacists and the Proud Boys on his own personal social media accounts, and the public has seen the publicized videos and photos of him exactly where he bragged that he was.

Whether he intended to kill the two VICTIMS, he killed them. They're dead, he's the one who pulled the trigger. They are victims of gun violence, whether it's murder or otherwise. He's not being charged with murder, he's being charged with homicide. He absolutely committed homicide.

Agree. There is no way to sugar coat his actions - he was a self described white supremacist and vigilante. I think its important to separate politics from facts. Taking a look at the FACTS - He willingly came to a riot "locked and loaded" with 30 rounds of live ammunition in his semi-automatic rifle. He lied about being an EMT - he was not licensed or even trained as one, and he is not old enough to open carry the weapon in Wisconsin. He deliberately injected himself into a dangerous situation with a conspicuous assault rifle where he KNEW he might have to use it. He not only pulled the trigger four times killing one person (shot in the head?), he then pulled it again killing a second person, and then a third time injuring a a third person IMHO, If he doesn't serve jail time for the shootings there is something wrong with our justice system. And I think his mother, who knew what he was up to and transported him across state lines, should be held accountable as well.

What is additionally sickening is that (according to an affidavit filed by the Kenosha DA) Rittenhouse was at a pub on January 5 with his mother, after the killings, posing for pictures while flashing a white supremacist hand gesture, wearing a T-shirt reading "free as f**k." It doesn't appear he even had an real remorse for what he had done.

[wamley]

You are wrong. " Lake County, Ill. State's Attorney Michael Nerheim's office said in a statement that an investigation conducted by local police "revealed the gun used in the Kenosha shooting was purchased, stored and used in Wisconsin."

"Additionally, there is no evidence the gun was ever physically possessed by Kyle Rittenhouse in Illinois," the state's attorney's office added.
Kyle Rittenhouse Will Face No Gun Charges In Illinois For Wisconsin Shooting : Updates: The Fight Against Racial Injustice : NPR

[wamley]

You are wrong. " Lake County, Ill. State's Attorney Michael Nerheim's office said in a statement that an investigation conducted by local police "revealed the gun used in the Kenosha shooting was purchased, stored and used in Wisconsin."

"Additionally, there is no evidence the gun was ever physically possessed by Kyle Rittenhouse in Illinois," the state's attorney's office added.
Kyle Rittenhouse Will Face No Gun Charges In Illinois For Wisconsin Shooting : Updates: The Fight Against Racial Injustice : NPR