quote:

Originally posted by lastmanstanding:
My guess he's going to prison.

He won't spend a day in prison.

quote:

Originally posted by kimber1911:
That was a pretty damning indictment of our Judicial System.
It would be a travesty if Kyle is not acquitted of ALL charges.

Kyle has some pretty good legal representation. I keep wondering how many other folks got the same treatment from these corrupt clowns and got railroaded.

And, not to quibble with you, but I think the real travesty is that Rittenhouse was charged with homicide in the first place.

quote:

Originally posted by CoolRich59:

And, not to quibble with you, but I think the real travesty is that Rittenhouse was charged with homicide in the first place.

Well, there's no question he committed homicide. However, it was justified homicide and certainly not murder.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by SigSentry:
^ as stated before. Lesser charges give the jury an opportunity to agree where more punitive charges may be harder to have unanimous agreement and lead to a mistrial or hung jury if there are holdouts.

Not an attorney and did not stay at a Holiday Inn last night, 'but', this is horse shit. Send the jury off to deliberate the murder charges. End of discussion. Sending them off with a GD cop out is massively stupid. If the jury comes back with a guilty verdict on the murder charges, the defense always has the option to appeal. Giving the jury a way to simply cop out to some BS lesser charge is criminal stupidity. KR's attorneys need to grow a sack and stand on their defense.

Ha, also not a lawyer and don't no crap. Lesser included may be more due to the severity of the charges and prevent over-charged conviction but I agree. Kyle could have gone all in on affirmative defense but that's a huge gamble.

Regardless, the defense will file a motion to dismiss with prejudice or the judge issue a Judgment notwithstanding verdict (jnov) to some degree. Praying for Kyle.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by SigSentry:
^ as stated before. Lesser charges give the jury an opportunity to agree where more punitive charges may be harder to have unanimous agreement and lead to a mistrial or hung jury if there are holdouts.

Not an attorney and did not stay at a Holiday Inn last night, 'but', this is horse shit. Send the jury off to deliberate the murder charges. End of discussion. Sending them off with a GD cop out is massively stupid. If the jury comes back with a guilty verdict on the murder charges, the defense always has the option to appeal. Giving the jury a way to simply cop out to some BS lesser charge is criminal stupidity. KR's attorneys need to grow a sack and stand on their defense.

Consider this:

Let's say it does go to the jury,they can't all agree, and they come in as a Hung Jury. That causes a Mistrial and he can be tried again

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
I believe lesser charges lower the burden of proof.

The burden of proof is the same whether it’s DUI or murder - Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.
The defense should have fought for sticking with the original charge IMHO.

^^^^^^^^^^^^
I hope you are correct. I forget which publication stated that.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-p...fuzzy-photo-n1532301

The person at whom prosecutors claim Rittenhouse pointed his gun was Joshua Ziminski, the man who fired the first shot, and who was with Rosenbaum, setting fires and breaking stuff. The record shows both arsonists became enraged when the police-cadet do-gooder came along with an extinguisher to put out their fires.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-p...fuzzy-photo-n1532301

The person at whom prosecutors claim Rittenhouse pointed his gun was Joshua Ziminski, the man who fired the first shot, and who was with Rosenbaum, setting fires and breaking stuff. The record shows both arsonists became enraged when the police-cadet do-gooder came along with an extinguisher to put out their fires.

Of course the Prosecution not calling Ziminski as a witness (since he has arson charges pending) kind of shots their provocation case in the foot..or bicep. Sorry couldn't resist. The only thing they have as provocation is the blurry photo that you can't see anything in.

So wait, all 3 of the people who he shot had previous criminal records.

Well, I guess no surprise since the were, after all, rioters.

Ever notice that those who protest the police the strongest have previous criminal records.

quote:

Originally posted by 9mmepiphany:
Let's say it does go to the jury,they can't all agree, and they come in as a Hung Jury. That causes a Mistrial and he can be tried again

This may explain why KR opted to allow lesser charges to be considered.

I'm thinking back to when I once got pulled over for speeding. I was cool to the cop. Admitted I'd been speeding. She went back to her car, saw I had a clean record. Came back. "I don't want to cite you for a moving violation, but I have to cite you for something. Luckily, for you, your insurance document is expired. So I'm citing you for that. Stop by the station with a current insurance doc by such-and-such a date and they'll void the ticket."

Allowing lesser charges to be considered gives the jury something to nail him for. It may not be ideal, but it's a lot better than giving the prosecutor another shot, where he'd have the opportunity to correct the plethora of mistakes in his first go.

Jack Posobiec has several interesting video's at this link showing the interactions between KR, Rosenbaum and Ziminski. They way he breaks it down and compares stills and video he comes to the reasonable conclusion the prosecution has tampered with evidence.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
This may explain why KR opted to allow lesser charges to be considered.

Many of the legal experts here (and perhaps even a few of the lawyers) are convinced that the defendant will be acquitted and evidently would hang tough if they were in his shoes, but some of us know that betting one’s life on what a jury will decide is very risky. That’s especially true if it’s a high profile case, and especially if it has serious political and social elements.

Even during my Army experience it was often obvious that juries were motivated by, “Dam’! We don’t really want to convict him of the most serious crime charged, but we can’t just say it never happened. We’ve got to convict him of something!” That something was often a “lesser-included” offense to what was charged. A most memorable case was when a CID agent shot his wife with his service revolver and he was charged with attempted murder. The reckless behavior and threat were intentional, but the actual shooting (revolver cocked and finger on the trigger) was claimed to have been unintentional. I don’t recall the exact offense he was convicted of, but he was reduced in grade from E-7 to E-5, reclassified as a supply sergeant, and not discharged out. If attempted murder or acquittal had been the only choices, things might not have turned out so well for him.

It's doubtful that the judge could review the Posobiec video analysis and reverse the provocation instruction for the jury. There are plenty of black pills but in the end Kyle has the facts on his side. "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" still applies to every aspect of the lesser included charges and any mistrial motion would include "with prejudice". Prosecution's job is to seek justice-not conviction.

Nick Rekieta's Friday night wrapup made me feel a little better. It was also mentioned that the jury can hear the judge when they are in the library.

Professor Johnathan Turkey, a Fox legal analyst described the prosecution as “a falling locomotive.”

No question he should be acquitted of the shooting of the three thugs. I'm not sure if he has been charged with any other crimes regarding under age carrying of the AR-15 etc. If he has, I think he may be convicted of those charges.

The actual charge reductions are very minimal and none that reduced a 1st degree charge to 2nd degree were accepted be defense. In WI it is at the judge's discretion to apply reduced charges and instruct the jury accordingly. The prosecutor can request, and the defense can oppose, but it's up to the judge. And the judge has not ruled on some yet. I do no necessarily agree that a judge should have this discretion because it encourages overcharging in self defense cases, then whittling it down after the case in presented. On the other hand, claims of self defense in WI require the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was NOT self defense.

That said, the only way for the jury to convict on any of the substantive charges is to ignore the facts and take the "he shouldn't have been there with a gun!" narrative on emotion.

However, I do think it's likely to acquit the murder charges and convict on the underage possession, if he indeed broke that law (I am not clear on WI law about lending a minor a rifle).

From The Babylon Bee:

KENOSHA, WI—Leftists are sounding the alarm that Kyle Rittenhouse—a notorious slayer of white communist pedophiles—may escape punishment through a little-known legal loophole known as a "trial."

"This is very concerning," said Chip Cordray, progressive legal expert covering the case. "Using this obscure loophole, Rittenhouse's fate will be decided by an impartial jury of peers based on evidence, rather than the whims of noble communist revolutionaries on Twitter—such as Bette Midler and Joe Biden."

Experts confirm that if Rittenhouse is found "not guilty," liberals won't be getting their way, which could lead to massive temper-tantrums, such as arson and looting.

"We can't let this happen," said Cordray. "It's time to talk about closing the 'trial' loophole so that justice can be done according to the whims of the leftist mob, as our founding fathers intended."

quote:

Originally posted by Fed161:
From The Babylon Bee:

KENOSHA, WI—Leftists are sounding the alarm that Kyle Rittenhouse—a notorious slayer of white communist pedophiles—may escape punishment through a little-known legal loophole known as a "trial."

"This is very concerning," said Chip Cordray, progressive legal expert covering the case. "Using this obscure loophole, Rittenhouse's fate will be decided by an impartial jury of peers based on evidence, rather than the whims of noble communist revolutionaries on Twitter—such as Bette Midler and Joe Biden."

Experts confirm that if Rittenhouse is found "not guilty," liberals won't be getting their way, which could lead to massive temper-tantrums, such as arson and looting.

"We can't let this happen," said Cordray. "It's time to talk about closing the 'trial' loophole so that justice can be done according to the whims of the leftist mob, as our founding fathers intended."

^^^ I know it's supposed to be a satirical piece, but damned if that hasn't been the unfortunate truth over the past decade or so in some of the high profile trials...

^^^^^^^^^
That Babylon Bee piece was stupid. Are they using SNL writers now?