Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

[Foggy]

Ammon (Eggs) Bundy and his daddy were acquitted.

Sorry to contradict you Dick Tater but Ammon's daddy was not acquitted - was a mistrial (Ammon was acquitted in OR but not in NV).

Yeah, I threw him in there just to be topical and trendy.

But I remember it was a little more complex.

[Dr. Caligari]

I am really disappointed in the prosecutor's rebuttal case. They could have brought in two witnesses to testify that the defendant lied to the jury. Why didn't they do this? He lied about being a nursing student at University of Arizona and he lied about the police department issuing him a bullet proof vest. Among other lies. Lying on the night of is bad enough. Lying to the jury is utterly reckless and stoopid.

I'm not a Wisconsin lawyer, but I believe that kind of rebuttal is barred by the "collateral impeachment" rule. (In federal court, at least, you can bring in rebuttal evidence to show the defendant lied about issues relating to the charged crimes, but, if you ask the defendant on cross-examination about a "collateral" issue, you're stuck with whatever answer you get.)

[pipistrelle]

I am really disappointed in the prosecutor's rebuttal case. They could have brought in two witnesses to testify that the defendant lied to the jury. Why didn't they do this? He lied about being a nursing student at University of Arizona and he lied about the police department issuing him a bullet proof vest. Among other lies. Lying on the night of is bad enough. Lying to the jury is utterly reckless and stoopid.

I'm not a Wisconsin lawyer, but I believe that kind of rebuttal is barred by the "collateral impeachment" rule. (In federal court, at least, you can bring in rebuttal evidence to show the defendant lied about issues relating to the charged crimes, but, if you ask the defendant on cross-examination about a "collateral" issue, you're stuck with whatever answer you get.)

It is a fundamental principle of law that counsel may not introduce extrinsic evidence on a collateral matter for the purpose of impeaching credibility.

[andersweinstein]

It's not magical. Even the judge, after watching it several times grudgingly had to side with the prosecutor regarding Rittenhouse putting down the fire extinguisher in order to be able to raise his gun and point it at the Ziminiskis. The worst part of that part of the video for Rittenhouse is that he is traveling in a direction AWAY from the Ziminski's, they are BEHIND him. He turns around, puts down the extinguisher and points the gun.

I thought his testimony was that he came up against Ziminski coming toward him with gun he started in other direction, intending to retreat north whence he came, and then was brought up by encountering Rosenbaum charging at him from behind a parked car, at which point he dropped fire extinguisher and ran the other way (out a bit toward street and around Ziminskis into lot). So according to his account there would have been a short moment when he was headed away from the Ziminskis, I think.

[Suranis]

Just saw this in a comment on Facebook. No idea if it's true or not, I thought I would pass it along for discussion.

Why the jury must find Kyle Rittenhouse guilty:
"Remember, under Wisconsin law, if you’re in the commission of a crime, self defense is not a valid excuse for the use of deadly force. You see, Kyle was a minor, and minors aren’t allowed to posses firearms in public in Wisconsin. If it’s unlawful for you to posses a firearm in public, it’s also unlawful to use it against another person, even in self defense. In Wisconsin, you can also be charged with murder if anyone dies as a result of your crimes even if you didn’t actually pull the trigger. For example, two men were robbing a store, police shoot and kill one suspect, and the other is charged with murder because, if he hadn’t been committing a crime, nobody would have died. If Rittenhouse hadn’t been illegally carrying a firearm, nobody would have been shot that night, so he is culpable for those deaths."
-Christopher Aaron

[andersweinstein]

Either side can introduce Evidence that puts an affirmative defense in issue. It doesn’t necessarily have to be put in issue by the defense. I think all the prosecution had to show is that he was 17, he was in possession of a rifle, and he hadn’t had hunter safety training or whatever the requirement. I didn’t watch all of his testimony, but I presume that they put in evidence that he hadn’t had hunter safety training. I think they just asked him? If they didn’t ask him, then they were stupid.

... It sounded like he was starting to announce his plan to craft an instruction anyway but then said they had to go review the evidence, so I didn't understand where the matter was left.

On reviewing, looks to me like judge decided to use jury instructions suggested by defense which include the elements from the exception, and told the state to review the evidence to see if they had introduced enough evidence so it can go to the jury.

So it could wind up thrown out like the curfew charge.

[scirreeve]

Ammon (Eggs) Bundy and his daddy were acquitted.

Sorry to contradict you Dick Tater but Ammon's daddy was not acquitted - was a mistrial (Ammon was acquitted in OR but not in NV).

Yeah, I threw him in there just to be topical and trendy.

But I remember it was a little more complex.

Ammo keeps saying he was acquitted. It is a lie as is normal for Ammo. I like to call out his many many lies. I know it is a weird hobby.

[andersweinstein]

Anyone who doubted the judge is pulling for the defense should be completely disavowed of that notion after yesterday and today. I haven't watched all of what happened yesterday but it was really disturbing to me to see the judge continue efforts to help the defense and hamstring the prosecutor. And he was visibly angry at having to admit that based on his own viewing of the drone video that it is appropriate to give the jury instruction as to provocation by the defendant. They very judge that is trying so hard to help the defendant.

After repeatedly expressing skepticism about the enhanced photograph showing Kyle raising rifle, the judge allowed it anyway on the ground that the jury could weigh it and assess its significance. It is the sole evidential basis for the provocation instruction whose inclusion vastly increases the chance of a conviction. That makes this arguably the most significant decision in the whole trial and it went for the prosecution, against the judge's own views, in service of a principle. If he's rigging it for the defense he did a really bad job today.

[Dave from down under]

Baby face Kyle would never have pointed his M&P15 at anyone who he didn’t intend to maim or kill.

[LM K]

It's not magical. Even the judge, after watching it several times grudgingly had to side with the prosecutor regarding Rittenhouse putting down the fire extinguisher in order to be able to raise his gun and point it at the Ziminiskis. The worst part of that part of the video for Rittenhouse is that he is traveling in a direction AWAY from the Ziminski's, they are BEHIND him. He turns around, puts down the extinguisher and points the gun. And, this is for anders - quit lying about the source of this video. This is NOT FBI footage that magically showed up. This is footage from a private citizen, who supplied it to white supremacist Tucker Carlson in an effort to help Rittenhouse. The fact this very footage is allowing the jury to hear about provocation is a win for the prosecution.

Anyone who doubted the judge is pulling for the defense should be completely disavowed of that notion after yesterday and today. I haven't watched all of what happened yesterday but it was really disturbing to me to see the judge continue efforts to help the defense and hamstring the prosecutor. And he was visibly angry at having to admit that based on his own viewing of the drone video that it is appropriate to give the jury instruction as to provocation by the defendant. They very judge that is trying so hard to help the defendant.

So the judge is going to allow the section of the video in which Rittenhouse raises his gun at Ziminski to be allowed during closing arguments?

[LM K]

I am really disappointed in the prosecutor's rebuttal case. They could have brought in two witnesses to testify that the defendant lied to the jury. Why didn't they do this? He lied about being a nursing student at University of Arizona and he lied about the police department issuing him a bullet proof vest. Among other lies. Lying on the night of is bad enough. Lying to the jury is utterly reckless and stoopid.

The ASU UA admin might not have been able to fly to WI in time to testify. It's likely that only the registrar or her/his subordinates could testify on Rittenhouse's enrollment status.

At least one juror will put together that Rittenhouse is too young to be admitted into a nursing program. This is his first semester of college. But they won't know that he isn't even registered.

ETA: wrong school.

[LM K]

Well they've seemed to be placing a lot of weight earlier on the claim that the FBI footage shows Rittenhouse "chasing down and confronting" Rosenbaum and even more on the magic new drone footage, which, if enlarged and enhanced in just that right way, produces a blurry picture suggesting Rittenhouse raising his rifle at Ziminski. Speaking as a layman, I'd be a little surprised if they didn't seek it after all that.

Drone footage 2 is quite inconvenient for you, eh, Anders? It sure does clarify a lot about what happened when Rittenhouse pulled the trigger repeatedly, shooting Rosenbaum 4 times.

At this time I'm not sure what I think about the portion of footage involving Ziminski.

But that drone footage makes your claims about ambush and attack much less convincing.

I didn't see anything in the drone footage inconsistent with the ambush theory. It starts with him running away along the well known chase. So I honestly don't know why you say that.

Anders, you are entertaining.

I have asked you for weeks what solid evidence there is for an "ambush". Your only support is that Rosenbaum was mad and his personal history supports a likelihood of ambush.

Why is there no evidence of ambush? Ambush requires that we know Rosenbaum's intentions. Well, after being murdered* we can't know Rosenbaum's intentions.

Well, that's assumption, nothing more.

*Now that I've seen drone #2 footage, which shows the shooting of Rosenbaum, I believe Rittenhouse is guilty of intentionally murdering Rosenbaum. As I've previously explained, even if Rittenhouse felt self defense was necessary, the first gunshot put Rosenbaum down, eliminating all threat. The next 3 bullets were 100% unnecessary. And the first shot did not result in a life-threatening wound. There was a pause between shot 1 and the following 3 gunshots.

[LM K]

It's not magical. Even the judge, after watching it several times grudgingly had to side with the prosecutor regarding Rittenhouse putting down the fire extinguisher in order to be able to raise his gun and point it at the Ziminiskis. The worst part of that part of the video for Rittenhouse is that he is traveling in a direction AWAY from the Ziminski's, they are BEHIND him. He turns around, puts down the extinguisher and points the gun.

I thought his testimony was that he came up against Ziminski coming toward him with gun he started in other direction, intending to retreat north whence he came, and then was brought up by encountering Rosenbaum charging at him from behind a parked car, at which point he dropped fire extinguisher and ran the other way (out a bit toward street and around Ziminskis into lot). So according to his account there would have been a short moment when he was headed away from the Ziminskis, I think.

RVInit's explanation of the footage from drone #2 is correct. It shows that Rittenhouse was walking away from Ziminski until he turned around to point his riffle at Ziminski.

[Gregg]

Baby face Kyle would never have pointed his M&P15 at anyone who he didn’t intend to maim or kill.

Or if he hadn't gotten a friend to buy it for him illegally.

[Uninformed]

[RVInit]

It's not magical. Even the judge, after watching it several times grudgingly had to side with the prosecutor regarding Rittenhouse putting down the fire extinguisher in order to be able to raise his gun and point it at the Ziminiskis. The worst part of that part of the video for Rittenhouse is that he is traveling in a direction AWAY from the Ziminski's, they are BEHIND him. He turns around, puts down the extinguisher and points the gun. And, this is for anders - quit lying about the source of this video. This is NOT FBI footage that magically showed up. This is footage from a private citizen, who supplied it to white supremacist Tucker Carlson in an effort to help Rittenhouse. The fact this very footage is allowing the jury to hear about provocation is a win for the prosecution.

Anyone who doubted the judge is pulling for the defense should be completely disavowed of that notion after yesterday and today. I haven't watched all of what happened yesterday but it was really disturbing to me to see the judge continue efforts to help the defense and hamstring the prosecutor. And he was visibly angry at having to admit that based on his own viewing of the drone video that it is appropriate to give the jury instruction as to provocation by the defendant. They very judge that is trying so hard to help the defendant.

So the judge is going to allow the section of the video in which Rittenhouse raises his gun at Ziminski to be allowed during closing arguments?

Yes, and I can tell you the judge pretty openly displayed being not happy about that. He had no choice after prosecutors proved to him that the video does show Rittenhouse turns, puts down the fire extinguisher, and raises his gun in the direction of the Ziminiskis.

[Dave from down under]

Anders, you are entertaining.

I have asked you for weeks what solid evidence there is for an "ambush". Your only support is that Rosenbaum was mad and his personal history supports a likelihood of ambush.

Why is there no evidence of ambush? Ambush requires that we know Rosenbaum's intentions. Well, after being murdered* we can't know Rosenbaum's intentions.

Well, that's assumption, nothing more.

You will never get that evidence of an ambush from Anders because:
It only exists in the false narrative being pushed by the killers supporters.

[Maybenaut]

Just saw this in a comment on Facebook. No idea if it's true or not, I thought I would pass it along for discussion.

Why the jury must find Kyle Rittenhouse guilty:
"Remember, under Wisconsin law, if you’re in the commission of a crime, self defense is not a valid excuse for the use of deadly force. You see, Kyle was a minor, and minors aren’t allowed to posses firearms in public in Wisconsin. If it’s unlawful for you to posses a firearm in public, it’s also unlawful to use it against another person, even in self defense. In Wisconsin, you can also be charged with murder if anyone dies as a result of your crimes even if you didn’t actually pull the trigger. For example, two men were robbing a store, police shoot and kill one suspect, and the other is charged with murder because, if he hadn’t been committing a crime, nobody would have died. If Rittenhouse hadn’t been illegally carrying a firearm, nobody would have been shot that night, so he is culpable for those deaths."
-Christopher Aaron

That’s bullshit. Also, his discussion of felony murder is bullshit because Rittenhouse wasn’t charged with that.

[andersweinstein]

I didn't see anything in the drone footage inconsistent with the ambush theory. It starts with him running away along the well known chase. So I honestly don't know why you say that.

I have asked you for weeks what solid evidence there is for an "ambush". Your only support is that Rosenbaum was mad and his personal history supports a likelihood of ambush.

Why is there no evidence of ambush? Ambush requires that we know Rosenbaum's intentions. Well, after being murdered* we can't know Rosenbaum's intentions.

Well, that's assumption, nothing more.

We seem to have some miscommunication over use of the word "evidence" here. By "ambush" I only mean that Rosenbaum initiated the encounter, surprising KR by coming at him from behind a parked car, so was the aggressor. I do also find it very plausible to suppose that Rosenbaum deliberately ran into that position to lay in wait for the purpose of getting the jump on him, but that extra detail is not crucial, so I don't need it.

The way I think of it is that we have two hypotheses, and lots of evidence which taken together increases or decreases the probability we ought rationally to assign those hypotheses. It's a bit like a doctor making a diagnosis and doing various tests which might increase the probability of this or that without any one test being conclusive.

OK, so what kind of question is your "where is the evidence" question? I think you are repetitively hammering the question if there is some kind of proof positive, conclusive evidence, "direct evidence" of the ambush theory. But I have not said there is. I said on the totality of the evidence we have, I think one ought rationally believe that Rosenbaum was the aggressor who came at Rittenhouse in a kind of "ambush" from behind a parked car. One should rationally give that a probability of greater than > .5, so that if somehow it were possible to settle a bet on which is true, the smart money would bet on that hypothesis.

If I've made any point, it is just to emphasize that this seems like such a simple and obvious theory because Rosenbaum was angry at the armed men, behaved aggressively to them, baited them, threatened Rittenhouse, and what we can see shows KR walking obliviously with a plausible purpose then fleeing. Rittenhouse on the other hand never behaved aggressively, was not hostile to protestors (wanted to give first aid), consistently walked away from confrontation.

So this is just the simple theory that the ball of rage who made a threat later made good on that threat against the kid. It's a DUH theory. If someone threated to kill someone in a bar argument, goes out, comes back and there's a fight, you wouldn't find it so hard to believe that the threatmaker was the aggressor.

BTW we do now have Rittenhouse's testimony and that is certainly evidence too.

So that's all I mean. You may not agree in your view of what hypothesis the totality of evidence most supports. But if you understand the type of claim, it is not an objection to keep saying "where is the evidence?". It is not just an *assumption*. You might call it an inference.

[andersweinstein]

Just saw this in a comment on Facebook. No idea if it's true or not, I thought I would pass it along for discussion.

Why the jury must find Kyle Rittenhouse guilty:
"Remember, under Wisconsin law, if you’re in the commission of a crime, self defense is not a valid excuse for the use of deadly force. You see, Kyle was a minor, and minors aren’t allowed to posses firearms in public in Wisconsin. If it’s unlawful for you to posses a firearm in public, it’s also unlawful to use it against another person, even in self defense. In Wisconsin, you can also be charged with murder if anyone dies as a result of your crimes even if you didn’t actually pull the trigger. For example, two men were robbing a store, police shoot and kill one suspect, and the other is charged with murder because, if he hadn’t been committing a crime, nobody would have died. If Rittenhouse hadn’t been illegally carrying a firearm, nobody would have been shot that night, so he is culpable for those deaths."
-Christopher Aaron

That’s bullshit. Also, his discussion of felony murder is bullshit because Rittenhouse wasn’t charged with that.

And the minor gun possession charge is only a misdemeanor, not a felony, in WI.

[Maybenaut]

And the minor gun possession charge is only a misdemeanor, not a felony, in WI.

Some states have misdemeanor manslaughter laws (don’t know about Wisconsin). But you still actually have to be charged with it (the indictment would have to say something like “while in commission of a misdemeanor, to wit: violation of ___”).

[Dave from down under]

We seem to have some miscommunication over use of the word "evidence" here. By "ambush" I only mean that Rosenbaum initiated the encounter, surprising KR by coming at him from behind a parked car, so was the aggressor.

BINGO!!!!

No evidence - just pro-killer propaganda.

[Greatgrey]

If somebody already posted this, I’m sorry for the duplication.

Here’s Judge Luddite explaining his rationale for not allowing zoomed in images.

[neeneko]

If somebody already posted this, I’m sorry for the duplication.

Here’s Judge Luddite explaining his rationale for not allowing zoomed in images.

I think that floored me was when the prosecution was pointing out that the techniques were industry standard and being used by an accredited forensic lab, and the judge said 'well what is that to me?'. That is the whole point of standards and experts.. people who know things setting a baseline for people who lack the background to independently evaluate something.

[bill_g]

It's like the judge is operating under the assumption that the defendent is allowed a fair trial, not the prosecution.