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

[andersweinstein]

I can see why the jury might be snoozing, but honestly, the prosecutor is getting in some good punches if he can wrap it up during closing and if he has a strong rebuttal case. The defendant's answers to prosecutor questions are ridiculous and unbelievable. He refuses to answer any question where the answer shows him to be a cold blooded killer. He's lucky I'm not on his jury because he comes across as having no remorse whatsoever, he still thinks what happened is perfectly OK except for the part where he might be held accountable, and his fake crying really speaks volumes. He tried to cry again during prosecution questioning, but couldn't quite get there. It was a farce.

Funny that.

[LM K]

Any one else here think Rittenhouse is a budding sociopath?

I don't think there's nearly enough evidence to assess that. I think he really enjoys the company of sociopaths, such as Balch and Proud Boys. Rittenhouse certainly wants those sociopaths to praise him and accept his as "one of them".

That said, sociopaths typically have a significant history of violence and arrests for violence by 17. This history of violence must be severe enough to diagnose

To my knowledge, Rittenhouse doesn't have an extensive history of violent actions towards others before he shot 3 men. He doesn't appear to meet the criteria for Conduct Disorder.

DSM-V pages for the diagnosis of Anti-social Personality Disorder (also known as sociopathy or psychopathy). 4 pages.

I can't get my screenshots for Conduct Disorder to post. You can fine the criteria here.

► Show Spoiler

Screenshot_20211110-135801.png (290.27 KiB) Viewed 713 times

Screenshot_20211110-135819.png (361.07 KiB) Viewed 713 times

Screenshot_20211110-135843.png (87 KiB) Viewed 713 times

Screenshot_20211110-135903.png (440.46 KiB) Viewed 713 times

[SlimSloSlider]

Y’all have a great deal of patience in rebutting trolls.
Kid’s a murderous little liar.
Carry on.

[Foggy]

I'm afraid maybe this thread, or the most excellent job he started has caused FRP to stop posting since October 16.

I think if he was here we might be pestering him a little, like we do. So I hope he returns after the verdict.

[Foggy]

Y’all have a great deal of patience in rebutting trolls.

That's the nicest thing anyone could ever say about us. I thank you sincerely.

Kid’s a murderous little liar.

As you can see, all but one of us agree with you, but it's still a fascinating and unusual (very unusual) case. You could sit through a thousand trials and never hear a judge scream at the prosecutor. Jeazess H. Kreist.

But despite Judge Crazypants, there's a lot of evidence, as RVInit and others keep pointing out. If the judge isn't subtle about it and the jury thinks he's putting his thumb on the scale, there could be a backlash in the library (with the candlestick).

Carry on.

We shall do exactly that. Please join us more often!

[Maybenaut]

I can see why the jury might be snoozing, but honestly, the prosecutor is getting in some good punches if he can wrap it up during closing and if he has a strong rebuttal case. The defendant's answers to prosecutor questions are ridiculous and unbelievable. He refuses to answer any question where the answer shows him to be a cold blooded killer. He's lucky I'm not on his jury because he comes across as having no remorse whatsoever, he still thinks what happened is perfectly OK except for the part where he might be held accountable, and his fake crying really speaks volumes. He tried to cry again during prosecution questioning, but couldn't quite get there. It was a farce.

I listened to some of it. I never know how this stuff is going to play, but I didn’t think he did himself any favors by being intransigent. When the prosecutor asked him over and over again whether he thought a person might be in fear if someone was pointing an AR-15 at them, he should have just said yes rather than saying, “but he was coming at me,” or whatever he said. It wouldn’t have hurt him any to say, “Of course!” But he just kept not answering the question, and every time the prosecutor re-asked it, he potentially created an image in the minds of the jurors about how scared those guys must have been, making his self-defense claim less and less likely.

Whether to put him on the stand was a tough call for the defense. Even though the defense bears no burden whatsoever, when the issue is one of intent, I think the jury expects to hear from the person whose intent is at issue. I think the defense likely thought that all of the inferences to be drawn about Rittenhouse’s intent from the evidence presented so far made him look really, really bad. Or he may have insisted, which was, of course, his right. We’ll never know (unless he tells us).

[RVInit]

He also looks over at his lawyers every damn time he's asked a difficult question.

[raison de arizona]

I'm afraid maybe this thread, or the most excellent job he started has caused FRP to stop posting since October 16.

I think if he was here we might be pestering him a little, like we do. So I hope he returns after the verdict.

Ack, me too. I appreciate all the amazing legal explanations patiently given here, so thank you all.

Also, just a reminder of an inadmissible video.

[Foggy]

I like how the judge said something about sending the jury to the "library" which is why I mentioned it. I suspect that the courthouse law library kind of doubles as the jury deliberation room.

Which is wonderful! So very wonderful, so very exciting, so very cool!

It means, in the year of our lord 2021, that they can do their own research!

This website is way more cool than Tee Vee.

[Maybenaut]

I'm afraid maybe this thread, or the most excellent job he started has caused FRP to stop posting since October 16.

I think if he was here we might be pestering him a little, like we do. So I hope he returns after the verdict.

He did start a new job, and got a new house, so he’s probably pretty bizzy. I do hope he’s reading here, though, and hope he comes back soon.

[bob]

I'm afraid maybe this thread, or the most excellent job he started has caused FRP to stop posting since October 16.

I think if he was here we might be pestering him a little, like we do. So I hope he returns after the verdict.

I fear the former and hope for the latter.

I like how the judge said something about sending the jury to the "library" which is why I mentioned it. I suspect that the courthouse law library kind of doubles as the jury deliberation room.

Which is wonderful! So very wonderful, so very exciting, so very cool!

It means, in the year of our lord 2021, that they can do their own research

Oh, I hope not: jurors doing their own research is a common reason why verdicts get tossed.

[Foggy]

Yes I know. That's the beauty of it. In the stuffy old days of yesteryear, they'd get a spanking and the verdict would be gone.

But this is post-TFA America, and they have their freedom!


Aaron Rogers did his own research, and that came out well for him. Lots of people are doing their own research, and only some of them are dying.

[LM K]

I can see why the jury might be snoozing, but honestly, the prosecutor is getting in some good punches if he can wrap it up during closing and if he has a strong rebuttal case. The defendant's answers to prosecutor questions are ridiculous and unbelievable. He refuses to answer any question where the answer shows him to be a cold blooded killer. He's lucky I'm not on his jury because he comes across as having no remorse whatsoever, he still thinks what happened is perfectly OK except for the part where he might be held accountable, and his fake crying really speaks volumes. He tried to cry again during prosecution questioning, but couldn't quite get there. It was a farce.

Agreed. Rittenhouse really started to unravel and his lawyers couldn't help him. He couldn't get around questions he needed to avoid answering so he came off as difficult and uncooperative.

Rittenhouse seems to believe that he's on trial for what he wanted that night rather than what he did that night. But Rittenhouse is on trial for his actions.

Rittenhouse's second attempt to cry was an epic fail. He tried that when he kept repeating that he didn't want to shoot people. Because he was so intensely obvious in his attempt to cry, his assertion that he didn't want to shoot anyone came off as disingenuous.

I don't think Rittenhouse wanted to kill anyone. I don't think he wanted to shoot any specific person that night. I think Rittenhouse wanted to feel powerful by ordering around people he had no respect for. But he killed two and severely injured a 3rd man.

Rittenhouse made a long series of choices that led to the death of two and disability of a 3rd. I hope the jury recognizes that.

[raison de arizona]

Here's the whole thing put together for those that weren't watching:

[Dr. Ken]

I'm afraid maybe this thread, or the most excellent job he started has caused FRP to stop posting since October 16.

I think if he was here we might be pestering him a little, like we do. So I hope he returns after the verdict.

Ack, me too. I appreciate all the amazing legal explanations patiently given here, so thank you all.

Also, just a reminder of an inadmissible video.

And for completeness here's the aftermath with him running away when confronted.

[LM K]

2. The issue of provocation is key to this case.

From what I can see, it is not that crucial under WI law. Under WI law, even if he provoked the attack, he could still act in self-defense against a death/bodily harm attack. He just gets a slightly higher burden of showing he's exhausted all alternatives, which he can argue applies in this case. That section on provocation has been posted many times in this topic and I am just going by the language there to say that.

So, no, even if he were the provoker, I don't think it majorly undermines his case -- IF the jurors go by the letter of WI law.

If I have something wrong about that law I'm happy to learn it. I could imagine it swaying the jury if he provoked. They might fall back on folk morality rather than sticking to the letter of WI law.

May I introduce you to a black kettle?

Jurors are the deciders of what the law means when forming their verdict. "Folk morality"? You obviously think the jury is incapable of thinking critically.

3. YOU have been victim blaming for months. Fuck, you claimed that killing Rosenbaum was morally a good thing.

I have never said that and would never say that. I said I thought he bears the responsibility for his own death.

And Rittenhouse bears responsibility for killing 2 men and disabling another.

I did opine that I thought Rosenbaum was a morally worse person than Rittenhouse. I said that because he once assaulted 5 boys between the ages of 9 and 11 including forced oral and anal sex, and also couldn't restrain himself from battering a woman who loved him, and, finally, attacked this kid who exercised poor judgement in going there but otherwise had not behaved badly toward him that we know of.

Yes, I think Rosenbaum is the bad guy we should be blaming. If he hadn't attacked, there'd be no loss of life.

You're correct about your verbage. Thank you for correcting me.

If Rittenhouse wasn't breaking the law possessing and using an AK-47 illegally, none of this would have happened.

Rosenbaum's history is irrelevant to the case. The judge was clear about this. And Rittenhouse had no idea what Rosenbaum's history was.

But thanks for clarifying how biased you are against Rosenbaum. Why you keep writing about Rosenbaum's history says a lot about you.


Rosenbaum became a victim immediately after he was shot once. According to the ME, Rosenbaum was shot first in the hip/thigh and was falling onto his belly. Rittenhouse then became the attacker. Rittenhouse stepped backwards away from Rosenbaum and 1-2 seconds later shot Rosenbaum three more times. Those 3 shots happened after Rosenbaum had been shot in the hip/thigh and couldn't hurt Rittenhouse if he wanted to.

The footage from drone 2 gives much more clarity about all this. You continue to ignore the evidence from drone 2.

Assistant District Attorney James Kraus asked Kelley if a bullet injury to the groin and hip may have caused Rosenbaum “fall forward” or “move forward or move down in a downward position.”

A medical examiner who performed the autopsies of both of the men Kyle Rittenhouse shot and killed in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on Aug. 25, 2020, testified that the first man Rittenhouse shot may have fallen forward due to being shot by the defendant himself — not because he was trying to attack the defendant.

The testimony by Dr. Doug Kelley, a forensic pathologist, seemed to have been designed by prosecutors to refute claims by several witnesses that Rittenhouse killed Joseph Rosenbaum specifically because Rosenbaum was lunging toward or stepping toward the defendant.

Assistant District Attorney James Kraus asked Kelley if a bullet injury to the groin and hip may have caused Rosenbaum “fall forward” or “move forward or move down in a downward position.”

Kelley said it was “possible” that the first bullet Rittenhouse fired caused a “very complex fracture involving the right side of the pelvis which may make the pelvis and the right leg more unstable.” Rosenbaum, unable to support himself, then may have fallen forward — landing him in the position where Rittenhouse fired what Kraus called a “kill shot.”

Kelley said that while autopsies generally cannot ascertain the order in which gunshots are fired, the Rittenhouse case was different because video of the shooting aided his analysis.

“I can see that he’s upright when the first shot is heard,” Kelley said while re-watching videos of the shooting in court.

Kelley said that while autopsies generally cannot ascertain the order in which gunshots are fired, the Rittenhouse case was different because video of the shooting aided his analysis.

“I can see that he’s upright when the first shot is heard,” Kelley said while re-watching videos of the shooting in court. Richie McGinniss, a video director for the conservative website The Daily Caller, testified that Rosenbaum fell, lunged, or moved toward Rittenhouse and that the defendant fired in reaction to the movement. Kelley’s analysis suggested that Rittenhouse fired earlier than McGinnis perceived.

Kelley said Rosenbaum was struck multiple times, but he agreed with prosecutors that a so-called “kill shot” — the lethal shot — was fired while Rosenbaum was falling or perpendicular to the ground.

Rittenhouse fired a “back to front shot to the head” and also fired a “kill shot to the back . . . while he was falling or perpendicular to the ground,” Kraus said during questions which Kelley reacted to favorably.

The only way that the trajectories of the gunshot wounds to the right side of the head and the back make sense is if he’s more horizontal to the ground, and that is occurring at the time the last two gunshot wounds are heard on the video,” Kelley testified.

On cross examination, lead defense attorney Mark Richards asked Kelley to agree that the shot to Rosenbaum’s head could have occurred when Ronsebaum was “charging like a bull” toward Rittenhouse. On re-direct, however, Kraus said the shot to Rosenbaum’s head could also have been fired when Rosenbaum was “falling.” The bullet entered near the top of Rosenbaum’s head and existed toward the bottom.

Richards asked Kelley to agree that Rosenbaum had “forward momentum” when the initial shots were fired.

You've asserted that those shot whom have criminal histories and/or mental illnesses should be perceived automatically be perceived as a threat to Rittenhouse.

No.

I've addressed this before. You never responded. I stand my my assertion.

And you've ignored that those shot were very likely attempting to defend themselves. Grosskreutz was particularly persuasive about needing to defend himself from a guy who just shot two people. The other two shot can't tell us what they thought ... Rittenhouse killed them.

The later shootings could be a tragic situation where two people each have a rational basis for attacking each other. It doesn't look to me like it is relevant to the case what the other people thought or whether they were justified or not. They are not on trial for their behavior. The question for the jury will be whether Rittenhouse reasonably believed he faced a threat of death/serious bodily harm and whether the force used was necessary to eliminate that threat. Other people's beliefs don't come up anywhere in those questions.

Grosskreutz was extremely persuasive in his testimony about believing he was going to die. He had a real reason to believe that Rittenhouse was going to kill him. And he had good reason to try to stop Rittenhouse.

Grosskreutz raised both of his hands in an attempt to surrender to Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse then blew half of Grosskreutz' arm off.

Have you seen the pic of Grosskreutz' arm immediately after he was shot?

Grosskreutz' perception that Rittenhouse was an active shooter has a lot to do with this case.

[John Thomas8]

As long as his behavior was lawful, I don't think this should be a consideration. It smacks of victim blaming.

Did you just call Rittenhouse the victim?

I 'm not in Schroeder's court. But I was talking about the argument in general. Even on the assumption that the defense theory is 100% true and all his actions prior to the chase were lawful, the argument would still blame him for creating a risk of violence and that seems weird. Under that hypothesis, it would be blaming the victim.

There's nothing lawful, or sane, about an untrained racist minor hauling a gun to a riot. Nothing.

[Dave from down under]

You will make Kyle pretend cry if you keep saying mean things to him...
and if he still had his M&P15 those mean things might cause him to fear for his life
which would be you making him shoot you dead...

Kyle is now an accomplished killer..

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

Thanks, LM K for the clinical definition of sociopath. I didn't think to look it up on the DSM whatever number it is now.

[John Thomas8]

You will make Kyle pretend cry if you keep saying mean things to him...
and if he still had his M&P15 those mean things might cause him to fear for his life
which would be you making him shoot you dead...

Kyle is now an accomplished killer..

Who specifically was on site to shoot rioters. With no training on how to determine valid targets or lawful use of force.

Unasked, mind you, multiple members of the family of the site he was supposed to "guarding" stated they didn't ask for help.

[Dave from down under]

Kyle didn't need nobodies permission to become a vigilante

He was very restrained in the number of people he shot that night

We should all praise him for his civic duty in killing those evil protesters.

[LM K]

Thanks, LM K for the clinical definition of sociopath. I didn't think to look it up on the DSM whatever number it is now.

and

[LM K]

What did Rittenhouse say when asked about the victims seeing him as a risk to their lives?

Iirc, he repeatedly deflected when replying to the question.

[John Thomas8]

Kyle didn't need nobodies permission to become a vigilante

He was very restrained in the number of people he shot that night

We should all praise him for his civic duty in killing those evil protesters.

nosureifserious.jpg

[Dave from down under]

I was channeling my inner rwnj…

(Yes he is there, lurking in the dark places of my soul, mostly kept in check by intelligence and empathy)