So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?

[Joey2k]

Those that argue he shouldn't have been there?  What? And the rioters should have?

Whether he should have been there is irrelevant. The only pertinent question is whether he was legally allowed to be there.

[Ratman_tf]

Those that argue he shouldn't have been there?  What? And the rioters should have?

Exactly. The rioters were the ones who instigated the whole situation. But we've been treated to a media narrative about Rittenhouse that intentionally ignores that.

[Ghostmaker]

Those that argue he shouldn't have been there?  What? And the rioters should have?

Whether he should have been there is irrelevant. The only pertinent question is whether he was legally allowed to be there.

And the answer is yes.

The curfew charge was dropped; the state couldn't produce proof there actually WAS a curfew (and I imagine they did not want anyone asking exactly why the rioters weren't in violation but everyone else was).

[3catcircus]

Those that argue he shouldn't have been there?  What? And the rioters should have?

Whether he should have been there is irrelevant. The only pertinent question is whether he was legally allowed to be there.

And the answer is yes.

The curfew charge was dropped; the state couldn't produce proof there actually WAS a curfew (and I imagine they did not want anyone asking exactly why the rioters weren't in violation but everyone else was).

Yep.  Other troubling info.  They just *now* identified jump kick man as a career criminal. I wonder why they waited until after the trial to identify him...

Additionally, someone pointed out that the software used by the prosecution to "enhance" the video expressly states that image enhancement with AI may be ok for investigation, but not evidentiary purposes.  Open the door to appeal if there is a rogue jury.  There are 6 other jurors in the event one or more of them choose to not follow the judge's directives - one would hope that the judge would interview them to determine if their decision is based on having a bias against Rittenhouse.

I mean - this is a textbook self-defense case.

[Kiero]

Who taught Rittenhouse how to shoot? Considering the situation he was in, that was stellar self control and accuracy.

[wmarshal]

Who taught Rittenhouse how to shoot? Considering the situation he was in, that was stellar self control and accuracy.

I think I read somewhere he had only shot about 200 rounds prior. That's not enough to really acquire a skill. I think in this case he was more "lucky than good", but I think that's a saying for a reason. Most (all?) of his shots were at targets within 4 feet, so that helps explain the accuracy part. The element of self control is more arguably a matter of his demeanor. I think his decision to go out on patrol that night was foolish (not illegal), but it's easy to imagine how that night could have turned out a whole lot worse with someone panicking into thinking every single person around him was a lethal threat. Fortunately he didn't panic, at least not to that degree - I don't think Rittenhouse is an action movie hero able to maintain a Clint Eastwood level of cool, I'm sure he panicked at least a little, but it didn't control his actions that night.

[wmarshal]

TBP still has people who think Rittenhouse shot black people. Jesus weeps.

https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/mostly-us-non-election-law-stuff-megathread-iii-more-things-you-never-want-to-hear-a-judge-say.883092/post-24131826

[Joey2k]

Has it been established why he drove to defend this particular car lot (as opposed to all the other property that was in jeopardy)? There is some uncertainty about whether he was asked to by the owners, but how did he know them in the first place (if he did)?

[3catcircus]

Has it been established why he drove to defend this particular car lot (as opposed to all the other property that was in jeopardy)? There is some uncertainty about whether he was asked to by the owners, but how did he know them in the first place (if he did)?

It doesn't matter.  What matters are the facts of the case as indicated by the evidence and testimony - and all of it points to an acquittal.

Poso is reporting that a US Marshal in Kenosha had indicated 10 not guilty with 2 jurors who are specifically holding out for fear of blm/antifa backlash and MSM doxxing.  That right there would be enough for a mistrial with prejudice or of removal of those 2 jurors for specifically going against the judge's order to ignore opinions from everyone.

[Joey2k]

Has it been established why he drove to defend this particular car lot (as opposed to all the other property that was in jeopardy)? There is some uncertainty about whether he was asked to by the owners, but how did he know them in the first place (if he did)?

It doesn't matter.  What matters are the facts of the case as indicated by the evidence and testimony - and all of it points to an acquittal.

It doesn't matter for the trial. It matters for my own personal curiosity

[FingerRod]

Has it been established why he drove to defend this particular car lot (as opposed to all the other property that was in jeopardy)? There is some uncertainty about whether he was asked to by the owners, but how did he know them in the first place (if he did)?

It doesn't matter.  What matters are the facts of the case as indicated by the evidence and testimony - and all of it points to an acquittal.

Poso is reporting that a US Marshal in Kenosha had indicated 10 not guilty with 2 jurors who are specifically holding out for fear of blm/antifa backlash and MSM doxxing.  That right there would be enough for a mistrial with prejudice or of removal of those 2 jurors for specifically going against the judge's order to ignore opinions from everyone.

If this is accurate, the two holdouts will likely cave. A hung jury gives them no shelter from these thugs.

I have my doubts though. Prosecution did not make their case, yet the defense still put him on the stand. I know they spun it, but they subjected their easy win to a lot of risk.

Despite being 100% innocent, I can't shake the feeling they will cave to the pressure and convict.

[moonsweeper]

Has it been established why he drove to defend this particular car lot (as opposed to all the other property that was in jeopardy)? There is some uncertainty about whether he was asked to by the owners, but how did he know them in the first place (if he did)?

It doesn't matter.  What matters are the facts of the case as indicated by the evidence and testimony - and all of it points to an acquittal.

Poso is reporting that a US Marshal in Kenosha had indicated 10 not guilty with 2 jurors who are specifically holding out for fear of blm/antifa backlash and MSM doxxing.  That right there would be enough for a mistrial with prejudice or of removal of those 2 jurors for specifically going against the judge's order to ignore opinions from everyone.

If this is accurate, the two holdouts will likely cave. A hung jury gives them no shelter from these thugs.

I have my doubts though. Prosecution did not make their case, yet the defense still put him on the stand. I know they spun it, but they subjected their easy win to a lot of risk.

Despite being 100% innocent, I can't shake the feeling they will cave to the pressure and convict.

I would guess they put him on the stand for 2 reasons precisely because it is a slam dunk self defense case from a purely legal perspective.

1.  It will leave no question as to the political bias of the situation and that the authorities are allowing/welcoming jury intimidation.
2.  Kyle's testimony is available for the appeal if the political railroading actually occurs.

[FingerRod]

Has it been established why he drove to defend this particular car lot (as opposed to all the other property that was in jeopardy)? There is some uncertainty about whether he was asked to by the owners, but how did he know them in the first place (if he did)?

It doesn't matter.  What matters are the facts of the case as indicated by the evidence and testimony - and all of it points to an acquittal.

Poso is reporting that a US Marshal in Kenosha had indicated 10 not guilty with 2 jurors who are specifically holding out for fear of blm/antifa backlash and MSM doxxing.  That right there would be enough for a mistrial with prejudice or of removal of those 2 jurors for specifically going against the judge's order to ignore opinions from everyone.

If this is accurate, the two holdouts will likely cave. A hung jury gives them no shelter from these thugs.

I have my doubts though. Prosecution did not make their case, yet the defense still put him on the stand. I know they spun it, but they subjected their easy win to a lot of risk.

Despite being 100% innocent, I can't shake the feeling they will cave to the pressure and convict.

I would guess they put him on the stand for 2 reasons precisely because it is a slam dunk self defense case from a purely legal perspective.

1.  It will leave no question as to the political bias of the situation and that the authorities are allowing/welcoming jury intimidation.
2.  Kyle's testimony is available for the appeal if the political railroading actually occurs.

Perhaps. Hope I'm wrong.

[Ghostmaker]

Honestly, my money was on a hung jury or mistrial.

On one hand, yeah, open and shut and if it hadn't been the Democrat's quasi-tamed monster that got the bloody nose, this wouldn't have even gone to trial. But y'know, having non-uniformed shock troops is very useful; ask the Communists and the Nazis, after all. And the proggies really do not want the proles to start getting the idea that if the cops get stood down, it's open season on some shithead trying to set fires.

And that doesn't even get into the massive media disinformation campaign (and if Rittenhouse walks, the first thing he needs to do is hire a really good defamation lawyer), or the attempts at extrajudicial intimidation (assuming you believe Posobiec at least two jurors have expressed worry about being doxed).

But still... sometimes you roll a natural 20. We can hope.

[3catcircus]

Honestly, my money was on a hung jury or mistrial.

On one hand, yeah, open and shut and if it hadn't been the Democrat's quasi-tamed monster that got the bloody nose, this wouldn't have even gone to trial. But y'know, having non-uniformed shock troops is very useful; ask the Communists and the Nazis, after all. And the proggies really do not want the proles to start getting the idea that if the cops get stood down, it's open season on some shithead trying to set fires.

And that doesn't even get into the massive media disinformation campaign (and if Rittenhouse walks, the first thing he needs to do is hire a really good defamation lawyer), or the attempts at extrajudicial intimidation (assuming you believe Posobiec at least two jurors have expressed worry about being doxed).

But still... sometimes you roll a natural 20. We can hope.

I've yet to see Poso be wrong.  Given his ability to do what "former" intelligence officers are able to do, I just hope I never get on his bad side...