Judge in Rittenhouse case might be a tad biased.

[SilentPony]

SNIP

I know you think you're right, but you're just factually wrong. Being an unaccompanied minor in illegal possession of a firearm out after curfew is not "ENTITLED TO BE THERE" bullshit. He's wasn't participating in an open-carry event, because MINOR.
And yes he did claim he was a trained security personnel as part of some police outreach/recruitment, and claimed he was there to administer first-aid because he new CPR because he was a life-guard at pool.
By his own admission he falsely claimed that he was old enough to possess a gun and that he was a certified medic when he was really just a lifeguard. A pool that was not open at the time of the protest. A pool that does not need lifeguards to have guns.

Play the right-wing victim all you like, but having a gun and patrolling around pretending to be there to help is a pretty big indication of his intent.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Very short video of the Judge yelling at the prosecutor


Long version of it (which is a fair bit longer and the Judge lays into him far more)


Note how the judge says "Ask you to go into the library again"
Apparently this isn't the first time the Judge has had to stop the trail and have words with the persecutor today

 

[Mister Mumbler]

A big mistake for him to take the stand, but if he wants to potentially hurt his case then that's his choice to make.

Honestly, with the way this trial has been going, I half expect him to blurt out 'yes I went there with my militia to shoot protestors', followed by his defense council doing this;

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Heard it was a strange blub-fest by a man who looks uncannily like a pig.

Well if you will stand infront of a mirror while posting your comments.

I think its great. Let the jury hear his own words. If he is just a down-home golly gee willikers sweet kid, that should be obvious. No way he's the type of kid who asks a friend to illegally buy him a gun, an AR-15, because it "looks cool". No way he was on a power fantasy, claiming because he was in a police out-reach program he was allowed to carry a gun, and be out after curfew. No way he openly said he had no idea if lethal force was the correct, he just panicked and started shooting until people stopped.

Yup. No way this kid comes off as every call of duty mall ninja who thinks he's a Tier 1 operator badass and he can just go Rambo on people consequence free.

Kyle isn't a lawyer, he's not a judge. He obviously can't be making the call as to if lethal force was allowed. Hell the whole trial going on is about if his use of lethal force was legal or now and you know what that's why Kyle turned himself in and tried to do earlier that night too because he'd shot and killed some-one and was willing to stand up and face judgement for that and have his actions judged as right or wrong. Some states allow lethal force if a person punches you in the face but you expect a 17 year old to know the full nuance of the legal code not just for the state he lives in but for the state he works in? Yeh ignorance of the law is no defence but you know what else? Failure to know that law isn't an indictment of a person nor should it be seen as some grand sign of guilt. In the UK it used to be a law on the books that if you saw a grey squirrel and didn't report it to authorities it was a criminal act. I doubt most people know it was a law and it was never actually enforced but not knowing it was a law isn't a sign that a person is a bad person.

Jesus in this case the law isn't as clear cut which is why there is the trial because the case can't be dismissed on existing standards for self defence that are more established on the book.

Hell you know what I'm bringing up? The Jimquisition about violence to remind people about violence because there's a big difference between fantasy violence and real violence and peoples propensity in those regards


Particularly relevant. Jim mentions their son on about how they're going to "Stab and slice people" but how that's a fantasy and the Kid was upset at the idea of harming people doing martial arts and is scared using a regular cutlery knife let alone wielding an actual sword.

That's kind of a weak argument. There are riots in direct reaction to murders that go largely unpunished if not downright dismissed but maybe they would have happened without that too.

You mean the armed criminal shot by a police marksman in the UK which there was already going to be a full investigation in regards to at the time but the riots still happened.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I know you think you're right, but you're just factually wrong. Being an unaccompanied minor in illegal possession of a firearm out after curfew is not "ENTITLED TO BE THERE" bullshit. He's wasn't participating in an open-carry event, because MINOR.
And yes he did claim he was a trained security personnel as part of some police outreach/recruitment, and claimed he was there to administer first-aid because he new CPR because he was a life-guard at pool.
By his own admission he falsely claimed that he was old enough to possess a gun and that he was a certified medic when he was really just a lifeguard. A pool that was not open at the time of the protest. A pool that does not need lifeguards to have guns.

Play the right-wing victim all you like, but having a gun and patrolling around pretending to be there to help is a pretty big indication of his intent.

Ok time to do this again

1) he was not unaccompanied until the point he was separated from the rest of the group
2) So you want to charge everyone else who wasn't following curfew? Guess the people Kyle shot are to blame then by your logic because they shouldn't have been out after curfew right?
3) Still and open carry state so no him open carrying doesn't make him somehow guilty.
4) Plenty of Lifeguard training first aid goes beyond CPR. I'm friends with about 4 people who have been lifeguards, admittedly it varies from place to place but it's not merely CPR.
5) Where's the evidence he claimed to be Police outreach / private security, I keep hearing your repeat it but there's no source the only one's I can find are the kind of places claiming that the 3rd person Kyle shot was unarmed even though he was holding a pistol when shot.
6) No again the only sources saying Kyle said this and that are the ones trying to suggest Kyle brutally gunned down Rosebaum while he was minding his own buisness standing peacefully on the sidewalk.
7) It is NOT a big indication of intent and based on most legal statues CANNOT be used as such in a state that explicitly allows open carry of weapons.

 

[Seanchaidh]

2) So you want to charge everyone else who wasn't following curfew? Guess the people Kyle shot are to blame then by your logic because they shouldn't have been out after curfew right?

Have you ever wondered why diminished capacity due to voluntary drunkenness isn't considered a defense to the crime of rape and yet it also means you can't consent to sex?

In any case, maybe just the ones who SHOT AND KILLED people.

 

[SilentPony]

Honestly, with the way this trial has been going, I half expect him to blurt out 'yes I went there with my militia to shoot protestors', followed by his defense council doing this;

As much as Im convinced he's guilty, the prosecution has been hysterically bad. If I didn't know better, and I really REALLY don't, I would swore the DA is way over his head and is purposefully trying to get a mistrial so this case doesn't appear on his record as a loss.
Between the defense actually letting him on the stand to attempt to squeeze out a few tears and appear sweet and innocent, and the prosecutors seeming to not know what the testimony of their witnesses is going to be, after having interviewed them, gotten statements and coached them on what to say, if this whole thing turned out to be a Mel Brooks level parody trial, I'd believe it.
And the Judge is earning no favors basically objecting to the prosecution as if he's the defense, while the defense seems to be asleep at the wheel.
It seems to be for all intents and purposes the DA vs the judge, and the defense is just the live studio audience.

 

[meiam]

I'm just amazed at how hard the prosecutors seem intent on torpedoing their own case. After a string of incredibly bad news, they had a shoot at turning things around with him unexpectedly taking the stand and they somehow found a way to fuck themselves up even more. It seem like a mistrial with another trial later on with different prosecutors is really the best case scenario for them.

To me the cases seems like a pretty shut cases, he had no reason to be there and put himself in danger. I can't go to a bar, wave a gun around and then shot someone who reach for their gun and claim self defence. If the first victim was alive he'd claim he was acting in self defence too, but he's dead so he can't do that.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

If this gets declared a mistrial, it'll be the most kick-the-can ruling possible, what a joke.

 

[gorfias]

Thought this was amusing regardless of how things go...

 

[CM156]

If this gets declared a mistrial, it'll be the most kick-the-can ruling possible, what a joke.

If this ends up being a mistrial due to prosecutorial misconduct, that means jeopardy attaches and Kyle cannot be retried in the state on these charges.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

If this ends up being a mistrial due to prosecutorial misconduct, that means jeopardy attaches and Kyle cannot be retried in the state on these charges.

Correct, that's why it's a kick-the-can decision. Is he wrong? Who knows! We're not gonna answer!

 

[crimson5pheonix]

 

[gorfias]

If this ends up being a mistrial due to prosecutorial misconduct, that means jeopardy attaches and Kyle cannot be retried in the state on these charges.

Yep. Defense said that is what they'd ask for if the prosecutor engages in this kind of thing again (disobeying the judge and bringing in evidence without a motion to reconsider a judgement previously made.)

Long version of it (which is a fair bit longer and the Judge lays into him far more)

Priceless at 9:20.... Judge to prosecutor, "Don't get brazen with me!"

 

[CM156]

Correct, that's why it's a kick-the-can decision. Is he wrong? Who knows! We're not gonna answer!

I associate "kick-the-can" to mean "let someone else decide this issue later." This is more "end the issue now and prevent it from being relitigated."

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I associate "kick-the-can" to mean "let someone else decide this issue later." This is more "end the issue now and prevent it from being relitigated."

In the courts sure, but this is going to be endlessly litigated in the public sphere, with the added fun that there's no official ruling on his guilt. The courts get to say "Not my problem".

 

[Specter Von Baren]

I think this sums up the prosecution for this trial.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Have you ever wondered why diminished capacity due to voluntary drunkenness isn't considered a defense to the crime of rape and yet it also means you can't consent to sex?

In any case, maybe just the ones who SHOT AND KILLED people.

So about the fact they attacked / assaulted Kyle first in 2 of the 3 cases and in the 3rd admitted they were pointing a gun at Kyle which he could reasonably assume was threatening him?

 

[Dreiko]

I'd say the American police being so out of control that it even requires these protests is what's to blame. If they just trained their officers better, rooted out the bad apples themselves and actually responded correctly when these shootings happen then these riots wouldn't have happened to begin with.

The problem isn't so much that the cops let people riot, its that they give people no other choice than to riot.

I think the two are separate matters basically. No matter the reason you can't let people go on destroying stores and shooting eachother with you just standing there two blocks away letting em do it. You should be held negligent if you could have just rushed in and arrested everyone but didn't.

 

[MrCalavera]

And it doesn't matter where you live, aren't we supposed to care about our fellow man, even if they're in a different state? So yeah, the cops letting people riot and pillage and not ending it instantly are the issue here.

The American Goverment\People didn't care about their fellow black men being disproportianetly targeted by the cops. That's what sparked these protests in the first place. And they will happen until they start caring. Being "tough" on protestors didn't stop them in the 60s or 90s, it won't stop them now.

I think the two are separate matters basically. No matter the reason you can't let people go on destroying stores and shooting eachother with you just standing there two blocks away letting em do it. You should be held negligent if you could have just rushed in and arrested everyone but didn't.

They are absolutely intertwined, unless you want to pretend they aren't. And i want to know, what do you think would logistics of "just rushing in and arresting" thousands of angry protesters look like?