Rittenhouse verdict poll

[soundforbjt]

So looks like if this occurs, the prosecuter would go higher-up the court system, and ask a higher judge for a case claiming the "mistrial verdict itself being a mistrial".

Nope, defense asked for a mistrial with predjudice meaning Kyle can’t be tried again.

 

[Amol S.]

Nope, defense asked for a mistrial with predjudice meaning Kyle can’t be tried again.

There always is a way around, anyone or multiple of these could in fact nullify the prejudice claim, they all however require a separate trial:
* Proving that there was no prejudice on the prosecutor's or jury's side, but rather there was prejudice on the defendants side and the judge.
* Proving that there was an unfair trial, and prejudice was declared due to prejudice, because the jury and the defendant personally knew each other before the incident of crime.
* Proving that the judge did not have a valid Wisconsin bar license at the time of verdict, thus the verdict of mistrial with prejudice is invalidated.
* Proving that the verdict was improperly filed into the system, and thus there was no verdict of mistrial with prejudice.
* Proving that the judge was in fact bribed to give the verdict of mistral with prejudice.
* Proving that the judge was in fact pressurized to declare mistrial with prejudice.

 

[ch33zw1z]

IMHO, mistrial is likely outcome. The judge is obviously biased.

 

[zinfamous]

There always is a way around, anyone or multiple of these could in fact nullify the prejudice claim, they all however require a separate trial:
* Proving that there was no prejudice on the prosecutor's or jury's side, but rather there was prejudice on the defendants side and the judge.
* Proving that there was an unfair trial, and prejudice was declared due to prejudice, because the jury and the defendant personally knew each other before the incident of crime.
* Proving that the judge did not have a valid Wisconsin bar license at the time of verdict, thus the verdict of mistrial with prejudice is invalidated.
* Proving that the verdict was improperly filed into the system, and thus there was no verdict of mistrial with prejudice.
* Proving that the judge was in fact bribed to give the verdict of mistral with prejudice.
* Proving that the judge was in fact pressurized to declare mistrial with prejudice.

the judge was pressurized?

like that one baddie at the end of that Timothy Dalton Bond flick?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Just saw this update, if accurate the weapons charge looks to be basically dead:

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news...use-gun-possession-charge-kenosha/8588970002/

Judge effectively siding with defense on giving jury instructions based on literal language of the statute, rather than the intent of statute as argued by prosecution.

That rat bastard! Actually giving the jury instructions on the actual language of the law and not what some lefty thinks the law should say.

 

[cytg111]

That rat bastard! Actually giving the jury instructions on the actual language of the law and not what some lefty thinks the law should say.

Ok Brandon.

 

[HurleyBird]

After Friday the illegal weapons possession charge looks like a long shot. Judge is leaning heavily towards the defense's interpretation of the statute.

On the other hand, every other charge became more likely, as the judge is inclined to include a provocation instruction. While this is based on the the prosecution's blurry photographs, for which there is ample room for doubt, in the jury room this could easily shift from the pertinent question of "did Kyle point his gun at anyone first?" to the "Kyle's very presence was provocation" narrative.

I still think the most likely outcome is a hung jury. This case has become a tribal, political issue, and jurors will only be somewhat more likely to shift their opinions than the average P&N poster who is following the case (I'm pretty sure none of us have changed sides). Odds are, there's at least one conservative on the jury who doesn't want to convict on anything, and at least one liberal who is the exact opposite.

 

[HumblePie]

Illegal weapon charge is about to be tossed. Judge basically already agreeing on Friday with the defense for their instructions on that and agreed to look over more. The state is a rural state and the law was designed to allow 16+ year old minors to carry a long arm to protect their farms. That is getting tossed.

Self defense is a defense to recklessness and there hadn't been a injured party testifying for their prosecution at all that they felt their life was in danger by Kyle's actions who was not directly shot. So that charge is not likely to stick. The only issue right now is with Kyle testifying, lessers are now included and the jury might want to split the baby and give some weird watered down charge to appease the mob at this point especially since their is evidence of jury intimidation that has happened. Outcomes I see happening.

1) Motion to dismiss with prejudice on prosecutorial misconduct along with lack of sufficient evidence for the charges goes through this week (the defense promised to put it in this week) by the judge.
2) Jury decides not guilty on all charges
3) Jury convicts on lesser charges and Judge decides to give a directed verdict instead after that dismisses the case with prejudice.


Those are the 3 most likely outcomes I foresee happening. In the unlikely event Kyle is charged with anything, the defense has a massive amount of things to appeal on to make this an easy turn over for them. Does mean Kyle stays in jail for a bit though.

 

[HumblePie]

After Friday the illegal weapons possession charge looks like a long shot. Judge is leaning heavily towards the defense's interpretation of the statute.

On the other hand, every other charge became more likely, as the judge is inclined to include a provocation instruction. While this is based on the the prosecution's blurry photographs, for which there is ample room for doubt, in the jury room this could easily shift from the pertinent question of "did Kyle point his gun at anyone first?" to the "Kyle's very presence was provocation" narrative.

I still think the most likely outcome is a hung jury. This case has become a tribal, political issue, and jurors will only be somewhat more likely to shift their opinions than the average P&N poster who is following the case (I'm pretty sure none of us have changed sides). Odds are, there's at least one conservative on the jury who doesn't want to convict on anything, and at least one liberal who is the exact opposite.

The provocation instructions are dumb as heck. Taking a drone video that has compression done on it in the first place to store it on a card that was then uploaded to a twitter feed which has more compression done on it to be used as "raw" video was bad enough. Then trying to up sample that 844p video with massive lighting/contrast issues to a 4K TV while zooming in further... that leads to massive problems with that video being a fair and accurate representation of anything.

 

[HomerJS]

How can they toss the illegal firearms charge when it specifically states parental supervision required if under 18? You can still protect your own farm if a parent send you out. However that would NOT allow a minor to take that same gun by himself to a football game on another side of town.

I thought conservatives hated activist judges.

This judge needs to be reported to the local bar for misconduct.

 

[HumblePie]

How can they toss the illegal firearms charge when it specifically states parental supervision required if under 18? You can still protect your own farm if a parent send you out. However that would NOT allow a minor to take that same gun by himself to a football game on another side of town.

I thought conservatives hated activist judges.

This judge needs to be reported to the local bar for misconduct.

They literally just tossed it. You have no clue about laws and every post you make exemplifies this. Stop talking.

If you want to actually want to learn some of the law from real lawyers on this case and the other cases being discussed around here, watch Rekieta Law on youtube as they are streaming them. There are DOZENS of various lawyers giving commentary on these cases over the past few weeks. Left and right, prosecutors and defenders, and tons of lawyers from various fields are giving commentary. Literally everything you and the vast majority of posters on this forum say about these cases are exactly opposite of what any analysis from real PRACTICING criminal lawyers in both defense and prosecution is saying about these cases. Nate Brody is also covering the live stream of the Ahmaud Arbery case. He again is a democrat leftist black criminal prosecutor from New York and he basically has flipped on that case with the current evidence that has been presented so far in that case. He has always said the Kyle Rittenhouse case was the clearest case of self defense and finds that the prosecutors bringing the case is literally grounds for disbarment.

As of right now, the Judge is literally striking down everything the prosecution is trying to claim as up to now that he allowed.

Last edit, there was NO illegal firearm in this case in the hands of Kyle. It was a LEGAL firearm he held all night long according to Wisconsin and Federal law in this case. He was legally carrying it. So just stop the non sense on that. That as of writing this post is the highest voted item and it is literally NULL AND VOID at this point.

 

[soundforbjt]

I never watch the trial on a ‘legal expert’ YouTube channel.I don’t want to listen to their bias. I’ve watched the trial on PBS so I can form my own opinions.

 

[HomerJS]

That rat bastard! Actually giving the jury instructions on the actual language of the law and not what some lefty thinks the law should say.

Really? Here are all the letters in the law. Violation is clear. BTW - the language is English. What other part of the law absolves KR of violating 2a since you are into the "language of the law"

948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(2) 
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
(3) 
(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.
History: 1987 a. 332; 1991 a. 18, 139; 1993 a. 98; 1995 a. 27, 77; 1997 a. 248; 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 163; 2011 a. 35.
Sub. (2) (b) does not set a standard for civil liability, and a violation of sub. (2) (b) does not constitute negligence per se. Logarto v. Gustafson, 998 F. Supp. 998 (1998).

Wisconsin Legislature: 948.60(3)(c)

 

[HomerJS]

They literally just tossed it. You have no clue about laws and every post you make exemplifies this. Stop talking.

If you want to actually want to learn some of the law from real lawyers on this case and the other cases being discussed around here, watch Rekieta Law on youtube as they are streaming them. There are DOZENS of various lawyers giving commentary on these cases over the past few weeks. Left and right, prosecutors and defenders, and tons of lawyers from various fields are giving commentary. Literally everything you and the vast majority of posters on this forum say about these cases are exactly opposite of what any analysis from real PRACTICING criminal lawyers in both defense and prosecution is saying about these cases. Nate Brody is also covering the live stream of the Ahmaud Arbery case. He again is a democrat leftist black criminal prosecutor from New York and he basically has flipped on that case with the current evidence that has been presented so far in that case. He has always said the Kyle Rittenhouse case was the clearest case of self defense and finds that the prosecutors bringing the case is literally grounds for disbarment.

As of right now, the Judge is literally striking down everything the prosecution is trying to claim as up to now that he allowed.

Last edit, there was NO illegal firearm in this case in the hands of Kyle. It was a LEGAL firearm he held all night long according to Wisconsin and Federal law in this case. He was legally carrying it. So just stop the non sense on that. That as of writing this post is the highest voted item and it is literally NULL AND VOID at this point.

Look above. I quoted the actual law. Tell all of us since you know best what absolved KR from 2a?

 

[Dave_5k]

Really? Here are all the letters in the law. Violations are clear. BTW - the language is english.

Wisconsin Legislature: 948.60(3)(c)

Have to read the clear exceptions below the bolded section:

(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.

That is, this whole section does not apply to someone with a rifle or shotgun, unless it is illegally shortened / sawed-off (941.28), or if they are under 16 and the under-16 year old is lacking a hunting certificate (29.304/29.593).

 

[fskimospy]

Anyone who is getting their legal opinions from YouTube videos is basically walking themselves down a path where you become as stupid as HumblePie, our resident esteemed 'lawyer' with no law degree.

Remember, the guy here who wants you to listen to 'real, practicing lawyers' on YouTube spend pages and pages arguing against a real, practicing lawyer about how 'civil prosecutors' exist. (they don't)

 

[UNCjigga]

After the Judge tossed the weapons charge, I'm inclined towards "not guilty on all charges" as the most likely outcome--I doubt the defense will even need to ask the judge for a mistrial but I'm sure they have motions at the ready just in case. Prosecution was fighting an uphill battle as the law in Wisconsin is slightly biased towards instigators with guns who are non-liberal and non-colored (at least in that courtroom.)

 

[ElFenix]

How can they toss the illegal firearms charge when it specifically states parental supervision required if under 18? You can still protect your own farm if a parent send you out. However that would NOT allow a minor to take that same gun by himself to a football game on another side of town.

I thought conservatives hated activist judges.

This judge needs to be reported to the local bar for misconduct.

i don't know how you can charge him as an adult but then say he can't have a weapon because he's not an adult.

 

[HumblePie]

Anyone who is getting their legal opinions from YouTube videos is basically walking themselves down a path where you become as stupid as HumblePie, our resident esteemed 'lawyer' with no law degree.

Remember, the guy here who wants you to listen to 'real, practicing lawyers' on YouTube spend pages and pages arguing against a real, practicing lawyer about how 'civil prosecutors' exist. (they don't)

Are you literally this fucking insane? Dozens upon dozens of active criminal lawyers are the ones giving their legal analysis on this case and you just want to dismiss that a random youtube video. Literally you are so fucking insane you should check yourself into a mental hospital for such a stupid comment.

 

[sportage]

I'd be ok with whatever the verdict "if" this kid learns his lesson on getting involved as a cocky uppity play pretending super hero insistent on caring the biggest meanest gun. And, feeling even a tad of remorse from having ended the life of two human beings. But sadly, I don't see that happening. Rittenhouse will be right back at it the very next chance he gets and next time he will be old enough to legally carry his big scary gun. This kid is going to have a life long history during his life of running up against the law, and no doubt we will be hearing and seeing a lot more of this kid on right wing social media and on Fox News. Hannity is probably booking this kid right now.

 

[fskimospy]

Are you literally this fucking insane? Dozens upon dozens of active criminal lawyers are the ones giving their legal analysis on this case and you just want to dismiss that a random youtube video. Literally you are so fucking insane you should check yourself into a mental hospital for such a stupid comment.

Lol.

 

[HumblePie]

Look above. I quoted the actual law. Tell all of us since you know best what absolved KR from 2a?

You don't have to take my word for it. Take the fucking JUDGE'S word for it. He is the one that tossed it. Literally watch WHY it was tossed and why is was so pissed afterwards at the prosecution for trying to keep it as a charge knowing all this time it was not a valid charge to have been brought.

 

[fskimospy]

I'd be ok with whatever the verdict "if" this kid learns his lesson on getting involved as a cocky uppity play pretending super hero insistent on caring the biggest meanest gun. And, feeling even a tad of remorse from having ended the life of two human beings. But sadly, I don't see that happening. Rittenhouse will be right back at it the very next chance he gets and next time he will be old enough to legally carry his big scary gun. This kid is going to have a life long history during his life of running up against the law, and no doubt we will be hearing and seeing a lot more of this kid on right wing social media and on Fox News. Hannity is probably booking this kid right now.

It does seem like he has a high probability of turning into human garbage like George Zimmerman. Let’s hope he learns something and goes down a different path.

 

[HumblePie]

It does seem like he has a high probability of turning into human garbage like George Zimmerman. Let’s hope he learns something and goes down a different path.

Confession through projection again much? The only human garbage I smell around here starts with Fski and ends with spy.

 

[kage69]

Hard to expect justice with a judge like this. I don't think him making some obvious calls cancels out his personal feelings overriding his duty as an impartial arbiter, which was pretty obvious.

I too think it will end with the predictable horseshit of this idiot's deadly poseur fantasy being given a pass. Straw purchase that went across state lines in the hands of a serial liar and Proud Boys wannabe, one who sought out conflict and dead people were the result of it.

Ridiculous if this guy avoids any responsibility, can't wait for the copy cats. Maybe the state Supreme court will step in and call for a new trial, like they had to do with him in 2008.