Oso planning to go pro
Lets see, if I were to bet (which you probably can these days). My guesses at verdicts (without commentary):First-degree reckless homicide (COUNT 1) - Not Guilty, self defense - YepFirst-degree recklessly endangering safety (COUNTS 2 AND 5) - Guilty YepFirst-degree intentional homicide (COUNT 3) - Not Guilty, self defense YepAttempted first-degree intentional homicide (COUNT 4) - Guilty (toughest one, not sure) NopePossession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 (COUNT 6, misdemeanor) - Guilty YepUse of a dangerous weapon (AGGRAVATING FACTOR) - Yes, just adds to any other felony guilty verdict Yep
I grew up in Kenosha and the cops were outstanding. That has really changed though in the last 20 years. They went from being a community force to being an overly armed militia.
I'll be the first to admit I haven't been following much of this case. But to me the key is the first encounter. The new surveillance videos show him as the aggressor, and chasing the eventual victim. At that point, he is an individual illegally in possession of a firearm, chasing an unarmed civilian. He is not in a position of self-defense, he has initiated the confrontation and is guilty. Arguments could be made for self defense in some of the subsequent encounters, but they all stem from the same illegal original act.
This is pretty much where I lie on this:Josh Barro@jbarroIt was morally reprehensible for Rittenhouse to voluntarily put himself in a position where he was likely to feel compelled to use deadly force against another person. Whether he committed a crime is a question of fact and Wisconsin law I'm not so sure about.
He committed a crime. It's just that homicide isn't it.Of course, his biggest offense is being a criminally stupid kid with incredibly lousy parents.
https://www.wpr.org/kyle-rittenhouses-defense-team-asks-mistrial-after-he-testifiesUnbelievable phuck up.
At least they didn't ask him to try on any gloves!
This is 100x worse. Violated Rittenhouse's rights.
Not really. Go back and read the question. It really wasn't nearly as bad as the judge (who's bonkers, btw) made it seem.
During cross-examination, prosecutors questioned Rittenhouse about statements he made before the shootings. The judge previously ruled those statements were inadmissible.Is this what happened or not?
This isn't what set the judge off.The judge was mad because the prosecutor asked Rittenhouse about his testimony being the first time he told his side of the story and him not giving previous statements to cops. The judge (and defense) took umbrage, because Rittenhouse has a Constitutional right not to give statements to cops and his exercising of that right can't be used against him. The question implies that Rittenhouse was somehow uncooperative or did something wrong by exercising his right, which can be seen as prejudicial.It was a cheap ploy by the prosecution, but that's all. Crap like that happens in criminal trials.
A cheap ploy or violating his Miranda rights and the 5th amendment?
Haven't followed it closely but it sounds like the prosecution hasn't done themselves any favors. I would be shocked if he gets anything other than a minor charge for underage possession of the weapon. Unless the jury is bribed.
Everything I've seen (and heard) points to the conclusion that Rittenhouse will be found not guilty for all homicide charges. But you hope that tragedies like this eventually convince people to stop LARPing as vigilantes and revolutionaries, especially when guns are involved. This is the issue that arises when people lose trust in the systems we have in place, be it government or law enforcement or whatever. People begin operating outside of those systems, and then aren't prepared for when s#*t hits the fan.
Or threatened
A cheap ploy.Attorneys asking questions they know are going to be objected/sustained is not uncommon.
The Rittenhouse fake crying video was pretty funny.