Question Of The Month (November 2021) (Kyle Rittenhouse)

As I hear more about this trial, and more info comes forth, I can't help but wonder if Darwin was holding the attacker's hands... I mean, who in their right mind is going to attack someone holding an AR and expect to walkaway unscathed?

Very interesting videos of the "vaporized bicep" dude testifying here.
I found it best to go to all the short videos instead of the long 38 minute one.

LINK> Rittenhouse Trial Day 5: Prosecution’s Star Witness Gaige Grosskreutz Implodes on the Stand – Law of Self Defense

Kyle may have broken the law.
So what?
It was an emergency situation.

That’s the excuse the president always used to break the law.
And nobody was shooting at the president when he did it.

Its interesting to watch the trial. I'm not following every minute, but a piece here and there. Youtube live stream on "FOX6 News Milwaukee"

It’s pretty clear that the DA did not have good evidence of evil intention on Kyle’s part; but there is plenty of evidence for self-defense, including video tapes that everybody should have seen months ago (but were kept under wraps by somebody for some purpose.)

There’s been so much misbehavior on the part of the state prosecutor that it is likely that Rittenhouse will go free and he will be punished.

Worse than that because the district attorney and his employees are officers of the court almost the same as a sworn peace officer. Although they don’t carry a gun and a badge they have the same responsibilities to uphold the law against evil doers and I include those in their own ranks.

I love the judge - "don't get brazen with me ! " Seen that part many times lol

My take right now is that Kyle's claim of self defense will be upheld for the shootings. I also think there is a possibility that the charges related to having the gun may get him jail time. It's a toss up. Branca says that the judge wrote jury instructions will save Kyle.

Again I'll quote some legal analysis by Andrew F. Branca, Attorney at Law.

Count 6: Possession of a Dangerous Weapon by a Person Under 18
WCJI 2176 Possession of a Dangerous Weapon by a Child is the standard instruction for this offense—but if applied on the facts of this case, it would certainly result in an unjust conviction, for reasons I discuss in detail here: The Injustice of the Gun Charge Against Kyle Rittenhouse <-- LINK

Fortunately, this is not the instruction the jury will be given for Count 6. Instead, the jury will be given a customized jury instruction drafted by the defense that presumably accounts for Kyle being exempt from the gun possession statute being applied against him. If properly drafted and applied by a rational jury, this customized gun possession instruction should lead to an acquittal on this charge.​

I'll trust the attorney's analysis has a good chance of working for Kyle.

I think there’s a very good chance he will get off on all charges.

Kyle was a police explorer. He had gun training before. He was not “a child with a gun.”

This is clear to me as his actions were not the actions of a child.

The Weeniesconsin gubna already called out the Guard... The jury has been getting threatened on socialist media so I think Ritt. will get a "weapon under 18" charge because the slimedia needs a scapegoat and to take heat off the prosecutor. I don't WISH this to be the verdict and I HOPE he gets off with no charges and his legal fees reimbursed--maybe even a civil suit against the DA's Office...

As a juror I wouldn’t be able to reconcile why Rittenhouse gets a weapons charge but the prosecution star witness doesn’t get charged for illegally carrying concealed.

My kids grew up knowing where the guns were/are and how to use them. And that it would be OK to use on an intruder. But they were also told to be discrete and not tell their friends there are guns in the house. No problems, ever...

Yeah, that's the BIG Q that bothers me. There was SO much illegal activity going on with that rioting. Is Kyle the only one worth spending time on?
This has so much politics written all over it. The DA is some kind of puppet.

IMHO. he is not guilty of any crime. He was defending himself from a riotous mob intent on mayhem, murder, and anything they could get away with.
This was allowed when the LEO forces were not doing anything to protect persons or property.

And I'll just leave this here to view

https://gab.com/tra_jon/posts/107255854955392820

At first I'm like WTF? It took me a while to "get it". I won't spoil it for the others...

Since i'm a fan of Mr E, i instantly noticed