Rittenhouse, the proof is in the pudding....

[Stevicus]

The defense is requesting a mistrial.

'Don't get brazen with me!': Rittenhouse judge snaps at prosecutor as defense requests a mistrial (yahoo.com)

The Kenosha County, Wis., judge presiding over Kyle Rittenhouse’s murder trial clashed with the lead prosecutor several times during the teenager’s cross-examination on Wednesday, while defense attorneys requested a mistrial alleging prosecutorial misconduct.

The first instance took place shortly after Kenosha County Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger began cross-examining Rittenhouse, an Illinois teen who is being tried for fatally shooting two people and wounding another during a chaotic night of protests following the police shooting of Jacob Blake in Kenosha in the summer of 2020.

The defense objected to Binger’s questions about Rittenhouse’s decision to remain silent about the shootings until taking the witness stand Wednesday, arguing that this line of inquiry infringed on Rittenhouse’s Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself.

While Binger said he was making the case that Rittenhouse had tailored his testimony based on what other witnesses had said before him, Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder appeared to agree with the defense, ordering the jury out of the room before rebuking the prosecutor.

“The problem is this is a grave constitutional violation for you to talk about the defendant’s silence,” Schroeder yelled. “You're right on the borderline, and you may be over it. But it better stop.”

Later on in the cross-examination, Schroeder admonished Binger for attempting to question Rittenhouse about evidence that the judge had previously deemed inadmissible.

The first item in question was a video that was recorded weeks before the shootings in Kenosha, which appears to show several shoplifters running out of a CVS pharmacy carrying stolen merchandise. In the video, a voice that sounds like Rittenhouse can be heard saying, "Bro, I wish I had my f***ing AR. I'd start shooting rounds at them."

“You knew very well that attorneys can’t go into these types of areas when the judge has already ruled without asking outside the presence of the jury to do so. So don’t give me that,” Schroeder said, yelling, “Don’t get brazen with me!” when Binger attempted to push back.

Binger was similarly shut down when he tried to question Rittenhouse about a photo taken in January 2021, months after the shootings, that shows the teenager posing in a bar with members of the Proud Boys, a right-wing male chauvinist group with ties to white nationalism, and wearing a T-shirt that says “Free as f***.” The photo had reportedly been taken 90 minutes after Rittenhouse, who had been released from jail on bond, pleaded not guilty in a remote court hearing.

In September, Schroeder had denied a motion from the prosecution to allow the photo to be admitted during the trial as evidence of Rittenhouse’s alleged associations with white supremacist groups.

On Wednesday, Binger said he intended to use the photo as evidence of the teenager’s “disregard for human life,” explaining that he wanted to “probe” whether the emotions exhibited by Rittenhouse, who broke down in tears during direct testimony, were sincere.

Schroeder stood by his earlier ruling that the photo is not relevant to the case, saying: “If he were on trial for using exquisitely bad judgment, if he were on trial for behaving in an offensive way, then I could see the purpose.”

After returning from a lunch break, defense attorney Corey Chirafisi asked the judge to declare a mistrial with prejudice, meaning that a retrial for the shootings would not be possible. Chirafisi charged that Binger’s questions about Rittenhouse’s silence and his attempts to include inadmissible evidence amounted to “prosecutorial overreaching.” Schroeder did not immediately issue a ruling on the mistrial motion, allowing the prosecution to continue its cross-examination. However, the judge made clear that he believed Binger had deliberately defied his orders.

“When you say that you were acting in good faith, I don’t believe that,” Schroeder told the prosecutor, warning that “there better not be another incident.”

It almost seems as if the prosecution is intentionally trying to blow the case.

 

[Revoltingest]

It almost seems as if the prosecution is intentionally trying to blow the case.

It strikes me that the prosecution's very weak case,
is engendering feelings of desperation. This can
interfere with good judgment & ethics.
But it's also standard for lawyers to push the boundaries
of what they can get away with in court. Justice is often
irrelevant when winning is the goal.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A child with a gun in an area of civil unrest is a recipe for disaster and guess what. He killed 2 people. That is fact.

Vigilantes of any age in an area of civil unrest is a recipe for disaster.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yes, he killed two people. And it could have been avoided. But in a case like this the law can see that what the people did in attacking Rittenhouse would have justified their shootings. He will beat those charges. He could still be charged, and he should be. But murder will not fly.

The third person shot who was supposed to be a witness for the prosecution was a better witness for the defense. So was a person that was right behind Rosenbaum. He supported the account of the defense.

They supported the account of the defense because in a Court you cannot deny the evidence.
And the footage is high quality, is incredibly clear and cannot be interpreted subjectively.

 

[Stevicus]

It strikes me that the prosecution's very weak case,
is engendering feelings of desperation. This can
interfere with good judgment & ethics.
But it's also standard for lawyers to push the boundaries
of what they can get away with in court. Justice is often
irrelevant when winning is the goal.

A lot of lawyers and politicians these days somehow feel compelled to "make an example" of defendants. Perhaps they see it as necessary to restore order in a time of political instability. But optics are also important, and it looks like the prosecutor is obsessed with wanting to come down hard on a 17-year-old kid to make him the fall guy for America's political problems. That doesn't look good, even if the kid might be guilty of lesser offenses.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

In any case, the battle lines had already been drawn before the involved parties even arrived on the scene. They found themselves on opposite sides in a larger dispute which they did not personally cause, but nevertheless got involved anyway.

"Of their own free will," one might add.

 

[Estro Felino]

"Of their own free will," one might add.

Bravo.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Do the circumstances of the killing not matter?
Legally, they make a huge difference.

Consider....
Woman Shoots, Critically Wounds Intruder In Kensington, Philadelphia Police Say
It's clear that self defense justifies shooting.
With Rittenhouse, that's to be determined...among other things...
- His illegally possessing that rifle.
- His irresponsibility carrying it among demonstrators.

Quite so, and I think that may be the crux of the matter. It really does appear that the prosecution made the wrong charge. I don't know the law there, but in most jurisdictions, there are crimes equivalent to "irresponsible behaviour causing death," which is usually equivalent to manslaughter or a little less. I think they'd have had a pretty good go of getting a guilty verdict on something like that.

Yes, it does seem that "murder" was the wrong charge.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Just deaths? Sheesh does America care for life?

Actually, not very much, it sometimes seems looking on from (nearby) afar.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm asking you in general, not about this case specifically. You seem to think that killing someone in self-defense is somehow wrong, which is rather extreme.

I don't believe that's where @ChristineM is coming from. We all (probably) agree that killing in self-defense is justified. But what about knowingly putting yourself into a position -- a riot, carrying an illegal assualt weapon -- that is just about certain to attract the need for said self-defense? As I suggested earlier, I think something like that is what the prosecution should have gone after.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Sometimes you have to.

And most often you don't. It just sometimes seems that killing is the first (not the last) thing that occurs to a lot of Americans.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I disciplined my children.
I wacked their bums when they stole, or threw something at a tv or so.
They learned to respect people, police, and propperty.
They never broke the law so far, and they are well ballanced citizens.
If ever they are killed because they tried to rape a woman, or tried to shoot at the police, or someone else shot them in self defence, ...
And I think my child are still an inocent being!!
I am in such a case in denial of the facts, and a fool!

You see, thats why I disciplined my children from their youth.
So they dont turn out to become Antifa terrorists, or BLM fools!

My children are not the rubbish walking in streets to loot and destroy.
They work for their living.

Do you know how many men on deathrow blames their parents, especially their mothers, fo not disciplining them when they threw tantrums when small, stealing, and assault?
They hate their parents for not giving discipline when they should have received a wack or two.
Yet the Leftist liberal snowflakes think it is fine to look a3way, hoping a misbehaved child might change if you talk, talk, talk.

Sorry, my kids are 36, 33 and 26 and they never had problems with the law.
Andso did I, and guess what, I was disciplined with a belt on my bum, 6 shots, when I misbehaved, and I saw the difference of my friends who were not.
They turned out as hooligans too.
Thanks Dad, Mom!

Oddly, many Canadians do NOT believe in corporal punishment of their children -- and we have far fewer criminals than in many of those countries that really like to tan their little hides.

 

[InChrist]

...why did Rittenhouse decide to come to Kenosha at all? Why did he decide to insert himself into a situation? Do you want vigilante groups like Rittenhouse's to continue to insert themselves into - and worsen the consequences of - political protest?

From what I’ve read Kyle Rittenhouse was there because he
worked that day as a community lifeguard in Kenosha. After work, he wanted to help clean up some of the damage, so he and a friend went to the local public high school to remove graffiti by rioters. It does not appear that he went there to insert himself into the situation as a vigilante.

 

[metis]

From what I’ve read Kyle Rittenhouse was there because he
worked that day as a community lifeguard in Kenosha. After work, he wanted to help clean up some of the damage, so he and a friend went to the local public high school to remove graffiti by rioters. It does not appear that he went there to insert himself into the situation as a vigilante.

One doesn't remove grafitti with an AR-15 in their hands.

Also, beware of the right-wing twists on this. Now, whether he's innocent or guilty I don't know.

 

[esmith]

One doesn't remove grafitti with an AR-15 in their hands.

Also, beware of the right-wing twists on this. Now, whether he's innocent or guilty I don't know.

But in your own mind have you pre-judged him?

 

[Estro Felino]

One doesn't remove grafitti with an AR-15 in their hands.

In a dangerous area, I guess he had the right to preserve himself....second amendment.

I analyzed every frame of the footage.
He does anything to avoid confrontation. By running away at the speed of light.

His chasers do anything to have confrontation with him.

 

[InChrist]

One doesn't remove grafitti with an AR-15 in their hands.

Also, beware of the right-wing twists on this. Now, whether he's innocent or guilty I don't know.

I don’t see a gun in his hand here.

You may want to be careful about believing the narrative being pushed by mainstream media that he crossed the state line to attack the rioters.

I understand he and his friend were asked by a local business owner to help protect his property.

 

[metis]

In a dangerous area, I guess he had the right to preserve himself....second amendment.

I analyzed every frame of the footage.
He does anything to avoid confrontation. By running away at the speed of light.

His chasers do anything to have confrontation with him.

Agan, I'm going to reserve judgement but this doesn't imply you're wrong.

He should not have been there, he's been caught telling around 5-6 lies already dealing with this, plus he was there with a gun that he was not able to buy for himself. Immaturity, maybe, but there's a reasonable chance that he might be prosecuted on a charge of illegal possession.

 

[metis]

You may want to be careful about believing the narrative being pushed by mainstream media that he crossed the state line to attack the rioters.

I am almost always careful of such matters, but maybe you should see this before jumping to conclusions yourself:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-drone-video-fatal-shooting/

 

[Guitar's Cry]

In a dangerous area, I guess he had the right to preserve himself....second amendment.

The second amendment says nothing about the right to self-preservation.