Kyle Rittenhouse sobs in court
18 responses | 0 likes
Started by metmike - Nov. 10, 2021, 12:46 p.m.

Kyle Rittenhouse sobs in court as he testifies in own defense during murder trial

“I saw him tip that trailer over,” Rittenhouse said, adding that he also believes he saw him try to set a Port-a-Potty on fire. 

Rittenhouse said that later, outside one of the car businesses he was defending, he heard Rosenbaum say, “I’m going to cut your f–king hearts out.”

“And I’m not going to repeat the second word, but ‘kill you N-words,'” Rittenhouse said.

 Rittenhouse was called by his defense team to testify about the triple shooting that killed Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26, and wounded Gaige Grosskreutz, 27.

 Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder ran through a series of procedural questions before testimony got underway, asking, “Do you think what you’re doing is the best thing under all the circumstances?”

“Yes, your honor,” Rittenhouse replied.

 Rittenhouse was 17 when he brought a semi-automatic rifle and a medical kit to Kenosha in what he claims was an effort to protect businesses as riots broke out on Aug. 25, 2020, following the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a black man who was left paralyzed from the waist down.

 He faces six criminal charges, including intentional homicide for the fatal shootings.

By metmike - Nov. 10, 2021, 7:06 p.m.
Like Reply

First time around this topic generated lots of comments.

Kyle Rittenhouse’s testimony a ‘huge’ risk, but could score juror sympathy, experts say

Kyle Rittenhouse’s explosive testimony could be a win for the defense and score sympathy from jurors, but it’s still a “huge” risk to put an emotional teen on the stand, legal experts told The Post Wednesday.

 Rittenhouse, 18, testified on Wednesday and sobbed uncontrollably at one point as he described the moments before he shot and killed Joseph Rosenbaum during a night of violent unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on Aug. 25, 2020.

 Wisconsin-based criminal attorney Tim O’Brien said putting Rittenhouse on the stand represents an opportunity for the defense to show Rittenhouse in a sympathetic light to jurors.

 “You always want to try to humanize your client in order to get it away from him being a defendant, and instead to show that he was just a scared young man,” O’Brien said.

 “You want the jury to think of him as a person with a name, a family. The difficulty is sometimes a defendant can turn on the tears and it could come off disingenuous. But usually, if there is true emotion, it could have a huge effect on the jury.”

O’Brien said Rittenhouse’s emotional outburst could show a certain “nervousness and innocence” that could be advantageous as jurors question his perception at the moment of the fatal shooting and the actions he says he took to defend himself, but it could also backfire.  

“The prosecutor could say, ‘Look, here is a guy who carried a long rifle down the streets of the city, he was looking for trouble, he knew what he was doing.’ That’s the risk when you put that younger person on the stand,” the attorney explained.  

“They might want to play up why he was there. If you come looking for trouble, you will find it.” 

By metmike - Nov. 10, 2021, 7:12 p.m.
Like Reply

Defense calls for mistrial as Kyle Rittenhouse takes the stand in his homicide trial

By metmike - Nov. 10, 2021, 7:22 p.m.
Like Reply

After seeing/hearing testimony I feel that he will get off, at least from the worst of the offenses and probably from all of them.

There have to be at least a couple on the jury that will see reasonable doubt and stick to that. 

The prosecutor messed up to and leaves him grounds to declare a mistrial........another item in his favor.

By mcfarm - Nov. 10, 2021, 8:47 p.m.
Like Reply

reasonable doubt??? Gee MM that is mighty white of you. Did you not hear the guy he shot on the stand state that Kyle never raised his weapon until the guy on the stand approached him aggressively with his gun drawn....that right there was the end of the trial.....

By kris - Nov. 10, 2021, 11:14 p.m.
Like Reply

"After seeing/hearing testimony I feel that he will get off"

After seeing/hearing testimony I feel that he is innocent of all charges and this case was a political hit job from the get-go, you know: white supremacy and stuff ...

Fixed it for you !

By metmike - Nov. 10, 2021, 11:24 p.m.
Like Reply

I heard most of it mcfarm.

Despite your one sided opinion, there are 2 sides to the story and the standard for judging guilty or not guilty is reasonable doubt.......which is always what the defense wants to create in jurors. 

When the jurors deliberate, they will focus on  whether the prosecutor proved the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

They won't take straw votes to see how convinced each person is of guilt or innocence but instead, whether the prosecutor proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Like at the end of a football game, the only thing that matters is the score. Not how many yards or complete passes each team got. The standard is points scored.

At the end of jury deliberation, in every case, getting just one person with  reasonable doubt in the prosecutors evidence is all that's needed.

It's possible that they could come back with a unanimous not guilty on all but one of the charges but that is questionable too because some people will consider that he was breaking a gun law and using a gun illegally and see him as looking for trouble.

There is a real good chance that he would be convicted of possession of a dangerous weapon under the age of 18 because he is obviously guilty beyond any kind of doubt of committing that misdemeanor crime. 

And the prosecutor already messed up bad enough to potentially cause a mistrial and blow the entire case, irregardless. One wonders if they did such an ignorant thing intentionally because they know they are going to lose based on the almost impossible task of getting all 12 jurors to agree on guilty BEYOND a reasonable doubt on the 4 big charges.

Kyle Rittenhouse’s lawyers say they will seek a mistrial

EXPLAINER: What charges does Kyle Rittenhouse face?

By metmike - Nov. 10, 2021, 11:33 p.m.
Like Reply

"After seeing/hearing testimony I feel that he is innocent of all charges....Fixed it for you !"

Your fixing, actually broke it kris.

He can't be innocent of all charges because it was illegal for him to possess that gun at 17 years old......based on the stone cold facts.

Did you not know that this was one of the charges  or do you think that some people are above the law?

Minimum Age to Purchase & Possess in Wisconsin


"Wisconsin generally prohibits the intentional transfer of any firearm to an individual under age 18.1           

The state also generally prohibits the possession of a firearm by any person under age 18."

WI allows for minors to use guns for hunting and  also target practice if supervised by an adult.

In this instance he was using a firearm illegally. No if's ands or butt's.

By kris - Nov. 11, 2021, 9:53 a.m.
Like Reply

No Mike, my fixing didn't "break" anything. You're not entirely familiar with the law pertaining to firearms in Wisconsin.

Pretty rich that you would cite the gun grabbers at to make your case about "stone cold facts".

Here is an analysis of the rest of the laws in Wisconsin pertaining to firearms, not just the one statute cited by the gun grabbers:

U.S.A.-( One of the questions involving the Kyle Rittenhouse defensive engagements is if Kyle was forbidden from carrying an AR15 rifle, because he was at that time, four months short of his 18th birthday.

Writing about it, I mentioned Wisconsin statutes 948.60, which forbids the carry of dangerous weapons by people under the age of 18. The law has exceptions and cutouts and definitions which need to be taken into account.

There is an excellent tactical and legal analysis of the two defensive engagements by Kyle Rittenhouse at the forum. In that analysis, the author explains Wisconsin does not have a general prohibition on people carrying dangerous weapons if they are under 18, but does prohibit people under 16 from carrying dangerous weapons, again, with exceptions.

The explanation of the law at is very good. However, it can profitably be elaborated for those who do not read the law extensively.

Wisconsin Statute 948.60 regulates the possession of a dangerous weapon by persons under 18 years old. In paragraph (2) (a) it states:

(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

Paragraph (3) lists exceptions. (3)(c) excludes most people who are under 18, except those in violation of 941.28 or 29.304 and 29.539.

(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.

Statute 948.60 only applies to a person under the age of 18 who are in violation of 941.28 or not in compliance with 29.304 and 29.593.

What does it take to be in violation of 941.28? Here is the statute:

(2) No person may sell or offer to sell, transport, purchase, possess or go armed with a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.

In the statute, short-barreled shotguns or short-barreled rifles are those which require a special license under the National Firearms Act. In general, those are rifles with a barrel less than 16 inches in length or shotguns with a barrel less than 18 inches in length, or either which have an overall length of less than 26 inches.

The rifle carried by Kyle Rittenhouse, as an ordinary AR15 type and does not fall into those categories, so Kyle was not violating 941.28.

Was Kyle in violation of Wisconsin statute 29.304 and statute 29.539? These statutes deal with hunting regulation and with people under the age of 16 carrying rifles and shotguns. First, statute 29.304:

29.304  Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.

(b) Restrictions on possession or control of a firearm. No person 14 years of age or older but under 16 years of age may have in his or her possession or control any firearm unless he or she:

Kyle is reported to be over 16 years old, so he was not violating statute 29.304.

How about statute 29.539?

29.593  Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.

Kyle was not hunting, so statute 29.539 does not apply.

To sum up: Wisconsin statutes 940.60 only forbid people under the age of 18 from possessing or carrying dangerous weapons in very limited cases. If a person is 16 years of age or older, the statute only applies to rifles and shotguns which are covered under the National Firearms Act as short-barreled rifles or shotguns. People who are hunting have to comply with the hunting regulations, and there are general restrictions for people under the age of 16.

While a casual reading of Wisconsin Statutes seems to indicate people under the age of 18 are forbidden from carrying rifles or shotguns, that is not the case under Wisconsin law, in general.

The general prohibition is for those under the age of 16. Kyle is reported to be more than 17 years old.

This is consistent with Wisconsin’s Constitutional protection of the right to keep and bear arms, section 25. Wisconsin added the clear wording of Section 25 to the Wisconsin Constitution in 1998.

Text of Section 25:

Right to Keep and Bear Arms

The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.[1]

Kyle was legally able to exercise his right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, as protected by the Wisconsin Constitution. He was not forbidden by Wisconsin law from possessing or carrying a rifle because he was less than 18 years of age.

The law is clear if a bit convoluted. Lawyers are supposed to be experts at unwinding the convolutions of the law.

Kyle’s defense team is correct. The criminal complaint against Kyle appears to have been rushed and ill-conceived.

By kris - Nov. 11, 2021, 9:59 a.m.
Like Reply

Here is another analysis about the famed  §948.60 :

The Injustice of the Gun Charge Against Kyle Rittenhouse & Why No Necessity Defense

By /
Welcome to the Law of Self Defense ongoing coverage of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. I am, of course, Attorney Andrew Branca, for Law of Self Defense LLC.
I’ve received a lot of inquiries about one of the charges against Kyle Rittenhouse in particular, and that’s the unlawful gun possession by someone under 18 charge—Count 6 in the criminal complaint against him.  While it’s merely a misdemeanor, it does appear to be the only one of the charges still pending against Kyle for which there’s reason to believe a fair jury might return a guilty verdict.

Such a verdict, in my professional legal opinion, would be a travesty of justice—and that’s what I’d like to dive into here.  Specifically, why the gun charge ought to be dismissed by Judge Schroeder outright, never even considered by the jury, and Kyle no longer subject to the risk of conviction on that count.

For reasons I’ve written on extensively elsewhere, the prosecution of Kyle Rittenhouse has effectively presented no substantive evidence in court that is inconsistent with the legal defense of self-defense—and that in a case where the prosecution bears the burden of disproving self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.  (For my other collected content on Rittenhouse, you can point your browser to

Self-Defense Applies to Kyle’s Most Serious Criminal Charges

The primary legal defense raised by Kyle is self-defense. That legal defense of self-defense is applicable directly to the charge of first-degree intentional homicide of Anthony Huber (Count 3 of the criminal complaint against Rittenhouse, with a mandatory life sentence) and attempted first-degree intentional homicide of Gaige Grosskreutz (Count 4, good for a sentence up to 60 years).

The legal defense of self-defense is also applicable, albeit indirectly, to the charge of first-degree reckless homicide of Joseph Rosenbaum (Count 1, good for 60 years) and first-degree reckless endangering of unknown male “Jump Kick Man” (Count 5, good for 12 years), in that a justified use-of-force against an intended target is by law necessary and reasonable, and therefore not reckless—and both of those men were actively attacking Rittenhouse and therefore presumably intended targets of his use of force.

It’s somewhat more ambiguous—really, I mean fact sensitive—to what extent the legal defense of self-defense covers the charge of first-degree reckless endangering with respect to journalist Richard McGinnis (Count 2, good for 12 years), who was somewhat behind Rosenbaum and arguably endangered by the gunfire that Kyle put into Rosenbaum with his AR-15.  Of course, criminal recklessness requires that the risk created be an unjustified risk—a justified risk is not sufficient.

To illustrate, swerving and running over some nuns because you were adjusting your radio would be an unjustified creation of risk.  Swerving and running over some nuns because the alternative was running over a bunch of babies in strollers, however, may create the same danger to the nuns, but be considered justified under the circumstances.

Certainly, McGinnis was “downrange” of Kyle’s gunfire when the 17-year-old shot the murderously charging Rosenbaum, and thus in some danger from Kyle’s gunfire.  But that’s true in virtually every defensive gun use—there’s almost always somebody “downrange.”  Defensive gun uses don’t tend to occur on a square range with a solid and secure backstop.

So, the relevant question in the case of the McGinnis reckless endangerment charge will be whether the risk created towards McGinnis was unjustified, and therefore reckless.  It is possible to argue scenarios in which a gun use might qualify as lawful self-defense with respect to the intended target, but also as reckless conduct towards some bystander.  The State might argue, for example, that Kyle could have angled the gun in such a way so as to still defend himself without endangering McGinnis, and so the danger to McGinnis was unjustified and criminally reckless.

In fact, I would argue that this is precisely what Kyle did, whether intentionally or not.  The evidence I have seen is that the shots to Rosenbaum were fired with the barrel of the rifle angled downward, towards the lunging Rosenbaum, and not with the rifle horizontal to the ground.  But now we’re in the realm of fact-finding, and that falls within the province of the jury.

So, to the extent that the State has failed to come even close to disproving self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, which is its burden, that solidly addresses Count 1 & Counts 3 through 5, and arguably also Count 2 (McGinnis reckless endangerment).  These are all the felony charges against Kyle, so that’s a good thing for the defense.

Count 7, the curfew violation charge punishable only by a ticket, was dismissed by the court yesterday.

Ambiguous Gun Charge & Treacherous Jury Instructions

That still leaves Kyle, however, with one remaining charge:  Count 6, the possession of a dangerous weapon by a person-under-18 charge, under §948.60(a)(2).  This is a mere misdemeanor charge, and if convicted Kyle is punishable by up to 9 months in jail (presumably lessened by any time served prior to trial).

This gun charge has, indeed, become a sticky wicket, largely because of the alleged ambiguity created by the Wisconsin legislature in drafting that statute, by the failure of the relevant Wisconsin Criminal Jury Instructions to accurately reflect the plain statutory language, and by the fecklessness of the prosecution in this case.

Also, because Kyle’s claim of self-defense, compelling against the felony charges against him, is irrelevant as a defense to this particular misdemeanor charge.  There is no self-defense justification for willfully violating a gun possession law. (Some of you may be thinking that an excuse defense of necessity or lesser harms might apply here—it would not, for reasons I’ll explain below.)

The relevant part of §948.60 reads:

(2)(a) (a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

If that was the only statutory language that applies to Kyle, it’s pretty much an open and shut conviction.  He was admittedly under 18, and he was in possession of an AR-15 style rifle, which certainly qualifies under Wisconsin law as a dangerous weapon (“dangerous weapon” means any firearm, per section (1) of that same statute, §948.60).

Indeed, the jury instruction that has been drafted with respect to §948.60(a)(2)2176 Possession of a Dangerous Weapon by a Child—and specifically reflects this apparent simplicity of construction, defining for the jury the elements that the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt in order to find guilt:

  1. The defendant possessed an object.
  2. The object was a dangerous weapon.
  3. The defendant had not attained the age of 18 years at the time (he) (she) allegedly possessed a dangerous weapon.

Again, if this is the entire analysis of guilt, Kyle’s would seem a pretty open-and-shut case.  He was in possession of an object, the object qualifies as a dangerous weapon, and he had not attained the age of 18 years.

But that is not the entire legal analysis.  There is more, and it is found later in that same statute §948.60, in paragraph (3)(c).  That section reads in relevant part:

(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 … not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.

So, unless Kyle was “not in compliance” with §29.304 and §29.593, the §948.60 gun possession statute would seem to not apply to him at all—that is, he would be legally exempt from the provisions of §948.60 entirely.

So, what are §29.304 and §29.593?

The second of those, §29.593 sets out the conditions that must be met to be certified to engage in certain hunting activities.  With respect to these conditions the State correctly points out that Kyle has not met any of these conditions—and therefore, they argue, Kyle is “not in compliance” with §29.593.

The first defense counter-argument here could be that that §29.593 applies to hunting activities, and Kyle was not engaged in hunting activities, and therefore §29.593 ought not apply to his circumstances at all.

Perhaps a stronger counter-argument, however, is that the plain reading of §948.60(3)(c) says it applies only “if the person is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.”  It does not read “ss. 29.304 or 29.593.”

So, even if Kyle can be said to be “not in compliance” with §29.593, was he also “not in compliance” with §29.304?

If we take a closer look at §29.304, we see that it is also a hunting-related statute, but one that involves restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.

Wait a minute—how can Kyle be “not in compliance” with a statute that applies only to “persons under 16 years of age”?  He was, after all, 17 years old at the time of these events.

Well, that’s precisely the position of the defense here.  They argue that Kyle is legally exempt from the provisions of §29.304, period, because he falls outside the statute’s age range.  And if he’s exempt, he can’t be “not in compliance.”

And if he can’t be “not in compliance with ss. 29.304,” he is exempt from §948.60(a)(2) “unlawful possession of a dangerous weapon because of the requirement of paragraph §948.60(3)(c), which on the facts of this case would require non-compliance with §29.304.

The State’s counter-argument to this plain reading of the statutory language is that, well, the legislature titled §948.60 “Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18,” so they must have meant some application to “persons under 18.”  After all, Kyle was admittedly under 18 at the time of these events

We may not understand exactly what the legislature was trying to get at, the State is arguing, but surely they were getting at something—and therefore we should ignore the plain statutory language, and subject Kyle to criminal sanction under this statute.

In effect, the State’s argument here is, pay no attention to the plain reading of the statutory language behind the curtain,  because I am the great and powerful ADA Oz!  Really, it’s ridiculous—and ridiculous ought have no role in a court of law where criminal sanctions and personal liberty are at stake.

Also, ADA Jim Kraus has engaged in some handwaving to the court, arguing that, “hey, this is just a fact question, and fact questions out to go to the jury.”  Well, it’s true that fact questions ought to go to the jury, so that’s an argument that on its face is always attractive to any trial judge.

Question of Fact versus Question of Law

More importantly, ADA Kraus knows what “go the jury” means—it means the jury gets the Wisconsin Criminal Jury Instruction on §948.60(a)(2).  And that jury instruction, WCJI 2176, says not one word about the (3)(c) exceptions to that gun possession statute, makes no reference whatever to §29.304, and if plainly relied on by the jury will certainly result in a conviction that would appear contrary to the plain reading of the relevant statutory language.

In truth, this is not a fact question at all—this is a question of law. And questions of law do not fall within the province of the jury, they fall within the province of the judge.

It is for Judge Schroeder in this case, not the jury, to decide how the law applies to the facts, as those facts are determined by the jury.  In this case, the facts on the gun possession are undisputed—it is the law in dispute. And that dispute ought properly to be settled by the judge.  Simply giving the jury the standard jury instruction that fail to reflect the actual statutory language would be a judicial travesty and injustice.

Now, trial courts are generally extremely hesitant to stray away from standardized jury instructions, for the perfectly good reason that doing so tends to get their verdicts reversed.  That said, it’s also the duty of the trial court to ensure that the instructions given the jury accurately reflect the law to be applied to the facts as the jury finds those facts to have been proven (or disproven).

So, Judge Schroeder is not necessarily locked into the over-simplistic jury instruction of WCJI 2176.  I’ve heard rumor that he’s actually requested the State and the defense to draft their own versions of jury instructions for that gun possession charge, Count 6, and submit them to the court for review—indeed, this is how jury instructions used to be done routinely, back in the day, before there was wide use of standardized jury instructions.

If the jury gets instructions that accurately reflect the actual statutory language, I think Kyle’s in good shape even on this gun possession charge, Count 6 in the criminal complaint.

If he gets the current standardized jury instructions that fail to accurately reflect the plain language of §948.60, then an unjust misdemeanor conviction on that gun possession charge seems almost certain.

Inapplicability of the Necessity Defense

I also wanted to touch upon the necessity defense, or the doctrine of lesser evils as it’s sometimes is called, because I’ve received a lot of inquiries on that, as well.

Can’t it be argued that Kyle’s possession of the rifle, even if unlawful, was a relatively small harm relative to the very large harm had he been unable to defend himself from multiple deadly force attackers?

Perhaps, but that’s not how the necessity defense works, with respect to this gun charge on the facts of this case.

The necessity defense may excuse the violation of a law when doing so is compelled by a necessity of the moment to avoid a greater harm.

So, you physically shove someone very hard—normally a simple battery, subject to criminal sanction.  But you did it out of the necessity of moving them out of the path of an oncoming truck.  There, the necessity of the moment may excuse your plain simple battery for the purpose of having avoided a much greater harm.

In the case of Kyle, had he been charged by Rosenbaum and suddenly discovered an unfamiliar AR-15 at his feet, snatched it up, and defended himself, that transient possession of the dangerous weapon would have a very viable necessity defense that could be raised.

That’s not what Kyle was doing, however. He was not merely in possession of the rifle transiently and for a compelling necessity of the moment.  He was in possession of the rifle the entire time he was in Kenosha, even when not under attack.

The necessity defense applies to a compelling greater interest in the moment—it does not apply to speculative need in the future.

So, on the facts of this case, the necessity defense is of no use as a legal defense against the gun possession charge, Count 6, brought against Kyle.

OK, folks, that’s all I have for you on this topic.

Law of Self Defense © 2021
All rights reserved.


By metmike - Nov. 11, 2021, 10:06 a.m.
Like Reply

Thanks kris!

We'll see what they decide but  I still have the same opinion:

"After seeing/hearing testimony I feel that he will get off, at least from the worst of the offenses and probably from all of them"

By cfdr - Nov. 11, 2021, 10:31 a.m.
Like Reply

And Facebook's reaction to the news?

And, YouTube - not related to the trial - but relevant:

Does anyone suppose that these guys had anything to do with fraud in the recent elections too??

Or the global warming con-job?

How about possibly killing people by their coverage of something like Ivermectin?

Can we simply believe anything we read?  Of course not.

By metmike - Nov. 11, 2021, 11:52 a.m.
Like Reply

"Does anyone suppose that these guys had anything to do with fraud in the recent elections too??"


There is no evidence of major fraud. Not even a shred.

There never was and it was the most investigated, audited, legally challenged election in history by a wide margin.

No, it wasn't all covered up by social media and the MSM and deep state and democrats and nefarious entities go get Trump out of office.

This is totally whackadoodle, paranoid conspiracy theory stuff man.

You probably believe this nut job, who claims that China, mysteriously took control of the election data(which wasn't even hooked up to the internet) and his completely manufactured/fraudulent video show created to bamboozle you guys..and it worked.


mikelindells election tape            

                            11 responses |                

                Started by mcfarm - Feb. 6, 2021, 8:58 a.m.    


 Snake Oil Salesman Mike Lindell            

                            Started by metmike - May 13, 2021, 12:16 a.m.   


Mike Lindell......a complete nut job! 

14 responses | 

Started by metmike - Aug. 6, 2021, 7:41 p.m.

You will believe the most hair brained, conspiracy theory stuff if it comes from the far right but won't believe anything backed by empirical data/evidence/facts if it DOESN'T come from the far right. 

I'm not saying that all those sources DON'T cover up lots of stuff..........but you're limited to knowing when and where they do REALLY it..........because they OFTEN don't do it. You just assume they are ALWAYS doing it anytime something disagrees with your almighty, secrets revealing,  far right sources.

By TimNew - Nov. 12, 2021, 4:11 a.m.
Like Reply

As the prosecution of this case literally collapses, they go after the judge.  But nahh, there's no agenda here.

He made a "tasteless" joke about Asian food. <GASP>.

So, when Rittenhouse gets aquitted,  the whole world will know it was because of a biased judge and Rittenhouse will carry the stain of guilt for the rest of his life.   Life as he knows it is over.  And, he'll be under the scrutiny of the media forever.  If he jaywalks, it will be national news.

That'll teach him, and hopefully everyone else,  why it's wrong to interfere with people doing the lords work.

BTW, had Rittenhouse been killed that night,  we'd have barely heard a thing, if at all.

'How not to be a good judge': Kyle Rittenhouse judge draws new backlash with 'Asian food' joke (

By TimNew - Nov. 12, 2021, 7:17 a.m.
Like Reply

Oh No!!!    Now the judge asked for applause for veterans on veterans day.  How can this man preside over a trial?!?!?!?!?

I suspect we'll see a great deal of "news" like this as the prosecution continues to fail/Fails.

Rittenhouse trial judge requests applause for veterans; critics howl (

By metmike - Nov. 12, 2021, 2:03 p.m.
Like Reply

This is an extremely political charged trial with strong bias.

If it were me on the jury, it would seem no brainer to vote not guilty because there is no way, that even a good prosecutor was NOT going to prove him guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

Even if I thought he MIGHT be guilty there is a big  enough hole of doubt to drive a truck thru. 

But with the politics the way that it is, you could get liberals on the jury that want the guilty verdict that will prevent a clean sweep not guilty.

I don't know but am just saying its possible.

The only thing that seems absolutely certain is that they will have some jurors that have enough reasonable doubt to vote not guilty...........which is the main object of the defense to let him go free. 

I know that you guys see this as no brainer not guilty unanimous but then you point out the stuff the left is objecting to because they are certain he is guilty.

Those are real people on the jury. They may have been vetted and interviewed but if there are some that feel like the ones that you are mocking for feeling this way, they could insist on guilty.

If it's 10-2 or something like that, however I think the tendency is probably for the 10 to strongly pressure the 2 or even 1 to flip to their side and they usually prevail.

It would be an interesting analysis of all the cases to see how the votes morphed from the start to end. 

By TimNew - Nov. 13, 2021, 5:54 a.m.
Like Reply

The only thing I find him/them guilty of is poor judgement,  I don't think a 17 y/o should have been placed in that situation.   But that does not deprive him of the right to self defense, and by any legal measurment,  this was self defence.

But you damn well better believe that regardless of the trial, this poor kids life, as he knew it, is over.  The leftists have labeled him public enemy #1 and they will use all the resources at their disposal to make his life miserable. He must be made an example of just what happens to these upstarts who presume to interfere.  THe judge is probably  in for some shyt too.

Watch.   I hope I am wrong,  but I  bet I am not.

By TimNew - Nov. 13, 2021, 8:43 a.m.
Like Reply

Interesting article on the trial and perception.

Some journalists and court watchers admit initial bias in Rittenhouse trial (

The nation has been glued to the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, watching live feeds of courtroom proceedings and flocking to social media to discuss everything from the judge's quirks to the defendant's "crocodile tears."

From the start, the case has divided America, with people sticking to their belief that the Illinois teenager was either a young patriot or a lawless vigilante dispatched to the small Wisconsin city of Kenosha hellbent on havoc.

But over the course of the two-week trial, a third group of people has emerged — people who initially believed the narrative, largely peddled by the media, that Rittenhouse was an unhinged trigger-happy teenager, only to watch the proceedings for themselves and come away with a different opinion.

By metmike - Nov. 16, 2021, 9:31 p.m.
Like Reply

Thanks for the good comments Tim/others.

I was going to start a new thread but wanted to keep the comments from this one alive for awhile longer.

kris was right about his point that there was a technicality in the law for a minor possessing a firearm that caused that charge to be dropped.

Kyle Rittenhouse trial: Jury to continue deliberations Wednesday as Kenosha braces for verdict

Rittenhouse jury will consider some lesser charges in fatal shootings. Here's what that means.

Schroeder on Monday dismissed a misdemeanor weapons charge Rittenhouse faced as a minor in possession of a firearm. The defense argued the charge couldn't apply because of an exception in the law, which has to do with the length of the barrel or the overall length of the rifle. When prosecutors conceded the gun was not short-barreled, Schroeder dismissed the charge.