Prosecutors in Rittenhouse trial rest their case, but face questions about strategy

[Dial H For Hero]

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/09/1054015284/prosecutors-in-rittenhouse-trial-rest-their-case-but-face-questions-about-strate

The prosecution has rested its case in the murder trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, who's accused of two homicides and another attempted homicide during protests in Kenosha, Wis. last year.

Rittenhouse, now 18, shot and killed Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26, and injured Gaige Grosskreutz during a racial justice protest on the night of Aug. 25, 2020. Rittenhouse has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Legal experts say the outcome in the case could ultimately come down to how well the prosecution made its central argument — that Rittenhouse was the aggressor of the violence and not just acting in self-defense, as he claims.

Jessa Nicholson Goetz, a private defense attorney in Madison who represented Rittenhouse for nine days before leaving the case in September 2020, said prosecutors didn't make that case very strongly.

(excerpt)

[Thomas Hurt]

1. Yes, your honor, I armed myself, traveled across state lines into another city to defend myself...

from protests and rioters. It was self defense!

[JohnSJ]

2. Exactly, unfortunately though I think he will get off

[liberalmediaaddict]

4. He'll be acquitted but he shouldn't be

Even if it's true the first victim grabbed for his gun Rittenhouse didn't need to shoot him 4 times. And afterwards he fled the scene instead of putting his gun down and waiting for the police and EMT's to arrive. He could have waited and explained what happened to the authorities. He obviously couldn't care less about the stranger he just shot to death.

Instead he ran away still carrying his AR-15 into a crowd of protesters who thought he was an active shooter that had to be stopped. And instead of throwing down his gun he decided to use it repeatedly. And fled again.

So his high priced attorneys will probably help him get away with murdering 2 people. But like George Zimmerman his life is never going to be the same. Bottom line is he ended 2 lives and destroyed a third.

[JohnSJ]

5. Yup

[madville]

7. The cross examination by the defense of the

Guy that got shot in the arm was not good for the prosecution. The guy admitted he drew his handgun and was chasing Rittenhouse, who was running away from the scene at the time. And then there is the video of the one victim swinging a skateboard at Rittenhouse. I don’t see how they get a conviction, probably a deadlocked jury most likely.

[maxsolomon]

21. that victim is named Anthony Huber

he was trying to disarm an active shooter who had just shot someone in the head. it was self-defense, but Rittenhouse thought it was a deadly assault.

same with Gaige Grosskreutz, who had his bicep blasted off at close range - because he held back from shooting Rittenhouse in self-defense.

I'm not going to defend Joe Rosenbaum's actions, because I'm still not sure what they were - he set a fire? he chucked a soup can at Rittenhouse? I will say he didn't deserve to die for those actions.

[moniss]

11. Likely

the Oaf Creepers and Putrid Boys will be having a celebration at the bar with the cops.

[uponit7771]

17. Didn't KR point his gun at someone first BEFORE the one guy ran after him? I think that's how all

... of this started, that right there would take away all the "in defense" shit.

Like Zimmerman he NEEDLESSLY puts himself in the place of danger, shoots someone then in the process of getting himself out of said danger

[MyOwnPeace]

3. Oh, that it could be that simple........

I am SO afraid that the wacko neo-nazi is gonna' get away with it after what appears to be a rather 'lame' set of charges and presentations as well as a terrible 'climate' to defend someone who takes part in a large protest in a city with a history of 'deserving' such protests.

CLIFF NOTES: Too many people there think he's not really a bad boy - he was helping protect the public from those nasty, mean rioters and looters.

[Sympthsical]

6. The defense might not even have to make a case

The prosecution's witnesses - including one of the people shot - made the case for self-defense all by themselves.

The defense need do very little at this point.

If people are surprised and outraged by the outcome, it's because they've not been paying attention. Legally, there is just no way he's convicted of murder.

And a lot of the narrative we've been hearing for the past year has turned out to be wrong, false, misleading, or misinformation. Now, with the full weight of all the video, pics, and testimony, it is breathtaking just how wrong the narrative has been.

I honestly think Rittenhouse starts suing like the wind, much like the Covington kids. And honestly, the media can blame themselves for it if they do end up paying out. They whipped up as much division and drama as possible for those eyeballs. This thread has all of 5 posts as I write this reply, and I already see wrong things being said.

What a mess. He's completely in the wrong for going armed in the first place. But morally wrong ain't the same thing as legally culpable.

[moniss]

10. It is not

a matter of morally wrong. He was illegal to have that weapon. Period. Furthermore in Wisconsin you don't get to claim self-defense if you shoot someone who is not a lethal threat. Rosenbaum was not. A physical threat but nothing indicated him being armed. The drone footage appears that Rittenhouse fired multiple times, circled around a vehicle, came out around that vehicle and looked at what he had done and then began to run. He knew he was illegal to have the gun and he also knew he was in big trouble now that he had shot someone. Him running to get away was because he was panicked to get away. Notice that when the cops rolled past him he did not go to the police station despite knowing where they are because of all of his previous "Junior Cop Wannabe" activities with the Kenosha PD. His killing of the skateboarder is also not defensible for the same reason previously stated about allowable response to a physical versus lethal threat. The killer was an active shooter and he kept on shooting when people tried to stop him. He was panicked and out of control as we might expect of a 17 year old. That's why they don't get to have those weapons in Wisconsin and many other states.

It seems clear that you seem to find no problem with someone using deadly force with a weapon illegal for them to possess so long as they perceived some physical threat of any kind or experienced a wack with a skateboard by someone trying to stop them from killing other people.

[Blues Heron]

13. Good rebuttal

[Sympthsical]

14. He's facing weapons charges

Someone in another thread said they might not stick because of how loosely they're written, but I haven't read closely into that aspect of things. I can't give a good opinion on that aspect.

You are mixing the legal and the moral very freely. But that is immaterial. We have witnesses saying Rosenbaum was in an agitated state (I think he was having a mental episode), that he was threatening people, and that he chased Rittenhouse. There is video. You do not have to have a gun to threaten grave bodily harm. Cracking someone's head on the pavement will do. Rosenbaum chased while Rittenhouse retreated. He lunged as Rittenhouse was attempting to get away.

It is very clear cut.

He got cracked over the head with a skateboard. He is being assaulted. And someone else kicked him in the face. He was on the ground. People were chanting all kinds of things at him. Again, self-defense, very clear cut.

You're just arguing shoulda, woulda, coulda moral judgements about his behavior. And the thing is, I agree with you by and large about them. There was a lot he did that he should not have done.

But he's not on trial for that. He's on trial for murder. The self-defense aspect is the only one that matters.

A "wack" with a skateboard could cause brain damage.

The narrative has to be let go. And that's what you're arguing, a narrative - not the law.

And you don't have to impugn people for disagreeing with a narrative you are clinging to very thinly in the face of all evidence at trial. I have plenty of problems with what Rittenhouse did that night and leading up to it.

But the question that matters - is he legally guilty of murder?

The state's own witnesses pretty much picked that one apart.

[maxsolomon]

22. "having a mental episode"?

where do you get that?

[moniss]

26. It is

nonsense to think that people trying to stop an active shooter are gunned down and people excuse it because the active shooter "might have been seriously injured". The judge already said that he will only allow the weapons charge to the jury if the prosecutors can put on evidence that the barrel of the gun was too short to be legal. 17 year olds in the state of Wisconsin are only allowed rifles for hunting. Period. That is the law and the defense claimed that they were going to argue that permitted this lying cop wannabe to carry the weapon. It is not just a murder charge. The lesser included charges of manslaughter, assault etc. are also in play according to the judge. As far as chasing people Rosenbaum left where this jerk was and it was that punk who went chasing down the street later with his rifle to another location. Rosenbaum saw him and pursued him back to the place he was originally told by everyone around him to stay at. But the lying wannabe cop wasn't going to listen to anybody because he only obeys the things he wants to. He lied constantly on the witness stand. When he fell in the street and got kicked in the head the guy who kicked him was over 15 feet away when this punk sat up and spun himself around and fired more rounds and took his second victim. Realistically when he shot the other guy in the arm the guy should have used the pistol he had and that would have actually been a better self defense case than anything this piece of garbage from Illinois can claim. They were trying to stop an active shooter and people were screaming to stop him. The ones that you claim "assaulted" him were trying to stop him. You don't get to use lethal deadly force just because someone "lunges" at you. The punk admitted on the witness stand that he knew of no weapon that Rosenbaum was threatening him with.

[abqtommy]

8. I'm very interested to see what the jury does. They have the power! nt

[moniss]

9. Seems like a

half-hearted effort on the part of the prosecution. Kenosha is very much a crooked place politically and always has been. Some glaring things jump out that the prosecution never touched on.

Number one is the hollow claim that he tried to "surrender" after having shot people but he went home instead after police passed him by. The history of this young man is that he frequently took part in "Junior Cop Wannabe" activities with the Kenosha PD. He knew very well where the police stations are and so if he felt they passed him by then why has the prosecutor not pointed out that if he sincerely wanted to turn himself in he knew where to go but chose not to?

Secondly I have mentioned before that video and photos show him at various times in the evening walking with his gun and the "others" sometimes with his rubber gloves on and sometimes not. What is the timeline for this? Did someone instruct him to wear or not wear the gloves? If so why? If not why did he do this himself? Were the gloves a "color of the day" so to speak so that he would be recognized by others in the group or by the police as being a "friendly with a gun"? He is seen in photos earlier in the day scrubbing graffiti with totally different gloves so the blue/purplish gloves he has on when toting his gun were apparently not from that benign activity.

Another item showed up today when the new "enhanced" drone footage of him shooting Rosenbaum was shown. All up until now I have been hearing that a plastic bag of some sort was thrown at Rittenhouse by Rosenbaum and that is when he opened fire. The drone footage shows no such thing. Rosenbaum is not throwing anything prior to being shot.

While scrubbing graffiti etc. where was the gun? Was someone or some location holding the weapon at some point and then he retrieved it? If so then what are the details? Who else had knowledge that this kid was going to be roaming around in a dangerous situation with a gun?

Rittenhouse openly lied to those around him about his age and claiming he had medical training. Rittenhouse was unable to purchase the gun legally himself and a straw purchase appears to have been made for him. His lying about his age shows consciousness of guilt because he knew he was not old enough to have the gun. His pretext about giving "medical aid" and having medical training appears to be a furtherance of that subterfuge so that he could claim a legal right to the weapon and a "helpful" reason for being there. Testimony was given that people heard him ask at various times if anybody needed medical aid. This sounds more like him "talking it up" throughout in order to be able to stay where the "action" was. Junior Cop Wannabe was going to save the used cars and have big stories to tell.

A further investigation by the Feds is warranted as to whether the Kenosha PD or its' members contacted some of these "known supporters of the Kenosha PD" and asked them to be there. Unfortunately it won't likely happen and crooked Kenosha will go on being crooked Kenosha. The jury will likely not convict on anything except maybe the illegal firearm charge and even that is doubtful. I certainly hope I'm wrong.

[liberalmediaaddict]

12. Well stated

Hopefully the jury carefully considers all the evidence before making a decision. And ignores the goofy judge's grandstanding.

[Tomconroy]

15. I expect he will be testifying tomorrow.. May be of interest.

[Jason1961]

16. The Prosecution can save their case with their closing remarks

Just focus on the key and indisputable facts:

1) Kyle Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an assault rifle
2) Kyle Rittenhouse went to a protest for racial justice and murdered two people and tried to murder a third
3) Kyle Rittenhouse was armed with an illegal assault weapon

[Dr. Strange]

18. Stop spreading misinformation.

1) Kyle Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an assault rifle

The prosecutor is NOT going to get up and make closing statements that include a brazen lie like that, much less call it an "indisputable fact". Come on.

[maxsolomon]

24. that is a widely believed piece of misinformation

like Rittenhouse's mother taking him to the riot and picking him up after.

didn't happen, but is so widely distributed on social media that I'm starting to consider it a deliberate campaign.

[yagotme]

25. #1 is untrue. The rifle was kept in WI.

#3 is basically untrue, as worded. In WI, it was illegal for him to PURCHASE a long gun, not carry. In the strangely crafted weapons laws of WI, ages 16-18 are allowed to carry long guns, if barrels are over 12". And, of course, please define the term "assault weapon" so the rest of us know what that is, specifically. "Dangerous weapons" in WI laws are generally concealable, including pistols, black jacks, brass knuckles, etc.

[Chille]

27. And with

number two they have videos. Believe your own eyes is what “they “ are saying.

[CrackityJones75]

19. I feel like the prosecution is on the take.

This smells rotten to me.

[The Mouth]

20. Like they are throwing the case

I have the same feeling. This stinks

[CrackityJones75]

23. Yep.