The Rittenhouse defense attempts to light the fuse

[Sympthsical]

They've asked for dismissal with prejudice because of the prosecution's behavior.

With prejudice means there will be no second trial. It will be over.

[Maru Kitteh]

1. For what? Some of us are at work and can't hear or watch.

[Sympthsical]

2. The prosecution managed two massive violations

First, the prosecutor violated the defendant's 5th Amendment right to remain silent. You can't go into a trial and make it seem like someone is guilty because they remained silent. The prosecution did this.

Second, the prosecutor tried to introduce evidence that the judge ruled inadmissible in the pre-trial. When the judge went after him for it, he got into it with the judge.

Even now, they're discussing the dismissal and issues prompting it, and this prosecutor is just sitting there being shitty at the judge.

You do not do this.

This judge is going to start dropping bombs on this guy. This is unreal.

[Effete Snob]

4. Ultimately

The judge will deny the request, the trial will go on, the denial will be part of the appeal package.

[Sympthsical]

5. I don't see how it isn't an acquittal

Rittenhouse will have to do something spectacularly bad on the stand to shift this thing.

I would much, much rather this go to the jury. In a case as politically charged as this, it's just ultimately better.

But I won't be surprised if this is all just about done.

[Effete Snob]

11. That has nothing to to do with this motion

The jury doesn't decide if the prosecution committed a violation.

[Sympthsical]

14. I meant that the trial itself goes to the jury

I'd much rather have that.

[Atticus]

16. I have not seen much of this trial because I turned it off in utter disgust---with the judge!

From the get-go, he has shown himself to be either an incredibly incompetent fool or incredibly biased---or both.

I did not hear him offer the evidence previously ruled inadmissible, but I did catch the first part of the prosecutor's cross of the defendant. The lecture by the judge about "coming close to the line" of violating defendant's 5th Amendment privilege was an unwarranted exercise in stretching a hardnosed trial tactic into a "possible violation" of defendant's rights and chewing out the prosecutor.

From the judge's manner, his gratuitous comments and his rulings, it has been clear throughout these proceedings that Hizzonor started with a presumption that poor l'il Kyle was the victim. He is a judicial embarrassment.

Rittenhouse will walk---one way or another---and become another George Zimmerman, booking paid appearances before RWNJ gatherings and signing autographs for militia groupies.

[Sympthsical]

17. I've been watching it live

Working from home.

The 5th Amendment violation thing was blatant.

I think Rittenhouse walks, and I think people who thinks a conviction should have been a 100% slam dunk are going to put it on the judge. That narrative was set up comfortably before the trial. The fact the prosecution was an absolute circus will take a backseat to that.

That said, I agree with you. Sadly, Rittenhouse will become a cause celebre' for the Right. The whole situation is too politicized. He'll make some money, and we'll be forced to hear about him for years. The gloating will be something. Which, sigh. Two people are dead.

Nothing about all this is good.

[Atticus]

20. As I said, I did see what is now apparently a "blatant" violation of defendant's 5th and even

THIS judge referred to it in terms of "going right up to the line" or words to that effect. This occurred at the beginning of the prosecutor's cross of the defendant.

Was there another instance that I missed?

[rockfordfile]

29. It's on the judge. He started out saying bs against the media for calling him out

The judge didn't think the media would hold him accountable. I wouldn't trust this judge for anything. Just be glad he wasn't a judge in the Ted Bundy trial.

[Sympthsical]

31. I have yet to see any legal commenter disagreeing with the 5th Amendment thing

I've seen lots of, "The judge is poop!" But that isn't really an answer about what happened there with the 5th amendment violation. It happened.

[Effete Snob]

3. For anything

Most of the time, it is malpractice not to move for dismissal after the prosecution completes its case.

It is perfunctorily requested, and perfunctorily denied, but it preserves any possible grounds for appeal.

[walkingman]

6. Question for those who have actually been watching the trial.....Do you think

he is guilty? I have only seen media coverage. At face value - I see a young man traveling from out of State with a AR15 to confront protester - two people killed.

[Scottie Mom]

8. Does a bear shit in the forest?

Rittenhouse is guilty as all hell. The give away IMO was the fake crying on the witness stand. In fact, I think he is proud of what he did.

[Sympthsical]

9. I think he meets the legal standard of self-defense

All the questions of whether or not he should've been there, etc. aren't nearly as relevant as "Was he being attacked, and did he have reason to believe he was at risk for grave physical harm and/or death?"

From everything I've seen, there's just no way a conviction for murder happens. I don't see any possibility of it.

And remember, the prosecutor is the one who has to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt. There is nothing but doubt all over the shootings.

This doesn't mean I think he's a great person or should've been there or the victims don't matter. I am solely giving my opinions on the trial itself and the legal standards involved.

[leftstreet]

18. Is that his defense?

I haven't really followed it, other than seeing it blow up occasionally on social media

Is the defense able to prove self-defense?

It's weird to me that the prosecution would go after a murder conviction if they know he's claiming self-defense

Like I said, haven't followed it

[Chille]

23. the prosecutor's

witnesses created this environment of crazyness

[Sympthsical]

25. I think this was way over-charged

I thought, given murder charges, they had something really crazy solid to push for that beyond a reasonable doubt.

But the standard we're working with is, "Did he have reasonable belief he was under imminent threat of grave injury?"

Then just about every prosecution witness marched on out and said yes to that question.

It's like, "Did they interview these people?" When then star witness says Rittenhouse didn't shoot him until he himself pointed his gun at him, it was basically over there.

Between that and FBI surveillance video showing the first victim chasing Rittenhouse (which the prosecutor lied about in his opening statement), I just don't see a conviction here.

[leftstreet]

26. Thanks

Sadly those details probably won't be part of the media narrative that strives to keep everyone half off their heads

[Kingofalldems]

28. He is still testifying.

Don't understand how you can come to that conclusion.

[Sympthsical]

30. Let's call it a preponderance of available evidence

My conclusion is based on what I have observed so far, both video and the witness testimonies.

Can that change? Sure. Doesn't seem likely at this point.

And it's my layman's opinion.

[rockfordfile]

32. Victims. those people he shot were victims.

[Busterscruggs]

7. I can't recall

Another time when somebody so guilty is just inches away from getting away with literal murder. He killed two people in cold blood and permanently maimed a third and will just get a slap on the wrist. The worst part is that it was all caught on camera, anyone with two eyes and a brain can see what he did.

[Hav]

22. He'll get away with it. No one questions that he was the one who shot

What is in question in this trial is whether it can be seen as self-defense if you shot someone coming at you with a skateboard or a gun, for example.

[Busterscruggs]

33. He still wouldn't know

If the guy was going to actually hit him with a skateboard or if the other really had any intention of shooting him. We know the true intentions of the peaceful protesters there. destruction and killing people were not their reasons despite what the MSM would have you believe.

[greenjar_01]

10. Good to hear from the Biggest Fan

[Sympthsical]

12. I apologize for trying to be objective about the trial

I know many people think we shouldn't even be having a trial.

But social media do not yet run our legal system.

[greenjar_01]

13. ROFL

Ok, buddy.

[Sympthsical]

15. Whatever happened to ROFLcopter?

I used to like that one. It's been an age.

[Jedi Guy]

19. Funnily enough...

This is the exact same person we were talking about in that thread the other day. I'm sure you're well aware, of course, but I got a chuckle out of it nonetheless.

The total and absolute lack of objectivity is just right out in the open, as are the narrative stones being thrown down for after the trial winds down to its obvious conclusion.

[Sympthsical]

27. It's certainly been useful for school

Was talking with my social psychology professor after class yesterday. This semester, we've been spending a lot of time on the polarization in the country, why it's happening, how identity is supplanting traditional forms of tribalism with the rise of social media. People believing narratives over facts has been a bugaboo of mine for ages, so I've just been mining the deep, rich veins of all this for class material.

I'm an AOC style progressive, and my professor is pretty much a hippie, and we were both talking about how absolutely insane the disconnect between the facts and the narrative has been in all of this.

How this story has been portrayed in the mainstream and social media and what we're seeing at the actual trial almost have no relation to each other.

[Chille]

24. the news media

made it seem very much different than what we are actually seeing