Ritttenhouse Trial

Published

The Rittenhouse trial has begun in Kenosha, Wisconsin. The prosecution is presenting first, but apparently the defense argument will be self-defense. So a 17 year old travels out of state with his rifle to a demonstration because he fears for his life? 

 

Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
59 minutes ago, Beerman said:

Yes, lots of questionable behavior by many.  But, that and everything else in this paragraph is indeed, irrelevant.

Technically, all of our opinions and discussion is irrelevant.  Yet, here we are. 

 

59 minutes ago, Beerman said:

Did you not see that witness admit he wasn't shot at until he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse?  Did you not see the facepalm by the prosecutor immediately after that admission?

What about the part where the witness said that he did not aim the handgun at Rittenhouse?  Can you see in the photo that the handgun is only pointing in the general direction of the fallen defendant and the witness was already shot.  The witness said that he didn't intentionally point his weapon at the shooter, didn't he? There is certainly room to question. 

I have paid more attention to the defendant's expressions, to be honest. 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in LPN/Pallative Hospice.
On 11/8/2021 at 1:43 PM, toomuchbaloney said:

Perhaps you didn't understand my remark using your language. I didn't deny that there were "idiots"  engaging in "stupid" behavior that night.  I just happen to think that loss of life and personal injury are more consequential than property damage and pointed out that the "idiot" on trial also engaged in "stupid" behavior.    

My view is that it was not smart for Rittenhouse to illegally carry that deadly weapon on the streets of a city in another state during a potentially chaotic and confusing public demonstration. It was not smart for him to leave that property or the company of the adults in his party.  Yes, there were a number of "idiots" that night.  Which one ended up being the most dangerous? 

Why do you suppose that Rittenhouse immediately escalated to shooting his gun? He didn't lose possession of the firearm to Rosenbaum.  The fellow was off balance and unarmed...not a real big guy.  Rittenhouse was in the driver's seat...he could have hit the guy with the stock of his gun...or knocked him down...or kept running and shouted for help...

I thought it was interesting that the defense focused on that photo of the handgun being pointed in the direction of the defendant's head.  The defense attorney kept saying that the witness was aiming at Rittenhouse.  That's an absurd notion really.  In that frame the witness' right bicep is exploding into bits which means that the witness was likely not capable of voluntary gross motor movement of his lower arm at that moment in time. The general direction that the handgun is pointing at that point would likely have more to do with his momentum, the weight of the weapon and the response of the arm to the massive trauma to the bicep and surrounding structures and tissues there near the elbow.  If you consider the power and velocity of the bullet which hit his arm at the elbow it's easy to understand that the force of the impact would have pushed his elbow more in line with the trajectory of the bullet and the gun would move toward the center...or in the direction of the bullet's origin.  

Maybe. Might have been.  Most likely.

The other people are dead or have extensive traumatic injury with the associated costs.

That's his defense, yes.  

That's a stretch. Maybe he was pointing it at him. The most simple explanation is usually correct. That one is not simple. (The gun shot made him point the gun)

The stipling injury was caused when he went to grab his gun....

 

 

Up Vote Up Vote ×

I heard political commentator, Jason Whitlock, give his opinion that the prosecution doesn't even believe this is a good case.  But, by bringing it to trial, they are able to take the pressure of them and have the ordinay citizens that make up the jury shoulder the load.

The bigger the dumpster fire of a prosecution grows, the more reasonable that opinion seems.

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.

Trial opinion from a sports commentator for The Blaze...not an actual legal analyst...I'll just watch the trial...that seems a better way to avoid political rhetoric. 

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.

The defense is calling Rittenhouse to the stand!

Up Vote Up Vote ×

I'm surprised, but having watched for just a little while, I see why he is testifying.  He seems genuine, is composed, is able to articulate everything that happened and why he was there, and has a pleasant demeanor.  The emotional breakdown certainly isn't staged.  He certainly doesn't seem like someone who went there with the intent to shoot people.

We'll see how he holds up, and jury's are unpredictable.  But, if I was forced to bet my paycheck, I'd say there's no way he'll be convicted of any of the murder charges.

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.

Agreed. His emotional breakdown was quick and genuine. Very much reflective of his age and immaturity.  We'll see how the jury interprets that in the end.  

Up Vote Up Vote ×
2 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Agreed. His emotional breakdown was quick and genuine. Very much reflective of his age and immaturity.  We'll see how the jury interprets that in the end.  

I think most people would understand how one, regardless of age, might become emotional while reliving how he felt his life was in danger and ended up killing two people.  Imho.

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.

Yes. His emotional response was understandable.  He's appeared uncomfortable multiple times during some of the evidence presentation and witness testimony.  

The legal disagreements are a bit difficult to follow. It seems to me that the defendant commenting or implying that he would use his weapon against looters and then inserting himself and that weapon into a situation where one might see looters are related or similar in a couple of ways. It was interesting that the defense threatened mistrial. This case is so much more explosive than the Arbery case.  The contrast in the bench style is interesting. 

Regardless of that, what does it say that this teenager was carrying that very dangerous weapon without knowing what sort of threat the weapon or the ammunition posed in the wrong hands? Rittenhouse's testimony at times makes him appear very young and naive.  So far, I think this jury will be lenient in the verdict. 

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
22 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

So far, I think this jury will be lenient in the verdict. 

You've said that multiple times.  Why do you think that?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in LPN/Pallative Hospice.
46 minutes ago, Beerman said:

You've said that multiple times.  Why do you think that?

To set up his argument when Rittenhouse is found innocent. Probably will reply to you something like, in the propaganda era led by conservatives and their exploitation of the 2nd admendment from Trumps lies and so on and so on. 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in LPN/Pallative Hospice.
3 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Agreed. His emotional breakdown was quick and genuine. Very much reflective of his age and immaturity.  We'll see how the jury interprets that in the end.  

Good thing his age and immaturity isn't what's on trial. Or the fact people of all ages and maturity levels have the right to protect themselves. 

You really cannot agree with something without floating to something negative as to his character. 

How about it? Do you think he is guilty of intentional homicide? Or any of the other charges? 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion