Kyle Rittenhouse

[JimmyJames 12271]

Now that the record has been cleared up, the judge is gonna ask the jury at 5:00, ie right now, if they want to keep going tonight for deliberations or go back and come home tomorrow. Somewhat bad sign for the prosecution if they want to keep going but not definite on that.

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

12 minutes ago, Lobo said:

 "Holy shit, Bavaria?"  

Hahahaha! You nailed it. No mountains  but very pretty and quite a bit different than Janesville or Beloit. We knew a lot of great people in Wisconsin from a variety of backgrounds and racial demographics, but whew, for anyone out there thinking that it was all beer and gemutlichkeit prior to what happened in the last few years in Kenosha is naive.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11777]

38 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Just for the record, I didn't call you a racist.  I said that you shrug off causal racism in real life, by your own admission. I don't know if that makes you are racist or not to be honest, but fairly certain that it makes you part of the problem. But I understand that fishing is really important to you. 

One of these days, god willing, I could sit with you while we make sausage or something, and tell you about Texas.  How I grew up, how I didn’t, and the things that happened in between.  Maybe you were sheltered or something.  I wasn’t.  I’m 55 years old and have been whipped with a belt and hit in the head with basketballs and called a N***er lover by people who are still living.  I kinda forgave them for it at the time.  Now I don’t.  I know who they vote for.   Stop straddling the fence.   

[Guest Lobo]

Well yeah, it's obviously quite flat there but the northwoods and the encompassing inland lakes look extremely similar to the rural/forest areas of SW Germany from Munich to Stuggart to Mannheim (again, not all the areas but most of it).  When you get truly deep into Swabian country, that's when the Alps truly start and the comparisons dry up. 

What's interesting is Mr. Rittenhouse's ancestors likely came as Rittenhaus or Rietenhaus/Reitenhaus from Swabia/Austria and settled somewhere up there in the WI Northwoods.  Likely mid-century, moved to suburbs and changed their name to blend in more with Americana and shed their connections to Germany/Austria and that guy with the funny mustache.  Hundreds of thousands did, no shame in it---they had nothing to do with the Reich.  But a kid who likely descended from legendary outdoorsman, alpsmen, and hunters...Kyle has that "Indoorsy" vibe about him...like he couldn't climb the rope in gym class so he bought an amount of firepower that would make the Bavarian Brownshirts think, "Holy shit man, we're just going out into the deep woods for some deer...chill the fuck out." 

[Sawbonz 27301]

7 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

How about at the country club or at the frat house? 

 

[Ojo Rojo 1866]

1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:

I’m assuming having the defendant draw 6 names out of a hat is some weird Wisconsin rule or tradition, but I also assumed the judge didn’t have the jury in the box when he had the entire courtroom give a defense witness a round applause so my assumption could be entirely wrong and just like his cell phone blowing up the whole trial, is just further proof this judge is a dumbass. 

I haven't watched much of the trial at all, but the part that was most "explosive" and got the most press attention was when the judge admonished the prosecutor over an evidentiary issue.  My understanding of it is that the defense had attempted to limine out some line of testimony pretrial.  The prosecutor felt that the defendant's testimony had opened the door to the line of questioning.  I don't know if the judge granted the motion in limine or reserved his rulings until the issue came up.  I also don't know if the prosecutor asked to approach before going into the line of questioning that he needed permission from the court to go into considering the motion to exclude the evidence and the judge's prior rulings.  Regardless, the judge was reaming the prosecutor out, making a big show of it.  The judge said something to the effect of, "I TOLD you that line of testimony wasn't coming in."  The prosecutor then said, "Yeah, but that was before the witness' testimony that opened the door to the excluded testimony."  The judge then said, "Don't get brazen with me!!!"  What?  "Brazen" means representing the state effectively by pointing out that the judge is flat wrong about an evidentiary issue?

[Guest Lobo]

2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

 

"Say Fred...have you heard the latest one about the Jew, the Catholic, and the Colored Boy who went to Kenosha?"

[Judge Roybeanbag 11777]

3 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

I haven't watched much of the trial at all, but the part that was most "explosive" and got the most press attention was when the judge admonished the prosecutor over an evidentiary issue.  My understanding of it is that the defense had attempted to limine out some line of testimony pretrial.  The prosecutor felt that the defendant's testimony had opened the door to the line of questioning.  I don't know if the judge granted the motion in limine or reserved his rulings until the issue came up.  I also don't know if the prosecutor asked to approach before going into the line of questioning that he needed permission from the court to go into considering the motion to exclude the evidence and the judge's prior rulings.  Regardless, the judge was reaming the prosecutor out, making a big show of it.  The judge said something to the effect of, "I TOLD you that line of testimony wasn't coming in."  The prosecutor then said, "Yeah, but that was before the witness' testimony that opened the door to the excluded testimony."  The judge then said, "Don't get brazen with me!!!"  What?  "Brazen" means representing the state effectively by pointing out that the judge is flat wrong about an evidentiary issue?

Bottom line about this trial was the charge would never stick.  The law wasn’t designed to deal with this.  Because people shouldn’t be walking around with guns at the ready.  Same thing with the deal here in Austin, if big boy hadn’t had his gun, he wouldn’t be dead.  Never mind the guy in the car.  It’s dumb.  It’s all dumb.  FAFO. With guns.  

[JimmyJames 12271]

24 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

I haven't watched much of the trial at all, but the part that was most "explosive" and got the most press attention was when the judge admonished the prosecutor over an evidentiary issue.  My understanding of it is that the defense had attempted to limine out some line of testimony pretrial.  The prosecutor felt that the defendant's testimony had opened the door to the line of questioning.  I don't know if the judge granted the motion in limine or reserved his rulings until the issue came up.  I also don't know if the prosecutor asked to approach before going into the line of questioning that he needed permission from the court to go into considering the motion to exclude the evidence and the judge's prior rulings.  Regardless, the judge was reaming the prosecutor out, making a big show of it.  The judge said something to the effect of, "I TOLD you that line of testimony wasn't coming in."  The prosecutor then said, "Yeah, but that was before the witness' testimony that opened the door to the excluded testimony."  The judge then said, "Don't get brazen with me!!!"  What?  "Brazen" means representing the state effectively by pointing out that the judge is flat wrong about an evidentiary issue?

Here’s my understanding of what happened there.

Judge excludes statement by Kyle saying he wants to shoot looters 2 weeks prior to the shooting. Obviously prosecution disagrees. As do I since the defense is self defense, not that he didn’t do it. Intent becomes critical there.

Then Kyle takes the stand. I would argue this makes the statement even more admissible since now he’s up there testifying he was in self defense but apparently the judge disagreed and still kept it out.

Prosecution tries to ask Kyle about the statement on cross and the judge blows up and sends the jury out. 

I get both sides here. Judge gets mad at someone pretty flagrantly defying his ruling. Prosecution decides to pretty flagrantly violate his ruling because in their opinion, and mine, it is so clearly wrong with the guy up there testifying.

Judge probably isn’t used to defendants testifying, and both sides not used to the glare of the television.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11777]

5 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Here’s my understanding of what happened there.

Judge excludes statement by Kyle saying he wants to shoot looters 2 weeks prior to the shooting. Obviously prosecution disagrees. As do I since the defense is self defense, not that he didn’t do it. Intent becomes critical there.

Then Kyle takes the stand. I would argue this makes the statement even more admissible since now he’s up there testifying he was in self defense but apparently the judge disagreed and still kept it out.

Prosecution tries to ask Kyle about the statement on cross and the judge blows up and sends the jury out. 

I get both sides here. Judge gets mad at someone pretty flagrantly defying his ruling. Prosecution decides to pretty flagrantly violate his ruling because in their opinion, and mine, it is so clearly wrong with the guy up there testifying.

Judge probably isn’t used to defendants testifying, and both sides not used to the glare of the television.

None of that changes the self defense aspect.  Yes he was acting in self defense.  Had he not had a gun, it wouldn’t have happened.  No other people were killed that night.   Yes it was self defense.  And yes it was self-provoked, by carrying a deadly weapon.  Both things can be true.   

Edited November 17, 2021 by Judge Roybeanbag

[JimmyJames 12271]

Jury goes home for the evening. All that means is the prosecution has a chance. I know the jury charge was long as shit but if the jury had already made up its mind they would likely keep working. 
 

All it means IMO is the jury either disagrees or has decided to be deliberate, which is all we should really want anyway. Not a particular result, which nobody here should be invested in.

[conVINCEd 21468]

Hung jury IMO.

[JimmyJames 12271]

12 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Yes it was self defense.  And yes it was self-provoked, by carrying a deadly weapon.  Both things can be true.   

Which is why this was never a close case and I personally will abide but whatever the jury decides. Idiot witnesses, hanging judges and lousy evidence notwithstanding. It all comes down to people, like it always does. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

5 minutes ago, conVINCEd said:

Hung jury IMO.

Way too early for that.

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

Nm

Edited November 17, 2021 by JimmyJames

[Ojo Rojo 1866]

23 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Here’s my understanding of what happened there.

Judge excludes statement by Kyle saying he wants to shoot looters 2 weeks prior to the shooting. Obviously prosecution disagrees. As do I since the defense is self defense, not that he didn’t do it. Intent becomes critical there.

Then Kyle takes the stand. I would argue this makes the statement even more admissible since now he’s up there testifying he was in self defense but apparently the judge disagreed and still kept it out.

Prosecution tries to ask Kyle about the statement on cross and the judge blows up and sends the jury out. 

I get both sides here. Judge gets mad at someone pretty flagrantly defying his ruling. Prosecution decides to pretty flagrantly violate his ruling because in their opinion, and mine, it is so clearly wrong with the guy up there testifying.

Judge probably isn’t used to defendants testifying, and both sides not used to the glare of the television.

Seems like the thing to do, and maybe the prosecutor tried it, I don't know, would be to ask a probing question that would possibly open the door to the prior statement.  Then ask the judge to approach and reurge admissibility.  I think this was an important piece of evidence because it goes to both intent and provocation, which can negate self defense.

[TwiceHorn 31086]

25 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Here’s my understanding of what happened there.

Judge excludes statement by Kyle saying he wants to shoot looters 2 weeks prior to the shooting. Obviously prosecution disagrees. As do I since the defense is self defense, not that he didn’t do it. Intent becomes critical there.

Then Kyle takes the stand. I would argue this makes the statement even more admissible since now he’s up there testifying he was in self defense but apparently the judge disagreed and still kept it out.

Prosecution tries to ask Kyle about the statement on cross and the judge blows up and sends the jury out. 

I get both sides here. Judge gets mad at someone pretty flagrantly defying his ruling. Prosecution decides to pretty flagrantly violate his ruling because in their opinion, and mine, it is so clearly wrong with the guy up there testifying.

Judge probably isn’t used to defendants testifying, and both sides not used to the glare of the television.

I might disagree that self-defense is about some subjective intent.

Generally speaking, it's more about the circumstances and whether the actions were objectively reasonable.

[JimmyJames 12271]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I might disagree that self-defense is about some subjective intent.

Generally speaking, it's more about the circumstances and whether the actions were objectively reasonable.

I might normally agree but the way the self defense statute is written his subjective intent becomes relevant as to why he was there with an AR in the first place. It is a convoluted statute though. I’ve posted the language many times but can again in a moment.

[JimmyJames 12271]

Here’s the applicable language:

A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.
 

Obviously if he provoked an attack with intent to use it is in serious dispute. That’s what the jury is for though, which makes the statement relevant. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

25 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Which is why this was never a close case and I personally will abide but whatever the jury decides. Idiot witnesses, hanging judges and lousy evidence notwithstanding. It all comes down to people, like it always does. 

Can’t edit this post now but I should clarify this was always a close case, not never a close class.

[JimmyJames 12271]

 

[mchookem 15883]

off topic but damn Robert Duvall is amazing. 90 and still making movies. will be so sad when he goes, him and Clint both. 

and he looks just like my dad lol. we were at a resort in Port A one time and when he went upstairs the couple next to us came over to ask 'are you with Robert Duvall??' /csb 😊

umm...topic, Rittenhouse is a punk incel kid with a shitty mother who went looking for trouble and found it. he will be acquitted. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 hour ago, mchookem said:

off topic but damn Robert Duvall is amazing. 90 and still making movies. will be so sad when he goes, him and Clint both. 

and he looks just like my dad lol. we were at a resort in Port A one time and when he went upstairs the couple next to us came over to ask 'are you with Robert Duvall??' /csb 😊

umm...topic, Rittenhouse is a punk incel kid with a shitty mother who went looking for trouble and found it. he will be acquitted. 

I think Robert Duvall is one of the best actors of all time. Godfather series, apocalypse now, the great santini, To kill a mockingbird, the natural, and a bunch of other small parts like that one I just posted in a civil action that most never saw. Dude always killed it. 

[DalTxHornFan 3074]

20 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

I think Robert Duvall is one of the best actors of all time. Godfather series, apocalypse now, the great santini, To kill a mockingbird, the natural, and a bunch of other small parts like that one I just posted in a civil action that most never saw. Dude always killed it. 

Get Low, The Apostle, Lonesome Dove.  The list goes on and on.

[Guest Lobo]

He is in the movie "The Road" for maybe 300 seconds.  But it's the most unbelievable performance I think he's ever given.  And that's saying something.

[Brothahorn 10083]

Get Low, The Apostle, Lonesome Dove.  The list goes on and on.

Open Range.

Falling Down.

[DalTxHornFan 3074]

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

Y’all should really watch the movie “a civil action” at least one time just because of Robert Duvall. It’s a decent movie (that more accurately depicts civil litigation than any other movie if you care about that) with a whole shitload of great actors like William Macy and James gandolfino and many others but Duvall is the best by far. 
 

Basically if you watch it you think the whole time Duvall is the bad guy evil defense attorney preventing justice for grieving families, but what he actually is doing the whole time is trying to get the John travolta character, the plaintiff attorney, to do the right thing. Which he never does. The actual climax of the movie is when Duvall button ups his briefcase after he won following the jury verdict, looks at travolta, and walks away. Knowing how dumb travolta had been but ok with it because he tried to get him to see. The rest of the movie is just travolta trying to catch up. 

Edited November 17, 2021 by JimmyJames

[DalTxHornFan 3074]

Duvall's character is so great in that movie. listening to baseball on a transistor radio during a lunch break.  What an actor.

[JimmyJames 12271]

8 minutes ago, DalTxHornFan said:

Duvall's character is so great in that movie. listening to baseball on a transistor radio during a lunch break.  What an actor.

What is that that thumping? Oh it stopped now. It was driving me crazy.

[TwiceHorn 31086]

4 minutes ago, DalTxHornFan said:

Duvall's character is so great in that movie. listening to baseball on a transistor radio during a lunch break.  What an actor.

While hanging out in a corner of the law library at Hale & Dorr.

It's a great book, too.

And while Facher/Duvall may have been somewhat right in discouraging Schlictmann/Travolta from being an ideologue in trying the case, he ultimately obfuscated the liability of Beatrice.

[JimmyJames 12271]

21 minutes ago, DalTxHornFan said:

Duvall's character is so great in that movie. listening to baseball on a transistor radio during a lunch break.  What an actor.

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

And while Facher/Duvall may have been somewhat right in discouraging Schlictmann/Travolta from being an ideologue in trying the case, he ultimately obfuscated the liability of Beatrice.

Oh of course. Not trying to obscure the reality of civil litigation. Theres really no doubt what and why he and his firm did to prevent the truth from being revealed in the case. Which as we know happens all the time in civil litigation. Was just commenting on the movie itself. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

Still not settling with Beatrice was a huge blunder and not just focusing only on WR grace. Much easier case and plenty of deep pockets. 

[jimmyjazz 45429]

Dudes.  "Tender Mercies".  Case closed.

[Carl Spackler 3460]

My favorite scene in A Civil Action is when Schlictman/Travolta goes all out to set up a settlement conference at an expensive hotel, paying top dollar for a banquet room with food and drink, going all out to impress the defense attorneys.  Facher/Duvall sits down, hears the initial demand, grabs a croissant on the sly and puts it in his pocket, asks to keep one of the hotel pens, and then walks out without making any kind of counteroffer.  Now *that's* how you say "fuck you" to opposing counsel in a settlement negotiation.

[JimmyJames 12271]

3 minutes ago, Carl Spackler said:

My favorite scene in A Civil Action is when Schlictman/Travolta goes all out to set up a settlement conference at an expensive hotel, paying top dollar for a banquet room with food and drink, going all out to impress the defense attorneys.  Facher/Duvall sits down, hears the initial demand, grabs a croissant on the sly and puts it in his pocket, asks to keep one of the hotel pens, and then walks out without making any kind of counteroffer.  Now *that's* how you say "fuck you" to opposing counsel in a settlement negotiation.

It was a nice pen. 

[henrygandorf 29169]

a civil action, very underrated.  zaillian at his best.  legal team of travolta, macy, shalhoub, zeljko.  add in duvall, lithgow, gandolfini, quinlan, hedaya, pollack.  i've probably seen it 25x.

when hedaya pours water on the conference table, then travolta wipes it up as he gets the coaster slid to him by the end of then pen... "you said tce, as it is known, by those who use it."

side question for the attorneys, as non-partisan as possible - in successful self-defense cases, what % are at home vs in other personal property (car, trailer, whatever) vs someplace else (bar, street corner, etc)?  i'm honestly curious how normal or unusual this is.  put it in a pie chart for me please.

[workswithseed 2028]

Stop movies and tving the cr.

[Guest Lobo]

5 hours ago, workswithseed said:

Stop movies and tving the cr.

While he was an exceptional producer and director, people forget what a great actor Sydney Pollack was.  I am reminded of how in four of his films over the last decade of his career/life...he basically played the same character four times.  The all-powerful New York attorney who had an air of mystery, a penchant for condescension, but a charming and mentoring quality about him as well.  Not to say he didn't have range, because he played each one beautifully and added an element of ominousness when needed.  But I think of "A Civil Action", "Eyes Wide Shut", "Changing Lanes" (an awful movie, but for a handful of scenes---most of them with Sydney), and "Michael Clayton."  I rewatch 3 of those frequently and always look forward to his scenes, scare though they are.  I met him at the Salt Lick, of all places, right after "Eyes Wide Shut" was released.  Helluva nice guy with no pretense.  

I wonder what kinda film he could make about Kyle Rittenhouse.  Probably wouldn't touch it, but if he did...he'd also play the mysterious lawyer behind the lawyer behind the lawyer.  And I'd love every minute of it.

Edited November 17, 2021 by Lobo

[South Austin 51976]

Take this shit to the Football forum.

[Carl Spackler 3460]

1 hour ago, South Austin said:

Take this shit to the Football forum.

Good idea.  My favorite football movie might be Friday Night Lights, but it's Brian's Song if you want waterworks.

Non-attorneys, this is what you do while you're waiting for a verdict.  You sit around and talk about random shit.

[South Austin 51976]

8 minutes ago, Carl Spackler said:

Non-attorneys, this is what you do while you're waiting for a verdict.  You sit around and talk about random shit.

This is also what attorneys do when we’re waiting in a verdict.

[F250 28623]

1 minute ago, South Austin said:

This is also what attorneys do when we’re waiting in a verdict.

This is what attorneys do all day. We have a decade worth of evidence on Surly and ToS.

 

[tx 3 putt 75959]

11 minutes ago, Carl Spackler said:

Good idea.  My favorite football movie might be Friday Night Lights, but it's Brian's Song if you want waterworks.

Non-attorneys, this is what you do while you're waiting for a verdict.  You sit around and talk about random shit.

against all odds

north Dallas 40

unnecessary roughness 

varsity blues 

[tantric superman 4667]

9 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Dudes.  "Tender Mercies".  Case closed.

Whenever my wife walks into the room and I'm practicing the four chords I know on the guitar, I start singing, as badly as Duval, "On the Wings of a Snow......White.......Dove........"

I've just figured out a way to torture my new grandson when he gets a bit older.

 

[South Austin 51976]

41 minutes ago, F250 said:

This is what attorneys do all day. We have a decade worth of evidence on Surly and ToS.

 

No, no, that was all honest billable work.

[henrygandorf 29169]

3 hours ago, Lobo said:

While he was an exceptional producer and director, people forget what a great actor Sydney Pollack was.  I am reminded of how in four of his films over the last decade of his career/life...he basically played the same character four times.  The all-powerful New York attorney who had an air of mystery, a penchant for condescension, but a charming and mentoring quality about him as well.  Not to say he didn't have range, because he played each one beautifully and added an element of ominousness when needed.  But I think of "A Civil Action", "Eyes Wide Shut", "Changing Lanes" (an awful movie, but for a handful of scenes---most of them with Sydney), and "Michael Clayton."  I rewatch 3 of those frequently and always look forward to his scenes, scare though they are.  I met him at the Salt Lick, of all places, right after "Eyes Wide Shut" was released.  Helluva nice guy with no pretense.  

I wonder what kinda film he could make about Kyle Rittenhouse.  Probably wouldn't touch it, but if he did...he'd also play the mysterious lawyer behind the lawyer behind the lawyer.  And I'd love every minute of it.

his best role was tootsie change my mind. 

[Capt. Squints 176]

I don't care if they find the boy guilty or not, but he and (especially) his mother should be executed based on looks alone. Those are some odd-looking creatures.

Edited November 17, 2021 by Capt. Squints
none

[South Austin 51976]

10 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

his best role was tootsie change my mind. 

“You were a tomato!!!”