Rittenhouse Trial Day 2: Prosecution Witnesses Still Fail To Contradict Self-Defense
Much of the development of this trial is reminiscent of the trial of George Zimmerman.
legalinsurrection.com
Rittenhouse trial is over before it begins
- Thread starter Crazyhole
- Start date
legalinsurrection.com
Zimmerman trial had 2 witnesses who saw him down and being beat before the shot went off, This one has video of them attacking him and him trying to run away. I think this case is pretty tough for prosecutors, when you have the video. One can argue he overreacted to being attacked and having a gun pointed at him, but hard to say it wasn't self defense.
The prosecution's case has been a disaster so far. But I'll never predict what a jury will do in this day and age when there's so much commentary and analysis available outside of the courtroom for these trials. Not to mention the media's chosen narratives blasted so prevalently after the events. I hope to never be in any self-defense situation with the way everything is right now.
Yes, but Zimmerman still had some liability in the cause of Martin's death.
I.e., yes, Martin's phone-GPS showed him 'running back' to 'confront' Zimmerman, but it was also after Zimmerman was tailing Martin. That's why the Sanford PD detective recommended Manslaughter charges that very night, after grilling him 5 hours. They also knew he was a wannabe cop.
- Zimmerman did stop trailing Martin the second he was told by the Sanford PD, and he was verified to have gotten out of his car just to read the street sign where it happened, verified by his phone-GPS
- Martin did run back and confront Zimmerman, via his phone-GPS, and the 2 eyewitnesses confirming he was atop of Zimmerman -- the Mass Media f'd up because they said 'bigger Zimmerman' was atop of Martin, because they were not showing 17yo Martin over 6' and big, but that 13yo picture of barely 5'
- Martin's girlfriend lied on the stand, and they were easily able to discredit her
Yep, this is really a flip. Kyle was a first responder, medical. The firearm remained shouldered, just like all others.
But the first assailant wanted a physical confrontation, despite Kyle's best attempts to avoid him, run from him, etc... like others. The video shows a lot, and then the eye witnesses finish the rest, especially the baseball bat.
Kyle even called the police immediately after shooting him, but was forced to flee when a mob came after him. That's where the other 2 came from. The first one attacked him with a skateboard, and was shot after the second hit. The next one pointed the handgun twice, and finally Kyle shot his arm (with the gun) on the second point.
Kyle was defenseless, on the ground, in both cases too.
If you read the official, sworn statements of the 3rd person shot, and his claims of the other 2, they are easily disproven by video. That's why they are horrendous witnesses, and I'm sure the prosecution cut them a deal, as they were all guilty of felony charges themselves.
Yes, these men shot were the assailants, and likely received immunity. That's why the judge is not allowing them to be called 'victims.'
This is utterly different than Zimmerman ... totally. The 'antagonist' was the 1st person shot, and the 'vigilantes' were the 2nd and 3rd people shot -- including a vigilante in the case of the 3rd.
Kyle even called the police immediately after shooting him, but was forced to flee when a mob came after him. That's where the other 2 came from. The first one attacked him with a skateboard, and was shot after the second hit. The next one pointed the handgun twice, and finally Kyle shot his arm (with the gun) on the second point.
Kyle was defenseless, on the ground, in both cases too.
If you read the official, sworn statements of the 3rd person shot, and his claims of the other 2, they are easily disproven by video. That's why they are horrendous witnesses, and I'm sure the prosecution cut them a deal, as they were all guilty of felony charges themselves.
Yes, these men shot were the assailants, and likely received immunity. That's why the judge is not allowing them to be called 'victims.'
This is utterly different than Zimmerman ... totally. The 'antagonist' was the 1st person shot, and the 'vigilantes' were the 2nd and 3rd people shot -- including a vigilante in the case of the 3rd.
Considering jurors in the Zimmerman case have had threats against their lives, I am afraid where we are headed.
Zimmerman was a POS wannabe cop, and eventually someone 'took offense' (Martin). Martin was liable too, he assaulted and battered Zimmerman, a troubled 17yo kid, but he didn't deserve to die either, and Zimmerman instigated the situation.
Rittenhouse is actually a very good, caring kid who wants to become a first responder. The 3 SOBs that attack him were looking for trouble, and stupidly wanted to attack a guy with a gun ... especially the guy with a gun himself. Rittenhouse did NOT instigate the situation.
No. In some states, the burden of proof is on the state, not the defense!
Yes, in some US states and -- gasp, if you believe the US Constituion -- you very much are allowed to shoot and even kill people in the US, it's not a crime, when they are assaulting and battering you ... even in public.
When they instigate the violence, and chase you, throwing things at you, and beat you with a baseball bat, a skateboard and even point a gun at you, while you're on the ground ... yes, you can 'blow them away' -- or at least their arm holding a gun.
But if you would like the US to become more like the UK, where you can be guilty of manslaughter for wrestling an attacker/burgular's weapon from them in your own home ...
Keep up the wrong attitude and we'll soon be there! That's my problem ... it's not about guns, but about criminals having the right to harm or even kill you.
When they instigate the violence, and chase you, throwing things at you, and beat you with a baseball bat, a skateboard and even point a gun at you, while you're on the ground ... yes, you can 'blow them away' -- or at least their arm holding a gun.
But if you would like the US to become more like the UK, where you can be guilty of manslaughter for wrestling an attacker/burgular's weapon from them in your own home ...
Keep up the wrong attitude and we'll soon be there! That's my problem ... it's not about guns, but about criminals having the right to harm or even kill you.
To you, you think Kyle should just die if police cannot get there. I wish he would have stayed home. But 3 other people who were far more criminals than Kyle didn't either.
He didn't attack Martin. He did, however, instigate the situation by following him.
But Martin ran back, confronted him, and beat the crap out of him. We don't know much more than that, other than the gun came out at some point.
Whether Zimmerman pulled or Martin went for it, we'll never know. But we do know that Martin directly acosted Zimmerman, after Zimmerman had previously followed him.
We do in the case of Rittenhouse, and it's extremely damning for the prosecution.
It shows the 3 men were committing felony assult/battery as well as pointing a firearm at Kyle as well. But since people like yourself throw out your brain ... only an AR15 is deadly to you.
Not a baseball bat, not a skateboard, and not even a handgun pointed at a kid, when he's on the ground.
You really need to go review the evidence presented at trial in the Zimmerman case. You have some very basic facts wrong and thus your conclusions are wrong. But I’m not going to take the time to go through it again at this point.
Ouch ... (for the prosecution)
'Richards countered this nicely on cross. "When you’re being kicked in the face, you don’t know how seriously you could be injured, correct? When you’re hit in the head with a heavy skateboard, twice, you don’t know how seriously you could be injured, correct? When someone gets a hand on your gun, you don’t know if they’ll take it and use it on you, correct?"
'Howard: "Correct. Correct. Correct."'
'"When Rosenbaum is in this group of cars, he’s hiding? It appears so. And then when my client passes, Rosenbaum pursues, closing on my client? Yes. When Rosenbaum begins chasing Kyle, does Kyle shout “friendly, friendly?”"'
'Howard: "Actually, friend, friendly, friendly."'
'"And that means, I don’t have a beef with you, I don’t want to fight? Yes. Those protestations of friendliness don’t dissuade Rosenbaum’s attack? No. He continues to gain ground on my client, attempting to flee? Yes. Even when Kyle turns slightly to ensure Rosenbaum has seen his rifle, that still doesn’t dissuade his attack? No."'
'Keep in mind—this is the state’s witness. And his actual testimony was substantively favorable to the defense, and largely unhelpful to the prosecution.'
Hey, 'manslaughter' was always questionable in Zimmerman. But ...
1) He still instigated the situation, even if Martin instigated the actual acosting and, correspondingly, the assault and battery, because he 'ran back (quite a distance) to confront' Zimmerman. That is just reality. I'm not saying Zimmerman didn't have a right to self-defense. I'm just saying, he was liable for instigating the situation. That's the only thing I am saying. Everything else is up for debate.
2) The Sanford PD Detective wanted to charge him with manslaughter after grilling him for 5 hours. Seminole County DA defered to state -- the same office that would later prosecute him -- and didn't want to touch it.
If anything in those 2 items are not true, then please correct those items.
Well, the FBI just proved the prosecution lied.
Even the FBI, that had full infrared of the entire event, not only showed Kyle never chased the 1st assiliant ... but even showed where Kyle had walked by, stopped because the other guy yelled at him, and then walked away. Then he chased Kyle and ... yeah ... the rest is history.
That was the only thing the video didn't show ... whether or not Kyle 'instigated' and then 'chased' the 1st assiliant, before the assilant himself was shown on video to be going after Kyle, throwing things at him, and clearly attacking him in the end.
I don't see this ending well for the prosecution. It's really bad.
If there were witnesses there to talk about how Kyle was doing all sorts of things, they'd be there. But instead, it's been the opposite. And the fact that the state's own detective and expert actually helped Kyle's defense immensely ... yeah.
Even the FBI, that had full infrared of the entire event, not only showed Kyle never chased the 1st assiliant ... but even showed where Kyle had walked by, stopped because the other guy yelled at him, and then walked away. Then he chased Kyle and ... yeah ... the rest is history.
That was the only thing the video didn't show ... whether or not Kyle 'instigated' and then 'chased' the 1st assiliant, before the assilant himself was shown on video to be going after Kyle, throwing things at him, and clearly attacking him in the end.
I don't see this ending well for the prosecution. It's really bad.
If there were witnesses there to talk about how Kyle was doing all sorts of things, they'd be there. But instead, it's been the opposite. And the fact that the state's own detective and expert actually helped Kyle's defense immensely ... yeah.
Yeah. You said that Zimmerman followed him. That's not quite true. Zimmerman stopped to see what a kid in a hoodie that he'd never seen before was doing looking into windows on a rainy day . Martin actually walked around his vehicle at that time and Zimmerman never confronted the kid there or even left his vehicle at that time. Martin goes off towards home and had plenty of time to make it. Zimmerman drives up to the corner to read off the street sign to the dispatcher. He walks a little bit towards where Martin had gone to try to describe where he'd gone when the dispatch asks if he'd been following. Then dispatch said they don't need him to do that. At that point, the confrontation was over, legally speaking. Zimmerman and Martin had broken contact and thus George could not have been instigating any situation.
Now, Zimmerman is walking back towards his car when Martin jumps him. That is your actual instigation and thus Zimmerman is innocent of any possible instigation.
The Sanford PD doesn't make the call on charging murder or manslaughter, the state's attorney's office does. Every time. The Sanford SA at the time was Norm Wolfinger. SA Wolfinger looked at the totality of the circumstances at the time and decided (going through the proper process which including FDLE), rightfully, that he had no chance of disproving the affirmative defense of justified self defense. Then Ben Crump got involved and used the bully pulpit to force the Governor to appoint another SA to prosecute. Scott tabbed Jacksonville SA Angela Corey, someone with a long record of using (abusively) the prosecutor's office as a weapon against defendants, to prosecute the case. Angela Corey was drawing dead from day one but that didn't stop her from trying her tactics in this case. There were all sorts of prosecutorial issues with the way they ran their case as they tried to pull out all the stops towards a conviction.
In the end, it was obvious from the evidence presented that there would be a full acquittal. Unfortunately, to this day, a good amount of that evidence has never been presented to the public by the media and people like Ben Crump still lie about the facts of the case to further their own personal wealth and ambitions.
Zimmerman admitted to following him to the Police dispatcher.
Now in his defense, he stopped (proven with phone-GPS) when the dispatcher told him "We don't need you doing that."
But he still did it, enough Martin noticed.
No, that's acosting Zimmerman ... which happened much later.
Yes, granted, Martin went all the way to the house, and then ran back -- proven with phone-GPS. But Zimmerman did cause himself to be noticed ... following him.
Correct! Which is why the Sanford PD, who was grossly and wrongly deominized, did their job, and that was it.
They were utterly flamed in the media, and even the town had to apologize a year later! Especially after they blamed and abandoned the PD in the city council, bowing to politics.
Yep, all true. It was all the same, state office that caused all the issues. That's what I said.
I still think Zimmerman instigated the situation ... but he didn't acost Martin. I said that. Martin acosted Zimmerman, and then attacked/battered him.
Who went for the gun first, we'll never know.
As the OP said, this trial was over before it started. With the judge squarely in Rittenhouse's corner during jury selection, the outcome is a forgone conclusion.
But simply for the sake of discussion --- when a deadly Bloods-Crips gangland shootout takes place on the streets, I naively assumed everybody involved is hauled off to jail. If both gangs were involved in illegal sh!t, it never dawned on me that half the shooters involved were actually innocent.
If the 'Bloods' were the first ones to take aggressive actions out on the street, then using the Rittenhouse defense model, the 'Crips' shooters are INNOCENT because they were just defending themselves!!!
Up until now, I never realized the first question from Police in the aftermath of a gangland shootout is, "Who attacked who first?"
But simply for the sake of discussion --- when a deadly Bloods-Crips gangland shootout takes place on the streets, I naively assumed everybody involved is hauled off to jail. If both gangs were involved in illegal sh!t, it never dawned on me that half the shooters involved were actually innocent.
If the 'Bloods' were the first ones to take aggressive actions out on the street, then using the Rittenhouse defense model, the 'Crips' shooters are INNOCENT because they were just defending themselves!!!
Up until now, I never realized the first question from Police in the aftermath of a gangland shootout is, "Who attacked who first?"
We are 3 days into the state’s case and not only have they not presented any substantive evidence disproving the self-defense claim (which is their burden), their witnesses have offered substantial testimony supporting the self defense claim. Maybe the state has a bombshell out there but it doesn’t look like it. At this point, outside of a jury that was unfairly prejudiced from the start, I can’t see how this kid get convicted of the major charges.
There is so much video out there this thing is going to take forever, but I can't imagine that there is something that contradicts what we've already seen. The FBI surveillance footage doesn't change anything so I'm surprised that the DA is pressing on it.
I agree, Zimmerman case was far less cut and dry. He by following the kid caused the situation to happen. But at the end of the day he didn't attack Trayvon, Trayvon attacked him and he wasn't on top of Trayvon beating the hell out of the kid, Trayvon was on him beating the hell out of him. The Zimmerman case was caused in large part by his own actions. That was not the case with Rittenhouse, They went after him. I never thought Rittenhouse should have been charged with anything. I always thought Zimmerman should have been charged with something, just not murder 1 or 2.
It was cut and dried. You have every right to follow someone that you think is acting suspiciously. Whatever made you think that was a criminal action?
There were times during this guys testimony where he was just blatantly lying. His brother did the same thing about their insurance policy. It's kind of amazing how bad the DAs witnesses have been.
Damn you're a stereotyping racist!
If 0 gang members being attacked that shoot back have felonies, and the other gang attacked them do, and purposely came armed and intended to acost people and commit violence, yes they do! The cops very much do care!
The cops DO LIKE GOOD GANGS and, yes there are plenty of them! They consider them the same as any other militia who serves by, of and for the community. Good gangs/militias band together to protect a community.
That's what happened here. You seem to refuse to believe the 3 men that were shot were criminals. They were and engaged in criminal activity and intended to seriously harm Kyle and others. And Kyle avoided and repeatedly ran from them.
And why point do you even care about him being seriously harmed or killed?!
Damn you're too ****ing ignorant, and just proving how racist you are, just like much of the Mass Media that repeats the sane dribble. Many minorities and good gangs get caught up in this BS too. But of course, if they are armed Hispanic gangs, they are called white militia in the Mass Media too.
Seriously, the prosecution had no case, and that had nothing to do with the judge.
Last edited:
It's not criminal, but...
It does mean Zimmerman could be held liable if something results.
You keep missing that point, and why the police dispatcher told him so as well. Now he did listen to the police dispatcher at that point, that was proven.
And Martin accosted and attached Zimmerman, not vice versa. That was also stated by all eye witnesses.
Understand what we're saying here.
Rosenbaums girlfriend was an interesting witness. She said that he had just gotten back from the mental ward that day and is bi-polar. The DA actually pushed for her to be able to testify to his mental instability and her expertise on the anti-psychotic and anti-depressants he was on.
Marine confirmed Rosenbaum was acosting people, including him too, with 'false stepping' right up to people, screaming for them to shoot him. He didn't see what happened with Rittenhouse, but did confirm Rittenhouse was there as a EMT.
He was the state's witness and he admitted he considered Rosenbaum to be belligerent, an instigator to be ignored, and not a threat to him by ignoring him. I have to assume this Marine has been in similar areas before and has a cool temper.
No one seems to know why Rosenbaum chased and cornered Rittenhouse, but the FBI survellience proved Rittenhouse himself never chased Rosenbaum, not even once, which disproves all statements, including that of the prosecutor.
What came out was that Rosenbaum was bi-polar disorder and had just been released from the hospital for treatment that day. He was homeless, with girlfriend and child, who begged him not to go, and it lines up well with his belligerent attitude, among other things.
What wasn't allowed at the trial by the judge, which the Mass Media has ignored (like in his article) was Rosenbaum's treatment is also related to his status as a convicted felon for sex offenses. He violated a minor and, more importantly, had been in non-compliance. The state had been giving this guy chance after chance and he couldn't get it under control. I mean, people can change, but this guy was getting worse.
I wish he had never chased Kyle. He'd still be alive. But people need to stop treating this guy like he was a victim. He wanted a fight. He tried to get a lot of people to fight him, even Rittenhouse, who ran from him.
He was the state's witness and he admitted he considered Rosenbaum to be belligerent, an instigator to be ignored, and not a threat to him by ignoring him. I have to assume this Marine has been in similar areas before and has a cool temper.
No one seems to know why Rosenbaum chased and cornered Rittenhouse, but the FBI survellience proved Rittenhouse himself never chased Rosenbaum, not even once, which disproves all statements, including that of the prosecutor.
Yep.
What came out was that Rosenbaum was bi-polar disorder and had just been released from the hospital for treatment that day. He was homeless, with girlfriend and child, who begged him not to go, and it lines up well with his belligerent attitude, among other things.
What wasn't allowed at the trial by the judge, which the Mass Media has ignored (like in his article) was Rosenbaum's treatment is also related to his status as a convicted felon for sex offenses. He violated a minor and, more importantly, had been in non-compliance. The state had been giving this guy chance after chance and he couldn't get it under control. I mean, people can change, but this guy was getting worse.
I wish he had never chased Kyle. He'd still be alive. But people need to stop treating this guy like he was a victim. He wanted a fight. He tried to get a lot of people to fight him, even Rittenhouse, who ran from him.
MSN
www.msn.com
I don't know what Zimmerman did while following the kid, did he run to catch up, do things to make the kid think he was in danger? I don't believe Zimmerman was guilty of murder or even manslaughter once Travon was beating the hell out of him. I have watched people in my neighborhood who I know are not from there, especially if break ins or other stuff has been happening, But I keep a good distance away and if possible try not to even be seen. I happen to live on a small street and know all my neighbors, their kids and many of their regular friends, so I know when some one is there that normally isn't there, and even at that people checking out cars and houses stand out even more. My neighbors want me watching out for them and I want them watching out for me. The newest people on my Street have been there for 3+ years. That isn't the case with Zimmerman, He lived in a large complex where people were moving in and out all the time. I would bet he didn't know 2/3 of his neighbors, or who did or did not belong there.
No, that part was proven via phone GPS and other records.
Zimmerman stopped following the second the police dispatcher told him "don't need to be doing that."
Martin also reached the home due south, well away from Zimmerman, and decided to run back and acost and then assault Zimmerman, where Martin was far bigger and stronger at age 17yo than his age 13yo picture showed.
But Zimmerman did follow him to start, enough that it upset Martin who was traveling to a residence he was allowed to, and that means if anything unfortunate happened, Zimmerman could be liable for the instigation.
They were no more 'criminals' that night than Rittenhouse was. But his own lawbreaking apparently gets a pass.
No, I’m not. The dispatcher did not tell him not to follow. They are not allowed to give directions. The dispatcher said “we don’t need you to do that.” But he wasn’t following him to catch him, he was following to see where he went when he turned the corner. It’s a huge difference. The dispatcher by that time had his complex and didn’t need the streets in there. There’s a lot of procedure in there that you’re just not going to find in your searches.
And he had no civil liability as his affirmative defense of self defense was upheld by his acquittal.
I’m not going to continue to argue with you. You’re wrong and you can keep being wrong. I don’t care at this point.
Wait?! You mean the other men have been charged like Rittenhouse?! Did you undermine your own argument?!
Guns do this to people like yourself, you remove your brain, and make an argument that is easily disproven.
And no, Rittenhouse isn't being 'given a pass.' He will likely be found guilty of at least a misdemeanor, possible a felony.
But murder? That's not going to happen. Rittenhouse is the only one charged with any type of assault-battery charge here...
And that it itself is a joke. People like yourself are so blinded by firearms that you not only make at statement 180 degrees from the truth and reality...
But if a AR-15 style weapon is involved, you ignore all the convicted felons and criminals with guns who were assaulting anyone in the first place.
You really look so illogical, beyond just illiberal, and you refuse to admit it. Rittenhouse is the only one being charged with any felony assault type crime.
Your logic that others have been charged and Rittenhouse given a pass is 180 from reality.
Last edited:
He admitted that after he testified that he didn’t have a gun and that he wasn’t chasing Rittenhouse. His direct testimony was a pack of lies uncovered by the defense cross and obvious from the video.
He had no problem looking someone in the eyes and lying straight to their face. And he would double down on it when caught.
Not very impressive for the star witness.
My favorite moment was when he was asked if a picture was the moment that Kyle fired his shot and he said no. You could literally see the muzzle flash in the picture, lol. Then he says "this is the moment that he vaporized my bicep". Um, what?
NBC News sure does paint a different picture:
www.nbcnews.com
Kyle Rittenhouse shooting victim says he thought he 'was going to die'
Gaige Grosskreutz, a licensed paramedic from suburban Milwaukee, said he went to Wisconsin to help treat people hurt in protests over the police shooting of Jacob Blake.
www.nbcnews.com
The prosecution is trying to paint Grosskreutz as a hero who tried to stop an active shooter. Only the facts and video don’t back that claim. Don’t take my word for it though, watch the video and read the transcript and tell me what you see.NBC News sure does paint a different picture:
Kyle Rittenhouse shooting victim says he thought he 'was going to die'
Gaige Grosskreutz, a licensed paramedic from suburban Milwaukee, said he went to Wisconsin to help treat people hurt in protests over the police shooting of Jacob Blake.
NBC is playing politics with this kid just like they did the Covington kid and a lot of other stories. The days of getting unbiased coverage from media are long gone.
Also, the “I’m not an activist, I only speak at their rallies” line of questioning.
For those of you that want to see what good firearms safety is like, reference the Rittenhouse trial. You have his rifle in evidence that has gone through a bunch of tests and then went back to the evidence locker and then transported to the courtroom. At every point, it would've been checked to be safe and it has been in the possession of firearms experts the entire time. Yet, you get this exchange:
"ADA Kraus: I'm going to ask the deputy to point the gun at me.
Judge: Check it again! Check it again!"
Of course, they could separate the upper receiver from the lower and remove all chance of firing for this demonstration. But nonetheless, this is what responsible people do with guns.
And now, a couple of hours later with the gun having been on the evidence table all day:
"Binger: Ask detective howard to demonstrate with gun--
Judge: Check it again, please."
"ADA Kraus: I'm going to ask the deputy to point the gun at me.
Judge: Check it again! Check it again!"
Of course, they could separate the upper receiver from the lower and remove all chance of firing for this demonstration. But nonetheless, this is what responsible people do with guns.
And now, a couple of hours later with the gun having been on the evidence table all day:
"Binger: Ask detective howard to demonstrate with gun--
Judge: Check it again, please."
Last edited:
Yeah crips have as much right to free assembly as anyone. If the bloods show up and start assaulting them and chasing them, I think the crips are within their rights to fire back.
