Posted on 10/05/2021 10:05:56 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
Kyle Rittenhouse, who shot three people in Wisconsin during unrest over the police shooting of Jacob Blake, is due in court Tuesday — where a judge is expected to rule on his request to call a self-defense expert in his upcoming trial.
Attorneys for the Illinois man are expected to argue in a Kenosha County courtroom that such use-of-force testimony is pivotal to Rittenhouse’s defense that he needed to protect himself from possible death or serious injury, the Chicago Tribune reported.
Rittenhouse shot three people, including two fatally, in Kenosha with an AR-15-style rifle last August amid riots and protests over the police shooting of Blake, who was left paralyzed from the waist down.
The teen, then 17, has maintained he shot and killed Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber and wounded Gaige Grosskreutz while acting in self-defense during the Black Lives Matter protest.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Say what?
“Rittenhouse shot three people, including two fatally”
Ok, 2 out of 3. He can improve his score with more range and tactical fire training.
The courts don’t like seeing someone killing folks on the
streets, no matter how vital it was to the shooter that he
do so to save his own life.
They want Whites unarmed and prepped to be slaughtered.
Remember, these were, “mostly peaceful protesters.”
It isn’t right, but that’s the mentality Rittenhouse is
dealing with.
If he doesn’t see prison, he’ll be hunted down and killed
by Communists.
Zimmerman walked.
They knew they had no case but were politically forced to run with what they had. Same thing here.
The good news for Kyle is that none of the victims were colored people, a.k.a. people of color.
Zimmerman was in Florida. If this had happened in FL, I don’t think Kyle Rittenhouse would have even been arrested.
And even Florida Man is more rational than the Wisconsin state DoJ.
You’re right about one thing, though.
Kyle R. has 12 chances of getting a sane juror and it only takes one to create a mistrial.
“The judge must rule on any Daubert challenge (i.e., an expert witness must be qualified to render his or her opinion; it is intended to prevent the trial from turning into a mockery).”
So, the Judge ruling the person is an expert prevents the Prosecutor from having the expert witness testimony excluded from the trial?
Is this correct thinking?
I think you are talking about a different case. In this case, they were armed, they were coming at him.
BTW, he was first attacked because he used a fire extinguisher to put out a literal dumpster fire that protesters started.
He killed two and disarmed one. Not bad at the tender age of 17.
Didn’t think I needed a “/s” to denote sarcasm.
He de-armed one.
Pretty sure that was sarcasm, pointing out the things the article conveniently left out.
Gaige “Lefty” Grosskreutz was quoted shortly after the shooting stating that he wished he had killed Rittenhouse.
Lefty’s felonious past probably won’t be admissible, but that statement might be, if it can be authenticated (my recollection is that a friend visiting him in the hospital was the one quoted by the media).
Disarmed is more funny taken in context.
"During Tuesday’s hearing, the judge also heard from Dr. John Black, a weapons and police use-of-force expert whom the defense wants to testify during trial. He was going over livestream videos posted online showing the events leading up to Rittenhouse opening fire, the Patch reported."
Apparently that went well.
Trial date is Nov. 1. Here's hoping the prosecution screws up royally by putting Grosskreutz on the stand.
Curse you!! You posted my planned post.
Potato, potawtow.
You don’t have sufficient information to make an informed opinion...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.