Kansas Crimson

I dunno how helpful the Kyle video will be.

If anything, it could bolster the self-defense claim against the skateboreder. And the other guy with the gun shot in the arm had a gun, which is all lobster needs to satisfy his good guy with a gun narrative.

Much will come down on the sequence of the first shooting. What the infrared looks like, who was the initial aggressor, and whether the jury thinks a thrown grocery bag satisfies the element of imminent threat to life or bodily harm.

Just out of curiosity, the bag was filled with deodorant and socks, though no word on whether NiceDC wuz in there.

But, that’s largely immaterial, cuz it’s unlikely Kyle knew what was in the bag…just like he didn’t know whether any of his victims participated in looting or arson.

If, say, a guy was wailing on Kyle with a bag, and Kyle was in a vulnerable position with no option to retreat or something, that could be damning for the prosecution.

If, say, words were exchanged, a bag was thrown, that guy ran off, and Kyle chased him down and unloaded, (as has been alleged), that may be damning for the defense, or still not matter cuz lobster’s mind is made up.

jhawks99 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 2:31 pm This kid is not going to jail.

He faces like 7 charges.

Maybe the felony murder charges don’t stick, but the misdemeanor weapons and curfew charges should. At least that evidence seems to speak for itself.

But who knows.

And I thought there were legal technicalities that could apply? Like you can’t claim you were using a weapon lawfully if you were unlawfully possessing a weapon in the first place. I dunno.

I’m curious what the judge’s rationale is for not allowing evidence of Kyle’s links to the proud boys, and how that usually works.

If it was a black kid with gang ties, he likely wouldn’t even be out on bail, let alone taking pics showing him flashing gang signs while underage drinking at a bar.

Also Kyle allegedly attacked some other chick, and also a video saying he wishes he could shoot shoplifters, before Kenosha, tho not allowed as evidence. But the rioters and looters allegations are.

That seems like how attorneys couldn’t use Derek Chauvin’s past history of brutality, but could use George Floyd’s previous substance abuse issues

The judge told both sides he had never heard of the proud boys before this case

I guess the shooting shoplifters vid evidence was “deferred” but the judge is inclined to exclude it

Prosecutors say video shows Kyle chasing the first guy with a fire extinguisher before the guy turns to confront him, but not sure whether that happened before or after the thrown bag

ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Oct 28, 2021 2:58 pm The judge told both sides he had never heard of the proud boys before this case

hahaha...seems like such bs

Defense says Kyle promptly ran for his life after the first shooting, though evidence indicates he first stopped to call his friend and say “I just killed someone”

sooo

Evidence indicates Kyle shot the first guy in the back

Among the felony charges Kyle faces that hasn’t been discussed as much, is “first degree recklessly endangering safety” with a weapons modifier.

He’s facing two such charges - one for the first time he shot, another for the aftermath when he started shooting again. Cuz, there’s people like all over the place in both instances, though I think it’s specifically with regard to a couple guys who were in the vicinity of his shots but not hit.

The elements:
1. Defendant endangered safety of another human
2. The safety was endangered by criminally reckless conduct
3. The circumstances show utter disregard for human life

“Criminally reckless” means:
- created risk of death or great bodily harm
- the risk of death or bodily harm was unreasonable and substantial
- the defendant was aware this conduct created such risk

Those seem all like judgement elements, rather than any kinda bright line. But who knows what precedent is out there, or how it’ll apply to Kyle

Both charges carry a max sentence of 12.5 years, with another 5 years each for the weapons modifier.

So even if he’s found not guilty of murder, he could still be looking at up to 35 years behind bars

so, now we can officially add “coward” to the list of descriptors for the little shitbag

Well, to be fair, apparently he shot the guy in the lower body first, and as the guy hunched over, then in the back.

There’s some debate over who chased whom first. That could be big as far as establishing self-defense vs. who was the aggressor.

I’d say the shot-in-the-back is damning, but I mean the whole point of the protests was over a cop shooting a black dude 7 times in the back and that cop’s still free, so who knows.

And debate over what’s reasonable force, what’s a reasonable threat, etc.

But it prob all comes down to how many lobsters are on the jury

your last point is key

His last point is probably all that really matters to avoid "beyond a reasonable doubt". Even the judge sounds like he would release him today with a "don't do that again" finger wag if given the option.

Yea, this judge seems sus.

I also think there’s some chance of like mistrial or something, if the judge or somebody does something dumb.

Speaking of politically and racially charged trials going on, the trial of the dudes who killed Ahmad Arbery has one black juror

…progress?

There’s also the “unite the right” guys on trial

but who wants to listen to crying nazis?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/crying-na ... out-antifa

ous has a lot of time to spend following this thing.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/04/us/kyle- ... index.html

A juror was dismissed in Kyle Rittenhouse's homicide trial Thursday morning after he told a joke to a deputy earlier this week about the police shooting of Jacob Blake.
The incident occurred when a male juror being escorted to his car made a joke about the shooting, Judge Bruce Schroeder said.
"I'm going to summarize what I remember, what I was told," Schroeder said. "He was telling a joke...he told the officer...he made a reference about telling a joke about 'Why did it take seven shots to shoot Jacob Blake,' something to that effect."

Judge Schroeder also on the bench referencing the Bible lol

So a shot from another gunman was fired in the seconds before Rittenhouse unloaded on the first guy.

Regarding that argument of self-defense, does a defendant have to show he made some determination that the gunshot came from specific perceived threat, or is he allowed to assume it was Rosembaum and start blasting?

Apparently the aerial surveillance vid was played in court too, but I can’t find more than still frames online

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/05/10520659 ... -arguments

between the rittenhouse and arbery trials, one can only hope that some justice will be served