Posted on 11/03/2021 1:25:22 PM PDT by Enterprise
Kenosha detectives are testifying now that Kyle Rittenhouse was shot at! This entire case is a miscarriage of justice
(Excerpt) Read more at citizenfreepress.com ...
Ziminski was the guy who fired the first shot, while Rosenbaum was cornering and assaulting Rittenhouse.
“They also objected saying that a police detective is not an expert in firearm safety.”
That was a valid objection, because the detective was not presented as a firearms safety expert, and thus the court did not qualify him as such.
Worst take on this case I’ve seen, including all the haters in the media.
He’s my candidate for the fatal Rosy shot, as he was below them shooting up toward them.
Hearsay rules really suck even for experienced attorneys. The basic rule is that hearsay is not admissible to prove the truth of the matter asserted. So you can’t ask a witness whether the defendant said “I shot him” in order to prove that the defendant shot him. But you can often ask the witness whether the witness heard the defendant say the words, “I shot him” for the purpose of proving only that the defendant did say those words and the witness heard it.
Additionally, there are a large number of exceptions to the hearsay rule. For instance, a witness may freely testify that immediately after hearing gunshots the witness heard the defendant shout out “I shot him! I shot him!” since that falls under the “excited utterance” exception. Or if the witness testifies that he heard the shooter say “I shot him” when the shooter was bleeding out and believed he was on his deathbed under the “deathbed confession” exception. There’s a bunch more.
The judge is doing ok and probably could have admitted the alleged hearsay under more than one exception in each instance I watched.
Interesting, I hadn’t considered that: perhaps Z (who I’m just learning about this week, beyond vague references to a “someone shot nearby” known earlier) actually killed Rosenbaum, as the lethal wound was (as the prosecutor noted) in his back. I hope coroner could tell the difference between Z’s round and a near-contact 5.56...
... hope coroner could tell the difference between Z’s round and a near-contact 5.56...
—
Yeah that was always the question : what caliber was the wound made by. I thought when they carted Rosy off to the nearby hospital, they would have known, or at least it would have been in the autopsy.
There was an interesting sequential review of the incident that was posted shortly after it happened. It has lots of links and videos - not sure how many are still active or may have been scrubbed.
Here’s a short excerpt:
Tactical Analysis:
During the two Engagements Rittenhouse was presented with a series of “shoot/no-shoot” situations. While it is difficult to be certain about the number of shots fired by Rittenhouse in the first Engagement, as near as I can tell he fired his weapon only when cornered or on the verge of being in a close physical contest with assailants larger and apparently stronger than himself. If anything he seems to have been too hesitant to fire in the first encounter. Absent a headshot at extreme close/near contact range (a very low probability shot in intense CQB) Rittenhouse likely would have been overcome by prison-hardened and clearly aggressively disposed Short Bald Subject.
In the close in photos depicting the Second Engagement Rittenhouse can even be seen exhibiting proper trigger discipline when confronted by the “hand-up” fake surrendering Grosskreutz. Having fired on Grosskreutz it would have been a simple matter to finish the job with a second center-mass shot, particularly given that Grosskreutz was still carrying his handgun (had I personally been in such a situation and seen the handgun I likely would have fired at least a quick follow-up and perhaps until the threat was all the way down rather than hopping around with a firearm still in hand). Rittenhouse, however, declines to do so (perhaps he did not even see the handgun) and instead recovers to kneeling and then his feet and departs to the north. At least in the second engagement Rittenhouse’s fire discipline is surprisingly controlled given the apparent stress of being pursued and battered by an angry mob.
Rittenhouse prevailed in at least four physical encounters, at least one if not two of which involved contests for control of his weapon by larger, presumably stronger assailants. Rittenhouse’s use of a tactical sling would seem to have been of enormous help in permitting him to retain control of his weapon in the physical contest with Huber.
To the extent Rittenhouse made tactical mistakes the most obvious would seem to include:
1. Entering an (Kenosha) environment alone and without apparent support. While Rittenhouse may have been casually associated with some of the groups on the ground it seems to be the case that his association was struck up on his arrival, not a pre-existing one.
2. Allowing himself to become physically isolated and surrounded at the scene of Engagement 1. It is not clear what precipitated the initial conflict with Short Bald Subject, but in this Rittenhouse appears to have been rather unlucky to become entangled in a dispute with one of the more volatile individuals on the scene. This said, it should be entirely foreseeable that volatile individuals would be at the scene of a riot or civil unrest.
3. Failing to remain as situationally aware as possible, particularly to threats behind him, and permitting himself to be repeatedly overtaken from the rear in between Engagements 1 and 2. Prior to going to the ground at the beginning of Engagement 2, Rittenhouse allowed no less than three attacks from the rear which resulted in physical contact. Rittenhouse was lucky that none of these attacks disabled him or rendered him helpless in the face of the pursuing mob. The first battery to the back of Rittenhouse’s head, in particular, had the potential to take Rittenhouse out of the fight for good. If, in fact, Huber and Short Bald Subject were associated, it isn’t hard to imagine Rittenhouse would have come out badly on the wrong side of Engagement 2 if Huber was the vengeful type.
Legal Analysis (Note: I am a lawyer but certainly not yours, and not in Wisconsin):
Wasn’t that Ziminsky?
>>Wisconsin, no one under 18 is allowed to purchase or bear a non concealed gun.
The WI laws on the latter are muddled at best.
You vile liar. Rot.
Why would they? If granted, that's the end of their gravy train.
Wisconsin 941.28 prohibits short barreled shotguns and rifles. Therefore, according to the plain text of the Wisconsin statute it does not apply to Mr. Rittenhouse since the firearm he had is not a short barreled rifle.
The other sections cited, 29.304 and 29.593 are not relevant to Mr. Rittenhouse. 29.304 and 29.593 set age limits and other requirements for hunting.
It is hard to understand why the DA chose to even make the firearms charge, unless it was to try to mislead the jury.
Your mistaken beliefs are an example of why the prosecution put in a fake charge regarding possession of a rifle by someone under the age of 18. Wisconsin law is clear that a 17 year old can possess a rifle or shotgun as long as it is not a short barreled rifle or shotgun. You can read the statutes for yourself and not be misinformed.
The rest of your opinions about Mr. Rittenhouse are also detached from reality, but your statements about Wisconsin law are inconsistent with the actual published laws.
Theoretically, ... however there are numerous situations where Double Jeopardy has been denied by Courts and Judges citing Manifest Necessity, denying the accused a Jury Verdict and prosecuting a second time.
Lately, there have been attempts to apply Manifest Necessity to unpopular defendants in Dismissals With Prejudice citing the lack of a Jury Verdict.
The Swamp controlled and loving Unelected Bureaucrats are striving to end Double Jeopardy and any Statute Of Limitations that hinder their power to prosecute.
Rittenhouse is an especially sweet prize. The Marxist Left could care less if and when Jeopardy attaches.
Why do you ask?
Why is the FBI on the wrong side of most every high profile case in this country?? One of the most corrupt agencies that needs to be disbanded or corrupt agents need to be rooted out once and fo all.
Common sense also tells me that an anonymous video narrator, unavailable for cross-exam by the defense, should not be allowed to "testify" via youtube video in court.
There are a lot of problems with the situation. Rittenhouse’s home is a little over 20 miles from the incident, so he had to make a concerted effort to go there. In Wisconsin, no one under 18 is allowed to purchase or bear a non concealed gun. Rittenhouse was seventeen and the person that bought the weapon for him should be arrested also as an accessory.
“I’m guessing for the prosecutors, Kyle’s crime was not allowing himself to be shot dead.”
+1
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.