Posted on 11/09/2021 4:36:22 AM PST by Candor7
Local radio has slight coverage, but describe Grosskreutz as being there as a volunteer medic, which sounds laudable, and, of course, he was afraid he was going to die, which is a rough deal.
If there were any justice left, Kyle wouldn't be on trial.
No, it isn't, but he may have an OJ jury or a Chauvin jury that will completely disregard the truth.
I remember Grosskreutz making statements immediately afterward to the media about trying to shoot Kyle with his pistol. That should be admissible
It pains me to say this, but Gaige Grosskreutz appears to me to represent the Special Agents who work at the FBI.
He looks like he could be Comey, McCabe, Strokz, or any one of the people who are now in charge of our Law and Order at this time.
He especially reminded me of Christopher Wray.
Not quite.
I've been watching the trial every day and there's video of the first shooting from several angles, including airborne FBI FLIR (here we go again) and privately-owned drone footage. Granted, it wasn't as close as the others, but there's definitely video of Rosenbaum getting shot.
Every one shows Rosenbaum stalking, then chasing down and overtaking Rittenhouse. It was Rosenbaum's buddy Ziminski firing his pistol into the air that caused Rittenhouse to turn around and see Rosenbaum advancing on him.
Unless specifically directed otherwise one can do any legal sinless maneuver. Noah built the ark. Gideon went up against the Midianites. You can do what you need to do. and absolutely must trust in God to take care of the whole situation.
You have a keen eye for evil!
Thats exactly it.
Is this the FBI video that was released a short time ago?
Perhaps I miss understood when they said that the only shooting they didn’t have clear video evidence was the first one, and they would need to rely on Richie McGinnis testimony. However, his testimony was pretty devastating for the prosecution.
I follow Viva Frei on YouTube. He and Robert Barns do a live stream where they have been covering this case pretty well.
Barns say the prosecutor knows he has no case based on the law, and is instead relying on the narrative that Kyle never should have been there in the first place, and if he wasn’t there, no one would have been killed, so therefore, he’s at fault.
The jury pool is pretty tainted by the massive media smear campaign against Kyle, and that most people in Kenosha had a presumption of guilt, and that a percentage of the jury likely has that same presumption.
I fear the best we can hope for is a hung jury.
Perhaps the judge can then throw it out, as I believe he sees the injustice of this prosecution, and would love to just toss it, but is obviously restraining himself..
The ongoing ethical duty to disclose facts that prove innocence, after a guilty verdict, don’t have play before a guilty verdict.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is genuine bull shit. The prosecutorial duty exists in pretrial review of evidence with the defendants attorneys.You hide it your ride it.
The exculpatory evidence is often discovered AFTER the guiulty verdict. It is grounds for appeal.
The ongoing ethical duty to disclose facts that prove innocence, after a guilty verdict, don’t have play before a guilty verdict.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is genuine bull shit. The prosecutorial duty exists in pretrial review of evidence with the defendants attorneys.You hide it your ride it.
The exculpatory evidence is often discovered AFTER the guiulty verdict. It is grounds for appeal.
Thast a prosecutor crying in his beer, right in court. He knows he can’t reconstruct the testimony on redirect.
Put them up for sale on sidewalk tables right in front of the court house.
Yikes, I completely miss read your post.
You are of course correct.
Not to mention the FBI “lost or destroyed” the high definition video they had and did not provide to the defense.
https://dailycaller.com/2021/11/03/fbi-footage-kyle-rittenhouse-trial/
- Charles Dickens
That sounds almost right to me, but I imagine that some prosecutors will claim that what was not shown to the jury (or judge) is not exculpatory. This is, in a way, contradictory. Courts are supposed to determine what is true and false, but if valid affirmative defense evidence is shown after a verdict, that is likely to be too late. On the other hand, if the prosecutor comes across obviously false evidence which would be exculpatory if true, maybe he should present it to the judge in chambers?
That sounds almost right to me, but I imagine that some prosecutors will claim that what was not shown to the jury (or judge) is not exculpatory. This is, in a way, contradictory. Courts are supposed to determine what is true and false, but if valid affirmative defense evidence is shown after a verdict, that is likely to be too late. On the other hand, if the prosecutor comes across obviously false evidence which would be exculpatory if true, maybe he should present it to the judge in chambers?
Self defense is not the charge. It is the argument by the Defense why Kyle must be found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the charges which include murder.
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.