Kyle Rittenhouse: Teen's homicide trial for Kenosha shootings opens with jury selection

[westwall]

Prove it and even if he was, is it illegal?
No. Its just your hatred for everyone that's outside your comfort zone.

The video shows him moving in trying to shoot Kyle in the head, and later on he stated to a buddy how he wishes he had pulled the trigger sooner, so you are flailing. Like every other moronic progressive loon in this thread.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The video shows him moving in trying to shoot Kyle in the head, and later on he stated to a buddy how he wishes he had pulled the trigger sooner, so you are flailing. Like every other moronic progressive loon in this thread.

Yeah, I bet he wished he pulled the trigger sooner.


or just not attempted to mess with guy armed with a sport rifle and running for his life.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How does anyone know that? He is stone dead and dead men tell no tales.

Well no guarantees. But that is basically what the testimony will show. And the video corroborates. His girlfriend will testify. It's not damning for Kyle or anything. So the pushback I am getting is reflexive and silly.

 

[Colin norris]

The video shows him moving in trying to shoot Kyle in the head, and later on he stated to a buddy how he wishes he had pulled the trigger sooner, so you are flailing. Like every other moronic progressive loon in this thread.

Prove all of it as at this point you have no documents etc that says so. Just the hate filled racist media you follow. ..

All that aside, he killed two people and he will be punished with jail. So when that happens, will it really matter what was supposed to have been said or wasn't, his good Samaritan being a fireman will mean nothing. He went there specifically to be a tough guy.
Well see how tough he is in jail.

 

[Faun]

Rittenhouse was not attempting to kill people. He was actively ATTEMPTING to get away, again and again.


You are a lying whore.


And no assumption required. They were standing right there. THey could see Rittenhouse running away and Rosenbaum chasing him.

And they sided with the guy that was a member of their mob, and attacked the teenager who was defending himself and running away.


That was THEM identifying as a mob, seeing Rosenbaum as part of their mob and reacting accordingly.

He was, "actively engaged in killing"

 

[Faun]

Yeah, an active shooter would have shot every one of your assholes. Kyle shot only those attacking him.

Doh!

You're a moron.

Is that what your British definition tells you?

 

[westwall]

Prove all of it as at this point you have no documents etc that says so. Just the hate filled racist media you follow. ..

All that aside, he killed two people and he will be punished with jail. So when that happens, will it really matter what was supposed to have been said or wasn't, his good Samaritan being a fireman will mean nothing. He went there specifically to be a tough guy.
Well see how tough he is in jail.

The ******* video proves it, dipshit.

 

[westwall]

Is that what your British definition tells you?

No, common sense.

And lookey here, these lawyers call them the same. Who knew...

Retard you certainly didn't..

DURRR

Opening and Closing Arguments​

Representing yourself is a substantial endeavor. It is helpful to have some practice tips. Every case is presented in some form by an opening and closing argument. The opening argument provides the Court a roadmap of your case and identifies what evidence will be presented to support it. The closing summarizes the case and the evidence that has been presented. Often in family cases, the Joint Trial Management Certificate functions as an opening argument. It is important to prepared your theory of the case early on.

Opening and Closing Arguments | Colorado Springs Family Law Lawyer Janko Family Law Solutions

Call Us - 719-344-5523 - Janko Family Law Solutions is dedicated to helping individuals and families in Family Law and Divorce cases. Opening and Closing Arguments - Colorado Springs Family Law Lawyer

www.jankolaw.com

 

[Faun]

Wrong.
He brought the gun, he was the one frightening and intimidating people.
You can't claim self defense when you deliberately caused all the risk by causing risks to others.

Oh shit, don't tell me you think Rittenhouse is guilty??

 

[Faun]

The video shows him moving in trying to shoot Kyle in the head, and later on he stated to a buddy how he wishes he had pulled the trigger sooner, so you are flailing. Like every other moronic progressive loon in this thread.

It shows no such thing. Haven't we been through this already? Was it you or was it some other rightard who couldn't produce an image of Grosskreutz pointing his gun at Rittenhouse?

 

[Colin norris]

The ******* video proves it, dipshit.

It doesn't matter, he is going to jail regardless of you right wing racist republicans.
He'll be wise to buy a chastity belt for protection.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

He was, "actively engaged in killing"

He was actively engaged in running for his life from your criminal thug leftist ilk.

Glad they are dead. More please.

 

[Faun]

No, common sense.

And lookey here, these lawyers call them the same. Who knew...

Retard you certainly didn't..

DURRR

Opening and Closing Arguments​

Representing yourself is a substantial endeavor. It is helpful to have some practice tips. Every case is presented in some form by an opening and closing argument. The opening argument provides the Court a roadmap of your case and identifies what evidence will be presented to support it. The closing summarizes the case and the evidence that has been presented. Often in family cases, the Joint Trial Management Certificate functions as an opening argument. It is important to prepared your theory of the case early on.

Opening and Closing Arguments | Colorado Springs Family Law Lawyer Janko Family Law Solutions

Call Us - 719-344-5523 - Janko Family Law Solutions is dedicated to helping individuals and families in Family Law and Divorce cases. Opening and Closing Arguments - Colorado Springs Family Law Lawyer

www.jankolaw.com

LOL

It's hysterical how you think that it means anything that you found some rightard as dumb as you.

Differences Between Opening Statements & Closing Arguments

Opening Statement
The opening statement at the beginning of the trial is limited to outlining facts. This is each party's opportunity to set the basic scene for the jurors, introduce them to the core dispute(s) in the case, and provide a general road map of how the trial is expected to unfold. Absent strategic reasons not to do so, parties should lay out for the jurors who their witnesses are, how they are related to the parties and to each other, and what each is expected to say on the witness stand. Opening statements include such phrases as, “Ms. Smith will testify under oath that she saw Mr. Johnson do X,” and “The evidence will show that Defendant did not do Y.” Although opening statements should be as persuasive as possible, they should not include arguments. They come at the end of the trial.

Closing Argument
Only after the jury has seen and heard the factual evidence of the case are the parties allowed to try to persuade them about its overall significance. Closing arguments are the opportunity for each party to remind jurors about key evidence presented and to persuade them to adopt an interpretation favorable to their position. At this point, parties are free to use hypothetical analogies to make their points; to comment on the credibility of the witnesses, to discuss how they believe the various pieces of the puzzle fit into a compelling whole, and to advocate why jurors should decide the case in their favor.

Key Difference
There is a critical difference between opening statements and closing arguments. In opening statements, parties are restricted to stating the evidence: (“Witness A will testify that Event X occurred”). In closing arguments, the parties are free to argue the merits: “As we know from Witness A’s compelling testimony, Event X occurred, which clearly established who should be held responsible in this case.”.​

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

LOL

It's hysterical how you think that it means anything that you found some rightard as dumb as you.

Differences Between Opening Statements & Closing Arguments​

​

Opening Statement​

The opening statement at the beginning of the trial is limited to outlining facts. This is each party's opportunity to set the basic scene for the jurors, introduce them to the core dispute(s) in the case, and provide a general road map of how the trial is expected to unfold. Absent strategic reasons not to do so, parties should lay out for the jurors who their witnesses are, how they are related to the parties and to each other, and what each is expected to say on the witness stand. Opening statements include such phrases as, “Ms. Smith will testify under oath that she saw Mr. Johnson do X,” and “The evidence will show that Defendant did not do Y.” Although opening statements should be as persuasive as possible, they should not include arguments. They come at the end of the trial.​

​

Closing Argument​

Only after the jury has seen and heard the factual evidence of the case are the parties allowed to try to persuade them about its overall significance. Closing arguments are the opportunity for each party to remind jurors about key evidence presented and to persuade them to adopt an interpretation favorable to their position. At this point, parties are free to use hypothetical analogies to make their points; to comment on the credibility of the witnesses, to discuss how they believe the various pieces of the puzzle fit into a compelling whole, and to advocate why jurors should decide the case in their favor.​

​

Key Difference​

There is a critical difference between opening statements and closing arguments. In opening statements, parties are restricted to stating the evidence: (“Witness A will testify that Event X occurred”). In closing arguments, the parties are free to argue the merits: “As we know from Witness A’s compelling testimony, Event X occurred, which clearly established who should be held responsible in this case.”.​

Neither are to be considered evidence.

 

[Faun]

Neither are to be considered evidence.

Yeah, so?

 

[miketx]

And Rittenhouse facing life in prison.

Butt hurt liar. Eliminate all of you vermin. Prison forever.

 

[Rigby5]

Ummm, you ignore the other constant, they were ALL ATTACKING KYLE!


DOH!

Man you are one stupid ************.

That is for certain.

Actually, Rittenhouse should have been shot on sight.
Anyone openly carrying a rifle like that is a clear and present danger to everyone.

 

[Coyote]

It shows no such thing. Haven't we been through this already? Was it you or was it some other rightard who couldn't produce an image of Grosskreutz pointing his gun at Rittenhouse?

The only video I saw showed him backing away with his hands up and gun pointed up and back, then Rittenhouse shot him. I also find no evidence of a chain it was claimed Rosenbaum was armed with.

 

[Rigby5]

Oh shit, don't tell me you think Rittenhouse is guilty??

Of course he is.
You can't legally be carrying around a deadly rifle in the open like that, with all the violence going on.
It is highly provocative and an incitement to violence.
If he had a legitimate fear for his life, he should have stayed home or carried something small and concealed.
The open rifle was intended to intimidate and provoke.
And when you deliberately intimidate and provoke, you are not eligible for a self defense claim.

 

[M14 Shooter]

All that aside, he killed two people and he will be punished with jail.

^^^^
This is a lie.