Quote:

---

It looks like the bald defense attorney made the comments from twitter last night, that Kyle always holds the gun in his right hand pointed downwards, and they brought that up to the judge today

---

Yes, I heard Chirafisi say that but I'm not sure the judge really heard him or even understood the significance of it relative to those exhibits. Judge was pretty out of it today, if you ask me.

There need to be major justice reforms and an active call to pardon him if he goes to prison. I'm so ****ing angry right now. This should never have been a trial. And **** the left for their ever-changing, psychotic standards. They don't care about ANYTHING but winning.

Since we're doing football analogies and many of us are Aggies who lived through the Fran, Sherman, and Sumlin years, yesterday morning felt like the State was down a touchdown late in the 4th staring at a 4th and 23. All the defense had to do was not give up the big play.

And then TD State.

Reminder about the problems with the gun charge.

Quote:

---

Ambiguous Gun Charge & Treacherous Jury Instructions

That still leaves Kyle, however, with one remaining charge: Count 6, the possession of a dangerous weapon by a person-under-18 charge, under 948.60(a)(2). This is a mere misdemeanor charge, and if convicted Kyle is punishable by up to 9 months in jail (presumably lessened by any time served prior to trial).

This gun charge has, indeed, become a sticky wicket, largely because of the alleged ambiguity created by the Wisconsin legislature in drafting that statute, by the failure of the relevant Wisconsin Criminal Jury Instructions to accurately reflect the plain statutory language, and by the fecklessness of the prosecution in this case.

Also, because Kyle's claim of self-defense, compelling against the felony charges against him, is irrelevant as a defense to this particular misdemeanor charge. There is no self-defense justification for willfully violating a gun possession law. (Some of you may be thinking that an excuse defense of necessity or lesser harms might apply hereit would not, for reasons I'll explain below.)

The relevant part of 948.60 reads:
(2)(a) (a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

If that was the only statutory language that applies to Kyle, it's pretty much an open and shut conviction.

He was admittedly under 18, and he was in possession of an AR-15 style rifle, which certainly qualifies under Wisconsin law as a dangerous weapon ("dangerous weapon" means any firearm, per section (1) of that same statute, 948.60).

Indeed, the jury instruction that has been drafted with respect to 948.60(a)(2)2176 Possession of a Dangerous Weapon by a Childand specifically reflects this apparent simplicity of construction, defining for the jury the elements that the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt in order to find guilt:
[ol]

The defendant possessed an object.

The object was a dangerous weapon.

The defendant had not attained the age of 18 years at the time (he) (she) allegedly possessed a dangerous weapon.

[/ol]Again, if this is the entire analysis of guilt, Kyle's would seem a pretty open-and-shut case. He was in possession of an object, the object qualifies as a dangerous weapon, and he had not attained the age of 18 years.

But that is not the entire legal analysis. There is more, and it is found later in that same statute 948.60, in paragraph (3)(c). That section reads in relevant part:

(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is … not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.

So, unless Kyle was "not in compliance" with 29.304 and 29.593, the 948.60 gun possession statute would seem to not apply to him at allthat is, he would be legally exempt from the provisions of 948.60 entirely.

So, what are 29.304 and 29.593?

The second of those, 29.593 sets out the conditions that must be met to be certified to engage in certain hunting activities. With respect to these conditions the State correctly points out that Kyle has not met any of these conditionsand therefore, they argue, Kyle is "not in compliance" with 29.593.

The first defense counter-argument here could be that that 29.593 applies to hunting activities, and Kyle was not engaged in hunting activities, and therefore 29.593 ought not apply to his circumstances at all.

Perhaps a stronger counter-argument, however, is that the plain reading of 948.60(3)(c) says it applies only "if the person is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593." It does not read "ss. 29.304 or 29.593."

So, even if Kyle can be said to be "not in compliance" with 29.593, was he also "not in compliance" with 29.304?

If we take a closer look at 29.304, we see that it is also a hunting-related statute, but one that involves restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.

Wait a minutehow can Kyle be "not in compliance" with a statute that applies only to "persons under 16 years of age"? He was, after all, 17 years old at the time of these events.

Well, that's precisely the position of the defense here. They argue that Kyle is legally exempt from the provisions of 29.304, period, because he falls outside the statute's age range. And if he's exempt, he can't be "not in compliance."

And if he can't be "not in compliance with ss. 29.304," he is exempt from 948.60(a)(2) "unlawful possession of a dangerous weapon because of the requirement of paragraph 948.60(3)(c), which on the facts of this case would require non-compliance with 29.304.

The State's counter-argument to this plain reading of the statutory language is that, well, the legislature titled 948.60 "Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18," so they must have meant some application to "persons under 18." After all, Kyle was admittedly under 18 at the time of these events

We may not understand exactly what the legislature was trying to get at, the State is arguing, but surely they were getting at somethingand therefore we should ignore the plain statutory language, and subject Kyle to criminal sanction under this statute.

In effect, the State's argument here is, pay no attention to the plain reading of the statutory language behind the curtain, because I am the great and powerful ADA Oz! Really, it's ridiculousand ridiculous ought have no role in a court of law where criminal sanctions and personal liberty are at stake.

Also, ADA Jim Kraus has engaged in some handwaving to the court, arguing that, "hey, this is just a fact question, and fact questions out to go to the jury." Well, it's true that fact questions ought to go to the jury, so that's an argument that on its face is always attractive to any trial judge.

---

Quote:

---

More importantly, ADA Kraus knows what "go the jury" meansit means the jury gets the Wisconsin Criminal Jury Instruction on 948.60(a)(2). And that jury instruction, WCJI 2176, says not one word about the (3)(c) exceptions to that gun possession statute, makes no reference whatever to 29.304, and if plainly relied on by the jury will certainly result in a conviction that would appear contrary to the plain reading of the relevant statutory language.

In truth, this is not a fact question at allthis is a question of law. And questions of law do not fall within the province of the jury, they fall within the province of the judge.

---

Read the rest HERE

This puts a nail in the coffin of if Kyle raised his weapon.

HINT: he never did.

Kyle had his gun pointed down the entire time

Binger lied pic.twitter.com/S35NzUmHb6

— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) November 12, 2021

Waffledynamics said:

---

There need to be major justice reforms and an active call to pardon him if he goes to prison. I'm so ****ing angry right now. This should never have been a trial. And **** the left for their ever-changing, psychotic standards. They don't care about ANYTHING but winning.

---

Dem governor will never pardon him.

Screen capping the twitter video and using the simple pinch and zoom feature on my iPone that the State said was so reliable you can kinda make out the muzzle pointed away from the Ziminski's

Here's the image.

The first image is another angle (just prior to) the infamous drone photo from the prosecution video, where their specialists spent 20 hours doctoring the image to purportedly show Kyle raising his gun with his left hand.

In the second image, the chrome duramax passenger side mirror is what the prosecution is claiming is KR's left hand (circled in blue) and the black windshield frame (circled in yellow) is supposed to be KR's gun.

Complete bs

will25u said:

---

This puts a nail in the coffin of if Kyle raised his weapon.

HINT: he never did.

Kyle had his gun pointed down the entire time

Binger lied pic.twitter.com/S35NzUmHb6

— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) November 12, 2021

---

So this is the scene where Kyle was saying Ziminski was in front of him holding a gun and then Rosenbaum comes up from behind him correct? Assuming that is Ziminski and his girlfriend standing there next to the passengers door of the truck. Then he starts running and Rosenbaum gives chase to the corner of the car lot where Kyle turns and shoots him.

I'm still trying to figure out the angle of the still photo they showed in relation to this. In the still photo it looks like Kyle is standing by a streetlight with a big sign overhead after he puts down the fire extinguisher. That pole and sign are no where in this video.

Y'all think this can't happen to you?

Just wait until it's time to defend your family from getting mugged.

This country is DONE

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

It looks like the bald defense attorney made the comments from twitter last night, that Kyle always holds the gun in his right hand pointed downwards, and they brought that up to the judge today

---

Yes, I heard Chirafisi say that but I'm not sure the judge really heard him or even understood the significance of it relative to those exhibits. Judge was pretty out of it today, if you ask me.

---

Probably spent half the night hearing about what an idiot he was to make the asian food stuck on the boat in Long Beach comment in public.

Can you focus on Josh Ziminski's hands?

Based on the responses to this video clip, I think the court of public opinion might actually be in favor of Kyle.

EXCLUSIVE: “To me, he seemed like a child … more upset that he was caught and less upset about what he had done ... and the numerous lives that he affected.” — Gage Grosskreutz, the sole survivor shot by Kyle Rittenhouse, reacts to his testimony. https://t.co/DRURCHHX5R pic.twitter.com/wIKHjbVyH1

— Good Morning America (@GMA) November 11, 2021

Quote:

---

I'm still trying to figure out the angle of the still photo they showed in relation to this. In the still photo it looks like Kyle is standing by a streetlight with a big sign overhead after he puts down the fire extinguisher. That pole and sign are no where in this video.

---

Good point but I think if you back that up a few more seconds, there was a sign on the corner of the property. Kyle is already on the lot in this one. Could be wrong about that, though.

I don't get how the state can enter this evidence, not have it testified to by the people who they claim were provoked by Kyle and let a jury see it while the prosecution tells them what's happening. Travesty.

I am shocked that the ADAs haven't been looking for the real provocateur in all their photo analysis.

AggiePetro07 said:

---

I don't get how the state can enter this evidence, not have it testified to by the people who they claim were provoked by Kyle and let a jury see it while the prosecution tells them what's happening. Travesty.

---

There was a lot of evidence that was admitted in an unorthodox manner as they were stipulated to by both counsels. Many of the videos were entered through Detective Howard who said he just surfed the internet to find them. Had no idea if any of them had been edited or otherwise altered. Well if he did not take them how can he be the foundational witness to support their admission? I've never figured that one out.

Guess this judge only cares about admissibility if someone objects.

aggiehawg said:

---

Can you focus on Josh Ziminski's hands?

---

Honestly it looks like Ziminski isn't even facing Kyle, look at his feet, it looks like he's walking away

aggiehawg said:

---

AggiePetro07 said:

---

I don't get how the state can enter this evidence, not have it testified to by the people who they claim were provoked by Kyle and let a jury see it while the prosecution tells them what's happening. Travesty.

---

There was a lot of evidence that was admitted in an unorthodox manner as they were stipulated to by both counsels. Many of the videos were entered through Detective Howard who said he just surfed the internet to find them. Had no idea if any of them had been edited or otherwise altered. Well if he did not take them how can he be the foundational witness to support their admission? I've never figured that one out.

Guess this judge only cares about admissibility if someone objects.

---

It has a very "anything goes feel" to it for sure.

Thanks for doing that. I can't make out that he has anything in his hands.

NASAg03 said:

---

Based on the responses to this video clip, I think the court of public opinion might actually be in favor of Kyle.

EXCLUSIVE: “To me, he seemed like a child … more upset that he was caught and less upset about what he had done ... and the numerous lives that he affected.” — Gage Grosskreutz, the sole survivor shot by Kyle Rittenhouse, reacts to his testimony. https://t.co/DRURCHHX5R pic.twitter.com/wIKHjbVyH1

— Good Morning America (@GMA) November 11, 2021

---

I hate this "sole survivor " talk. Hundreds of people around him survive. Even people that attacked him survived. Gaige is the only person that was shot that survived, but calling him a sole survivor of the situation is absurd and purposely misleading.

NASAg03 said:

---

Based on the responses to this video clip, I think the court of public opinion might actually be in favor of Kyle.

EXCLUSIVE: “To me, he seemed like a child … more upset that he was caught and less upset about what he had done ... and the numerous lives that he affected.” — Gage Grosskreutz, the sole survivor shot by Kyle Rittenhouse, reacts to his testimony. https://t.co/DRURCHHX5R pic.twitter.com/wIKHjbVyH1

— Good Morning America (@GMA) November 11, 2021

---

Can't believe they're sending this guy on a media tour. Feels a lot like CPL in the making. This dude will be arrested within a year or so.

will25u said:

---

This puts a nail in the coffin of if Kyle raised his weapon.

HINT: he never did.

Kyle had his gun pointed down the entire time

Binger lied pic.twitter.com/S35NzUmHb6

— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) November 12, 2021

---

Was this video shown during the trial?

neAGle96 said:

---

Here's the image.

The first image is another angle (just prior to) the infamous drone photo from the prosecution video, where their specialists spent 20 hours doctoring the image to purportedly show Kyle raising his gun with his left hand.

In the second image, the chrome duramax passenger side mirror is what the prosecution is claiming is KR's left hand (circled in blue) and the black windshield frame (circled in yellow) is supposed to be KR's gun.

Complete bs

---

A_Gang_Ag_06 said:

---

neAGle96 said:

---

Here's the image.

The first image is another angle (just prior to) the infamous drone photo from the prosecution video, where their specialists spent 20 hours doctoring the image to purportedly show Kyle raising his gun with his left hand.

In the second image, the chrome duramax passenger side mirror is what the prosecution is claiming is KR's left hand (circled in blue) and the black windshield frame (circled in yellow) is supposed to be KR's gun.

Complete bs

---

They think the truck is the weapon?!?!

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Thanks for doing that. I can't make out that he has anything in his hands.

---

Hang tight Liminski has something in his right hand

I'm trying to figure out how to slow the video down down

ShaggySLC said:

---

NASAg03 said:

---

Based on the responses to this video clip, I think the court of public opinion might actually be in favor of Kyle.

EXCLUSIVE: “To me, he seemed like a child … more upset that he was caught and less upset about what he had done ... and the numerous lives that he affected.” — Gage Grosskreutz, the sole survivor shot by Kyle Rittenhouse, reacts to his testimony. https://t.co/DRURCHHX5R pic.twitter.com/wIKHjbVyH1

— Good Morning America (@GMA) November 11, 2021

---

Can't believe they're sending this guy on a media tour. Feels a lot like CPL in the making. This dude will be arrested within a year of so.

---

Actually he was already arrested, in October 2020, for refusing to identify himself and driving while intoxicated. He tried to play the "I'm a national celebrity" card from his ****box car and then kept saying he wouldn't answer questions until he called his attorney. That case was scheduled for trial in March 2021, but was somehow pushed to January 2022.

Here's the video of the stop.

FJB said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

AggiePetro07 said:

---

I don't get how the state can enter this evidence, not have it testified to by the people who they claim were provoked by Kyle and let a jury see it while the prosecution tells them what's happening. Travesty.

---

There was a lot of evidence that was admitted in an unorthodox manner as they were stipulated to by both counsels. Many of the videos were entered through Detective Howard who said he just surfed the internet to find them. Had no idea if any of them had been edited or otherwise altered. Well if he did not take them how can he be the foundational witness to support their admission? I've never figured that one out.

Guess this judge only cares about admissibility if someone objects.

---

It has a very "anything goes feel" to it for sure.

---

I don't know if you saw it today but the Judge kind of wandered off into complaining that he was required to be in the courtroom with the jury if they wanted to view any video exhibits. He kind of said he wouldn't do that if counsel agreed that would not be required.

I believe the ADA jumped and told the judge that they had run the question of whether the judge could do hat even with the consent of the parties by DOJ and they were told it would be reversible error if the judge abdicates that duty. Makes me wonder if Schroeder had expressed such sentiments often in the past.

Anyway, I thought it notable that the prosecutors anticipated that possible situation and wanted to head it off at the pass. Not that one more instance of reversible error would have that much impact on any appeal.

Will do!

sicandtiredTXN said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Thanks for doing that. I can't make out that he has anything in his hands.

---

Hang tight Liminski has something in his right hand

I'm trying to figure out how to slow the video down down

---

Seconds after this Ziminski shot to the sky.

sicandtiredTXN said:

---

AggiePetro07 said:

---

sicandtiredTXN said:

---

WTF

At point blank range a 40 SW will do more damage the a 223 FMJ

The larger projectile does more actual damage

It's been determined that the defendant had 223 FMJ 55 gr

and say GG has a 40 SW which in most cases are around 180 gr

The the kinetic energy at point blank is greater with the 40 S&W

---

Don't think that's true. I think the 223 is about 3x the 40 at the muzzle

---

Okay I dug out my phone and using the calculator a 223 55-grain fired from an AR, a 55-grain bullet will leave the muzzle somewhere around 2,600 feet per second depending on exact barrel length. That yields kinetic energy of 825.7 foot-pounds and momentum of 20.43 pounds-feet per second.

Same calculation for a 180 gr 40 S&W has a muzzle energy of 684.2 ft-lbs

So I am wrong about the greater kinetic, however the larger bullet at point blank into GG bicep would have like blown it completely off and he'd be wearing a hook instead of have just some numbness as he claims.

---

He still has another arm to check your hypothesis.

In the name of science, of course.

The pressure of being that celebrity will not be his friend!

will25u said:

---

This puts a nail in the coffin of if Kyle raised his weapon.

HINT: he never did.

Kyle had his gun pointed down the entire time

Binger lied pic.twitter.com/S35NzUmHb6

— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) November 12, 2021

---

That needs to go to the defense.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I'm still trying to figure out the angle of the still photo they showed in relation to this. In the still photo it looks like Kyle is standing by a streetlight with a big sign overhead after he puts down the fire extinguisher. That pole and sign are no where in this video.

---

Good point but I think if you back that up a few more seconds, there was a sign on the corner of the property. Kyle is already on the lot in this one. Could be wrong about that, though.

---

That was where I was going. The prosecution claims he was pointing a gun at Ziminski while standing under that sign hence the still shots, but the vids being shown here don't show the sign so claims that he didn't point the gun at Ziminski using these vids don't seem to capture the moment the prosecution is claiming he did it. Unless I'm missing something.

Well, well, well. That's the liar Jacob Marshall, his former roomie who posted the FB post about GG's intent to kill Kyle that night as the passenger.