Militia in the streets

[TheDeamon]

Evidence provided by the State Prosecution in the Kyle Rittenhouse case:

https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/11/rittenhouse-trial-day-3-states-own-witnesses-damage-prosecution-reinforce-self-defense-narrative/

When Binger asked Balch for his impression of Kyle that night, Balch replied that Kyle seemed like a young and impressionable kid, interested in other people and a life guard, seeking to provide medical care to anyone who might be injured.  He also described Kyle as presenting as vulnerable, as someone who protestors might identify as a target and attack.

In contrast, when Binger asked Balch for his impression of Joseph Rosenbaum that night, Balch replied that every time he encountered Rosenbaum he was being hyper-aggressive and acting out in a violent manner, always having to be restrained from violence by others. Indeed, Balch said he was approached by other protestors who wanted to ensure him that Rosenbaum was not one of them, not a member of their group. These other protestors wanted no misunderstanding that there might be an association with the hyper-aggressive Rosenbaum and themselves.

The ultimate high point, however, came—and again, I feel obliged to remind you, this is while the STATE is engaged in direct questioning of THEIR OWN WITNESS—when ADA Binger asked Balch to describe an encounter between Kyle and Balch, on the one hand, and Rosenbaum on the other, that took place shortly after Kyle had put out a dumpster fire started by Rosenbaum.

Balch testified that Rosenbaum came right up to the pair, “got right in my face,” yelling and screaming, and murderously pledged “if I catch any of you guys alone tonight, I’m going to f’ing kill you!”

The earlier ADA (Binger) exchange with McGinnis is pretty good in this context as well.

Now on re-direct, Binger rather heatedly challenged his own witness:  You can’t read Rosenbaum’s mind, right? You can’t know what he was actually thinking, right? Your interpretation of his intent is nothing but complete guesswork, isn’t that right?

McGinnis paused a moment, and replied:  “Well, he said “F-you, and then he reached for the weapon.”  So, maybe not entirely guesswork.

But to rewind things a bit further on the McGinnis testimony:

At some point, McGinnis and Kyle had become somewhat separated. Then McGinnis saw the now-familiar Kyle run by with a fire extinguisher, and decided to follow to see what was going on.

As it happens Kyle was running down Sheridan to put out a fire reportedly occurring in a Car Source parking lot down the street.  As Kyle approached the lot, he also happened to be gaining ground on Joseph Rosenbaum, who was ahead up the street. Rosenbaum was accompanied by Joshua Ziminsky and his wife, Mrs. Ziminsky, with whom he was apparently friends.

Joshua Ziminsky was carrying a Glock pistol which he would shortly fire into the air, thus triggering subsequent events resulting in the death of Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber, and the maiming of Gaige Grosskreutz.

As Kyle reached the edge of the Car Source lot, Rosenbaum concealed himself among four cars, then emerged behind Kyle and initiated his charge of Kyle.  McGinnis was still running down Sheridan to catch up with Kyle, and so ended up behind Rosenbaum as events proceeded.  Also roughly behind Kyle and Rosenbaum was Joshua Ziminsky, who was on the sidewalk near the group of four cars that Rosenbaum had been hiding in.

As Rosenbaum chased the isolated Kyle across the lot, Joshua Ziminsky raised his pistol and fired a shot in the air.  The fleeing Kyle, hearing the shot behind him, turned to look in that direction, and saw Rosenbaum charging at him, screaming “F-YOU!” at the top of his lungs.

Much of this was confirmed both by the observational testimony of McGinnis, as well as by various video recordings, including the FBI aerial infrared video recording, and so the events are effectively indisputable.

McGinnis personally observed the charge of Rosenbaum on Kyle, and described the attack in some great detail.  Rosenbaum was in a hunched forward running position, as one would be running as fast as one could.  Kyle was desperately fleeing towards the far side of the Car Source lot—and was shouting “friendly, friendly, friendly!” while doing so.

[TheDeamon]

Also from Monday's portion of the trial.

Grosskreutz, the only person of the three people Rittenhouse shot and is still living, was called to the stand to testify by the prosecution.

In cross-examination, Grosskreutz admitted to pointed his gun at Rittenhouse(making Rittenhouse shooting him self-defense), and Grosskreutz's testimony in relation to Huber hitting Rittenhouse with a skateboard had him "concerned as an EMT" about serious harm to Rittenhouse --bosltering the self-defense position for Rittenhouse on shooting Huber.

[Lloyd Perna]

And the Defense hasn't even started their defense yet.

[LetterRip]

It is absurd that the video that shows him stating

“Bro I wish I had my (expletive) AR. l’d start shooting rounds at them.”

https://apnews.com/article/trials-f19acb6b4f1e4128610d2078105db1ce

isn't admissible to impeach his response to the Defenses question,

Richards asked if Rittenhouse if he came "looking for trouble" in Kenosha on August 25, 2020.

"No," Rittenhouse responded.

https://www.newsweek.com/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-live-updates-defense-calls-rittenhouse-stand-1647945

It is absurd that a judge has the power to exclude such relevant evidence and that Rittenhouse's testimony, that is clearly contradicted by evidence be allowed to stand.

[TheDrake]

I haven't read the judges ruling, but from your article LR:

Prosecutors say that the video shows Rittenhouse watching some men exiting a CVS store and then commenting that he wishes he had his rifle so he could shoot them. It was filmed 15 days before the Kenosha shootings.

A voice that sounds like Rittenhouse says one of the men coming out of the store appears to be armed, the Journal Sentinel reported. Then, he says, “Bro I wish I had my (expletive) AR. l’d start shooting rounds at them.”

In an affidavit accompanying the motion, Kenosha County Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger said his office obtained the video last week. It does not say how or from whom.

There's more than enough about that I find questionable. This video only just showed up? From where? Rittenhouse isn't on the video saying this, its just someone who sounds like Rittenhouse?

Another article:

Rittenhouse is not visible in the video, nor is the person with him. The brief video, shot from across a busy street at night, shows a group of people leaving a CVS carrying bags and loading them into the trunk of a car. “It looks like one of them has a weapon,” the person prosecutors identify as Rittenhouse states. The CVS, which is neighbored by what appears to be a multistory office building, does not appear to be in the Kenosha area.

Setting that aside, I don't know that his feelings toward other random people does much. If a person threatens to stab one individual two weeks before stabbing someone entirely different, does that really establish a pattern? Likewise with them not being able to show that he had fleeting contact with the Proud Boys.

Even a racist hothead is allowed to defend themselves, if they are not the aggressor. All that matters was whether he was being aggressive on that night, not whether he was generally an aggressive person. That's setting aside how serious he might have been in a tiny clip with no context obtained in a shady manner. This could be on the level of an O'Keefe video - taken wildly out of the conversation that led to the comment.

[LetterRip]

Setting that aside, I don't know that his feelings toward other random people does much. If a person threatens to stab one individual two weeks before stabbing someone entirely different, does that really establish a pattern? Likewise with them not being able to show that he had fleeting contact with the Proud Boys.

I think it is evidence that he was in fact 'looking for trouble'.

Even a racist hothead is allowed to defend themselves, if they are not the aggressor.

So let's assume for the moment that Rittenhouse might be willing to lie to avoid going to jail - just as he was willing to lie about being an EMT.  He is on recording admitting he pointed his gun at someone (he claimed on the stand that he was lying when he admitted it).  He is on the surveillance video following Rosenbaum and then Rosenbaum appears to try and hide in the cars then  runs after Rittenhouse and is shot.

1) If Rittenhouse points the gun at Rosenbaum - he commits assault with a deadly weapon - then Rosenbaum would have a reasonable fear for his life, and being unarmed might reasonably try to disarm the person who threatened him.  Then trying to disarm Rittenhouse is self-defense and Rittenhouse is the aggressor.

2) Then all of the deaths that follow are not self-defense.  Instead we have someone who was threatened with a gun trying to disarm the person with the gun, who is shot, and then the shooter shoots additional people who try to disarm him.

All that matters was whether he was being aggressive on that night, not whether he was generally an aggressive person.

We have an audio recording that he admits is him, where he affirms that he pointed his gun at someone, it is only now that he is being prosecuted that he claims he lied about engaging in that crime.  People generally don't lie when the admit to a crime, it is when they are being investigated for crimes they are likely to lie.

Generally speaking deaths that are a direct action of a prior crime are murders and not self defense even if it would normally be self defense (ie you rob a bank, the bank guard pulls his gun and you shoot him - it is murder, even though if the guard had done so without your bank robbery it would be self defense).  (But not if they are indirectly related - so illegal possession of a firearm for instance wouldn't negate self defense).

[TheDeamon]

1) If Rittenhouse points the gun at Rosenbaum - he commits assault with a deadly weapon - then Rosenbaum would have a reasonable fear for his life, and being unarmed might reasonably try to disarm the person who threatened him.  Then trying to disarm Rittenhouse is self-defense and Rittenhouse is the aggressor.

Problem with this is that the guy who fired the shot into the air that triggered all of this? He was a good friend of Rosenbaum's, and had been moving around through the riots together up until that point.

Rosenbaum may have been unarmed, but his friend was.

We have an audio recording that he admits is him, where he affirms that he pointed his gun at someone, it is only now that he is being prosecuted that he claims he lied about engaging in that crime.  People generally don't lie when the admit to a crime, it is when they are being investigated for crimes they are likely to lie.

People will lie about carrying out crimes they didn't commit. Criminals have done it before.

Generally speaking deaths that are a direct action of a prior crime are murders and not self defense even if it would normally be self defense (ie you rob a bank, the bank guard pulls his gun and you shoot him - it is murder, even though if the guard had done so without your bank robbery it would be self defense).  (But not if they are indirectly related - so illegal possession of a firearm for instance wouldn't negate self defense).

It isn't actually that clear cut in law. As I've had someone with legal background point out that jurisprudence on that gets to be "weird" when the criminal starts running away.

Once they begin to flee, the threat is gone, and the bank guard can no longer claim self-defense on his end.

If the guard continues to pursue the criminal and then puts the criminal in what the criminal feels to be a "life or death" situation, the criminal can kill the guard in self-defense and have it stand up in court.

The criminal is only legally obligated to stop if a police officer tells them to, not Joe Security guard.

[wmLambert]

One of the worst bits of disinformation is the current idea that the wild west was a time of gun-slingers and criminality. In fact, it was the most peaceful of times, because everyone carried (largely to protect against snakes and other wild animals, and armed citizens ensured peace.

[TheDrake]

Well, I guess I'll have to make sure that none of my acquaintances has a firearm in future, if their stupidity means it's open season on me, the adjacent unarmed guy.

[yossarian22c]

One of the worst bits of disinformation is the current idea that the wild west was a time of gun-slingers and criminality. In fact, it was the most peaceful of times, because everyone carried (largely to protect against snakes and other wild animals, and armed citizens ensured peace.

They had a relatively low population density and sometimes very strict gun laws about carrying in town. When everyone knows each other crime tends to be lower. The last person shot had a handgun. Pretty sure he would be in his rights to have shot Rittenhouse as well. Rittenhouse had just killed two people and pointed his rifle at him. Mutual self defense claims are somewhat justified. Sorry I don't want to live in a society where the occasional shootout happens and we just shrug and say self defense.

[LetterRip]

It isn't actually that clear cut in law. As I've had someone with legal background point out that jurisprudence on that gets to be "weird" when the criminal starts running away.

Once they begin to flee, the threat is gone, and the bank guard can no longer claim self-defense on his end.

The guard can't shoot a fleeing criminal (which is what your acquaintance with a legal background was likely trying to convey) but they can pursue and point their gun at the fleeing criminal (jurisdiction dependent, but generally true).  If the fleeing criminal then shoots the guard, they still murdered the guard and it isn't self defense - the death is a result of a continuation of their initial criminal act.

If the guard continues to pursue the criminal and then puts the criminal in what the criminal feels to be a "life or death" situation, the criminal can kill the guard in self-defense and have it stand up in court.

See above.  I think you misunderstood what your acquaintance was telling you.

[Grant]

... But pacifists between the sheets.

[LetterRip]

He said prosecutors could have asked a state appeals court to rule on whether the charge was valid “all along.” Then he caught himself, noting that he never issued a ruling against the prosecution that might have triggered such a request until just then with closing arguments minutes away.

“I think it ought to have been mighty clear that I had big problems with this statute,” Schroeder said. “I made no bones about that from the beginning. And there always was access to the court of appeals all along here. Well, I guess that’s not fair for me to say because I was sitting on it. So shame on me.”

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/explainer-judge-drop-rittenhouse-gun-charge-81186071

So I was trying to remain objective throughout the case, trying to offer the most generous interpretations of prior claims of bias or improper action by the judge.

I think that stance is now impossible to maintain in light of this.  I think it is clear that he waited till minutes before closing arguments to issue the ruling to prevent the court of appeals hearing it appealed.  It is a deliberate sabotage of the prosecution.  I think this judge needs to be severely sanctioned, a mistrial declared, and a new trial.

[cherrypoptart]

"I think this judge needs to be severely sanctioned, a mistrial declared, and a new trial."

There were some theories that the prosecution was intentionally engaging in provocative conduct hoping to get a mistrial too. I guess you're not supposed to make a big deal in front of the jury about a defendant exercising their right to remain silent after arrest and the prosecutor did it anyway.

The prosecution should know the laws and none of the facts about the type of gun used or his age have ever been in question. If it wasn't against the law they shouldn't have brought the charge in the first place. Going for a mistrial when it looks like the prosecution lost hoping for a different result next time hardly seems like justice. It may delay the expected riots for a while though which are probably the biggest factor in the case and the harshest "evidence" against the defendant insofar as it's the most likely thing to get him declared guilty. I don't think anyone can dispute that in cases like these we're living under the threat of mob justice.

[LetterRip]

The prosecution should know the laws and none of the facts about the type of gun used or his age have ever been in question. If it wasn't against the law they shouldn't have brought the charge in the first place.

It was and is against the law.  The judge is claiming that the statute is 'unclear'.  The statute is very clear, and had the judge  ruled earlier, it would have been appealed and the judges ruling found incorrect.  Hence his waiting till the last second and his smug comment.

" And there always was access to the court of appeals all along here. Well, I guess that’s not fair for me to say because I was sitting on it. So shame on me.”

That "I guess that's not fair for me because I was sitting on it" - he delayed ruling on it so there would be no chance for appeal.

[Lloyd Perna]

I'm pretty sure you can't appeal a Judge's decision until after the trial is over.

[TheDeamon]

I think that stance is now impossible to maintain in light of this.  I think it is clear that he waited till minutes before closing arguments to issue the ruling to prevent the court of appeals hearing it appealed.  It is a deliberate sabotage of the prosecution.  I think this judge needs to be severely sanctioned, a mistrial declared, and a new trial.

It doesn't work that way for the prosecution. If the jury renders a verdict, and it is "not guilty" then it is done. Only the defense can pursue a mistrial claim, which for obvious reasons would require a guilty verdict.

The Judge could likely be sanctioned by the Bar Association and maybe his fellow judges, but for Kyle Rittenhouse, it would be over one way or another.

I'm not so clear on what happens in the event of a directed verdict by the Judge, but I think Kyle would still be in the clear unless they can prove criminal behavior on the part of the Judge. But even then, you'd have to link Kyle to the Judge's behavior and charge him for that, not the initial crime more likely than not.

The Federal Government could potentially try to insert itself in the process, but so far as the state itself is concerned, it'll likely be over very soon.

[Lloyd Perna]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/experts-say-gun-charge-dropped-rittenhouse-trial-was-result-poorly-worded-law-2021-11-15/

This is going to touch a nerve for some people," said John Gross, a law professor at the University of Wisconsin. "But this is not an unreasonable reading of this statute by this judge

Gross said the Wisconsin law concerning underage possession of a dangerous weapon - which covers everything from guns to brass knuckles - is written in a way that it seems to apply restrictions on gun possession only when the person is carrying a short-barreled weapon such as a sawed-off shotgun, less than 12 inches. That is what Rittenhouse's lawyers argued.

What the legislature did in its writing of the law was to "accidentally carve out a rule that says somebody under the age of 18 can legally have a rifle or shotgun as long as the barrel is of sufficient length," Gross said. "It's just a legislative blunder and it should be fixed."

[LetterRip]

My view that he acted unethically is not the substance of the ruling, but that he sprung it right before closing arguments so that the prosecutions closing argument would have to be changed and so that it could not be appealed.

[LetterRip]

It doesn't work that way for the prosecution. If the jury renders a verdict, and it is "not guilty" then it is done. Only the defense can pursue a mistrial claim, which for obvious reasons would require a guilty verdict.

You can seek a mistrial prior to the rendering of a jury verdict.  As long as the jury hasn't rendered a verdict then a mistrial can still be declared.

[Lloyd Perna]

He made it pretty clear in the pre trial hearings that this was a possible outcome.  They could have appealed at any time. Also, the prosecution could have stopped the proceedings to appeal.  In any case, given the other charges on the table, why does anybody even care about the gun charge.  Bicep guy admitted on the stand that he was carrying concealed pistol illegally, nobody charged him with anything.

[LetterRip]

He made it pretty clear in the pre trial hearings that this was a possible outcome. They could have appealed at any time.

No they couldn't have.  They can't appeal till there is a ruling.  The judge even stated so in the quote I provided.

Also, the prosecution could have stopped the proceedings to appeal.

What is your source for this?  It isn't clear that a prosecutor can 'stop the proceedings'.

  In any case, given the other charges on the table, why does anybody even care about the gun charge.  Bicep guy admitted on the stand that he was carrying concealed pistol illegally, nobody charged him with anything.

Grosskreutz permit was expired though I can't find when (some sources seem to suggest the day of which seems unlikely), I'd be ok with such charges.  He could legally possess a gun, and there appears to be no reason why he couldn't have renewed his concealed carry.  I'm curious why he hadn't and when exactly it expired.  He claims he though at the time it was still valid, so the expiration date may have been at or around that time.

[Lloyd Perna]

I watched Bicep boy's testimony live.  He admitted on the stand that his permit was expired on that day.

[Fenring]

Some of you seem to be arguing that it was too late in the trial for an appeal while others are saying it was too late to sue for a mistrial. Which is it? You're all not even having the same conversation at the moment.

[Grant]

Some of you seem to be arguing that it was too late in the trial for an appeal while others are saying it was too late to sue for a mistrial. Which is it? You're all not even having the same conversation at the moment.

I just want to know if it is too late for someone to demand trial by combat, with the champions being David Hogg vs the reanimated corpse of Charleston Heston, both armed with flails. 

[LetterRip]

I watched Bicep boy's testimony live.  He admitted on the stand that his permit was expired on that day.

No one is stating it wasn't "expired on that day" - the question is, did it expire that day ie as of that morning, or had it expired weeks or months, or years prior.  To me it makes a difference as to whether his lack of knowledge that it was expired claim is credible and what charges - if any - would be most appropriate.

[LetterRip]

Some of you seem to be arguing that it was too late in the trial for an appeal while others are saying it was too late to sue for a mistrial. Which is it? You're all not even having the same conversation at the moment.

The judge stated it was too late to appeal the ruling that he had just issued.  I'm assuming his statement is correct.  Mistrial can be declared prior to the jury coming back with a verdict.  The judge has also indicated that he might rule a mistrial if the jury comes back with a guilty verdict.  It is unclear if the prosecutor has grounds or means to seek a mistrial.

[TheDrake]

Re: stop the proceedings

Lr, this is your own article that you cited

Prosecutors could immediately ask the court of appeals to stop the proceedings pending a ruling on the charge's validity, but there was no indication Monday that they planned to do so.

[Fenring]

The judge has also indicated that he might rule a mistrial if the jury comes back with a guilty verdict.  It is unclear if the prosecutor has grounds or means to seek a mistrial.

Heh, how about the fact of the judge claiming he can override a jury nullification? The entire point of having a jury is that their decision supersedes the judge and the law.

Now, on the other hand afaik jury nullification seems to most likely be applied in cases where the jury votes not guilty when the law technically states that the defendant is guilty. Not sure if it's still jury nullification of the same type of they vote to convict when the judge believes the evidence to be insufficient (or the charges to be invalid). Is the jury allowed to disregard the law in the direction of a vote to convict?

[TheDeamon]

The judge has also indicated that he might rule a mistrial if the jury comes back with a guilty verdict.  It is unclear if the prosecutor has grounds or means to seek a mistrial.

Heh, how about the fact of the judge claiming he can override a jury nullification? The entire point of having a jury is that their decision supersedes the judge and the law.

Now, on the other hand afaik jury nullification seems to most likely be applied in cases where the jury votes not guilty when the law technically states that the defendant is guilty. Not sure if it's still jury nullification of the same type of they vote to convict when the judge believes the evidence to be insufficient (or the charges to be invalid). Is the jury allowed to disregard the law in the direction of a vote to convict?

That isn't over-riding a jury nullification in this case. A "jury nullification" would be a not-guilty verdict (in circumstances that don't apply to this case), which wouldn't be possible to invalidate once it happens under US law.

To be clear, a "jury nullification" is when the Jury agrees that the law was violated, but refuses to convict because they rejected(nullified) the relevant law.

Anything involving a guilty verdict or hung jury is going to have plenty of chances to be appealed and overturned. That's how the American Justice system is setup. "The sovereign" only gets to convict(*) you once, but you get many attempts to try to clear your name. If your legal defense wins once, it's over.

If the prosecution wants a mistrial, they need to act, and get a higher court to intervene, prior to the Jury rendering a not-guilty verdict.

The judge can over-turn a guilty verdict rendered by the Jury because he's also the first stop, out of many, in the appeals process where just about every Judge involved in that process is capable of over-turning a guilty verdict from the Jury. This isn't new, this is how things have worked for centuries at this point. It just happens to be unusual for a Judge to overturn a verdict rendered in a proceeding they presided over.

[cherrypoptart]

"Fenring

"Not sure if it's still jury nullification of the same type of they vote to convict when the judge believes the evidence to be insufficient (or the charges to be invalid). Is the jury allowed to disregard the law in the direction of a vote to convict?"

I agree with TheDeamon, that wouldn't be jury nullification because instead of nullifying a law they are either ignoring the evidence to convict based on the laws that exist or they are paying careful attention to the evidence to convict based on laws they think should exist but don't. Maybe we need a new word for it. The best I'm coming up with is jury induction.

We may see the latter in the Arbery case in which the jury may convict based not on the citizen's arrest law at the time but on what they think should have been the law at the time which may in fact be the current law since the old law was scrapped.

We complain about judges writing laws from the bench but in this case with a jury conviction that is the opposite of jury nullification it may instead be by the jury writing laws from the jury box, for instance by telling themselves that it should have been illegal for Rittenhouse to have that gun and he should have just stayed home like a good little unracist sheeple so they're going to convict regardless of the law and the evidence. Neither were against the law but they should have been. Part of that will also be a calculation factoring in the loss of life and property that will result if they decide according to the law. Of course in their minds they won't see it this way. They'll tell themselves that if he wasn't guilty then it wouldn't even make any sense for the prosecution to be up there saying anything about this in the first place. All they have to do for rationalization is tell themselves that they agree with the prosecutor and with the violent mob and all their supporters on the woke left and they'll be able to sleep just fine at night, not realizing what role their subconscious played in the decision making process.

[Fenring]

I see, so nullification is only in the direction of not-guilty. So what the judge is saying appears to mean that the chances for the prosecution to try to argue for mistrial has been timed out on purpose, i.e. that the judge is so adamant that the defendant is not guilty that he won't even 'allow' a mistrial to be declared?

[Lloyd Perna]

I watched Bicep boy's testimony live.  He admitted on the stand that his permit was expired on that day.

No one is stating it wasn't "expired on that day" - the question is, did it expire that day ie as of that morning, or had it expired weeks or months, or years prior.  To me it makes a difference as to whether his lack of knowledge that it was expired claim is credible and what charges - if any - would be most appropriate.

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1457771875849818123
Listen for your self.

Prosecutor:  Did you have a permit to carry a concealed weapon?
Grosskreutz: I did.
Prosecutor:  Was it in effect on August 25th 2020?
Grosskreutz: It was not.
Prosecutor:  Had it expired?
Grosskreutz: It had.
Prosecutor:  And you had not renewed it?
Grosskreutz: I had not.

Nobody asked him when it expired. Why?  If it had expired that day I'm sure the prosecution would want that on the record.

Maybe its because of his prior gun related conviction which the defense was not allowed to bring up in the trial?

Now, Why isn't he being charged?



 

[yossarian22c]

I see, so nullification is only in the direction of not-guilty. So what the judge is saying appears to mean that the chances for the prosecution to try to argue for mistrial has been timed out on purpose, i.e. that the judge is so adamant that the defendant is not guilty that he won't even 'allow' a mistrial to be declared?

If the judge feels the case hasn't been made I am pretty sure in most jurisdictions the judge can dismiss the charges with prejudice. If the judge really thinks Rittenhouse is not guilty he can say so and have the trial be over. That's different from a mistrial which could lead to another trial. 

[TheDeamon]

I see, so nullification is only in the direction of not-guilty.

Yes, the Jury can only convict on the basis of laws that were on the books at the time the alleged crime took place. Juries cannot create new laws, or really create new interpretations of laws(that's the domain of the judge and the lawyers presenting the case). They can "nullify" existing laws in theory, but the "in practice" portion of that is on very uncertain legal ground beyond the context of that specific trial.

But basic understanding of "grandfathered" legal provisions should point you to why Juries have no ability to "create law" on their own. Unless you live in China or a very short list of other nations, you are not to be held legally liable for something which wasn't illegal at the time you did it.

So what the judge is saying appears to mean that the chances for the prosecution to try to argue for mistrial has been timed out on purpose, i.e. that the judge is so adamant that the defendant is not guilty that he won't even 'allow' a mistrial to be declared?

I haven't watched the video of the judge making the comment. It is possible it wasn't deliberate(and another poster indicated that the judge clearly signaled his inclinations in pre-trial), and what you saw was basically a "stream of consciousness" statement from the judge. He said something, then thought on it as he was speaking, and self-corrected. In this case, he was initially remembering the pre-trial comments as being more extensive than they were, then thought back on what he said at that time, and corrected himself on the matter.

Or it could in fact be a very clever legal defense for him should the Prosecutor try to pursue misconduct allegations against him. He's now setup for a "I remembered doing A, but realized I'd done B instead."

[TheDeamon]

I watched Bicep boy's testimony live.  He admitted on the stand that his permit was expired on that day.

No one is stating it wasn't "expired on that day" - the question is, did it expire that day ie as of that morning, or had it expired weeks or months, or years prior.  To me it makes a difference as to whether his lack of knowledge that it was expired claim is credible and what charges - if any - would be most appropriate.

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1457771875849818123
Listen for your self.

Prosecutor:  Did you have a permit to carry a concealed weapon?
Grosskreutz: I did.
Prosecutor:  Was it in effect on August 25th 2020?
Grosskreutz: It was not.
Prosecutor:  Had it expired?
Grosskreutz: It had.
Prosecutor:  And you had not renewed it?
Grosskreutz: I had not.

Nobody asked him when it expired. Why?  If it had expired that day I'm sure the prosecution would want that on the record.

Maybe its because of his prior gun related conviction which the defense was not allowed to bring up in the trial?

It wasn't allowed because further detail on the legal status of his concealed-carry permit has no bearing on the self-defense case before the court. Really, I think a case could have been made to even deny the jury knowledge of the permit being expired in the first place.

Now, Why isn't he being charged?

Probably in part because he never fired a shot at anyone to my understanding. His getting his bicep blown off was considered punishment enough. That certain activists/troublemakers might get upset about his being charged might also be a consideration, but I'd suspect it is well down the list.

[Fenring]

If the judge feels the case hasn't been made I am pretty sure in most jurisdictions the judge can dismiss the charges with prejudice. If the judge really thinks Rittenhouse is not guilty he can say so and have the trial be over. That's different from a mistrial which could lead to another trial.

Ok, but what if (let's say) a judge is corrupt and has been bribed to let someone off even though the evidence is compelling. In this case the prosecution can appeal a not guilty verdict?

[yossarian22c]

If the judge feels the case hasn't been made I am pretty sure in most jurisdictions the judge can dismiss the charges with prejudice. If the judge really thinks Rittenhouse is not guilty he can say so and have the trial be over. That's different from a mistrial which could lead to another trial.

Ok, but what if (let's say) a judge is corrupt and has been bribed to let someone off even though the evidence is compelling. In this case the prosecution can appeal a not guilty verdict?

I don't know about the dismissed case. I know both the judge and individual can be charged with bribery/corruption. Maybe some of our more legally minded posters will know the particulars if a judges conduct can be so egregious or corrupt as to allow for a new trial. But my inclination is that a new trial would be impossible unless the judges behavior rises to the level of illegality and even then I don't know if its possible to have a new trial.

[TheDeamon]

If the judge feels the case hasn't been made I am pretty sure in most jurisdictions the judge can dismiss the charges with prejudice. If the judge really thinks Rittenhouse is not guilty he can say so and have the trial be over. That's different from a mistrial which could lead to another trial.

Ok, but what if (let's say) a judge is corrupt and has been bribed to let someone off even though the evidence is compelling. In this case the prosecution can appeal a not guilty verdict?

I don't know about the dismissed case. I know both the judge and individual can be charged with bribery/corruption. Maybe some of our more legally minded posters will know the particulars if a judges conduct can be so egregious or corrupt as to allow for a new trial. But my inclination is that a new trial would be impossible unless the judges behavior rises to the level of illegality and even then I don't know if its possible to have a new trial.

My understanding is that if it was dismissed "with prejudice," or otherwise resulted in a "not guilty" ruling, they cannot bring the charges forward again. Not sure about simple "dismissal" instances on if they can be brought around again. (It's also possible the "with prejudice" might be able to floated again, not sure how those land on the jurisprudence scale of what can be done again by the prosecution.)

But especially where a "not guilty" ruling is made, so far as the United States is concerned, it is done. Even if the judge and jury were found to be as corrupt as could be.

Your only recourse at that point is to bring forward charges for the newly discovered crimes.

[LetterRip]

Note that I've changed my opinion of the law on 'possession of a deadly weapon by a minor' and that it was rightfully dismissed due to poor wording.  I still think he deliberately held off on ruling to the last second to prevent an appeal, and feel that was unethical, but the ruling itself I now think would have been probably upheld on appeal.

[TheDeamon]

So there are claims (and screen grabs to back it up, for what they're worth) that The Independent in the UK ran with a byline saying Rittenhouse was found not guilty of all charges connected to his "shooting of 3 black men with a rifle." When the verdict initially came out. Obviously, they correct the error quickly enough, but that that the error was made in the first place at this point in things...

Well, he certainly was not guilty of what that byline suggested, he was on trial for shooting three white guys.

https://mobile.twitter.com/rutheday99/status/1461784059319836681

[Grant]

So there are claims (and screen grabs to back it up, for what they're worth) that The Independent in the UK ran with a byline saying Rittenhouse was found not guilty of all charges connected to his "shooting of 3 black men with a rifle." When the verdict initially came out. Obviously, they correct the error quickly enough, but that that the error was made in the first place at this point in things...

Was it Trent Crimm?  I hear he's a jerk.

[TheDrake]

This is a problem with tweets in general, but especially from news organizations. I think part of it may stem from BLM misperception that it is primarily people of color at the protests. Or because most news footage will find the black people in the crowd to illustrate the narrative. Still no excuse for badly inaccurate reporting, and why social media is a dangerous place to get your news from. How many thousands of people blindly retweeted this error without reading or understanding anything about the trial?

[cherrypoptart]

They were probably astonished to find out the victims weren't black because it's hard to understand what all the fuss is about otherwise.