It will certainly be an interesting hearing.

Of that I have no doubt.

He basically goes through the evidence and says "Is there enough here for a conviction"?

(It is a he in this case)

Which in my opinion, there will be enough evidence there for a conviction almost certainly.

It's rare you actually have this much evidence.

So the trial will likely go ahead.

I'm 95% certain it's going ahead.

As the judge does not listen to defenses at that time.

(If my understanding is correct)

Meaning he's not determining self-defense.

He's just going to be looking at the evidence which clearly shows Kyle Rittenhouse did shoot 3 people, and leave 2 dead.

I honestly think Kyle is in this one for the long-haul.

So I think the determination is going to be as follows:
- Is there sufficient evidence that Kyle killed 2 people?
- Is there sufficient evidence that Kyle shot Gaige?
- Is there sufficient evidence that Kyle possessed a firearm illegally?
- Is there sufficient evidence that Kyle put Richard McGuiness in danger?
All of those questions I feel are going to be easily answered "Yes".

We have countless hours of video, and multiple angles of the alleged crimes.

There exists little doubt as to the amount of evidence of these things.

@Maw You missed the big question! - Is there sufficient evidence that Kyle was in reasonable fear for his life?

No.

That's not in question during a preliminary hearing.

TL;DR There are plenty of exhibits to look at. What those things tell us is what's in question. That's why there will be a trial. Fin.

The answer to that one is a resounding YES!

That is an affirmative defense, which isn't determined during a preliminary hearing as far as I'm aware.

yea

@Neph (Nec) / Krystaps (War), you just advanced to level 2!

the judge is determining if there is evidence of the crimes

not evidence of defense

i guess

Evidence relating to the charges.

the reckless endangerment or w/e of McGinnis may be the only one open to debate

over whether he was directly in the line of fire

but idk

Richard was in danger.

He was in the line of fire, and there exists plenty of evidence of this.

From video to witness testimony.

There is evidence. What it's of is up to a jury. Whether it gets to be up to a jury is up to the judge. Something like that.

Indeed.

Seems silly that any time there is a person killed, it must go to a trial no matter the circumstance.

That seems silly?

I think it's good for the system personally.

I just wish it wasn't so expensive for people.

Then don't come to Texas!