Kyle Rittenhouse | Now crowdfunding LOLsuits against Whoopi Goldberg, LeBron James, and The Young Turks

Drainy

Full Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
16,107
Location
Dissin' Your Flygirl
calodo2003 said:
There is an arcane Civil War-era law that allows for armed citizens arrests iirc, circa 1863.

You can imagine why such a law came into existence.
Click to expand...

I'm actually watching the Rittenhouse trial (the defence lawyers are terrible, but the prosecutor is basically showing videos of how self-defense-y it was but running his commentary over it and hoping noone notices), but heard that so far everything is going well for the prosecution on Arbery - no evidence about mental health, criminality or drug use will be admitted.

 
Last edited:
calodo2003 said:
Judge in the Arbery trial seems far more competent & fair than the one in Wisconsin.
Click to expand...

how so? The judge in Rittenhouse has been good from what I've seen. Are you referring to his judgment that the deceased cannot be called 'victims' because that would be prejudicial given that the trial is to determine whether they are victims? Because that is correct. I have seen that the online media has been complaining about that, when if the defence can prove that there was property damage and things sent on fire that the protesters can be referred to as rioters or arsonists - which again is the right call because there is no reason to put a restraint on language if it can be proved.
 
Drainy said:
how so? The judge in Rittenhouse has been good from what I've seen. Are you referring to his judgment that the deceased cannot be called 'victims' because that would be prejudicial given that the trial is to determine whether they are victims? Because that is correct. I have seen that the online media has been complaining about that, when if the defence can prove that there was property damage and things sent on fire that the protesters can be referred to as rioters or arsonists - which again is the right call because there is no reason to put a restraint on language if it can be proved.
Click to expand...
Basically that. Seemed prejudicial to me, but your explanation makes some sense. The two were also victims though, they were the victims of being shot. Wouldn’t restricting language to define them as ‘victims’ be restraining language? Would ‘deceased’ or ‘decedents’ be acceptable?

Obviously I am not a lawyer!
 
calodo2003 said:
Basically that. Seemed prejudicial to me, but your explanation makes some sense. The two were also victims though, they were the victims of being shot. Wouldn’t restricting language to define them as ‘victims’ be restraining language? Would ‘deceased’ or ‘decedents’ be acceptable?

Obviously I am not a lawyer!
Click to expand...

deceased is fine and people have been using that, as well as their names. Defendants have their rights protected in their criminal cases, which will always put some limits on what the prosecutor can do or say. Defendants are given more scope as long its relevant - like the judge in Rittenhouse hadn't allowed criminal records, mental health etc as well, but the prosecutor may have let the door open to discussion of some of it now because he referred to some of it in his opening statement to make him more sympathetic, give a reasoning for him being there and less of a threat.

Edit: the first deceased- for example he was not able to stay at his girlfriend's house because she had a restraining order, and was carrying a bag of his clothes because he was discharged from a mental hospital that day.

I'd ignore what a lot of online sources are saying on this one. I hadn't known that the police were thanking Rittenhouse at the start of the night when he was providing medial assistance and handing out water, rather than the end until this trial. In actuality, when Rittenhouse got to the police to turn himself in the police they told him to back up and tried to pepperspray him.
 
Drainy said:
deceased is fine and people have been using that, as well as their names. Defendants have their rights protected in their criminal cases, which will always put some limits on what the prosecutor can do or say. Defendants are given more scope as long its relevant - like the judge in Rittenhouse hadn't allowed criminal records, mental health etc as well, but the prosecutor may have let the door open to discussion of some of it now because he referred to some of it in his opening statement to make him more sympathetic, give a reasoning for him being there and less of a threat.

Edit: the first deceased- for example he was not able to stay at his girlfriend's house because she had a restraining order, and was carrying a bag of his clothes because he was discharged from a mental hospital that day.

I'd ignore what a lot of online sources are saying on this one. I hadn't known that the police were thanking Rittenhouse at the start of the night when he was providing medial assistance and handing out water, rather than the end until this trial. In actuality, when Rittenhouse got to the police to turn himself in the police they told him to back up and tried to pepperspray him.
Click to expand...
What medical assistance was Rittenhouse providing?
 
Drainy said:
deceased is fine and people have been using that, as well as their names. Defendants have their rights protected in their criminal cases, which will always put some limits on what the prosecutor can do or say. Defendants are given more scope as long its relevant - like the judge in Rittenhouse hadn't allowed criminal records, mental health etc as well, but the prosecutor may have let the door open to discussion of some of it now because he referred to some of it in his opening statement to make him more sympathetic, give a reasoning for him being there and less of a threat.

Edit: the first deceased- for example he was not able to stay at his girlfriend's house because she had a restraining order, and was carrying a bag of his clothes because he was discharged from a mental hospital that day.

I'd ignore what a lot of online sources are saying on this one. I hadn't known that the police were thanking Rittenhouse at the start of the night when he was providing medial assistance and handing out water, rather than the end until this trial. In actuality, when Rittenhouse got to the police to turn himself in the police they told him to back up and tried to pepperspray him.
Click to expand...
With the cops doing a bad job thread in mind I'd say that's quite fair seeing as he just murdered 2 people with an assault rifle.
 
calodo2003 said:
What medical assistance was Rittenhouse providing?
Click to expand...

Last post on Rittenhouse in this thread, possibly on the caf about it since people are not open to hearing beyond the narrative.

According to the video, he was apparently a certified medic from his job as a life guard and was walking around with a first aid kit yelling asking if anyone needs a medic. There was someone who was shot by a rubber bullet, he looked at it and the guy then said it wasn't too bad so he continued. Presumably he had the usual first aid supplies.

FYI that the first eyeball witness of the only 'murder' not caught on camera has testified that he saw the first 'victim' lunge for Rittenhouse's gun. So the prosecutor will likely have to rely on him being an 'instigator', but the police officer who testified said a few hours ago that there was only one chase, which was the first deceased chasing the defendant and was contradicting the prosecutors narrative in the opening statement.
 
Drainy said:
Last post on Rittenhouse in this thread, possibly on the caf about it since people are not open to hearing beyond the narrative.

According to the video, he was apparently a certified medic from his job as a life guard and was walking around with a first aid kit yelling asking if anyone needs a medic. There was someone who was shot by a rubber bullet, he looked at it and the guy then said it wasn't too bad so he continued. Presumably he had the usual first aid supplies.

FYI that the first eyeball witness of the only 'murder' not caught on camera has testified that he saw the first 'victim' lunge for Rittenhouse's gun. So the prosecutor will likely have to rely on him being an 'instigator', but the police officer who testified said a few hours ago that there was only one chase, which was the first deceased chasing the defendant and was contradicting the prosecutors narrative in the opening statement.
Click to expand...
Gotcha.
 
Should cases like these even be decided by juries?
No matter how you cut it, significant number of jurors are racist. When you need a unanimous verdict for conviction, how is it possible?
 
Drainy said:
Last post on Rittenhouse in this thread, possibly on the caf about it since people are not open to hearing beyond the narrative.

According to the video, he was apparently a certified medic from his job as a life guard and was walking around with a first aid kit yelling asking if anyone needs a medic. There was someone who was shot by a rubber bullet, he looked at it and the guy then said it wasn't too bad so he continued. Presumably he had the usual first aid supplies.

FYI that the first eyeball witness of the only 'murder' not caught on camera has testified that he saw the first 'victim' lunge for Rittenhouse's gun. So the prosecutor will likely have to rely on him being an 'instigator', but the police officer who testified said a few hours ago that there was only one chase, which was the first deceased chasing the defendant and was contradicting the prosecutors narrative in the opening statement.
Click to expand...

Technically you could argue that it was self-defense on all counts. Problem is that it was with an assault rifle he wasn't legally allowed to carry. The guy who was shot in the arm had a glock pointed at rittenhouse head a splitsecond before he was shot in the arm. Thing is you can't asked the deceased whether they tried to take his rifle to use it against him or just disarm him. I don't how the law works in that state. The fact that he was carrying illegally works against him, but I would be surprised if he's convicted of 2 murders.
 
Adisa said:
Should cases like these even be decided by juries?
No matter how you cut it, significant number of jurors are racist. When you need a unanimous verdict for conviction, how is it possible?
Click to expand...
It does seem a bit difficult, especially these days.
 
Gehrman said:
Technically you could argue that it was self-defense on all counts. Problem is that it was with an assault rifle he wasn't legally allowed to carry. The guy who was shot in the arm had a glock pointed at rittenhouse head a splitsecond before he was shot in the arm. Thing is you can't asked the deceased whether they tried to take his rifle to use it against him or just disarm him. I don't how the law works in that state. The fact that he was carrying illegally works against him, but I would be surprised if he's convicted of 2 murders.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll respond since the thread has been updated - there is currently an outstanding motion to dismiss on the illegal possession charge that the judge is yet to rule on as the defence believe that there is an exemption for possession of a long barrel rifle for 16/17 year olds and there is vagueness in the law. No idea if it will go through, but my understanding of the law is the illegality of the possession is irrelevant for self defence.

From what I understand, the thoughts of the deceased are irrelevant to the verdict, only what was in Kyle Rittenhouse's mind at the time of shooting. If he believed he was in danger of death or serious harm and was not the one who instigated the fight then he will have a self defence claim.

Since my last post its only gotten worse for the prosecutor since one of their witnesses has testified that the first person shot said 'if I get you guys alone I'll fecking kill you' before the firing incident (think about an hour before) and had been acting aggressively throughout the night to them and other protesters, and as I have mentioned, the eyeball witness said he went for the gun after catching him in a corner and the police surveillance expert said that Rittenhouse was being chased on the FBI footage. Can only be made worse if the defence are allowed to ask why Rosenbaum was unable to stay at his girlfriend's house and slip in that he'd left a mental hospital that day really. The prosecutor has had to discredit 2 of his own witnesses to try and minimise the damage it was so bad for him.

We'll have to see what other evidence there is though before judging the outcome. I think Rittenhouse is going to testify so high chance he will say something stupid.
 
Drainy said:
Ok, I'll respond since the thread has been updated - there is currently an outstanding motion to dismiss on the illegal possession charge that the judge is yet to rule on as the defence believe that there is an exemption for possession of a long barrel rifle for 16/17 year olds and there is vagueness in the law. No idea if it will go through, but my understanding of the law is the illegality of the possession is irrelevant for self defence.

From what I understand, the thoughts of the deceased are irrelevant to the verdict, only what was in Kyle Rittenhouse's mind at the time of shooting. If he believed he was in danger of death or serious harm and was not the one who instigated the fight then he will have a self defence claim.

Since my last post its only gotten worse for the prosecutor since one of their witnesses has testified that the first person shot said 'if I get you guys alone I'll fecking kill you' before the firing incident (think about an hour before) and had been acting aggressively throughout the night to them and other protesters, and as I have mentioned, the eyeball witness said he went for the gun after catching him in a corner and the police surveillance expert said that Rittenhouse was being chased on the FBI footage. Can only be made worse if the defence are allowed to ask why Rosenbaum was unable to stay at his girlfriend's house and slip in that he'd left a mental hospital that day really. The prosecutor has had to discredit 2 of his own witnesses to try and minimise the damage it was so bad for him.

We'll have to see what other evidence there is though before judging the outcome. I think Rittenhouse is going to testify so high chance he will say something stupid.
Click to expand...
Is the prosecutor poor or did he get blindsided by his witnesses?
 
IRT future AB member Kyle, was there past comments of him carrying a firearm across state borders that may have been illegal? Was that ever deemed permissible?
 
calodo2003 said:
Is the prosecutor poor or did he get blindsided by his witnesses?
Click to expand...

The prosecutor has been good from a stylistic perspective. The witnesses have just been honest, and the facts are poor for them.

Even the DNA expert today has added nothing positive, admitting that they don't have any evidence of DNA from Hubert in spite of the video showing he grabbed the gun. It was an odd inclusion since there is no doubt about DNA from Rittenhouse so could only harm them those.

Prosecution are looking rattled today, that being said.
 
MrMarcello said:
IRT future AB member Kyle, was there past comments of him carrying a firearm across state borders that may have been illegal? Was that ever deemed permissible?
Click to expand...

Yes, I would like to know the ins and outs of this as well.
 
The most baffling visual of all is still the little murdering cnut walking towards the coppers with a fecking cannon on his back and they just pass him by. Ah no worries lads he's one of us.
 
KirkDuyt said:
The most baffling visual of all is still the little murdering cnut walking towards the coppers with a fecking cannon on his back and they just pass him by. Ah no worries lads he's one of us.
Click to expand...

When's the last time you saw the video? Its been shown at the trial within context
 
Damien said:
There was this thinking with the Floyd murder but Chauvin was convicted.

From everything Drainy has said, I'll be surprised if Rittenhouse doesn't walk on the murder charges.

It'll be beyond disgraceful if Arbery's killers walk free too. As far as I'm aware everything about that case was released at the time with the video of the chase and killing, McMichael's phone call etc. There's absolutely no justification for what they did.





Click to expand...

Painful.
 
KirkDuyt said:
What was the context then.
Click to expand...

Day 1 testimony

He was running towards the police barricade with his hands up and as he approached the car they wound down the window to tell him to back up and attempted to pepper spray him. They weren't friendly to him or high fiving him, but clearly weren't interested in what he wanted to say or aware of what had happened.

He then met up with his 19yo friend who was there with him, they went home, he then turned himself in at his local police station less than 1 and a half hours later.
 
Drainy said:
Day 1 testimony

He was running towards the police barricade with his hands up and as he approached the car they wound down the window to tell him to back up and attempted to pepper spray him. They weren't friendly to him or high fiving him, but clearly weren't interested in what he wanted to say or aware of what had happened.

He then met up with his 19yo friend who was there with him, they went home, he then turned himself in at his local police station less than 1 and a half hours later.
Click to expand...
OK fine they weren't friendly to him, but, and I actually think I responded like this before, for American cops trying to peppers pray someone who just murdered 2 people with an assault rifle is pretty mellow. I mean, people have been shot in the back 7 times for less.

Still, I think Kyle's parents are the ones that should stand trial as well. Bang up fecking job they did.
 
KirkDuyt said:
OK fine they weren't friendly to him, but, and I actually think I responded like this before, for American cops trying to peppers pray someone who just murdered 2 people with an assault rifle is pretty mellow. I mean, people have been shot in the back 7 times for less.
Click to expand...

They wouldn't have known he had killed 2 people and he was approaching with the gun saddled on his back with his hands up. You should actually listen to the evidence before calling it murder, btw. There is serious evidence for self defence from all of the witnesses so far (apart from 1 witness that had no personal knowledge of that night who was a family member where they had to hurry her off because the prosecutor was 1 step away from opening up one of the deceased's history of holding a knife to his brothers throat and then stomach and threatening to gut him like a pig, and to burn the house down).
 
Drainy said:
They wouldn't have known he had killed 2 people and he was approaching with the gun saddled on his back with his hands up. You should actually listen to the evidence before calling it murder, btw. There is serious evidence for self defence from all of the witnesses so far (apart from 1 witness that had no personal knowledge of that night who was a family member where they had to hurry her off because the prosecutor was 1 step away from opening up one of the deceased's history of holding a knife to his brothers throat and then stomach and threatening to gut him like a pig, and to burn the house down).
Click to expand...

Why the kid thought he was gonna get murdered? How many people got murdered that night?

His own paranoia shouldn't count as evidence for self defence. Plus, he should have never been there armed in the first place, legally speaking.
 
George Owen said:
Why the kid thought he was gonna get murdered? How many people got murdered that night?

His own paranoia shouldn't count as evidence for self defence. Plus, he should have never been there armed in the first place, legally speaking.
Click to expand...

have you watched the FBI drone video or listened to the eye witness testimony?
 
The rioters were acting in self defence against an easily identified armed MAGA terrorist.
 
George Owen said:
No.

I just want to know, how many people got murdered that night?
Click to expand...

how many people were chased down and cornered after attempting to flee from a man who threatened to kill them if they got them on their own and then lunged for his gun?

Thats what the witness testimony and FBI tape along with police testimony said happened with Rosenbaum

Edit: forgot to mention - the lunge was less than 3 seconds after someone behind Rittenhouse fired a gun
 
Drainy said:
That would be an argument for their self defence claims if they had killed him.
Click to expand...

You don't need to kill someone to defend yourself, only incapacitate them, which they tried to do. Instead, an armed MAGA terrorist shot and killed them with an AR-15.
 
Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
You don't need to kill someone to defend yourself, only incapacitate them, which they tried to do. Instead, an armed MAGA terrorist shot and killed them with an AR-15.
Click to expand...

Could a skateboard to the head kill someone? Could a dropkick to the face while someone is on the ground kill someone?

I'm not going to defend the stupid decision to appear with PB members as a source of money for his legal defence, but all the testimony so far has been that he went to Kenosha to:

Assist with cleaning graffiti during the day
Provide medical assistance
Put out fires
Act as a deterrent against property damage

There is one guy on video who says that Rittenhouse pointed his gun at him (yellow pants man), but he won't testify so that is hearsay. Until Rosenbaum hid behind a car, chased him into a corner and 3 seconds after a protester shot his gun lunged for Rittenhouse's gun while screaming 'feck YOU!!!' he hadn't even been aggressive to anyone and people have testified that he was placid and friendly to everyone including BLM protesters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.