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

Peter van der Gea said:
He literally described the gun his sister's boyfriend was holding for him. He went to Kenosha and killed people with said gun. Yeah, I reckon he would. It's called ideation.

And did you want to answer point 3.? What would it be like to be called a "mother fecking white supremacist cum bucket" all day? Would you keep your temper? Or do you think he was doing the Steve Bannon thing of owning your racism?

Would you shoot him once, or 4 times?

Aren't you British?

So, for hunting game, right. Not for defending yourself when you decide to join a militia??

He's not.

Yeah, but people who didn't want protecting needed protecting. He should have worn his pants on the outside.

So, surely you can see how that behaviour is provocative?
Click to expand...

I am British but the winsconsin judge was talking about it.

Even the prosecution is not claiming merely being there walking or running around dressed as he did was enough to provoke an assault, which is why they have done the song and dance to get flimsy evidence in about pointing a gun at Ziminski. Krause started saying it whilst under panic and got chastised by the judge because its a non-argument.

The video is propensity evidence and its a correct ruling to exclude. The facts of the case are not similar.
People state threats against others rhetorically all the time, particularly against alleged criminals. It strains credulity to act like Rittenhouse put himself into the situation to try and get away with murder against protesters which he planned earlier from watching looters and making stupid comments. Again, this is in line with the rulings on other parties and the rules are a lot more strict for a defendant since they are presumed innocent and prejudicial evidence has to be vetted heavily to ensure a fair trial for the crimes they are charged with. Everyone should want a fair trial and for the outcome to reflect the facts.

Anyway this is starting to bore me now.
 
Drainy said:
I am British but the winsconsin judge was talking about it.

Even the prosecution is not claiming merely being there walking or running around dressed as he did was enough to provoke an assault, which is why they have done the song and dance to get flimsy evidence in about pointing a gun at Ziminski. Krause started saying it whilst under panic and got chastised by the judge because its a non-argument.

The video is propensity evidence and its a correct ruling to exclude. The facts of the case are not similar.
People state threats against others rhetorically all the time, particularly against alleged criminals. It strains credulity to act like Rittenhouse put himself into the situation to try and get away with murder against protesters which he planned earlier from watching looters and making stupid comments. Again, this is in line with the rulings on other parties and the rules are a lot more strict for a defendant since they are presumed innocent and prejudicial evidence has to be vetted heavily to ensure a fair trial for the crimes they are charged with. Everyone should want a fair trial and for the outcome to reflect the facts.

Anyway this is starting to bore me now.
Click to expand...
1. You're a British man and you were arguing with a Yank, the only knowledge you have in this stuff is what you've seen on TV, as opposed to the gentlemen earlier who live in the fricking country!

2. Of course he can't, because at least two of the people who were provoked are dead. His dress, his look, that's all objective, his behaviour, however...

3. he literally crossed state lines to put himself in that situation.

4. Nobody's said "planned", especially saying the 'looters' comment was a preplanned exclamation of "plans", but it does show what one of his earliest plans of action would be: gunning them down.

5. You never answered, what would it be like to be called a "mother fecking white supremacist cum bucket" all day? Would you keep your temper? I'm assuming you wouldn't like it, how would he feel?

6. It's weird, people often seem "bored" when they can't answer the questions put to them. I wonder why that is
 
Peter van der Gea said:
1. You're a British man and you were arguing with a Yank, the only knowledge you have in this stuff is what you've seen on TV, as opposed to the gentlemen earlier who live in the fricking country!

2. Of course he can't, because at least two of the people who were provoked are dead. His dress, his look, that's all objective, his behaviour, however...

3. he literally crossed state lines to put himself in that situation.

4. Nobody's said "planned", especially saying the 'looters' comment was a preplanned exclamation of "plans", but it does show what one of his earliest plans of action would be: gunning them down.

5. You never answered, what would it be like to be called a "mother fecking white supremacist cum bucket" all day? Would you keep your temper? I'm assuming you wouldn't like it, how would he feel?

6. It's weird, people often seem "bored" when they can't answer the questions put to them. I wonder why that is
Click to expand...
1)gun laws generally are state legislation and vary between states and he was arguing with what the judge was saying about the specific statute in at specific state
2) there is a witness who could testify directly to the events and is currently subpoenaed but the prosecution won't bring him in
3)it was his community. He worked there his dad lives there, his friends live there. You're buying into the prosecution narrative. He lived on a city that is on the border and he travelled to Kenosha every day. He'd been there cleaning up every day that week, that night was different because of the burning down of the car lots. The story of why they were helping that business is in controversy at the trial but you can judge for yourself if they were asked to help or not. I wouldn't have been there but he had the same right to be there as anyone else.
4) lots of people have said that. One particular narrative was that he went there to shoot African Americans. What he said contradicts how he acted on the night of the shootings indicating that it was a hyperbolic expression of his attitude towards those looters. Again there is a difference between a looter and a protester. Looters are taking advantage of the chaos for personal gain, protesters (even if they begin rioting) are at least doing it for selfless reasons and it's a free speech activity, though personally I would prefer not to see property damage - I appreciate its a debate about what effective protest is that I should try not to be judgmental about.
5) I am not Rittenhouse and my temperament is different to his. I can only judge his actions that night based on video and testimony and give appropriate weight based on my perception of the credibility of it. The assertion that he was pleasant and there to help is only countered by hearsay and testimony by an incompetent cop who uses his iPhone to pinch and zoom before going on the record at a murder trial. Some of the people saying Rittenhouse was behaving well are dodgy to say the least but the video supports character elements of the record. They could get yellow pants man and Ziminski to try to contradict that but they haven't unsurprisingly.
6) I have been ill with the super cold for almost 2 weeks and am suffering with fatigue. Have you ever been in a thread where you expressed an unpopular opinion? You get a lot of responses, some good points well made disagreements, some snarky, some rude, some attacks, some utterly stupid and completely wrong on the facts and it's easy to get drawn in and post sloppily in haste and in a heated moment, not from the subject you are discussing but from the arguments, which people pick apart and then you have to defend yourself. It's been going on for around 2 weeks now and I am tired and bored of it. Any reasonable person can see that I've set out my position more than enough.
 
Tuned off the Rittenhouse case when I saw the behaviour of the judge.
On the contrary, very interested in the Arbrey case. Feckers cannot legalise lynching.
 
Peter van der Gea said:
1. You're a British man and you were arguing with a Yank, the only knowledge you have in this stuff is what you've seen on TV, as opposed to the gentlemen earlier who live in the fricking country!

2. Of course he can't, because at least two of the people who were provoked are dead. His dress, his look, that's all objective, his behaviour, however...

3. he literally crossed state lines to put himself in that situation.

4. Nobody's said "planned", especially saying the 'looters' comment was a preplanned exclamation of "plans", but it does show what one of his earliest plans of action would be: gunning them down.

5. You never answered, what would it be like to be called a "mother fecking white supremacist cum bucket" all day? Would you keep your temper? I'm assuming you wouldn't like it, how would he feel?

6. It's weird, people often seem "bored" when they can't answer the questions put to them. I wonder why that is
Click to expand...

What relevance does it have about how @Drainy would feel about being called a mother fecking white supremacist cum bucket all day?
 
Last edited:
Gehrman said:
What relevance does it have about how @Drainy would feel about being called a mother fecking white supremacist cum bucket all say?
Click to expand...

I have a severe dislike for authority and am very often critical of police and people in power who should be using their positions for the good of everyone and be open to scrutiny and get rid of the bad ones.

That said, I'm well aware that I don't have the temperament to be a police officer. From what I have heard Rittenhouse was a cadet looking to join the police.

I do find a beautiful irony that the machine that he wanted to join is now responsible for the Kafka-esque nightmare he's living. Especially true if he was literally there just to help his community as everyone is saying.
 
Adisa said:
Tuned off the Rittenhouse case when I saw the behaviour of the judge.
On the contrary, very interested in the Arbrey case. Feckers cannot legalise lynching.
Click to expand...

Man I hope not (regarding Arbrey). You really never know these days. You would hope for the right outcome of the trial (I will not say the word justice because nothing that can happen to them will ever constitute justice)
 
Peter van der Gea said:
But would just put them out or would you need to know they're dead?
Click to expand...
When a threat is coming towards you mostly what your thinking about or what you should be thinking about is , is my life in danger, you fire your weapon until they threat is over. The person either stopped due to fear of the gun shots, wounded and no longer threatening or dead

When all of this is happening you just shoot. You never really have time to say ok let me aim for his pinky and see if he will stop. You just shoot . Bear in mind this is done because you are truly and utterly fearful and currently in fight or flight mode . Adrenaline is pumping through your body and you are scared shitless and in your mind you have no other choice but to stop the threat. You're not counting bullets or aiming for non life threatening areas of the body. You are in a position where you reasonable feel you are about to die or seriously be injured.

I wouldn't need to know someone is dead on the end I just need to know they aren't coming towards me threatening my life. Can't just shoot someone coming to harm you , see they have stopped threatening and then proceed to murder them after they stopped. That's definitely homicide. You can't shoot at someone running away that is homicide. But if they are coming towards you , honestly you don't care if you are putting them down or ending their life. Law doesn't require that for self defense. You merely need to end the threat.
 
Drainy said:
I have a severe dislike for authority and am very often critical of police and people in power who should be using their positions for the good of everyone and be open to scrutiny and get rid of the bad ones.

That said, I'm well aware that I don't have the temperament to be a police officer. From what I have heard Rittenhouse was a cadet looking to join the police.

I do find a beautiful irony that the machine that he wanted to join is now responsible for the Kafka-esque nightmare he's living. Especially true if he was literally there just to help his community as everyone is saying.
Click to expand...
Wasn't he from another town?
 
Frasbul said:
As I didn't follow the Rittenhouse trial at all: Is it likely that he will be found guilty?
Click to expand...

Crapshoot at this point. I think there is definitely reasonable doubt, but a jury may decide to split the baby and negotiate verdicts. The illegal possession charge might get thrown out by the judge, but if it goes to the jury as planned it will be the only obvious guilty verdict.
 
Gehrman said:
I doubt it
Click to expand...

The last two to three days really opened the door to some bullshit. Anything is possible at this point.

The constitutional breach is open - there was a media interview where Rittenhouse only said 'if I didn't have my gun that night I would be dead' in respect of the incident and the state are arguing that that is opening the door to him waiving his 5th amendment rights. Somewhere his previous lawyer is puckering his arsehole and checking his negligence insurance on that decision.

The breach of protocol is open - between both there is an open motion for mistrial with prejudice - I don't think the judge will grant it may result in valid claim for retrial if he is convicted.

The jury instructions on provocation might lead to some jury members being swayed because they see what they want to see, even though the evidence to include that is frankly pathetic.

Even if he is convicted there is no doubt this will rumble on and an appeal will be filed, though Rittenhouse will be appealing from prison.
 
Drainy said:
The last two to three days really opened the door to some bullshit. Anything is possible at this point.

The constitutional breach is open - there was a media interview where Rittenhouse only said 'if I didn't have my gun that night I would be dead' in respect of the incident and the state are arguing that that is opening the door to him waiving his 5th amendment rights. Somewhere his previous lawyer is puckering his arsehole and checking his negligence insurance on that decision.

The breach of protocol is open - between both there is an open motion for mistrial with prejudice - I don't think the judge will grant it may result in valid claim for retrial if he is convicted.

The jury instructions on provocation might lead to some jury members being swayed because they see what they want to see, even though the evidence to include that is frankly pathetic.

Even if he is convicted there is no doubt this will rumble on and an appeal will be filed, though Rittenhouse will be appealing from prison.
Click to expand...

You obviously know the law better than i do, but it all incidents were almost clearly caught on camera. I can't see any other verdict than self defense.
 
NotThatSoph said:
Are you saying that the court was in the wrong legally when the bond was set?
Click to expand...

I don't have an opinion on that. I haven't seen any evidence either way on what a usual bond would be for this type of case.

Given that 2 people are dead, whether justified or not, I would imagine it would be high, but that is plucked out of intuition rather than anything concrete.

I think the crossed state lines thing is pretty bullshit though. He lived around 20 miles away. Its like someone from Warrington having an affinity with Manchester with their parent they don't reside with living there (so living there when its their time for custody), their friends being there, their job and out of school activities being there etc. so they spends a lot of time there.
 
Drainy said:
I don't have an opinion on that. I haven't seen any evidence either way on what a usual bond would be for this type of case.

Given that 2 people are dead, whether justified or not, I would imagine it would be high, but that is plucked out of intuition rather than anything concrete.

I think the crossed state lines thing is pretty bullshit though. He lived around 20 miles away. Its like someone from Warrington having an affinity with Manchester with their parent they don't reside with living there (so living there when its their time for custody), their friends being there, their job and out of school activities being there etc. so they spends a lot of time there.
Click to expand...

So if you don't know, what did you mean by "HE CROSSED STATE LINES!"? It sounds slightly sarcastic, which would be weird if you thought the bail was set correctly. It was, after all, a direct reply to someone asking why the bail was set at 2 mil.
 
Gehrman said:
You obviously know the law better than i do, but it all incidents were almost clearly caught on camera. I can't see any other verdict than self defense.
Click to expand...

from what I gather, if the jury decide he provoked the incident he loses self defence against Rosenbaum.

The state's version of events are:

-he pointed a gun a Ziminski - evidence being a ultra zoomed photo noone can tell what is happening on, but a cop testified thats what he sees

-Rosenbaum saw this and chased him offto save Ziminski - in spite of the shouts of 'friendly friendly friendly' and the prior comments between Rosenbaum and Ziminski of 'lets get him' before Rosenbaum hid behind a car to lie in waiting for an ambush

Obviously to anyone reading that it might seem to strain credulity, but if the jury already came in with a perception of the events they may be swayed - especially given how poor the lead attorney for the defence will be on closing arguments to point out this.
 
NotThatSoph said:
So if you don't know, what did you mean by "HE CROSSED STATE LINES!"? It sounds slightly sarcastic, which would be weird if you thought the bail was set correctly. It was, after all, a direct reply to someone asking why the bail was set at 2 mil.
Click to expand...

Its a joke. The poster asked why was it set so high, and he isn't flight risk.

The answer I gave was joking that it was because he crossed state lines because its something people have been saying about the case over and over that is essentially meaningless but makes it sound worse than what it is.

Sorry you didn't find it funny.
 
Drainy said:
Its a joke. The poster asked why was it set so high, and he isn't flight risk.

The answer I gave was joking that it was because he crossed state lines because its something people have been saying about the case over and over that is essentially meaningless but makes it sound worse than what it is.

Sorry you didn't find it funny.
Click to expand...

It was also brought up when bail was set, because his lawyers tried to avoid having him extradited. Something they could only try because, you know, he crossed state lines.
 
From the outside looking at this case I can't see a single aspect, from either side and regardless of verdict, that casts a positive light on the US or your justice system.

A 17 year old, taking it upon himself to patrol a protest/riot armed with an AR15, I mean come on, what sort of batshit country are you guys living in?

If, as I think will happen, he's found not guilty, it's surely handing the likes of the proud boys, and all the other special forces cosplayers running around, a play book to finally fire their guns at something other than beer bottles.

Attend protest - incite your opposition - "defend" yourself
 
NotThatSoph said:
It was also brought up when bail was set, because his lawyers tried to avoid having him extradited. Something they could only try because, you know, he crossed state lines.
Click to expand...

Yes, Wisconsin doesn't have jurisdiction in Illinois so if the state believed he would not attend when mandated he would require extradition.

That is a technical reality that is different from the lived experiences of people on that border who 'cross state lines' multiple times a day because its the same country.
The only time he took the gun across the border was when he turned himself in to his local police department. Its something that is being said by people in bad faith to create the narrative that he came looking for trouble and had no ties to Kenosha and you are smart enough to know that.
 
Drainy said:
Yes, Wisconsin doesn't have jurisdiction in Illinois so if the state believed he would not attend when mandated he would require extradition.

That is a technical reality that is different from the lived experiences of people on that border who 'cross state lines' multiple times a day because its the same country.
The only time he took the gun across the border was when he turned himself in to his local police department. Its something that is being said by people in bad faith to create the narrative that he came looking for trouble and had no ties to Kenosha and you are smart enough to know that.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about the gun. I'm taking about the fact that Rittenhouse tried to get out of the trial by using the fact that he lives in another state. If he was trying to use the fact that he crossed state lines to avoid showing up for trial, then surely that demonstrates perfectly that "HE CROSSED STATE LINES" is very relevant for his bail and that he is indeed a flight risk.
 
NotThatSoph said:
I'm not talking about the gun. I'm taking about the fact that Rittenhouse tried to get out of the trial by using the fact that he lives in another state. If he was trying to use the fact that he crossed state lines to avoid showing up for trial, then surely that demonstrates perfectly that "HE CROSSED STATE LINES" is very relevant for his bail and that he is indeed a flight risk.
Click to expand...

ok

will you accept that most people are using 'he crossed state lines' as framing device to create a narrative?
 
Eyepopper said:
From the outside looking at this case I can't see a single aspect, from either side and regardless of verdict, that casts a positive light on the US or your justice system.

A 17 year old, taking it upon himself to patrol a protest/riot armed with an AR15, I mean come on, what sort of batshit country are you guys living in?

If, as I think will happen, he's found not guilty, it's surely handing the likes of the proud boys, and all the other special forces cosplayers running around, a play book to finally fire their guns at something other than beer bottles.

Attend protest - incite your opposition - "defend" yourself
Click to expand...

‘Murica
 
Drainy said:
ok

will you accept that most people are using 'he crossed state lines' as framing device to create a narrative?
Click to expand...

You were the one who brought it up out of nothing regarding his bail, to create a narrative I guess. I don't care what other people do. If you want to create a pro Rittenhouse narrative because you feel other people are doing it the other way then that's on you.

To keep it about the bail, the fact that he's an obvious flight risk would be a pretty important factor. Another being that he's bankrolled by fascists. Cash bail is supposed to be a thing because it incentivices people to not flee, because if they flee they lose their money. Rittenhouse won't lose any money because he hasn't paid any of his own.
 
Drainy said:
Even the prosecution is not claiming merely being there walking or running around dressed as he did was enough to provoke an assault, which is why they have done the song and dance to get flimsy evidence in about pointing a gun at Ziminski. Krause started saying it whilst under panic and got chastised by the judge because its a non-argument.
Click to expand...

Actually, the prosecution did establish that his mere presence dressed as he was with AR-15 at the ready was threatening and provocative. They showed the video where Rittenhouse was right there when a protestor was shouting in the face of the armed militia members repeating "protect your property, not the streets." This was to establish grounds that any reasonable person would have realized how their presence holding AR-15 at the ready would be threatening and/or provocative to that crowd of protesters. Then, the prosecutor returns to this theme multiple times during questioning of Rittenhouse with variations on "because you knew your presence would be threatening to the protesters, yes?"

This was also relevant because it was proven that Rittenhouse lied about being an EMT and admitted he would only provide medical care if someone was there to protect him because he wouldn't remove the AR-15 from the ready position unless another of the militia was with him. It also defies common sense for anyone to think Rittenhouse, obsessed with holding his AR-15 at ready with his finger right next to the trigger would not appear provocative to that emotionally charged crowd of protesters.
 
NotThatSoph said:
You were the one who brought it up out of nothing regarding his bail, to create a narrative I guess. I don't care what other people do. If you want to create a pro Rittenhouse narrative because you feel other people are doing it the other way then that's on you.

To keep it about the bail, the fact that he's an obvious flight risk would be a pretty important factor. Another being that he's bankrolled by fascists. Cash bail is supposed to be a thing because it incentivices people to not flee, because if they flee they lose their money. Rittenhouse won't lose any money because he hasn't paid any of his own.
Click to expand...

No its countering a false narrative about his lack of ties to the community by attempting to use humour.

Crowd sourcing is a very common way of raising legal fees these days. Its particularly effective when people believe someone has been wronged and given that the video was all released within 24 hours and show him being chased and attacked a lot of people will want him to have an effective legal team.

I condemn his association with the Proud Boys, but that is irrelevant to the facts of his legal case. Its not a left right thing to me and I think people don't get that.

I condemn Shamima Begum's association with ISIS I believe she and her children should be allowed to return to the UK to face a fair trial for any crimes she can be proven to have committed or let go.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
Actually, the prosecution did establish that his mere presence dressed as he was with AR-15 at the ready was threatening and provocative. They showed the video where Rittenhouse was right there when a protestor was shouting in the face of the armed militia members repeating "protect your property, not the streets."
Click to expand...
You mean when he is wheeling a dumpster from the middle of the road back to the property where it belongs? Very provocative
 
Frasbul said:
As I didn't follow the Rittenhouse trial at all: Is it likely that he will be found guilty?
Click to expand...

Depends. First, people need to know this isn't just a murder or and only or self-defense acquittal.

Rittenhouse is also being charged with reckless homicide and reckless endangerment. He could absolutely be acquitted on self-defense of the heaviest charges but then be found guilty of one of the reckless charges.

It's tough to tell because you never know where the jury's biases lie. IMO, the prosecution absolutely did enough (despite some errors) to prove reckless homicide and reckless endangerment but you never know since one jury member already had to be kicked off for telling an inappropriate joke that showed a massive right-wing bias.
 
Drainy said:
You mean when he is wheeling a dumpster from the middle of the road back to the property where it belongs? Very provocative
Click to expand...

If you want to ignore the full context of the questioning of Rittenhouse to cherry-pick and spin a biased narrative here, that's on you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.