From the point where the police separate Rittenhouse from his group to the point where he gets to the Aniak police department what would you say are the key events to the best of your understanding?
Kyle Rittenhouse | Now crowdfunding LOLsuits against Whoopi Goldberg, LeBron James, and The Young Turks
- Thread starter Drainy
- Start date
From the point where the police separate Rittenhouse from his group to the point where he gets to the Aniak police department what would you say are the key events to the best of your understanding?
This is pretty much how it works in a nation where gun ownership is enshrined and ratified in its founding legal document and there are nearly 400m firearms floating about the country.
You're not countering anything, you're answering a question about bail. And his associations with the Proud Boys are not irrelevant here, not at all.
You know rich people typically get set a higher bail than poor people, right? That's because they have more money. The same thing holds for people who get bankrolled. Losing bail money is less of an incentive, so bail will be set higher. If Rittenhouse had no money then the bail amount would be irrelevant. He has access to a lot of money because of the far right, so it has to be taken into account.
Whats your point?
I refer you to my comment that it didn't seem an unreasonable sum to me.
In another state. Residency and its impact of firearms law and the commission of felonies is an important consideration.
- Rittenhouse lying about just searching to be reunited with boogaloo boi Ryan Balch when the video shows him not staying with Balch.
- Rittenhouse not returning to Black's location as they agreed if they got separated.
- Rittenhouse walking around alone knowing his appearance with AR-15 at the ready was provocative ("protect your property, not the streets") and admitting he would only provide medical assistance when he had another militia member to "protect" him (IE he was not going to be handing out any gauze alone).
- Rittenhouse choosing to continue following a group that defense argues already had confrontations with Rittenhouse's private armed militia cohort when he could have simply turned around.
- Rittenhouse choosing to run after the group instead of abandoning his pursuit (or just rephrase that in your mind if you don't like that word but its proven on video that Rittenhouse ran after them).
- Rittenhouse's threatening demeanor with the AR-15 where he may or may not have pointed it at individuals (this is not proven 100% either way). If he didn't point it directly, it was still threatening.
Now, it's certainly possible, even probably in Wisconsin, that the jury will focus solely on the 5 seconds prior and conclude self-defense but the facts absolutely show enough for reckless homicide and reckless endangerment. Now, I can't stay online all day debating this so I'll return another day to reply to anything further you have to say if you are arguing in good faith this time.
My point is that once again what you're doing in this thread, once again completely outside of any legal debate, is very weird.
Closing arguments are Monday. Lets see how similar your summary is to the prosecution's closing. You're missing the confrontation with Yellow Pants Man which will get a lot of play, I reckon.
So when do they find him not guilty and kick off the next round of usa race riots?
Verdict is likely on Tuesday.
Don't think anything remotely dramatic will happen.
Think the McMichaels Trial has the potential to lead to civil unrest
I'm going to be serious for a moment.
@Drainy
Even if it is true that you are a leftie who is just interested in the legal parts of the case you come across as a very dishonest person. That I believe is why people are arguing with you the way they do, or take the piss like I do.
Now I'm not smart enough to pinpoint why you come across like that or what minor changes would change the perception, but the way you post is exactly how I would expect a right winger who is only here to defend Rittenhouse to post. That goes to how you write things and who you decide to answer at what time. These can of course have natural explanations. Trying to argue with a whole forum is insanely tiresome and in a sense you are doing wonderfully in staying on course, I would have expected a right winger to break a long time ago with posting some nonsense that right wingers usually spout when they get frustrated.
Since I started coming into this thread the case has held minimum interest to me, I've not looked into it much beyond highlights. What has really been captivating is looking at how you are defending Rittenhouse at almost every turn while claiming objectivity.
@Drainy
Even if it is true that you are a leftie who is just interested in the legal parts of the case you come across as a very dishonest person. That I believe is why people are arguing with you the way they do, or take the piss like I do.
Now I'm not smart enough to pinpoint why you come across like that or what minor changes would change the perception, but the way you post is exactly how I would expect a right winger who is only here to defend Rittenhouse to post. That goes to how you write things and who you decide to answer at what time. These can of course have natural explanations. Trying to argue with a whole forum is insanely tiresome and in a sense you are doing wonderfully in staying on course, I would have expected a right winger to break a long time ago with posting some nonsense that right wingers usually spout when they get frustrated.
Since I started coming into this thread the case has held minimum interest to me, I've not looked into it much beyond highlights. What has really been captivating is looking at how you are defending Rittenhouse at almost every turn while claiming objectivity.
Perfectly said.
You skipped a post againwell I did admit to voting for the Tories once.
This is the thing, I cannot fathom how he has all of these stances on the parts of this case, while also being true to all of the things he said in his post about his political leanings etc., it makes very little sense
I'm a civil libertarian - from my perspective he was attacked by someone unprovoked and defended himself with the means he had available in a society where guns are widely available. I have sympathy for Huber and Grosskreutz as a default because I can imagine they were confused, though the latter was told by Rittenhouse he was running to the police, which it may be understandable to not believe him. I have to admit I am biased against Rosenbaum and the reasons for that should be obvious.
He should be assumed innocent and the evidence hasn't moved my needle too much. As I have said, his testimony didn't help him and the last few days have been a clusterfeck for the defence. Not sure if people miss these posts.
There should be a fair trial and the state are acting like dicks at the trial trying to get a conviction at any cost at the expense of truth and justice. Everyone of any political persuasion should be critical when the government act like this. Its Trumpian or Boris Johnson-esque.
From a lot of the testimony it sounds like Rittenhouse was there to try to help, he took his gun for self defence and he was attacked and used it on people who were causing a threat of death or serious injury. It sounds like at least a reasonable claim for self defence. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not see Rittenhouse as a hero but everyone who was shot by Rittenhouse was attacking him that night.
Edit: adding in political compass if anyone cares
Last edited:
That's one way of looking at it. Another is that the things we think are overwhelming evidence that support the conclusion we would like to see, aren't always what jurors see in the end. The OJ Simpson case for instance, would be a prime example of this. Therefore having a more balanced view on mistakes both the prosecution and defense made, is often more informative than simply going by a cherry picked list of carefully curated items we think the jury will definitely consider.
Yeah, but you don't actually believe that, do you? That's what's annoying people here. You talk like all you care about is the trial and the law, but then you say he was almost old enough to carry that weapon, and he just barely crossed state lines, like those are things that shouldn't matter.
Last edited:
As mentioned, I don't really follow the case as much as I'm in here mostly due to my curiosity for Drainy. I think a fair amount of what he posts is good to bring balance to the discussions that are happening, I just found it very hard to believe his general stance on politics with how he has defended Rittenhouse overall, and of course I find small parts of his defense of Rittenhouse joke-worthy.
Part of it I think is good additions to the thread while the whole just became weirdly interesting.
I agree that we tend to overlook things due to our convictions. I certainly do this a lot.
It's hard to actually be nuanced on views where most of us have our own moral compass that is fairly set, and only new angles that genuinely make us question what we already know will make us consider changing our stance.
come onYou switch between being objective and very literal in your interpretation of things to these sound bite remarks quite a bit.
I think it would actually help your arguments at this point if you admitted that, as everyone else in the thread, you're not being objective.
Because objectively speaking, he did cross state lines.
Crossed state lines is a complete red herring with the case for those reasons. Possession is up for debate, the judge has rejected a motion to dismiss, and motion to reconsider but he's opened the door to another motion and verbalised some support for it.
Again, he had spent the week assisting with cleaning up Kenosha after the protests and rioting and that day he bumped into the car lot owners after their first lot was burned down along with all of the cars there. I don't find the owners reliable when they say they didn't ask for help when they were seen with them on the lots, took pictures with them and gave them the keys. Especially when they were so vague and evasive.
Anyway, if people are finding my posts disruptive to the thread feel free to threadban me.
Last edited:
A little OOT.
Haw anyone or you ever been a victim or riot? Where your premises is beint looted en masse right under your nose without being able to do anything?
Haw anyone or you ever been a victim or riot? Where your premises is beint looted en masse right under your nose without being able to do anything?
Verdict or it goes to the jury on Tuesday?
Won’t be much of an uproar if he is acquitted. Can’t say the same for the Arbery murder trial however.
Agreed. The Arbery trial is far more incendiary.
Closing statements on Monday 2.5 hours each. It then goes to the jury.
Given the number of documents I would expect the jury to take some time to find a verdict but naturally people will want to not expand into an extra day so will probably work towards Tuesday for verdicts is my prediction.
You're like half the thread, so that might be boring. I'm not sure the two trial threads should have been combined, though. Since you're more interested in (or have more to say about) the Rittenhouse trial, the Ahmaud Arbery murder trial has gone very much into the background.
I'm a civil libertarian - from my perspective he was attacked by someone unprovoked and defended himself with the means he had available in a society where guns are widely available. I have sympathy for Huber and Grosskreutz as a default because I can imagine they were confused, though the latter was told by Rittenhouse he was running to the police, which it may be understandable to not believe him. I have to admit I am biased against Rosenbaum and the reasons for that should be obvious.
He should be assumed innocent and the evidence hasn't moved my needle too much. As I have said, his testimony didn't help him and the last few days have been a clusterfeck for the defence. Not sure if people miss these posts.
There should be a fair trial and the state are acting like dicks at the trial trying to get a conviction at any cost at the expense of truth and justice. Everyone of any political persuasion should be critical when the government act like this. Its Trumpian or Boris Johnson-esque.
From a lot of the testimony it sounds like Rittenhouse was there to try to help, he took his gun for self defence and he was attacked and used it on people who were causing a threat of death or serious injury. It sounds like at least a reasonable claim for self defence. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not see Rittenhouse as a hero but everyone who was shot by Rittenhouse was attacking him that night.
Edit: adding in political compass if anyone cares
Funny how the political compass is the purity test here on the caf
Give me a break here..
I promise to post less on Rittenhouse to stop ruining the thread. For what its worth I regret that the Rittenhouse stuff has taken over the Arbery murder trial thread.
All imma say is that if I did have a 17 year old son, no way in he would of been allowed to travel to another state with an assault rilfe to help out during a protest. I have zero sympathy for his mother.
I would just separate the threads. I disagree with your perspective of a lot of what has come out from the trial, and the evidence we have (though I think we agree on what the verdict will be), but your posts are useful for giving a different viewpoint from most of the others (and material for the meme thread
)I would imagine it's going to get dicey here in Madison as well. The capitol square is usually a magnet for protests.
We need separate threads for these trials.
For me all this is noise. Watching the footage we have a dick with a gun in a bad situation that’s acting in self defence.
UK...murder.
USA...fecked up but within what you’d expect.
That explains a lot, actually.