You’re fecking mental mate if you think any of what he did is excusable.
Kyle Rittenhouse | Now crowdfunding LOLsuits against Whoopi Goldberg, LeBron James, and The Young Turks
- Thread starter Drainy
- Start date
I'm watching the trial and willing to listen to the evidence. Mental
Listen, if think traveling to another state with an AR-15 to protect property that is not your own and associate with white supremacists is abnormal I think you are the problem. Poor Kyle had no choice but to do these things because that is what hero's do. They go to far away places and kill locals with assault rifles in the name of protecting
His family on his dad's side are from Kenosha, and his Mum's house is a 10 minute drive away across the border in Illinois.
The group he was with don't appear to have been a militia or have any white supremacist tendencies *from current evidence* and from the current testimony being given right this second they were defending a minority owned business.
And?
You seem to think the concept of vigilante action is a good thing. As someone who lived through the Rodney King riots as a kid and saw people walking around in packs carrying guns I can tell you that is mental. I was terrified, as were my parents. It doesn't matter that they were people from the neighborhood just like it does not matter that his family on his dads sisters boyfriends mothers side was from there. No amount of property is worth a life. None. By showing up with an assault rifle he was declaring his belief that property was more important than life. Legally he may be off the hook but that is a disgusting indictment of the legal system and our society in general.
Both of those are potentially lethal, but not as lethal as 5.56 NATO round.
Sure testimony is going to paint him as a good little boy. I'll continue to refer to him as an armed MAGA terrorist because that's what we definitely know about him from his actions that night, social media and appearances after the incident.
By the way, walking around with an AR-15 on your back is inherently aggressive and threatening behaviour. Don't think otherwise just because gun violence in America is hyper normalized. And I say that as someone who probably has more guns than Kyle Rittenhouse.
Don't forget that according to the other trial in this thread jogging while black is also an action that is lethal enough to warrant being hunted down and murdered in self defense.
I don't much care for the US's weird stand your ground laws. Intentionally shooting someone with a rifle sounds like murder to me. Whether that person held a knife to someone's throat in the past seems rather irrelevant.
Yes. It looked like Rittenhouse went there stalking and hunting. You don't need to show up illegally armed with an AR-15 to "Assist in graffiti cleanup" or "provide medical assistance" both of which sound completely disingenuous and bullshit.
Not sure if 'Stand Your Ground' is relevant in this matter or if that's even a thing in Wisconsin. All the evidence from the trial so far has shown he's tried to evade confrontation, and evidence from others who were there for similar purposes described the gun as being a deterrent.
Yes, thats why it wasn't allowed unless the prosecution tried to introduce evidence that the deceased was peaceful. They withdrew when the defence said that would introduce questions about character that would give cause for that to be disclosed to the jury.
https://rumble.com/vom95n-human-eve...re-seen-fbi-footage-of-the-kyle-rittenho.html
for the benefit of anyone who hasn't actually seen the first incident with Rosenbaum
for the benefit of anyone who hasn't actually seen the first incident with Rosenbaum
one guy is puling a gun on him right as he gets his arm near blown off. Crazy footage. Glad he'll get off.
On a scale of 1 to "Glad that British Politician was stabbed to death" how glad are you?
https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2014/chapter-939/section-939.48
Hmm....was wondering if duty to retreat applied in Wisconsin.
939.48(2)(a) (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
It may be wise to determine whether Rittenhouse's conduct (appearing during a riot armed with an AR-15) was likely to provoke others to attack him.
Hmm....was wondering if duty to retreat applied in Wisconsin.
939.48(2)(a) (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
It may be wise to determine whether Rittenhouse's conduct (appearing during a riot armed with an AR-15) was likely to provoke others to attack him.
It will be one of the central questions and with how the prosecution has gone over the last 2 days that is the last hope at the moment.
The prosecutor got some decent testimony on that from the blogger guy.
Edit: - Rittenhouse was fulfilling any duty to retreat from the evidence.
Last edited:
Hate to
, but had to.Seriously. Why?
Not a good look for Rittenhouse. He pursues the victims and it's perfectly understandable why the victims would be in fear for their lives with this armed aggressor following them. Rittenhouse is literally chasing after people, instigating this entire incident. Looks like murder to me but at the least, it should be manslaughter or negligent homicide.
The party's final, most essential, command.
Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans get the final say here.
By way of update, and just for information, the expert currently testifying is saying it was a .223. The gun pulled on Rittenhouse was .40 caliber.
Did you really just quote Orwell in defense of Rittenhouse?
if people won't look at evidence and see and hear what is actually there because of whichever team they support it seems relevant.
Even the police officer wouldn't testify that Rittenhouse was chasing anyone, only Rosenbaum.
EVEN THE POLICE OFFICE
It was part of the prosecutors opening statement and then his key witness on the FBI footage, who is a police officer, refused to agree to that description. It was a big moment of the trial early on.
Wow an American Cop testified on behalf of a white supremacist? Whatever next?
he was a prosecution witness. You'd know if you were watching the court feed and not TYT (?)
Probably 1
He went to a protest with an assault rifle. If he wants tips on avoiding confrontation, I could give him a few.
Like, don't own an assault rifle. Or don't poi 't it at someone and pull the trigger.
The cop who drove past Rittenhouse is testifying. Says he didn't suspect Rittenhouse at the time but he drew his gun on him while his partner pepper sprayed him.
Also interestingly testified that more people involved in protests were armed with pistols or rifles than not which seems fecking wild (and inaccurate) to me.
Edit: says he didn't suspect because there was so much other gun fire going on while Rittenhouse approached.
Also interestingly testified that more people involved in protests were armed with pistols or rifles than not which seems fecking wild (and inaccurate) to me.
Edit: says he didn't suspect because there was so much other gun fire going on while Rittenhouse approached.
Not been watching the McMichael trial but I've heard it's been a great day for the prosecution on opening statements.
Apparently the home owner said there is a black man who goes into the house but never nicks anything, but some white guys do.
Apparently the home owner said there is a black man who goes into the house but never nicks anything, but some white guys do.
The only real difference is powder loads and resultant chamber pressure but there is a slight different in the cartridge shape as well. 5.56 NATO and .223 Remington are generally interchangeable in a rifle chambered for 5.56, although you don't want to go the other way around.
Some would argue that the .223 round is more accurate because of the lower pressure. But generally speaking, any rifle calibre greater than.22lr is pretty fecking lethal and the defence is simply trying to avoid mention of military calibres to make it seem less lethal.
Put the lotion bottle down, Dwazza.
It was a prosecution witness. The defence didn't comment on it and it would be pointless to since they are not contesting whether deadly force was used, they are putting forward that the use of deadly force was justified given the circumstances and was limited to dangerous individuals who were attempting to cause serious harm to the defendant.
The prosecution have been undermining their own narrative throughout the trial with evidence they have introduced. Their witnesses last night were giving the impression that there was a lot of guns at the protest, 'it was like a warzone' and a lot of shots were fired, not just from Rittenhouse.
They seemed to want victims loved ones to testify yesterday, but that let slip in the first deceased mental health problems into evidence and had a near miss with the criminal history of the second deceased. All it would have taken was for Rosenbaum's fiancé to say he was a good man and his colourful criminal history would be admitted and that would have really turned the jury against him.
I see.
I think there is only one more witness for the prosecution listed - the fella who pulled the gun and got his bicep shot off. After that its all defence.
Prosecution did well on days 1 & 2, but since then its been a shit show from them. I don't expect a motion to dismiss to be made or accepted for the murder charges but they have really made it look like clear self defence legally. You never know what else might come up, Rittenhouse might testify and say something stupid about his state of mind at the time of one or all shootings, or the jury could have their pre-conceived info and ignore the evidence presented though.
The prosecution? Jesus. Rope-a-dope tactic or are they going through the motions?
Without needlessly adding more "everyone read it before" to this discussion, from what I've read about the case it should have been the focus of state to prove that Rittenhouse went there knowingly attempting to escalate a situation under the guise of 'helping'
Its a fairly common tactic of groups like the Proud Incels(Boys) engage in, going into protest areas dressed in roleplaying gear and inserting themselves into situations to goad a response from a emotional crowd.
Yeah - Binger is a great public speaker and he did well with opening statements and setting his narrative out but every witness so far has either not backed it up, contradicted it or has been shady, poor or irrelevant.
The DNA expert was a particular clusterfeck. She basically admitted that her testimony was worthless and gave the defence a chance to show the photo of a protester grabbing Rittenhouse's gun to the jury again, and she couldn't prove that happened with DNA results. So it made the 'Rosenbaum never grabbed the gun' point of the testimony completely invalidated and noone is doubting Rittenhouse's DNA is on the gun.
The car shop owner's sons testified and were shady as hell. One did say that the guards were uninvited (which is the point) but he also said he never spoke with Rittenhouse even though there was a text message between them. He also said he didn't know how much inventory was damaged, or if the insurance claim has gone through despite him being the inventory manager.
In terms of non-police testimony the best it got was that blogger who said that he thought the guns made it more dangerous in his opinion, and the people with the AR-15s looked menacing. However, he also was the eyeball witness who saw Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse and lunge for his gun, and fought with the prosecutor who tried to make it seem like he had said that Rosenbaum fell clarifying that he fell because he lunged for the gun and then got shot and missed.
They also had a guard who said that Rosenbaum was not threatening because he was small at 5 foot 3, and came across as a babbling idiot. (interestingly he testified that Rosenbaum was the only person who used any racist language that night and afterwards most friendly protesters tried to avoid being seen with him) However the defence got him to admit that if he had heard Rosenbaum threaten to kill him, he was alone with him and he made an attempt for his gun he would consider that a threat. I think he even said a deadly threat but can't 100% remember.
There was just no cohesion or seemingly little prep work done.
The evidence, including the videos you posted, shows Rittenhouse following the victims for a good distance then accelerating into a pursuit of the victims before anything else happens. So we have someone from out of state, who carried an illegal firearm across state lines chasing after the victims. This was shown in the FBI drone video and the video you, yourself linked.
It's only after Rittenhouse pursued the victims into the parking lot that the movements get more chaotic and one of the victims comes after Rittenhouse. To call it self-defense completely ignores every action Rittenhouse took to instigate this entire incident except for the last few seconds. The question is, why is Rittenhouse chasing after the victims, as shown in the videos, with an illegal firearm that he carried across state lines.
No doubt, the jury can let him off on the grounds of "self-defense" but it's a situation created entirely by Rittenhouse's own illegal actions and his insistence on pursuing the victims. Whatever happens in the trial, it's clear that Rittenhouse is a murderer because if he wanted to avoid shooting someone, he easily could have abandoned his pursuit at any point. One interpretation of Rittenhouse's actions is that Rittenhouse wanted to bait someone into approaching him so he could shoot them and then claim "self-defense" to an incident he himself instigated.