Wtf!
Kyle Rittenhouse | Now crowdfunding LOLsuits against Whoopi Goldberg, LeBron James, and The Young Turks
- Thread starter Drainy
- Start date
Wtf!
It's like watching that judge from Trial of the Chicago 7 in real life. Fair enough you are a clueless boomer about tech, at least defer it to someone who knows how to examine the evidence.
That has actually benefited the prosecution.
From what I have seen he generally likes to give more disputed fact questions to the jury to decide. Because he didn't get that the image in question would have artifacts that cannot be accounted for he ended up waving it through for the jury.
It's led to them being instructed on provocation. Masterfully done by the prosecution and its revived their hopes of serious convictions.
Mistrials and appeals are possible though so today and tomorrow are not a wrap up, I think.
Last edited:
I'm a bit surprised at the echo chamber accusation since there were quite a few posters who had argued for an acquittal (on the homicide charges) in the thread, more or less radically. What @Drainy posted looked a bit weird at first and then translated into borderline ridiculous position that rightly inspired quite a few memes. You can't pick and choose whenever you want to apply or ignore the letter of the law (carrying a rifle being a legal, hence, not a questionable decision, while the stuff like him being underage or living in a different state being insignificant details), let alone arguing on moral matters etc.
US laws and judicial system is a mess — and it's saying something considering that it's coming from a Russian... (ours is less of a mess but it's hardly any better by the way as it's a rigid well-oiled machine that crushes everyone that gets into it regardless of their guilt etc). And going by that he should probably get acquitted from the homicide charges while getting a reckless endangerment, illegal carrying of a weapon etc. ones.
The thing that I can't get is how can @Drainy genuinely (or even pretentiously genuine) argue that what Kyle did was not only justifiable, but even good from a moral sense (he'll probably try to argue that he didn't but it's clear from his comments over the past 20 pages). Poor Kafka is turning in his grave with such velocity that you can probably supply an entire town with electricity if you connect the power grid to his spinning body.
US laws and judicial system is a mess — and it's saying something considering that it's coming from a Russian... (ours is less of a mess but it's hardly any better by the way as it's a rigid well-oiled machine that crushes everyone that gets into it regardless of their guilt etc). And going by that he should probably get acquitted from the homicide charges while getting a reckless endangerment, illegal carrying of a weapon etc. ones.
The thing that I can't get is how can @Drainy genuinely (or even pretentiously genuine) argue that what Kyle did was not only justifiable, but even good from a moral sense (he'll probably try to argue that he didn't but it's clear from his comments over the past 20 pages). Poor Kafka is turning in his grave with such velocity that you can probably supply an entire town with electricity if you connect the power grid to his spinning body.
I said he shouldn't have been there and he's culpable for possession (assuming that is the law).
He has the same right to be there as anyone else and from my perspective he was attacked not by any normal protester who was inflamed by him, because the protesters were destroying property, yes, but hadn't attacked people (outside of throwing bricks).
The person who attacked Rittenhouse was an unstable individual who was not there as part of the protest. The protesters wanted nothing to do with him because of his violent and aggressive behaviour to everyone.
He threatened to kill Rittenhouse if he got him alone, then him and Ziminski, a man who the state could call as a witness but won't because it would kill his case, coordinated to attack Rittenhouse.
That prompted the events with Jump Kick Man, Huber and Grosskreutz, who believed Rittenhouse was an active shooter out of a lack of personal knowledge of the facts of the first shooting.
No heroes, just different degrees of idiocy.
What's Kafka-esque is that this is all on tape or have eye witnesses in favour of Rittenhouse but the state are acting like it isn't, and are creating evidence from unverified sources, and breaking all kinds of rules to secure a conviction on a pretty obvious self defence case and the judge is certainly not adversarial but is waving it through and hoping the jury aren't tainted by reporting that has been misleading to say the least.
Good? Nope. Understandable? Yes. If looking for his upbringing. They're taught that the blacks are looters, and that the whites are the victim, look at them looting our neighbourhood. Do i believe he's honestly neutral? Not a chance. He might knew and excited to be part of this and maybe hoping he could pop a few round at those looters
They're taught to defend their race, etc. That's their believe. I believe you call it white supremacy. They're not taught to kill black, they're taught that the blacks are the bad guys and what they're doing is the right thing to do so god help us. And shooting a black (for whatever reason) is noble thing to do.
Just like blacks are taught to fear the cops, they're taught to be suspicious of the blacks and add korean into the mix, latinos, BLM, defund the police, actual riots, etc. It's a pot mesh.
Sure some managed to see the light and get along nicely, but dont expect that to be conclusive. The amount of racial attack doesnt seem to become less, the rise of trump helps empower the new form of brazen racist thugs.
I have been victim of a racial riots in 1998, survived thank goodness, but at that scary time you really see the other race as the enemy. Hard not to. For all the not everyone is like that it's one thing to actually be in one. You dont know who's friend and who's the enemy and you never know when the next person gonna drag you out and rape your women. You bring knifes, samurais, etc and hope to make it out alive somehow, so i can understand why people playing rambo because they feel they're defending something. Whatever and however absurd that seems. Probably we all laugh at the korean rooftops but that's exactly what we did minus the guns because we're not allowed to have one. But if we are allowed to we'd definitely be armed from top to toe
And going spartan callin them dicks, wrongs, stupid, assholes, scums while true would only add resistance. This hatred has been going for hundreds of years it takes more than a few rainbow movement and solidarity show to fix. For every armaud and every floyd the hatred would only grow exponentially. For every police chief on telly yapping about unity etc for show they might actually be someone else behind the screen. How else these things keeps on happening again and again..
And it'll take a very long time to heal, assuming there's peace and calm, but when things like this keeps on repeating every few months the wound would never heal.
Just my 2c. I think we should explore why they did what they did, and work from there. Otherwise these cycle of hatred will keep on replicating. For every store owner that got looted that's an enmity for a lifetime. For every floyd kill that's a scourge people will remember.
So i really dont think it's that simple simply saying kile shouldnt be there. Maybe he shouldnt, but I'm not surprised why he did what he did. And sorry if it's a long rant, but I'm just annoyed that people seems to simplify thing as black and white (pun intended)
This seems to be a real clusterfeck of a trial about a real clusterfeck of a situation. Rittenhouse is certainly culpable for being there with a gun in the first place. Whether or not he acted in self-defense is more difficult to judge.
However, I would say this is much less black and white, and much less interesting than the trial related to the murder of Ahmaud Arbery. That was as close to a modern-day lynching as you are likely to see. If the murderers in that case do not get put away for life (or at least a very, very long time), I would seriously expect more civil unrest. Strangely, it seems like the Rittenhouse trial is getting much more attention, when the McMichael/Bryan trial is much more central to the on-going race situation in the U.S.
However, I would say this is much less black and white, and much less interesting than the trial related to the murder of Ahmaud Arbery. That was as close to a modern-day lynching as you are likely to see. If the murderers in that case do not get put away for life (or at least a very, very long time), I would seriously expect more civil unrest. Strangely, it seems like the Rittenhouse trial is getting much more attention, when the McMichael/Bryan trial is much more central to the on-going race situation in the U.S.
I don't think that people don't understand his reasons to be fair, at least those seem to be pretty clear to me — and they very much match your perception. And yeah, it's not surprising or out of character, be it for Kyle himself (remembering his own issues pre-shooting that were mentioned in this thread) or for a man of his upbringing on the rise of political radicalisation (both left & right).
That said, it doesn't excuse him one bit from the moral standpoint. As for the solution for this crisis — I don't think that we (as a humanity in general, since the same radicalisation is happening all over the world) currently have one, even in theory.
Doesn't this case being more complicated and way less straight-forward make it more interesting? For me, at least, it certainly does. There's hardly any real argument on Ahmaud Arbery's one from the little that I know about it (which doesn't mean that they'll necessarily get what they deserve though), which makes it, well, less interesting to talk about.
I think people will feel racial injustice if the McMichaels and Bryan are acquitted. They were the aggressors and even their proposed defence that they were performing a citizens arrest falls flat when at worst the person they were apprehending committed a very soft misdemeanor.
The Rittenhouse case is unfortunately a political football, partly due to Rittenhouse's stupidity, but also if I can speculate to distract from the police shooting of Jacob Blake where someone was actually shot in the back.
Yeah, I see what you mean. What I meant was that whatever happens in the Rittenhouse trial, I don't believe it will be overly controversial and have any significant impact outside of the case. In the case of Arbery's murder, I get the sense that there is a risk of the murderers somehow avoiding just punishment, which could reignite the tensions we saw last summer. In that way, it was a bit similar to the George Floyd case. Before the case you didn't feel certain that Chauvin and the rest would get convicted of murder, due to every right winger peddling the narrative that Floyd was a bad guy, had opioids in his system, etc. You see the same patterns here about Arbery having trespassed, was trying to get the gun, etc.
So, basically the Arbery case is just much more central to the question of racial tensions in the U.S.
Oh yeah, if that's what you mean then I fully agree with you. It can have significantly bigger consequences.
This judge reminds me of Aaron Persky, who presided over the Stanford rapist swimmer Brock Turner's trial.
The right has the ability to rally around Rittenhouse, thus they keep the perpetuation of the culture war front & center. The AA murder trial is far more difficult for them to find a positive narrative, so it’s being shied away from by the ‘own the lib’ legions.
And the judge in Texas who let the DUI murdering teen off with probation a few years back, the kid who ultimately fled to Mexico with his mommy.
Illegal possession charge dismissed.
If he’s not being charged for illegal possession there’s no way in hell he’s going to be charged for any of the others.
This is going to retrial thanks to the judge’s antics.
So he possessed the rifle legally 
Congrats!
So he possessed the rifle legally
I thought that it was fairly clear that he didn't. Do we know why they dropped that charge?
Yeah, that's what I am asking, I am not watching it.
Well, I was right that it was likely to be dismissed in discussion on Friday so I guess being right is a win so thanks.
Also means Rittenhouse was not illegally carrying, but Grosskreutz was which I find funny.
Does it actually mean that?
The wording of the statue created an exception to exclude people who are 16 or 17 or have a hunting licence, whether intended or not.
I was just reading about that. It does seem to be a strange interpretation of the law though.
A lot of deer on the streets of Kenosha, to be fair.
I've seen a bit of the judge...seems a real odd ball. Has he actually done anything to mean a retrial though?
I've said before Rittenhouse is an idiot but I'd be very surprised if he's convicted of anything serious. The second murder is 100% self defence. First one is a little more unclear.
Isn‘t that a contradiction?
At this rate, dough boy is going to come out of this with a nobel peace prize.
haha, yes. the second killing.
Just been watching this...even the first one seems pretty obviously self defence. Joseph Rosenbaum running at Rittenhouse shouting very angrily feck you and attempting to grab the gun.
From what I gather the legislation was not meant to affect farmer's children and was targeted towards handguns in Milwaukee.
Ironic that people are saying he didn't need to bring a AR-15, but it was that or a long barrel shotgun to remain within the plain reading of the law. If he had a pistol, the same people would be dead but he'd also be guilty of illegal possession.
He didn’t need to be there. He’s a kid.
People are saying he didn't need to bring an AR-15 because you don't need to bring an AR-15 to walk around at night playing medic not because they are concerned with how a 17 year old can legally arm themselves to walk around playing security forces during a riot.
Wow, the judge really stacked the deck to favor Rittenhouse. True injustice here. He gets the illegal carry charge dismissed despite it being an obvious violation of the intent of the law and also after dismissing the curfew violation. Judge really helping out Rittenhouse here by just dismissing his clear violations of the law that can completely change the interpretation of the other charges by laypeople. Now it looks like the judge is saying the jury doesn't even have to consider the lesser charges of reckless homicide or reckless endangerment if they find self-defense on the greater charge. Hardly a shock since the judge is the type of person to have Trump's campaign theme play on his phone.
Did Binger just say all lives matter? 
Christ almighty.