Double jeopardy law in US means there can't be a retrial if he is acquitted by the jury in this one.
Kyle Rittenhouse | Now crowdfunding LOLsuits against Whoopi Goldberg, LeBron James, and The Young Turks
- Thread starter Drainy
- Start date
Double jeopardy law in US means there can't be a retrial if he is acquitted by the jury in this one.
If he doesn’t spend a single day in service to society, America is broken. (Beyond what we already accept).
Fcuk legal jargon and rules. The soppy cnut was wandering around a confused and complicated social space with a weapon of war. He shot. Those shots had consequences.
He should answer for his actions. Technicalities don’t matter. There is no reason for him to be there carrying a gun.
Fcuk that guy
Fcuk legal jargon and rules. The soppy cnut was wandering around a confused and complicated social space with a weapon of war. He shot. Those shots had consequences.
He should answer for his actions. Technicalities don’t matter. There is no reason for him to be there carrying a gun.
Fcuk that guy
So just Chuck the rule of law out the window and jail him because you don’t like him?
No. I didn’t say that.
A (supposed) developed country that thinks that there’s a set of circumstances that sees a child leave home with a gun, travel somewhere, walk around with it openly and then kill someone with impunity…. And not get punished…
Well, will you honestly try to defend it?
Strong closing so far from prosecution. Covered most of my points from post 618 already.
Emphasized that Rittenhouse lied about being an EMT.
Emphasized that the claim that Rosembaum was reaching for his gun does not have factual supporting evidence.
Emphasized the sequence of events of Rittenhouse following then accelerating after Rosembaum (pursuing) with his AR-15 at the ready.
Did a good job with the video evidence to show that Rittenhouse instigated the sequence of events that eventually led to the shootings. The first victim himself that valid reason to believe Rittenhouse was an active threat.
Most of the damning evidence comes from Rittenhouse's lies (that night and on the stand) and admissions that do not logically make sense and the videos.
Makes me think the prosecutor called the biased witnesses himself (Rittenhouse's friend/sister boyfriend, several of the armed militia and boogaloo bois, and far-right bloggers) to get those witnesses out of the way early and not allow the defense to call them after Rittenhouse's own testimony which was the most damning for the defense case.
Enough to overcome the judge helping out the defense by dismissing the lesser instances where Rittenhouse broke the law (illegal carry, curfew violation)? Perhaps not. But it's enough to prove to me that Rittenhouse is guilty of reckless endangerment at the least.
Emphasized that Rittenhouse lied about being an EMT.
Emphasized that the claim that Rosembaum was reaching for his gun does not have factual supporting evidence.
Emphasized the sequence of events of Rittenhouse following then accelerating after Rosembaum (pursuing) with his AR-15 at the ready.
Did a good job with the video evidence to show that Rittenhouse instigated the sequence of events that eventually led to the shootings. The first victim himself that valid reason to believe Rittenhouse was an active threat.
Most of the damning evidence comes from Rittenhouse's lies (that night and on the stand) and admissions that do not logically make sense and the videos.
Makes me think the prosecutor called the biased witnesses himself (Rittenhouse's friend/sister boyfriend, several of the armed militia and boogaloo bois, and far-right bloggers) to get those witnesses out of the way early and not allow the defense to call them after Rittenhouse's own testimony which was the most damning for the defense case.
Enough to overcome the judge helping out the defense by dismissing the lesser instances where Rittenhouse broke the law (illegal carry, curfew violation)? Perhaps not. But it's enough to prove to me that Rittenhouse is guilty of reckless endangerment at the least.
Yes, because in the context of America that’s within the law is it not? I’m not saying he shouldn’t be punished but I’m finding it hard to see what exactly he’s done that’s illegal in the states. The people he killed were clearly posing a threat to him.
As the prosecutor has mentioned, there are instances where if someone instigates the incident they lose the right to claim self-defense. Also damning is that Rittenhouse shot his first victim 4 times, the killing shot being into the back of the victim after the victim was clearly incapacitated and posed no threat. He correctly emphasized that Rittenhouse is responsible for all four shots, separately not just the first one.
This simply isn't a clear cut case where you can definitely conclude one way or the other that it was obvious self-defense or obvious murder, hence why I am leaning towards clearly guilty of reckless endangerment at the least. If I was on the jury I'd certainly argue for reckless homicide or more.
Agreed. It really should be a clear-cut case where he is guilty of such a charge.
tough one. After watching the reporters description of the incident though it seemed the first victim was the aggressor? Ran at him shouting feck you and trying to grab his gun? This would be a key moment for me as a jury member regardless of how many shots were fired in a very short time frame after that.
Isn't this an act of self defence?
this prosecutor just said someone should fire warning shots 
That's not established fact though. That's the narrative presented by the defense. It relies on the testimony of a blogger for the heavily biased right-wing website The Daily Caller. The two problems with this narrative is that the single witness has a strong right-wing (and thus pro-Rittenhouse) bias and eyewitness testimony of this nature is notoriously unreliable in general (proven by countless studies in psychology that show eyewitnesses often remember incorrectly). The right-wing contributor could very well have misheard or attributed it incorrectly.
The prosecution narrative is that someone was shouting "gun, gun, gun" and that Rosembaum had a legitimate reason to believe Rittenhouse was an active threat and was acting to disarm Rittenhouse in self-defense.
Who to believe Grosskreutz in his own testimony and your lying eyes or Binger?
I find it hard to see how shooting someone (unarmed?) four times, once in the back is legal in the states.
I could see how in certain circumstances, shooting an (unarmed?) man ONCE in self defence was acceptable… incapacitates the alleged aggressor? But the extra shots and one in the back… can’t see that.
Important point: Rittenhouse is not the only person in the world to have the right to self-defense. The crowd has a right to attempt to disarm an active shooter who is a threat to their own lives. So much chatter, especially on right-wing media about Rittenhouse's right to self-defense while ignoring the fact the victims also have a right to self-defense.
The video also shows Grosskreutz very much has a valid self-defense claim because Rittenhouse is holding the AR-15 pointed at him after shooting Huber. His own action of, very clumsily, move his gun into an awkward position.
The video also shows Grosskreutz very much has a valid self-defense claim because Rittenhouse is holding the AR-15 pointed at him after shooting Huber. His own action of, very clumsily, move his gun into an awkward position.
Last edited:
I think in general there should be a higher standard for trained, professionals wielding guns when it comes to stuff like this than for a random person. For an inexperienced person, I imagine fear takes over and you just shoot and shoot and think later.
Which is the problem with a 17 year old kid taking a fecking assault rifle to a protest in the first place. He had no business being there at all, let alone walking around with his rifle on display, and it was highly likely to end up with a tragedy. I don't think he can be found guilty of murder, but I can't believe there isn't some lesser charge for turning up to a protest with a fecking assault rifle and acting like an idiot.
I am astonished that the prosecutor has just said the racially abusive language is just 'bad words' and said so in a mocking voice
no. Not when you are chasing a guy.
is that the reporter eye witness? He seemed of good character and even said himself he wasn’t sure if the guy touched the gun, just that he went to try and get it.
key for me is time frame. 4 quick shots in a panic i can imagine one going in the back even if it is self defence. You wouldn’t be thinking Straight at that point.
Another great point: Rittenhouse admitted he can't treat anyone with an AR-15. No serious medics walk around with AR-15 strapped to their back. He lied about being an EMT, lied about his intent to just be a media, lied about his statement of being there just to protect property, and admitted he couldn't even use the AR-15 to protect property. Think the entire "medical assistance" has been debunked.
I know nothing about guns, so would an AR-15 fire off 4 rounds with one press of the trigger or would he have have pressed 4 times?
good question - I don’t know.
4 times
They guy who is armed is a threat to the guy trying to take his gun. Also, Rittenhouse was the one doing the chasing (following) in the first place.
Four times. the AR-15 is a semi-auto version of the select fire M4 used by the military. One trigger pull = one round fired.
But all of this doesn’t matter in terms of murder? He could have broken every rule in the book and lied through his teeth...that doesn’t mean he’s guilty of murder?
That makes the shot in the back much, much worse.
The aggressor is the one that got shot dead.
less than a second after the first shot though while the person is running full speed and lunging.
.76 seconds
Rittenhouse's case for self defence: “ah well you see it is a complex case, we must consider x y z and I really think there’s a clear legal case. As a jury member that would be impactful for me”
Dead/injured people’s case for self defence: “no”
People pick their sides first and consider the evidence second. Pathetically transparent and all round depressing.
Dead/injured people’s case for self defence: “no”
People pick their sides first and consider the evidence second. Pathetically transparent and all round depressing.
I already stated that first, the person in question blogs for The Daily Caller. He has strong biases and it really doesn't matter to how he might come off in court because he's clearly got some strong biases that make me not take anything he says as fact.
However, if you want to grant him the benefit of the doubt, single eyewitness testimony is simply unreliable in general. This is why I base most of the my judgements of this case on the wealth of video information, because its unbiased.
Here is just a selection on why a single eyewitness should not be considered reliable.
"The Innocence Project states that, nationally, over 70 percent of exonerated individuals were initially convicted based in part on testimony from eyewitnesses."
https://www.youraustinattorney.com/...ors-can-make-eyewitness-testimony-unreliable/
"Studies have shown that mistaken eyewitness testimony accounts for about half of all wrongful convictions. Researchers at Ohio State University examined hundreds of wrongful convictions and determined that roughly 52 percent of the errors resulted from eyewitness mistakes."
https://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-13-3-c-how-reliable-are-eyewitnesses
"The claim that eyewitness testimony is reliable and accurate is testable, and the research is clear that eyewitness identification is vulnerable to distortion without the witness’s awareness. More specifically, the assumption that memory provides an accurate recording of experience, much like a video camera, is incorrect. Memory evolved to give us a personal sense of identity and to guide our actions. We are biased to notice and exaggerate some experiences and to minimize or overlook others. Memory is malleable."
https://www.psychologicalscience.or...s-testimony-is-the-best-kind-of-evidence.html
"This bubble of complacency has been burst in recent years, however, by two pointed facts: (i) postconviction DNA analyses reveal that eyewitnesses sometimes identify the wrong people, and (ii) the sciences of vision and memory indicate that wrongful conviction based on eyewitness testimony is likely a priori, given conditions of uncertainty, bias, and overconfidence."
https://www.pnas.org/content/114/30/7758
I mean, that's stupid because they aren't on trial. If they had killed Rittenhouse they would be claiming self-defence.
Grosskreutz would definitely have a decent self-defence claim if he pulled the trigger first.
So you’ve got one gut running at you trying to steal your gun. One with an actual gun while you’re being attacked on the floor?
I just don’t see how it’s murder. It’s a ridiculous situation in part created by how dumb the USA is with regards to gun laws.
Still, that's four separate decisions, the other guy had time to turn, he had time to decide whether to fire or not
It’s not stupid. Its a hypothetical point that exposes some people as applying completely different standards to essentially the same thing, once it’s flipped round.
Just think about how short a time period that is if you feel fearful.
Also in case you ever have a gun, never fire a warning shot like Binger suggests, only discharge at a target you are aiming at if you believe you have legal justification to do so.
That’s kind of an irrelevant thing is it not. He could have taken aim and fired the four shots in less than a second. Whilst the victim was turning or the first impacts turned the victim.
If he stood over the guy and shot him in the back then that’s a different matter. I myself haven’t watched any footage on this so I don’t know the initial details. Whichever way you really look at it though it just shows how screwed up America actually is. They’ve made a rod for their own backs and this is a problem which will never be corrected.
I used to be a goalie and I used to be a sakes trainer, I used to rely on being able to make multiple decisions very, very quickly.
1 second is actually a pretty long time for thoughts. If you've got an analogue clock, try seeing how many thoughts you have in one second, it's surprisingly a lot.
The point the prosecutor makes is that he shouldn't be rattling off 4 shots in quick succession. It's not surprising that someone completely untrained and unexperienced like Rittenhouse would make this mistake which goes back to the reckless endangerment of some 17-year-old with no training or experience acting like a private militia. He should have just shot once and that would have been more than enough to stop the threat.
were you ever in fear for your life when you made the decisions?
I don’t believe it’s murder in the strictest legal sense when you consider what kind of absolutely fecked up things that seem to fly in America (grabbing your gun, catching up with the militia bros and keeping the peace with extreme violence - actions that no one asked or empowered you to do but we’re okay with this somehow.) Though i do think he’s fortunate that the series of events unfolded how it did, in terms of possible defences for him.
I do think the reckless offences and whatever the yank equivalent of manslaughter is should be an overwhelmingly easy verdict to arrive at and in doing so I would hope the judge would adhere to sentencing that reflected the absolute madness of his actions.
It is hard not to view it by UK standards and I do have some sympathy for his age and the cultural place and time he has found himself in leading to his horrifically bad choices, associations and ultimately the unnecessary loss of life.
Legally condoning his actions with an acquittal is unconscionable for me and would be so emboldening to all kinds of lunatics - it will lead to more tragedy - guaranteed.
Wouldn’t bet against it though.
Last edited: