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

[Drainy]

Snip

The evidence, including the videos you posted, shows Rittenhouse following the victims for a good distance

At walking speed a long way behind while asking if anyone needs medical assistance

accelerating into a pursuit of the victims

he accelerates to two people who moments before said 'lets get him' to each other and Rosenbaum. I have no idea why he ran to them from the video but it would be out of character from the testimony for it to be to confront anyone and given that they had just said 'lets get him' is probable they called him over IMO.
When Rosenbaum emerges from hiding behind the car Rittenhouse shouts 'friendly, friendly, friendly' and when Rosenbaum continued to approach then Rittenhouse runs away.

Testimony was that he was relaxed and friendly with protesters throughout the night until Rosenbaum tried to grab his gun. The cop who analysed the footage declined to call it a chase or pursuit from Rittenhouse.

someone from out of state

His dad lives in Kenosha, his mum's place where he resides is a 10 min drive away - Kenosha is close to the border with Illinois and the community is essentially one and the same, from what I understand.

who carried an illegal firearm across state lines

No he didn't. His sister's boyfriend was holding the AR-15 in trust for him until he turned 18. It was at the boyfriend's house so he only crossed state lines the other way with it after the police didn't arrest him when he turned himself in. The illegality of possession has a pending motion to dismiss due to an exception for 16 & 17 year olds with barrelled rifles, though there is disagreement about whether that was the intention of the law.

chasing after the victims. This was shown in the FBI drone video and the video you, yourself linked.

The state's witness testified that there was only 1 chase. Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse.

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.

They don't enter the parking lot until Rosenbaum chases Rittenhouse. The point at which Rittenhouse stops running to speak with the 2 others is on the sidewalk. He then shouts 'friendly' 3 times and runs into the parking lot. Rosenbaum throws his bag and accelerates and catches up to him when he gets to the cars blocking his way forward. The testimony is that Rosenbaum, a man who earlier in the evening was heard by the guy buddying up with Kyle saying that if he catches either of them alone he would kill them, lunges for the gun.

To call it self-defense completely ignores every action Rittenhouse took to instigate this entire incident except for the last few seconds.

I'd say you are ignoring the threat against his life made by Rosenbaum, a man taped yelling "shoot me 'N word'" at people and observed being aggressive towards many people both in the protest group and the armed guards, but I doubt you are either aware or care.

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.

Testimony is he didn't chase them, its in question whether it was illegal, and it was carried across state lines the other way.

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

The jury should judge it based on whether he was in fear of death or serious injury, and the question of instigation is not as 2d cartoonish as you seem to act. Even if he was judged to be illegally carrying a firearm, Rosenbaum wouldn't know its illegal because he doesn't know his age and trying to harm a minor, might be in keeping with his character, but isn't selling it to me as a justification for someone to try and hurt kill them. Also, noone would testify that Rittenhouse pursued them bar the prosecutor in the opening statement who was contradicted by his own expert on that point.

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

If he is found not guilty by definition he is not a murderer. He literally runs away to avoid a confrontation in spite of being armed and the attacker only armed with a bag. He only shoots when his gun may be compromised.

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.

Seems a stretch on the evidence provided. The testimony from witnesses who met him so far has been that he was there to help. During the day he cleaned graffiti, at night he was guarding 2 car lots, putting out fires and offering medial assistance. The witnesses all said he was very friendly with everyone whether they were protesters, guards, business owners or journalists. The only question was 'yellow pants man' who hasn't come forward to testify who said Rittenhouse had pointed his gun at him earlier, but noone knows if that is true or if he'd mixed him up with another of the armed guards. The blogger who asked yellow pants man about it said he wouldn't give any info other than the accusation so I guess thats something for you to grasp onto if you believe he was there to instigate, though its worth nothing at trial.

He shot at the two deceased while grabbing for his gun, the other guy while he was pulling his gun on him and jump kick man who literally jump kicked him in the face while he was on the ground after being smacked on the head by a skateboard. If he went to be an active shooter for his own blood lust and get away with it it seems like a really disciplined go at it.

All in all, 10/10 post, great facts. You obviously paid attention to the trial this week.

 

[Drainy]

If you ignore the clickbait thumbnail this is a decent summary of how the first week went.

 

[Drainy]

 

[nimic]

If he is found not guilty by definition he is not a murderer.

A murderer is a murderer regardless of whether nor they get convicted, just like a rapist is a rapist whether or not they get convicted.

 

[Drainy]

A murderer is a murderer regardless of whether nor they get convicted, just like a rapist is a rapist whether or not they get convicted.

So you'd call a woman who commits homicide to protect herself from her rapist a murderer?

There is no legal justification for a rape but people who kill in self defence or at war etc are not murderers.

 

[nimic]

So you'd call a woman who commits homicide to protect herself from her rapist a murderer?

No, because that wouldn't be murder. It doesn't matter if she gets convicted of murder or not, she wouldn't be a murderer. Taking your position she would be a murderer if she was convicted, even if it was in self-defence against a rapist. And this has surely happened many times.

There is no legal justification for a rape

Rape has been legal punishment in many cultures throughout history. If such a country existed today, and someone went to it and got raped for illegally crossing the street, would you say that the offenders weren't rapists because it was sanctioned by the village council in the aftermath?

but people who kill in self defence or at war etc are not murderers.

Sometimes they are, in both cases.

 

[Drainy]

The point is that there is no doubt that Rittenhouse committed 2 homicides.

A jury will determine whether his claim of self defence is valid.

I think anyone who is paying attention to the evidence and not the white noice surrounding can clearly see that based on current evidence the most likely aggressor was Rosenbaum in the first incident and its reasonable for a reasonable person to feel that they are in danger of death or serious injury in the situation Rittenhouse was in at the time of the first homicide.

The attacker was acting unstable and aggressive all night. Shouting 'shoot me hard R N word' head aggressive to everyone including protesters.
The attacker had made a threat against the defendant's life saying 'if I catch you alone you're dead'
The attacker was coordinating with 2 other individuals, one had a gun.
The attacker ambushed Rittenhouse from behind a car.
After the defendant said 'friendly' 3 times in an attempt to avoid an incident, because Rosenbaum continued to progress towards him aggressively, the defendant fleed.
Rosenbaum threw his bag and accelerates in a chase into the parking lot.
Ziminski, a man who was coordinating with the attacker fired a gun shot while Rittenhouse's back was turned. This was in the air, but he wouldn't know that.
After the shot Rittenhouse turns around and Rosenbaum had made the ground on him and was almost on him.
Rosenbaum was then witnessed lunging towards the gun with both hands and was shot 4 times within 1 second.

The Huber incident hasn't been as well covered at trial yet. He may well at that point have seen Rittenhouse as an active shooter, in spite of him not showing any interest in shooting anyone else and was fleeing telling multiple people he was running to the police. Its obvious that there was a mob looking to apprehend Rittenhouse, including Huber. They were attacking him and knocked Rittenhouse to the ground. After that he held his gun and pointed it at anyone approaching, anyone who put their hands up and backed off he didn't shoot at. Huber, who had hit him in the head with the trucks of his skateboard, and chased him was shot fatally after grabbing for his gun. Jump kick man, who flying kicked his face and knocked his head against the pavement was shot at and missed and he fled never to be seen again. The last complain witness who is testifying today protended to surrender and then pulled out his pistol and was shot in the arm.

I get that a lot of people have a view that open carrying is instigating, which they asked the jury and got rid of anyone who is that 2d in their thinking.

The only aspects of the case that look horrible that I've seen are his blue lives matter posts, hitting a girl on video, and hitting the Proud Boys up for money for his legal defence which may not be admissible unless the defence bring in character evidence. The testimony is that he along with everyone else was he was there to try to help put out fires, give medical assistance to anyone who needed it since no professionals would be there, hand out water and protect buildings - testimony was that the guns were there as a deterrent and in a country where guns are legal that seems sensible, although a states witness did say that he felt it caused tension so I guess that is a point scored for the prosecution on the 'instigated by being there' narrative.

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

Did the accused have medical training or was he just a good citizen who was only out there to offer medical assistance (with a rifle as protection j.i.c)?

 

[Sky1981]

It really is isnt clear cut. I'm reading from many angle and still can't decide anything.

Rittenhouse that is.

 

[Drainy]

Did the accused have medical training or was he just a good citizen who was only out there to offer medical assistance (with a rifle as protection j.i.c)?

He had first aid training and was working as a life guard at the time. He was not an EMT though some of the group he was with thought he was, either through a lie or refusal / thought not to correct the misunderstanding from Rittenhouse

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

He had first aid training and was working as a life guard at the time. He was not an EMT though some of the group he was with thought he was, either through a lie or refusal / thought not to correct the misunderstanding from Rittenhouse

Thanks.

"Misunderstanding"?

 

[Gehrman]

It really is isnt clear cut. I'm reading from many angle and still can't decide anything.

Rittenhouse that is.

I feel it's pretty clear cut. He acted in self defense, but he shouldn't have brought a automatic rifle he wasn't legally allowed to carry. The 2 last people he shot, where 1 one of them died, probably acted in good faith knowing that Kyle had just killed someone, so their actions were understandble and it's tragic what happened.

 

[Drainy]

Thanks.

"Misunderstanding"?

We'll never know whether he said he was an EMT or if he was a medic or first aider or whatever. Some in the group either thought he was an EMT or were using the term interchangeably with medic or first aider in error.

There is video of Rittenhouse hearing someone say he's an EMT and he doesn't correct them.

 

[Sky1981]

I feel it's pretty clear cut. He acted in self defense, but he shouldn't have brought a automatic rifle he wasn't legally allowed to carry. The 2 last people he shot, where 1 one of them died, probably acted in good faith knowing that Kyle had just killed someone, so their actions were understandble and it's tragic what happened.

I read... and cmiiw he was legal to brought a rifle due to some technicalities. And he's actually following the procedure. So gun crazed country apart he seems in the gray area.

It's not as clear cut as ahmaud case. And he looks like he's defending himself from what little I've read.

 

[Gehrman]

I read... and cmiiw he was legal to brought a rifle due to some technicalities. And he's actually following the procedure. So gun crazed country apart he seems in the gray area.

It's not as clear cut as ahmaud case. And he looks like he's defending himself from what little I've read.

Well I saw all the videos when this first came out and it seemed pretty clearly to be self-defense. The thing is just that when you defend yourself with a assault rifle this how things turn out when shit hits then fan. I don't know anything about the other trial.

 

[Sky1981]

Well I saw all the videos when this first came out and it seemed pretty clearly to be self-defense. The thing is just that when you defend yourself with a assault rifle this how things turn out when shit hits then fan. I don't know anything about the other trial.

Which is why it's gray area in america since bringing a rifle isnt a crime.

If it's UK then no question

 

[Gehrman]

Which is why it's gray area in america since bringing a rifle isnt a crime.

If it's UK then no question

Defending yourself with a illegal weapon is still self-defense I believe.

 

[Drainy]

Today will be a massive day for the prosecution on Rittenhouse.

I understand its testimony of the complaining witness who survived with a life altering injury, with a jury who are fresh from the weekend and days to prep between prosecution and witness.

I expect some really good evidence around the thoughts of protesters who were apprehending Rittenhouse in a light that will try to make it seem like they were being heroic. Emotionally it could move the jury even if it could be irrelevant legally. I think he's also the only person shot who doesn't have a felony iirc so should be a good day for the prosecution to end their case in chief.

II think after this it's all defence witnesses and then closing.

 

[MrMarcello]

Inevitably, he'll end up as the go-to right-wing hero for SYG and paraded around the echo chambers if/when acquitted.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

At walking speed a long way behind while asking if anyone needs medical assistance



he accelerates to two people who moments before said 'lets get him' to each other and Rosenbaum. I have no idea why he ran to them from the video but it would be out of character from the testimony for it to be to confront anyone and given that they had just said 'lets get him' is probable they called him over IMO.
When Rosenbaum emerges from hiding behind the car Rittenhouse shouts 'friendly, friendly, friendly' and when Rosenbaum continued to approach then Rittenhouse runs away.

Testimony was that he was relaxed and friendly with protesters throughout the night until Rosenbaum tried to grab his gun. The cop who analysed the footage declined to call it a chase or pursuit from Rittenhouse.



His dad lives in Kenosha, his mum's place where he resides is a 10 min drive away - Kenosha is close to the border with Illinois and the community is essentially one and the same, from what I understand.



No he didn't. His sister's boyfriend was holding the AR-15 in trust for him until he turned 18. It was at the boyfriend's house so he only crossed state lines the other way with it after the police didn't arrest him when he turned himself in. The illegality of possession has a pending motion to dismiss due to an exception for 16 & 17 year olds with barrelled rifles, though there is disagreement about whether that was the intention of the law.



The state's witness testified that there was only 1 chase. Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse.



They don't enter the parking lot until Rosenbaum chases Rittenhouse. The point at which Rittenhouse stops running to speak with the 2 others is on the sidewalk. He then shouts 'friendly' 3 times and runs into the parking lot. Rosenbaum throws his bag and accelerates and catches up to him when he gets to the cars blocking his way forward. The testimony is that Rosenbaum, a man who earlier in the evening was heard by the guy buddying up with Kyle saying that if he catches either of them alone he would kill them, lunges for the gun.



I'd say you are ignoring the threat against his life made by Rosenbaum, a man taped yelling "shoot me 'N word'" at people and observed being aggressive towards many people both in the protest group and the armed guards, but I doubt you are either aware or care.



Testimony is he didn't chase them, its in question whether it was illegal, and it was carried across state lines the other way.



The jury should judge it based on whether he was in fear of death or serious injury, and the question of instigation is not as 2d cartoonish as you seem to act. Even if he was judged to be illegally carrying a firearm, Rosenbaum wouldn't know its illegal because he doesn't know his age and trying to harm a minor, might be in keeping with his character, but isn't selling it to me as a justification for someone to try and hurt kill them. Also, noone would testify that Rittenhouse pursued them bar the prosecutor in the opening statement who was contradicted by his own expert on that point.



If he is found not guilty by definition he is not a murderer. He literally runs away to avoid a confrontation in spite of being armed and the attacker only armed with a bag. He only shoots when his gun may be compromised.



Seems a stretch on the evidence provided. The testimony from witnesses who met him so far has been that he was there to help. During the day he cleaned graffiti, at night he was guarding 2 car lots, putting out fires and offering medial assistance. The witnesses all said he was very friendly with everyone whether they were protesters, guards, business owners or journalists. The only question was 'yellow pants man' who hasn't come forward to testify who said Rittenhouse had pointed his gun at him earlier, but noone knows if that is true or if he'd mixed him up with another of the armed guards. The blogger who asked yellow pants man about it said he wouldn't give any info other than the accusation so I guess thats something for you to grasp onto if you believe he was there to instigate, though its worth nothing at trial.

He shot at the two deceased while grabbing for his gun, the other guy while he was pulling his gun on him and jump kick man who literally jump kicked him in the face while he was on the ground after being smacked on the head by a skateboard. If he went to be an active shooter for his own blood lust and get away with it it seems like a really disciplined go at it.

All in all, 10/10 post, great facts. You obviously paid attention to the trial this week.

It's clear from watching the video that Rittenhouse is following the victims and increases his speed to continue pursuing the victims. The FBI drone video shows this. That action is 100% "out of character" with anyone whose sole intentions are to "clean up graffiti" and "provide medical assistance". If he was only there to do those things, he never would have gotten himself into the position to shoot the victims. The first victim only "chases" Rittenhouse after Rittenhouse chased the victim into the used car lot. It's easy to see being pursued by a dude with an AR-15 as a threatening, instigating action. Rittenhouse pursued first which instigated this incident.

Here is how NPR described the FBI video "The video appears to show that, at first, Rittenhouse was pursuing Rosenbaum into the used car lot. Rosenbaum appears to pause between two cars as Rittenhouse runs around them. Then, Rosenbaum appears to chase Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse stops and shoots him."

Then you make a lot of references to "state witnesses" without mentioning who those witnesses actually are. You fail to mention that one "eyewitness" is actually a videographer from the far-right propaganda site The Daily Caller. It would hardly be surprising if someone from The Daily Caller tried to minimize Rittenhouse's actions and presented a skewed version of reality. Not a witness I would consider reliable since it's someone with a heavy pro-right wing (and thus pro-Rittenhouse) bias.

Two of the other witnesses were also part of this armed militia allegedly protecting property although they seemed calmer and one described Rittenhouse as “a young impressionable kid” who was “under-equipped and under-experienced.” That person described his own encounter with the victim where he testified he didn't feel threatened at all and Rosemblaum was just a "babbling idiot" not someone who clearly needed to be shot and killed.

And the "state's witness" you refer to for Rittenhouse's innocent-sounding plans was Rittenhouse's long-time friend and sister's boyfriend. Of course, Rittenhouse's long-time friend is going to try to minimize his actions and present the narrative a certain way. These witnesses are hardly the objective bystanders you present them to be.

The car lot owners said this armed militia was uninvited but you just say "that's the point" without acknowledging how problematic that entire point is: a crew of MAGA youth decides to show up with AR-15s to "protect" property that the property owners never asked them to protect in the first place. These facts make the claims that he was just innocently there to "clean up graffiti" and "provide medical assistance" sound disingenuous at best.

So your posts here try to make it sound objective with terms like "eyewitness" when in fact, those witnesses, despite being called by the state, have a pro-Rittenhouse bias. This is highly relevant since eyewitnesses testimony has been shown time and again to be flawed and skewed by many psychological factors, so the fact that so many witnesses have varying degrees of pro-right wing and pro-Rittenhouse bias can't be ignored.

Anyone reading this thread should take your descriptions with a grain of salt

 

[Drainy]

It's clear from watching the video that Rittenhouse is following the victims and increases his speed to continue pursuing the victims. The FBI drone video shows this. That action is 100% "out of character" with anyone whose sole intentions are to "clean up graffiti" and "provide medical assistance". If he was only there to do those things, he never would have gotten himself into the position to shoot the victims. The first victim only "chases" Rittenhouse after Rittenhouse chased the victim into the used car lot. It's easy to see being pursued by a dude with an AR-15 as a threatening, instigating action. Rittenhouse pursued first which instigated this incident.

Here is how NPR described the FBI video "The video appears to show that, at first, Rittenhouse was pursuing Rosenbaum into the used car lot. Rosenbaum appears to pause between two cars as Rittenhouse runs around them. Then, Rosenbaum appears to chase Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse stops and shoots him."

Then you make a lot of references to "state witnesses" without mentioning who those witnesses actually are. You fail to mention that one "eyewitness" is actually a videographer from the far-right propaganda site The Daily Caller. It would hardly be surprising if someone from The Daily Caller tried to minimize Rittenhouse's actions and presented a skewed version of reality. Not a witness I would consider reliable since it's someone with a heavy pro-right wing (and thus pro-Rittenhouse) bias.

Two of the other witnesses were also part of this armed militia allegedly protecting property although they seemed calmer and one described Rittenhouse as “a young impressionable kid” who was “under-equipped and under-experienced.” That person described his own encounter with the victim where he testified he didn't feel threatened at all and Rosemblaum was just a "babbling idiot" not someone who clearly needed to be shot and killed.

And the "state's witness" you refer to for Rittenhouse's innocent-sounding plans was Rittenhouse's long-time friend and sister's boyfriend. Of course, Rittenhouse's long-time friend is going to try to minimize his actions and present the narrative a certain way. These witnesses are hardly the objective bystanders you present them to be.

The car lot owners said this armed militia was uninvited but you just say "that's the point" without acknowledging how problematic that entire point is: a crew of MAGA youth decides to show up with AR-15s to "protect" property that the property owners never asked them to protect in the first place. These facts make the claims that he was just innocently there to "clean up graffiti" and "provide medical assistance" sound disingenuous at best.

So your posts here try to make it sound objective with terms like "eyewitness" when in fact, those witnesses, despite being called by the state, have a pro-Rittenhouse bias. This is highly relevant since eyewitnesses testimony has been shown time and again to be flawed and skewed by many psychological factors, so the fact that so many witnesses have varying degrees of pro-right wing and pro-Rittenhouse bias can't be ignored.

Anyone reading this thread should take your descriptions with a grain of salt

Oh NPR said it, that's that then.

Nevermind the state's own expert witness who was brought in to describe the events of the night from his investigation as the police officer with conduct.

The blogger, again is a state witness called by the prosecution, and I'm sure is aware that the FBI could find the HD version of the drone footage again and he could be done for perjury to protect someone he doesn't know if it shows no sign of the hands moving towards the gun. If he's lying he's a great liar it must be said.

The boyfriend had his trial postponed and again set out the chronological events of the day time and weren't refuted by the prosecution because there is supporting evidence. He was only there to lay foundation of the possession charge and had no real relevance to the murder charges.

They said he was naive, which I guess he was to get cornered by an unstable guy who was threatening him. They said he was under equipped but compared to him he was only missing body armour, and a pistol. The latter would definitely be illegal because there is no exemption in the law like there is potentially for long barrelled rifles.

If you think that the owners sons left the stands with any credibility you're a fecking joke. They were photographed with them on the property smiling. Did you even watch the testimony or did you read about it? Also not all of them were young. I said 'that's the point' to say that the narrative that the prosecution was going for was they were uninvited vigilantes and that's why they called the sons, they were useless beyond that and shat the bed on the stand.

My interpretation of the evidence could be wrong, and the jury may not see it the same way or miss it and I will have missed things, I'm only human, but the statement about what the officer said about there only being one chase is 100% and you need to just take the L on it.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Oh NPR said it, that's that then.

Nevermind the state's own expert witness who was brought in to describe the events of the night from his investigation as the police officer with conduct.

The blogger, again is a state witness called by the prosecution, and I'm sure is aware that the FBI could find the HD version of the drone footage again and he could be done for perjury to protect someone he doesn't know if it shows no sign of the hands moving towards the gun. If he's lying he's a great liar it must be said.

The boyfriend had his trial postponed and again set out the chronological events of the day time and weren't refuted by the prosecution because there is supporting evidence. He was only there to lay foundation of the possession charge and had no real relevance to the murder charges.

They said he was naive, which I guess he was to get cornered by an unstable guy who was threatening him. They said he was under equipped but compared to him he was only missing body armour, and a pistol. The latter would definitely be illegal because there is no exemption in the law like there is potentially for long barrelled rifles.

If you think that the owners sons left the stands with any credibility you're a fecking joke. They were photographed with them on the property smiling. Did you even watch the testimony or did you read about it? Also not all of them were young. I said 'that's the point' to say that the narrative that the prosecution was going for was they were uninvited vigilantes and that's why they called the sons, they were useless beyond that and shat the bed on the stand.

My interpretation of the evidence could be wrong, and the jury may not see it the same way or miss it and I will have missed things, I'm only human, but the statement about what the officer said about there only being one chase is 100% and you need to just take the L on it.

The analysis from a news organization is every bit as valid as analysis from a local police officer that may have clear biases. This post again tries to skew perception one way.

Yes, it's a fact that the blogger was called by the prosecution but that really just means the prosecutor believes that he can extract some useful piece of information from him (in this case its possible the DA is going after one of the lesser charges). It's also a fact the blogger is from the far-right propaganda site, The Daily Caller, which means that not only might he consciously try to skew perception one way but he clearly has a subconscious bias even if not consciously trying to skew. You can't try to subtly bring up prior convictions of the victims (which is well known to be legally irrelevant) while ignoring the fact the blogger is from a far-right propaganda site and expect your own posts to be considered objective. And perjury only pertains to outright and provable lies, it doesn't serve as a disincentive to skewed perception, especially subconscious perception, which is clearly the case for anyone working for a trash right-wing site like Daily Caller. Again, there is a wealth of studies on how and why eyewitness testimony can be flawed.

Rittenhouse and his friend were youths. The people in the armed militia that were not youths were the ones who testified Rittenhouse was under-experienced and under-equipped and he did not feel threatened by the victim. BTW the armed militiaman that said that could have been referring to Rittenhouse being under-equipped mentally to handle the situation, which he clearly was. And again, his long-time friend might have been called by the state, to extract a certain piece of information, but that doesn't negate the fact that Rittenhouse's long-time friend, who purchased the gun for him, and who accompanied Rittenhouse would possess an inherent and subconscious, at the least, bias towards Rittenhouse's POV.

Overall these cases do highlight a flaw in how the US legal code has been written to favor the survivor of any incident. In a world where Rosemblaum ended up surviving this incident and Rittenhouse died, Rosemblaum could also be arguing self-defense. Rosemblaum could easily argue he felt in danger of his life from Rittenhouse pursuing him with an AR-15 therefore he was justified. Suddenly, what's in Rittenhouse's mind automatically becomes invalid and it's solely about Rosemblaum. This is a flaw in how American law works and American law has been built on biased codification and precedents. It still bears some of that bias, especially in favor of the "winner" of a violent encounter that is complex. Rittenhouse's own actions of "acting as a deterrent to property damage", something he was under-experienced, untrained, and ill-equipped mentally to do, itself is a troubling action.

For the trial, he could very well get some self-defense pass on the heaviest charges but still be guilty of reckless endangerment and reckless homicide.

 

[Drainy]

The FBI have actually now found the footage

 

[choiboyx012]

It’s been a while since I’ve seen the videos, but it was pretty clear-cut self defense from what I remember. He’s still an ass-hat I have no sympathy for, but he should be found not guilty.

 

[Drainy]

Witness has been good so far.

Funny that the prosecution admitted that they wanted to draw a contrast with the defendant since he's a qualified paramedic.

Got bad facts out early that he was convicted of a crime other than a felony and his conceiled carry permit expired so he was illegally carrying on the day.

 

[Drainy]

You can't try to subtly bring up prior convictions of the victims (which is well known to be legally irrelevant) while ignoring the fact the blogger is from a far-right propaganda site and expect your own posts to be considered objective.

Nobody at the trial brought up or threatened to bring up the political slant of his blog and I doubt it would have been explosive to the trial. There was a real chance that had the prosecutors brought up character evidence that the felonies of the 2 deceased would have been introduced as it would become relevant, and it would have been traumatic for the prosecution especially given the nature of the felonies, particularly the Rosenbaum conviction but the 'gut you like a pig' incident would have really turned a jury off and lose any sympathy also.

 

[Drainy]

Ok the witness is getting his arsehole pounded on cross. Oofff

Caught lying to police

 

[Drainy]

Kyle Rittenhouse looks like he's about to cry with relief. The witness is capitulating

 

[Drainy]

There is a big moment - the complaining witness has stated he has no regrets from the night, so the defence are wanting to introduce a social media post where he is recorded saying he should have emptied his clip into Rittenhouse.

The prosecution questions were indicating that he wasn't going to shoot and the witness said that he would be morally opposed to shooting someone.

He's been caught lying to police twice, and admitted he's left the fact he was holding a gun off his civil suits. The prosecution lawyers look horrified. The witness admitted that he was only shot after he pointed his pistol and there is a photo of the gun pointed at Rittenhouse. He even said in his capacity as a EMT a skateboard smacking someone on the head can cause head trauma!!

Holy feck this witness is gutting the case.

 

[UncleBob]

He even said in his capacity as a EMT a skateboard smacking someone on the head can cause head trauma!!

It can’t?

 

[Drainy]

It can’t?

It can, especially using the trucks, but even if it couldn't the fact someone who is presenting themselves as a medical expert testified to it would make the jury more likely to think it is true.

This is a prosecution witness saying this.

 

[Pexbo]

It’s funny reading the slant Drainy puts on this compared to various other reports and accounts I’ve been reading online.

Have you picked a side yet @Drainy ?

 

[Drainy]

It’s funny reading the slant Drainy puts on this compared to various other reports and accounts I’ve been reading online.

Have you picked a side yet @Drainy ?

I expected today to be a good one for the prosecution and it was going well until cross.

Based on what I've seen so far I think Rittenhouse was acting in self defence, and the defence hasn't started their case in chief yet.

Obviously he's guilty of the curfew violation, and the possession charge is a point of law that will be decided by whether the judge dismisses it. If it gets to the jury he'll be convicted of it but that won't impact the other charges.

 

[UncleBob]

It can, especially using the trucks, but even if it couldn't the fact someone who is presenting themselves as a medical expert testified to it would make the jury more likely to think it is true.

This is a prosecution witness saying this.

I’m confused, so what’s the problem with stating it?

 

[Drainy]

I’m confused, so what’s the problem with stating it?

There isn't necessarily a problem, but its detrimental to the prosecution's case and he's a prosecution witness. Self defence is valid when people fear death or serious injury and risk of brain trauma from the attacker would mean he can use lethal force.

If the jury gives any credibility to this witness as a medical expert he's damaged their case in a big way with that statement. Bit of an own goal.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

There isn't necessarily a problem, but its detrimental to the prosecution's case and he's a prosecution witness. Self defence is valid when people fear death or serious injury and risk of brain trauma from the attacker would mean he can use lethal force.

If the jury gives any credibility to this witness as a medical expert he's damaged their case in a big way with that statement. Bit of an own goal.

Because Rittenhouse's only means of defence was lethal, it's going to depend if the skateboard is judged to be able to cause great bodily harm or death.

 

[UncleBob]

There isn't necessarily a problem, but its detrimental to the prosecution's case and he's a prosecution witness. Self defence is valid when people fear death or serious injury and risk of brain trauma from the attacker would mean he can use lethal force.

If the jury gives any credibility to this witness as a medical expert he's damaged their case in a big way with that statement. Bit of an own goal.

And people wonder why yankland is fecked.

 

[UncleBob]

Because Rittenhouse's only means of defence was lethal, it's going to depend if the skateboard is judged to be able to cause great bodily harm or death.

It’s somewhat ironic that someone can put themselves in a situation where they’ve done something daft to the point that they risk being badly injured, and can then get away with killing more people.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

It’s somewhat ironic that someone can put themselves in a situation where they’ve done something daft to the point that they risk being badly injured, and can then get away with killing more people.

Yes, the notion that he actively went into a situation where he'd be at risk should be a factor as well.

 

[Drainy]

The complaining witness's testimony is over - it was horrendous for the prosecution. There was a point where he saw his lawsuits burning down and his brain melted.

Interesting that he testified that he saw Rittenhouse clear the rifle as though he had tried to shoot him, but it jammed, and that's why he feared for his life. At least they got that from him.