I know it's not the same. The poster I quoted is suggesting the actions exactly the same as what would be suggested in a hostage situation.
Kyle Rittenhouse | Now crowdfunding LOLsuits against Whoopi Goldberg, LeBron James, and The Young Turks
- Thread starter Drainy
- Start date
The most recent videos shown call this interpretation into question. It appears the gun was pointed at Rittenhouse's head only after Rittenhouse already shot him.
Had Grosskreutz wanted to shoot Rittenhouse he easily could have done so in the minutes before that incident, like instead of filming Rittenhouse, he could have just shot him. For the shooting itself, its reasonable to believe Grosskreutz himself feared for his life and was also entitled to act in self-defense. Had he actually shot and killed Rittenhouse, his claim to self-defense would have been every bit as viable, if not more so.
Did you miss Grosskeutz own testimony on this?
One of the compelling things about this trial is the interesting characters and the fact that the prosecution cannot hide their emotions.
Then re-watch it because it does not appear the gun is pointed at Rittenhouse until after he shoots.
Also, you shouldn't just cherry-pick testimony. Grosskreutz also testified that he never intentionally pointed the gun at Rittenhouse and then in the moment of fearing for his own life due to imminent threat he was trying to close the distance and disarm Rittenhouse. The video supports that, if Grosskreutz really just wanted to shoot Rittenhouse in the head, he could have done so earlier, and in the moment of the shooting he wouldn't have moved as he did.
His own testimony already contradicted what you said in the origonal post.
Did that statement probably damage the prosecution case with the jury? Most likely.
But I'm basing my judgment solely on the video, not what someone said. When you look at the video, it simply does not appear like the gun is pointed at Rittenhouse until after he shoots. I trust objective video evidence over testimony for exactly the reasons I listed in a previous post because countless research shows that memory is fallible.
You honestly dont believe that the guy who got shot in the arm who's had over 1 year to tesitfy in a huge trial couldn't get the version of events correct in his favour?
Watch it in slow motion.
Last edited:
This is the guy who told the police his gun fell out of his pants that night before he got to Rittenhouse, and has left the fact he had a gun off his lawsuits.
They had to trap him into honesty.
Video shows he was moving his arm with the gun downwards towards aiming it at Rittenhouse's head and whether he'd got there quite yet is irrelevant. The footage shows there was reason to use deadly force in self defence.
Its a joke that he now says it was an accident in a flaccid attempt to keep his lawsuits alive.
A simple punch can be lethal as well.
The US is fecked. Now it's Ok to shot someone unarmed and all you have to say is that you feel scared.
The principle of proportionality in self-defence is now not existent in the US.
I find the fact that by law you can go somewhere with a deadly weapon to look for trouble and then, on finding said trouble, kill people in self defense insane. I know it's the law, but so is imprisoning women after being raped for being unfaithful in parts of the world.
Last edited:
The guy with the skateboard tried to grabbed his rifle. Considering him being chased by a mob, dropped kicked, hit by skateboard in head, trying to grab his gun and having a glock pointed towards his head he had reasonable fear to his life.
I think one of the core strengths of american conservatism is that they don't have any shame.
It's kind of amazing.
Think of the possibilities this opens up. If he goes free, it means that I can go down to a gathering of Proud Boys / white power assholes, and I can bring a weapon designed for killing people (not hunting). I can provoke those Proud Boys cnuts and when one of them has a problem, I can turn around and shoot all those fecking assholes. I can even go to some other state and do it, it doesn't even have to be anywhere near my home. I can feel aggrieved by proxy and start shooting some Nazi scum. Can't wait.
Random or not, it means shooting a group of people unprovoked, which is not the case here. KR can actually claim self defense.
Yep.
Or some white supremacist can just dress as a KKK member and walk around black neighbourhoods. Anytime someone gets close to him to insult him or trying to punch him, he can just shoot them dead right there, no problem. Meriiicaaaaaa.
And based on some of the arguments that have been made on here the fact you just said that could not be used in court to show premeditation or intent.
This is exactly what's gonna happen and then these same people will not be interested in any self-defense arguments.
As all this is going on, today is also "active shooter drill & video day" at school.
#Murica
#Murica
I have a friend from college, a guy I used to surf with, whose surname is Rittenhouse, so it's weird watching this pathetic Nazi scum's trial. Anyway, this Rittenhouse will be convicted of lesser charges. The good news is, these lesser charges will also see him doing life. For instance, instead of Murder One, he might get second degree intentional homicide, which carries a sentence of 60 years in Wisconsin. Below are some Wisconsin penalties for homicide. The minimum Rittenhouse will get away with is the Class G felony and 10 years in prison. He won't survive.
- 1st-degree murder - You'll be charged with a class A felony for 1st-degree murder. This comes with a minimum punishment of life imprisonment.
- 2nd-degree intentional homicide - You could be facing up to 60 years in prison for 2nd-degree intentional homicide. Hiring an experienced lawyer at Grieve Law would greatly increase your chances of lessening your penalty in some way.
- 1st-degree reckless homicide - The penalty associated with a 1st-degree reckless homicide charge that gets recorded as a Class B Felony is 60 years in state prison.
- OWI Vehicular homicide with a previous OWI conviction - Being charged with OWI Vehicular homicide with a previous OWI conviction will result in a Class C felony charge. These types of charges include fines up to $100,000 and potentially 40 years in state prison.
- OWI Vehicular Homicide - Being charged with OWI Vehicular Homicide could result in Class D felony charges. These charges include up to 25 years in state prison and up to $100,000 in fines (or both).
- 2nd Degree Reckless Homicide - A class D felony charge for 2nd-degree reckless homicide will land you up to 25 years in state prison and fines upwards of $100,000 (or both).
- Homicide by negligence with firearms or motor vehicles - A homicide by negligence with firearms or motor vehicles is seen as a Class G Felony in Wisconsin. A Class G Felony in Wisconsin will result in 10 years of state prison time and $25,000 in fines.
All 12 protestors have gathered outside the courthouse.
judge on fire
Either way this shakes out, Rittenhouse is a deadman walking. Inside the joint, he won't last long. Outside the joint, he won't be able to hide. I would prefer justice to be done, however, and for Rittenhouse to be sentenced to 60 years in prison.
Is it like in the uk... sentenced to 10 but out in 5 years?
I'm sure he will be a trophy wife for some Arian Brotherhood Bear and get through the 5 years (mostly) intact
Actually it's america... he will get off with no charges and be paraded round maga rallies like a hero
What does this entail?
Is it not very likely he'll get off all of these on self defense? I thiught that's the way it was looking
Except for the first one which has mandatory life, there is no chance this particular judge gives anything resembling 60 years.
That sentence should never exist
He has a reputation for being strict with sentences and has clearly wanted the jury to decide the verdicts rather than himself even if the evidence is paper thin.
Its funny that people are familiar with the decisions that went against the prosecution and use that as evidence of bias, but any calls that went for them are barely noted, but I guess that is social media for you.
We practice lockdown procedures and watch a video about what to do in case of a school shooting.
Life is really something sometimes.
We can agree on what the video shows. What's relevant or not though is somewhat subjective. The video also shows that Grosskreutz would have been justified in acting in self-defense with Rittenhouse appearing to rerack the AR-15 which could easily be interpreted as intent to shoot.
As others mentioned, this really opens things up with a troubling precedent where you could conceivably have two people or two groups, both armed, with both sides able to claim self-defense because they feel threatened. It's conceivable this creates a bit of a shoot first and ask questions later mindset where paradoxically, the person who shoots first gets the most legitimate claim to self-defense.
And if we're talking about being dishonest and lying, Rittenhouse has lied more than any other defendant I've seen in a high-profile case, both the night of the incident and on the stand.
yes of course two people can have valid self defence claims against each other.
Grosskreutz would have had one because he reasonably believed Rittenhouse was an active shooter and was a risk to his life in that moment, Rittenhouse has one because Grosskreutz was part of a mob trying to kill him and was moving to aim a gun at his head.
Its about what what is happening in the mind of whoever pulls the trigger and there are two people with different minds.
I'm not an expert in Wisconsin law, you'd have to ask someone who is. I merely copied 'n' pasted some information relating to homicide sentencing. The point is, people have assumed that getting convicted of a lesser charge is somehow Rittenhouse getting off lightly - it isn't. The lesser charges could still see him spend the remainder of his wretched life in prison.
As for being paroled, or being released early, there's this:
The Wisconsin Parole Commission is the final authority for granting discretionary paroles or early release from prison for crimes committed before December 31, 1999.
Not all offenders are eligible to have parole interviews. Only offenders who were convicted of offenses committed before Dec. 31, 1999 are eligible for parole interviews. Under Wisconsin's Truth-in-Sentencing laws, any person who commits a felony offense on or after Dec. 31, 1999, and is sentenced to at least one year of prison will not be eligible for parole.
Parole refers to an offender's release from prison before reaching his/her mandatory release date. A parole interview is the formal meeting between an offender and a Parole Commissioner to determine whether or not the offender will be granted parole (early release).
Parole interviews occur at the institution where the offender is serving his/her sentence. Offenders do not leave the institution to attend a parole interview. There are no official courtrooms at institutions, so the rooms chosen for these interviews are usually offices or small conference rooms.
Mental that's part of a school syllabus effectively.
How do the politicians think that's OK?
Each of the three people he shot is a separate count. I think on one of those 3 he will skate, but on the other 2 he will be convicted. So: probably a conviction on a lesser charge, a conviction on the maximum charge, one charge not proven (not guilty). He will still get 30 years (I hope).
Using the Derek Chauvin sentencing as a very inexact example (different state, different circumstances, etc.), Chauvin got 22.5 years for 2nd and 3rd degree murder, as well as 2nd degree manslaughter. In Rittenhouse's case, he shot 3 people and killed 2. I don't think it's likely he beats all the charges for the simple fact that he was an underage vigilante who went across state lines to cause trouble with a gun he was not legally entitled to possess. He instigated conflict and shot at least 2 of the 3 people unnecessarily. He's going down.