None are murder to some people as long as you "feel" threatened. Awesome news right?
Kyle Rittenhouse | Now crowdfunding LOLsuits against Whoopi Goldberg, LeBron James, and The Young Turks
- Thread starter Drainy
- Start date
None are murder to some people as long as you "feel" threatened. Awesome news right?
Who's the witness, one of the defense's?
yeah, he's spun a fantastical yarn. Literally like Forrest Gump was there.
I don't have to prove anything to you, I'm posting here for posterity so anyone coming into this thread doesn't mistakenly think you provide an objective view of the trial.
It's irrelevant what else someone is carrying when he looks like Rittenhouse did in the photo posted. He could be carrying rainbows, butterflies, and Pokeman cards for trade and he still appears threatening, provocative, and looking for trouble.
What is the definition of brandishing a weapon?
Wrong answer. The correct answer was a medical kit strapped to him, along with his rifle, and a fire extinguisher in his other hand.
He drops the fire extinguisher when he flees Rosenbaum.
When I was a doorman, almost every Friday we'd get some drunk kid kicking off with guys who could, quite obviously, batter them with ease.
It was always quite obvious when the kid suddenly realised that he'd bitten off more than he could chew, then, you'd hear "friendly, friendly, friendly" as they tried to talk themselves out of the trouble that they themselves started.
It was always quite obvious when the kid suddenly realised that he'd bitten off more than he could chew, then, you'd hear "friendly, friendly, friendly" as they tried to talk themselves out of the trouble that they themselves started.
Thanks.
I didn't get much of chance to listen today but when I tuned in between meetings, the judge was scolding one of the defense attorneys (Sheffield) rather strongly. That trial looks like it's going well for the prosecution.
Who gives a flying feck? He’s walking around holding a fecking assault rifle in the ready position in the middle of a riot, are you seriously arguing people should be calmed by the fact he’s carrying some fecking plasters?
Big Chungus getting so so mad. This is hilarious. So surreal.
As I said, it's 100% irrelevant what else he was carrying when he looks like Rittenhouse did (personally I'd rather he had rainbows, butterflies and Pokemon cards to trade if he wanted to appear innocent).
But yup, a completely innocent guy just looking to clean up some graf and provide "medical assistance" (that he was unqualified to provide in the first place). Oh, and hang out with boogaloo bois and contributors to the Daily Caller. Glad he got that Proud Boys photo in there for his Insta.
As I said, it's 100% irrelevant what else he was carrying when he looks like Rittenhouse did. But thanks for proving you have no interest in arguing in good faith (as if that was in doubt at this point).
Yup, completely innocent guy just looking to clean up some graf and provide "medical assistance" (that he was unqualified to provide in the first place) and hang out with boogaloo bois and contributors to the Daily Caller.
I stopped being interested in being reasonable with you as soon as you went bad faith to defend your position on who chased whom.
If Ana Kasparian can say 'sorry, I was wrong' why can't you? Does your ego not allow it or your brain not comprehend it yet?
I'm not reading any post. But is drainy speaking from his own opinion or what's happening in court
You're the one that's been arguing in bad faith since the thread began. Your post about laughing at the prosecutor, among others, shows that you have an agenda here.
Rittenhouse begins following and chasing the victims at an increased speed. Only after that point does the victim turn it around and charge at Rittenhouse. Here are some stills from the FBI video that show Rittenhouse pursuing the victims. This all happens to recklessly instigate the incident before Rosemblaum charges Rittenhouse. Had Rittenhouse wanted to avoid any encounter and de-escalate, he easily could have avoided the encounter altogether by stopping earlier or just walking the other direction. Even if we grant your supposition that there was an "ambush" intended 1) it could be justified on self-defense as well and 2) Rittenhouse was clearly reckless in lacking any situational awareness of how brandishing an AR-15 in the ready position was threatening and provoking.
Both it seem, but presenting his own opinion as verified fact.
Also asked for anything to support the idea Rittenhouse is racist and then ignored it when it was provided.
That makes sense, thanks mang.
You're the one that's been arguing in bad faith since the thread began. Your post about laughing at the prosecutor, among others, shows that you have an agenda here.
Rittenhouse begins following and chasing the victims at an increased speed. Only after that point does the victim turn it around. Here are some stills from the FBI video that show Rittenhouse pursuing the victims. This all happens reckless to instigate the incident Before Rosemblaum charges Rittenhouse. Had Rittenhouse wanted to avoid the encounter, he easily could have avoided the encounter. Even if we grant your supposition that there was an "ambush" intended 1) it could be justified on self-defense itself and 2) Rittenhouse was clearly reckless in lacking any situational awareness of how brandishing an AR-15 in the ready position was threatening and provoking.
If you were walking behind someone who then attacked you would they be able to say you were pursuing them? That would be mental.
As I have said, I have no idea why he ran up to the Ziminskis (running past Rosenbaum the attacker who you say he pursued) but as soon as he felt threatened he fled and didn't stop until he was a) cornered and b) he heard a shot behind him.
I was laughing at the prosecutor arguing with an autistic man because it was funny, I didn't find his testimony credible at all.
Last edited:
when was it provided?
Obviously everyone will have different weights of credibility for each piece of evidence and witnesses but all I said was based on prosecution witness testimony - the only witness I completely ignore is the son of the car lot owner who was evasive as hell and said the armed people were not welcome on the property while they have the keys, and had a picture taken with them. If you believe him, ok but I find that mental.
If he ran up then he was not just "walking behind someone". If you watch the full video that you yourself linked, you can see he was following Rosemblaum for some time then increases (at which point I would call it chasing). If Rosemblaum was as aggressive as you claim, then Rittenhouse was either completely reckless to continue following or a complete moron too stupid to be trusted with carrying an AR-15s to rush into a group that clearly would have been intimidated and triggered by someone that appeared as he did. If someone that looked like Rittenhouse was following me dressed like that, I would feel threatened and consider it a pursuit if he began to run closer.
But hey, you go on believing the testimony of contributors to the Daily Caller and avowed boogaloo bois in defense of someone who gleefully poses with The Proud Boys.
I’m gonna go out on a limb and say the picture of him posing with proud boys and making white power hand signs is enough to call him racist.
and you gleefully defend the honour of a convicted paedophile who molested 8 and 10 year old boys and assaulted his prison guards, and had a protective order from his girlfriend that he violated to see the day of the shooting after being released from a mental hospital following a suicide attempt
This definitely shows you are arguing in bad faith yet again. I haven't defended anyone, especially from any of the actions you list there. Criticizing Rittenhouse's actions in the incident relevant to this trial, based solely on the video and photo evidence (because I don't find the testimony of Daily Caller contributors and boogaloo bois to be reliable), in no way means "defending the honor" of someone else in completely unrelated actions.
It's so strange. It's like I walk into a spurs bar, call them cnuts and when they come to punch me I'll shot them in self defense. Insane.
Would need the context of how the decision was made for that meeting. However it doesn't look good.
You're acting like Rittenhouse was stalking him and he had no choice but to protect himself from the 'boogaloo bandit' who was coming for him.
All the evidence of that night and his life is that Rosenbaum was a bomb waiting to go off.
And all evidence from that night and his life indicate that Rittenhouse was completely untrained, under-experienced, and ill-equipped (mentally) to be out there illegally carrying an AR-15 at the ready wading into crowds of a protest. In other words, reckless behavior. As I already said to someone else, both parties acted recklessly and clearly could have avoided this encounter if either had any awareness or sensibility. However, one is dead and it's Rittenhouse on trial.
What's really hilarious is you need "context" for a picture of Rittenhouse giving the A-ok sign with the Proud Boys. Have fun looking for that "context."
Then how did he hit with 6/8 bullets fired and each of the targets were one of, or multiple of going for his gun, assaulting him with blows to the head, or pointing a gun at him, and only shoot when retreat wasn't an option through obstacles meaning he was unable to run away or being knocked to the ground, and maintaining the trigger discipline to not shoot anyone mobbing him who stopped and put their hands up and then ran off?
You need to turn off the internet.
I can almost understand you taking a lawyerly look at the trial, specifically, and come to the conclusion that he can't or won't be convicted, but now you're just defending him on a general basis. Portraying him as some sort of paragon of restraint is a bridge too far.
I mean, that has been discussed as evidence of restraint. Grosskreutz even admitted to his restraint.
The numbers is just counting. 4 hit Rosenbaum, 2 missed jumpkickman, 1 hit Huber, 1 hit Grosskreutz.
The rest is based on video that anyone can see and judge for themselves if they want to.
Proficiency in marksmanship and self-defence scenarios isn't the only training in question here. Knowing when to engage or disengage is much more important when carrying a firearm, be it openly or concealed.
Most of us in this thread feel Rittenhouse made the wrong decision in continuing to engage the rioters, under the cover of playing medic, and that this was the key factor that led to the shooting.
It almost seems like a parody that a person shot and killed a couple of guys and based on character assessment of a dead person, we are being told that the killer in fact did everyone a service by killing the dead because they were ticking time bombs. And said killer is not law enforcement, and was carrying an illegal assault rifle that didn't belong to him (I'll throw in the 3 months here)
Any mental thing done by Rittenhouse is classified as silly, protecting the neighborhood, understood as needed for later times, and strictly looked at from a skewed legal perspective of drainy and yet prosecution arguments are vociferously shouted down as lies, innuendo and dismissed based on personal belief. What is telling is drainy arguing that the victim deserved to die based on his supposed character faults even though there is no way in hell that Rittenhouse could have known any of this when he killed him.
It's not mental, it's insane. I won't engage in further arguments nor should anyone. Just rid of this "unbiased legal perspective" malarkey
Any mental thing done by Rittenhouse is classified as silly, protecting the neighborhood, understood as needed for later times, and strictly looked at from a skewed legal perspective of drainy and yet prosecution arguments are vociferously shouted down as lies, innuendo and dismissed based on personal belief. What is telling is drainy arguing that the victim deserved to die based on his supposed character faults even though there is no way in hell that Rittenhouse could have known any of this when he killed him.
It's not mental, it's insane. I won't engage in further arguments nor should anyone. Just rid of this "unbiased legal perspective" malarkey
Yeah it's just so transparent.
Welcome to America, where the life of our fellow humans means nothing. I hate this place.
Hopefully Rittenhouse rots in jail for a long time.
I don’t think @Drainy is Yank though.
I think we’ve already established that it’s just him being silly or something.
Just read the entire thread from the beginning… wow.
Does hearing the testimony that contradicts your dogma hurt your feelings? I've also stated facts and impressions that hurt Rittenhouse's case throughout the trial.
People think I'm slanted and your takeaway from what I said he did everyone a service because the person was a time bomb, when obviously I'm saying he was a mentally unstable person who attacked someone with the means to defend himself and if it wasn't him it would have been someone else. As people have said protesters were holding him back all night, he eventually found the Ziminskis who assisted him.
Almost like an intention misinterpretation to make it seem like a proactive murderer rather than self defence, which the evidence is currently pointing towards.
Again, the only person who suggested Rittenhouse was aggressive that night was yellow pants man and he's not testifying.