Wow.
Kyle Rittenhouse | Now crowdfunding LOLsuits against Whoopi Goldberg, LeBron James, and The Young Turks
- Thread starter Drainy
- Start date
@Drainy would you describe yourself as to the left or right politically?
Seems certain given the evidence. Just being objective of course.
you'd need more context to make claim that someone is racist for it.
Was he there on the advice of his handlers? Was he asked by someone there to do the OK sign? Was he aware that was becoming a controversial symbol online? Did he know who the proud boys are? If so what was they public platform at the time? Had they been violent at this point etc. Etc.
I'd like to think that's just basic critical thinking.
I haven't followed the trial at all, other than reading this thread and watching the aerial video. But has there been any explanation of what made Rittenhouse suddenly accelerate towards the group?
Up until that point it did look like he was walking down the street minding his own business (if you can call it that when armed with an machine gun). Surely if you feel threatened and fear for your life you stop, yet here he actively goes and engages with them. I can only guess that the group called him something due to him walking around looking for trouble with the machine gun, and he took offence and tried to then engage them thinking they would back down due to him having the gun (plus youth fearlessness). That obviously didn't happen, and we know he had to then flee and shot them in the process to protect himself. That acceleration towards them is what is likely to be key on whether the he can argue self defense or not, as he has effectively created the conflict.
Up until that point it did look like he was walking down the street minding his own business (if you can call it that when armed with an machine gun). Surely if you feel threatened and fear for your life you stop, yet here he actively goes and engages with them. I can only guess that the group called him something due to him walking around looking for trouble with the machine gun, and he took offence and tried to then engage them thinking they would back down due to him having the gun (plus youth fearlessness). That obviously didn't happen, and we know he had to then flee and shot them in the process to protect himself. That acceleration towards them is what is likely to be key on whether the he can argue self defense or not, as he has effectively created the conflict.
Nope. I really don't.
Good post. Thank you.
From the UK from a working class background
Extremely socially Liberal, strong free speech advocate but I'm waivering on that since Trump and Brexit. Pro legalisation of weed, pro-choice. Don't think the UK should allow guns except for very limited circumstances.
Was a frothing from the mouth remainer and spent years complain about it to anyone who'd listen.
Got behind Corbyn in the end, was willing to give Starmer a chance.
Think any industries that anyone cannot refuse to participate in should be nationalised
Always vote for Labour in contested seats. Voted lib dem once, and if you want a gotcha I did once vote tory but that was after Labour tried introducing 72 day detentions for suspected terrorists and I protest voted for the toties because David Davies has resigned and rerun in protest.
I'm completely non-nationalistic, pro immigration and asylum, pro-legalising currently undocumented immigrants, and strongly republican (as in I want a constitutional reform that removes the monarchy)
Think ignorance is different from willful ignorance and hate so try to be patient with people so believe that if someone says something ignorant that could be because they are misinformed so try not to judge or jump to conclusions
The sort of person that thinks Shamima Begum and her children should be allowed back and she should be tried, the evidence heard and suitably punished based on what crimes she actually committed and not the perception of what she did.
as a german lawyer, I'm completely mindboggled by the sheer shitshow such a trial of public importance is in the US 
I know there's no perfect legal systems in this world, but I highly prefer the much more bureaucratic, long and sober trials that are held where I practice law. The thought alone of letting a jury decide about these cases, man...I'd go completely mental
I know there's no perfect legal systems in this world, but I highly prefer the much more bureaucratic, long and sober trials that are held where I practice law. The thought alone of letting a jury decide about these cases, man...I'd go completely mental
Possibly, apart from the Ziminskis are heard saying let's get him and Rosenbaum hides before Rittenhouse starts running. There is no indication of what causes Rittenhouse to run to them in evidence so far.
The Ziminskis won't be testifying, I think. Doubtful they would since one of the fired the first shot and they have a right to not self incriminate.
And there we have it.
People, I'm ready to admit I was wrong..
Rittenhouse had his charge dismissed for the curfew breach and I thought he would be found guilty.
Rittenhouse had his charge dismissed for the curfew breach and I thought he would be found guilty.
Christ mate
fecking hell.
What would get any of you to change your minds?
If the jury give a not guilty verdict what will you blame? The judge who has been fair to both sides and taken time to make sure he gets his law right, or the jury who admitted fear of the outcome of the case if they don't convict during selection
The fact is that the prosecution have been the ones making a strong case for self defence with the evidence that they have allowed in.
If the jury give a not guilty verdict what will you blame? The judge who has been fair to both sides and taken time to make sure he gets his law right, or the jury who admitted fear of the outcome of the case if they don't convict during selection
The fact is that the prosecution have been the ones making a strong case for self defence with the evidence that they have allowed in.
as a german lawyer, I'm completely mindboggled by the sheer shitshow such a trial of public importance is in the US
I know there's no perfect legal systems in this world, but I highly prefer the much more bureaucratic, long and sober trials that are held where I practice law. The thought alone of letting a jury decide about these cases, man...I'd go completely mental
If you're the judge. What's your verdict?
He might get off on a technicality. The major difference is that the majority of us on here have our own moral compass which isn’t based on an incredibly flawed US justice system. Rittenhouse armed himself with an assault rifle, crossed state lines illegally carrying said rifle, marched around a protest carrying said rifle and eventually shot and killed four people.
I‘m a normal person, those actions are immoral. On what planet does a 17 year old kid think he has the right to be a vigilante or state militia? He decided to arm himself with a weapon of war that day and he knew he might use it. He did use it and four people lost their lives.
I'd say this would be another reason to take a long hard look at a jury trial. Jury's are never unbiased unless they replace them with computers and these biases are the reason people bring up irrelevant things like past crimes of victims and the like. Who cares if one of the victims was Hitler, the shooter didn't know that, so it's irrelevant. However, it will make the jury think, hmm that guy was bad before so it might be his fault for a bit now.
I realize gun and self defense culture is wildly different in the states than it is in The Netherlands, but there is no scenario for me personally where you bring a machine gun to a protest, kill 2 people and are not a murderer. Simply does not compute in my mind. Whether these people are Santa and the pope or Hitler and James Corden, he killed them.
But would you look at the testimonies!
Come on mate, the whole world knew about the Proud Boys from before Charlottesville march
I reckon you're projecting. Have you been beaten up or is it just a general fear? I wonder if you look like Rittenhouse.
The gun was already in the state when he arrived but I get what you are saying.
The difference is that everyone involved who was brought in by the prosecution are saying he wasn't aggressive and was there because he wanted to help. Within a context of a country where people are armed he would have been stupid to not go armed. The testimony is that the armed individuals were carrying ar-15s as a deterrent and outside of one deranged individual it worked.
I've already said he shouldn't be there because he couldn't legally possess a firearm and going unarmed would be dangerous but that doesn't defeat the self defence from a man who threatened his life lunging for him grabbing for his gun and screaming feck you.
No it was a tired, ill and snarky comment about Rosenbaum attacking young boys because he's a convicted paedophile who molested boys aged 8 and 10.
Yes I have been attacked in the streets before for no reason. It wasn't great.
I assume you mean Rittenhouse, as in the guy who shot dead people.
Gonna need some context for that one. Perhaps he was just swinging his fists whilst walking and you got in the way?
The answer to your four last questions is obviously yes. I honestly can't believe that even needs to be said.
“Self defense” laws in America are really wild. There are so many things about that country that make no sense to me as an outsider.
That being said there’s no way Drainy isn’t a relative of some sort to this person, or interested in him in some way. Just being objective and going by the testimonies of course. We would probably need a jury to confirm since that’s the be all and end all of truth and morality.
That being said there’s no way Drainy isn’t a relative of some sort to this person, or interested in him in some way. Just being objective and going by the testimonies of course. We would probably need a jury to confirm since that’s the be all and end all of truth and morality.
He threw a beer can at me, screaming what the feck are you looking at and ran up to me and threw punches before I knew what was going on
Edit: I may have instigated the incident by walking on a field near him with my school bag.
Sorry, but we need your full life story, before we can tell whether he was right or wrong in doing so.
Classic case of self defense, from my point of view. He felt threatened and acted accordingly.
No but you would need independent witness testimony, evidence of the injuries and/or video to prove it happened.
If he said I was being aggressive to him beforehand, in the absence of direct evidence you would want testimony of how I was acting that day it was available to see what the reasonableness of that would be.
And Rittenhouse knew this how?
Were you walking in his direction when looking at him? Did you show him your bag was empty of weapons? He might have perceived you as a threat and responded with preemptive self defence.
Glad he was able to act in self defense in time to save his life, well done to him.
He knew the person he was punching was a convicted idiot.
I'll read a little bit more about it first, then I could outline a very brief summary what I'd expect a judge would rule by german law
Edit:
It's very hard to get a proper overview about the details of what happened exactly in german, so I'd just say that there's - depending on the exact details, especially what happened before the warning shot and the confrontation in general - good chance that judging by german law, the warning shot made by someone else (not Rosenbaum) could have led to a situation, in which Rittenhouse thought an immediate attack on his life was imminent. Which would give him a right to defend himself, even by using a gun, no matter if it's an illegal possession or not, with the intention to kill.
But depending on what exactly happened beforehand (did he provoke an attack on himself? How exactly did he behave?), there's also a good chance that Rittenhouse's right to defend himslf was restricted in that regard, that he should have only defended himself by fleeing/seeking cover/giving warning shots first.
Last edited:
Nice
I'm not saying he did. Of course he didn't, but you know now what aggressive crimes the 'victims' committed and people believe they are heroes and they were justified in instigated violence or were reasonable in believing violence was justified because they saw a man with a gun, a medical bag and a fire extinguisher shouting 'medical'.
Rittenhouse may have some shitty affiliations, but from the evidence its clear he acted in self defence that night.
I don't think he's a hero at all and haven't said that. It was an unhinged take of my post that claimed that.
This is pretty much how I see it from the video posted.
There's clearly a bit of conflict to prompt the Ziminski guy to say "you won't do shit motherfvcker", whether that was a verbal threat or a physical one it's hard to say, but that is a reaction to something Rittenhouse did. It could just be the acceleration towards them, but it's quite clear to me that he instigated the confrontation or at the very least didn't deescalate it by keeping his distance.
That doesn't deal with the comment 'let's get him' immediately before that.
It also is at odds with way he was behaving with other protesters who were abusive to him earlier. Not saying that proves anything definitely but you can draw an inference on both points and that creates reasonable doubt.
He also flees after that point so any right to self defence fo Ziminski in your reading would end from the point Rittenhouse's back is turned.
Here you're talking about three things:
1) What happened that day.
2) Rosenbaum as a person.
3) Rittenhouse as a person.
When talking about Rosenbaum, you're talking about his crimes and you're tying that into what happened that day. When talking about Rittenhouse, you're describing his affiliating with a terrorist organization and use of a white supremacist symbol as "may have some shitty affiliations", and you're following it up with a but about how that doesn't impact what happened that day. You're downplaying Ritterhouse's cozying up with fascist terrorists, and you're treating the two people's personal lives outside of the incident in two completely different ways.
Combined with these particular comments:
As someone said, this "doesn't look good". However, over several days we have all the context we need. Your approach to this is really fecked up. You can try to do your spiel about how people can't handle looking at the evidence objectively, that it hurts their feelings, but I'm not talking about the evidence or the trial. I'm talking about you.