Utopia Talk / Politics / Rittenhouse Trial

Cherub Cow Member	Tue Nov 09 04:36:53 Week 2 of the trial has begun as of November 8th. Some highlights from the trial so far: • From opening statements, the prosecution is *not* arguing that Rittenhouse crossed state lines with a firearm. This is worth mentioning because propagandists such as Trevor Noah and John Oliver were making this claim. Rittenhouse purchased and used the weapon in Wisconsin. Rittenhouse lives about 10–15 minutes from the business that he was protecting. • Any firearms charges will likely fall on Dominick Black, Rittenhouse's friend who purchased the firearm. Black attempted to cast doubt about how Rittenhouse acquired the weapon, likely because Black is trying to avoid federal charges and made a deal with the prosecution. But, Black undermines his statements by explaining that he and Rittenhouse were in possession of weapons together for hours and Black never questioned it (i.e., he knew that Rittenhouse was supposed to have the weapon). Black also notes that after the shooting, Rittenhouse was scared and said that he had to use the firearm in self defense. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVy6ZCMO-4M
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Nov 09 04:37:08 • Day 3 — (Prosecution tries to use drone footage from the FBI to claim that Rittenhouse was chasing Rosenbaum. Propaganda memes from the left were trying to seize on this detail, but on-the-ground information totally contradicts this analysis. It is established that Rosenbaum hid to the side between cars so that he could sneak up on Rittenhouse as Rittenhouse fled from a mob that was trying to stop Rittenhouse from using a fire extinguisher.) Richie McGinniss testifies. He is the independent journalist who was a few feet away from the Rosenbaum/Rittenhouse shots. McGinniss testifies that Rosenbaum was trying to grab Rittenhouse's rifle when he was shot. The shot to Rosenbaum's back occurred as Rosenbaum fell after the previous shots. The prosecution tried to cast doubt by saying that McGinniss probably doesn't know if Rosenbaum would try to grab the rifle *again* after he charged Rittenhouse and tried to grab the rifle (i.e., prosecution was hoping that the jury would be dumb enough to think that Rosenbaum would suddenly stop attacking at that point or that he was no longer a threat even though he was now in grabbing range of Rittenhouse). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yH9c05a804
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Nov 09 04:38:20 • Day 5 – Monday, November 8th Gaige Grosskreutz testifies. He was the pistol-carrying anarchist (he admits to being affiliated with an anarcho-revolutionary group) who was shot in the bicep. Prosecution focuses entirely on Grosskreutz' medical recovery, since his on-the-scene actions are toxic to their case. Prosecution points to a "Do Know Harm" tattoo to lightly suggest that Grosskreutz was just there to help people (though, "know" in this case means to be aware of harm; it is usually paired with "do no harm" but not in this case). Defense shows that Grosskreutz lied to police and state attorneys — repeatedly omitting that he was in possession of an illegally carried pistol. Defense also shows that Grosskreutz had interacted at least twice with Rittenhouse before their altercation. Grosskreutz video is used to show that Rittenhouse was walking around asking people if they need medical attention, and Grosskreutz is heard yelling at Rittenhouse, "We got our own medics. You're good. You can go home," and then muttering, "fucking stooge." After Rosenbaum, Grosskreutz then admits that he heard Rittenhouse yelling, "I'm going to police!" while Rittenhouse was running away from Grosskreutz and the mob in the direction of police. Defense establishes that Grosskreutz says, "Hey, stop him!" and drew his pistol at that time, catching Grosskreutz in a lie (Grosskreutz claimed that he did not draw his pistol at this time, but video was taken of Grosskreutz pulling out his pistol after Rittenhouse said he was going to get police). Defense also asks Grosskreutz if he was chasing Rittenhouse, and while Grosskreutz says that he was not at this point, he later agrees with the defense that he was indeed chasing Rittenhouse. Grosskreutz tries to sell the story that he was trying to help Rittenhouse, but he admits to lying to the police about telling people to stop attacking Rittenhouse. He also admits that his council advised him not to speak to police again once video of the altercation surfaced and contradicted his initial statements to police (the statements wherein he omitted his pistol possession and claimed he was trying to help Rittenhouse). Defense uses video to show that Rittenhouse did not fire on anyone who put their hands up. Grosskreutz admits that the skateboarder who was shot and killed by Rittenhouse struck Rittenhouse and was in a position to render Rittenhouse unconscious. Defense points out that the skateboarder was also trying to disarm Rittenhouse. Defense shows that after Rittenhouse pointed his weapon at an approaching Grosskreutz, Grosskreutz put his hands up, Rittenhouse does not fire upon him, and Rittenhouse lowers his weapon. Grosskreutz confirms that after Rittenhouse lowers his weapon, he lunges towards Rittenhouse. Grosskreutz confirms that he was holding a loaded and chambered Glock at this point. Grosskreutz agrees with the defense that it was not until he pointed his Glock at Rittenhouse that Rittenhouse fired upon him. One of the prosecutors is playing with his iPhone at this point. They take lunch. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22UFDXXFr9I Grosskreutz claims that he never told his then roommate that his only regret was not emptying his entire magazine into Rittenhouse. Defense has stated in court (absent jurors and Grosskreutz) that they intend to have Grosskreutz' former roommate in the courtroom on Wednesday to counter this claim. Grosskreutz' former roommate is the one who posted Grosskreutz' "regret" on Twitter, but the Tweet is so far considered hearsay. Prosecution redirects. They try to paint Rittenhouse as perceived by Grosskreutz to be a domestic terrorist ("boogaloo boys"). Prosecution claims that Grosskreutz began running because he heard people calling for medics after the first shots. Grosskreutz video is again shown of Grosskreutz running alongside Rittenhouse: [Grosskreutz]: "Hey, what are you doing? You shot somebody?" [Rittenhouse]: "I'm going to get police. [Illegible]" [Grosskreutz]: "Who's shot?" [Rittenhouse]: "[Illegible; per Grosskreutz, possibly, "I didn't do anything."]" [Grosskreutz]: "Who's shot? ... Hey, stop him!" Prosecution/Grosskreutz affirm that Grosskreutz did not make any verbal threats before being shot. Grosskreutz claims that at no point did he *intentionally* point his firearm at Rittenhouse. Grosskreutz claims that if he had intended to shoot Rittenhouse, he would not have gotten so close to him. Prosecution points out that Grosskreutz' left hand got muzzle burn from proximity to Rittenhouse's barrel (yes, the prosecution said this — not the defense). Grosskreutz claims that *he* was scared for his life. Defense redirects. Defense points out that actions such as Grosskreutz' can shown non-verbal aggression. Grosskreutz agrees. Grosskreutz agrees that regardless of what was not said, he was still pointing his weapon in the direct of (though not directly at) Rittenhouse's head. Defense points out and Grosskreutz agrees that Grosskreutz' only attempt to communicate after drawing his weapon was to approach Rittenhouse from three feet away without speaking. Prosecution redirects. Prosecution tries to offer that Rittenhouse lied when he said, "I didn't do anything" while being chased by Grosskreutz. Defense redirects. They point out that Grosskreutz claimed to police that Rittenhouse had said, "I'm working with the police," pointing out that Grosskreutz either lied or didn't know what Rittenhouse said. Grosskreutz admits that he was wrong, given the video evidence, and that does not mean Rittenhouse lied." Prosecution surprisingly does not redirect here, even though the defense got Grosskreutz to confuse the issues. They also have an evidence witness and one of the officers who first approached the second and third shooting sites. Prosecution is trying to make it seem like people were reasonably attacking because of the "Active shooter" narrative. It's pretty thin. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJyZ64ISlDo
Habebe Member	Tue Nov 09 10:26:39 I seen the testimony yesterday. It was kind of a wrap when the guy admitted Kyle didnt shoot him until he pointed a gun at Kyles head. The other guy was beating him with a skateboard. All justifiable homicides.
Rugian Member	Tue Nov 09 10:40:11 I love how openly contemptuous the judge is of the media's coverage of the whole thing. Lol Juries are inherently unpredictable but I think there's more than enough to get Rittenhouse off on the most serious charges. The videos of the incident already made it clear that he was defending himself during all shootings, and nothing presented at trial so far has changed that. Also, the FBI is a garbage organization. They've been sitting on drone footage this entire time (some of which they say they "lost"), but were happy to sit aside and watch Rittenhouse get lynched by the national media corps. Scum. (And why the fuck DO they have drone footage in the first place...Big Brother is watching us, apparently)
patom Member	Tue Nov 09 10:45:36 Lynch? Really? Stupid kid goes across a State line to become some kind of hero. He wasn't protecting anyone. He went looking for an opportunity to shoot someone.
Habebe Member	Tue Nov 09 10:49:21 Well, the FBI keeping an eye in the sky over BLM riots might be undstandable. Sitting on exsculparatory evidence seems shitty though. Here is the hill with some clips from the trial. http://youtu.be/JrPD8Y09wx8
Habebe Member	Tue Nov 09 11:05:13 Patom, In all fairness he lives on the border, so crossing state lines isn't as big as it sounds.It was like what 15 miles away?
Rugian Member	Tue Nov 09 11:24:09 Patom Do you still live in Bangor? It would take you four times as long to drive to Augusta as it did for Kyle to go to Kenosha. Its right on the border there.
patom Member	Tue Nov 09 12:19:49 So what. He still wasn't protecting any of his property. Don't make him out to be anything but what he is. A stupid kid.
Rugian Member	Tue Nov 09 12:26:36 He was a good citizen who wanted to protect a threatened neighborhood from rioters. He is worthy of adulation, not scorn.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Nov 09 13:29:13 Its going to be hilarious to watch the anti-white racists on the left cry when this dude gets exonerated.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Nov 09 13:30:26 Victims 2 & 3 were good citizens who wanted to protect a threatened neighborhood from an active shooter
Habebe Member	Tue Nov 09 13:38:58 ^msnbc narrative.
Habebe Member	Tue Nov 09 14:42:37 Defense lawyers say Kyle Rittenhouse, then 17, was acting in self-defense last August when he shot and killed Anthony Huber, 26, and Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and injured Gaige Grosskreutz, now 27. So Tony-26 Joe-36 Gaige-27 Gaige is the guy who had a pistol pointed at Kyles head while kyle was on the ground, Kyle apparently "vaporized" his fore arm. Which ones were tony and Joe?.One was the skateboard guy. How far away from their homes were they?
Rugian Member	Tue Nov 09 14:45:14 I'm sure that ACAB Idiots 2 and 3 were super concerned for the police officers that Kyle was running directly toward.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Nov 09 15:46:45 He might actually get convicted of the minor in possession of a gun charge. Thats the only one he might be guilty of.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Nov 09 15:50:42 not MSNBC narrative, the most obvious & only reasonable conclusion what motive do -you- think they had when engaging a guy running w/ an AR-15 (one of them armed w/ just a skateboard... which he did not beat Kyle with) while crowd clearly shouting 'hey, that guy just shot someone'? Kyle may escape conviction, but there's no doubt victims 2 & 3 were trying to be heroes not villains (& that no one would've died if Kyle had stayed home)
Habebe Member	Tue Nov 09 16:00:40 Kyle likely will be acquitted. Thats beside the point. "what motive do -you- think they had when engaging a guy running w/ an AR-15 " I think they meant to harm Kyle. If they didn't decide to both go rioting and then attack the armed Kyle, this also could have been avoided. How far away from their homes were the rioters?
Habebe Member	Tue Nov 09 16:02:35 Wasn't rosenbaum the pedophile?
Sam Adams Member	Tue Nov 09 16:04:30 "were trying to be heroes not villain" Stop eating the far-left talking points. These people all had lengthy prior criminal records and chose to join a mob for looting arson and rioting. They were certainly villains.
Pillz Member	Tue Nov 09 16:18:40 If we're lucky, tw gets rittenhoused next summer while he riots with his antifa friends
Habebe Member	Tue Nov 09 16:32:44 For example, yes, at age 19, Rosenbaum was sentenced to prison for sexually abusing five children — all boys between the ages of 9 and 11 — in Arizona’s Pima County in early 2002, according to his case file obtained via a public records request by Snopes. http://www...1/rittenhouse-victims-records/ This is SNOPES saying this...so yeah. Tony was the skateboarder. Joe rosenbaum was the child molester. Gauge had a pistol pointed at kyles
Habebe Member	Tue Nov 09 16:32:58 Head.
kargen Member	Tue Nov 09 16:57:06 The DA or whoever way overcharged on this hoping to slow the riots. All that happened though is they kicked the can down the street. Now they are going to be unable to prosecute on the charges filed which will of course lead to more riots. The only way he gets convicted of anything other than the under age possession of a firearm is if the jury fears the repercussions through rioting if they fail to convict. Prosecution has really fucked this up every step of the way.
jergul large member	Tue Nov 09 17:21:29 It is actually more complex than so. People commiting felony crimes cannot claim self-defence. So if the first reckless endangerment sticks, then so will the following murder, attempted murder, and additional reckless endangerment.
Rugian Member	Tue Nov 09 17:24:40 Jergul fronting like he's an expert in Wisconsin jurisprudence is the highlight of my day. Lol jergul.
jergul large member	Tue Nov 09 17:31:00 "If he is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony" Anything there you disagree with Ruggy?
Sam Adams Member	Tue Nov 09 17:32:15 "just a skateboard... which he did not beat Kyle with" Because Rittenhouse shot him about half a second before getting skateboardes. Stop watching msnbc.
jergul large member	Tue Nov 09 17:34:05 Sammy Does not matter if Rittenhouse had already committed a felony :D. Its like bad guys are not allowed to shoot their way out or something. Odd those US rules.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Nov 09 17:34:35 "Jergul fronting like he's an expert in Wisconsin jurisprudence" Lol its like seb talking about guns or a republican talking about vaccines.
jergul large member	Tue Nov 09 17:35:13 Sammy Logic+google. You should try the first sometime.
jergul large member	Tue Nov 09 17:39:06 I can walk you through it. Somebody that has committed a felony cannot invoke self defence. By claiming self-defence, Rittenhouse has admitted to committing crimes, so there is now contest if the self-defence claim fails. Rittenhouse has been charged with a reckless endangerment felony that happened before the homicide and attempted homicide (justified or not). If convicted of the felony, then the self-defence claim fails for what followed.
Rugian Member	Tue Nov 09 18:21:16 "Some have argued that Rittenhouse relinquished his right to self-defense by committing the crime of having carried a firearm while being underage. But [Attorney Patrick] Cafferty said that the legal basis for a self-defense argument “is sort of a moving target. It’s very fact-specific on each case.” He said that someone committing an armed robbery of a bank gives up their right to self-defense if a guard or citizen tries to stop them. “Someone from the public has the right to disarm myself if I have committed a bank robbery,” Cafferty said. But, if somebody commits misdemeanor disorderly conduct by yelling at someone on the street, but then the person being yelled at retaliates by trying to stab the person yelling, the right to self-defense would be retained by the original aggressor who now is trying to avoid being stabbed. “It gets more complicated in the case of Rittenhouse,” Cafferty said." http://jou...db-5968-a033-05839fecf011.html
kargen Member	Tue Nov 09 18:21:22 "By claiming self-defence, Rittenhouse has admitted to committing crimes," bullshit. Simple as that. Self defense is not admitting to committing a crime. The reckless endangerment may or may not have been a biproduct of the original self defense. If he was being attacked and in an effort to save his own life some innocent bystander is injured that doesn't automatically equate to reckless endangerment. Part of the criteria would be under those circumstances what would a normal response be. Even if it were determined that he acted recklessly in defending himself it wouldn't relate to any of the other events. He wasn't fleeing to evade or to distance himself from a crime. He was fleeing because he felt his life was in danger. The three shootings are absolutely separate from the other charge even though they all occurred during the same incident. Similar case was a home invasion in Florida. An apartment complex. The renter killed the intruder but one round went though the wall and into the other apartment. He faced charges for the shot through the wall but the rest of the incident was clean. Again the DA way over charged hoping to slow the riots.
Habebe Member	Tue Nov 09 18:33:57 He is talking about "felony murder". Basically if I break into your house to rob you (commiting a felony) any death thats spawned from that felonious act is on me regardless if it was accidental or not. I personally think he will mostly walk. But Im not sure of the threshold on reckless endangerment.
Habebe Member	Tue Nov 09 18:55:00 A few things that may play into that. 1. It is legal to be armed in order to protect a property. I dont think castle doctrine applies to a freinds business though. you can not USE Lethal force to protect that business. 2.He obviously can handle a fire arm better than say Alec Badwin.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Nov 09 20:26:33 "By claiming self-defence, Rittenhouse has admitted to committing crimes" Lolwhut
kargen Member	Tue Nov 09 21:27:44 and I can't believe this needs to be pointed out but if a some people in a crowd yells he just shot somebody that doesn't mean you get to assault that person.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Nov 09 21:53:03 and neither would've been charged w/ assault skateboarder 100% clearly attempting to just disarm him, in no way beating on him or even wanting to be engaged w/ him, entirely a run by gun grab attempt the video: http://youtu.be/EYjG4uequWQ?t=136 One-Arm doesn't touch him & had opportunity to shoot if he had chosen to (& probably would've been fully justified to shoot him... don't see how he wouldn't be in fear for his life after seeing the guy who people are calling a shooter just shoot a guy in front of him) i'm not citing MSNBC, i don't watch MSNBC, & -all- of my comments based on just watching the videos Kyle was a dorky nerd looking guy that drew a hot-head bully (victim #1) into chasing him (so basically entrapment [joke])... which they claim bully was grabbing for his gun, but bully is chasing Kyle, Kyle stops & turns, pointing a rifle at him as he closes in, what do you expect him to grab at? maybe Kyle will get away with that maybe not the other 2 were trying to stop a shooter Kyle may get away with that too, but it's still true <i'm done (probably) i don't want sucked back into this :p>
Forwyn Member	Tue Nov 09 22:27:22 "Victims 2 & 3 were good citizens who wanted to protect a threatened neighborhood from an active shooter" Most people miss the nuance here: it's entirely possible for this statement to be true, and 2nd/3rd shooting to be a tragic misunderstanding, and still be a justified shoot. Kyle retained a right to self-defense. Only person involved here that lived in Kenosha was the primary instigator Rosenbaum. There was no reckless endangerment, or else every shooting ever in history can have that label attached.
Forwyn Member	Tue Nov 09 22:28:25 "but bully is chasing Kyle, Kyle stops & turns, pointing a rifle at him as he closes in, what do you expect him to grab at?" Kyle turned because Rosenbaum's faggot friend Ziminski popped off a pistol shot in the air behind them.
Habebe Member	Tue Nov 09 22:37:29 EXPLAINER: What charges does Kyle Rittenhouse face? By TODD RICHMOND November 2, 2021 Kyle Rittenhouse listens as the his attorneys speak to the judge during his trial at the Kenosha County Courthouse in Kenosha, Wis, on Monday, Nov. 2, 2021. Rittenhouse is accused of killing two people and wounding a third during a protest over police brutality in Kenosha, last year. (Sean Krajacic/The Kenosha News via AP, Pool) MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Opening statements were held Tuesday in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, who shot three men, killing two of them and wounding the third, during a protest against police brutality in Kenosha, Wisconsin, last year. Rittenhouse has argued he fired in self-defense after the men attacked him. Here’s a look at the charges: FIRST-DEGREE RECKLESS HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON This felony charge is connected to the death of Joseph Rosenbaum, the first man Rittenhouse shot. Bystander video shows Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse through a parking lot and throwing a plastic bag at him. Rittenhouse flees behind a car and Rosenbaum follows. No video of the moment Rittenhouse pulled the trigger has surfaced yet, if any exists. Richard McGinnis, a reporter who was trailing Rittenhouse, told investigators that Rosenbaum tried to grab Rittenhouse’s gun, according to the criminal complaint. Reckless homicide differs from intentional homicide in that prosecutors aren’t alleging Rittenhouse intended to murder Rosenbaum. Instead, they’re alleging Rittenhouse caused Rosenbaum’s death by showing an utter disregard for human life. Former Waukesha County District Attorney Paul Bucher said prosecutors’ decision to charge reckless instead of intentional homicide shows they don’t know what happened between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum and what might have been going through Rittenhouse’s mind when he pulled the trigger. The charge is a felony punishable by up to 60 years in prison. The dangerous weapon modifier carries another five years. http://apn...ebaa501c57a6b54e168353fe0b2a26
nhill Member	Tue Nov 09 23:00:14 To be honest, idk what to think of Rittenhouse. He he's a dumb cocky piece of shit that should be thrown in prison for the way his face looks alone. But all evidence points to him acting in self-defense, and that the people he shot are even dumber than himself. Terribly uninteresting trial. Maybe him and bicep boy can have a trial by combat like in Game of Thrones?
nhill Member	Tue Nov 09 23:04:22 http://cdn...ik-tok-profile-exlarge-169.jpg Can't believe Rugian is acting like Rittenhouse is some sort of hero, though. Look at this fucktard. A new low for you, Rugian.
nhill Member	Tue Nov 09 23:06:22 He was clearly a virtue-signaling piece of shit that was in the middle of everything looking for action. "YoU guYz NeeD meDiCaL hALP?" He got his piece. Send his ass to prison. Then let's all eat a slice of pickled ginger and move on with our lives.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Nov 09 23:28:41 you missed his shoes: http://oil.../082820-Rittenhouse-scaled.jpg not a photoshop who wouldn't want to beat him up entrapment
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Nov 09 23:30:18 (not that he was wearing those shoes on his killing spree)
nhill Member	Tue Nov 09 23:35:39 What a douchebag.
Habebe Member	Wed Nov 10 00:32:17 "at age 19, Rosenbaum was sentenced to prison for sexually abusing five children — all boys between the ages of 9 and 11 — in Arizona’s Pima County in early 2002, according to his case file obtained via a public records request by Snopes." Well, Id rather deal with Rittenhouse over the pedo who chased him. Don't get mw wrong, I very much know Kyles type of douchery.But I aint mad.
nhill Member	Wed Nov 10 01:02:35 > But all evidence points to him acting in self-defense, and that the people he shot are even dumber than himself. Already covered that. :)
jergul large member	Wed Nov 10 05:20:28 Sammy, kargen etc. "Self defense is considered an “affirmative defense,” meaning it provides justification for the defendant’s actions, rather than denying them" Rittenhouse is in no way denying he shot people which are felonies except under certain circumstances. Self defence is his only defence and that may fail if the prosecution establishes that he shot people after he committed a felony. Your system does not give people doing felony crimes the right to self defence.
jergul large member	Wed Nov 10 05:25:01 "decision to charge reckless instead of intentional homicide" That is to try and get him for a felony early so that the self defense claim for the two other shootings fail automatically. If it works, then he will be guilty of: 2 counts endangerment 1 count of reckless homicide 1 count of intentional homicide 1 count of attempted homicide
Sam Adams Member	Wed Nov 10 06:20:07 Jergul confuses shooting with crime.
Cherub Cow Member	Wed Nov 10 06:22:47 [patom]: "Stupid kid goes across a State line to become some kind of hero. He wasn't protecting anyone. He went looking for an opportunity to shoot someone." The "State lines" thing has become an Idiocracy meme at this point, with it being a clear propaganda ploy to trip up low-information people. I'll again point this out again: • Rittenhouse did not cross state lines with a firearm. • Rittenhouse lives only 10–15 minutes from Kenosha, in the suburbs of Antioch, Illinois. • Rittenhouse had a job in Kenosha as a lifeguard. • Rittenhouse has family in Kenosha. • Rittenhouse's friend, with whom he attended the protest, has a family home in Kenosha (his step-father's home). • Rittenhouse did not "Cross state lines [to kill/shoot people]" — he stayed with his friend in Kenosha, cleaned up graffiti in the morning/early afternoon (no firearm), returned to his friend's home, retrieved his firearm, then went back out to protect local businesses with a group of armed militia who were doing the same. At no point was any intent to "shoot" people established by anyone except disconnected and delusional propagandists. The prosecution has not even attempted that narrative — though they still have another week. Meanwhile: • Rosenbaum was said to have lived "an hours walk" from where he was shot, though still in Kenosha ("walk" was probably mentioned because he does not drive). He was earlier seen trying to provoke militiamen into shooting him (repeatedly shouting, "Shoot me, nigga!"). He is a convicted pedophile who was on the sex offender registry, having abused at least 5 children with charges included anal rape. He has additional charges for domestic battery. He is said to have had bipolar disorder. • Gaige Grosskreutz traveled 45 minutes (about 40 miles) from Milwaukee (West Allis suburb) to protest with anarchist group "The People's Revolution Movement". He has previous criminal charges for possession of a firearm while intoxicated. He was illegally carrying a pistol at the time of the shooting. • Anthony Huber (skateboarder) was actually from Kenosha. He was there with a protest group. Prosecution did not even want to open the bag on Huber's history. They had an opportunity to call Huber a "hero" for attempting to "stop" Rittenhouse, but they did not take it because the defense would have been able to bring up that Huber has criminal charges for strangling his brother, threatening to "gut him like a pig" while holding a knife to his neck, and for threatening to burn down his house and kill his family. In a separate incident, he jump-kicked his sister after an argument, resulting in another police call. He has arrests for battery, disorderly conduct, vandalism, felony reckless endangerment, drug possession, felony battery, and resisting arrest, among others. http://ken...huber-he-wasnt-a-hero-opinion/ All three of these people had criminal histories. They were not there for puppies and rainbows. They sure as fuck were not there to protect local businesses. In short, if you are dumb enough to say, "[Rittenhouse, who had no criminal history and had ties to the community, shouldn't have been there]," then you must **at least** equally say that the three criminals who were there to cause harm to the community probably should not have been there either. I would say that — on a scale — these three had far less of an excuse to be there than Rittenhouse. .. [tw]: "Victims 2 & 3 were good citizens who wanted to protect a threatened neighborhood from an active shooter" Lol. .. [Sam Adams]: "He might actually get convicted of the minor in possession of a gun charge." That would be a misdemeanor, if it happens, but it seems unlikely. I've pointed out the specific reasoning here before (and I can copy and paste the full explanation which cites the Wisconsin law, if anyone cares), but, by the wording of the law itself, at 17-years-old, Rittenhouse was legally allowed to open-carry a long gun in the state of Wisconsin without parental supervision. Some misinformation has spread about this to say that Rittenhouse would be protected under a "hunting" law. No. This is not about hunting. Rittenhouse specifically was not captured under the hunting-related sections of the statute for which he was charged. Due to its sub-sections and exceptions, the statute for which Rittenhouse was charged (948.60(2)(a): "Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18") does not apply to Rittenhouse carrying a long rifle at the age of 17. As written, he should not have been charged with this statute and was legally allowed to carry the rifle. Defense has made this argument, saying that charges rely on a "misreading of the plain language" of the statute. In pretrial, the judge himself said that the wording of the statute was unconstitutionally vague and possibly didn't apply. It is likely that the judge will not instruct the jury on this charge and it will be dropped before deliberations. .. [tw]: "not MSNBC narrative, the most obvious & only reasonable conclusion" Is it? We've been over this before, but.. When there is an active shooter, what *should* regular people do? a) Openly chase after the shooter b) Run away, hide if running isn't an option, fight if cornered Correct answer: b The prosecution is not even arguing that the people who attacked Rittenhouse were responding to an active shooter. Did you notice that Grosskreutz was not once asked if he thought Rittenhouse was an active shooter? The *prosecution* did not even bother with that, since Grosskreutz's lie was that he thought Grosskreutz was going to help people, and on the stand he admitted to lying about that and it was found that he knew that Rittenhouse was going to the police, was not an imminent threat, and that nevertheless Grosskreutz drew his weapon and followed Rittenhouse. In *no* conversation with police did Grosskreutz ever say that he thought Rittenhouse was an active shooter. The prosecution tried to make the "active shooter" argument with the police officer, but the defense pointed out, "[All you knew was that shots were fired and you were responding to an unknown situation.]" I.e., not even the police had that narrative on the ground. They were proceeding cautiously to the area, knowing very little. .. [tw]: "one of them armed w/ just a skateboard... which he did not beat Kyle with" False. Defense established via Grosskreutz that Huber hit Rittenhouse in the head with the skateboard. Prosecution did not challenge or redirect on this assertion. Prosecution did not even try to minimize the claim by saying that the skateboard only touched Rittenhouse lightly or was otherwise just resting on Rittenhouse. The Prosecution let the point stand that Rittenhouse had been struck by the skateboard and that it was possible that being struck could render Rittenhouse unconscious. .. [tw]: "(& that no one would've died if Kyle had stayed home)" And anarchists would burn the world down if good people were to let it happen. It is pure abuser logic to blame a victim for defending himself, and it is defeatist logic to surrender the world just so no one gets hurt. .. [tw]: ""what motive do -you- think they had when engaging a guy running w/ an AR-15" I think they saw someone running away, they knew someone had been shot, people were pointing at Rittenhouse, and they saw opportunities for the pseudo-anonymity of mob violence. They did not think Rittenhouse was an active shooter, they saw that Rittenhouse had possibly hurt one of their own and was going to police, so they wanted to get their own vigilante vengeance before police arrived. They wanted an excuse to purge their rage. They were not concerned with justice, morality, or even their own safety (as they would have been if Rittenhouse were an active shooter, firing wildly at anyone and everyone). Blessed be our New Founding Fathers, For letting us Purge and cleanse our souls. Blessed be America, a nation reborn. .. [tw]: "skateboarder 100% clearly attempting to just disarm him" If so, then you at least admit that deadly force was justified, since attempting to disarm someone is a deadly force condition. .. [tw]: "but bully is chasing Kyle, Kyle stops & turns, pointing a rifle at him as he closes in" False. As was testified by Richie McGinniss and admitted by the prosecution, Rittenhouse did not point his rifle at Rosenbaum until *after* Rosenbaum attempted to grab his rifle. That is, the prosecution's case is **not** that Rosenbaum only attempted to grab the rifle because Rittenhouse pointed it at him (that is false). The prosecution's case is that Rosenbaum **might have** perhaps *stopped* attacking Rittenhouse *after* Rosenbaum's attempt to disarm Rittenhouse. That's the best that the prosecution has there. Their argument was that Rosenbaum *did* go for the rifle, but after Rosenbaum missed his grab, he might have just fallen on his face, taken a nap with his blanky, said, "Sorry," and had his juice box. But the good and virtuous Rosenbaum wasn't able to turn his life around because the meany Rittenhouse shot him after the attempted disarming :'( :'( .. [nhill]: "But all evidence points to him acting in self-defense" [nhill]: "he's a dumb cocky piece of shit that should be thrown in prison for the way his face looks alone." [nhill]: "Send his ass to prison." Send him to prison for acting in self-defense? Or send him to prison because of "the way his face looks"? Sending someone to prison because of some nonsensical visceral reaction which has probably been induced by propagandists is not exactly good justice. The "punchable face" meme has been effective incitement-propaganda for the low rungs of the Internet (e.g., John Oliver, Trevor Noah, Imgur, Twitter), but it's a little too similar to reacting to Emmanuel Goldstein in the Two Minutes Hate. Good justice would be dropping all charges and him going back to his life. Sadly, even with a not guilty verdict, Rittenhouse will still face civil suits. .. [nhill]: "the people he shot are even dumber than himself." That's true at least. It's been pointed out, but imagine the odds that all three people that he shot had criminal records and were essentially human scum? One might have to wonder, if Rittenhouse had also hit the person who tried to death-stomp him in the head (that person has remained anonymous), would that person also have a criminal record? I'd bet on it. The type of people who riot tend to be mentally unbalanced, and of the people involved in the Rittenhouse case, the people who attacked him were the cream of the crop — the most mentally unbalanced of them all. Imagine how fucking retarded you have to be to run after someone who is believed to have just shot someone. To then try to grab his rifle or beat him to the ground. The mob does not put its brightest people up front.
jergul large member	Wed Nov 10 07:09:28 Sammy thinks people committing felonies can legally shoot people.
jergul large member	Wed Nov 10 07:15:27 It remains that deadly force is not justified if indeed Ritterhouse had just committed a felony. The lesser charges are the dangerous ones because they void self-defence.
jergul large member	Wed Nov 10 07:25:06 The reckless endangerment charge might stick. Even if he did shoot in self-defense initially, then he may of put innocent people at risk recklessly. In isolation, that is not too bad. The problem then is that he kept on shooting in related incidents. You probably dont want to shoot people if you may have just committed a felony.
Pillz Member	Wed Nov 10 07:34:58 Jergul following the same flawed logic as Seb did when this first happened. Neither jergul nor Seb have ever been right so
jergul large member	Wed Nov 10 07:43:50 Pillz think people committing felonies are allowed to kill people.
Forwyn Member	Wed Nov 10 08:31:21 Kyle committed no felony. The prosecution has rested, and no argument was made to convince any person of sound mind beyond a reasonable doubt that Kyle was not acting in self-defense against Rosenbaum.
jergul large member	Wed Nov 10 08:50:55 Forwyn Did he recklessly endanger bystanders while doing so? That is also a question for the jury to deliberate. For self defence. The burden is on Rittenhouse to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was acting on that. In Wisconsin at least. "Following receipt of Johnson’s testimony, counsel asked, outside the presence of the jury, for a ruling that Johnson had met his burden of proof for self- defense. The circuit court ruled that Johnson had met his burden as to self-defense and allowed Johnson to admit McMorris4 evidence"
nhill Member	Wed Nov 10 09:15:23 > Sending someone to prison because of some nonsensical visceral reaction which has probably been induced by propagandists is not exactly good justice. Lol, you see boogie man everywhere, such a sad life you must lead. :( I say the same thing about Mark Zuckerberg, is that also induced? ;) Get a grip. My facetious comment that you're having trouble parsing means this: the Rittenhouse kid is a tool and I wouldn't mind him going to prison. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Unfortunately, I don't see any legal reason to send him there, hence the comment. But anyone that defends his actions and acts like Rittenhouse is some sort of hero vigilante is an even bigger tool than Rittenhouse himself. He's a dumbass kid that wanted a piece of action, and he got his fill. If he does get convicted, it may be a travesty of justice, but, a fitting karmic punishment nonetheless.
Habebe Member	Wed Nov 10 09:29:38 For reference When a defendant successfully makes self-defense an issue, the jury must be instructed as to the state's burden of proof regarding the nature of the crime, even if the defense is a negative defense. Wisconsin JI-Criminal 801 informs the jury that it “should consider the evidence relating to self-defense in deciding whether the defendant's conduct created an unreasonable risk to another. If the defendant was acting lawfully in self-defense, [his] conduct did not create an unreasonable risk to another." This instruction implies that the defendant must satisfy the jury that the defendant was acting in self-defense and removes the burden of proof from the state to show that the defendant was engaged in criminally reckless conduct. http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48 I thinkbthis was WI V. Head
Forwyn Member	Wed Nov 10 09:30:43 "Did he recklessly endanger bystanders while doing so? That is also a question for the jury to deliberate." Only if self-defense is rejected, and Richie McGinnis was not injured. "The privilege of self-defense extends not only to the intentional infliction of harm upon a real or apparent wrongdoer, but also to the unintended infliction of harm upon a 3rd person, except that if the unintended infliction of harm amounts to the crime of first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless homicide, homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless injury or injury by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, the actor is liable for whichever one of those crimes is committed." "The burden is on Rittenhouse to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was acting on that. In Wisconsin at least." False. The burden is on him to establish some basic level of a self-defense claim to allow this avenue to be pursued in court, with equivalent jury instruction. He has. Now the burden is on the state, as with any other criminal proceeding. "Wisconsin law establishes a low bar that the accused must surmount to be entitled to a jury instruction on the privilege of self-defense. The accused need produce only “some evidence" in support of the privilege of self-defense. State v. Stietz, 2017 WI 58, 369 Wis. 2d 222, 880 N.W.2d 182, 14-2701."
Sam Adams Member	Wed Nov 10 09:34:25 "Did he recklessly endanger bystanders while doing so?" Obviously not. Arming yourself during a riot is not reckless.
jergul large member	Wed Nov 10 10:21:24 Forwyn Not false. The bar for proving self defence is low in Wisconsin, but the burden is still on the defender. Nice catch on the "injury". Did the prosecution or witnesses show injury had taken place? "An injury is a harm suffered by a person due to some act or omission done by another person, and can generally give rise to a civil tort claim or a criminal prosecution" Sammy Not the act of arming, the acts of discharging the weapon.
Habebe Member	Wed Nov 10 10:28:26 How is he charged with illegaly possessing a firearm as a minor and both being charged as an adult for the rest of it? What is he, Schroedingers Kyle? Now he wasn't acting like a minor and was 17, I would charge him as an adult but to then simultaneously charge him as a minor seems silly.
jergul large member	Wed Nov 10 10:28:36 "As prosecutors played footage of Rosenbaum lying fatally wounded in a car lot, McGinniss struggled to keep his composure on the stand, rapidly inhaling and exhaling, then averting his eyes from a video monitor. The prosecutor apologized for playing it, saying he had to do it." Yah, I do believe he did have to do that. Does it to a sufficient degree document that McGinniss was harmed? That is something the jury will have to deliberate.
Forwyn Member	Wed Nov 10 10:47:15 "Not false. The bar for proving self defence is low in Wisconsin, but the burden is still on the defender." To prove it to a judge, for it to be allowed in court. Not to the jury. "The jury instruction for self-defense in this case was not erroneous. The circuit court gave the jury a general instruction on the state's burden to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Because self-defense is a negative defense, the state disproves self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt if the state proves the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically criminal negligence. Therefore, the jury was aware that the state had to prove criminal negligence—the element that self-defense would negate—beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Langlois, 2018 WI 73, 382 Wis. 2d 414, 913 N.W.2d 812, 16-1409." "unintended infliction of harm" Yeah Richie giving aid to the aggressor and having PTSD ain't it lol
FREAK NATION Member	Wed Nov 10 10:55:49 Rittenhouse is innocent, leave him alone! http://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1458470454713257991
nhill Member	Wed Nov 10 11:08:08 Crocodile tears.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Nov 10 12:28:53 The prosecutor just referred to standard hollow points as explosive rounds. Rofl. What a fucking clown. Did he go to the seb jergul and duckhat school of guns held at msnbc?
murder Member	Wed Nov 10 12:37:20 I haven't watched a second of this trial, but am I correct that everyone's assertion is that they were carrying around loaded firearms, but no one had any intentions of using them?
Sam Adams Member	Wed Nov 10 12:43:54 Yup. Just like all sorts of emergency gear. No one intends on using their airbags, parachute, fire extinguisher, avalanche beacon, life raft, etc.
Forwyn Member	Wed Nov 10 12:54:31 No one expects to use pressure washers to fight fires, but leftists love setting dumpster fires and pushing them into businesses.
obaminated Member	Wed Nov 10 13:27:46 Murder thinks people carry guns around because they have intentions to use them. What a dumbshit. As SA said, it's like emergency gear. It's there incase you need it not because you want to use it.
jergul large member	Wed Nov 10 13:33:19 How is it possible to be so emotionally vested in safety gear? "You can pry my smoke detector from my cold, dead fingers" lol.
murder Member	Wed Nov 10 13:47:12 "Yup. Just like all sorts of emergency gear. No one intends on using their airbags, parachute, fire extinguisher, avalanche beacon, life raft, etc." No one would ever lug any of that shit around without intent to use them. I'm assuming that you don't haul a fire extinguisher around with you when you go climbing. Or a parachute when you go watch a game.
murder Member	Wed Nov 10 13:51:37 "Murder thinks people carry guns around because they have intentions to use them. What a dumbshit. As SA said, it's like emergency gear. It's there incase you need it not because you want to use it." It's amazing the guy was able to find his rifle amongst his inflatable life raft, road flares, snake venom kit ...
obaminated Member	Wed Nov 10 13:59:17 He also brought a med kit, which he had to use. He also had a fire extinguisher which he had to use. He had a rifle which he also had to use. He also had a phone which he had to use. It is almost like he came prepared for any situation. Those BLM folk weren't happy to see him put out their fires which is why they came after him in the first place. But hey. Probably should've stayed home and let the city burn down.
murder Member	Wed Nov 10 14:07:02 "Those BLM folk weren't happy to see him put out their fires which is why they came after him in the first place." Says who? Maybe they just saw an asshole waving a rifle around and decided to disarm him before he could kill somebody.
murder Member	Wed Nov 10 14:08:54 I find the stupid knee jerk reaction amusing though ... since what prompted my question was reading something about one of the people who was shot rushing this idiot with a gun in his hand but claiming that he had no intent to use it and never could.
murder Member	Wed Nov 10 14:11:42 btw the solution to idiots like Rittenhouse is simple. If you see a moron waving a rifle around, just yell "shooter!" and drop him with a round to the chest. Thanks to Republican legislation in states all over the US, you will never get prosecuted for it.
Forwyn Member	Wed Nov 10 14:24:19 Gaige likely would have walked if he shot Kyle, yes. Instead he clammed up and got shot himself, and is now claiming innocence all along. Lulz
tumbleweed the wanderer	Wed Nov 10 14:55:25 defense attorney objecting to digitally zooming in on an image... what a dick and judge seems to be buying it
Habebe Member	Wed Nov 10 15:03:22 The prosecutor is having a chimpout. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Nov 10 15:05:33 "No one would ever lug any of that shit around without intent to use them." I carry gear i dont intend to use all the time. So does every climber and pilot and sailor i know. The funny part is the prosecutor is currently making this same daft argument. Lol what a dumpster fire.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Wed Nov 10 15:05:45 apparently the defense already used enlarged images earlier an old judge being suckered
Sam Adams Member	Wed Nov 10 15:06:59 "btw the solution to idiots like Rittenhouse is simple." Yes, it is. Dont allow so much disorder that teens need to become vigilantes.
Habebe Member	Wed Nov 10 15:25:46 "apparently the defense already used enlarged images earlier" They did. The prosecution didn't object. Rule of thumb in court is to object even If you think it will be over ruled. The fact that your objection was noted give grounds for more options later. That's just how our courts work.
kargen Member	Wed Nov 10 15:39:19 Following the line of reasoning being used on the images if the image is anything but a RAW file it shouldn't be used. Every digital camera adds pixels to an image and applies an algorithm unless you shoot raw.
Habebe Member	Wed Nov 10 15:40:54 For example Lets say later on they find out that the software estimates different angles of an image.So it didn't just record but does what say the humam brain does and fills in images we think should be there that we cant see. Think those word puzzles where they show you a the top of letters and numbers. If he is convicted itnwould give him a better chance at a mistrial later. Btw, after seeing thw drone video I really want a call of duty level called downtown Kenosha.
kargen Member	Wed Nov 10 15:58:13 Most the simple software finds two pixels that have the same color and snaps them together. Also common to sharpen edges by slightly compressing pixels beside pixels with a different color or noticeably different darkness/lightness.
murder Member	Wed Nov 10 16:01:10 "Rittenhouse purchased and used the weapon in Wisconsin ... Any firearms charges will likely fall on Dominick Black, Rittenhouse's friend who purchased the firearm." It's got to be one or the other. It can't be both.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Wed Nov 10 16:03:31 just reviewing the zoomed video would make it clear whether there was any chance the "logarithms" (as attorney called them), were adding anything suspect to whatever prosecutor was trying to show instead judge wants an expert of the zoom feature programming to come in & testify... ridiculous
Forwyn Member	Wed Nov 10 16:32:56 Why is that ridiculous?
Habebe Member	Wed Nov 10 16:43:02 In a legal trial the use of experts is common. An average reasoable person wouldnt be able to explain a logarythim.
murder Member	Wed Nov 10 16:49:58 WTF are they looking for in the zoomed in video?
tumbleweed the wanderer	Wed Nov 10 17:06:23 "Why is that ridiculous? " because lawyers use enlargements regularly, plus most file formats have compression that alters it already even without enlarging ------ "WTF are they looking for in the zoomed in video?" i didn't catch the start of it... i -think- they just wanted to zoom in on the drone footage video
	show deleted posts