Jump to content

Rittenhouse trial


rmgill

Recommended Posts

FMJ vs HP ammo came up:

https://dailycaller.com/2021/11/10/kyle-rittenhouse-thomas-binger-trial-bruce-schroeder-hollow-point/

 

That sounds like the prosecution wants to fault him for not using HP rounds. If so it's a distraction. The use of this or that type of ammo doesn't nullify one's right to defend oneself. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 475
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Imagine he would have had different magazines with him, and switch to HP while he was running for his life, and succeeded in switching ... wouldn't they then fantasize how this was proof he was trying to kill rather than innocent self-defense?

The prosecution appears to be absolutely malicious to me; fortunately they do not appear too competent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Law enforcement and the prosecutor's office are a symptom of the underlying problems in the city, I would surmise.

Did rioters happen to accidentally choose locations where the authorities' responses were likely to be inadequate, I wonder? (This is nearly rhetorical at this point, but it could simply be that most rioters live in dysfunctional jurisdictions, rather than them travelling to places where it is relatively safe to riot.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Yama said:

I did not. You made it a big deal, I only mentioned it in passing.

Rittenhouse was not 'anyone anytime'. He was underaged and obviously too immature and inexperienced to handle the situation which might arise when carrying a deadly firearm. If he wanted to defend himself, he could have done as I suggested - carry pepper spray and stay close to armed adult people.

Okay, how much excoriation would be sufficient?

'Stopping the rioting' is better left for law enforcement, there will be less casualties that way.

Why he was in such crowd of people, carrying a deadly firearm, getting into scuffles over a dumpster fire?

He had no business there carrying a deadly firearm and getting involved in scuffles.

You keep claiming he was too inexperienced and immature, yet you provide no evidence of this supposed state.  The facts, on the other hand, indicate otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Markus Becker said:

FMJ vs HP ammo came up:

https://dailycaller.com/2021/11/10/kyle-rittenhouse-thomas-binger-trial-bruce-schroeder-hollow-point/

 

That sounds like the prosecution wants to fault him for not using HP rounds. If so it's a distraction. The use of this or that type of ammo doesn't nullify one's right to defend oneself. 

 

 

If he had ammunition banned by international law !!!! designed for man killing!!!eleventy!!! then the prosecution would have harped on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DKTanker said:

You've hit a low point in your life but suddenly things are starting to go your way, you can see light at the end of the tunnel.  So what you do, is you go to the nearest casino and you put everything you have of value, to include any future earnings and wealth you can leverage, and you put it all on black.  The roulette wheel spins and the ball bounces around finally settling on black.  That was a good move, right?  It worked, right?

I would be astonished if they just threw the dice without loading them first.  This testimony would have been rehearsed and prepared.  The Defense would have known just what they were getting before they let him testify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, R011 said:

I would be astonished if they just threw the dice without loading them first.  This testimony would have been rehearsed and prepared.  The Defense would have known just what they were getting before they let him testify.

The point is that the prosecution had already made the case for self-defense...their own witnesses provided that testimony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DKTanker said:

You've hit a low point in your life but suddenly things are starting to go your way, you can see light at the end of the tunnel.  So what you do, is you go to the nearest casino and you put everything you have of value, to include any future earnings and wealth you can leverage, and you put it all on black.  The roulette wheel spins and the ball bounces around finally settling on black.  That was a good move, right?  It worked, right?

Point of order. That casino run is going to be golden for him. If he wins the case, he's going to be looking at some BIG lawsuits for defamation with many of the major news agencies. He might even be able to sue Biden for defamation. This is going to make the Covington Catholic School cases look like quarter slots. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

They were already winning when Grosskreutz gave testimony. So yes, from one respect it was unnecessary. OTOH, they dont have to convince the public, they have to convince a jury, some with perhaps their own deep biases.

I think Rittenhouse breaking up like that on the stand (as the Defense must have known he would) almost certainly sold it to them, if they didnt buy it already. He looks what he is, a crazy mixed up kid who got himself into shit way over his head.

 

It's always a good look to argue that a kid (everyone keeps pointing out he's a kid) being chased by a pederast adult with multiple convictions breaking down over the incident is bad for the kid. Especially when the attacker, Rosenbaum had:

An Open Case for misdemeanor bail jumping.

And Open case for misdemeanor domestic abuse.

And then this set of convictions. 11 Felonies

The 11 counts include:

COUNT ONE: (PUBLIC SEXUAL INDECENCY TO A MINOR UNDER FIFTEEN, A CLASS FIVE FELONY)
On or about the month of February, 2002 through the 27th day of March, 2002, JOSEPH DON ROSENBAUM committed public sexual indecency to a minor by intentionally or knowingly committing an act of sexual contact by masturbating, while (name removed) a minor under fifteen years of age was present.

COUNT TWO: (SEXUAL CONDUCT WITH A MINOR UNDER FIFTEEN, A CLASS TWO FELONY, A DANGEROUS CRIME AGAINST CHILDREN)
On or about the 27th day of March, 2002, JOSEPH DON ROSENBAUM committed sexual conduct with a minor, by intentionally or knowingly engaging in an act of sexual intercourse with (second victim), a minor under the age of fifteen years, by penetrating the victim’s anus with his penis.

COUNT THREE: (FURNISHING OBSCENE OR HARMFUL ITEMS TO MINORS, A CLASS FOUR FELONY)
On or about the 27th day of March, 2002, JOSEPH DON ROSENBAUM, with knowledge of the character of the item involved, recklessly furnished, presented, provided, made available, gave, lent, showed, advertised, distributed an item harmful to minors, to (second victim), a minor under eighteen years of age, to Wit: photographs of nude women including their genitals.

COUNT FOUR: (PUBLIC SEXUAL INDECENCY TO A MINOR UNDER FIFTEEN, A CLASS FIVE Felony)
On or about the 27th day at March, 2002, JOSEPH DON ROSENBAUM committed public sexual indecency to a minor by intentionally or knowingly committing an act of sexual contact by masturbating, while (second victim), a minor under fifteen years of age was present.

COUNT FIVE: (SEXUAL CONDUCT WITH A MINOR UNDER FIFTEEN, A CLASS TWO FELONY, A DANGEROUS CRIME AGAINST CHILDREN)
On or about the 27th day of March, 2002, JOSEPH DON ROSENBAUM committed sexual conduct with a minor, by intentionally or knowingly engaging in an act of sexual intercourse with (third victim), a minor under the age of fifteen years, by penetrating the victim’s anus with his penis.

COURT SIX: (SEXUAL CONDUCT WITH A MINOR UNDER FIFTEEN, A CLASS TWO FELONY, A DANGEROUS CRIME AGAINST CHILDREN)
On or about the 27th day of March, 2002, JOSEPH DON ROSENBAUM committed sexual conduct with a minor, by intentionally or knowingly engaging in an act of oral sexual contact with (fourth victim), a minor under the age of fifteen years, by inserting his penis into the victim’s mouth.

COUNT SEVEN: (SEXUAL CONDUCT WITH A MINOR UNDER FIFTEEN, A CLASS TWO FELONY, A DANGEROUS CRIME AGAINST CHILDREN)
On or about the 27th day of March, 2002, JOSEPH DON ROSENBAUM committed sexual conduct with a minor, by intentionally or knowingly engaging in an act of oral sexual contact with (fourth victim), a minor under the age of fifteen years, by placing his mouth on the victim’s penis.

COUNT EIGHT: (MOLESTATION OF CHILD, A CLASS TWO FELONY, A DANGEROUS CRIME AGAINST CHILDREN)
On or about the 27th day of March, 2002, JOSEPH DON ROSENBAUM committed molestation of a child by intentionally or knowingly engaging in sexual contact with (fourth victim), a child under the age of fifteen years, involving the genitals, by touching the victim’s penis with his hand.

COUNT NINE: (MOLESTATION OF CHILD, A CLASS TWO FELONY, A DANGEROUS CRIME AGAINST CHILDREN)
On or about the 27th day of March, 2002, JOSEPH DON ROSENBAUM committed molestation of a child, by intentionally or knowingly engaging in sexual contact with (fourth victim), a child under the age of fifteen years, involving the genitals, by causing the victim to touch his penis.

COUNT TEN: (MOLESTATION OF CHILD, A CLASS TWO FELONY, A DANGEROUS CRIME AGAINST CHILDREN)
On or about the month of March, 2002, JOSEPH DON ROSENBAUM committed molestation of a child, by intentionally or knowingly engaging in sexual contact with (fifth victim), a child under fifteen years of age, involving the genitals, by touching the victim’s penis with his finger.

COUNT ELEVEN: (INDECENT EXPOSURE TO A MINOR UNDER FIFTEEN, A CLASS SIX FELONY)
On or about the month of March, 2002, JOSEPH DON ROSENBAUM indecently exposed his genitals to (fifth victim), a minor under the age of fifteen years, by showing the victim his penis.

 

 

As much as some want to argue that Rittenhouse shouldn't have been in Kenhosha, I think it's more on target to ask why was Rosenbaum out on bond when he had already violated bond? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Point of order. That casino run is going to be golden for him. If he wins the case, he's going to be looking at some BIG lawsuits for defamation with many of the major news agencies. He might even be able to sue Biden for defamation. This is going to make the Covington Catholic School cases look like quarter slots. 

 

GOOD.  There is got to be a price for the malicious destruction of a person's reputation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DB said:

Law enforcement and the prosecutor's office are a symptom of the underlying problems in the city, I would surmise.

Did rioters happen to accidentally choose locations where the authorities' responses were likely to be inadequate, I wonder? (This is nearly rhetorical at this point, but it could simply be that most rioters live in dysfunctional jurisdictions, rather than them travelling to places where it is relatively safe to riot.)

I think it's arguable that you can have two protests dust up.

In city A where the Police/Government/Leadership don't mess around, they're allowed to protest but the unruly "protestors" get warned off of doing anything OR they get dog-piled before things can get out of hand. 

In city B where the Police/Government/Leadership want to give the protestors room to be heard, and let them smash windows And/Or the police are so snake bit from how they get treated by the prosecutors, aren't willing to dog pile someone breaking windows, let alone when they start burning down buildings. 

It's rather that of an environment where if rioting is allowed it'll spiral out of control because the brakes are off. Like a rail car that's come lose o na. very shallow grade, hardly anything to speak of but can build up speed before anyone realizes and now you've the equivalent of Lac-Mégantic on your hands. 

Edited by rmgill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, R011 said:

I would be astonished if they just threw the dice without loading them first.  This testimony would have been rehearsed and prepared.  The Defense would have known just what they were getting before they let him testify.

There's a bunch of online legal blogs, they're all saying the Rittenhouse seemed to do VERY well on the stand and that the defense prepped him very well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Imagine he would have had different magazines with him, and switch to HP while he was running for his life, and succeeded in switching ... wouldn't they then fantasize how this was proof he was trying to kill rather than innocent self-defense?

The prosecution appears to be absolutely malicious to me; fortunately they do not appear too competent.

This would be the ammo that the prosecutor was calling "exploding" bullets.

And yes, considering the prosecutor tried to impeach Rittenhouse for not talking about the case vis a vis 5th amendment grounds this is very much a kitchen sink approach to prosecution. 

 So it's clear that had Rittenhouse HAD say Hornaday 5.56 NATO 53 gr GMX® TAP Patrol® ammo. He'd most certainly take the time to try to impugn that ammo choice. 
 

Edited by rmgill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, R011 said:

You keep claiming he was too inexperienced and immature, yet you provide no evidence of this supposed state.  The facts, on the other hand, indicate otherwise.

Evidence is ample: he was underaged, no training for crowd control or using firearms under pressure, only one to get into fatal altercation in a week of unrest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/11/2021 at 10:10 AM, Ssnake said:

You still seem to argue that his motivation to be at the place play a big role in the degree of his guilt. You say that this isn't so, and yet you bring it up with pretty much every line of retort, that he shouldn't have been there in the first place, that he had no business there, that he was immature, that he should have left it to the police, that he should not have let himself separated from the rest of his group ... you're entirely focussing on everything that happened before he was targeted by some people in the mob for assault ... and my impression is, you do it so you vcan avoid discussing the one aspect that matters in this whole trial - that Rittenhouse had to run and fight for his life because his attackers - from a group of people who not only tried to set a gas station on fire, but who also violently attacked those who tried to prevent the disaster - demonstrably used or were immediately about to use deadly force on him, by their very own testimony (and from what could be seen on video for more than a year now).

You are again completely off the mark: I have never argued he was wrong to pull the trigger once physically attacked, I have argued he should not have been in that situation in the first place, with his lack of life experience, lack of training dealing with hostile situations, carrying a gun he didn't own etc. Note that his companion - an adult - met the same people at the same time, listened the same trash talk, and didn't fire a shot. You are arguing he was defending his life against vicious attacks by skateboards and grocery bags, when there were people around him with GUNS, who could have shot him at any time if they wanted.

Here's a question: if Grosskreutz had shot Rittenhouse when he had the opportunity to do so, would you come to his defence? Because it seems to me it would have been completely justifiable under the same logic!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Markus Becker said:

FMJ vs HP ammo came up:

https://dailycaller.com/2021/11/10/kyle-rittenhouse-thomas-binger-trial-bruce-schroeder-hollow-point/

 

That sounds like the prosecution wants to fault him for not using HP rounds. If so it's a distraction. The use of this or that type of ammo doesn't nullify one's right to defend oneself.

Sounds like a bizarre argument to make as you could claim fault on either case - 'inhumane hollow-point' vs 'over-penetrating FMJ'. Seems it's indeed chatter in attempt to get witness confused and distracted and maybe drop something damning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Yama said:

Evidence is ample: he was underaged, no training for crowd control or using firearms under pressure, only one to get into fatal altercation in a week of unrest.

None of which makes him guilty of murder or dissuades from his claim of self-defense. 

  • As for the only one to get involved in a fatal altercation, off hand I can think of two others and two more that were in near fatal altercations.
  • Rittenhouse was 17, granted, old enough to have enlisted in the US Military.
  • Rittenhouse handled his firearm, under pressure, as well or better than could be expected by almost anyone.  Four imminent threats of severe bodily harm or death, eight shots fired, four threats reduced, no innocent bystanders hurt nor collateral damage.  Militaries and police forces around the world should be so efficient under pressure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Yama said:

Here's a question: if Grosskreutz had shot Rittenhouse when he had the opportunity to do so, would you come to his defence? Because it seems to me it would have been completely justifiable under the same logic!

What was justifiable about Grosskreutz' actions?  Chasing Rittenhouse?  False surrender and then advancing while pointing a weapon at Rittenhouse? 

At that particular point Rittenhouse was surrounded by a mob, had been struck by one thrown object, had been struck twice with a deadly weapon wielded by Huber, and scared off another attacker that tried to crush his skull.  What threats were advancing on Grosskreutz?  Perhaps most importantly, Rittenhouse did NOT fire his weapon at anybody that was not directly attacking him.  Who was attacking Grosskreutz?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as far as I can tell they're utterly misinformed or worse willfully ignorant. They should study the case and the surrounding events before they open their pie holes and assert declarations. 
 

If Kyle hadn't had a rifle that night, I am convinced by Rosenbaum's earlier behavior and statements that Rittenhouse would have ended up like Robert Cobb. Rosenbaum's felony career supports this, though that was not something the Rittenhouse could have known. 

If Rosenbaum was justified, why isn't Zaminski on the stand?
 

All those chattering leftists don't give a whiff about Robert Cobb or anyone else like him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Yama said:

Evidence is ample: he was underaged, no training for crowd control or using firearms under pressure, only one to get into fatal altercation in a week of unrest.

That's a circular argument as well as victim blaming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...