Jump to content

Rittenhouse trial


rmgill
 Share

Recommended Posts

Steven Crowder's show from yesterday has a rather excoriating citation of social media posts that point to this being motivated as deliberate act. 

Edited by rmgill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 472
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

26 minutes ago, rmgill said:

There was not an active chase. He had broken contact as it were. The distance was also rather substantial from where he started. Tens of miles if I am correct in my understanding. 

Police chief said not only was there no chase, but they hadn't yet responded to the domestic violence call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I'm sure the narrative will mutuate in part to "he was fleeing what he thought would be retributative, racist, murderous police response". 

We'll now have to carefully delinate between this dirtbag Brooks and the Atlanta dirtbag Brooks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comparing the Rittenhouse and Arbery cases, it occurs to me that there's something you might call Schrödinger's (or probably Schroeder's) Verdict: If Grosskreutz had in fact shot and killed Rittenhouse, he would very likely have been acquitted, too - for all he knew he was chasing a guy who had just murdered someone and pointed a rifle at him, and Rittenhouse doesn't get to tell his side of the story. So Rittenhouse and Grosskreutz are both simultaneously guilty and not guilty until one of them gets shot. 🐱

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BansheeOne said:

Comparing the Rittenhouse and Arbery cases, it occurs to me that there's something you might call Schrödinger's (or probably Schroeder's) Verdict: If Grosskreutz had in fact shot and killed Rittenhouse, he would very likely have been acquitted, too - for all he knew he was chasing a guy who had just murdered someone and pointed a rifle at him, and Rittenhouse doesn't get to tell his side of the story. So Rittenhouse and Grosskreutz are both simultaneously guilty and not guilty until one of them gets shot. 🐱

As is in the Arbery case, you don't get to chase somebody and then claim self-defense when you gun them down as they defend themselves against your aggressions.  Right, KR wouldn't be alive to testify against Grosskreutz.  However, for the same reason KR didn't really need to testify in his own defense, his testimony wouldn't be needed to convict Grosskreutz of murder, the overwhelming amount of video evidence available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not necessarily talking of the pure legalities here - I said earlier that the justification of a possible citizen arrest went away as it became obvious that Rittenhouse was running towards police - just the likely outcome if Grosskreutz had taken his place in the same court, with the same jury, with the prosecution making the same case that he shouldn't have brought a gun to a protest and he provoked the situation by approaching Rittenhouse with said gun and pointing it at him, and the defense countering with the same claim of self-defense.

Given that Rittenhouse was armed and had actually killed two people at that point, Grosskreutz could certainly have made a better claim than the guys who chased an unarmed man who had done nothing more than looking into an unfinished house. Basically, to convict you would have to convince the jury that he should have correctly judged the legality of Rittenhouse's shots on the spot, and/or prove he was aware the latter was going to surrender to police. I still suspect they would have acquitted him for the same likely reason(able doubt). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

Comparing the Rittenhouse and Arbery cases, it occurs to me that there's something you might call Schrödinger's (or probably Schroeder's) Verdict: If Grosskreutz had in fact shot and killed Rittenhouse, he would very likely have been acquitted, too - for all he knew he was chasing a guy who had just murdered someone and pointed a rifle at him, and Rittenhouse doesn't get to tell his side of the story. So Rittenhouse and Grosskreutz are both simultaneously guilty and not guilty until one of them gets shot. 🐱

It starts to get very complicated. However, since the root cause of the 'chase' was under mistaken premises, though the shooting could perhaps be acquitted as self-defense (Let's say he was attempting to detain RH, and only shot after RH refused to surrender), some other charges may well have stuck such as brandishing or assault, even down to false arrest due to lack of any crime having originally been committed to justify the detention. The self defense argument revolves around what the shooter reasonably believed necessary to protect himself, but the other possibilities do not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

Comparing the Rittenhouse and Arbery cases, it occurs to me that there's something you might call Schrödinger's (or probably Schroeder's) Verdict: If Grosskreutz had in fact shot and killed Rittenhouse, he would very likely have been acquitted, too - for all he knew he was chasing a guy who had just murdered someone and pointed a rifle at him, and Rittenhouse doesn't get to tell his side of the story. So Rittenhouse and Grosskreutz are both simultaneously guilty and not guilty until one of them gets shot. 🐱

That Grosskreuz can claim he thought Rittenhouse was an escaping murderer gives him a plausible defence against assault  - unless the prosecution can show he was committing a separate crime at the time.  Not that I expect any charges to be laid.

Do note, though, that while Grosskreuz, Huber, and others did attack Rittenhouse, even if they thought it justified, Rittenhouse only reacted to the direct threat to his life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

Comparing the Rittenhouse and Arbery cases, it occurs to me that there's something you might call Schrödinger's (or probably Schroeder's) Verdict: If Grosskreutz had in fact shot and killed Rittenhouse, he would very likely have been acquitted, too - for all he knew he was chasing a guy who had just murdered someone and pointed a rifle at him, and Rittenhouse doesn't get to tell his side of the story. So Rittenhouse and Grosskreutz are both simultaneously guilty and not guilty until one of them gets shot. 🐱

The problem there is that GROSSKREUTZ DIDN'T TESTIFY TO THAT! He stated he thought Kyle was a cop or something. 

There's also the fact that you had a very clear mob that was not attempting to detain a subject but rather that they were trying to "cranium" him and other such things. They also had the fact that Rittenhouse was running TOWARDS a line of police vehicles with their lights on that anyone short of Mr Magoo could not miss. 

You also have the fact that Wisconsin doesn't have the same citizens arrest powers as Georgia did. There are different laws in different parts of the country on these things. If they'd been in California, the issue would have been that there was a mob 10 times that size doing what it wanted for three days and we'd have helicopter footage of Kyle's brains smeared across the pavement back at the gas station. 

 

Edited by rmgill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DKTanker said:

As is in the Arbery case, you don't get to chase somebody and then claim self-defense when you gun them down as they defend themselves against your aggressions.  

Does this fit that narrative? 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, R011 said:

Do note, though, that while Grosskreuz, Huber, and others did attack Rittenhouse, even if they thought it justified, Rittenhouse only reacted to the direct threat to his life.

The devil in the details is if the arrest/stop WAS justified. This goes for ANY deadly force encounter or even attempted arrest or not by citizens OR by cops. 

Was the arrest justified? 

In the case of Katheryne Johnston, the attempted arrest/warrant was not justified, it was in fact predicated on coerced statement for the warrant. Thus their shooting of Johnston amounted to a criminal conspiracy that resulted in murder, which in Georgia made that a felony murder. 

The dividing line between cops and citizens is three major points:
1 witnessing the crime types.
2 how much civil immunity they have against civil suits. 
3 cops can shoot dangerous felons as they flee. 

In the case of the Shooting death of Willie Jackson , the cops were again not justified. The shop mechanic that shot one of the officers WAS justified in his use of deadly force, he thought hey were being robbed. The officers, Sauls, Fields & Pinkney were not however charged in the death of Jackson.  I think a colorable argument could be made that they should have been. 

Everything follows from if the stop/arrest/warrant is lawful or not. Not if the person being stopped thinks it's lawful or not. This is why that every black motorist in the US can't just shoot a cop because he perceives that the cops kill black folk every day before breakfast. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

The devil in the details is if the arrest/stop WAS justified. This goes for ANY deadly force encounter or even attempted arrest or not by citizens OR by cops. 

Was the arrest justified? 

In the case of Katheryne Johnston, the attempted arrest/warrant was not justified, it was in fact predicated on coerced statement for the warrant. Thus their shooting of Johnston amounted to a criminal conspiracy that resulted in murder, which in Georgia made that a felony murder. 

The dividing line between cops and citizens is three major points:
1 witnessing the crime types.
2 how much civil immunity they have against civil suits. 
3 cops can shoot dangerous felons as they flee. 

In the case of the Shooting death of Willie Jackson , the cops were again not justified. The shop mechanic that shot one of the officers WAS justified in his use of deadly force, he thought hey were being robbed. The officers, Sauls, Fields & Pinkney were not however charged in the death of Jackson.  I think a colorable argument could be made that they should have been. 

Everything follows from if the stop/arrest/warrant is lawful or not. Not if the person being stopped thinks it's lawful or not. This is why that every black motorist in the US can't just shoot a cop because he perceives that the cops kill black folk every day before breakfast. 

Seeing a person fleeing after he shot another is more than reasonable and probable cause for a citizen's arrest unless they happen to know the shooting was justified.  It is entirely plausible that ordinary citizens who only saw the very end of the interaction with Rosenbaum or saw a person being chased by witnesses claiming they saw him commit a murder would have reasonable and probable grounds for an attempted arrest - even if honestly mistaken.  At least that's what their lawyers would say and it is likely a judge and jury would agree with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, the US judicial system has been manipulated and subverted for over a century.  The lawyers and the judge are loyal to the system above all else, the jury exists to provide the greasy sheen of legitimacy to the whole charade.  S/F....Ken M 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EchoFiveMike said:

Of course, the US judicial system has been manipulated and subverted for over a century.  The lawyers and the judge are loyal to the system above all else, the jury exists to provide the greasy sheen of legitimacy to the whole charade.  S/F....Ken M 

Like they say "The American justice system is the best money can buy".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, lucklucky said:

Not so, as we can see in many cases, prosecutor ideology matters too.

That's why Soros has been doing what he's been doing. It's paying dividends in LA and SF. Look at the nature of crime and prosecution there. 

 

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
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...