Rittenhouse trial

[R011]

7 hours ago, Yama said:

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!

The partner, who heard the same trash talk etc. wasn't chased down the street by someone who made death threats and tried to seize a weapon after cornering his victim.  Nor was he chased by a mob intent on serious bodily harm.  Other people were chased down by that mob and were seriously injured, so Kyle wasn't alone in that.

And yes, the so called inexperienced and immature kid was surrounded by other armed people who were not trying to kill him and didn't shoot any of them, even accidentally.  That's exactly what we would expect an experienced, trained, professional to do.

[Tim Sielbeck]

7 hours ago, Yama said:

Evidence is ample: ... no training for crowd control or using firearms under pressure, ...

What evidence do you have of this other than your opinion of his actions?

[rmgill]

8 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!

Before Grosskreutz's testimony, that might have been interesting speculation, odd considering the video and the crowd. After Grosskreutzs testimony it's disingenuous, foolish and intellectually dishonest. 

Grosskreutz adamantly stated he was NOT following or chasing Rittenhouse.
He instead states that he was just running in the same direction.
He also lied to the police about having the handgun in his hand.
He in fact stated he had dropped the handgun.
He said he was concerned for Rittenhouse's safety. 

Yet for some reason, when Rittenhouse fell, instead of coming to his defense and warding people off, he approached Rittenhouse, stopped when he saw Rittenhouse's rifle, then when Rittenhouse dropped his rifle, he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse, then shot him. 

Grosskreutz admitted on the stand that Rittenhouse didn't shoot him until Grosskreutz pointed his own handgun at Rittenhouse. 

I think it's clear that Grosskreutz was intent on harming Kyle, didn't want to admit that on the stand and tried to paint it in as innocuous a manner as he could. 

Grosskreutz has a wrongful injury suit against the city for $10,000,000. 

[rmgill]

Here. Cued up to the point before Gauge Grosskreutz testifies. 


Note Grosskreutz lives in Milwaukee, that's as far away and just as much 'not the same city' like you seem to be figuring is a VERY big deal Yama. 
 

 

Edited November 12, 2021 by rmgill

[glenn239]

3 hours ago, rmgill said:

Grosskreutz admitted on the stand that Rittenhouse didn't shoot him until Grosskreutz pointed his own handgun at Rittenhouse. 

Grosskreutz basically admitted to everything that he knew was on camera, and lied about everything else.  

Quote

Note Grosskreutz lives in Milwaukee, that's as far away and just as much 'not the same city' like you seem to be figuring is a VERY big deal Yama. 

Na, he was just so concerned for Rittenhouse's safety that he flew in from Milwaukee to protect him.  

Edited November 12, 2021 by glenn239

[rmgill]

And the defense screwed up big time. They let the prosecution testify with the distant video enhanced and enlarged thats supposed to show kyle provoking Rosenbaum. You can see sorta black blobs moving and they prosecution gets to assert what those blobs are as a matter of fact. 
 

The defense didn't object enough to this, and as a result of Kyle being on the stand, the state weaseling into the provocation of Rosenbaum AND lastly, the defense not bringing in a use of force expert....I fear the jury will convict based on narrative and not presented facts. 
 

DKtanker, you were right. Rittenhouse the stand was a bad move. 

[DKTanker]

7 hours ago, rmgill said:

Well, as far as I can tell they're utterly misinformed or worse willfully ignorant.

They simply don't care.  Rittenhouse's original sin, other than being born white, is that he wasn't down for the struggle.  Had Rittenhouse been one of the rioting thugs and found himself in the exact same set of events, then the entire world would have been on his side.  He would never have been charged much less facing life imprisonment.
Need evidence?  Gaige Grosskreutz was illegally possessing a fire arm and committed assault when he charged Rittenhouse while brandishing said firearm.  Has he been charged with any crimes?  He admitted under oath criminal acts and yet no arrest has followed.  Why?  Because he was on the side of leftist righteousness.

[DKTanker]

5 hours ago, rmgill said:

Here. Cued up to the point before Gauge Grosskreutz testifies. 


Note Grosskreutz lives in Milwaukee, that's as far away and just as much 'not the same city' like you seem to be figuring is a VERY big deal Yama. 

Twice as far away and unlike Rittenhouse, Grosskreutz has no immediate family members living in Kenosha.

[DKTanker]

2 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Grosskreutz basically admitted to everything that he knew was on camera, and lied about everything else.    

Then did the morning shows today and lied some more.  Basically said his testimony about pointing his pistol at Rittenhouse wasn't true.  The obvious follow up question, not asked, "Why did you feel the need to lie while you were under oath?"

[rmgill]

OR "why did you lie about having the gun in the first place to the police? "

Why is the left so goddamn wed to protecting dirtbags, child molesters and rapists? 

[EchoFiveMike]

Because that's what they are.  S/F...Ken M

[Rick]

2 hours ago, EchoFiveMike said:

Because that's what they are.  S/F...Ken M

+1

[glenn239]

14 hours ago, DKTanker said:

Then did the morning shows today and lied some more.  Basically said his testimony about pointing his pistol at Rittenhouse wasn't true.  The obvious follow up question, not asked, "Why did you feel the need to lie while you were under oath?"

I didn't believe a word that guy said.  I think that if Rittenhouse hadn't shot him, he'd have killed him.  Once his arm got vaporized, he seems to have lost his enthusiasm.

[glenn239]

6 hours ago, EchoFiveMike said:

Because that's what they are.  S/F...Ken M

Yep, the Democrats protect their mob, just like how politicians protected their mob back in the days of the Roman Empire.   But what I want to know is how/why Rittenhouse got isolated from the other members of his group?  I see him in pictures from earlier with other members of his group, but when the incident happened, he's alone.

[Ivanhoe]

6 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Yep, the Democrats protect their mob, just like how politicians protected their mob back in the days of the Roman Empire.   But what I want to know is how/why Rittenhouse got isolated from the other members of his group?  I see him in pictures from earlier with other members of his group, but when the incident happened, he's alone.

I vaguely recall that there was a story, probably false, that there had been a gunshot near the main crowd. Rittenhouse was carrying a satchel with 1st aid equipment, and he went to render aid. No GSW victim to be found, probably just a knucklehead shooting in the air. Then got surrounded.

[glenn239]

17 minutes ago, Ivanhoe said:

I vaguely recall that there was a story, probably false, that there had been a gunshot near the main crowd. Rittenhouse was carrying a satchel with 1st aid equipment, and he went to render aid. No GSW victim to be found, probably just a knucklehead shooting in the air. Then got surrounded.

If true, the lesson is that a medic team in the future is covered by a security element, no exceptions.  That way, the Rosenbaums of the world can't win their Darwin Awards and start shit.

[Ivanhoe]

12 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

If true, the lesson is that a medic team in the future is covered by a security element, no exceptions.  That way, the Rosenbaums of the world can't win their Darwin Awards and start shit.

My takeaways are:

• self, tribe, community IN THAT ORDER;
• 3-S Rule - Stupid people, Stupid places, Stupid times;
• assume all crowds are stupid, savage, sociopathic (i.e. rules of force vs. rule of law/rationality);
• if I'm heading towards a possible fight, bring lots of friends. Friends with rifles.

[Burncycle360]

If I recall correctly one of the business owners he was there to help called him and told him to get over to that location and put out a fire, so he did.  

The Prosecutor asked why he went alone, IIRC he said he assumed there were already some friendly people there (apparently there were earlier). He was then asked "if there were already friendlies there, why did the owner need you?" to which he was unsure as he didn't ask.  The other armed friend he was looking for to return to earlier was on the phone when Rittenhouse left so he didn't come.  It may have been the case that he was so eager to find something helpful to do that he didn't wait.

As he arrived he appeared to run into some of the persons of interest (from the FLIR footage) and he put the fire extinguisher down, so whatever was said, his focus apparently shifted to personal safety here. At this point the prosecution says he pointed the rifle at Rosenbaum, provoking him to attack. There were a lot of people there, it seems odd the prosecution could not find any witness to testify if true, because they are instead  relying heavily on an extremely distorted digitally zoomed picture which any reasonable person would say does not satisfy "beyond a reasonable doubt" criteria despite the prosecutions attempts to gaslight everyone they show by repeating "here you see he raised his rifle" as if he's insisting the shape in the cloud is obviously a dinosaur if only you looked harder

Edited November 13, 2021 by Burncycle360

[rmgill]

3 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Yep, the Democrats protect their mob, just like how politicians protected their mob back in the days of the Roman Empire.   But what I want to know is how/why Rittenhouse got isolated from the other members of his group?  I see him in pictures from earlier with other members of his group, but when the incident happened, he's alone.

He rand down the street to put out another fire. Got split off by the police line, tried to go back, was isolated and then ran to put put another fire, in a garbage can in the street, that Rosenbaum had set. That's when I think Rosenbaum set about pursuing Rittenhouse. 

I think it's arguable that Rittenhouse got tunnel vision on his mission to literally put out fires and got separated from the group because of it. 

Edited November 13, 2021 by rmgill

[rmgill]

3 hours ago, glenn239 said:

If true, the lesson is that a medic team in the future is covered by a security element, no exceptions.  That way, the Rosenbaums of the world can't win their Darwin Awards and start shit.

And have someone in tactical control not doing things but making sure of where each group is. 

And stay with a battle buddy. 

 

Edited November 13, 2021 by rmgill

[rmgill]

 

[DKTanker]

3 hours ago, Burncycle360 said:

As he arrived he appeared to run into some of the persons of interest (from the FLIR footage) and he put the fire extinguisher down, so whatever was said, his focus apparently shifted to personal safety here. At this point the prosecution says he pointed the rifle at Rosenbaum, provoking him to attack. 

Even if that is true, Rosenbaum didn't immediately react to that provocation.  On the contrary, he left the scene, got ahead of Rittenhouse, and then laid in wait to ambush him.  This created a unique and distinctly different event.  Why the defense didn't have an expert on the law to point this out is baffling.

Edited November 13, 2021 by DKTanker

[DKTanker]

2 hours ago, rmgill said:

 

Even if the defense didn't think they needed a firearms/ballistics expert, they should have objected to both the  prosecutor and judge testifying as subject matter experts in front of the jury.

[BansheeOne]

I think where left- and right-wing commentary intersect, the thing is summed up quite well. 

Quote

November 13, 2021 - 10:30 AM EST

Rittenhouse trial: Perils of weighing public opinion over evidence

BY JONATHAN TURLEY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR

With closing arguments scheduled for Monday in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, the jury will soon get one of the most politically and emotionally charged cases in history. The question, however, is whether the prosecutors practically closed this case before it began in 2020. They followed a long pattern of prosecutors rushing indictments and overcharging defendants in high-profile cases. Even with the court agreeing to a key favorable instruction, the prosecution may have doomed this case by responding to the weight of public opinion rather than to the weight of the evidence.

Rittenhouse fatally shot Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26, on Aug. 25, 2020, during rioting in Kenosha, Wis., following a fatal police shooting. He also wounded Gaige Grosskreutz, 27.

The still photos of Rittenhouse walking on a street with an AR-15 rifle strapped to his back triggered widespread outrage. Then-presidential candidate Joe Biden labeled Rittenhouse a "white supremacist" in a tweet showing his photo and demanded to know why then-President Trump did not "disavow white supremacists."

Prosecutors sought to quell the public outrage by charging Rittenhouse, 17, on Aug. 28. He was charged as an adult with first-degree intentional homicide, first-degree reckless homicide, first-degree attempted intentional homicide and two counts of first-degree reckless endangerment. While charged as an adult on the murder counts, he also was charged with possessing a weapon while under the age of 18.

[...] 

For those watching the trial, there was a shocking disconnect from prior news coverage and the actual evidence. There was an even greater disconnect with the charges.

It is a familiar pattern. In the Trayvon Martin case, George Zimmerman was charged with first-degree murder; some of us criticized prosecutor Angela Corey for pursuing first-degree murder in a classic self-defense case. With only Zimmerman surviving the encounter and exhibiting injuries from the struggle, a first-degree conviction was extremely unlikely as opposed to a manslaughter conviction - but the lesser charge would not have satisfied many in the public. The result was an acquittal.

Overcharging may please the public, but it can demolish a case. While jurors can convict on "lesser included" offenses, the credibility of the prosecution is established by the lead charge. Jurors tend to start at the top and work their way down on the charges. If the first-degree charge is wildly out of reach, they are more likely to doubt the lesser charges, too.

[...] 

Prosecutors did win a fight for a "provocation instruction." Under Wisconsin law, if someone provokes a confrontation, they are then required to exhaust all other options - such as retreating - before using deadly force in self-defense. However, prosecutors agreed (despite media reports to the contrary) that there was no provocation in the mere fact that Rittenhouse appeared in the midst of the protest with his weapon. Moreover, the prosecution's own witnesses described Rosenbaum and others threatening and chasing Rittenhouse.

Absent a prosecution save, the Rittenhouse case may prove, yet again, how a prosecutor satisfying public outcry can wind up sacrificing a criminal case.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/581411-rittenhouse-trial-perils-of-weighing-public-opinion-over-evidence

 

Quote

Acquitting Rittenhouse in Kenosha murder case would be the correct, if unjust, verdict

Before, I could see Kyle Rittenhouse being found not guilty. Now, having seen the rest of the evidence, I’d be shocked if he’s convicted of anything more than a weapons charge

By Mark Brown 

on November 12, 2021 3:09 pm

Lawyers are scheduled to deliver their closing arguments Monday in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, and then the case will go to the jury.

If I were a member of that jury, I expect I would reluctantly vote to acquit Rittenhouse of the most serious homicide charges based on the evidence that he was acting in self-defense when he shot three people in Kenosha in August 2020.

That’s without the benefit yet of hearing those closing arguments. Prosecutors might still be able to pull together their case in a more compelling manner than they have managed so far.

And it’s also without knowing the jury instructions about the applicable law, which possibly could leave room for a compromise verdict on a lesser charge that would reflect the truth — which is that Rittenhouse was hardly faultless when he shot two people to death and very nearly killed two more.

But the evidence is the evidence, and I don’t expect the legal instructions to significantly change the outcome.

In the moments before he pulled the trigger, it’s pretty clear Rittenhouse had valid reasons to fear for his safety — first from a mentally unhinged man chasing him with full knowledge that he was carrying an AR-15 rifle and later from what he perceived as a mob violently attacking him to avenge the first shooting.

The mob’s motives — such as stopping an active shooter who was running away to bring him to justice — might offer a justification for their actions.

But it doesn’t nullify Rittenhouse’s own perception of events and the actions he took to defend himself.

Last week, I warned you not to be surprised if Rittenhouse gets acquitted.

After seeing the rest of the evidence this past week, let me take it a step further. I will be shocked if he’s convicted of anything more than underage possession of a dangerous weapon.

As someone who has made no secret of his predisposition against Rittenhouse and those of his ilk who would hold him up as some sort of hero, I thought I ought to put that opinion out there before people start reacting to a possible verdict they don’t understand.

[...] 

The fact remains that Rittenhouse had no business being there that night. Without him in the equation, nobody is dead.

Some readers seemed to mistake my stated distaste for Rittenhouse and his vigilante friends as a preference for the troublemakers who tried to tear apart Kenosha under the guise of paying their respects to Jacob Blake, a Black man shot by one of that city’s white police officers.

I thought I made it pretty clear I have no tolerance for either group.

The people on the far left and the far right are tearing our country apart.

I’d rather neither of them used this verdict to justify more of the same.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2021/11/12/22778778/kenosha-shooter-kyle-rittenhouse-murder-trial-self-defense-verdict-prediction

[DKTanker]

1 hour ago, BansheeOne said:

I think where left- and right-wing commentary intersect, the thing is summed up quite well. 

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/581411-rittenhouse-trial-perils-of-weighing-public-opinion-over-evidence

https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2021/11/12/22778778/kenosha-shooter-kyle-rittenhouse-murder-trial-self-defense-verdict-prediction

Quote

The fact remains that Rittenhouse had no business being there that night. Without him in the equation, nobody is dead.

Some readers seemed to mistake my stated distaste for Rittenhouse and his vigilante friends as a preference for the troublemakers who tried to tear apart Kenosha under the guise of paying their respects to Jacob Blake, a Black man shot by one of that city’s white police officers.

I thought I made it pretty clear I have no tolerance for either group.

 

The fact remains, if the RIOTING TERRORISTS hadn't been rioting and terrorizing in Kenosha, nobody is dead.

Not in this article you haven't made it clear, I see absolutely no condemnation of anybody but Rittenhouse in this article.  In fact you grant moral equivalency between those who wanted to destroy a community and those that wanted to preserve a community.  Moreover, you went out of your way to grant some justification for the actions of those that wanted to destroy a community for attacking Rittenhouse, somebody who wanted to preserve a community.

Edited November 14, 2021 by DKTanker