Rittenhouse trial

[rmgill]

I am ready for the national divorce. I want to see the blue states and their adherents suck on the vacuum of their rusted and run out of town industry and see their cities out of power because they don't have enough domestic generation capacity. 

[sunday]

10 hours ago, DKTanker said:

 

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.

This could be a logical fallacy related to the Latin aphorism In medio virtus, it could be translated to English as "Virtue resides in the mean" - between two extreme positions, the good position would be a compromise of the two. It has often its merits, like when deciding who should be putting music in the car during a long trip - half the trip one, then another during the other half.

But when one of the positions is unambiguously evil, and the other unambiguously good, there is no morally correct middle position. E. g.:

First position: To kill people because of their religion is wrong.

Second position: All Jews must die.

There are several middle positions: to only kill half the Jews, to exile all the Jews, to discriminate against Jews, and it is clear none of those middle positions are any good.

It should be realized that one could no be a fence-sitter in some cases.

Edited November 14, 2021 by sunday

[bojan]

2 hours ago, sunday said:

... It has often its merits, like when deciding who should be putting music in the car during a long trip - half the trip one, then another during the other half...

 

Whoever is driving, because if s/he is irritated by the music safety of everyone in car will suffer.

Oh wait, that is fascism.

Edited November 14, 2021 by bojan

[sunday]

40 minutes ago, bojan said:

Whoever is driving, because if s/he is irritated by the music safety of everyone in car will suffer.

Oh wait, that is fascism.

Authoritarian could be a better word... 😁

[Markus Becker]

In preparation for the verdict the guard is being mobilized. 

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/crime/wisconsin-activates-national-guard-ahead-of-kyle-rittenhouse-verdict

[Ivanhoe]

16 minutes ago, Markus Becker said:

In preparation for the verdict the guard is being mobilized. 

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/crime/wisconsin-activates-national-guard-ahead-of-kyle-rittenhouse-verdict

Don't worry, it will be advertised as "fiery, but mostly peaceful."

[RETAC21]

3 hours ago, bojan said:

Whoever is driving, because if s/he is irritated by the music safety of everyone in car will suffer.

Oh wait, that is fascism.

Only unmarried men put a "he" on that statement.

[bojan]

4 hours ago, sunday said:

Authoritarian could be a better word... 😁

Heinleinian. Everyone has opportunity to do a hard work. Those that do the hard work have a vote. Rest can enjoy the ride. 

Edited November 14, 2021 by bojan

[rmgill]

 

[sunday]

1 hour ago, bojan said:

Heinleinian. Everyone has opportunity to do a hard work. Those that do the hard work have a vote. Rest can enjoy the ride. 

Technocratic, also.

However, were those two being chauffeured in a limo, the original example is still valid.

[Yama]

On 11/12/2021 at 7:49 PM, rmgill said:

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. 

Grosskreutz' gun was not pointed on Rittenhouse when he was shot: also, if he WANTED to shoot Rittenhouse, he could have done it safely far away - for example, when he fell, as you note - he didn't need to advance within touching distance if his intent was just to kill him.

[Yama]

On 11/12/2021 at 7:28 PM, R011 said:

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. 

Indeed he was not. You seem to think it was only a coincidence. I don't think it was. He said he turned his back on Rosenbaum after he came to heckle him. 

On 11/12/2021 at 7:28 PM, R011 said:

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.

Not at all. A trained, experienced professional would have never got into scuffle with Rosenbaum. Also he wouldn't have been alone and made himself vulnerable for being mobbed while carrying a powerful firearm which could have fallen into wrong hands. If Rittenhouse had been a cop, he would have been fired immediately afterwards for losing the control of the situation like that.

[Yama]

On 11/12/2021 at 2:32 PM, DKTanker said:

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

Never said otherwise: I have only commented his overall responsibility for the events, not the individual heat-of-the-moment decisions, which are much more defensible.

[DKTanker]

13 minutes ago, Yama said:

Grosskreutz' gun was not pointed on Rittenhouse when he was shot: also, if he WANTED to shoot Rittenhouse, he could have done it safely far away - for example, when he fell, as you note - he didn't need to advance within touching distance if his intent was just to kill him.

Yeah, that's the apologetic Leftist talking point being made here.  Completely ignoring the fact that a pistol has horrible accuracy from more than a few feet.  There is no video that shows exactly what Grosskreutz was pointing at when Rittenhouse fired, we can only know what was said in a court of law under oath.  Both Rittenhouse and Grosskreutz said, under oath, that the pistol was pointed at Rittenhouse.  At the end of the day it is hard to argue that Grosskreutz wasn't intending to shoot, he intentionally brought the weapon, he intentionally unholstered the weapon, he intentionally brandished the weapon, and he intentionally pointed it, if not exactly at Rittenhouse, in his direction.  When confronting another armed individual, if you're going to pull a weapon you either use it or you're essentially trying to commit suicide. 

In this country suicide by cop is a thing, all one has to do is threaten an armed police officer with one's firearm.  The police officer, and those accompanying him, are practicing self-defense when they shoot the threatening person.  Note, not a single officer has to have the weapon pointed at them, the perp just needs to make a threatening action. 

[DKTanker]

1 hour ago, Yama said:

Not at all. A trained, experienced professional would have never got into scuffle with Rosenbaum. Also he wouldn't have been alone and made himself vulnerable for being mobbed while carrying a powerful firearm which could have fallen into wrong hands. If Rittenhouse had been a cop, he would have been fired immediately afterwards for losing the control of the situation like that.

The initial scuffle with Rosenbaum started because Rittenhouse was extinguishing fires started by Rosenbaum.  The fatal scuffle was one of Rosenbaum's initiation, he chased down Rittenhouse, went looking for trouble and, he got it four times over.  You're back to giving a rioting thug trying to destroy a community greater agency than those trying to preserve the community.  I can only surmise you support the destruction of private and public property by rioting Leftist mobs.  That being the case we have nothing else to discuss.  Have a good day.

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, Yama said:

Grosskreutz' gun was not pointed on Rittenhouse when he was shot: also, if he WANTED to shoot Rittenhouse, he could have done it safely far away - for example, when he fell, as you note - he didn't need to advance within touching distance if his intent was just to kill him.

I just looked at the photo in question. Sure looks like Grosskreutz is attempting to point the gun when he is shot. 

Let's see the photo and video sequence you're claiming. 

 

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, Yama said:

Not at all. A trained, experienced professional would have never got into scuffle with Rosenbaum.

Bullcrap. Trained and experienced professionals get into scuffles with people intent on harming them all the bloody time. We can go through anything from police to Victoria Cross and Congressional Medal of Honor winners to see that. 

 

1 hour ago, Yama said:

Also he wouldn't have been alone and made himself vulnerable for being mobbed while carrying a powerful firearm which could have fallen into wrong hands.

Again. We can find plenty of example of folks fighting alone and cut off, even folks who are trained and experienced professionals. 

1 hour ago, Yama said:

If Rittenhouse had been a cop, he would have been fired immediately afterwards for losing the control of the situation like that.

You mean the cops who lost control of the situation the night before and were sitting back and WATCHING businesses be burned and people be attacked? Those COPS? 

Edited November 14, 2021 by rmgill

[rmgill]

16 minutes ago, DKTanker said:

 You're back to giving a rioting thug, with 11 felonies for child molestation, including sodomy/anal rape of boys, two open felony cases and fresh out of a mental institution THAT day, trying to destroy a community greater agency than those trying to preserve the community. 

FIFY. 

I'm still trying to figure put why Yama is trying to ascribe lawful and rational behavior to Rosenbaum. 

 

The third person in that line of people running is the reporter. He gave an unfavorable view of what Rosenbaum was up to. 

Edited November 14, 2021 by rmgill

[rmgill]

 

[DKTanker]

I saw a discussion about Grosskreutz' testimony regarding his firearm.  Grosskreutz was asked about carrying that particular firearm on that particular night.  Grosskreutz testified that he always carried the pistol. Just like his keys and wallet, he never left home without it.  When asked whether or not there was a round in the chamber Grosskreutz said he didn't know (there was a round in the chamber).  Aside from Grosskreutz, I'd like to hear from just one other individual in the world that habitually carries a firearm and doesn't know whether or not there is a round in the chamber.

Why this this important.  It calls into question the credibility of Grosskreutz.  Either Grosskreutz is lying about knowing the status of his weapon or he rarely if ever carried his weapon and decided that night was the night he needed it.  Either way, it doesn't negate his right to carry (though his criminal status making him ineligible to carry a firearm does), it again merely speaks to his credibility.

Why wasn't he questioned about it?  The defense team has already shown some incompetency so that is a reasonable assumption.  There is also the quite real possibility of there not being a need to get into the weeds with the prosecution witness given the exonerating evidence he provided to the defense.

Edited November 14, 2021 by DKTanker

[Ivanhoe]

[DKTanker]

Setting the record straight.  While Grosskreutz had a felony conviction, it was expunged.  Grosskreutz did have an expired concealed weapons permit, and that is what made it illegal for him to have that pistol, carried the way he was carrying it (tucked in his waistband behind his back and concealed by his shirt), on that particular night.

[rmgill]

Yep. The charges likely made it impossible for him to get the license and were why it was not valid at the time. It had likely been revoked. 

[NickM]

On 11/13/2021 at 1:45 AM, Rick said:

+1

and here is proof:

https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/old-dominion-professor-seeks-to-normalize-pedophilia/

[R011]

9 hours ago, Yama said:

Indeed he was not. You seem to think it was only a coincidence. I don't think it was. He said he turned his back on Rosenbaum after he came to heckle him. 

Not at all. A trained, experienced professional would have never got into scuffle with Rosenbaum. Also he wouldn't have been alone and made himself vulnerable for being mobbed while carrying a powerful firearm which could have fallen into wrong hands. If Rittenhouse had been a cop, he would have been fired immediately afterwards for losing the control of the situation like that.

Nonsense.  your trained, experienced professional would still have been a target for Rosenbaum - this wasn't a mutual combat situation - and would still have had to deal with being threatened and assaulted.  Trained, experienced professionals do get cut off rom time to time too.  Things don't always go as planned even for professionals.

And this is still victim blaming.  Rittenhouse was attacked without legal excuse.  It's not for him to need to excuse his presence, but for the rioters who assaulted him and were looting and setting fires who need to explain themselves.