tuscl

OT: Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Lone_Wolf
Arizona
Friday, November 5, 2021 9:01 PM
I've watched much of the trial, and to me, it looks like a clear cut case of self defense. I would be stunned if he is convicted of the major charges. The prosecution sounds like the defense. They don't appear to have much of a case. This should never have gone to trial. Any differing perspectives?

247 comments

  • doctorevil
    •
    3 years ago
    All of the witnesses sounded like defense witnesses, but they are still in the prosecutions case. I can’t believe they are actually pursuing this.
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    Unfortunately it's getting hard to prosecute the amerikkkan taliban...domestic terrorists. This piece of shit deserves to be done like McVeigh
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    3 years ago
    The lefty scumbags are already threatening violence if he's found not guilty Lets Go Brandon
  • Muddy
    •
    3 years ago
    A good rule of thumb is just go with the opposite of whatever icee says. As long as you do that you’ll always be correct.
  • Lone_Wolf
    •
    3 years ago
    So far the "prosecution" has established Kyle was there to protect property, be a medic, put out a dumpster fire, tried to surrender. The "prosecution" also established Rosenbaum was a crazy enraged threatening lunatic that threatened to kill Kyle ambushed him and tried to grab his gun If one didn't know, it would be easy to assume the prosecution was actually the defense. For reals. And this is looking at objectively as possible.
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    A few Antifa hardos attacked an armed man. What did they think would happen? Rittenhouse skates on murder. Deal with it.
  • misterorange
    •
    3 years ago
    Hopefully they riot again, which will only demonstrate why anyone's in this mess to begin with.
  • doctorevil
    •
    3 years ago
    “ The "prosecution" also established Rosenbaum was a crazy enraged threatening lunatic that threatened to kill Kyle ambushed him and tried to grab his gun ” And they have further proved that one rioter attacked him and tried to beat him with a skateboard, and another attacked him with a handgun. Way to go prosecution.
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    @Papi - "The lefty scumbags are already threatening violence if he's found not guilty" And they'll realize that violence has permanent consequences.
  • goodyman
    •
    3 years ago
    I haven't followed it but i don't understand how it can be self defense if he went looking to start something at a left leaning rally while carrying a gun. I've only heard one side of things though.
  • misterorange
    •
    3 years ago
    ^^ Obviously.
  • gammanu95
    •
    3 years ago
    Actually, Tetradon, the rioters only experience those permanent consequences when they attack armed citizens, and occasionally officers. Then our "public servants" prosecute and persecute those citizens and officers, to show the rest of us what happens when you stand up to rioters who have been formally endorsed by the democrat party and mainstream media. Seriously, did you ever think things would get this bad? In America?
  • Lone_Wolf
    •
    3 years ago
    @goodyman - I recommend you watch clips of the actual trial. If you are capable of unbiased objective thought, good chance you'll have a new perspective.
  • jackslash
    •
    3 years ago
    This filthy murderer should be locked up for life.
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    @gammanu, of course I'm assuming you live outside progressive prosecutor land. If you're still there, you've been warned. No idea what the fuck goes through the head of someone attacking a man with an AR-15. Other than a 5.56 mm bullet. It's what happens when the stupid and emboldened form large groups and have gotten away with this shit for months.
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    Damn so many weirdos supporting domestic terrorism....
  • WavvyCain
    •
    3 years ago
    I don’t even talk or comment about stuff like this anymore on here because there’s no point. But, If this guy was Black or Mexican y’all would be calling him a thug and every other word in the book. Am I wrong? Funny how cops took his ass to eat after murdering people, similar to Dylan Roof 🙄. I wonder what’s y’all thoughts on the Ahmaud Arbery case? Innocent black man being murdered by 2 pieces of shit. 🤔
  • WavvyCain
    •
    3 years ago
    Sad that the man y’all hate, ICEE is making the most sense in the thread.
  • WavvyCain
    •
    3 years ago
    I’m not racist and don’t get into black vs white etc but this shit has to stop. I see white people making this terrorist out to be a hero, even the shit on January 6 was sad. That cunt that got shot was getting sympathy from the right. Do you all have these convos with the black strippers you thirst over? Be a man don’t hide behind your keyboard with this shit. Let it be known you’re racist. I see so much hate on George Floyd and others it makes me sick. That’s why I stick to clubbing topics because there’s no point with some of you on here. I love all people, some of you should to. Right is right and wrong is wrong, no matter the color.
  • misterorange
    •
    3 years ago
    @Wavvy Am I mistaken, or were the guys who attacked Rittenhouse (and then got shot) all white?
  • twentyfive
    •
    3 years ago
    I don't get how any of y'all can support a guy who went looking for trouble, and by all accounts he found trouble, he doesn't deserve consideration from any ethical folks. He deserves to be punished for his actions.
  • mark94
    •
    3 years ago
    Video that the FBI and prosecutors kept hidden for a year, but was recently leaked to the media, shows someone firing a shot at Rittenhouse just before he returned fired. Witnesses for the prosecution said the man killed had told people guarding the property, including Rittenhouse, that he would kill them if he found them alone during the night.
  • twentyfive
    •
    3 years ago
    ^ If that's true and I have my doubts, Rittenhouse had no business being there, regardless of whether there is racism involved, there's certainly an element of vigilantism, and in our society there are strong laws against that sort of activity. Sorry y'all are barking up the wrong tree.
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    @25, what would you charge him with? "Looking for trouble" in this case is crossing a state line with weapons while underage, not murder when the "victims" initiated the actual assault. @Wavvy, I actually agree with you on those other cases. I believe in dispensing justice on the merits of the case, and that means no privileges for chanting the "right" slogans while causing mayhem. Kyle Rittenhouse isn't a "hero," but no one is making the case that he's a murderer.
  • twentyfive
    •
    3 years ago
    ^ I'm not sure what he should be charged with, but I am sure he doesn't deserve a get out of jail free card, if he hadn't been present at that time, especially being he essentially was not part of the community, and some folks lost their life's due to his meddling, he needs to be punished in some real meaningful way as to dissuade this type of behavior in the future.
  • twentyfive
    •
    3 years ago
    ^ One other point to consider, Vigilantism is a crime, and is chargeable.
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    "some folks lost their life's due to his meddling" No, they lost their life because they assaulted him and threatened his life. Here is a list of the charges. [view link]
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    @Wavvy, I'll let these direct quotes from you sit there.. "I’m not racist and don’t get into black vs white etc but this shit has to stop." "Do you all have these convos with the black strippers you thirst over?" "But, If this guy was Black or Mexican y’all would be calling him a thug and every other word in the book. Am I wrong?" "Innocent black man being murdered by 2 pieces of shit. 🤔" You're neck deep in "that black vs white shit."
  • twentyfive
    •
    3 years ago
    ^ I don't see it that way, he didn't belong there and that's where it begins and ends, I don't know if you remember but many years back there was a guy named Bernard Goetz who pulled a gun on a bunch of teens in the subway, and shot them after acting as a decoy and attracting trouble, that's what this reminds me of.
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    ^ Rittenhouse was not actively provoking anyone, nor committing a felony. Pretty sure that's the legal standard.
  • twentyfive
    •
    3 years ago
    You know I'm not a young guy any more, but some things are universal, I can't get to self defense, simply because he left his home armed and headed to someplace where there was a high probability that some type of altercation would occur, if he hadn't been armed, my guess is this would never have occurred, if he hadn't gone there i also doubt that this would have happened, I don't know if there is any common ground, but it's no longer acceptable to declare that it was self defense if you are actively looking for trouble, yes he might get away with the criminal parts but he was the catalyst, I have no doubt of that.
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    ^ I'm trying to argue based on a legal standard, not personal sensibilities. You could make the case that anyone actively rioting was "looking for trouble" more than Rittenhouse. "Looking for trouble" doesn't seem to meet it, not in the same way that Joseph Rosenbaum was "looking for trouble" by creating an imminent physical threat.
  • twentyfive
    •
    3 years ago
    There’s really no legal standard that is going to be universal, depending on the prosecutor and his personal views he can make whatever he wants into the legal standard my argument is based on common sense a seventeen year old kid has no business being armed at an event of this nature, and I’m speaking as a parent, if the argument were reversed and this jerk kid had gotten killed how would y’all have framed it jerky kid killed by rioters he provoked. Jes sayin
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    ^ I don't deal in counterfactuals. I would agree that Rittenhouse isn't a paragon of common sense, but that doesn't make him a murderer. I'm happy we're a nation of laws and not whims.
  • twentyfive
    •
    3 years ago
    ^ Look this is not counter factual, I never claimed that he was anything other than a jackass and a stupid kid, who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, but in choosing to be there, and be armed he has culpability for what took place. Just like Henry Ruggs who chose to drive over 150 MPH, he didn't know what was going to happen, he should have known, something was highly likely to happen, and sorry but that is inexcusable.
  • misterorange
    •
    3 years ago
    One could argue whether Rittenhouse was a defender of freedom or a catalyst who potentially made things worse. Personally, I wouldn't take to the streets carrying a weapon into a virtual war zone unless those rioting animals were at my doorstep, burning down my own community. Maybe I'm selfish, or perhaps I just don't believe one man can make a difference when an entire city is under attack by a violent mob. Apparently he thought differently and took action. One thing I know for sure is that the number one responsibility of government is to protect the safety of its citizens. When that fails, and fails miserably, over a period of time, the emergence of a Kyle Rittenhouse or a Bernard Goetz is inevitable. There's a limit to how long people can stand by watching society crumble before they feel compelled to do something about it. Bernie Goetz the so-called "Subway Vigilante" was seen as a hero by a lot of people. In the mid-80's NYC had been paralyzed by over a decade of unchecked violent crime and police corruption. People were afraid to walk the streets. Using the subway system outside of rush hour was like asking to be assaulted. Enter Central Park and you were quite literally trespassing on gang territory. Did Goetz do the "right" thing? Probably not. I'd say the Guardian Angels had a much more realistic and effective approach. But there is no doubt that the ordinary citizen was forced to choose between being a victim, or doing something about it, because government leadership was, at best, asleep at the switch and at worst, part of the problem.
  • RandomMember
    •
    3 years ago
    Regardless of the trial outcome and the law, this repulsive kid is not a hero. Stories I've read about Rittenhouse reinforce stereotypes about guys who fetishize assault weapons. He's on social media posing with his guns and taking backyard target practice. He's bullied by his peers. He's photographed in the front row of a Trump rally. Example of the worst kind of gun-worshiping, unattractive, moronic, loser. It's laughable that some of you consider him a patriot. Kid should have stayed home, masturbating with his assault rifles. His life is ruined no matter what the outcome of the trial -- and that's what he deserves.
  • twentyfive
    •
    3 years ago
    @misterorange, That is fair and I have no disagreement with that, my quarrel is with those that think this stupid kid had no part in this and are trying to paint this jackass as a victim. If nothing else he deserves a punishment for being terminally stupid.
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    "Look this is not counter factual," Asking what would happen if a rioter killed Rittenhouse is the definition of a counterfactual. As it were, Rittenhouse was the one attacked, and the original question was if he would be convicted, not if he was a nice person or had common sense.
  • twentyfive
    •
    3 years ago
    This is where we disagree, I don't think he was attacked I think he was the attacker, based on my interpretation of the facts. If you set a trap and it gets set off who is the initiator ?
  • goodyman
    •
    3 years ago
    Rittenhouse was "attacked" I guess but it seems that was what he was hoping for no? He was looking for a fight or at least an altercation and he came well prepared obviously. You going to go hang out at a gay pride parade if you don't like gays, then be combative when someone there makes a comment to you? You going to go to Follies and get pissed off when a chick gives you a little OTP? No! You know where you're going and what the result will be ahead of time.
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    It's ridiculous watching idiots like trolladon pretend to be so law abiding unless it comes to soliciting trafficked women in illicit brothels 😭😭😭🤡🤡🤡🤡 The pro domestic terrorist views in this thread remind me of the autism thread. Coz the bigots on here aren't interpreting the reality of the trial. Just quoting q anon bs. Those defending Rittenhouse are basically saying his victim deserved to get killed for trying to possibly disarm an active shooter at a protest
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    ^ Except he wasn't an "active shooter." At least when you give free legal advice, you're offering fair value. "If you set a trap and it gets set off who is the initiator ?" @25, bad analogy. A trap doesn't put the trapper in harm's way. Rittenhouse being there does not initiate an assault. Rosenbaum puts him in a position he can't reasonably escape from. I could flip that argument and say by rioting, you are consenting to whatever harm comes your way to stop you.
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    Look at trolladon defend domestic terrorism while he pays trafficked women to fuck him. What law abiding citizen. Once he fired a shot he was an active shooter.and he was the only one to murder someone at the protest. He showed up illegally carrying a gun across state lines for the purpose of engaging in politically motivated violence . McVeigh junior. But of course the old bigots on here defend him as usual. According to them.....George Floyd is a criminal for being killed. Rittenhouse is innocent for murdering someone they disagree with politically.
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    ^ You keep saying "domestic terrorism," I don't think you know what the phrase means. I could argue the merits of the case and the definition of self defense, but you clearly have no interest in it. You could learn something from 25 and the other adults here.
  • mark94
    •
    3 years ago
    Wait, so a bunch of young men dressed in black descend on a town in the Midwest with the intent of burning it down but it’s the people who are guarding the businesses who are domestic terrorists ? Well, that’s one way to look at it.
  • Mate27
    •
    3 years ago
    From all accounts from Rittenhouse, he was crossing back over state lines to his place of employment, a store in which was likely going to get looted during some riots and took along his weapon of choice for protection, rightfully so considering f the threats from the thugs who has nothing f better to do than taunt this kid. It’s why the second Ammendment was created. And since he had to go back to the store for several legitimate reasons, I guess that was interpreted by the women crowd to be “looking for trouble”? Yeah, let’s just call everyone racist for seeing the facts, and not hyperbole. Dumbasses!
  • Mate27
    •
    3 years ago
    ^^^ determined by the “woke crowd” which often times can be mistaken as the “woman crowd”.
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    Damn so many of you defending a murderer coz he killed people you disagree with. That shows what you are.
  • JimGassagain
    •
    3 years ago
    ^^ that’s some fucked up spinning of a poor yarn, theniggaformerlyknownas2icee writes! You’re quite the wordsmith getting to the point he killed people that others disagreed with was the Defense. Crown Icee as the King me of Wordspin. Bacon!!
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    3 years ago
    ^ he didn't attack anyone - he was the one being attacked - those lowlifes just ran into someone that was able to defend themselves and for once those thugs got a taste of their own violence Up to then those pieces of garbage had been acting with impunity attacking and harassing innocent people all over the country
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    ^ Murderer, another term you don't know the definition of.
  • mark94
    •
    3 years ago
    The left has certain words that can justify its actions. Utter one of those magic words and it turns illegal and despicable acts into bravery. Antifa has been attacking innocent people and businesses for years, claiming they were bravely opposing “racists” and “Nazis”, including when they burned black owned businesses in Minneapolis. The latest magic words are “domestic terrorist” which allows the DOJ and FBI to harass and indict anyone who oppose the Biden administration or its ideas.
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    Your baby dicks get hard when cops kill minorities but defend a terrorist who murdered people at a protest you disagree with. Just as you defended the attempted January 6 coup.
  • Mate27
    •
    3 years ago
    ^^ that’s one helluva straw man argument you got skinning there little boy.
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    Calling the riot a "protest" lol. ICEE is okay with chaos, so long as they're shouting the right slogans and not coming too near good trailer park.
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    Too near his trailer park
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    Trolladon. So the attempted coup where over 50 were killed is fine. And so is rittenhouse murdering someone you disagree with politically. Keep it up trick troll.
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    Coup where 50 were killed? Are you high already? Are you talking about the riot where one rioter was killed or are you a confused little boy? No one was murdered. A rioter attacked a kid with a gun, and got his permanent reward. Perhaps if more people acted in self defense, we wouldn't have seen such destructive riots that summer.
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    You're in denial about the Maga coup attempt. And are claiming a man trying to possibly disarm a domestic terrorist at protest deserved to be murdered. Your true colors are showing and they look like the white sheet you wear.
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    You can't even get the basic, agreed-upon-by-all-sides facts straight. LOL "possibly" trying to disarm. That's a new legal standard for conviction. At the rate of stupid you're going, you're going to claim the rioters were "peacefully" coming from out of state to burn shit down.
  • Mate27
    •
    3 years ago
    ^^ when this trial is over you’ll be eating crow, but will make another excuse or straw man to promote your victim playing agenda. You’ll never amount to anything when your view of the world is always that of a victim. Go sit on the bench NiggaIcee, you can’t play in this league!
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    Rittenhouse went to a protest with a gun and murdered a man. His intent was politically motivated. As were the January 6 coup attempt murders
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    Actually, Rittenhouse went to a property under attack from rioters, and defended himself against a man who charged him. "As were the January 6 coup attempt murders" Only one killing that day, and like other rioters, I shed no tears for her.
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    Taking a gun to a protest with the intent of using it is a planned attack not self defense
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    ^ No use trying to argue with ICEE. He'll either repeat what you just debunked only in stronger language, change the topic, attack a straw man, or call you names. That said, good points.
  • pistola
    •
    3 years ago
    Fuck Antifa.
  • JamesSD
    •
    3 years ago
    I expect a hung jury.
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
  • JimGassagain
    •
    3 years ago
    ^^ dis nigga is crazy, politicizing a trial involving a kid as defendant. Bacon!!
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    Keep defending domestic terrorists
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    Didn't Rosenbaum call Rittenhouse "nigga" as he charged him?
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    You mean a terrorist can shoot someone trying to disarm them so long as you agree with n the terrorists politics.
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    ^ Does telling "black lives matter" while you assault someone give you some kind of immunity?
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    You're claiming that trying to disarm an armed terrorist at a protest is assault
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    ^ Go figure, yelling "get his ass" at someone who isn't threatening doesn't jive with a self-defense claim. And no one will be reading Huber's mind. Go figure again, Rittenhouse raised his arms and walked towards the police so he didn't get wasted.
  • mark94
    •
    3 years ago
    The defense just got a prosecution witness to admit Rittenhouse didn’t fire his gun until after the witness pointed a pistol at him.
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    ^ And caught Grosskreutz in several lies.
  • mark94
    •
    3 years ago
    Here’s the moment [view link]
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    ^ *SMASH*
  • mark94
    •
    3 years ago
    The Kenosha detective just admitted that the prosecutor told him to not look at the contents of Grosskreutz phone. WTF !
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    You do realize a victim isn't on trial. Rittenhouse shot and killed people
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    ^ And if one of those people is advancing on him with a pistol...
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    Trollataliban
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    ^ Damn, you convinced me with that intelligent, well-reasoned comment. When can I cut AOC a check?
  • mark94
    •
    3 years ago
    Incidentally, the Mayor of Kenosha, the prosecutor, and the lead detective are all from the same Armenian-American family. The Mayor, in particular, has been desperate to distract attention from the piss poor job he did in protecting the town.
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    3 years ago
    The ones here most responsible are the Dem politicians that allowed, and often encouraged, the rioting, all as part of the Trump coup to get Trump out of power – most if not all the rioting occurred in Dem controlled cities and often times those same Dem politicians did not allow for the feds to come in to stop the violence and often times took the side of the rioters against the cops – the Dem politicians that allowed the rioting allowed the conditions for the Rittenhouse situation and allowed the conditions for the big increase in crime and murders via their anti-cop defund-the-police stupidity.
  • twentyfive
    •
    3 years ago
    I have owned many businesses all of my life, I have never hired or asked a 17 year old kid to protect any properties that I have an interest in, and I have had properties in harms way and I have suffered losses this is ridiculous and way out of any normal episode just absolutely crazy.
  • goodyman
    •
    3 years ago
    This whole thing is dumb. Why do people travel to protests like this? Got nothing better to do?
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    Defense posterized Grosskreutz. The wrong guy is on trial. [view link] [view link] [view link]
  • mark94
    •
    3 years ago
    All the lawyers on the prosecution should lose their law license.
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    Your q anon misrepresentations are gonna lqnd you surprised by the verdict. Been keeping up with it and most don't see your delusions.
  • mark94
    •
    3 years ago
    99% of Trump voters ( including me ) don’t know what a QAnon is or where you would find it. The only time we see the term is when someone on the left uses it to disparage people on the right. It’s another magic word, like racist, fascist, nazi, or white supremacist used to disparage others without needing to know any facts or craft a logical argument.
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
  • twentyfive
    •
    3 years ago
    I'm sure that many of the defense's arguments have merit, but there is one question that for me is the difference, what authority did a seventeen year old kid have to be in this location and, where the hell are his guardians. Just ask yourself what business does a seventeen year old kid, have to be out and about, armed and unsupervised.
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    ^ None, but that doesn't make him a murderer. All 3 shootings appear justified by self defense.
  • Mate27
    •
    3 years ago
    Icee is a sham w/ other names like Nigga, phatboy, trap baby, and Loco; all labeled by hisself!
  • twentyfive
    •
    3 years ago
    @Tetradon I haven't called him a murderer, but if he wasn't there or wasn't armed this situation would have been a lot simpler to understand @boobza here's the thing that you keep missing my point, I don't think any state licenses 17 year old kids as armed guards, that gas station owner should have hired proper security, not some rag tag bunch that were most likely unlicensed and untrained.
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    @25, it would have been simpler to understand, but that isn't the debate here. It's "is he guilty of murder?"
  • twentyfive
    •
    3 years ago
    ^ Not really sure, but he isn't blameless in this situation, and neither are who ever was responsible for and failed to control this seventeen year old kid. I might add that the gas station owner, unquestionably poured gasoline on this dumpster fire if he requested this.
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    ^ Different kettles of fish. He's not blameless--I think possession of a firearm over state lines, underage, is a slam dunk--but none of that takes away his right to self-defense. In the end, Rittenhouse shot and killed a man who was charging him, killed a man who was attacking him with a weapon, and wounded a man who was pointing a pistol at him. As Captain "Smilin'" Jack Ross says, these are the facts, and they are undisputed.
  • Mate27
    •
    3 years ago
    25, how much of a notice do you think the gas station owner got in order to realize he needed security for his business? My guess is prior to the riots, there wasn’t a need for security, so not sure if that is a plausible theory IMO.
  • mark94
    •
    3 years ago
    Now that we know that Rittenhouse wasn’t the initial aggressor, it seems he is being criticized with variations of “ he had no business being there “, “ he had it coming”, or “ nothing bad would have happened if he stayed home”. Really ?
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    His defense has holes in it. You can't claim self defense while engaging in an illegal act. Ie illegal possession and vigilantism. Their only self defense claim is stating he acted within reason given his lack of training and experience with a weapon in said situations. The murder 1 charge is based on him not retreating after killing Rosenbaum. When he killed Huber. I don't believe this will stick because of Wisconsin state laws not clear cut enough in these matters.
  • bkkruined
    •
    3 years ago
    "He had no business being there." If someone breaks into my house, they don't get to claim self defense if they shoot first. If it can be proven he was breaking other laws being there with the firearm, anyone killed as a circumstance of him breaking other laws becomes a murder charge. You loose your right to self defense when you start committing crimes. Two wrongs don't make a right.
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    And none of you find boobzas ramblings disturbing Ie "its very strange that groups like the NBA will support BLM .... but be critical of white supremacy" Sick fucks
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    ^ No, you lose your right to self defense if you initiate or escalate THE VIOLENCE. Not if you're "breaking other laws." There is nothing to indicate Rittenhouse initiated violence against anyone he shot. Being armed and in the area does not initiate violence.
  • twentyfive
    •
    3 years ago
    > , it seems he is being criticized with variations of “ he had no business being there “,< Well gee Mark that’s what I’ve been saying from the very beginning , funny how you keep trying to make him out as some type of Hero, he’s actually a stupid kid who got involved in something that he was completely unprepared for and should have never been there.
  • twentyfive
    •
    3 years ago
    @ Meat doesn’t matter how much notice he gets if he’s running a business he has insurance he doesn’t have the right to hire unqualified security sorry buddy I’ve operated a business all my life there are rules and practices that need to be followed by the operator, I don’t care what state he’s in you can’t hire armed guards that aren’t licensed to be there
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    Trolladon killing people while engaged in an illegal activity moots self defense claims. And by not retreating and killing 2 people and injuring 1. He did escalate matters. Youfe only defending him because you share his right wing extremist views and feel semi anonymous on here.
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    "killing people while engaged in an illegal activity moots self defense claims." False. Here's a Wisconsin lawyer on the matter. [view link] Why do you keep repeating yourself after you've been proven wrong? You can see video of the actual assaults. One had nearly overtaken him. One was attacking him while he was on the ground. One was pointing a loaded gun at him while he was on the ground. You're only attacking him with inflammatory, untrue phrases like "amerikkkan taliban" and "domestic terrorist" because you're aligned with Antifa yourself. And as has proven repeatedly on this board, completely fucking ignorant.
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    That doesn't contradict anything I said trolladon. Watch the trial and keep posting q anon bs on a strip club site 🤡
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    So who in this thread will go to a protest and kill someone now? Coz you know it's self defense?
  • Mate27
    •
    3 years ago
    -^^^ wtf?? How fucking stupid do you got to be to double down on wrong comments? NiggaIcee phatboy is confused, and deserves to be banned!
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    LOL QAnon, another term that you clearly do not understand. I cite actual lawyers, you call names. At this point I'm just rubbing your face in the truth.
  • bkkruined
    •
    3 years ago
    Here's a Wisconsin lawyer on the matter. [view link] "If an argument escalates to violence, it may not be clear who started the fight. If you initiated or escalated the violence, then you may lose your right to self-defense." Where does it say it's "False" that you can engage in illegal activity and claim the people you killed as a result was self defense?
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    ^ Again, it says someone who starts or escalates the violence. In one of the shootings, Rittenhouse was retreating. In the two others, he was ON THE GROUND. Just being in the vicinity illegally is not violence under any definition of the term. Hopefully this encourages more people to act in lawful self-defense against the violent left.
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    Will you go and shoot protestors you disagree with trolladon? Or are just inciting others to do so?
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    ^ No peaceful (and not in the CNN "mostly peaceful" sense) protester should have anything to fear from an armed citizen, no matter what they're protesting. If I were in Rittenhouse's situation, I'd have done much the same. And I think you would have too.
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    So you're propagating and inciting murder. No if I were ruttenhouse I wouldn't cross a state border with an illegal assault rifle to play vigilante and murder 2 people and wound one. He did not retreat after the first shots. Which will result in second degree murder
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    No, I'm explaining self-defense to someone who is operating in bad faith. One charged him, one swung a weapon at him, one brandished a firearm at him. Oh, and Grosskreutz admitted to carrying an unlicensed handgun. He's a walking own-goal.
  • bkkruined
    •
    3 years ago
    You can carry on about "the law", but the jury's going to decide this. And they probably aren't a bunch of right wing zealots who want to teach them BLM'er and antifa a lesson. And however wrong it might be, if he's acquitted, there'll be another protest, and there's a good chance the "self defense" won't be cheered on by the MAGA crowd this time.
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    You don't get legal concepts. By not retreating he provoked the scenarios where he murdered and shot people. That's the biggest hole in his defense.
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    @BKK, LOL @ "a bunch of right wing zealots." Instead we have a couple left-wing zealots here who want rioters protected from lawful self-defense because they were yelling their preferred slogans. Show me one serious legal analyst--not a pundit, not an activist--who thinks Rittenhouse has a prayer of getting convicted of murder. Because I'm having a difficult time.
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    If you're too stupid to understand the difference between a legal argument and right wing political views supporting murder that's your problem
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    ^ You pretend to be interested in the facts and the law, then they don't support you so you throw insults.
  • bkkruined
    •
    3 years ago
    "Show me one serious legal analyst"... You've never actually been on a jury, have you? It's on trial. The jury is going to decide. Doesn't take much "serious legal analyst" to understand that. In fact, if the "serious legal analyst" were so damned sure he was innocent and correct about that, he wouldn't be on trial. But he is. Jurors aren't "serious legal analyst" or pundits and supposedly not activists (the whole group of them aren't going to be on the same side for sure). And, they are going to decide.
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    Watch the trial
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    And if you find being called a bigot offensive then don't be a bigot
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    @BKK, yes, they will decide. You seem to think this means the facts and the law don't matter. Everyone is placing odds. And like I said, show me one serious legal analyst--who, yes, is predicting the jury's conclusion--who thinks Rittenhouse will be convicted of murder. @ICEE, you might as well be calling me a chocolate chip cookie; your opprobrium means nothing to me. I point out your name calling to show how you can't make a logical argument so you screech and throw feces.
  • mark94
    •
    3 years ago
    “The jury is going to decide.” Probably but not necessarily. At the end of the prosecution’s portion of the trial, the judge could declare that the prosecution has not presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find the defendant guilty. It’s rare, but it happens. Given the surprise testimony from their primary witness, the chance of a directed verdict is not negligible.
  • skibum609
    •
    3 years ago
    BKK the idea that people aren't prosecuted despite the prosecutor knowing they are not guilty is beyond fucked up. I have a case now where the Boy is being charged with statutory rape for bangin a 15 year old and he himself is 15. Just had my client file a criminal complaint application against her. Fucking progressive prosecutor, the stupid cunt, is going after the guy and not the babe. Let the maggots riot, in this climate some of them getting shot will be welcomed by most. I doubt the Judge enters a directed verdict before the jury deliberates, but it is not unheard of for a Judge, after a guilty finding by a jury, to strike the finding and acquit. Here its called a Motion for a required finding of not guilty, but judges usually defer in the hopes the jury acquits. It doesn't work in reverse.
  • bkkruined
    •
    3 years ago
    "You seem to think this means the facts and the law don't matter." Facts and law have been decided, he's on trial because a prosecutor decided their was evidence he broke the law, and the judge didn't disagree. If you don't understand those are serious decisions made by serious people well versed in the law of that state, well... "Hopefully this encourages more people to act in lawful self-defense against the violent left." You vehemently want to assign political points to the actions of a group of people fed up with the way they are treated. They aren't out there because of any one single action of the police that you want to argue about. It's a broader issue of the overall attitude of the police towards them, this just brought it to a reaction. The only thing political about it is picking sides and jumping on social media to support one side or the other... And, you seem to want this to happen more. Which really sounds a lot more like the good old keep them in their place attitude. And then cry about being called a racists. "If I were in Rittenhouse's situation, I'd have done much the same. And I think you would have too." I'd never put myself in that situation. I know people who do, but they not only have training, but also follow orders. Anyone decided to just go do this on their own, well, jury determines their fate.
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    3 years ago
    If he's being charged/tried on different counts then I wouldn't be surprised he's found guilty of something to appease the mob
  • bkkruined
    •
    3 years ago
    "the idea that people aren't prosecuted despite the prosecutor knowing they are not guilty is beyond fucked up." Fully aware this happens. Remember a case of self defense, kid pulled a knife and stabs another if I remember. Was tried for assault. Jury looked at evidence of him getting beat up and a history of harassment before finally pulling the knife and determine he was innocent, with prejudice. Of course, that defendant was an Asian university student getting bullied by a bunch of frat boys. Makes you wonder how he ended up on trial? I doubt that happens here. Maybe he'll be found innocent. What I haven't heard through all this "serious legal analyst" is whether or not the judge is allowing prosecution to argue he never should have been there, and was asking for trouble being there. Already decided they can't call the dead guys victims.
  • skibum609
    •
    3 years ago
    Not one person in history has ever been found innocent in a criminal trial. Innocent means you didn't do it; not guilty means it wasn't proven to the standard. Never a finding of innocent. He shouldn't have been there? We have a constitutional right to freedom of travel, so if the Judge allowed that, its reversable error. In a self-defense case they would be the perpetrators, not the victims, sound legal reasoning. Dead guys actually got what they asked for. I would call them fucktards.
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    "Facts and law have been decided, he's on trial because a prosecutor decided their was evidence he broke the law, and the judge didn't disagree." ---In many jurisdictions like my home state of Massachusetts, ANY firearm use in self-defense means you're getting arrested and possibly charged. Prosecutors are also political animals (see Michael Nifong, or many big cities these days); we can't let a "heckler's (or rioter's) veto determine whether someone spends the rest of their life behind bars. Just because a prosecutor brings charges doesn't mean there is guilt. "You vehemently want to assign political points to the actions of a group of people fed up with the way they are treated." ---By objective crime figures, this is a vanishingly small problem, inflamed by activists for whom racial balkanization is big business. Liberals estimated that in 2019, between 1,000 and 10,000 unarmed black men were killed by cops. The real number was 27. In this case, riots were the result of what your prosecutors deemed a justified shooting. ---What I want is law-abiding citizens and business owners NOT to have their livelihoods destroyed because (mostly white) leftist thugs wanted to wild out. Lest we forget, the Minneapolis riots disproportionately destroyed black businesses and neighborhoods. And for decades to come, educated people and capital will flee that community. Why are you justifying these riots? "And then cry about being called a racists." ---Naah, I don't give a shit, all that charge means nowadays is you've run afoul of the wokes. I'm won't cower or do penance, especially not from a half-wit like ICEE. "I'd never put myself in that situation." ---Me neither. I hate crowds, and doubly hate emotionally-charged ones. I'm a licensed concealed carrier, but my training brought me to the conclusion I don't want the responsibility. I have a conservative friend (in a very pro-gun state) that doesn't have even my training and thinks he's John Wick. If his gun comes out of his holster in public, I'm hitting the deck. ---Only way I'll end up in such a situation is if something comes to my home. And I won't be caught unprepared for that.
  • bkkruined
    •
    3 years ago
    "I would call them fucktards." Everyone involved, including the white wing hero. None of them should have been doing what they did. But that doesn't excuse someone for murdering them. "He shouldn't have been there? We have a constitutional right to freedom of travel, so if the Judge allowed that, its reversable error." Kenosha officials imposed an 8 p.m. curfew the night of the shootings. It was illegal for him to be there when he was. And he is charged with violating this and on trial it also, I assume he's plead innocent, assuming the jury will sway the same way on everything, can't imagine how anyone thinks he wasn't violating the curfew (or being a minor in possession of a firearm). And yes, they were all violating the curfew. Which doesn't excuse one for killing a bunch of the others.
  • mark94
    •
    3 years ago
    People keep throwing around the term “ murder”. The definition of that word is “ kill unlawfully with premeditation”. Yes, Rittenhouse killed someone. But, as to whether it was murder, determining whether that is true is the purpose of the trial.
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    You can't attack the motives of the victims. They can't speak for themselves so anything said about them or their motives is hearsay. You can't claim self defense while engaged in an illegal activity. It's like saying an armed robber can claim defense if a store clerk has a gun so they shoot them. And it's not about whether he should or shouldn't have been there. It's about him being there in the capacity if a vigilante. He'll be found not guilty of first degree murder but he won't go unpunished. It'll be dropped down to second degree. Reckless homicide, intentional homicide attempted intentional homicide possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 and recklessly endangering safety will stick.
  • mark94
    •
    3 years ago
    The terms hearsay, self defense, and vigilante all have very specific definitions under the law. You ignore those definitions and use the terms in ways that have no meaning.
  • mark94
    •
    3 years ago
    Hearsay: information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor. You can assess someone’s motive without relying on hearsay. In this case, they were armed, a witness heard them declare they would kill the guards if they got them alone, they were trying to burn cars/buildings, they had prior convictions for violent offenses. All of these facts speak to motive.
  • Lone_Wolf
    •
    3 years ago
    Defense should have rested their case the same time the prosecution did. I'm not overly impressed with the first few witnesses.
  • gammanu95
    •
    3 years ago
    Every update I read, every day, the prosecution witnesses sound like defense witnesses. Even the third guy he shot admits to pointing his own gun at him first. I know ANTIFA folks are stupid, but damn!
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    Curfew violation charge dismissed. [view link]
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    3 years ago
    I wonder if the prosecution is purposely doing a poor-job b/c they don't think they should be prosecuting - or maybe the DA office purposely assigned the worst prosecutor in the office
  • mark94
    •
    3 years ago
    I don’t imagine that the top attorneys in the US chose Kenosha Wisconsin as their place of employment. Never ascribe corruption as a motive when incompetence can explain what happens.
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    And leftist activists are trying to intimidate the jury. [view link]
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    3 years ago
    ^ yeap - that's the new normal - they've been emboldened - just like when LeBron posted "Your Next" w.r.t. the post-Floyd additional cop-shooting
  • misterorange
    •
    3 years ago
    I don't think prosecuters are intentionally doing a bad job, nor are they necessarily incompetent. I think they are cowards that caved to the mob, and reluctantly moved forward with an unwinnable case just to wash their hands of the additional riots that would have occurred. They're protecting their own asses. They're essentially saying to the mob, we gave you what you wanted, now the ball's in your court. Sway the jury outcome by intimidation or else go ahead and burn the fucking city to the ground - but either way it's not our fault.
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    3 years ago
    "... One of the attorneys prosecuting Kyle Rittenhouse advised Kenosha Police Department Detective Ben Antaramian to not execute a warrant to search the cell phone records of Gaige Grosskreutz, a key witness of the shooting. During his cross-examination on Nov. 8, Antaramian confirmed that one of the prosecutors advised him to not execute a warrant to search the phone of Grosskreutz, who was shot in the bicep by Rittenhouse. When asked who had advised the detectives to not execute the warrant, Antaramian identified one of the prosecutors in the case, Kenosha County Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger, as one of the people involved. “The prosecutors in this case advised you not to execute the search warrant on Gaige Grosskreutz’s phone?” Chirafisi asked. “That sounds correct,” Antaramian responded. “Have you ever had a prosecutor say to you, ‘detective, you have a valid search warrant, don’t execute it’?” Chirafisi asked. “Not that I can recall, no,” Antaramian answered ..." [view link] Seems the prosecutor wanted to withhold evidence.
  • misterorange
    •
    3 years ago
    I can't find a clear picture of this self-declared communist's arm, but it's pretty unlikely his bicep was that badly damaged. The 5.56 is a high power, but very small caliber round. It's about the same diameter as a .22 cal. When fired from an AR-15 at close range, it tends to pass right through human tissue. It's at a range of several hundred yards that it gets nasty. As the bullet loses velocity it begins to topple end-over-end and that's when it rips you to pieces. Close range? Yeah if it hits a vital organ or bone it's gonna fuck you up bad, but rip off 90% of a bicep muscle from 2 feet away? Not likely.
  • doctorevil
    •
    3 years ago
    Mr. Orange, everything you said is generally correct technically, But check out one of the news stories with a photograph of the moment Grosskreuz is shot in the bicep. His bicep did get pretty much vaporized. The military usually uses full metal jacket ball ammo that typically behaves as you described. Rittenhouse may have been using soft tip or hollow points.
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    Yall don't understand how criminal court works. So I won't address your points . But try getting your briefings from legit news sources. Aight? Rittenhouse is guilty. Hes using an affirmative defense. It'll just come down to what he's guilty of. From smoking and binge watching the trial. Its a travesty and injustice that a landmark case on self defense js taking place in Kenosha wisconsing.....with a biased judge and inept prosecut and defense.
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    3 years ago
    I haven’t seen any evidence that shows Rittenhouse being the aggressor – in one instance he was being chased down by a convicted sex-offender that reached for his gun and had been acting aggressive all night (as multiple witnesses described); and the other instance he’s being chased by a self-proclaimed communist holding a gun that from what I heard was an illegal gun – these are the dirtbags that are the “BLM protesters” which one has to ask if they are being deliberately sent from “protest” to “protest” to cause mayhem all the while the Dem politicians defend them as “protesters” and take their side against the cops.
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    It's purely political to you. You're saying people you disagree with should be killed.
  • Mate27
    •
    3 years ago
    ^^^ he’s saying those that caused trouble deserve to have the harm that they incited upon themselves. But you’re a wordsmith in your own mind, and can’t even see past your own bias yet purport them to be fact. Fact is that you are a homo IceeFag!!
  • misterorange
    •
    3 years ago
    @doctorevil Yeah I suppose that's a possibility. My 5.56 ammo, including the stuff I load myself, is all FMJ.
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    "Yall don't understand how criminal court works." "Rittenhouse is guilty. Hes using an affirmative defense. It'll just come down to what he's guilty of." "From smoking and binge watching the trial." Lol, I don't think you know what an affirmative defense, or guilt, are. Perhaps instead of the trial you should be studying for your GED.
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    Trolladon....self defense is an affirmative defense. He admits to killing people. He's guilty of that. The trial will decide what exactly he's guilty of...murder 1 or 2. Reckless homicide, intentional homicide attempted intentional homicide possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 and recklessly endangering safety etc. Now fuck off. Boobza....funny how these bitch niggaz support your neonazi qanon hate speech. Birds of a feather flock together.
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    "self defense is an affirmative defense. He admits to killing people. He's guilty of that" Or it could be self defense and he is "guilty" of jack shit. Do you not understand this basic element of the legal system that 30 seconds of Google could have taught you?
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    Trolladon that's not how it works.
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    Q anon weirdos
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    Trolladon....self defense is an affirmative defense. He admits to killing people. He's guilty of that. The trial will decide what exactly he's guilty of...murder 1 or 2. Reckless homicide, intentional homicide attempted intentional homicide possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 and recklessly endangering safety etc. Now fuck off. Boobza....funny how these bitch niggaz support your neonazi qanon hate speech. Birds of a feather flock together.
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    You don't understand that shooting someone in self defense isn't a crime? Are you retarded?
  • mark94
    •
    3 years ago
    I’m watching the trial. The judge has already sent the jury out of the room twice while he admonished the prosecutor. He effectively told him that if he crosses the line one more time, he will declare a mistrial. The judge is pissed.
  • skibum609
    •
    3 years ago
    The prosecutor, intentionally commented on Rittenhouse's silence, as was his Constitutional right. Prosecutor should have been found in contempt and jailed every night for a week. A first year law student would know enough to not do this, so it was a clear abuse of power by a left wing rat.
  • mark94
    •
    3 years ago
    Do you think the prosecutor is intentionally setting up a mistrial, or grounds for appeal, knowing he has lost the case ?
  • gammanu95
    •
    3 years ago
    [view link] This is how the left operates. Doxing jurists, cancelling the American justice system, rioting when they don't get their way. They must be stopped.
  • mark94
    •
    3 years ago
    Wow, here’s another strike against the prosecutor Nathan DeBruin testified in Kyle Rittenhouse’s trial and claimed that prosecutors asked him to change parts of his statement to match their story. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that DeBruin, a Kenosha photographer, was initially subpoenaed by the prosecution but “was brought as a witness for the defense” after claiming prosecutors asked him to change his statement.
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    Yall sound like the racist juror who was dismissed. Rittenhouse has 6 criminal charges against him. You're delusional if you think he'll walk.
  • mark94
    •
    3 years ago
    The Babylon Bee covers the trial [view link]
  • misterorange
    •
    3 years ago
    This prosecutor is asking Kyle the most asinine questions for an hour straight. Asking him 10 times why he brought the AR with him to a location 3 blocks away, when the alternative would have been to leave it laying on the curb. What a dumb fuck.
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    The prosecution is making stupid mistakes and the defense just plays off them. It'll go to appeal.
  • misterorange
    •
    3 years ago
    Wow. After the break this is getting even more pathetic. If I was Kyle's defense attorney I'd be struggling not to laugh at this point. After seeing this, I wouldn't hire this prosecutor to prove who stole somebody's lunch in kindergarten class. That said, I stand by my previous comment. They took an unwinnable case to satisfy the mob, and now this guy is trying to "sell it" like he's giving it his best effort. Unfortunately for him, he's probably ruining his own career.
  • misterorange
    •
    3 years ago
    Icee you stupid asshole. The prosecution can't appeal a not guilty verdict. What the fuck is wrong with you?
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    ^ Wow...
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    ^ No, ICEE just showing what a fool he is. Again.
  • ime
    •
    3 years ago
    Serious question icey is it the dead convicted felon child rapist, or the dead convicted felon domestic abuser you are more upset about?
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    He won't get off on all 6 charges. He'll appeal though. The only question is what he'll be convicted of. Binger isn't pushing hard enough.
  • misterorange
    •
    3 years ago
    ^^ Icee Maybe they should have hired you to prosecute the case. Ohhh man, Kyle would be shaking in his boots.
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    Now you're defending Binger after attacking him how many times. Your bitch ass will say anything just for the sake of trolling me
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    Best discussion of the trial I've seen "The Wisconsin prosecutors of Kyle Rittenhouse are trying to turn self-defense into a crime. They obviously do not approve of firearms for protective purposes. And of course, Rittenhouse’s self-defense intruded on the social-justice cause of brutal rioting that we’re supposed to believe somehow combats the supposed scourges of white supremacism and police brutality." [view link]
  • misterorange
    •
    3 years ago
    ^^ Icee What the hell does that last post even mean? Oh wait. I get it now. You're happy that you drew me into an argument with a moron who can't be reasoned with because he has less intelligence than an old shoe. Congratulations! Have a nice night jerkoff.
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    You're citing a political neonazi narrative but fail to understand the trial. Rittenhouse provoked unwarranted violence against perfect strangers and is trying to call himself a victim. He is blaming the victims for attempting to defend themselves instead of running from him. He killed 2 people and wounded one and still didn't comprehend that pointing a loaded weapon at someone for no reason isn't going to bring anyone anything but grief. there's not much room for rehabilitation when someone shows the mindset of a cold blooded killer.
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    Misterorange work on your English language comprehension. You attacked the prosecution then suddenly defend them when I attack them. Go fuck yourself bitch nigga.
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    "You're citing a political neonazi narrative but fail to understand the trial." ---I don't think you know what a neonazi is. National Review is a mainstream conservative paper that opposed Trump in 2016. And it is you who doesn't grasp the basics of Wisconsin law, or self-defense anywhere. We have actual lawyers on the thread that take my side over yours, and I too have taken courses in self-defense law. Which might explain why we've dropped an avalanche of facts that you can't acknowledge, let alone counter. "Rittenhouse provoked unwarranted violence against perfect strangers and is trying to call himself a victim." ---Incorrect. Rosenbaum chased him after making graphic threats. Huber attacked him while he was on the ground. Grosskreutz had a pistol in hand. Open carry is legal in Wisconsin, making someone carrying a firearm "not a threat." "He killed 2 people and wounded one and still didn't comprehend that pointing a loaded weapon at someone for no reason isn't going to bring anyone anything but grief." ---You a mind reader now? In fact, Rittenhouse showed self-restraint by NOT shooting the rest of the mob, like the guy who jump-kicked him in the head, or putting more rounds into Huber and Grosskreutz. "there's not much room for rehabilitation when someone shows the mindset of a cold blooded killer." ---Actually, he broke down on the stand. Nothing "cold blooded." I'll concede one point, he wasn't wise to be there. But that's not a crime. ---Fundamentally, with your "Taliban" and "domestic terrorist" invective, you want to see someone hang for defending himself against the radical left. Which is why you'll respond with the words "trolling," "trick," or pick-your-slur-for-people-you-disagree with. I'd love to be proven wrong.
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    All you're doing is rehashing the alt right narrative concerning rittenhouse. And a few snippets off of lawyers sights you found on Google. You don't understand the law. Do you comprehend the fact that Rittenhouse is facing 6 different charges?
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    Actually him being there as a vigilante is illegal
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    Ah, right for the political insult. You can find a similar narrative on CNN or the NYT that says the prosecution is getting wiped. Actually, the curfew charge got dropped. But it's not like there's an independent probability of getting convicted on each charge. So what they charged him with 6, when what gets him off of one could get him off of all of them. Where is the charge of vigilantism? And how would you react if Rittenhouse was a leftist defending himself against Proud Boys? I see no reason to believe you are objective on anything here.
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    3 years ago
    Given the evidence; this is a clear-case of self-defense and this should have never even gone to trial. This is more of a political trial than a criminal trial – if it was Trump-supporters chasing down a 17 y/o woke-kid this trial would either have never happened or they would have been indicting the Trump mob chasing him. In today’s woke America “justice” depends on your politics (and increasingly things like your employment and your right to express your opinion). a
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    Boobza sieg Heil my nigga Dessertscrub I agree there may be a mistrial but without prejudice. Trolladon work on your English language comprehension. I said prosecution is making too many mistakes. And murder is murder. Its political to you though.
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    ^ Didn't take long before you were back to the insults. Don't think you know what "murder" is. Look up the definition under Wisconsin state law and you'll see it's a lot more than just freaking a life.
  • twentyfive
    •
    3 years ago
    Everything I've seen so far of this trial, convinces me more that I was right all along, he's a disturbed teen, and he hasn't had much good adult influence in his life, he shouldn't be walking around with a firearm, and he really had no business being in Kenosha on the night in question. He deserves punishment, this is a horrible story and keeps getting worse.
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    @25, what punishment does he deserve? "No business being there" is not a crime, there was no curfew.
  • twentyfive
    •
    3 years ago
    ^ You don't think it odd for a seventeen year old to pretend to be an EMT. I was a business owner for many years before I retired, last thing in the world I would do would be to get free body guards, I would if I deemed it necessary get professional trained security, and under no circumstances would I ever put a seventeen year old kid in harms way, especially in such inflammatory circumstances. I also believe that everyone out there on the streets after curfew didn't belong there, and if I actually had a say in the matter I would have had the whole lot of them arrested no matter which side they were on. This is supposed to be a law abiding country, occasionally things need to be addressed for the good of the entire community, shutting down a protest drawing people from out of area, is not unwarranted, having civilians walk about armed is ludicrous and should not be tolerated by the authorities.
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    ^ You still haven't answered my question. Your business ownership is irrelevant here. What legal punishment does he deserve? Oh, and the violating curfew charge got dismissed by the judge, declaring there was insufficient evidence that a curfew was in place.
  • twentyfive
    •
    3 years ago
    @Tetradon, I'm not on that jury and it's above my pay grade to assess what punishment he deserves, There are two dead people that can't correct any mistakes they might have made, I'm very happy to allow the jury to address the rest of this debate, I don't care a whole heck of a lot about this entire situation, any one attending things such as this ?protest? or whatever it is deemed to be, should be aware of the potential for complications, and I don't agree that any seventeen year old is really equipped to make decisions in situations, such Rittenhouse injected himself into.
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    ^ "I'm not on that jury and it's above my pay grade to assess what punishment he deserves" "He deserves punishment, this is a horrible story and keeps getting worse." You just said he deserves punishment. Punishment for what, and how much? Or did you mean his parents should have grounded him for a month? Showing poor judgment is not a crime. For someone who doesn't care, you sure have a lot to say about this.
  • twentyfive
    •
    3 years ago
    ^ Whatever, like I said I don't care enough to continue to argue abut this, we will see what happens when the jury delivers a verdict, and as far as I'm concerned that will be the end of this episode.
  • mark94
    •
    3 years ago
    Some background on the “victim” Rosenbaum, 36, was a pitiable figure who never should have been on the streets. He was a convicted pedophile with bipolar disorder who had just been released that day from a psychiatric ward in a Milwaukee hospital after a suicide attempt. He appeared deeply unwell, carrying a heavy chain in one hand, swearing, using the N-word and looking for trouble. He already had twice threatened to kill Ritten­house and his group.”
  • bkkruined
    •
    3 years ago
    [view link] the defense just straight up lies in court, Judge goes along with it. Give prosecution 15 minutes to find an expert? WTF?
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    This thread has degenerated into q anon weirdos ranting about how progressives are mentally ill criminals who deserve to be killed. Has skibum concerted everyone?
  • bkkruined
    •
    3 years ago
    ^^ ya, so why's the defense lying about it? Either they don't want to jury to see up close in a video, or they want a jury to not believe what they are seeing? And the judge is going for it.. Judge sounds more and more like he's got a good old fashion case of "not wanting to ruin the life of a nice white boy"...
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    ^ Thanks, it's been a few posts since we last got the race card. If this was a Black Panther or John Brown Gun Club guy defending himself against Proud Boys, this wouldn't have even gone to trial.
  • gammanu95
    •
    3 years ago
    Of course, bkk is playing the race card. The facts and the law are clearly against his side and in favor of the 2nd amendment. the left has nothing to bolster their case, so it's time to start calling people names.
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    @gammanu, it seems like our leftist brethren can't deal with the following facts - In every shooting, he was not only in reasonable fear for his life, but showed remarkable restraint. E.g. not shooting jump-kick guy. - He didn't take the rifle over state lines, he got it there. - Open carry is legal in Wisconsin. - He was not threatening anyone. Court decisions have ruled that showing a firearm does not itself constitute a threat. - The judge threw out the "violating curfew" charge because there's insufficient evidence to believe a curfew was in place. - Being in those circumstances does not take away his right to self-defense. - "Vigilantism" is not a crime. - You can debate whether or not he was wise to be there, but stupidity is not a crime. Some people have said they don't want to live in a world that encourages vigilantism. Well, I don't want to live in a world where Antifa/BLM leftists get to cause mayhem because they're mouthing the accepted slogans. I don't want to live in a world where a "rioter's veto" determines the outcome of trials. I don't want to live in a world where rioting is so accepted that defending against it is viewed as aberrant. I don't want to live in a world where self-defense is so circumscribed as to be rendered irrelevant. And all that is what the left ultimately wants.
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    The trial is falling apart because of Schroeders bias. Let's see how this circus ends up and the aftermath
  • misterorange
    •
    3 years ago
    ^^ The aftermath will be the same no matter the outcome. Burn this bitch down! Either a celebration or a protest.
  • gammanu95
    •
    3 years ago
    It's a shame that I can only upvote Tetradon's last comment once. Not because we agree, but because both he and Papi have been incredible astute in their observations regarding the Rittenhouse trial. Factually, Rittenhouse is wholly innocent on the charges of homocide, attempted, homocide, and recklessly endangering public safety. He may be guilty of misdemeanor possession of a deadly weapon by a person under 18. That law is pretty plain but, after all this bullshit, it would be a crime to give him anything more than suspended sentence and probation. Let's be clear: BLM do not care about Kyle Rittenhouse because no black people died. If there is rioting afterwards, it will be ANTIFA (communists and anarchists) and professional criminals out for the looting. For that reason, I would love for every legal firearm owner able to, to travel to Wisonsin and stand guard outside local businesses just like Rittenhouse did. Block after block of lawful 2nd Amendment Defenders showing the leftist bastards trying to instill their tyranny that lawlessness and disregard for our Constitutional rights will not prevail. The would be a Freedom Caucus/Tea Party equivalent of the Hajj.
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    @boobza, BLM conflates the contention that black lives matter with their actual Marxist platform. If ISIS called themselves "Love for Puppies," would it be animal cruelty to fight them? Same thing.
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    Rittenhouse is the only one who killed anyone at the protests.
  • mike710
    •
    3 years ago
    [view link] Don't see CNN breathlessly covering any legal proceedings in this case.
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    Boobza. So in all that alleged chaos rittenhouse was the only one to kill anyone.... 🤡 The worst part of this trial may be the precedent it sets. That right wing bextrenists can go out and kill protesters.
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    [view link] Judge in Kyle Rittenhouse trial faces backlash for Asian food joke
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    The only threat came from the only person to kill someone. Rittenhouse
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    "it seems people just arent happy when you interfere with their desire to loot and destroy businesses." ---Bingo. At base, this is about the left wanting BLM and Antifa rioters to be able to wild out without consequences. If the city wasn't shit scared of more riots, they wouldn't have brought this to trial.
  • skibum609
    •
    3 years ago
    The prosecution already committed misconduct sufficient to end the case by directed verdict of not guilty. Look what happens when violent progressives bring guns to a BL:M terrorist riot: the piece of shit progressives die .... drinks on me.
  • mark94
    •
    3 years ago
    “Judge in Kyle Rittenhouse trial faces backlash for Asian food joke“ It was a joke about food being delayed at the ports but, of course, the media is portraying the judge as racist because that’s what they do.
  • skibum609
    •
    3 years ago
    Many NBA players have the same views of Jewish people as Adolph Hitler. LeBron James is just fucking stupid.
  • mark94
    •
    3 years ago
    Supporting Veteran’s Day shows bias ? Having a cell phone shows bias ? Joking about shipping delays shows bias ? Pretty tough standards.
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    3 years ago
    "... this is about the left wanting BLM and Antifa rioters to be able to wild out without consequences ..." The Dems use Antifa and BLM as their paramilitary wing and street enforcers to do their dirty work
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    3 years ago
    All 3 people that attacked Rittenhouse had previous felony records - these are the "protesters" the left uses and ship from "protest" to "protest" and thus all the subsequent violence - many of these "protesters" are often nothing but hired criminals and thughs.
  • Call.Me.Ishmael
    •
    3 years ago
    This trial is like a Rorschach test for armchair lawyers.
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    ^ Read up the thread, I'll let you decide who is arguing the facts and the law, and who is just embarrassing themselves. We're going to need a new thread come closing arguments on Monday. It already takes forever to scroll down.
  • mark94
    •
    3 years ago
    The judge in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial on Friday said he’ll instruct the jury that unless the state proved the teen’s AR-15-style rifle had an unlawfully short barrel, he can’t be convicted of being a minor in possession of a firearm. No such evidence was presented by the prosecution.
  • misterorange
    •
    3 years ago
    I read the Governor is already deploying 500 National Guard troops in anticipation of the verdict. I hope they have an armored vehicle prepared to carry Rittenhouse and his family to a secure location, because those animals will go hog wild the moment he's found not guilty on all charges.
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    We don't know all the evidence the jury saw. But its sad that such an important trial was botched. There should be a mistrial without prejudice.
  • ime
    •
    3 years ago
    Should never even been a trial. Hopefully after winning he sues the shit out of them and media outlets that lied and slanered him.
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    Losers prepare ways to blame the refs even before the end of the 3rd quarter. If circumstances were reversed, and a black kid with an AR-15 shot three Neo-Nazi assailants in the same fashion, it wouldn't have gone to trial. The national media would rediscover an appreciation for armed self-defense. And I'd still say he was innocent.
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    If we want to be a society based on laws and order we can't have people in the streets killing each other over politics. That amounts to low intensity warfare or civil unrest. This trial is too important to be botched. The judge is biased and both defense and prosecution made mistakes
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    We don't live in the wild west. The only person to kill anyone at the protests is Rittenhouse
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    "The only person to kill anyone at the protests is Rittenhouse." Should read "The only person to kill anyone BECAUSE HE WAS PUT IN FEAR FOR HIS LIFE at the RIOTS is Rittenhouse." Fixed it for you
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    No one else was severely wounded or killed except for Rittenhouses victims. No one else was shot. Which proves the safety of the protests.
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    Of all the armed individuals Rittenhouse was the only one to point and discharge a weapon
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    Lol right, they were setting mostly peaceful fires and mostly peacefully destroying businesses and livelihoods and apartments. If the rioters knew they might be met with armed self defense, they might have stuck to actually peaceful protesting. [view link]
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    Vigilantes would have escalated any situation as rittenhouse proved. You like his extremist right wing politics and you're showing it
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    ^ Yes, how dare the community fight back against outsiders come to destroy it!
  • Mate27
    •
    3 years ago
    The kid was 17 years old, how can he be affiliated with any political party when he wasn’t even old enough to vote??!! Not only is Icee racist, but he’s a blatant bigot labeling that youth a right winger. That makes literally no sense and I would say diminishes Icee’s credibility, if he had any to begin with. This just proves he has no credibility other than thug life and how to be a poser.
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    Meat work on your English language comprehension if you don't indeed
  • Icee Loco (asshole)
    •
    3 years ago
    Meat work on your English language comprehension if you don't understand
  • RandomMember
    •
    3 years ago
    @Meathead here's a picture of Rittenhouse in the front row of a Trump rally: [view link] It's certainly fair to state that this dorky high-school dropout is a budding MAGA right-winger. Get your facts straight, clod.
  • JamesSD
    •
    3 years ago
    I'm legitimately worried we are going to see a big uptick in gun violence with self defense claims. The bar seems very very low.
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    3 years ago
    A guy running up to you with a gun-in-hand and pointing at you is a low bar?
  • gammanu95
    •
    3 years ago
    I was going to start the new thread, since this one takes so long to load. Then, I realized that I really didn't want to have to delete and ignore 300 new comment notifications in my inbox.
  • Tetradon
    •
    3 years ago
    ^ I did. [view link]
You must be a member to leave a comment.Join Now
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion