BuckAurelius

9 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

What happens after 40 years?

China takes over as the supreme super power. And we, as Americans, Brits, Euros, and Aussies, wonder how this could have possibly happened. By then it's too late to do anything about it. 

The honest truth is that America cannot be the only country set against China. In case no one has noticed, America is deeply divided against itself. Therefore, in the absence of America, to stand against China, what other country is going to take America's place? 

My guess is none. Is Britain going to assume this role? Please. 

Are any other European countries going to assume this role? 

No. 

So let's sit back and enjoy Chinese hegemony for the next forty years. 

18 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

As if he's the victim.

Detail is always welcome. Please expand on your opinions. A multi-syllabic grunt is no argument. I understand that you were the one who originated this topic but you've had scant little to say on the matter, aside from your contention that what really convinced you of Rittenhouse's guilt was how compelling the prosecutor's summation was. 

20 minutes ago, fjb 24 said:

Yup, definitely, he should go home and lick his wounds. He's lost every round.

What I've been trying to do in this thread, mostly unsuccessfully, is to encourage people to look, really look, at the actual evidence. But this case is so hopelessly politicized, so polluted by tribalism, that it's a futile endeavor. And it isn't, nor should it be, a matter of politics. We should be willing to look at the factual evidence of a criminal case and judge it solely based on its merits. But does anybody here really believe this is what is actually happening here? 

15 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

you should at least apologise if you had any ethics. flames aren't sarcasm, your tribe hands out insults then tries to call them jokes, did you get that from GOP politicians?

I said you were aptly named. That's all. I didn't call you a "fascist," a "racist," a "scum," the most toxic invective that you yourself have used on this thread against another person, who cares if this person is a member of the forum or not. You were the one who chose your ironic ASEAN moniker. I hardly think my comment constitutes a "flame." But apparently I've pushed some sensitive buttons here, and that was not my intention. So, I say again, let's move on and let other people express their own take. 

16 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

No, I am not. and calling Rittenhouse a POS is way different to flinging ad hominems at other board members. You should get a time out for that.

I apologize if I hurt your feelings. But I'd rather you direct your ad hominem at me, rather than at the person who's currently facing decades in imprisonment. At any rate, an ad hominem is an ad hominem. If you don't like the ad hominem being directed at you, then don't direct your own at anybody else, including Rittenhouse. It's still a fallacy no matter who is the victim. 

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

more ad hominens. sad.

You've been hurling ad hominem juvenile name-calling at Rittenhouse from the outset. Give me a break. You're the last person who should be whining about ad hominem. And it's "hominem," not "hominen." You were the one who first introduced the long discredited falsehood into this thread that Rittenhouse illegally transported a firearm across state lines. 

7 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Rubbish, he's an untrained, uneducated 17 year old. He does have any judgment at all. He was panicking at that point and just trying to be a hero. He's a POS killer and Proud Boy lover.

And you're aptly named. You've no cogent argument against the actual evidence of the case and so you call the defendant names and try to smear him by association. It's pitiful. 

8 minutes ago, DIPT said:

as you rightly guessed I didn't  know that at all. It certainly adds even more complexity to the case.

interestingly there seems to be a school advocating for shooting in the pelvis and the first bullet has hit Rosenbaum exactly in that area. From this point of view the second shot was not necessary.

This can be just a coincidence of course.

Rosenbaum might be the one case where Rittenhouse could have exercised better "trigger control." But it was dark, chaotic, and you can't tell if your first shots even hit the mark. Let me give you an example from my own experience. I was at a vape shop back in America about five years ago. Outside a man was walking around the boulevard threatening motorists with a knife. The police showed up. The man attempted to flee with the knife into a Circle K. The police officer, fearing a hostage situation, opened fire on the guy, striking him twice. He shot five times. Two stray bullets went into the smoke shop, one into the neighboring business, and shattered the display case right where I was standing. I agree that lethal force was justifiable in this case. I was not impressed either by the officer's marksmanship nor by his disregard for innocent bystanders. At the same time these things happen in split seconds, under very inhospitable circumstances, and we should take this into account. Rittenhouse, by comparison, exercised a lot more self-control than the so-called professional police officer. It's the very antithesis of the sort of behavior you'd expect from someone "out looking for trouble" or trying to pick a fight. 

41 minutes ago, DIPT said:

yes, but it only took one non fatal shot to stop Gaige Grosskreutz,  so what exactly has prevented Kyle to handle the situation with Rosenbaum in the similar manner ? His guilt seems to be based mostly on this tragic oversight.  Moreover he should have been acting rationally at the very beginning of the confrontation and not at the end of it !  Because of his 'shooting pattern' It might even look to someone that his primary intention was merely to kill and not to protect. 

No firearms instructor in the world recommends you fire a warning shot, just as none of them recommend "shooting to wound." This includes most police training--you are trained to aim for center of mass, not for the arms or the legs. If you're interested why, there are many YouTube videos out there explaining all the reasons. I was a firearms instructor myself when in college and I always trained my students to aim center of mass or at the head, depending on the circumstances. You shoot to kill or not at all--more precisely, to "stop" your assailant--not to wound. 

Under the circumstances people are amazed that Rittenhouse hit every target he intended to hit, not a single stray shot or miss (correct me if I'm wrong), given that he was firing from the most awkward positions imaginable, no doubt bursting with adrenaline. I'm not happy that people died here. But it demonstrates a great deal of "trigger control" from Rittenhouse that he didn't start spraying bullets all over the place, and belies the narrative that he was on some sort of murderous rampage. BTW, he did not intend to shoot Gaige in the arm. That would have been a miraculous shot if so. 

In fact, in America, if you shoot to wound, prosecutors will actually use this against you if the case goes to court--claiming that you obviously did not feel that lethal force was justifiable, or you would have used lethal force. Sounds perverse, but prosecutors use this argument. 

5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The defense will need to prove that the pursuers were acting illegally if they want to establish self defense. That will go to motive which would be sticky for Rittenhouse. he's the one with the AR15, not them. If the defense can't prove they were illegally pursuing him, no self defense argument if I read this right.

"The defense will need to prove that the pursuers were acting illegally if they want to establish self defense." Not sure where you're getting this from. There's no such requirement in American law. To claim self-defense you need to demonstrate that you had a reasonable fear of life and limb. You don't need to demonstrate that the axe-wielding maniac (for the sake of argument) chasing you through the woods was committing a crime by wielding an axe or chasing you. You have a reasonable fear that he means you great bodily harm. 

24 minutes ago, DIPT said:

I've been following this case occasionally. My interest is mostly from the gambling perspective. [Placed a small bet at extremely high odds more than a year ago]. Let's take a sort of a Bayesian approach and move from finish to start. 

 

- Kyle fired once at Gaige Grosskreutz, because he pointed a pistol and him and it is OKAY. Take note that he doesn't kill Grosskreutz. Kyle Rittenhouse clearly stopped a threat to his life, so no charges here. 

-The killing of Huber was a clear self-defence in itself.  Kyle was hit by 'jumping man' and by Huber two times.

- However the killing of Rosenbaum is not the self defence... Rosenbaum has not touched  him, he was unarmed. Kyle probably should have fired once or twice (in the air) but he killed the man instead...   So it was a murder plain and simple, and it was the starting point of all that followed.

 

What do you think? I have zero relation to Jurisprudence, just trying to think logically. 

That's not a bad take all things considered. But "firing in the air", giving a warning shot, is problematic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the guy who actually did fire a warning shot now being charged with a crime of some sort? It's also not realistic. When Rittenhouse did fire at Rosenbaum, the latter was within feet of Rittenhouse, after someone else had fired his gun, which could have been Rosenbaum for all Rittenhouse knew, as his back was turned to the shot. It also doesn't take into account the previous death threat by Rosenbaum to Rittenhouse. I agree that this shooting is the haziest of the three, but there's ample reasonable doubt here. If someone told me that the next time he saw me, he was going to kill me--especially under riotous circumstances--and a while later, proceeded to chase me headlong through a parking lot--you bet, I'd shoot the guy, armed or unarmed. Legally, this scenario doesn't preclude a valid claim of self-defense. Feet and fists kill lots and lots of people each year. 

I should have also added that you need to take Rosenbaum's previous hyper-aggressive behavior into account (caught on video) and his wild daring of the armed men to shoot him. Any contact with this guy would have demonstrated to anybody that Rosenbaum wasn't a man likely to be dissuaded by any sort of warning whatsoever. He chased a guy armed with an AR-15 across a parking lot, for F sake. 

9 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

It's not one item. Its the overall argument. 

Okay, so it's not anything specifically about the evidence of the case, it's the persuasiveness of the state advocate's argument that convinced you? No, I haven't served on a jury myself, but I fear you might have, and that scares me a little, given your penchant for argumentation over evidence. 

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Imagine what a mess the jury room is now.

I can imagine it ;). Ten or eleven people, clutching their heads in dismay, while the one or two other people sit in their chairs with their arms crossed, refusing to listen to reason or consider the evidence. 

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Watch the closing argument and rebuttal.

I did watch them. I watched most of the trial. Exactly what piece, specifically, is supposed to edify me here? 

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

I did. He's guilty because he provoked people. 

How exactly? Because he was there with an AR-15 (which is no crime, by the way, not in Wisconsin, as much as you might want it to be) or you've bought into the drone-footage inkblot nonsense? It must be one or the other, because there's literally nothing else. 

3 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

No, you are giving a false story , what the defence stated is that they would have approached their defence differently if they had the full video , they didn't say that they would have *changed their story*.

   They would have used the video as exhibit number 1 to prove Kyles innocence .

   You are trying to make it appear that the defrence would have lied and changed their story .

  What they actually stated is that they would have approached their defence in a different manner .  

Mac, I wouldn't waste your breath arguing with ozimoron anymore. It's pointless. You're not going to change his mind no matter what the evidence is. I'm for one am done. Sadly, I suspect there is at least one, probably two, ozimorons on the jury right now, holding up the verdict. (By the way, in an earlier post I misunderstood and thought "changed their story" referred to the prosecution, my bad). 

Just now, ozimoron said:

So the defense believes it but you don't?

Are you suggesting that the defense believes this video shows what the prosecution is claiming it shows? I.e., that Rittenhouse pointed his gun at demonstrators? They do not, I assure you. 

Just now, ozimoron said:

Again, if the defense isn't contesting it why should I? Or you?

Ah, so you haven't actually seen the video yourself, have you? I suspected as much. 

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

The video shows Rittenhouse pointing his gun at demonstrators. Presumably that triggered Rosenbaum who would have had good reason to believe he was about to be shot. Rosenbaum's history was clearly irrelevant to those first seconds.

What video is that? I think I know which one you're referring to--which I've already addressed in other posts--but can you post a link? Have you actually watched it yourself? Or are you just getting summaries of it from certain websites? 

So let me get this logic straight: Rosenbaum, believing that he had a "good reason to believe he was about to be shot," decides to chase down the guy with the AR-15, and then gets shot. A normal person would have run away from the guy with the gun, if he didn't want to be shot, not try to chase him down. Clearly, Rosenbaum's problem was that he didn't fear getting shot enough. 

Just now, ozimoron said:

no, far from it. You gave a speculative story which not even the defense put forward and no evidence to substantiate it.

The defense was barred from exposing Rosenbaum's wonderful history as a serial child rapist. Also barred from exposing his mental issues. How is witness testimony "speculative"? It's part of court record (i.e., "evidence"). As is the video evidence showing Rosenbaum behaving like a lunatic prior to the shooting. I haven't "speculated" any of this. You just don't want to accept it. 

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

Such a friendly person was set upon by a angry mob of killers for no apparent reason or provocation? Nobody believes that except apologists for domestic terrorists and fascist vigilantes.

If you watch the video footage the whole tragedy came about when Rosenbaum started chasing Rittenhouse through a car dealership. It's important to note that for months mainstream media was peddling the outright lie that it was Rittenhouse chasing Rosenbaum, which all video evidence clearly shows is false. At some point a man who was with Rosenbaum fires a warning shot from a pistol right as Rittenhouse gets boxed in a bunch of cars. Now, Rittenhouse had his back turned to his pursuer and so had no way of knowing that the warning shot was just that, a warning shot. When he gets boxed in, and Rosenbaum is within just feet of him, he turns and fires on Rosenbaum several times. Everybody then scatters. Rittenhouse checks on the condition of Rosenbaum and then makes a call from his cellphone (I presume to 911?). He lingers for a while. Then the mob pursuit begins with the mob chanting "get his @ss". The rest is more clearly on video and most people have seen it. 

Now, why Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse in the first place is hard to say. People are claiming, with zero credible evidence, that it was due to Rittenhouse pointing his gun at protesters. Again, not one witness has testified to that. Not one. They only have a garbage drone capture to support this. Prior to this chase, witnesses have testified that Rosenbaum threatened Rittenhouse, that "If I see you again, you're dead," or something to that effect. This Rosenbaum just got out of a mental hospital. Video demonstrates that he was behaving in an extremely aggressive manner that night. This is not a man who needs a good reason to hurt people. He's a serial child rapist. 

So there you have your reason as to why an angry mob was chasing Rittenhouse down the street. It wasn't for "no reason." I was, I think, a tragic case of mistaken presumption on the part of his pursuers, coupled with a desire for vengeance and mob-mentality. 

2 minutes ago, mikebike said:

But they are perfectly equivalent. They occur at about the same rate (actually, in the last decade violent sports riots have been MORE common). And the result in the same looting and destruction. Too bad your biased lens cannot see that 

In the last "decade" that wouldn't surprise me, if sports riots were more common, since Antifa and the BLM didn't start their rioting frenzy until much later than that. The same looting and destruction? That's certainly not the case in America. I've no idea about football hooliganism since nobody watches football in America. But I seriously doubt that rioting at sports events, at least in America, has cost the country at least 1 billion dollars in damage, or even a fraction of that, and took place in over 140 cities, and lasted for days, even weeks on end. False equivalence, even absurd, move on.  

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

While the circumstances surrounding the video are controversial there is no doubt that it shows Rittenhouse pointing his rifle at the crowd as alleged by the prosecution.

 

Whether fair or unfair, the truth is the truth.

You're seeing something there because you want to see it. I've seen the footage and it's about as indubitable as a blackhole singularity. The original Super Mario Brothers had sharper resolution. It shows nothing meaningful, one way or the other, and people are just seeing something "definite" in it in the same way that all inkblots are butterflies to certain heads. There is certainly nothing even remotely "beyond a reasonable doubt" in it. That's pure self-delusion. 

9 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The video that the defense doesn't want the Jury to see. The defense has said they would have changed their story if this video evidence was available to them earlier,

The jury has already seen that evidence--the piece of pixelated muck I already referred to. The defense was given an inferior version of this footage by the prosecution, and so were handicapped in their analysis of it, which is why they're currently complaining about it to the judge. So they don't want the jury to be mulling any further over this footage until the judge has made a decision about it. 

Of course they would have changed their story, since the first one was debunked even by their own witnesses. What does that prove?