U.S. Topic -- Predictions for the Kyle Rittenhouse Trial?

[onthedarkside]

An off-topic diversionary post has been removed.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

8 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Which USA laws do you think are unjust and should be changed ?

I live in a country where you can't hear about a public disturbance somewhere and go out in the streets with an AR-15 with wide eyed excitement and see what fun is to be had. You can't own a gun let alone an AR-15 without stringent conditions. 

I won't pretend to know all the specific laws but I would let few if any own semi automatic rifles. Maybe farmers. I know I probably lost you there. But if you could have them you would not be able to walk the streets with them and certainly not for anyone under 25 or maybe 30. Police should not allow a kid to even have the opportunity to do what he did. In Australia that would be insane. 

You may prefer the American way but I love that we have so little gun crime and few gun deaths. 

 

Edited November 17, 2021 by Fat is a type of crazy

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

Show us the evidence. The prosecutor, under oath, showed video evidence of Rittenhouse pointing his rifle at the demonstrators before he was chased. Why did they single out Rittenhouse to chase, can you explain that as well?

That was when they were threatening to kill him and he raised his rifle towards them .

   I have no idea as to why Kyle got singled out 

[BangkokReady]

15 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

So trying to take an assault rifle from someone is justification to shot them 4 times? 

If you had a rifle and people were chasing you, and said they were going to kill you, and they tried to take the rifle from you, you would just let them?

 

15 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Once in the back?

This isn't the gotcha that you think it is. He shot the guy that was trying to kill him, one of the four bullets which he fired in .7 seconds happened to enter his back. It doesn't mean anything.

 

You're trying to make it sound like he snuck up on the guy and shot him in the back in some sort of ambush. This isn't what happened.

 

15 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Wow. Insane.

Yes, you are.

 

Try to stick to the facts. If you say something that can be immediately proven false by the evidence, you're just wasting everybody's time.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

That was when they were threatening to kill him and he raised his rifle towards them .

   I have no idea as to why Kyle got singled out 

Show us the evidence that he did not point the gun at the demonstrators before they chased him as has been alleged. It is central to this argument and you deny it. Substantiate your allegation, I'm calling you on it. I have provided substantiation that Rittenhouse did in fact point his weapon at demonstrators before he was chased and offered a rational explanation for why he was singled out. You just claim to have no idea.

[Jeffr2]

11 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Which USA laws do you think are unjust and should be changed ?

The one that allows an minor to walk the streets with a loaded war weapon during a protest.  Pure insanity.

[Jeffr2]

1 minute ago, BangkokReady said:

If you had a rifle and people were chasing you, and said they were going to kill you, and they tried to take the rifle from you, you would just let them?

 

This isn't the gotcha that you think it is. He shot the guy that was trying to kill him, one of the four bullets which he fired in .7 seconds happened to enter his back. It doesn't mean anything.

 

You're trying to make it sound like he snuck up on the guy and shot him in the back in some sort of ambush. This isn't what happened.

 

Yes, you are.

 

Try to stick to the facts. If you say something that can be immediately proven false by the evidence, you're just wasting everybody's time.

I would never put myself in that situation.  Only a nutter would.  Like Kyle.

 

I've stuck with the facts and backed up what I said with links to prove it.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, BangkokReady said:

Try to stick to the facts. If you say something that can be immediately proven false by the evidence, you're just wasting everybody's time.

By any accounts, Rittenhouse had committed a felony by taking an illegally obtained AR15 there and pointed it at demonstrators. They were justified in chasing him as they undoubtedly and reasonably feared he was going to start shooting. Show us some evidence that this is not true. The prosecutor alleged this with video evidence.

[BangkokReady]

1 minute ago, Jeffr2 said:

I would never put myself in that situation.  Only a nutter would.  Like Kyle.

He didn't put himself in that situation. The nutters that decided to attack him did.

 

1 minute ago, Jeffr2 said:

I've stuck with the facts and backed up what I said with links to prove it.

That's hilarious.

 

Luckily we all know the truth.

 

Everyone here can see the evidence. Multiple videos show self defence.

[fjb 24]

15 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Show us the evidence. The prosecutor, under oath, showed video evidence of Rittenhouse pointing his rifle at the demonstrators before he was chased. Why did they single out Rittenhouse to chase, can you explain that as well?

Then you need to show this "video evidence". You can't, or you would have already done so.

The truth of the matter is that maybe the drone video has been modified, sharpened to the point of showing and proving nothing. But, since you seem to think otherwise, then show the video, provide a link to it so we can all see it.

 

Edited November 17, 2021 by fjb 24

[ozimoron]

Just now, fjb 24 said:

Then you need to show this "video evidence". You can't, or you wold have already done so.

The truth of the matter is that maybe the video has been modified, sharpened to the point of showing and proving nothing. But, since you seem to think otherwise, then show the video, provide a link to it so we can all see it.

The prosecutor showed it to the jury repeatedly.

[BangkokReady]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

By any accounts, Rittenhouse had committed a felony by taking an illegally obtained AR15 there and pointed it at demonstrators. They were justified in chasing him as they undoubtedly and reasonably feared he was going to start shooting. Show us some evidence that this is not true. The prosecutor alleged this with video evidence.

I've seen no evidence of any pointing of the gun before the attacking began. There is no justification for them attacking him. There was no threat from him. There was no reason to believe he would shoot anyone. The people shot were the aggressors. All the evidence supports this.

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

I've seen no evidence of any pointing of the gun before the attacking began. There is no justification for them attacking him. There was no threat from him. There was no reason to believe he would shoot anyone. The people shot were the aggressors. All the evidence supports this.

In closing arguments, prosecutor Thomas Binger said Mr Rittenhouse was a "wannabe soldier" and was "looking for trouble that night." Mr Binger repeatedly showed the jury drone video that he said depicted Mr Rittenhouse pointing the AR-style weapon at demonstrators.

 

https://www.9news.com.au/world/kyle-rittenhouse-provoked-the-bloodshed-in-kenosha/abbea6a1-4aca-4956-bfcd-ddbdc456d03c

[BangkokReady]

8 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

In closing arguments, prosecutor Thomas Binger said Mr Rittenhouse was a "wannabe soldier" and was "looking for trouble that night." Mr Binger repeatedly showed the jury drone video that he said depicted Mr Rittenhouse pointing the AR-style weapon at demonstrators.

 

https://www.9news.com.au/world/kyle-rittenhouse-provoked-the-bloodshed-in-kenosha/abbea6a1-4aca-4956-bfcd-ddbdc456d03c

That's just what the lawyers said. Do you have any actual evidence?

[ozimoron]

5 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

That's just what the lawyers said. Do you have any actual evidence?

That is evidence produced in a court of law under oath. A video is not hearsay.

Edited November 17, 2021 by ozimoron

[BangkokReady]

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

That is evidence produced in a court of law under oath. A video is not hearsay.

So there's a lawyer claiming that a video shows Rittenhouse pointing a gun at people before they attack him, and that claim is enough for you?

 

Do you have the evidence or not?

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, BangkokReady said:

So there's a lawyer claiming that a video shows Rittenhouse pointing a gun at people before they attack him, and that claim is enough for you?

 

Do you have the evidence or not?

You denied the evidence exists. Where is your evidence that your claim is correct? The prosecutor was under oath, He showed the video. The defense has not tried to claim that it was false to my knowledge.

[BangkokReady]

7 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

You denied the evidence exists. Where is your evidence that your claim is correct? The prosecutor was under oath, He showed the video. The defense has not tried to claim that it was false to my knowledge.

So, just to confirm, you don't have any evidence, just what the lawyer claims?

 

That isn't evidence, I'm afraid. You need to show the evidence, not just say "the lawyer said...".

 

Saying "this video shows Rittenhouse..." is not the same as someone taking the stand and giving false evidence.

[fjb 24]

5 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

So, just to confirm, you don't have any evidence, just what the lawyer claims?

 

That isn't evidence, I'm afraid. You need to show the evidence, not just say "the lawyer said...".

 

Saying "this video shows Rittenhouse..." is not the same as someone taking the stand and giving false evidence.

The lawyer for the state ( prosecutor) was terrible!  He said and did stupid things and almost got hit with contempt. he breached the judges ruling on some evidence he tried to sneak in. He mocked the rioting, arson of the protesters that were shot. He shouldered the AR like a drunken fool. Unreal, he had a weak case and he certainly tried to create a narrative to push his doomed case.

[fjb 24]

Something quite bizarre about this case is how the media and biden portrayed the defendant as a white supremacist and now, today, this morning the BLM activists are tangling with Rittenhouse supporters.

Edited November 17, 2021 by fjb 24

[fjb 24]

55 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

You denied the evidence exists. Where is your evidence that your claim is correct? The prosecutor was under oath, He showed the video. The defense has not tried to claim that it was false to my knowledge.

I don't see any evidence pointing to or suggesting Rittenhouse threatened anyone despite what state prosecutor claims. I can't find it.

[Jeffr2]

1 hour ago, BangkokReady said:

He didn't put himself in that situation. The nutters that decided to attack him did.

 

That's hilarious.

 

Luckily we all know the truth.

 

Everyone here can see the evidence. Multiple videos show self defence.

He 100% put himself in that situation. Come on. He could have stayed home. A high school dropout. Lied about being a medic. And your supporting him. Bizarre.

[Jeffr2]

3 minutes ago, fjb 24 said:

I don't see any evidence pointing to or suggesting Rittenhouse threatened anyone despite what state prosecutor claims. I can't find it.

You need to open your eyes. We've posted enough evidence here to say he did.

[Jeffr2]

 

49 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

So, just to confirm, you don't have any evidence, just what the lawyer claims?

 

That isn't evidence, I'm afraid. You need to show the evidence, not just say "the lawyer said...".

 

Saying "this video shows Rittenhouse..." is not the same as someone taking the stand and giving false evidence.

It's not just a lawyer. It's the states prosecutor. Who'd not say such things unless they could be proven.

[BuckAurelius]

My guess is that the jury will come back with a conviction on a lesser included. Imagine being a jurist in this case who wants to acquit, and then imagine your whole life being turned upside down when you're inevitably doxed, intimidated, and harassed. The judge has already received death threats. This is how controversial court cases are now decided in America--by the media and the mob. 

 

People need to look at the facts of the case. Too many are trying to turn this case into a debate over American gun rights. That's the not the issue, never mind racism. You have three people shot in this case, all of them white. Not one piece of evidence supports the contention that Rittenhouse was racist, or believe me, the prosecution would have presented it. Even less for the judge. 

 

I've seen the video still allegedly showing the accused pointing his weapon at the protesters, and no honest person can make heads or tails of it one way or the other. It might as well be a Rorschach inkblot--a three-year-old's stickman doodles have more pertinent detail. As evidence, it's pure garbage. And the whole contention that the accused is guilty because he incited the protesters--this was a pure afterthought of the prosecution because its original strategy had been completely debunked even by its own witnesses.  

 

Some people here are so badly informed about this case that they still believe Rittenhouse transported the AR-15 illegally across state lines. It staggers the mind. 

 

When the government, the DA's, and the police, have abdicated their responsibilities to protect the people and their livelihoods--for reasons of politics alone--that leaves the citizens themselves to stand against the rioting mobs of opportunists posing as social justice warriors (a fair description of all three "victims," each one with a criminal rap sheet). I strongly suspect that if such "peaceful protesters" showed up at your door, you might just have a change of heart. 

 

 

 

 

[BangkokReady]

10 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

He 100% put himself in that situation. Come on. He could have stayed home. A high school dropout. Lied about being a medic. And your supporting him. Bizarre.

I'm just pointing out that the evidence shows that he acted in self defense and everything you say is ridiculous and made up.

 

The fact that you respond with "he's bad and you're supporting him" speaks volumes about your argument.

 

If he was the aggressor, show some evidence instead of just making a load of wild and unsubstantiated claims.

[fjb 24]

8 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

He 100% put himself in that situation. Come on. He could have stayed home. A high school dropout. Lied about being a medic. And your supporting him. Bizarre.

 

8 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

You need to open your eyes. We've posted enough evidence here to say he did.

You have posted nothing but idle unsubstantiated gibberish. NOTHING. I have posted no less than 3 videos none showing anything threatening from Rittenhouse.

 

Follow the damn facts and evidence and quit inventing nonsense. No one believes ANYTHING  you say here now. You just say whatever pops into your brain, with no proof. Try to let it "roll" a little dude and don't be so belligerent and try to see the full scope here, not your private little precious space you feel intruded upon. Whats wrong with you?

[bbko]

Screw them all, a bunch of low IQ idiots on both sides thinking it was a good idea to go to a mob protest armed with guns and rifles.

[fjb 24]

3 minutes ago, fjb 24 said:

He 100% put himself in that situation. Come on. He could have stayed home. A high school dropout. Lied about being a medic. And your supporting him. Bizarre.

and he could have ordered eggs sunny side up, all of which has nothing to do with nothing.

[Jeffr2]

8 minutes ago, BuckAurelius said:

My guess is that the jury will come back with a conviction on a lesser included. Imagine being a jurist in this case who wants to acquit, and then imagine your whole life being turned upside down when you're inevitably doxed, intimidated, and harassed. The judge has already received death threats. This is how controversial court cases are now decided in America--by the media and the mob. 

 

People need to look at the facts of the case. Too many are trying to turn this case into a debate over American gun rights. That's the not the issue, never mind racism. You have three people shot in this case, all of them white. Not one piece of evidence supports the contention that Rittenhouse was racist, or believe me, the prosecution would have presented it. Even less for the judge. 

 

I've seen the video still allegedly showing the accused pointing his weapon at the protesters, and no honest person can make heads or tails of it one way or the other. It might as well be a Rorschach inkblot--a three-year-old's stickman doodles have more pertinent detail. As evidence, it's pure garbage. And the whole contention that the accused is guilty because he incited the protesters--this was a pure afterthought of the prosecution because its original strategy had been completely debunked even by its own witnesses.  

 

Some people here are so badly informed about this case that they still believe Rittenhouse transported the AR-15 illegally across state lines. It staggers the mind. 

 

When the government, the DA's, and the police, have abdicated their responsibilities to protect the people and their livelihoods--for reasons of politics alone--that leaves the citizens themselves to stand against the rioting mobs of opportunists posing as social justice warriors (a fair description of all three "victims," each one with a criminal rap sheet). I strongly suspect that if such "peaceful protesters" showed up at your door, you might just have a change of heart. 

 

 

 

 

I strongly suggest if the nutters wearing tactical gear with war weapons showed up at your door, you might have a change of heart.