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

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, fjb 24 said:

You know this how?

Did you know Larry Elder is a white supremacist?

What does this all have to do with the topic?

you don't know it was a BLM protest?

[Liverpool Lou]

6 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

13 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Read the law in question in this case.

possess is not the same as own

Who said it was?  I sure didn't.

Edited November 18, 2021 by Liverpool Lou

[ozimoron]

9 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

The BLM protest is not on trial!    There was no BLM or racial aspect to the case brought against the white Rittenhouse for shooting three white men!

Rittenhouse' motives are relevant, he was a vigilante and went there looking for trouble. This was alleged and is therefore relevant.

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

He was not charged with anything to do with the BLM protest specifically and he was there to try to protect property.    He was charged with shooting three people who were trying to kill him because he shot a white man who was trying to kill him!

It isn't possible to charge in relation to a BLM protest, but his motives are pertinent to the trial. Nobody doubts that we would not be there if it wasn't a BLM protest.

[CharlieH]

I think its wrong the Judge in this case has decided NOT to sequester the Jury ! They just go home, not much chance of outside influence there is there...lol

 

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZSekaCE2B/

 

[Liverpool Lou]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

Rittenhouse' motives are relevant, he was a vigilante and went there looking for trouble. This was alleged and is therefore relevant.

Was he charged with being a vigilante and looking for trouble?   No, didn't think so.   He was charged with shooting three men who were trying to kill him, though.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

30 minutes ago, fjb 24 said:

This has nothing to do with the criminal trial underway in WI.

What is the racial implication you are alluding to?

My point was probably not well explained. I just think if a black man had the gun and shot three protesters rather than a wide eyed white boy it may have been looked at a bit differently. I do believe that people, especially given 11 out of 12 jurors are white,  can see Rittenhouse and be more likely to think he could be innocent and trying to do good as compared to if he was a black boy of the same age. 

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Was he charged with being a vigilante and looking for trouble?   No, didn't think so.   He was charged with shooting three men who were trying to kill him, though.

Looking for trouble isn't a crime, it's a motive.

Edited November 18, 2021 by ozimoron

[Jingthing]

3 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

When is a decision from the jury expected?  Anyone know?

 

Whew...back to the OP. LOL

Nobody outside the jury would know.

[fjb 24]

8 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Rittenhouse' motives are relevant, he was a vigilante and went there looking for trouble. This was alleged and is therefore relevant.

If you refer to the trial testimony from the witness's, it should clear up your misunderstandings and cast your assumptions aside.

[fjb 24]

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

it's a motive

No evidence of that either.

[fjb 24]

3 minutes ago, fjb 24 said:

was alleged

Key, pay attention to that one word (alleged).

[fjb 24]

Anyways, not likely many people are convicted of murder or any crime based on an allegation, not in most western courts. Not sure about courts in other countries.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

58 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

"I haven't seen all the ins and outs but ... I think he should get minimum 10 years".

Jesus...

 

"The fact that the judge wouldn't let the victims be called victims but let them be called looters didn't help".

Jesus...    Yes, those facts, terrible things.   Let's keep facts out of trials!

 

"I think the racial point is relevant".

Jesus...   There is no racial aspect to Rittenhouse's case!

You've mixed up my quotes and had a lot of attitude which is a very Liverpool Lou thing to do. I concede though you have a point that I am not in a position to know in detail but I acknowledged limited knowledge. 

The topic was to make a prediction. Everyone here probably  has limited knowledge with the odd exception. 

My 2 cents was that I consider if someone leaves there home, and goes to a protest and waving around an AR-15 and people die, there should be implications. 

 

This is a chat - people's lives aren't hanging on my words. 

See my other post about the racial element. The point being that I think many Americans, including some posters here, would be less likely to be sympathetic if a young black guy did the same thing. 

 

Edited November 18, 2021 by Fat is a type of crazy

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

...

 

This is a chat - people's lives aren't hanging on my words. 

See my other post about the racial element. The point being that I think many Americans, including some posters here, would be less likely to be sympathetic if a young black guy did the same thing. 

 

No doubt about that at all. 

[ozimoron]

39 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Read the law in question in this case.

He fired an AR-15-style rifle that he was too young to have legally purchased; his friend Dominick Black had bought the gun for him months earlier.

 

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-trial-of-kyle-rittenhouse-begins-with-gruesome-videos-and-a-plea-for-fact-finding

[fjb 24]

21 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

a wide eyed white boy

what is this?

[Will B Good]

Guilty as hell.

 

Taking a gun to a fist fight and then using the idea of self-defense.

 

You can't provoke someone then kill them and use the argument you did so in self-defense.

[BuckAurelius]

2 hours ago, fjb 24 said:

Either way, this judge and the entire case becomes as popular as a turd in the punch bowl.

The judge should have already issued a directed verdict regardless of whether such a decision would be "popular" or not. Given the transparently political motivation of the prosecution, the grotesquely inaccurate and skewed media coverage, and the complete lack of any credible evidence, it's irresponsible for a judge to let a case like this even get to the jury. 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

1 hour ago, Liverpool Lou said:

"I haven't seen all the ins and outs but ... I think he should get minimum 10 years".

Jesus...

 

"The fact that the judge wouldn't let the victims be called victims but let them be called looters didn't help".

Jesus...    Yes, those facts, terrible things.   Let's keep facts out of trials!

 

"I think the racial point is relevant".

Jesus...   There is no racial aspect to Rittenhouse's case!

Further, I think your point is wrong that it is OK for the judge to not let victims be called victims, but let them be  called looters. I assume you call it a fact that they are not victims but are looters. Loaded terms should be not used if they can reasonably be avoided. 

 

[ozimoron]

22 minutes ago, fjb 24 said:

No evidence of that either.

(looking for trouble)

 

...the defendant, an Illinois resident, willingly and intentionally put himself in violent situations in Wisconsin that do not involve him in order to commit further acts of violence," the motion states. 

 

Aside from this previous act of violence, prosecutors believe Rittenhouse's association with the Proud Boys, a violent white power group, should be considered at the trial. 

 

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2021/07/01/prosecutors-want-kyle-rittenhouses-previous-actions-considered/7836496002/

Edited November 18, 2021 by ozimoron

[ozimoron]

Prosecutors are asking that Rittenhouse’s association with members of the Proud Boys be allowed at trial “because it goes to the defendant’s motive and intent for coming to Kenosha on Aug. 25, 2020.”

 

The motion describes the Proud Boys as a “violently racist organization whose members take pride in assaulting members of racial minorities, particularly Black Lives Matter protesters.”

 

https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/prosecution-looks-to-introduce-evidence-that-rittenhouse-is-associated-with-the-proud-boys/article_9e6a8392-9308-56d9-b56b-2e2d67ef3f15.html

Edited November 18, 2021 by ozimoron

[fjb 24]

11 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

 

6 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

 

Edited November 18, 2021 by fjb 24

[ozimoron]

Just now, fjb 24 said:

 

I believe no evidence of that was entered at the trial, but correct me if I am wrong. 

I stated my opinion as to his motives based on the media, nothing more.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

14 minutes ago, fjb 24 said:

what is this?

I assume you are saying that the term 'wide eyed' is racist or prejudicial. It is a point to say that the jury may be influenced by the fact that a defendant is cherubic and innocent looking and that there could be a black kid of a similar ilk and therefore the inclusion of wide eyed is not relevant.  In my opinion a white kid is more likely to be wide eyed and garner sympathy. Putting the wide eyed description aside, I think a young black kid that kills 2 in similar circumstances, might not get as much sympathy as a white kid. 

It was not a huge point I was making but I still think it has merit. 

Edited November 18, 2021 by Fat is a type of crazy

[lannarebirth]

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Prosecutors are asking that Rittenhouse’s association with members of the Proud Boys be allowed at trial “because it goes to the defendant’s motive and intent for coming to Kenosha on Aug. 25, 2020.”

 

The motion describes the Proud Boys as a “violently racist organization whose members take pride in assaulting members of racial minorities, particularly Black Lives Matter protesters.”

 

https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/prosecution-looks-to-introduce-evidence-that-rittenhouse-is-associated-with-the-proud-boys/article_9e6a8392-9308-56d9-b56b-2e2d67ef3f15.html

I haven't followed closely but wasn't the Proud Boys meeting after the shooting and largely a fundraising exercise? If it was after it would not be germane to the case and maybe not even if it was prior to the shooting.

[fjb 24]

2 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I assume you are saying that the term 'wide eyed' is racist or prejudicial. It is a point to say that the jury may be influenced by the fact that a defendant is cherubic and innocent looking and that there could be a black kid of a similar ilk and therefore the inclusion of wide eyed is not relevant.  In my opinion a white kid is more likely to be wide eyed and garner sympathy. Putting the wide eyed description aside, I think a young black kid that kills 2 in similar circumstances, might not get as much sympathy as a black kid. 

It was not a huge point I was making but I still think it has merit. 

 

6 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I stated my opinion as to his motives based on the media, nothing more.

guilt by media.

[BuckAurelius]

8 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Prosecutors are asking that Rittenhouse’s association with members of the Proud Boys be allowed at trial “because it goes to the defendant’s motive and intent for coming to Kenosha on Aug. 25, 2020.”

 

The motion describes the Proud Boys as a “violently racist organization whose members take pride in assaulting members of racial minorities, particularly Black Lives Matter protesters.”

 

https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/prosecution-looks-to-introduce-evidence-that-rittenhouse-is-associated-with-the-proud-boys/article_9e6a8392-9308-56d9-b56b-2e2d67ef3f15.html

I have no particular sympathy for the Proud Boys, but so far I've seen no reason to peg them as racist just because the media says so and they are, avowedly, nationalist. The founder of the group is married to a woman of Native American ancestry and the current leader is a Latino POC. That's one odd white-supremacist group. People shouldn't confound nationalism with ethno-nationalism. The prosecution is merely trying to smear Rittenhouse with the taint of racism so that jurists have an excuse to nullify themselves by disregarding the factual evidence of the case. 

[Liverpool Lou]

22 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

1 hour ago, Liverpool Lou said:

"I haven't seen all the ins and outs but ... I think he should get minimum 10 years".

Jesus...

 

"The fact that the judge wouldn't let the victims be called victims but let them be called looters didn't help".

Jesus...    Yes, those facts, terrible things.   Let's keep facts out of trials!

 

"I think the racial point is relevant".

Jesus...   There is no racial aspect to Rittenhouse's case!

Expand  

Further, I think your point is wrong that it is OK for the judge to not let victims be called victims, but let them be  called looters. I assume you call it a fact that they are not victims but are looters. Loaded terms should be not used if they can reasonably be avoided. 

That would be reIevant if I had said that "it is ok for the judge to not let victims be called victims", I did not say that, I quoted your comment, you said that!   I assume you cannot read.

Edited November 18, 2021 by Liverpool Lou

[CFCjeff]

23 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Further, I think your point is wrong that it is OK for the judge to not let victims be called victims, but let them be  called looters. I assume you call it a fact that they are not victims but are looters. Loaded terms should be not used if they can reasonably be avoided. 

 

Maybe we call them  Victims who burn ,loot, destroy property, hate the police, and especially want to whack you round the head with a skateboard and then pummel you to death,

Edited November 18, 2021 by CFCjeff