9 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

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.

Ridiculous that he's a high school dropout with a war weapon, bringing body armor to a protest, is made up? He even lied about being a medic! Total nutter.

6 minutes ago, fjb 24 said:

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

You're right. It has nothing whatever to do with the actual case. Rittenhouse is not being charged with adolescent stupidity, misguided idealism, whatever you want to call it. Nor are American gun laws on trial here. The weapons charge has already been thrown out. People here are bringing in all sorts of extraneous notions that are totally irrelevant to the case at hand, and convicting him based on those irrelevancies. Why? Because the actual evidence speaks for itself to anyone with eyes to see (we've no shortage of video here). What we have are people who personally find Rittenhouse onerous to their political sentiments, and so are more than happy to convict him in a court of law regardless of whether he's actually guilty of the crimes with which he's been charged. 

15 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

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

I actually wouldn't. The "nutters" tend to obey the law, as a matter of principle, in fact are quite devoted to it--hence they support the police and think that burning down small businesses is an objectionable thing to do. You might want to re-watch some of the video footage. It ain't the dudes in tactical gear destroying the city, is it? 

23 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Ridiculous that he's a high school dropout with a war weapon, bringing body armor to a protest, is made up? He even lied about being a medic! Total nutter.

Therefore people can try to kill him? And if he stops them from killing him he's the bad guy?

 

Theres certainly a nutter somewhere around here.

28 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

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

I wouldn't try to kill any of them, so I'd probably be ok.

 

Also, would they be there just to protect property from rioters and looters like Rittenhouse? Because then wouldn't I surely be safer with them there?

1 minute ago, BuckAurelius said:

gave his body armor to someone else

I see, thank you.

On 11/15/2021 at 4:49 AM, cmarshall said:

Part of the disgraceful conduct of this case is that Rittenhouse has not been charged for his violations of weapons laws.  He obtained his gun illegally since he was below the age for a license.  And he carried across state boundaries, which is probably another offense.  Rittenhouse has also associated with white supremacists.  It is probably fair that that fact could not be introduced into the case, but we the public are fully entitled to consider it.  

 

He may be convicted for shooting Huber who only had a skateboard and therefore did not pose a threat to Rittenhouse's life.

 

I hope that Huber and the families of the murder victims sue Rittenhouse and are able to seize whatever income Rittenhouse ever acquires.

"And he carried across state boundaries"--wrong, you should get your facts straight. "He obtained his gun illegally since he was below the age for a license"--also wrong. That charge was thrown out because the particular law in question did not apply in this case. Google "beaten to death with skateboard" and you'll get a surprising number of results (I just did it ????. All sorts of random objects can be used as deadly weapons; they don't need to be designed as such. 

4 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

He was 17, which is the age when you can join the USA army 

And only be allowed to obey orders. There's no way the army would let a noob in this type of situation without direct supervision.

23 minutes ago, BuckAurelius said:

"And he carried across state boundaries"--wrong, you should get your facts straight. "He obtained his gun illegally since he was below the age for a license"--also wrong. That charge was thrown out because the particular law in question did not apply in this case. Google "beaten to death with skateboard" and you'll get a surprising number of results (I just did it ????. All sorts of random objects can be used as deadly weapons; they don't need to be designed as such. 

He obtained the gun illegally, he was below the minimum age to obtain that gun.

 

Quote

Dominick Black, of Kenosha, faces two felony counts of intentionally giving a dangerous weapon to a minor, causing death, according to a criminal complaint filed in Kenosha County Circuit Court. If he's found guilty, he faces up to 6 years in prison per count.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/19-year-old-charged-illegally-supplying-gun-kyle-rittenhouse-n1247307

 

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/aug/28/facebook-posts/did-kyle-rittenhouse-break-law-carrying-assault-st/

So do you think they will reach verdicts today?

If not probably bodes well for the defense.

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

He obtained the gun illegally, he was below the minimum age to obtain that gun.

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

He obtained the gun illegally, he was below the minimum age to obtain that gun.

 

 

 

This charge was dismissed against Rittenhouse because the defense attorneys (successfully) argued that the particular statute in this instance did not apply to Rittenhouse--and the judge agreed, because it plainly does not, due to the defendant's age and the length of the barrel. Call it a technicality if you want. But there was no "illegal" action on the part of Rittenhouse at least as far as the weapons possession goes--hence, no more possession charge. Whether Mr. Black committed a crime is irrelevant to Rittenhouse's case. It does not follow that therefore Rittenhouse committed one. 

5 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

So do you think they will reach verdicts today?

If not probably bodes well for the defense.

They (some learned legal minds) are saying that the longer it goes, it favors a conviction due to the complexity of the 39 page jury instructions which include "lesser and included offenses".  I can't get a feel one way or the other and I keep thinking about the steven avery prosecution in WI and all the controversy surrounding that case.

23 minutes ago, fjb 24 said:

They (some learned legal minds) are saying that the longer it goes, it favors a conviction due to the complexity of the 39 page jury instructions which include "lesser and included offenses".  I can't get a feel one way or the other and I keep thinking about the steven avery prosecution in WI and all the controversy surrounding that case.

It's precisely because of the complexity of this 39-page instruction that I think Rittenhouse is likely to be convicted of some charge--actual attorneys are struggling to understand it; the thing is so convoluted that a jury of laypeople has little hope, and this favors the prosecution. There is already, I believe, a strong predisposition to convict--given the potential consequences for the jury members if they do not, in a case so politically charged and toxic--and a jury instruction so baffling provides the perfect pretext to ignore the simple facts of the case, as documented on video. 

 

This prosecutorial practice of throwing a half dozen mutually exclusive  charges at a defendant makes a mockery of justice. It's like slinging a fistful of spaghetti at the wall to see which noodles stick. Prosecutors love it because it keeps their conviction rates high. So we now have five different charges for apparently the same offense. Jury, you don't like this charge? What about this one? No? How about this one? And on down the line. The supposedly pro-defense judge allowed the jury to consider these lesser charges. 

Dropping the misdemeanor gun charge is a double edged sword for Master R. If the jury decides on a compromise they could have convicted on that alone which carries about one year jail time. Now if they compromise he will be convicted of at least one felony carrying much more jail time. Or he could walk entirely. My impression is that those that view Master R as some kind of folk hero are happy the gun charge was dropped. Careful what you wish for. While he still might walk getting only a one year misdemeanor would have been an incredibly mild result in the context of the severity of the charges.

I couldn't imagine letting my 17 yr old take a gun to a protest, but then again I couldn't see myself going to a protest to cause chaos. But, the fact remains the kid was legal to carry a legal gun, protestors chased him down to assault him and he defended himself.

Numerous posts and videos have been removed. 

 

4 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

I couldn't imagine letting my 17 yr old take a gun to a protest, but then again I couldn't see myself going to a protest to cause chaos. But, the fact remains the kid was legal to carry a legal gun, protestors chased him down to assault him and he defended himself.

All of which happened after he pointed his assault rifle at unarmed people thereby committing the felony of assault with a deadly weapon which deprived him of a legitimate basis to claim self-defense.

3 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

All of which happened after he pointed his assault rifle at unarmed people thereby committing the felony of assault with a deadly weapon which deprived him of a legitimate basis to claim self-defense.

May have deprived him. That's the jury's call. I watched this trial. Before the judge allowed provocation to be considered I imagined I would vote not guilty because of reasonable doubt. But after the closing arguments which detailed provocation I would be inclined to convict on even the most serious charges.

6 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

All of which happened after he pointed his assault rifle at unarmed people thereby committing the felony of assault with a deadly weapon which deprived him of a legitimate basis to claim self-defense.

That's certainly the contention of the prosecutors now that their original narrative was contradicted by their own witnesses. And what evidence do they base it on? A capture from a drone video, so garbled and hyper-pixelated you can barely make out the figure of Rittenhouse as even humanoid, let alone where he might be pointing his gun. Hence the need to "enhance" the pic. It doesn't take much to convince the already convinced, apparently. 

9 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

What a rant.  But your true colors came out as you got a bash in to Biden.  Amazing how you deflected to that.  But typical of those from the far right.

I didnt deflect anything, biden called him a white supremacist, same as many left leaning personalities, like I said I hope he sues them all for their slander and BS, the president should not have said anything about it, sounds like you have a major problem

 

3 minutes ago, seajae said:

I didnt deflect anything, biden called him a white supremacist, same as many left leaning personalities, like I said I hope he sues them all for their slander and BS, the president should not have said anything about it, sounds like you have a major problem

 

True, it was wrong of biden to give his opinion of the kid. 

Biden did not directly call him that. Here is what really happened. You have to look at the context.

 

https://news.yahoo.com/psaki-refuses-explain-why-biden-204338524.html

.

 

 

5 hours ago, ozimoron said:

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

mate, you really need to watch or read something not from the left, there is no video showing him pointing his gun at people, the blown up adjusted pic that is extremely pixelated was from before it all happened, also the prosecutor called no witnesses including the ones in the pic to state they had a gun pointed at them, it either shows that the prosecutor is totally stupid or he knew it never happened, the pixelated pic does not show any clear evidence he was pointing the gun at anyone, the judge left it up to the jury to decide if they thought it did, the only possible time it may have happened was when he turned around but the video does not show him lifting the gun. I cant believe how many people in here are being totally wrong and making it up as they go, obviously they have  watched  doctored videos from the left & not listened to the trial itself plus all the witnesses but just accepted what the cretins on some shows have stated instead of the  actual

truth

 

13 minutes ago, seajae said:

mate, you really need to watch or read something not from the left, there is no video showing him pointing his gun at people, the blown up adjusted pic that is extremely pixelated was from before it all happened, also the prosecutor called no witnesses including the ones in the pic to state they had a gun pointed at them, it either shows that the prosecutor is totally stupid or he knew it never happened, the pixelated pic does not show any clear evidence he was pointing the gun at anyone, the judge left it up to the jury to decide if they thought it did, the only possible time it may have happened was when he turned around but the video does not show him lifting the gun. I cant believe how many people in here are being totally wrong and making it up as they go, obviously they have  watched  doctored videos from the left & not listened to the trial itself plus all the witnesses but just accepted what the cretins on some shows have stated instead of the  actual

truth

 

It's not supposed to be a political trial. It's a murder trial. Video evidence isn't left or right.

Off-topic, troll posts and replies removed. 

 

OK, as this started as a prediction of verdicts topic, now that we are into the second day of the jury deliberating, how about predictions for how many days they take to deliver their verdicts? Today? Tomorrow? Next week? 

2 hours ago, seajae said:

mate, you really need to watch or read something not from the left, there is no video showing him pointing his gun at people, the blown up adjusted pic that is extremely pixelated was from before it all happened, also the prosecutor called no witnesses including the ones in the pic to state they had a gun pointed at them, it either shows that the prosecutor is totally stupid or he knew it never happened, the pixelated pic does not show any clear evidence he was pointing the gun at anyone, the judge left it up to the jury to decide if they thought it did, the only possible time it may have happened was when he turned around but the video does not show him lifting the gun. I cant believe how many people in here are being totally wrong and making it up as they go, obviously they have  watched  doctored videos from the left & not listened to the trial itself plus all the witnesses but just accepted what the cretins on some shows have stated instead of the  actual

truth

 

Quote

I don’t know what exhibits the jurors wish to see," Richards said. "We the defense has a real problem with them seeing the drone footage."

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/jury-rittenhouse-murder-trial-deliberate-second-day-2021-11-17/

OK, just for sport, I predict they will reach verdicts on the third day of deliberations.

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

OK, just for sport, I predict they will reach verdicts on the third day of deliberations.

And the cigar goes to ......?

 

Well, now it seems that the video may indeed show Rittenhouse pointed the gun at protesters and lied about it. The defense are panicking.

 

https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-wisconsin-homicide-kenosha-0e4b6ad5a286af9ddbb8c8546550f1dc