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

[fjb 24]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

You've never been on a jury have you?

You have, did u decide your verdict during the trial or during deliberations?

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

I think they mean the same thing.

That you cannot understand the language to a satisfactory  level 

[BuckAurelius]

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. 

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

That you cannot understand the language to a satisfactory  level 

that's it, go for the ad hominem. I notice you didn't explain what you think it means.

[DIPT]

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. 

[ozimoron]

5 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 him. He clearly stopped a threat, so no charges here. 

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

- However the killing of Rosenbaum is not self defence. Rosenbaum has not touched  him, he was unarmed. Kyle probably should have fired once or twice 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. 

I think all of them were attempting to apprehend a would be mass shooter.

[ozimoron]

5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I think all of them were attempting to apprehend a would be mass shooter. Only a couple in the crowd were armed. none with anything more than a pistol, nobody else pursues Rittenhouse as he casually walks away. They weren't a mob of violent thugs as the apologists would have us believe. I think most of the jury will want to convict.

 

[DIPT]

I don't understand why the killing of  Huber is considered the first-degree intentional homicide. He fired at him only once.  Meanwhile Kyle fired four times at Rosenbaum and it is considered first-degree reckless homicide (a lesser charge). How so?

[1FinickyOne]

the boy is part of a malignancy...

 

his efforts to stop riots and looting - vigilante style, will result in more riots... 

[Nojohndoe]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

 

Personally I would hope so !

Given the overall circumstances of the events this self appointed vigilante assisted by his mother went with intent to find opportunity to use a lethal  weapon .

[BuckAurelius]

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. 

 

[ozimoron]

7 minutes ago, BuckAurelius said:

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. 

 

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.

[DIPT]

32 minutes ago, BuckAurelius said:

 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. 

 

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 lives.  At least to me it appears that he is a very good shooter at minimum and can easily hit any target from the very first try.

[Morakot]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

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

I know diddly-squat about this topic...

 

Did fascist boy cause a Mexican standoff and it went out of kilter for the others?

 

Can you bring us up to speed in a few line, Jingthing? Cheers!

[BuckAurelius]

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. 

[Jingthing]

7 minutes ago, Morakot said:

I know diddly-squat about this topic...

 

Did fascist boy cause a Mexican standoff and it went out of kilter for the others?

 

Can you bring us up to speed in a few line, Jingthing? Cheers!

No. It was a very complicated murder scene by the baby faced vigilante.

[BuckAurelius]

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. 

[DIPT]

25 minutes ago, BuckAurelius said:

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. 

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.

[BuckAurelius]

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. 

[ozimoron]

15 minutes ago, BuckAurelius said:

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. 

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. I wish people would stop hero worshipping a kid.

[BuckAurelius]

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. 

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, BuckAurelius said:

And you're aptly named. 

more ad hominens. sad.

[ozimoron]

Since 1984, the nationwide legal drinking age has been 21 for good reasons. Young people’s brains are still developing, which affects their judgment and cognitive abilities. That, along with raging hormones, boosts the chances of impulsive decision-making.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/editorial-rittenhouse-case-underscores-why-nationwide-age-floor-of-21-is-needed-for-guns/

[ozimoron]

8 minutes ago, BuckAurelius said:

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. 

I smeared a terrorist killer fascist proud boy now? lol.

[1FinickyOne]

2 hours ago, BuckAurelius said:

to chase me headlong through a parking lot--you bet, I'd shoot the guy, armed or unarmed.

when I was 17 and if I went anywhere near a gun like that... nonetheless be out of the house past 11 pm - my parents would have killed ME... aren't there laws about vigilantism and untrained minors acting as police?

[BuckAurelius]

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. 

[ozimoron]

7 minutes ago, BuckAurelius said:

You were the one who first introduced the long discredited falsehood into this thread that Rittenhouse illegally transported a firearm across state lines. 

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.

[BuckAurelius]

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. 

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, BuckAurelius said:

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. 

I make no apologies for dumping on a would be fascist mass murderer in a gang. He deserves life, there's 2 people who won't even get that because they gave their lives to stop a mass shooting. hero worshipping these scum is despicable.

[EVENKEEL]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

I make no apologies for dumping on a would be fascist mass murderer in a gang. He deserves life, there's 2 people who won't even get that because they gave their lives to stop a mass shooting. hero worshipping these scum is despicable.

One who died won't rape anymore young boys, now tell me who the scum is or was.