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

[ozimoron]

5 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

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

I didn't say he was but justice isn't handed out by vigilantes.

[ozimoron]

5 minutes ago, BuckAurelius said:

You can't help yourself, can you? Ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem. And yet a bit of sarcasm from me has you all indignant. I'm done with you. Will no longer be responding to any of your posts. Let's move on and let other people post. 

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?

[BuckAurelius]

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. 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, BuckAurelius said:

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. 

I chose my name because I am self deprecating by nature. It helps keep me humble. Thanks

[ozimoron]

This freak out of a judge just banned MSNBC from the court after a man was arrested trying to photograph jurors on a bus. The man claimed to be a producer for MSNBC but police determined he was lying. The moronic judge falls for a false flag operation. It shows exactly where his biases lie. The same judge who has a MAGA ring tone on his phone. Any other judge should have recused himself just on a perception of bias.

[ozimoron]

26 minutes ago, BuckAurelius said:

Moderators? This guy is totally out of control and is hijacking this thread. 

how is it not relevant to the verdict?

 

https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/live-trials-current/kyle-rittenhouse/kyle-rittenhouse-judge-says-white-power-gesture-reminds-him-of-chef-boyardee-warns-proud-boys-link-to-defendant-would-be-poison-at-trial/

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/582180-race-is-not-central-to-rittenhouse-case-but-the-media-shout-it

[fjb 24]

28 minutes ago, BuckAurelius said:

Moderators? This guy is totally out of control and is hijacking this thread. 

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

[EVENKEEL]

35 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

This freak out of a judge just banned MSNBC from the court after a man was arrested trying to photograph jurors on a bus. The man claimed to be a producer for MSNBC but police determined he was lying. The moronic judge falls for a false flag operation. It shows exactly where his biases lie. The same judge who has a MAGA ring tone on his phone. Any other judge should have recused himself just on a perception of bias.

You should self detox, all that koolaid is harmful.

[BuckAurelius]

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? 

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

This freak out of a judge just banned MSNBC from the court after a man was arrested trying to photograph jurors on a bus. The man claimed to be a producer for MSNBC but police determined he was lying. The moronic judge falls for a false flag operation. It shows exactly where his biases lie. The same judge who has a MAGA ring tone on his phone. Any other judge should have recused himself just on a perception of bias.

Yes he is truly bizarre.

[Jingthing]

24 minutes ago, BuckAurelius said:

It's been brutal, and I take no pride in that. But it does show what Rittenhouse is up against. Which is why most likely he's F'ed one way or the other. This thread is like a microcosm of what Rittenhouse is facing in actuality. The guy's doomed. 

As if he's the victim.

[fjb 24]

20 minutes ago, BuckAurelius said:

It's been brutal, and I take no pride in that. But it does show what Rittenhouse is up against. Which is why most likely he's F'ed one way or the other. This thread is like a microcosm of what Rittenhouse is facing in actuality. The guy's doomed. 

I suspect the only way out is to declare a mistrial considering the motions and especially now that the jurors are feeling intimidated. They know, as soon as any verdict they deliver becomes public, their names, addresses, phone numbers, and everything else about them, will appear in print, and on flat screens. The media will have them trotted out, and vetted, for as long as they generate ratings. It's disgusting, and they know, there's no way to prevent it from happening.

The judge has indicated he'll rule on the motions post verdict, and I am almost willing now to bet judge Schroeder declares a mistrial.

[BuckAurelius]

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. 

[candide]

7 hours ago, BuckAurelius said:

Didn't I just do that? Or did I just waste my time writing that long detailed post? Let me give you the cliff notes: 1. Rosenbaum was a violent criminal of the worst sort and was a repeat offender prone to violent attacks especially on children. This is not in dispute. 2. Witnesses testified that he had already made a death threat against Rittenhouse. This is part of court record. 3. Video of him has him screaming the N-word at people and asking to be shot. Not exactly the behavior of a man in full possession of his wits or his obvious anger-management problem. Does Rittenhouse have a similar criminal history. Not at all. Is there any video footage showing Rittenhouse behaving in an aggressive manner prior to the actual shooting? Nope. Contrast their respective behaviors prior to the shooting and you might agree it's striking. You have a dopy, moon-eyed kid on the one hand, and a seething red-faced psycho on other. I wonder which one was most likely the aggressor. Hmm. . . 

You forgot to mention how viciously Rosenbaum threatened him with a plastic bag! ????

[sqwakvfr]

9 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Just maybe some white people support the BLM? It was a BLM protest march.

But "Black Lives Matter?  In this trial "Black Lives" were not a factor? 

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, sqwakvfr said:

But "Black Lives Matter?  In this trial "Black Lives" were not a factor? 

I think it matters a LOT. It was the single reason that Rittenhouse even went to the area. In murder, motive is everything. How can it not be important why he armed himself with an AR15, favorite rifle of the white supremacist militant wing and travel 20 miles to a protest? To go to Walmart?

[cmarshall]

Columnist Farhad Manjoo has a good column today in the NY Times about Rittenhouse's gun.  Rittenhouse killed the unarmed lunatic Rosenbaum whom other witnesses considered posed no threat to anyone.  Rittenhouse acknowledges that Rosenbaum was unarmed, but killed him because he was afraid that Rosenbaum might seize Rittenhouse's own gun and kill him with it.  So, he killed Rosenbaum with four shots the last and fatal one of which was fired into Rosenbaum's back.

 

So, Rittenhouse kills unarmed people out of a fear of his own weapon.  Turns out that's exactly the defense offered by Travis McMichael when he shot and killed the unarmed Ahmaud Arbery.

 

That’s because it cleverly unraveled some of the foundational tenets of gun advocacy: That guns are effective and necessary weapons of self-defense. That without them, lawlessness and tyranny would prevail. And that in the right hands — in the hands of the “good guys” — guns promote public safety rather than destroy it.

 

*Edited for fair use policy*

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/17/opinion/kyle-rittenhouse-guns.html

[candide]

3 hours ago, BuckAurelius said:

I may have misunderstood this comment and taken it too literally. It's hard to say anymore. I will say this. Those who find Rittenhouse a really despicable character type, somehow don't seem to have any problems with Rosenbaum, basically the very nastiest specimen of human sludge in your worst nightmares. But Rosenbaum was just a serial child rapist whereas Rittenhouse was a "gun nut," a far "right-winger," a "fascist." It boggles the mind as far as how askew the moral compass has become. 

Rosenbaum's past is completely irrelevant as it was not known by Rittenhouse. He killed someone he didn't know and who was not holding any weapon, except a plastic bag.

 

As about his alleged aggressive behaviour, one doesn't parade in the middle of a protest, openly carrying a rifle, without expecting any aggressive behaviour.

[Scott]

Troll post and replies removed. 

[bbko]

Here's why I think the kid is guilty; in the USA the first amendment gives us freedom of speech right? But we don't have the freedom to yell "Fire" in a crowded movie theater as it would incite panic. 

 

The second amendment give us the right to bear arms, but to bear arms during a angry mob protest, in my opinion, is akin to yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, it's incendiary, it causes panic, and it's going to get a response. That's what this kid did.

 

The government needs to make a ruling on mob protests and openly carrying weapons, or we're going to see more killings like this event. But I bet the NRA and gun rights folks would fight tooth and nail against laws like that.  The sinking of America continues.

[cmarshall]

The most coherent account I have found so far is that Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Rosenbaum thereby committing the felony of assault with a deadly weapon at which point he cannot claim self-defense.  Rosenbaum charges Rittenhouse who, afraid that the unarmed Rosenbaum might kill him with his own gun, fires four shots into Rosenbaum, the last of which is a fatal shot in Rosenbaum's back.  From this point on the crowd identifies Rittenhouse as an active shooter and tries to disarm him.  

 

So, Rittenhouse is guilty on all counts and should face a long prison term.  However, since the jury is still deliberating, there is a possibility that they are hung on one or more counts.  And Judge Schroeder could at any moment accept the defense's motion for a mistrial, even after a guilty verdict.

[Danderman123]

This topic is about predicting the outcome of the jury deliberations. Rotten house may be guilty or innocent, but the jury may decide on factors other than the allegations posted here. Alleged facts don’t matter in this case anymore.

 

If the jury does not decide by the end of business 19 November, it will be a hung jury.

 

I have been on a jury before, there is enormous pressure to finish on Friday afternoon. 

[cmarshall]

2 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

This topic is about predicting the outcome of the jury deliberations. Rotten house may be guilty or innocent, but the jury may decide on factors other than the allegations posted here. Alleged facts don’t matter in this case anymore.

 

If the jury does not decide by the end of business 19 November, it will be a hung jury.

 

I have been on a jury before, there is enormous pressure to finish on Friday afternoon. 

That's possible, but it's also possible that the jury is only hung on one or more counts, but has reached a verdict on others.  This seems likely to me.  I think Rittenhouse will be convicted for killing Rosenbaum at least.

[Mac Mickmanus]

28 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

The most coherent account I have found so far is that Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Rosenbaum thereby committing the felony of assault with a deadly weapon at which point he cannot claim self-defense.  Rosenbaum charges Rittenhouse who, afraid that the unarmed Rosenbaum might kill him with his own gun, fires four shots into Rosenbaum, the last of which is a fatal shot in Rosenbaum's back.  From this point on the crowd identifies Rittenhouse as an active shooter and tries to disarm him.  

 

So, Rittenhouse is guilty on all counts and should face a long prison term.  However, since the jury is still deliberating, there is a possibility that they are hung on one or more counts.  And Judge Schroeder could at any moment accept the defense's motion for a mistrial, even after a guilty verdict.

That is one version of events .

Another version is that Kyle didn't point his gun at Rosenbaum and that Rosenbourn acted aggressively towards Kyle and began chasing Kyle around the car lot and then Kyle shot him after another gun was fired . 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, cmarshall said:

That's possible, but it's also possible that the jury is only hung on one or more counts, but has reached a verdict on others.  This seems likely to me.  I think Rittenhouse will be convicted for killing Rosenbaum at least.

If he is convicted of killing Rosenbaum then the defense can't claim self defense on the others as they acted lawfully in pursuing and trying to disarm Rittenhouse. I suspect a hung jury given the polarization of attitudes towards lax gun laws and vigilantism.

[ozimoron]

5 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

That is one version of events .

Another version is that Kyle didn't point his gun at Rosenbaum and that Rosenbourn acted aggressively towards Kyle and began chasing Kyle around the car lot and then Kyle shot him after another gun was fired . 

That would require the jury to believe that Rosenbaum acted spontaneously and without any provocation to attack a heavily armed person while unarmed. That's unlikely on the face of it, bipolar or not.

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 hour ago, bbko said:

Here's why I think the kid is guilty; in the USA the first amendment gives us freedom of speech right? But we don't have the freedom to yell "Fire" in a crowded movie theater as it would incite panic. 

 

The second amendment give us the right to bear arms, but to bear arms during a angry mob protest, in my opinion, is akin to yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, it's incendiary, it causes panic, and it's going to get a response. That's what this kid did.

 

The government needs to make a ruling on mob protests and openly carrying weapons, or we're going to see more killings like this event. But I bet the NRA and gun rights folks would fight tooth and nail against laws like that.  The sinking of America continues.

You have to go by the laws though , something (IYO) being akin to something else , doesn't make it illegal 

[cmarshall]

11 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

That is one version of events .

Another version is that Kyle didn't point his gun at Rosenbaum and that Rosenbourn acted aggressively towards Kyle and began chasing Kyle around the car lot and then Kyle shot him after another gun was fired . 

But Rittenhouse admitted on the stand that he knew that Rosenbaum was unarmed.  Since WI for all its lax gun laws does not have a "stand your ground" statute, Rittenhouse was obliged at all times to retreat from the unarmed Rosenbaum who never posed an immediate threat to Rittenhouse's life.  At the time he was shot, Rosenbaum was four feet away from Rittenhouse from which distance he could not immediately have seized Rittenhouse's assault rifle.

 

As far as I am aware Rosenbaum never did actually get his hand on Rittenhouse's gun.  Therefore, any threat that Rosenbaum could have presented was only possibly in the future, never an immediate threat as required to justify self-defense.

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

That would require the jury to believe that Rosenbaum acted spontaneously and without any provocation to attack a heavily armed person while unarmed. That's unlikely on the face of it, bipolar or not.

It is accepted that Rosenbaum  was acting aggressively in a confrontational manner and was out of self control and he was also suffering from mental problems 

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

It is accepted that Rosenbaum  was acting aggressively in a confrontational manner and was out of self control and he was also suffering from mental problems 

Prosecutors want to introduce a video from July 1, 2020, which they say shows Rittenhouse striking a teenage girl in the back at Kenosha’s lakefront.

"In both the July 1, 2020 incident and the August 25, 2020 incident, 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.

 

https://www.wpr.org/prosecution-wants-introduce-evidence-past-violence-kyle-rittenhouse-trial

 

I don't think it's accepted that Rosenbaum instigated the violent behavior. Merely pointing a gun at the crowd constitutes extreme violent behavior. The mental issues were excluded from evidence as irrelevant IIRC.