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

[Mac Mickmanus]

3 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

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.

Kyle did make a retreat by running away and then he got chased . 

  Can you lawfully shot someone who is chasing you and wants to attack you ?

[Mac Mickmanus]

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Merely pointing a gun at the crowd constitutes extreme violent behavior.

I cannot keep responding to that false claim , I will just let it stand and move on .

  I cannot keep posting that Kyle didnt do that , I keep posting it over and over again 

But , I will just accept it now because I cannot keep replying to the same false allegation over and over again 

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Kyle did make a retreat by running away and then he got chased . 

  Can you lawfully shot someone who is chasing you and wants to attack you ?

That still does not explain why Rosenbaum was triggered in the first place.

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

I cannot keep responding to that false claim , I will just let it stand and move on .

  I cannot keep posting that Kyle didnt do that , I keep posting it over and over again 

But , I will just accept it now because I cannot keep replying to the same false allegation over and over again 

Wait, what? Do you dispute that pointing an AR15 at a crowd constitutes violent behavior?I think the defense never disputed that fact AFTER the clearer version of the video was presented. They just wanted it excluded or a mistrial.

Edited November 19, 2021 by ozimoron

[Mac Mickmanus]

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

That still does not explain why Rosenbaum was triggered in the first place.

He was suicidal and had mental problems and was aggressive , maybe for those reasons 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

He was suicidal and had mental problems and was aggressive , maybe for those reasons 

Excluded from evidence. No proof that he was aggressive at the outset.

[cmarshall]

23 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Kyle did make a retreat by running away and then he got chased . 

  Can you lawfully shot someone who is chasing you and wants to attack you ?

Retreating after you have killed an unarmed person who never posed an immediate threat of death or grievous bodily harm to you does not fulfill your obligation to retreat to avoid the crazy person.

[sqwakvfr]

3 hours ago, ozimoron said:

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?

Then "All Lives Matter"?  Because a sports announcer said this on air was fired for being racially insensitive?  Also, AR15-favorite weapon of White Supremacist?  I have owned and used this weapon on a professional capacity.  I never knew I had this in common with White Supremacists?  Also, I am not White and I am not Black.  So Rittenhouse's motive for going to Kenosha was to kill black people? I believe Rittenhouse is a 17 year old who did something incredibly stupid.  He should have stayed home.  But in America you cannot be convicted of being a stupid 17 year old(at least not yet).  The Jury has already been intimidated(by now most of us are aware MSNBC hired a local stringer to follow the jury as it left the courthouse).  MSNBC has now been banned from the courthouse.  The Jury has been out now 3 days.  Based upon past outcomes in criminal trials the longer the jury it is more likely a hung jury will be announced soon?

[ozimoron]

Just now, sqwakvfr said:

Then "All Lives Matter"?  Because a sports announcer said this on air was fired for being racially insensitive?  Also, AR15-favorite weapon of White Supremacist?  I have owned and used this weapon on a professional capacity.  I never knew I had this in common with White Supremacists?  Also, I am not White and I am not Black.  So Rittenhouse's motive for going to Kenosha was to kill black people? I believe Rittenhouse is a 17 year old who did something incredibly stupid.  He should have stayed home.  But in America you cannot be convicted of being a stupid 17 year old(at least not yet).  The Jury has already been intimidated(by now most of us are aware MSNBC hired a local stringer to follow the jury as it left the courthouse).  MSNBC has now been banned from the courthouse.  The Jury has been out now 3 days.  Based upon past outcomes in criminal trials the longer the jury it is more likely a hung jury will be announced soon?

All lives matter is a dog whistle for white supremacists. There has never been any argument that white people are not disadvantaged by the police which is the basis of the slogan BLM.

There is no way you have used an AR15 in any professional capacity if its intended use was not to kill people. The gun is completely unsuited to farming or hunting.

[cmarshall]

3 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

Then "All Lives Matter"?  Because a sports announcer said this on air was fired for being racially insensitive?  Also, AR15-favorite weapon of White Supremacist?  I have owned and used this weapon on a professional capacity.  I never knew I had this in common with White Supremacists?  Also, I am not White and I am not Black.  So Rittenhouse's motive for going to Kenosha was to kill black people? I believe Rittenhouse is a 17 year old who did something incredibly stupid.  He should have stayed home.  But in America you cannot be convicted of being a stupid 17 year old(at least not yet).  The Jury has already been intimidated(by now most of us are aware MSNBC hired a local stringer to follow the jury as it left the courthouse).  MSNBC has now been banned from the courthouse.  The Jury has been out now 3 days.  Based upon past outcomes in criminal trials the longer the jury it is more likely a hung jury will be announced soon?

Rittenhouse was not indicted for being stupid, but for murder.

[Zikomat]

 If I shot at close range all those who have ever ran in my direction, all those who ever wanted to fight me, all those who ever raised their hand at me - I would have been on the list of serial killers for a long time already. You don’t shot people to death at the slightest sign of danger. It is not normal!

[cmarshall]

50 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

I cannot keep responding to that false claim , I will just let it stand and move on .

  I cannot keep posting that Kyle didnt do that , I keep posting it over and over again 

But , I will just accept it now because I cannot keep replying to the same false allegation over and over again 

Even if we were to accept your contention that Rittenhouse did not point his gun initially at Rosenbaum, it wouldn't lessen his guilt.  Rittenhouse at all times had a legal obligation to retreat from any threat that Rosenbaum may have posed to him with the only exception in the case that Rosenbaum posed an immediate threat of death or grievous bodily harm to Rittenhouse.  Only at that moment would firing his weapon at Rosenbaum have been protected as self-defense.  But that never happened.  Rosenbaum never got his hand on Rittenhouse's weapon whatever his intentions may have been and Rosenbaum had no weapon of his own.

 

Therefore, Rittenhouse is guilty of at least one of the counts of murder against him.

[Will B Good]

2 minutes ago, Zikomat said:

 If I shot at close range all those who have ever ran in my direction, all those who ever wanted to fight me, all those who ever raised their hand at me - I would have been on the list of serial killers for a long time already. You don’t shot people to death at the slightest sign of danger. It is not normal!

Even in America?

[Jingthing]

About the long deliberation sure it's a clue about a hung jury but it would be extraordinary if it was hung on ALL charges.

 

I hung a jury myself when there were two charges. I convicted on one and hung the other. My fellow jurors refused to even discuss the very technical fully documented evidence I saw that the prosecution failed to prove the second charge. Instead they tried to bully me, attack me with false accusations that I was a criminal like the accused, and a few even wished death upon me. I'm saying this because I think some people think there is something magical about juries. I would guess this jury is more like Lord of the flies.

Edited November 19, 2021 by Jingthing

[sqwakvfr]

39 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

All lives matter is a dog whistle for white supremacists. There has never been any argument that white people are not disadvantaged by the police which is the basis of the slogan BLM.

There is no way you have used an AR15 in any professional capacity if its intended use was not to kill people. The gun is completely unsuited to farming or hunting.

Ok.  Then call me a non-white supremacist.  So BLM should be re-branded as DBPLM(Disadvantaged By The Police Lives Matter???).  By Definition a firearm is intended to injure and/or kill.  In some instances killing another is legally justified.  This is the key issued in the Rittenhouse trial.  When the right to self defense from the imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury is gone then what comes next?  Group(AKA Mob) Justice? 

[sqwakvfr]

44 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

Rittenhouse was not indicted for being stupid, but for murder.

I never said he was indicted for being stupid.  

Edited November 19, 2021 by sqwakvfr

[cmarshall]

10 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

About the long deliberation sure it's a clue about a hung jury but it would be extraordinary if it was hung on ALL charges.

 

I hung a jury myself when there were two charges. I convicted on one and hung the other. My fellow jurors refused to even discuss the very technical fully documented evidence I saw that the prosecution failed to prove the second charge. Instead they tried to bully me, attack me with false accusations that I was a criminal like the accused, and a few even wished death upon me. I'm saying this because I think some people think there is something magical about juries. I would guess this jury is more like Lord of the flies.

Interesting story of jury duty.  I once participated in hanging the jury, but I wasn't the only holdout.  It was seven to five for conviction on a drug charge.  Some of the other jurors were annoyed at me, but I made a point of being courteous to every one of them.  For whatever reason it never got ugly.  I am sorry to hear that your jury duty was so unfortunate.  

 

In fact, in my case I refused to convict as an act of jury nullification of the anti-drug laws in New York City and especially the racially biased method of enforcing them.  That <deleted> off the judge who believed, no doubt sincerely, that juries are entitled to rule oonly n matters of fact, but not of law.  Nevertheless, he knew better than to take reprisals against a juror.

[cmarshall]

17 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

Ok.  Then call me a non-white supremacist.  So BLM should be re-branded as DBPLM(Disadvantaged By The Police Lives Matter???).  By Definition a firearm is intended to injure and/or kill.  In some instances killing another is legally justified.  This is the key issued in the Rittenhouse trial.  When the right to self defense from the imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury is gone then what comes next?  Group(AKA Mob) Justice? 

So, in your view even mass murderers like Adam Lanza who killed twenty-seven people at Sandy Hook would have retained a right of self defense against anyone with a weapon who tries to stop him with lethal force?  Does that include against the police?  

 

I don't think you have thought this through.

[codemonkey]

3 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Excluded from evidence. No proof that he was aggressive at the outset.

Much of the trial witness testimony described the actions of Rosenbaum (if you are referring to him) as aggressive and threatening towards the defendant and others during the riots that evening. There is no question of that if you consider all the facts put forth by the defense in this case. The prosecution ostensibly disagrees but fails to refute the trial testimony. He also (state / Binger) failed to show any evidence of threatening or aggressive behavior by Rittenhouse who claims he fired his weapon only in self defense and that now will be decided by the jury or perhaps the judge may consider declaring a mistrial after a jury verdict in light of previous defense motions and the recent actions of MSNBC.

 

There is zero credible evidence, and only prosecution suggestions that Rosenbaum displayed no aggressive or threatening behaviour. It's quite clear in fact that he did.

There are a plethora of news and media sources attesting to the above. I can add them as required, if necessary.

[sqwakvfr]

1 hour ago, cmarshall said:

So, in your view even mass murderers like Adam Lanza who killed twenty-seven people at Sandy Hook would have retained a right of self defense against anyone with a weapon who tries to stop him with lethal force?  Does that include against the police?  

 

I don't think you have thought this through.

wow.  What Lanza did and what Rittenhouse did are worlds apart.  I have thought this through.  One is a mass murderer.  The other is stupid 17 year old with a long rifle who went to place where he had no business going to.  So  are you classifying  any use of deadly force as illegal and unjustified. I believe equating Sandy Hook, Columbine, Stoneman or even MGM Grand to what  Rittenhouse did in Kenosha is not logical or cogent.  Of course this my opinion and others will disagree without accusing me of "not thinking this through". 

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, codemonkey said:

Much of the trial witness testimony described the actions of Rosenbaum (if you are referring to him) as aggressive and threatening towards the defendant and others during the riots that evening. There is no question of that if you consider all the facts put forth by the defense in this case. The prosecution ostensibly disagrees but fails to refute the trial testimony. He also (state / Binger) failed to show any evidence of threatening or aggressive behavior by Rittenhouse who claims he fired his weapon only in self defense and that now will be decided by the jury or perhaps the judge may consider declaring a mistrial after a jury verdict in light of previous defense motions and the recent actions of MSNBC.

 

There is zero credible evidence, and only prosecution suggestions that Rosenbaum displayed no aggressive or threatening behaviour. It's quite clear in fact that he did.

There are a plethora of news and media sources attesting to the above. I can add them as required, if necessary.

Yes please, add the media and news evidence. I'm sick of folks making claims without such evidence.

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

wow.  What Lanza did and what Rittenhouse did are worlds apart.  I have thought this through.  One is a mass murderer.  The other is stupid 17 year old with a long rifle who went to place where he had no business going to.  So  are you classifying  any use of deadly force as illegal and unjustified. I believe equating Sandy Hook, Columbine, Stoneman or even MGM Grand to what  Rittenhouse did in Kenosha is not logical or cogent.  Of course this my opinion and others will disagree without accusing me of "not thinking this through". 

The crowd obviously thought that Rittenhouse was another mass murderer. Why else would a sane man chase somebody armed with an AR15 while unarmed or only with a pistol?

[cmarshall]

4 minutes ago, codemonkey said:

Much of the trial witness testimony described the actions of Rosenbaum (if you are referring to him) as aggressive and threatening towards the defendant and others during the riots that evening. There is no question of that if you consider all the facts put forth by the defense in this case. The prosecution ostensibly disagrees but fails to refute the trial testimony. He also (state / Binger) failed to show any evidence of threatening or aggressive behavior by Rittenhouse who claims he fired his weapon only in self defense and that now will be decided by the jury or perhaps the judge may consider declaring a mistrial after a jury verdict in light of previous defense motions and the recent actions of MSNBC.

 

There is zero credible evidence, and only prosecution suggestions that Rosenbaum displayed no aggressive or threatening behaviour. It's quite clear in fact that he did.

There are a plethora of news and media sources attesting to the above. I can add them as required, if necessary.

You don't get it.  Rosenbaum's being aggressive and even threatening, even if true, do not justify shooting him.  Only if Rosenbaum posed an immediate threat of death or grievous bodily harm to Rittenhouse would Rittenhouse's shooting him be protected as an act of self-defense.  There has been no evidence that Rosenbaum ever posed such a threat.  He had no weapon.  At the time that Rittenhouse shot him he was four feet away from Rittenhouse.  He never got at grip on Rittenhouse's assault rifle, much less did he come close to getting possession of it.  

 

Therefore, Rosenbaum never posed an immediate threat of death or grievous bodily harm to Rittenhouse.  So, Rittenhouse's killing of Rosenbaum was murder, not self-defense.

[cmarshall]

9 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

wow.  What Lanza did and what Rittenhouse did are worlds apart.  I have thought this through.  One is a mass murderer.  The other is stupid 17 year old with a long rifle who went to place where he had no business going to.  So  are you classifying  any use of deadly force as illegal and unjustified. I believe equating Sandy Hook, Columbine, Stoneman or even MGM Grand to what  Rittenhouse did in Kenosha is not logical or cogent.  Of course this my opinion and others will disagree without accusing me of "not thinking this through". 

A person who persistently claims not to recognize the difference between plain old stupid teenager behavior and shooting an unarmed victim to death has earned a place of prominence on my ignore list.

[codemonkey]

15 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

You don't get it.  Rosenbaum's being aggressive and even threatening, even if true, do not justify shooting him.  Only if Rosenbaum posed an immediate threat of death or grievous bodily harm to Rittenhouse would Rittenhouse's shooting him be protected as an act of self-defense.  There has been no evidence that Rosenbaum ever posed such a threat.  He had no weapon.  At the time that Rittenhouse shot him he was four feet away from Rittenhouse.  He never got at grip on Rittenhouse's assault rifle, much less did he come close to getting possession of it.  

 

Therefore, Rosenbaum never posed an immediate threat of death or grievous bodily harm to Rittenhouse.  So, Rittenhouse's killing of Rosenbaum was murder, not self-defense.

I don't get what?

I am referring to the issue of Rosenbaums aggressive behavior, nothing else. You however seem confused by that. Why so aggressive?

[Phoenix Rising]

Let me tell you a story. A 17 y/o kid grabs his fully loaded semi-automatic rifle and drives across state lines to confront possibly hostile demonstrators.

 

Many Americans; "OK, and then what happens?"

 

Some Americans (not nearly enough) and pretty much the rest of the world; "Wait, what???"

[cmarshall]

2 minutes ago, codemonkey said:

I don't get what?

I am referring to the issue of Rosenbaums aggressive behavior, nothing else. You however seem confused by that. Why so aggressive?

Whatever aggressive behavior Rosenbaum might have exhibited toward Rosenbaum is completely, 100% irrelevant to the murder charge in Rittenhouse's indictment.  No matter how aggressive Rosenbaum was it doesn't justify Rittenhouse's shooting him unless and until Rosenbaum threatens Rittenhouse with immediate death or grievous injury, which he never did.  Only under that degree of immediate threat would Rittenhouse's shooting of Rosenbaum have been protected as self-defense.

 

Talking about Rosenbaum's aggressive behavior that does not rise to that degree of threat no more justifies his killing than complaining that he picked his nose in an offensive manner.

[The Cipher]

You guys have been arguing about this for literally 22 pages and hundreds of comments and not one person has changed their minds.

 

If the jury is anything like this place (probable), it's gonna be a loooooong process.

[codemonkey]

7 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

Whatever aggressive behavior Rosenbaum might have exhibited toward Rosenbaum is completely, 100% irrelevant to the murder charge in Rittenhouse's indictment.  No matter how aggressive Rosenbaum was it doesn't justify Rittenhouse's shooting him unless and until Rosenbaum threatens Rittenhouse with immediate death or grievous injury, which he never did.  Only under that degree of immediate threat would Rittenhouse's shooting of Rosenbaum have been protected as self-defense.

 

Talking about Rosenbaum's aggressive behavior that does not rise to that degree of threat no more justifies his killing than complaining that he picked his nose in an offensive manner.

Wow, you are a tad deranged by all this. Would it make you happy if I go away now and leave you to your pathetic rage.

[cmarshall]

3 minutes ago, The Cipher said:

You guys have been arguing about this for literally 22 pages and hundreds of comments and not one person has changed their minds.

 

If the jury is anything like this place (probable), it's gonna be a loooooong process.

I changed my mind.  Originally, I was persuaded by an online lawyer's commentary that since Rittenhouse was chased by the crowd, Rittenhouse was not the aggressor and that his killing might indeed meet the legal standard of self-defense even if Rittenhouse was otherwise morally repugnant.  However, further discussion by more than one lawyer, not in this thread, persuaded me that Rittenhouse lost his legal claim to self-defense either when he pointed his gun at Rosenbaum and/or others, if he actually did that, or when he shot Rosenbaum without ever having been under immediate threat of death or grievous bodily harm from Rosenbaum.  From that point on Rittenhouse was an active shooter and a murderer whom the people chasing him were trying to disarm.

 

So, you can speak for yourself as your capacity to process new information.