44 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

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?

Maybe he's not sane, and just plain stupid and now, he has only half his arm. Would you chase him?

4 minutes ago, codemonkey said:

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.

The only thing "pathetic" about this whole situation is that there are supporters of a person who takes a fully loaded assault rifle across state lines and murders three people, and who call him a "True American hero"!

 

I can understand any posters rage on a stance which depicts him thus, it is normal, whereas the supporters of this idiot, are not.

 

57 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

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?

Actually, I think Gaige Grosskreutz, the EMT who always carried a pistol and pulled it on Rittenhouse, but couldn't bring himself to pull the trigger and instead got shot, is like most gun owners suffering from the same fantasies of heroic rescue that animated Rittenhouse.  Carrying a gun doesn't make you safer, it makes you less safe as we see from how it turned out for Grosskreutz.  The same is also true of Rittenhouse as well as Travis McMichael who gunned down the unarmed Ahmaud Arbery.  Rittenhouse and McMichael were afraid of being shot with their own weapons.  So, they the killed the unarmed guy instead.

 

All of them including Grosskreutz are idiots.

1 hour ago, cmarshall said:

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.

Again.  I am not equating the two.  I firmly recognize the obvious difference between Rittenhouse, Lanza, Paddock, etc.  Rittenhouse is not a mass shooter and no evidence has been presented that he had planned to go to Kenosha to commit mass murder. So being on your esteemed "ignorance" list should be a badger of honor?  

59 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

Actually, I think Gaige Grosskreutz, the EMT who always carried a pistol and pulled it on Rittenhouse, but couldn't bring himself to pull the trigger and instead got shot, is like most gun owners suffering from the same fantasies of heroic rescue that animated Rittenhouse.  Carrying a gun doesn't make you safer, it makes you less safe as we see from how it turned out for Grosskreutz.  The same is also true of Rittenhouse as well as Travis McMichael who gunned down the unarmed Ahmaud Arbery.  Rittenhouse and McMichael were afraid of being shot with their own weapons.  So, they the killed the unarmed guy instead.

 

All of them including Grosskreutz are idiots.

Being safer with a firearm has two very different components:  1) Actual intense training in the proper operation of the firearm.  Assembly, disassembly, loading, unloading and actually firing at the range 2) Most importantly intense and stressful training in how and when to actually use the firearm in real life scenario while under stress.  Most firearms owners never get to step 2.  Also, I am not a member of the NRA and never have been.  Anyone can hit a paper target at a range but few can properly use a firearm in the "real world".  

6 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

Again.  I am not equating the two.  I firmly recognize the obvious difference between Rittenhouse, Lanza, Paddock, etc.  Rittenhouse is not a mass shooter and no evidence has been presented that he had planned to go to Kenosha to commit mass murder. So being on your esteemed "ignorance" list should be a badger of honor?  

According to the jury instructions premeditation of murder even for one second is not required for any of the charges against Master R.

2 hours ago, cmarshall said:

Rittenhouse lost his legal claim to self-defense

Incorrect under WI statutes.

Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
^{(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.}

^939.48(2)(a)

Don't direct your rage at me, and get yourself a new lawyer.

7 minutes ago, codemonkey said:

Incorrect under WI statutes.

Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
^{(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.}

^939.48(2)(a)

Don't direct your rage at me, and get yourself a new lawyer.

The law you quoted invalidates your argument. Assuming, as is likely, that the prosecution can show that Rittenhouse pointed his gun at the crowd, he lost his right to self defense right there. He could not have reasonably assumed that he was bout to be killed or maimed with a plastic bag containing toiletries. Demonstrably, Rittenhouse held his ground once attacked and turned and shot Rosenbaum. The others were then entitled to use any force to disarm Rittenhouse.

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The law you quoted invalidates your argument. Assuming, as is likely, that the prosecution can show that Rittenhouse pointed his gun at the crowd, he lost his right to self defense right there. He could not have reasonably assumed that he was bout to be killed or maimed with a plastic bag containing toiletries. Demonstrably, Rittenhouse held his ground once attacked and turned and shot Rosenbaum. The others were then entitled to use any force to disarm Rittenhouse.

You are wrong, (again, as usual). The state has not proved the 3 necessary elements. You need better legal advise as well it seems.

1 hour ago, codemonkey said:

Incorrect under WI statutes.

Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
^{(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.}

^939.48(2)(a)

Don't direct your rage at me, and get yourself a new lawyer.

Reading comprehension not your strong point then?

 

The law you cite exactly confirms what I have been telling you.  It is only when an attacker, i.e. Rosenbaum, threatens the other person, i.e. Rittenhouse, with "death or great bodily harm" that the other person can respond with lethal force.  So, according to your text, Rittenhouse could claim self-defense for responding with a lesser degree of violence if attacked by Rosenbaum even if he had initiated the aggression, but not with lethal violence except in the case that Rosenbaum presented an immediate threat of death or great bodily harm to Rittenhouse, which, being unarmed, he never did.

 

Therefore, Rittenhouse's killing of Rosenbaum was not self-defense, but murder.

 

Q.E.D. and thank you for the citation of the WI law.

39 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

Therefore, Rittenhouse's killing of Rosenbaum was not self-defense, but murder.

Once you read and understand the elements of 1st degree intentional homicide in WI, (onus, burden of proof) maybe then you can grasp this, even though it's not overly complicated for most. I already gave you a hint.

The verdicts and or hangs will surely come Friday Kenosha time, yes!?!

Keep in mind that jurors are human. They aren't legal scholars. Often verdicts depend on the believability of the competing narrative stories. So boiled down its believe the Academy Award crying act or believe that after Master R murdered Rosenbaum the crowd had every right to chase and attack the active shooter. I still think it will be a mixed result with at least one felony conviction.

 

29 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

The verdicts and or hangs will surely come Friday Kenosha time, yes!?!

Not surely.  They have five counts to consider.  The Times cited a case in CA that went thirty-five hours on just two counts.  So far the Kenosha jury has twenty-three hours in.  

 

Here's my prediction:

 

First-degree reckless homicide of Rosenbaum:                     guilty

First-degree intentional homicide of Huber:                           not guilty

Two counts of first-degree recklessly endangering safety:   guilty and guilty

Attempted first-degree intentional homicide of Grosskreutz:   not guilty

 

For bonus points, Judge Schroeder's ruling on pending motions for mistrial:

 

On improper questioning of defendant on stand:                    sustained

On failure to discover a version of aerial surveillance tape:   denied

 

The fact that the jury has deliberated for so long without reporting themselves as hung to the judge suggests that they believe they can achieve consensus on the outstanding counts.  So, I think they won't be hung after all.

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Keep in mind that jurors are human. They aren't legal scholars. Often verdicts depend on the believability of the competing narrative stories. So boiled down its believe the Academy Award crying act or believe that after Master R murdered Rosenbaum the crowd had every right to chase and attack the active shooter. I still think it will be a mixed result with at least one felony conviction.

 

I don't believe Rittenhouse was faking his weeping on the stand.  He was clearly reliving the highly stressful events of that night to say nothing of how stressful it is to give testimony in the witness stand in the hopes of avoiding lifetime imprisonment.  Don't forget Rittenhouse was then and is now a child.

 

But he still deserves a long stretch in prison.

4 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

I don't believe Rittenhouse was faking his weeping on the stand.  He was clearly reliving the highly stressful events of that night to say nothing of how stressful it is to give testimony in the witness stand in the hopes of avoiding lifetime imprisonment.  Don't forget Rittenhouse was then and is now a child.

 

But he still deserves a long stretch in prison.

In any case as well pointed out by the state he hasn't expressed any remorse whatsoever.

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

In any case as well pointed out by the state he hasn't expressed any remorse whatsoever.

How long a prison term would you give him?

11 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

Not surely.  They have five counts to consider.  The Times cited a case in CA that went thirty-five hours on just two counts.  So far the Kenosha jury has twenty-three hours in.  

 

Here's my prediction:

 

First-degree reckless homicide of Rosenbaum:                     guilty

First-degree intentional homicide of Huber:                           not guilty

Two counts of first-degree recklessly endangering safety:   guilty and guilty

Attempted first-degree intentional homicide of Grosskreutz:   not guilty

 

For bonus points, Judge Schroeder's ruling on pending motions for mistrial:

 

On improper questioning of defendant on stand:                    sustained

On failure to discover a version of aerial surveillance tape:   denied

I still think they will be in a let's make a deal compromise mode on Friday and want to.get it over with.

Just now, cmarshall said:

How long a prison term would you give him?

If this wasn't a high profile case then 30 years. Because it is 10 years. The reason is to mitigate him being seen as a martyr.

Just now, Jingthing said:

If this wasn't a high profile case then 30 years. Because it is 10 years. The reason is to mitigate him being seen as a martyr.

I would have said twenty years, because of the depraved indifference to life he exhibited.  However, I notice that criminal sentences in the US tend to be longer than those in Europe, which I take to be a symptom of the peculiarly American love of punishment.  Breivik, who shot seventy-seven people in Norway, was sentenced to only twenty-one years and is soon coming up for parole after only ten.  In  light of the superior Norwegian penal system, I would adjust my recommendation to ten years.  

 

Either way his name will be forgotten long before he gets out.

16 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

In any case as well pointed out by the state he hasn't expressed any remorse whatsoever.

You mean this isn't remorse? ????????

1 minute ago, bbko said:

You mean this isn't remorse? ????????

That emotion is called "fear."

2 minutes ago, bbko said:

You mean this isn't remorse? ????????

No!

I meant remorse for the people he murdered and shot.

The crying was all about himself.

On 11/15/2021 at 5:00 AM, KhunLA said:

Not guilty, as it was self defense.  Obvious from the testimony given.

 

The prosecutor got it right when he said "you can't claim self defense when you, yourself create the danger" 

11 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

That emotion is called "fear."

I still think it was carefully coached bad acting. Total cringe.

23 minutes ago, bbko said:

You mean this isn't remorse? ????????

this isn't remorse either

16 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

this isn't remorse either

Indeed.

Note that the accused murderer is doing the white power hand signal here.

Of course the jury wasn't shown that nor were they told of a social media post where the baby faced vigilante expressed a desire to shoot people doing property damage.

 

https://www.newsweek.com/kyle-rittenhouse-ok-white-supremacist-proud-boys-1561465

Perhaps, I haven't followed this closely enough and it was already answered. Why was he alone and not in the close proximity to his armed companions?  Obviously he was the 'weakest link'. Specifically why was he running somewhere in the dark while being chased by Rosenbaum? Also why didn't he run in the direction of his armed companions after killing Rosenbaum?  if he was relying merely on force, their rifles would've provided a better 'cover'. Who knows this scenario could have easily become even deadlier, but the odds are Huber would still be alive. 

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

In any case as well pointed out by the state he hasn't expressed any remorse whatsoever.

To express remorse is also to admit guilt. 

37 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

To express remorse is also to admit guilt. 

He admits he did kill people.