Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Posted

High school dropout.  Figures.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/10/us/kyle-rittenhouse-who-is.html

For much of his life, Mr. Rittenhouse had tried on identities infused with bravery and service, while exaggerating his accomplishments and eventually dropping out of high school.

 

He had idolized law enforcement since he was young, joining a cadet program for at-risk youths in his hometown, Antioch, Ill., and later decorating his social media pages with Blue Lives Matter images and praise for former President Donald J. Trump. At the time of the shootings, Mr. Rittenhouse was employed part-time as a lifeguard at a recreational complex in Pleasant Prairie, Wis., which borders Kenosha.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Rittenhouse was standing in a group armed with high powered weapons and pointed the gun at the crowd of demonstrators FIRST. The deceased person with the pistol was more than justified at pulling the gun and pointing it at Rittenhouse, he acted in self defense.

A group of 20-30 guys(with at least one of them carry a gun ) chasing one guy down the street , a guy who was trying to escape and clearly wasn't shooting , the shoot guy cannot claim self defence , as he clearly wasnt defending himself

  • Like 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Grosskreutz pointed a gun at Rittenhouse after he had already shot two people. Rittenhouse isn't acting in self defense at that point.

Kyle was acting in self defense at that point , whether you feel Grosskreutz pointing a gun at his head and killing Kyle would have been justified, is a different matter 

  • Like 2
Posted
1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

A mass shooter is acting in self defense after killing two people because someone tries to stop him with a gun? Is that your position?

Two people had already attacked Kyle and he used self defence to protect himself from their attacks , a third person then produced  a gun as an attack weapon and Kyle once again had to defend himself from another  attacker .

   You are trying to portray Kyle as a person walking around shooting innocent people for no reason , not even his defense are trying that angle

  • Like 2
Posted
On 11/14/2021 at 8:31 PM, Captain Monday said:

Acquittal (of any serious charge). People will riot again. Nothing will ever change to the rigged justice system, for generations. The "so called Judge" is a deeply biased racist who for the entire trial has kept his white thumb on the scale. He trolls the country with Lee Greenwood's  "God Bless the USA" Trump rally and supremacist anthem as his ringtone.

 

Yeah, maybe so. CNN's Jim Acosta Says Rittenhouse Judge Is 'Acting Like Archie Bunker'

Too funny.

 

Posted
1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

He was studying to be a medic , had intentions of going to univercity and becoming a medic , so, not a lie

He presented himself as a medic already. That was definitely a lie. 

  • Like 1
Posted

I wouldn’t want to be on the jury, since it’s a complicated jury.

 

There’s a good chance the jury won’t agree on a verdict. If I were a juror, I would convict on a lesser charge, reckless endangerment. I wouldn’t want to send a message by letting this guy go free.

  • Like 2
Posted
13 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Those people tried to stop Rittenhouse because he pointed his rifle at the crowd. They were entitled to attack him in self defense and in fear of being shot. It is reasonable to presume that somebody who points a high powered rifle at a crowd is going to use it. This occurred BEFORE they chased him and is the reason they chased him.

It isnt they chased him because he shot the first guy and the mob wanted revenge .

   He didn't point his gun at the mob who chased him , well he only pointed his gun at them to get them to leave him alone and to back off and he fired his gun when they attacked him . 

   Chasing people down the road isnt considered to be self defence , its considered to be an attack 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Posted
43 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Kyle was acting in self defense at that point , whether you feel Grosskreutz pointing a gun at his head and killing Kyle would have been justified, is a different matter 

Stunning how some support a murderer. Doesn't matter the circumstances. He came armed and ready for war. And killed 2 people. Horrible person.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Rittenhouse knew the first person was unarmed. He also wasn't within arms length and therefore not capable of grabbing Rittenhouse' gun. Rittenhouse then shot the victim 4 times after he fell to the ground, delivering the kill shot into the victim's back. Is it then any wonder why the others chased him? He was an active shooter. Those who chased him shouted that he was the shooter.

What a coward. Shoot someone in the back. One reason we don't want vigilantes like this armed and on the streets. Sad the police didn't unarm them and make them respect the curfew.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, ozimoron said:

They should let an active shooter escape?

They probably should have let the police handle the "active shooter" because it is safer that way. Just ask the two dead and the guy with half his arm missing.

Edited by fjb 24
  • Like 2
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, fjb 24 said:

They probably should have let the police handle the active shooter because it is safer that way. Just ask the two dead and the guy with half his arm missing.

Maybe they were in immediate fear of their lives? Are you suggesting that people shouldn't react to a person they perceive as about to commit a mass shooting?  Do you then concede that Rittenhouse should have let the police handle the crowd and was therefore a vigilante?

Edited by ozimoron
Posted
10 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Stunning how some support a murderer. Doesn't matter the circumstances. He came armed and ready for war. And killed 2 people. Horrible person.

Well, he isnt yet a murderer because the Court haven't yet delivered their verdict , but don't let facts or reality get in the way of your hatred .

   

  • Thanks 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, fjb 24 said:

They probably should have let the police handle the "active shooter" because it is safer that way. Just ask the two dead and the guy with half his arm missing.

Agreed. Make the armed vigilantes go home. They shot 3 people. Killing 2.

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Maybe they were in immediate fear of their lives? Are you suggesting that people shouldn't react to a person they perceive as about to commit a mass shooting?  Do you then concede that Rittenhouse should have let the police handle the crowd and was therefore a vigilante?

Well, my initial thoughts are that if someone is "fleeing" "running away" from something it's likely they are not in an "active shooter role" and that there are ways and means for the police to handle this. If not, then by all means defend ones self, but not when someone is running away and was not actively shooting or posing a threat as in this case.

Edited by fjb 24
  • Like 1
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...