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

[Jeffr2]

2 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

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 .

   

He did kill 2. We'll call it manslaughter then.

[Jeffr2]

1 minute ago, fjb 24 said:

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 but someone running away was not actively shooting in this case.

He started by pointing his gun at others. And was running because he just shot someone. AKA active shooter.

[BangkokReady]

6 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

shot in the back with an AR15? What do you think?

So that's a no.  You shouldn't lie in your posts.  It makes what you say seem biased and unreliable.

 

What I mean to say is, there seems to be no evidence to suggest that the final shot fired was the shot that caused his death (and that doesn't affect the rest of this point anyway), so saying "he fired the kill shot into his back" was said by you not to make a factual claim, but to make an emotional claim (which you have no evidence for).  You also use words that would be associated with hunting and deliberate killing, to try and make it sound like the killing was calculated and done not for self defense but for sport.

 

Also, the fact that the final shot was into his back has no relevance, as he fired the shots in such a quick succession, he would have spun quickly and Rittenhouse would have not had any time to actually be making a conscious decision to fire into his back.  I believe it was: threat, bang-bang-bang-bang-bang-bang-bang in less than a second to end the threat.

 

What you want to make it sound like is that Rittenhouse shot the guy a number of times, with enough of an interval between shots that he essential took aim at the guy's back and deliberately and knowingly fired, which I don't believe happened.  So you're not really being honest.

 

It's the same as trying to call the people shot by Rittenhouse "victims".  They're only victims if he wasn't acting in self-defense, so to want to have them referred to as victims in the court is to remove the presumption of innocence.  Imagine if the prosecution wanted the people that were shot to be referred to as "those people that the defendant deliberately murdered", that's the same thing.

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 minute ago, Jeffr2 said:

He started by pointing his gun at others. And was running because he just shot someone. AKA active shooter.

No, an active shooting is a person who is  actively shooting, trying to shoot people , Kyle wasnt trying to shoot anyone , he was trying to escape the situation and thus wasnt an active shooter 

[BangkokReady]

3 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

He started by pointing his gun at others. And was running because he just shot someone. AKA active shooter.

You do know that simply because you say "opinion + he was an active shooter" that doesn't make him an active shooter, right?

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

So that's a no.  You shouldn't lie in your posts.  It makes what you say seem biased and unreliable.

 

What I mean to say is, there seems to be no evidence to suggest that the final shot fired was the shot that caused his death (and that doesn't affect the rest of this point anyway), so saying "he fired the kill shot into his back" was said by you not to make a factual claim, but to make an emotional claim (which you have no evidence for).  You also use words that would be associated with hunting and deliberate killing, to try and make it sound like the killing was calculated and done not for self defense but for sport.

 

Also, the fact that the final shot was into his back has no relevance, as he fired the shots in such a quick succession, he would have spun quickly and Rittenhouse would have not had any time to actually be making a conscious decision to fire into his back.  I believe it was: threat, bang-bang-bang-bang-bang-bang-bang in less than a second to end the threat.

 

What you want to make it sound like is that Rittenhouse shot the guy a number of times, with enough of an interval between shots that he essential took aim at the guy's back and deliberately and knowingly fired, which I don't believe happened.  So you're not really being honest.

 

It's the same as trying to call the people shot by Rittenhouse "victims".  They're only victims if he wasn't acting in self-defense, so to want to have them referred to as victims in the court is to remove the presumption of innocence.  Imagine if the prosecution wanted the people that were shot to be referred to as "those people that the defendant deliberately murdered", that's the same thing.

I quoted the prosecutor. He would not willfully lie under oath. The other shots were presumably not immediately fatal, a shot in the back with an AR15 is pretty much always instantly fatal. Your story here is based on what you want to believe and not any kind of published timeline or facts.

[fjb 24]

2 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

No, an active shooting is a person who is  actively shooting, trying to shoot people , Kyle wasnt trying to shoot anyone , he was trying to escape the situation and thus wasnt an active shooter 

 

3 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

No, an active shooting is a person who is  actively shooting, trying to shoot people , Kyle wasnt trying to shoot anyone , he was trying to escape the situation and thus wasnt an active shooter 

The evidence, both witness testimony and video's show this quite clearly, that the "active shooter" was not SHOOTING anyone or anything while attempting to flee the mob.

An active shooter would or may have assumed the position and emptied the mag, which we all know did not happen.

[ozimoron]

7 minutes ago, fjb 24 said:

 

The evidence, both witness testimony and video's show this quite clearly, that the "active shooter" was not SHOOTING anyone or anything while attempting to flee the mob.

An active shooter would or may have assumed the position and emptied the mag, which we all know did not happen.

People need to wait until someone who points a semi automatic rifle at them starts shooting now? At that point he has already committed a felony offense.

Edited November 17, 2021 by ozimoron

[PoorSucker]

On 11/14/2021 at 8:24 PM, Jingthing said:

but will be convicted on one of the lesser charges related to excessive force.

Think the judge thrown out the weapon charges.

[ramrod711]

So you're sitting at home in Illinois watching the news. You grab your weapon and head for Wisconsin. Obviously you believe that you are Davy Crockett heading for the Alamo. Arriving in Wisconsin, you hit the streets, claiming along the way that "it's my job". After killing one and wounding two, you claim self defense, just like you were still in Illinois minding your own business. Clearly acquittal will lead to people travelling to places like Charlotte for participation in riots. I hope this young man faces a severe penalty.

[Jingthing]

Just now, PoorSucker said:

Think the judge thrown out the weapon charges.

There are numerous lesser charges in effect but they are all felonies.

[4MyEgo]

On 11/15/2021 at 6:24 AM, Jingthing said:

Have y'all been watching this trial?

I've watched two YouTube video's and discussed with a few friends, personally I believe the guy will be charged with manslaughter, e.g. he didn't deliberately set out to murder people, however had a firearm and shot people, he says in self defence.

 

The guy doesn't appear to be all there in my opinion, I mean, who in their right mind would go to a place where there is a riot happening to protect someone's business and take their firearm and into another state if I am not mistaken.

 

He might be young, but hey at 17-18 unless he is not all there, you would think he knew better, guns kill, and to be honest, he had no place being there.

 

Two lives have been lost because of his actions and one man has been wounded, I mean one has to ask would he be man enough to go there barehanded, no, and one question I have is, what is with the light blue surgical gloves, is that on case he had to ditch the gun so that no finger prints could be lifted if he did ditch it if he got in trouble or gun powder residue on his hands ?

 

He will have to do time in my opinion as the others were unarmed from my understanding, 10-20 years wouldn't be unheard of and would send a message to others, i.e. don't go to riots and don't carry a firearm unless it's registered to you and in the state your in, simple, he broke the law on all counts, e.g. if he wasn't there with a firearm, two people wouldn't be dead.

 

As for the guy who gave him the gun, he should also be charged for providing him with it.

 

[PoorSucker]

Same people that think it was wrong to shoot the rioter Ashli Bobott think it was OK for Kyle to shoot rioters.

[fjb 24]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I quoted the prosecutor. He would not willfully lie under oath. The other shots were presumably not immediately fatal, a shot in the back with an AR15 is pretty much always instantly fatal. Your story here is based on what you want to believe and not any kind of published timeline or facts.

I didn't watch the prosecution's case, but I heard snipets of him "misleading" the court.

https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/commentary-prosecutor-in-kyle-rittenhouse-falsely-implies-that-rittenhouse-joseph-rosenbaum-shot-him-in-the-back

https://detroitdailynews.com/2021/11/08/the-kyle-rittenhouse-prosecutor-just-got-caught-in-a-huge-lie/

[Mac Mickmanus]

5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

People need to wait until someone who points a semi automatic rifle at them starts shooting now?

Yes, to be classified as an active shooter , you would need to be actively shooting .

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, 4MyEgo said:

I've watched two YouTube video's and discussed with a few friends, personally I believe the guy will be charged with manslaughter, e.g. he didn't deliberately set out to murder people, however had a firearm and shot people, he says in self defence.

 

The guy doesn't appear to be all there in my opinion, I mean, who in their right mind would go to a place where there is a riot happening to protect someone's business and take their firearm and into another state if I am not mistaken.

 

He might be young, but hey at 17-18 unless he is not all there, you would think he knew better, guns kill, and to be honest, he had no place being there.

 

Two lives have been lost because of his actions and one man has been wounded, I mean one has to ask would he be man enough to go there barehanded, no, and one question I have is, what is with the light blue surgical gloves, is that on case he had to ditch the gun so that no finger prints could be lifted if he did ditch it if he got in trouble or gun powder residue on his hands ?

 

He will have to do time in my opinion as the others were unarmed from my understanding, 10-20 years wouldn't be unheard of and would send a message to others, i.e. don't go to riots and don't carry a firearm unless it's registered to you and in the state your in, simple, he broke the law on all counts, e.g. if he wasn't there with a firearm, two people wouldn't be dead.

 

As for the guy who gave him the gun, he should also be charged for providing him with it.

 

The gun supplier is being prosecuted.

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Yes, to be classified as an active shooter , you would need to be actively shooting .

My question was were they reasonably justified in chasing him after he pointed the AR15 at them. As I said, that action itself was a felony offense. I can't help but think that under easily imaginable different circumstances your team would be hailing those who died as heroes.

[fjb 24]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

The gun supplier is being prosecuted.

Was Grosskreutz, the guy that pointed the guy at Kyle R charged with unlawful gun possession?

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

My question was were they reasonably justified in chasing him after he pointed the AR15 at them. As I said, that action itself was a felony offense. I can't help but think that under easily imaginable different circumstances your team would be hailing those who died as heroes.

Although he didn't point his gun at the people who were chasing him . 

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Although he didn't point his gun at the people who were chasing him . 

Got a link for that? The prosecutor showed video evidence that he claimed showed otherwise. Did he need to specifically point the gun at them before they were justified in trying to prevent a shooting and apprehend him?

Edited November 17, 2021 by ozimoron

[Jeffr2]

20 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

No, an active shooting is a person who is  actively shooting, trying to shoot people , Kyle wasnt trying to shoot anyone , he was trying to escape the situation and thus wasnt an active shooter 

Come on. He was armed for battle. Drove from out of state and was walking around with a war weapon. Under age. High school dropout. So obviously not very smart. He lied about being a medical. Stunning some support him so strongly.

 

He is seen pointing his weapon at others. A nutter.

[Mac Mickmanus]

Just now, ozimoron said:

Got a link for that? The prosecutor showed video evidence that he claimed showed otherwise.

I replied to that same question a few posts back 

[lannarebirth]

10 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

I've watched two YouTube video's and discussed with a few friends, personally I believe the guy will be charged with manslaughter, e.g. he didn't deliberately set out to murder people, however had a firearm and shot people, he says in self defence.

 

The guy doesn't appear to be all there in my opinion, I mean, who in their right mind would go to a place where there is a riot happening to protect someone's business and take their firearm and into another state if I am not mistaken.

 

He might be young, but hey at 17-18 unless he is not all there, you would think he knew better, guns kill, and to be honest, he had no place being there.

 

Two lives have been lost because of his actions and one man has been wounded, I mean one has to ask would he be man enough to go there barehanded, no, and one question I have is, what is with the light blue surgical gloves, is that on case he had to ditch the gun so that no finger prints could be lifted if he did ditch it if he got in trouble or gun powder residue on his hands ?

 

He will have to do time in my opinion as the others were unarmed from my understanding, 10-20 years wouldn't be unheard of and would send a message to others, i.e. don't go to riots and don't carry a firearm unless it's registered to you and in the state your in, simple, he broke the law on all counts, e.g. if he wasn't there with a firearm, two people wouldn't be dead.

 

As for the guy who gave him the gun, he should also be charged for providing him with it.

 

I believe the guy who gave him the gun is or will be charged and I imagine they will throw the book at him.

[Jeffr2]

2 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Although he didn't point his gun at the people who were chasing him . 

Ummm...if not, then how were 3 shoot?

[Mac Mickmanus]

Just now, Jeffr2 said:

Ummm...if not, then how were 3 shoot?

He pointing his gun at them and  shot them after they had caught him and when the chase was no longer in process .

   

 

[fjb 24]

9 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

My question was were they reasonably justified in chasing him after he pointed the AR15 at them.

 

7 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Come on. He was armed for battle. Drove from out of state and was walking around with a war weapon. Under age. High school dropout. So obviously not very smart. He lied about being a medical. Stunning some support him so strongly.

 

He is seen pointing his weapon at others. A nutter.

Self defense trumps on your assumptions and rhetoric.

It's like the convicted felon who aimed his glock at the defendant and only lost half an arm, NEVER do that unless u plan on putting hot lead into someone! 

Crossing the state line is irrelevant and nothing else you mutter matters much in the scheme of things when someone is protecting ones life and limbs and THAT is the central argument here. 1000's of illegals cross into the US and no one seems to care. Maybe some have flunked out of high school, what does it matter. Not sure if the judge charged the jury with all the inadmissible testimony but self defense justification is the theme of the day in this trial.

Edited November 17, 2021 by fjb 24

[Jeffr2]

4 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

He pointing his gun at them and  shot them after they had caught him and when the chase was no longer in process .

   

 

https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-jacob-blake-wisconsin-kenosha-homicide-a5ee515a50f77ea4993bf7176859ef57

 

In closing arguments, prosecutor Thomas Binger said Rittenhouse was a “wannabe soldier” and was “looking for trouble that night.” Binger repeatedly showed the jury drone video that he said depicted Rittenhouse pointing the AR-style weapon at demonstrators.

 

“This is the provocation. This is what starts this incident,” the prosecutor declared.

 

He told the jury: “You lose the right to self-defense when you’re the one who brought the gun, when you are the one creating the danger, when you’re the one provoking other people.”

[Jingthing]

12 minutes ago, fjb 24 said:

Was Grosskreutz, the guy that pointed the guy at Kyle R charged with unlawful gun possession?

No.

[Jeffr2]

And you guys are trying to defend this nutter?  Amazing.

 

https://www.cbs58.com/news/opening-statements-begin-in-kyle-rittenhouses-homicide-trial

"It isn't a whodunit," defense attorney Mark Richards said.

 

Rittenhouse, now 18, fired an AR-15-style weapon eight times in all during the unrest: four shots at an unarmed Joseph Rosenbaum, two shots at an unarmed unknown individual, one shot at an unarmed Anthony Huber and one shot at an armed Gaige Grosskreutz, Binger said.

[Jeffr2]

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.