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

[fjb 24]

2 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

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.”

That statement just plain lunacy and completely and utterly, totally false, misleading, and inflammatory. Don't forget the 2nd, concealed carry, right to bear arms, etc. That statement totally floored me when I heard it. Binger must be using his own set of state and federal laws or making them up as he goes. 

[Jeffr2]

From my link above.  A few of you need to read this.

 

Kenosha County Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger delivered the prosecution's opening statement and said the evidence will show that Rittenhouse chased down Rosenbaum and shot him four times, including a fatal shot to the back.

 

After Rosenbaum was shot, several people nearby tried to confront a fleeing Rittenhouse, who tripped and fell to the ground. The teenager shot twice at an unidentified person who kicked him; he fatally shot Huber, who charged him holding a skateboard; and he then shot Grosskreutz, who was holding a handgun, in the arm.

[Jeffr2]

Just now, fjb 24 said:

That statement just plain lunacy and completely and utterly, totally false, misleading, and inflammatory. Don't forget the 2nd, concealed carry, right to bear arms, etc. That statement totally floored me when I heard it. Binger must be using his own set of state and federal laws or making them up as he goes. 

Oh gosh.  Don't try to bring up the 2A.  What a cop out.

[Jeffr2]

A fatal shot to the back.  What a coward.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, fjb 24 said:

That statement just plain lunacy and completely and utterly, totally false, misleading, and inflammatory. Don't forget the 2nd, concealed carry, right to bear arms, etc. That statement totally floored me when I heard it. Binger must be using his own set of state and federal laws or making them up as he goes. 

Does the 2nd amendment cover pointing the gun at people as well?

[fjb 24]

1 minute ago, Jeffr2 said:

Oh gosh.  Don't try to bring up the 2A.  What a cop out.

Are you totally ridiculous?? If I have a gun in my possession I cannot use it for self defense?

 

Before you respond, try to think about that statement from binger and your stance on that.

[Mac Mickmanus]

9 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

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.

Although there were four shots fired  and just the third shot entered into his back, but don't let facts or reality get in the way of your hatred .

   If you want to believe that he's a mass murdering  nutter walking around shooting innocent people in the back for no reason , go ahead 

[Jeffr2]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Does the 2nd amendment cover pointing the gun at people as well?

Or manslaughter?

[ozimoron]

Just now, fjb 24 said:

Are you totally ridiculous?? If I have a gun in my possession I cannot use it for self defense?

 

Before you respond, try to think about that statement from binger and your stance on that.

Rittenhouse was threatening people with a high powered rifle. It doesn't get simpler than that.

[Jeffr2]

Just now, Mac Mickmanus said:

Although there were four shots fired  and just the third shot entered into his back, but don't let facts or reality get in the way of your hatred .

   If you want to believe that he's a mass murdering  nutter walking around shooting innocent people in the back for no reason , go ahead 

Just stating what was mentioned in the trial by others who know way more about this than you or I.  But don't let facts get in your way of defending this nutter.  Who shot UNARMED individuals.  Wow...

[Jeffr2]

2 minutes ago, fjb 24 said:

Are you totally ridiculous?? If I have a gun in my possession I cannot use it for self defense?

 

Before you respond, try to think about that statement from binger and your stance on that.

I've owned guns since I was 8 years old.  Went through all the hunter safety courses and have probably shot more guns than most on this forum.  Hunted all sorts of animals and birds.

 

I would NEVER own a gun like his.  Only nutters do that, not sportsmen.  And I would NEVER bring it out in public.  It goes against everything I was taught.  Totally unacceptable.

[Jeffr2]

You guys. Ponder on what Ozimoron posted.  Slowly.

 

Quote

Mr Rittenhouse kept firing, delivering what the prosecutor called the "kill shot" to Rosenbaum's back.

What a coward and incompetent individual.

[fjb 24]

5 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

I've owned guns since I was 8 years old.  Went through all the hunter safety courses and have probably shot more guns than most on this forum.  Hunted all sorts of animals and birds.

 

I would NEVER own a gun like his.  Only nutters do that, not sportsmen.  And I would NEVER bring it out in public.  It goes against everything I was taught.  Totally unacceptable.

That's good for you. I am happy. I know homies who shoot wild hogs, one with a 12 gauge the other with an AK from a chopper in Texas. To each his own.

[candide]

What also strikes me in this case is the total negligence from adults. It's not like the guy looked older than his age, he looked more like the kid who played in Rin-Tin-Tin!

The police saw him, even gave him a bottle of water (if I remember well), and no one said: "hey kid, you are looking quite young, show me your ID!" Same for the other vigilantes. One of them saw he was young and told him to stay by him. Why didn't he tell him to go back home?

[fjb 24]

22 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Rittenhouse was threatening people with a high powered rifle. It doesn't get simpler than that.

Where is the evidence he threatened anyone. He shot them for the reasons described in detail here and during the trial. I do not recall the defendant threatening anyone with his rifle.

[Mac Mickmanus]

9 minutes ago, candide said:

What also strikes me in this case is the total negligence from adults. It's not like the guy looked older than his age, he looked more like the kid who played in Rin-Tin-Tin!

The police saw him, even gave him a bottle of water (if I remember well), and no one said: "hey kid, you are looking quite young, show me your ID!" Same for the other vigilantes. One of them saw he was young and told him to stay by him. Why didn't he tell him to go back home?

He was 17, which is the age when you can join the USA army 

[Jeffr2]

12 minutes ago, fjb 24 said:

Where is the evidence he threatened anyone. He shot them for the reasons described in detail here and during the trial. I do not recall the defendant threatening anyone with his rifle.

This has been posted here several times.

[fjb 24]

6 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

This has been posted here several times.

Ok, so show some proof of that from the trial coverage as I am unable to see where defendant threatened anyone. He pointed and shot his weapon, exactly what is necessary when defending one's self against an imminent threat.  If he was "aggressive, as in pointing his weapon in a threatening manner, especially before he was attacked and had the loaded glock pointed at him, I cannot find this. Please share.

[BangkokReady]

56 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.

You didn't quote the prosecutor as saying the final shot was fatal (which is what I asked).  You quoted the prosecutor in calling it a kill shot, obviously the prosecutor is allowed to say something that there is no evidence for as he is making accusations.  This is what happens in trial "I put it to you...".  Also, the prosecutor has been extremely sketchy in terms of saying things he should not done, so you're on shaky ground there also.

 

56 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Your story here is based on what you want to believe and not any kind of published timeline or facts.

Wrong again.  Just double checked.  Got the number wrong, it was four shots in .7 seconds, but that is what was reported.  Facts.  Not what you want it to be, I'm afraid.

 

Bottom line is, the language you use is not representative of what really happened.  And it's obviously deliberate.

[BangkokReady]

49 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Kenosha County Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger delivered the prosecution's opening statement and said the evidence will show that Rittenhouse chased down Rosenbaum and shot him four times, including a fatal shot to the back.

He might have said that, but the evidence shows something very different.

[Mac Mickmanus]

5 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

This has been posted here several times.

It hasn't .

He raised his rifle in response to death threats towards him 

[BangkokReady]

41 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

You guys. Ponder on what Ozimoron posted.  Slowly.

 

What a coward and incompetent individual.

So ignore the facts?  Ponder false rhetoric and ignore the evidence of our eyes?

 

Why would any sane person do that?

[BangkokReady]

48 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

But don't let facts get in your way of defending this nutter.

Everyone but you is sticking to facts.

 

48 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Who shot UNARMED individuals.

Two out of three were armed.  And you can shoot unarmed people anyway, if they are trying to kill you.

 

I'm not sure how you can fail to understand this and keep saying things that are so wrong.

[BangkokReady]

54 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

A fatal shot to the back.  What a coward.

What are you talking about?  The guy was trying to take his gun from him for no reason.

 

He fired four shots in .7 seconds and one entered his back.

 

You're trying to make it sound like he shot him in the back deliberately, which is not the case.

 

If you only have lies, why bother?  The facts are available to everyone.  People aren't so stupid.

[Jeffr2]

12 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

What are you talking about?  The guy was trying to take his gun from him for no reason.

 

He fired four shots in .7 seconds and one entered his back.

 

You're trying to make it sound like he shot him in the back deliberately, which is not the case.

 

If you only have lies, why bother?  The facts are available to everyone.  People aren't so stupid.

So trying to take an assault rifle from someone is justification to shot them 4 times?  Once in the back? Wow.

[Mac Mickmanus]

58 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

 he fatally shot Huber, who charged him holding a skateboard; and he then shot Grosskreutz, who was holding a handgun, in the arm.

 

53 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

But don't let facts get in your way of defending this nutter.  Who shot UNARMED individuals.  Wow...

Within five minutes, you made two different posts that said the complete opposite of each other . 

[Mac Mickmanus]

10 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

So trying to take an assault rifle from someone is justification to shot them 4 times?  Once in the back? Wow.

It is yes, Kyles life would have been in danger had the other guy taken his gun from him, which justifies his actions 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

Just stupid gun laws mixed with a stupid kid. I feel he deserves a punishment but the lawmakers who let these situations be even close to legal are the guilty ones. 

The Ahmaud Arbery case is more clear cut. If his killers get off there will be riots I should think. 

[Mac Mickmanus]

2 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Just stupid gun laws mixed with a stupid kid. I feel he deserves a punishment but the lawmakers who let these situations be legal or semi legal are the guilty ones. 

The Ahmaud Arbery case is more clear cut. If his killers get off there will be riots I should think. 

Which USA laws do you think are unjust and should be changed ?

[ozimoron]

24 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

It hasn't .

He raised his rifle in response to death threats towards him 

Show us the evidence. The prosecutor, under oath, showed video evidence of Rittenhouse pointing his rifle at the demonstrators before he was chased. Why did they single out Rittenhouse to chase, can you explain that as well?