Kyle Rittenhouse - The Truth in 11 Minutes

[ASHES]

I find this dubious. Police detectives are not as dense as laymen tend to give them credit for. Kenosha PD Forensics knows who shot first and when. They have more evidence than one blurry video on the internet, and they still decided to pursue murder charges. That means Rittenhouse is likely guilty of murder. Whether the charges will stick is another matter, and we will likely see the evidence they used to come to the conclusion to charge him once the trial starts.

You are assuming the police made the decision to charge after detectives concluded a complete investigation of a very complex case with likely dozens of videos to analyze, dozens of shell casings to analyze, all the ballistic trajectories, hundreds of witnesses to interview, etc. No, the charge was decided within 24 hours by the DA, before all the evidence at the scene had even been collected.

 

[lwf]

You are assuming the police made the decision to charge after detectives concluded a complete investigation of a very complex case with likely dozens of videos to analyze, dozens of shell casings to analyze, all the ballistic trajectories, hundreds of witnesses to interview, etc. No, the charge was decided within 24 hours by the DA, before all the evidence at the scene had even been collected.

If so, then there has been plenty of time to gather enough evidence to drop the charges if warranted.

You are assuming that the DA charges against Rittenhouse are entirely political.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

You are mistaken. I was quoting Wisconsin law when I said: "A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense."

Otherwise a man who sticks up a convenience store and then shoots the armed clerk could claim the privilege of self defense. If you are engaged in committing a crime with a deadly weapon, you have no right to use that weapon in self defense.

That's not what the statute is saying. It's referring to, as it says, conduct intended to provoke an attack with the intent of using that attack as a basis for self-defense loses their claim to defense. It has nothing to do with a stickup man at a convenience store. In that case, the conduct would be unlawful but not intended to provoke an attack. This section would not apply.

 

[ASHES]

If so, then there has been plenty of time to gather enough evidence to drop the charges if warranted.

You are assuming that the DA charges against Rittenhouse are entirely political.

I'm not assuming that. I think it is possible, and there are things that make it look that way, such as not dropping the charges yet despite the lack of publicly available evidence that this was anything but self-defense (even in the charging documents). I think the charges will be dismissed but the authorities may not know how to do that without provoking a riot. But I'm also willing to wait for any of this secret evidence that's supposed to vindicate the narrative that Kyle was just out killing indiscriminately with malice. If incriminating evidence comes out that would provide clarity to currently fuzzy parts of the timeline, then I will support the charges.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

The video looks like self defense. But it is out of context. We don't know why he was running or why he was being chased. If he was being chased because he had committed a crime, then it may not be self defense at all. It may be murder.

This would make sense as to why people with access to more than just the public video evidence decided to charge him with murder.

This is all true. But it is still assuming facts that have no supporting evidence. Until the trial, we won't know exactly what the prosecution has, and they may have something that turns this all on its head. But they haven't released that yet, if they even have it. Until then, it's best to form opinions based on what we have in front of us, while keeping an open mind to what may come later. It is not best to concoct scenarios and imagine what the prosecution might have and base opinions on that.

 

[lwf]

This is all true. But it is still assuming facts that have no supporting evidence. Until the trial, we won't know exactly what the prosecution has, and they may have something that turns this all on its head. But they haven't released that yet, if they even have it. Until then, it's best to form opinions based on what we have in front of us, while keeping an open mind to what may come later. It is not best to concoct scenarios and imagine what the prosecution might have and base opinions on that.

No argument. But I find it unlikely that he was arrested and charged with murder based on nothing but said video evidence.

 

[ASHES]

No argument. But I find it unlikely that he was arrested and charged with murder based on nothing but said video evidence.

The evidence used to charge him with intentional first degree homicide and the rest is all in the prosecution's charging documents. Unless I'm forgetting something, it is based on publicly available footage and the testimony of McGinnis.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

 

[Grizzly Adams]

...they still decided to pursue murder charges. That means Rittenhouse is likely guilty of murder.

If you are ever called for jury duty, I beg of you to disclose this opinion during your voir dire. You are unfit to serve as an impartial juror who decides if the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the charges they have filed against the accused. You've turned the burden of proof on its head and disregarded entirely the presumption of innocence.

Justice would be best served without you in a jury box.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

No argument. But I find it unlikely that he was arrested and charged with murder based on nothing but said video evidence.

Whether he was or wasn't, making up evidence the prosecution might have and then making arguments based on that made-up evidence serves no one. And that's exactly what you were doing when you suggested that Rittenhouse had committed some crime before Rosenbaum started chasing him.

 

[lwf]

Whether he was or wasn't, making up evidence the prosecution might have and then making arguments based on that made-up evidence serves no one. And that's exactly what you were doing when you suggested that Rittenhouse had committed some crime before Rosenbaum started chasing him.

I was not. I merely stated that self defense privilege doesn't apply if it occurs during the commission of a crime. IF Rittenhouse committed a crime, THEN he does not have the privilege of self defense. I never argued that he committed a crime.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

These offices weigh and balance likelihood of conviction. They go for “W’s”, not political statements.

There are a few cops in Atlanta who would probably disagree with this statement. You know, the ones who got charged with aggravated assault for using a taser against someone, then the cop who got charged with murder for using deadly force against someone using a taser against him. This was the same DA and the charges were separated by one week.

Tell me again how DAs don't do political statements?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

I was not. I merely stated that self defense privilege doesn't apply if it occurs during the commission of a crime. IF Rittenhouse committed a crime, THEN he does not have the privilege of self defense. I never argued that he committed a crime.

First, you still made up stuff and made an argument based on it.

Second, your assertion that a criminal act eliminates any possibility of a self-defense claim is just not true. If I'm jaywalking (a crime) and a pissed-off motorist jumps out of his car with a hatchet, am I still allowed to defend myself? Or do I have to drink my hemlock because I was asking for it by jaywalking?

 

[lwf]

First, you still made up stuff and made an argument based on it.

Second, your assertion that a criminal act eliminates any possibility of a self-defense claim is just not true. If I'm jaywalking (a crime) and a pissed-off motorist jumps out of his car with a hatchet, am I still allowed to defend myself? Or do I have to drink my hemlock because I was asking for it by jaywalking?

I am not arguing that Rittenhouse was committing a crime. I am arguing that the Kenosha Justice Department would not charge a man with murder if it was clear that he was acting in self defense.

You are arguing that they would.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

I am not arguing that Rittenhouse was committing a crime. I am arguing that the Kenosha Justice Department would not charge a man with murder if it was clear that he was acting in self defense.

...and then speculating about what evidence they might have with no evidence to support such speculation.

You are arguing that they would.

Politically motivated charges (or declinations to prosecute) are not impossible. Based on what evidence we have, this appears to be so in this case. Until evidence to the contrary surfaces, this is my conclusion.

 

[lwf]

...and then speculating about what evidence they might have with no evidence to support such speculation.

So what? Speculation is the whole purpose of this thread, is it not?

Politically motivated charges (or declinations to prosecute) are not impossible. Based on what evidence we have, this appears to be so in this case. Until evidence to the contrary surfaces, this is my conclusion.

Yes they are possible. However, I deem them to be unlikely even in the face of the limited evidence that is publicly available that makes it appear to be the case.

If the trial commences and it turns out to be the case that the charges were entirely motivated by a political agenda, then I will admit whatever speculation I may have engaged in was wrong and will be firmly in the camp of those calling for the DA's ouster and the firing of the police officers involved in the investigation.

 

[GummyVitamins]

It sounds like the circumstances surrounding Rosenbaum's killing are disputed. If that killing was indeed self-defense, then the rest are as well. If that killing was NOT self-defense, then the rest may not be either.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/09/11/rittenhouse-victims-records/



Seems like who fired first will be key to the prosecution.

Either way, Rittenhouse has his defense strategy. We'll see if it pans out.

Disputed by who? Snopes.com?????? Seriously?

The first shot was fired from a handgun on the sidewalk. There's video of every shot fired in Rosenbaum's death. He attacked a kid with a rifle and got shot to death for it.

 

[lwf]

Disputed by who? Snopes.com?????? Seriously?

The first shot was fired from a handgun on the sidewalk. There's video of every shot fired in Rosenbaum's death. He attacked a kid with a rifle and got shot to death for it.

And you think that the Kenosha Justice Department would charge him with murder solely because they think that's what the protesters want?

 

[GummyVitamins]

I was not. I merely stated that self defense privilege doesn't apply if it occurs during the commission of a crime. IF Rittenhouse committed a crime, THEN he does not have the privilege of self defense. I never argued that he committed a crime.

This is not true. We've been through this.

 

[lwf]

This is not true. We've been through this.

Why specifically do you think he was charged with murder by the Kenosha PD? What do you suppose is their argument that he is guilty of murder?

 

[GummyVitamins]

And you think that the Kenosha Justice Department would charge him with murder solely because they think that's what the protesters want?

We've seen political prosecutions for a while now in regards to these riots.

 

[lwf]

We've seen political prosecutions for a while now in regards to these riots.

Such as?

 

[GummyVitamins]

Such as?

Kyle Rittenhouse...

You can go back as early as June to the Rayshard Brooks case as well. Prosecutors are very quick to assign charges when lacking evidence to quell the violent mobs, especially when the politically elected DA offices are on the side with of the rioters and looters.

 

[lwf]

Kyle Rittenhouse...

You can go back as early as June to the Rayshard Brooks case as well. Prosecutors are very quick to assign charges when lacking evidence to quell the violent mobs, especially when the politically elected DA offices are on the side with of the rioters and looters.

Neither one of those cases have been shown to be politically motivated. You are just assuming they are based on the fact that you haven't seen evidence to the contrary. This is little more than a conspiracy theory.

 

[GummyVitamins]

Neither one of those cases have been shown to be politically motivated. You are just assuming they are based on the fact that you haven't seen evidence to the contrary. This is little more than a conspiracy theory.

Are you serious? In both cases charges were filed before an investigation was complete. In Brooks's case the prosecutor falsified a grand jury outcome in order to move forward with prosecution.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Neither one of those cases have been shown to be politically motivated. You are just assuming they are based on the fact that you haven't seen evidence to the contrary. This is little more than a conspiracy theory.

In the Brooks case, the very week before he charged two cops with aggravated assault when they used tasers against someone. Then when Brooks fires a taser at cops and gets killed for it, he charged the cop who killed him with murder. There is no internal consistency in those decisions. The two most likely explanations are rank incompetence and political bias. I know which one I favor.