Rittenhouse Defense Team Implodes

[jaeger19]

I disagree. I think it is patently absurd to think he went there with the intention to hurt people, and still only shot 3 people, despite having every opportunity to murder dozens at any time.

Let's get this straight..your argument is that he didn't go to hurt people...because he only shot 3 unarmed people.
By the way..how many armed people were attacked by the mob?
Oh wait..no one. Only rittenhouse...gee could it be that he was acting in a way that was threatening?
Now how could anyone believe that a 17 year old who came to another community ..not his own..at the behest of a militia..and arming himself with an ar 15..with the stated purpose of " defending personal property"
Has no intention of threatening..intimidating or hurting people?

 

[GummyVitamins]

Yes..the first unarmed person he shot was trying to save his life

Seriously?

 

[Aunt Antifa]

I disagree. I think it is patently absurd to think he went there with the intention to hurt people, and still only shot 3 people, despite having every opportunity to murder dozens at any time.

No idea what you expect me or anyone to do with that line. It’s the opposite of logic.

 

[ASHES]

Well. They wouldn't be active shooters.
Rosenbaum had been shot..and so the others viewing Rittenhouse would reasonably believe he was an active shooter.
As far as before shots were fired? Yes..unarmed bystanders have stopped armed people before they could fire. Rosenbaum could reasonably believe his life was in danger from Rittenhouse.

I'm only talking about the first shooting and before. The second is dependent on the first. If Rittenhouse was an armed danger, and the armed danger was running away from him, why would he chase after it, unarmed? He wasn't afraid, he was mad. He was a nutso. Pedophile sex offender with multiple victims. Over 10 years in prison with lots of fights. Just released from a mental institution. Inserted himself into the protest, and instigated altercations. Was most likely the one screaming "F* YOUUU!!" right before he was shot. I don't know why you continue to defend this man and his actions that night.

 

[jaeger19]

yep, if he wanted to rack up the body count he would have positioned himself behind some cover and opened up with multiple rounds. Everything he did is contrary to the stupid claims that he went there looking to kill people

Right..so your argument is that Rittenhouse" didn't have intention to hurt people" because he ONLY SHOT THREE UNARMED PEOPLE?
Yeah..how well do you think that argument would fly in front of a jury?
People of the jury..my client armed himself with an ar 15. and went to a separate neighborhood to"protect private property " that was not his own.. nor was it at the behest of the owner of the property. And while there he shot 3 unarmed people.
Obviously my client had no intention of harming anyone..because if he did..he would have done a better job and killed more people."
Boy that would be some closing argument..

 

[Aunt Antifa]

yep, if he wanted to rack up the body count he would have positioned himself behind some cover and opened up with multiple rounds. Everything he did is contrary to the stupid claims that he went there looking to kill people

But it’s been established that he’s a really dumb guy, like most gun-loving militia types. He just wanted to shoot some “bad guys”, but shit his pants the first moment he saw trouble, and then murdered someone as his “fix” to shitting his pants.

Also: dunno, but “He could have murdered way more people” just isn’t as effective as ya’ll seem to think it is as a defense. Probably why he’s going to stand trial despite all the Clarence Darrows around here saying “nuh uh! Guns!”

 

[TurtleDude]

Right..so your argument is that Rittenhouse" didn't have intention to hurt people" because he ONLY SHOT THREE UNARMED PEOPLE?
Yeah..how well do you think that argument would fly in front of a jury?
People of the jury..my client armed himself with an ar 15. and went to a separate neighborhood to"protect private property " that was not his own.. nor was it at the behest of the owner of the property. And while there he shot 3 unarmed people.
Obviously my client had no intention of harming anyone..because if he did..he would have done a better job and killed more people."
Boy that would be some closing argument..

he shot three people who at-a minimum-appeared to attack him

 

[TurtleDude]

But it’s been established that he’s a really dumb guy, like most gun-loving militia types. He just wanted to shoot some “bad guys”, but shit his pants the first moment he saw trouble, and then murdered someone as his “fix” to shitting his pants.

Also: dunno, but “He could have murdered way more people” just isn’t as effective as ya’ll seem to think it is as a defense. Probably why he’s going to stand trial despite all the Clarence Darrows around here saying “nuh uh! Guns!”

your posts tend to be filled with bullshit that you apparently make up with absolutely no reference to factual evidence.

 

[ASHES]

I'm starting to repeat myself, so I've had enough on this topic for the night. The victims weren't random. There were other people firing guns throughout. The prosecution doesn't even say KR was threatening anyone. The first shooting was justified. The last 3 (including the two shots that missed) were a justified response to multiple 3rd party's interventions in their misbelief he was the criminal. They escape charges because maybe their beliefs were sincere, but so does KR for his actions on them if he was justified in the first shooting. Maybe he gets the gun possession conviction, maybe not.

@SkyFox76 feel free to weigh in

 

[jaeger19]

I'm only talking about the first shooting and before. The second is dependent on the first. If Rittenhouse was an armed danger, and the armed danger was running away from him, why would he chase after it, unarmed? He wasn't afraid, he was mad. He was a nutso. Pedophile sex offender with multiple victims. Over 10 years in prison with lots of fights. Just released from a mental institution. Inserted himself into the protest, and instigated altercations. Was most likely the one screaming "F* YOUUU!!" right before he was shot. I don't know why you continue to defend this man and his actions that night.

Because once he decided he had to defend himself..he had to carry it through instead of giving Rittenhouse to gain enough room to fire.
I defend rosenbaum and the others because their lives matter. Yelling at people..throwing a plastic bag.
Even punching someone..does not mean you should die. Nothing rosenbaum did constituted an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm.
His and the others pasts are meaningless..Rosenbaum could have been a choir boy as far as Rittenhouse knew.
People cannot just decide to take the law into their hands and kill people without justification
Rittenhouse was not justified. Period.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

your posts tend to be filled with bullshit that you apparently make up with absolutely no reference to factual evidence.

He’s standing trial for murder after all of ya’ll insisted that would never happen.

When you get even *one* thing right about this case, I’ll be here to golf clap.

 

[TurtleDude]

He’s standing trial for murder after all of ya’ll insisted that would never happen.

When you get even *one* thing right about this case, I’ll be here to golf clap.

When he is convicted, you can crow. Until then, best save your whoops of triumph

 

[Aunt Antifa]

When he is convicted, you can crow. Until then, best save your whoops of triumph

I don’t have to. White nationalist Rittenhouse’s fanclub on here has so far offered:

-He will never have to stand trial

-The gun charge will absolutely not stick

And now

-If he wanted to shoot more people, he would have. So, innocent!

I can crow all day about the feeble attempts to fangirl for a white nationalist who wanted to shoot some folks and ****ed it up so badly he is now going to spend the rest of his dumb useless life in prison.

Allllll day.

 

[jaeger19]

I'm starting to repeat myself, so I've had enough on this topic for the night. The victims weren't random. There were other people firing guns throughout. The prosecution doesn't even say KR was threatening anyone. The first shooting was justified. The last 3 (including the two shots that missed) were a justified response to multiple 3rd party's interventions in their misbelief he was the criminal. They escape charges because maybe their beliefs were sincere, but so does KR for his actions on them if he was justified in the first shooting. Maybe he gets the gun possession conviction, maybe not.

@SkyFox76 feel free to weigh in

And neither was Rittenhouse random.
Of all the people that were armed. It was only Rittenhouse that was supposedly attacked. If it was the mob..they should have attacked multiple people who were armed. But they didn't.
And that's likely because their wasn't a mob intent on attacking armed people. It was likely because of Rittenhouse s specific actions which constituted a threat..

 

[Rich2018]

When he is convicted, you can crow. Until then, best save your whoops of triumph

He will be convicted

Just like the McMichael father & son charged over the killing of a jogger in Brunswick, Georgia, in February.

 

[justabubba]

He will be convicted

Just like the McMichael father & son charged over the killing of a jogger in Brunswick, Georgia, in February.

he'll be convicted



just like zimmerman

 

[ASHES]

He will be convicted

Just like the McMichael father & son charged over the killing of a jogger in Brunswick, Georgia, in February.

He won't.

They should.

GN

 

[jaeger19]

he shot three people who at-a minimum-appeared to attack him

He shot three unarmed people who at a minimum were defending themselves.

 

[justabubba]

He shot three unarmed people who at a minimum were defending themselves.

all three pursued rittenhouse
how is that pursuit found to be an act of self defense?

 

[GummyVitamins]

Active shooters have run to get better advantage or when unarmed people try to stop them.
Deadly threats generally don't carry plastic bags as weapons.
Or skateboards.
You guys do realize that if someone yells at you..you can't just shoot them right?
You realize that if someone PUNCHES you.. you cannot just kill them ?

You should research the Wisconsin self defense laws. Your statements show you're pretty clueless overall over what occurred that evening and what laws are applicable.

 

[jaeger19]

You should research the Wisconsin self defense laws. Your statements show you're pretty clueless overall over what occurred that evening and what laws are applicable.

I did. Dude. You need to think about this.
You say I am clueless about the law?
Rittenhouse IS CHARGED WITH FELONY HOMOCIDE..AND THE JUDGE SAYS THERE IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO SEND HIM TO TRIAL.
That means both the DA and a Judge..felt that there is evidence he violated the law.
And you are telling me I "don't know the law"
Well man..you should get off the internet and go explain to the DA and the Judge why THEY don't understand the law.
Sheesh you gotta wonder about people.

 

[lurchadams]

That assumes the first shooting was a crime, which also has not been established. If you are running away after lawful self defense and some do-gooders mistaking you for the criminal attack you, you can legally defend yourself from them too.

I don't want to nitpick every detail again, I don't think anybody will be changing their mind before the trial. I'm still in the "not guilty" camp, but we'll see what the DA knows that everyone else doesn't, maybe they can pull a rabbit out of their hat.

The kid's a ****ing thug as are all the murderous trumpists kissing the scumbags feet.

Happy Holidays

 

[justabubba]

The kid's a ****ing thug as are all the murderous trumpists kissing the scumbags feet.

Happy Holidays

what actions did rittenhouse take which should cause him to be considered a 'thug'?

 

[jaeger19]

what actions did rittenhouse take which should cause him to be considered a 'thug'?

Answering the call of a militia..arming himself with an ar 15..and intersecting himself into the protest..

 

[justabubba]

Answering the call of a militia..arming himself with an ar 15..and intersecting himself into the protest..

thugs are thought of by you to be militia members, exercising their rights to bear arms and assemble?