• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

(W#4255)The trial of Kyle Rittenhouse for the intentional first degree homicide of 2, injuring of 1

GummyVitamins said:
State is saying Huber who hit Rittenhouse in the head with a skateboard is a hero.
Click to expand...
Prosecution still saying Rittenhouse was an "active shooter" because of the Rosenbaum shooting, and that was the provocation for Huber's actions.
 
Grim17 said:
This is what bothers me... We know Rittenhouse possessed the rifle and fired the rifle, this is not disputed in any way... So why are the prosecutors focusing on his DNA being there? Shouldn't they just get to the point, which is was there any DNA from the 3 guys who were shot found on the rifle.

.
Click to expand...
The prosecutin appears to be pushing the theory that if Rosenbaum never physically grabbed the rifle then there is no reason for Rittenhouse to have considered him a threat.
 
Arguments made, judge will rule after lunch. 1:30PM EST.
 
Lutherf said:
The prosecutin appears to be pushing the theory that if Rosenbaum never physically grabbed the rifle then there is no reason for Rittenhouse to have considered him a threat.
Click to expand...

Right, because when someone is attacking you and you have 100 milliseconds to decide what to do, "reason" is the key.
 
ASHES said:
Prosecution still saying Rittenhouse was an "active shooter" because of the Rosenbaum shooting, and that was the provocation for Huber's actions.
Click to expand...

Such a supposed provocation for Huber's actions are irrelevant to whether Rittenhouse's actions were justified by the fact that Huber was attacking him.
 
I must say that I really like this judge. He is the most "human" acting judge I've ever seen. He presents himself a real person rather than being a ruler who is above everyone else.
 
Lutherf said:
The prosecutin appears to be pushing the theory that if Rosenbaum never physically grabbed the rifle then there is no reason for Rittenhouse to have considered him a threat.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the whole point of self defense laws is that you don't have to wait until someone grabs your firearm or strikes you to defend yourself.
 
So let me get this straight. Grabbing a gun out of someone’s hands is an imminent threat on their body?

Is that because one believes that the gun is actually part of the body - like a surrogate penis? Or is it because its pretty bad to have someone grab a deadly weapon to potentially use against you? And if that’s the case, why is it no big deal to walk around with the said deadly weapon in a scene of street chaos?
 
Tlrmln said:
Right, because when someone is attacking you and you have 100 milliseconds to decide what to do, "reason" is the key.
Click to expand...
They are intentionally ignoring the gunshot just before Rosenbaum was shot. At that point Rittenhouse had every reason to believe that SOMEONE behind him was armed and whether Rosenbaum was that person or not becomes less of a factor than whether Rosenbaum was acting with the other shooter. The standard is "reasonable cause to believe there is an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm" and I believe that one of the witnesses today actually testified that he would have had such a belief. The journalist yesterday also testified, if I remember correctly, that he "wouldn't be sure what the outcome would be if Rosenbaum gained control of the gun". Whether the jury gets that or not is a completely different story and THAT factor is what the prosecutor is pushing.
 
Threegoofs said:
So let me get this straight. Grabbing a gun out of someone’s hands is an imminent threat on their body?

Is that because one believes that the gun is actually part of the body - like a surrogate penis? Or is it because its pretty bad to have someone grab a deadly weapon to potentially use against you? And if that’s the case, why is it no big deal to walk around with the said deadly weapon in a scene of street chaos?
Click to expand...
That's because it is REASONABLE to believe that someone who grabs a loaded weapon out of your hand is also willing and capable of using it against you. I very much suspect that this issue will also come up in the Arbury trial.
 
Judge is back to discuss the objection, jury not in yet.
 
Defense says if the judge allows peacefulness character evidence, they are allowed to introduce two criminal complaints where he injured people to rebut.
 
Prosecution really won't want those criminal complaints against Huber coming in.
 
Threegoofs said:
So let me get this straight. Grabbing a gun out of someone’s hands is an imminent threat on their body?

Is that because one believes that the gun is actually part of the body - like a surrogate penis? Or is it because its pretty bad to have someone grab a deadly weapon to potentially use against you? And if that’s the case, why is it no big deal to walk around with the said deadly weapon in a scene of street chaos?
Click to expand...
If you control the barrel of the gun you control the gun. If you have a hand on a weapon you're armed.
 
Judge says if the peacefulness character evidence comes in, so do the criminal complaints. Leaving it up to the prosecutor. Prosecution withdraws the question and will not submit the evidence. Jury coming back, Susan Hughs will resume direct examination.

I will be afk but listening for a couple hours.
 
ASHES said:
Prosecution really won't want those criminal complaints against Huber coming in.
Click to expand...
Huber was a convicted felon for domestic abuse strangulation and suffocation and false imprisonment with a dangerous weapon. Other charges – for second-degree recklessly endangering safety, battery, and disorderly conduct – were dismissed but read in.
 
Prosecution decides they don't want testimony that Huber was a peaceful person to prevent his prior felonious strangulation conviction and false imprisonment with a dangerous weapon from being introduced by the defense. They've decided to not ask their questions related to his peacefulness and then the jury was brought back in.
 
Prosecution just asked how long they were dating before they had sex. :rolleyes:

Was editing the above post to add a picture, but all my screen grabs had her looking high. You beat me to it.
 
ASHES said:
Children are not "prohibited" people as required for a straw purchase.
Click to expand...
"Juvenile".

Right there in the list.

A.parent can give a gun to their child as a gift.

Purchasing it for their child with the child's money is a straw purchase.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
"Standing around" is not aggression, gun or not.
Click to expand...
Sure. Going to a protest with a gun isn't aggressive in the slightest.

Oh, wait, yes it is. Testosterone overflowing.

And you're forgetting all the anti-BLM regalia they were wearing.
 
What if...? said:
Sure. Going to a protest with a gun isn't aggressive in the slightest.

Oh, wait, yes it is. Testosterone overflowing.

And you're forgetting all the anti-BLM regalia they were wearing.
Click to expand...
Open carry is legal in Wisconsin.

Going to a "protest" is legal in Wisconsin.

Having testosterone is legal in Wisconsin.

Wearing clothing is legal in Wisconsin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom