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

[Lutherf]

That's why I asked, because there have been three topics that seem to just keep surfacing. The first one has mostly died down but it that W Rittenhouse drove Kyle to Kenosha that night. The second is that Kyle took the gun across state lines and then this one, that Grosskreutz was a felon with a gun. I know in here, I probably had to point out that was a false fact to TD 10-15 times before he'd stop repeating it.

To be fair, a lot of people tend to bring in information that really doesn't matter. Heck, the ADA is doing that in court.

Whether Grosskreutz has a felony conviction or not is completely immaterial when it comes to the charges in this case. Likewise, Rittenhouse crossing state lines with a firearm or who drove Rittenhouse to Kenosha are immaterial to anything that is charged.

 

[rahl]

Why is that?

it's what the law says

 

[rahl]

Selective amnesia? You only highlighted one instance here and ignored the others. Previously you said there were "three exceptions." Where are the other two? You've established the law does not pertain to people target practicing. Great, you've figured out one instance of which the law is not applicable. Keep reading to find other instances where the law is not applicable. You don't get to stop reading and pretend you're done. There are other instances this law carves out for people to possess a firearm. This isn't hard. I'm sure we'll get there together.

refuted all of this, as has the judge lol

 

[rahl]

I am confused, I thought you were arguing that he was in violation of 29.593?

Had he been hunting, which is 1 of only 3 exceptions, he would have been in violation of that section. Since he did not fall under any of the only 3 exceptions, it's moot.

Now you are saying that 29.593 only applies "if you are hunting", which Kyle was clearly not. So if he was not in violation of 29.593, then the other 2 are 29.304 ("Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age") and 941.28 ("Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle")
Which of those 2 do you think Kyle was in violation of?

no. you are reading this wrong. Section c does not invalidate sections a-b. It adds additional qualifiers to one of the 3 exceptions, which is hunting. If you are hunting, you would be required to have a license.

 

[ASHES]

The state called back the crime lab image guy, defense is doing cross.

 

[rahl]

Congratulations, you have fulfilled my prophesy.

of directly refuting your position? cool

You have (again) failed to even attempt to tell us what 3(c) means when it says "this section applies only ... if" if it doesn't mean it only applies in the situations following the condition.

why do you keep making things up? I have, repeatedly, for pages upon pages, shown you how and why your position has no basis in the law. The judge has also shown you this.

 

[ASHES]

of directly refuting your position? cool

why do you keep making things up? I have, repeatedly, for pages upon pages, shown you how and why your position has no basis in the law. The judge has also shown you this.

What are you going to say if the judge or jury later disagrees with what you are saying now?

 

[GummyVitamins]

Timing looks fishy is all. It's the kind of thing a lawyer would come up with, too.

I would need more contemporary evidence of his educational arc before just accepting this at face value.

Starting college courses in the fall after your expected high school graduation in the summer is "fishy" timing? Isn't that what over 99% of students do?

 

[rahl]

What are you going to say if the judge or jury later disagrees with what you are saying now?

reconsider my position. When they do not, what are you going to say?

 

[ASHES]

"uncharged pickles"

 

[GummyVitamins]

refuted all of this, as has the judge lol

You haven't refuted anything. This is a lie. You cited 3(a) and then you're running for the hills from 3(b) and 3(c) because you know if you keep reading you're 100% wrong and you're afraid to admit it after making a dozen stupid and ignorant posts on this topic.

 

[SkyFox76]

I thought he was out on bail.

I would need to know about his efforts to pursue a career in nursing began. Before or after his ass was in a wringer.

Imo Rittenhouse was circling the bowl leading up to that night in Kenosha. I think the school said he'd dropped out in his freshman year, 2017/18. The fight with him wailing on the girl was a few months before Kenosha.

Had his mother listened to what many people were telling her about Whackadoodle Lin Wood and John Pierce I think Rittenhouse would have been moved to Wisconsin long before he was. But those two greaseballs were using him as donation bait. Until it became too big to ignore.

And as I recall Rittenhouse was not allowed access to a laptop while he was in jail.

So once Pierce stopped fighting the extradition Kyle was transferred. Pierce then scammed the 2 million (by using his business as the person issuing the bond) that's when Rittenhouse finally got released.

I think at that point adults were finally giving him direction and finishing high school looks a lot better than high school dropout. So in the end, if he's not convicted, he'll hopefully stay moving forward.

 

[RF667799]

I'm not running a puppet show. This is just basic game theory. If you take any confrontational situation, you can pretty much always break down anyone's choices between passive, aggressive or neutral options.

I don't see how this connects to your previous arguments. If Rittenhouse is running away from the scene of a confrontation, how is it that he is not retreating? If he is running in the same direction as a mob, how is he attacking that mob? How is it that the only valid demonstration of fearful retreat is one where the the retreating party mindlessly loses their composure? How does his failure to irresponsibly discard his weapon demonstrate he wasn't fearful, but was actually aggressively seeking "battle"?

It seems like every time I question one of your assertions, you just abandon it and blithely move on with your narrative.

Is this indicative of a retreat?

 

[SkyFox76]

One of the charges was felon in possession of a firearm. Unless that was bullshit too.

A charge is not a conviction.

 

[Trippy Trekker]

If he was in violation of 25.593 then he ALSO has to be in violation 29.304 for subsection (c) to NOT apply. Was Kyle Rittenhouse in violation of 29.304?

Go back and study a basic logic book. You pointed right to your flawed logic.

 

[rahl]

You haven't refuted anything. This is a lie.

yes, your continued foot stomping in the face of the actual statute and ruling by the judge is a proven lie.

You cited 3(a) and then you're running for the hills from 3(b) and 3(c) because you know if you keep reading you're 100% wrong and you're afraid to admit it after making a dozen stupid and ignorant posts on this topic.

you don't understand what you are reading. 3c does not invalidate 3a-b. it simply adds a qualifier to one of the only 3 exceptions to possessing the firearm. That being, hunting. If you are hunting without a license you would be in violation of 3c, which puts you in violation of the statute and unlawfully possessing the firearm. I can not dumb that down any further for you. You can wallow in your ignorance and continue stomping your feet all you want. You remain refuted.

 

[GummyVitamins]

I'm not running a puppet show. This is just basic game theory. If you take any confrontational situation, you can pretty much always break down anyone's choices between passive, aggressive or neutral options.

One person was attempting to flee from a confrontational situation and everyone else was running towards a confrontational situation. And your result is the person running away from confrontation was the aggressor? This is extremely stupid logic.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

I've posted the screenshot. He gained on Kyle because Kyle slowed down and turned around. That said, if Kyle had to slow down going between the cars the same would have been true for Rosenbaum.

The fact we had a mob on the left side of the cars

Can I just go to a jail and just shoot all the criminals there? Hey I am an angel too.

No, because they are in jail and can't cause trouble for society.

 

[ASHES]

Witness excused, now defense objecting to a state lab enlarged photo being introduced.

 

[US&THEM]

he's a citizen who was threatened by scum and he justifiably shot the scum

Keep ignoring everything

 

[US&THEM]

so, he is a high school graduate who is now in college pursuing an education in nursing

Here is a question would you want your daughter date Kyle? I for one would not want him anywhere near not only my daughter but anyone else’s kids, he is a idiot, who thinks it was cool to drive around without a license, drop out of school and pretending he is a person of authority it a dangerous and dumb person.

 

[US&THEM]

What is accredited, that is a question the Judge just asked, wow dude has an aol account.

 

[ASHES]

 

[Lutherf]

So there is an extreme blow up image of Rittenhouse. I totally get what the prosecution is trying to do but unless this image is definitive I'd suggest that it not be allowed. I don't see any sense in introducing an image which, even after being enhanced, still lends itself to significant speculation as to what is being depicted.

-edit-

Even if it is allowed, Zyminski was armed. Rittenhouse testified to seeing him armed and was under the impression that Zyminski pointed the gun at him. Taking a defensive posture at that point certainly would not be illegal or reckless.

This sounds like much ado about nothing.

 

[ASHES]