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

[Threegoofs]

Again, as applies to the circumstances, it was immaterial. saying "EMT" is efficient and gets the point across that he's there to provide basic first aid as needed.

Kinda like you can say Jeffery Dahmer was a guy who used to go to bars and bring friends home for dinner.

It’s just shorthand.

 

[noonereal]

This trial is a complete disgrace.

People, our institutions are collapsing. Trumpism is poison.

We now even have left/right justice.

 

[US&THEM]

"ASU can confirm that Mr. Rittenhouse enrolled"

Now why is it that you can't give up trying to make a mountain out of a particle of dust? Why so petty? Why so wigged out over a nothing burger? I'm sorry, this tell us a whole lot more about the character of some Rittenhouse critics than of Rittenhouse himself.

Read the entire text. I am not you refuse to read.

 

[US&THEM]

Again, as applies to the circumstances, it was immaterial. saying "EMT" is efficient and gets the point across that he's there to provide basic first aid as needed.

You perceive it as immaterial, but it goes to Rittenhouse’s constant lies, majority of those lies were about himself to make people believe he was important and needed there.

Rittenhouse lies all day long, but now he’s honest about the reasons he gunned down Rosenbaum, bullshit. Ask yourself would a smart and reasonable person, still drive around without a license a week after he killed 2 and wounded another? Guess what king dipshit did. Would a rational person wear a “Free as ****” shirt and pose? The kid is way too dumb to be trusted with a rifle and is full of shit with when stating why he gunned down an unarmed person and then ignored him and fled. The video shows no one did anything to him until he fled the scene.

Did the police explorer program teach him to shoot unarmed persons and run?

 

[dncc]

I grew up in Wisconsin and I strongly disagree. Us Sconnies love our guns as much as anyone.

I'm sure you do.

But you also likely don't have the Darwinian approach to life from what I can tell (I have a close friend who moved back to north central WI last year).

 

[SkyFox76]

Including @justabubba for continuity. His felony conviction was expunged earlier this year.

It makes things much simpler if you provide links. And I mean court documents, not some random website.

 

[maxparrish]

What I can't wrap my head around (which is why I wouldn't have been picked to be on a jury) is that he says he shot someone to defend himself. Okay.

Meaning that is true.

If he had stayed in Illinois which he could have, if he had obeyed the police imposed curfew of 10PM which he should have, if he had stood his ground defending the business he said he was there to protect...which is HIS story...he wouldn't have had to defend himself.

He could have done many things, as could have anyone by not attending the protests or riots. But what all these people "could have done" by staying home is irrelevant because their bad judgement is not a crime. Just because a person makes a bad choice, such as walking at night in the wrong neighborhood and getting mugged (or violently and successfully resisting getting mugged) doesn't make them guilty of anything other than taking an unnecessary or ill considered risk for their own safety

Carping over someone "having to defend oneself" is blaming the victim of a wrong doer...a curious judgmental attitude in many people.

The other maladjusted armed vigilantes that were there...shot nobody.

Why yes, there were other maladjusted armed people that were there on that particular night, who shot nobody (or at least not successfully). But on that night a maladjusted person Rosenbaum decided to chase, charge and initiate an attack on one boy who attempted attempting to run from him.

So what is your point, that maladjusted unarmed people don't physically attack others, ever?

The idea that you can involve yourself in a fight on your own volition and then kill someone because you're being attacked is insane. So at the end of the day, I think he's guilty of, at least, manslaughter.

Because, under the law, the prejudicial and unspecific idea of "involving yourself in a fight" does not exist, I have no idea what you are speaking of. The law is quite clear, unless you are the one to initiate a physical fight with an unlawful intent to do so, someone attacking you makes you guilty of NOTHING.

And running from someone after they initiate the fight is anything but a "volitional" choice to be in a fight.

So yes, "you get to kill someone" if they are an immediate threat to do serious bodily harm or death to you, and the reaction to stop the threat is reasonable and proportional to stop the threat, including killing someone.

Now tell us what is "insane" behind those common sense assumptions in the law (principles of self defense dating back to Rome and Greece, I am told)?

The prosecution is going for murder if memory serves. I don't think they are going to get it. Again...no way of knowing where the jury is going to land.

If he's found guilty...he's looking at some serious time though.

The prosecution is going for many things, modified today by the court to include lessor 'attempt' charges. However, none of them are warranted but I wouldn't be surprised if an emotional and ignorant jury found him guilty on the recklessness charges as a "compromise" (and certainty the gun charge).

We shall see.

 

[CaughtInThe]

is there a gofundme for Kyle yet?

 

[SkyFox76]

Meaning that is true.

He could have done many things, as could have anyone by not attending the protests or riots. But what all these people "could have done" by staying home is irrelevant because their bad judgement is not a crime. Just because a person makes a bad choice, such as walking at night in the wrong neighborhood and getting mugged (or violently and successfully resisting getting mugged) doesn't make them guilty of anything other than taking an unnecessary or ill considered risk for their own safety

Carping over someone "having to defend oneself" is blaming the victim of a wrong doer...a curious judgmental attitude in many people.


Why yes, there were other maladjusted armed people that were there on that particular night, who shot nobody (or at least not successfully). But on that night a maladjusted person Rosenbaum decided to chase, charge and initiate an attack on one boy who attempted attempting to run from him.

So what is your point, that maladjusted unarmed people don't physically attack others, ever?



Because, under the law, the prejudicial and unspecific idea of "involving yourself in a fight" does not exist, I have no idea what you are speaking of. The law is quite clear, unless you are the one to initiate a physical fight with an unlawful intent to do so, someone attacking you makes you guilty of NOTHING.

And running from someone after they initiate the fight is anything but a "volitional" choice to be in a fight.

So yes, "you get to kill someone" if they are an immediate threat to do serious bodily harm or death to you, and the reaction to stop the threat is reasonable and proportional to stop the threat, including killing someone.

Now tell us what is "insane" behind those common sense assumptions in the law (principles of self defense dating back to Rome and Greece, I am told)?



The prosecution is going for many things, modified today by the court to include lessor 'attempt' charges. However, none of them are warranted but I wouldn't be surprised if an emotional and ignorant jury found him guilty on the recklessness charges as a "compromise" (and certainty the gun charge).

We shall see.

Gotta love people who trash a jury if they don't agree to give a verdict you want before they've even been handed the case.

 

[maxparrish]

Gotta love people who trash a jury if they don't agree to give a verdict you want before they've even been handed the case.

Huh, I am not trashing a jury because they don't agree to give me a verdict I like now, but I will be trashing the jury IF they arrive at the wrong verdicts. This is as slam dunk not guilty for a jury with reason and integrity as any I have seen... even compared to Zimmerman.

There is only one charge and verdict I would not trash them on, the gun charge. Reasonable and ordinary people can disagree on the law and its proper reading.

 

[GummyVitamins]

It makes things much simpler if you provide links. And I mean court documents, not some random website.

Yea I deleted the message because I'm not seeing first hand documents on it which is odd. We know he was a convicted felon at one point because one of his firearm charges was unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. His wrap sheet is pretty extensive and he seems like a total prick. His parents kicked him out of the house because of his problems. His parents threw him out of the house due to all his behavior issues and he ended up moving in with his grandmother at some point. One night, his grandmother was working and didn't pick up her phone when he was calling her after school. Apparently he got caught with a cell phone in school and he needed her to come to the school so they could give it back to him. When she got home from work he was mad at her for not picking up and hit her. They got into an altercation which resulted in Grosskreutz getting into her face challenging her to throw him out of the house. She claims he was disrespectful when he was in her face she slapped him. In response he threw a lamp into the wall and slapped her back. She called the police and filed a report. Police documented the damage to the house as well as the injuries to her face. Cute.

 

[SkyFox76]

Yea I deleted the message because I'm not seeing first hand documents on it which is odd. We know he was a convicted felon at one point because one of his firearm charges was unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. His wrap sheet is pretty extensive and he seems like a total prick. His parents kicked him out of the house because of his problems. His parents threw him out of the house due to all his behavior issues and he ended up moving in with his grandmother at some point. One night, his grandmother was working and didn't pick up her phone when he was calling her after school. Apparently he got caught with a cell phone in school and he needed her to come to the school so they could give it back to him. When she got home from work he was mad at her for not picking up and hit her. They got into an altercation which resulted in Grosskreutz getting into her face challenging her to throw him out of the house. She claims he was disrespectful when he was in her face she slapped him. In response he threw a lamp into the wall and slapped her back. She called the police and filed a report. Police documented the damage to the house as well as the injuries to her face. Cute.

You might read the documents pertaining to that charge. But dude... paragraphs.

 

[SkyFox76]

Huh, I am not trashing a jury because they don't agree to give me a verdict I like now, but I will be trashing the jury IF they arrive at the wrong verdicts. This is as slam dunk not guilty for a jury with reason and integrity as any I have seen... even compared to Zimmerman.

There is only one charge and verdict I would not trash them on, the gun charge. Reasonable and ordinary people can disagree on the law and its proper reading.

As I said. They don't reach the verdict you want, they SUCK!!

 

[joko104]

This case shows just how dangerous the new corporate-fascist Democratic Party is. Even most Democrats on this forum that I've read posting on the trial furiously demand that corporate-fascist mobs can stomp to death and shoot to death anyone they want to - and being unwilling to be murdered and defending yourself is a crime. One only has to see the new anti-liberal corporate fascist (ie "progressive) to see how the Nazi's took over Germany. The Democratic Party should have been outlawed certainly no later than after the Civil War and remains the greatest enemy we-the-people and our country has ever had.

Understand many Democrats openly believe - and rant - if you are the adversary of corporate fascism of the elites it is entirely legal to murder you and a crime to try to stop them.

 

[justabubba]

it would appear the prosecution gave up on a representative of the junior police cadet program showing up to assert that rittenhouse had never been issued body armor

 

[maxparrish]

is there a gofundme for Kyle yet?

I don't know, there was an earlier post quoting Joe Lockart(?) and his idiotic comment about how terrible it is that 500,000 dollars have been donated to Rittenhouse for his defense - as if KR is going to pocket a windfall.

The ugly truth is that in these highly politicized cases the defendant has to pay 1.8 to 2.5 million for a good defense team (in 2013 dollars). That is what it cost for Zimmerman's defense. The bottomless resources of the State means whoever they target will pay dearly, even should the target win. And that doesn't include the cost of appeals or defending against appeals by the State should they lose.

So far, while I think his defense is fairly good, they don't appear to have the well oiled partnership between O'Mara and West, Zimmerman's attorneys. That case is a model of good tactics...the focus on the law, over and over. And ya, they too faced a very morally corrupt DA in Angela Correy(?) whose office did everything humanly possible to block discovery.

It's amazing what prosecutors get away with in this country...outrageous.

 

[maxparrish]

As I said. They don't reach the verdict you want, they SUCK!!

Agreed.

 

[beerftw]

I don't know, there was an earlier post quoting Joe Lockart(?) and his idiotic comment about how terrible it is that 500,000 dollars have been donated to Rittenhouse for his defense - as if KR is going to pocket a windfall.

The ugly truth is that in these highly politicized cases the defendant has to pay 1.8 to 2.5 million for a good defense team (in 2013 dollars). That is what it cost for Zimmerman's defense. The bottomless resources of the State means whoever they target will pay dearly, even should the target win. And that doesn't include the cost of appeals or defending against appeals by the State should they lose.

So far, while I think his defense is fairly good, they don't appear to have the well oiled partnership between O'Mara and West, Zimmerman's attorneys. That case is a model of good tactics...the focus on the law, over and over. And ya, they too faced a very morally corrupt DA in Angela Correy(?) whose office did everything humanly possible to block discovery.

It's amazing what prosecutors get away with in this country...outrageous.

The prosecutor in this current case should be disbared for blatent corruption and severe lack of understanding of the law he is trying to prosecute over, had it been a competent stae district and asistant district attorney, and a competent prosecutor over the charges and the case they may have either actually found something to stick or would have dropped the case, however what is there now was a political witch hunt.

The problem being throwing charges over politics does not stand up well in court where facts and evidence matters, and a competent set of attorney's and govt officials would have done a strict investigation first before applying charges, rather than rushing them to the door to appease politics.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The prosecutor in this current case should be disbared for blatent corruption and severe lack of understanding of the law he is trying to prosecute over, had it been a competent stae district and asistant district attorney, and a competent prosecutor over the charges and the case they may have either actually found something to stick or would have dropped the case, however what is there now was a political witch hunt.

The problem being throwing charges over politics does not stand up well in court where facts and evidence matters, and a competent set of attorney's and govt officials would have done a strict investigation first before applying charges, rather than rushing them to the door to appease politics.

Maybe the prosecutor thinks he's in a court in Portlandia?

 

[dncc]

Did the police explorer program teach him to shoot unarmed persons and run?

Meaning that is true.

He could have done many things, as could have anyone by not attending the protests or riots. But what all these people "could have done" by staying home is irrelevant because their bad judgement is not a crime. Just because a person makes a bad choice, such as walking at night in the wrong neighborhood and getting mugged (or violently and successfully resisting getting mugged) doesn't make them guilty of anything other than taking an unnecessary or ill considered risk for their own safety

Usually there are no signs indicating that someone is walking in "the wrong neighborhood". There was a curfew of 10PM. He ignored it.

Carping over someone "having to defend oneself" is blaming the victim of a wrong doer...a curious judgmental attitude in many people.

It sounds pretty silly that you think I'm "blaming the victim" since the "victim" is still alive. LOL

Why yes, there were other maladjusted armed people that were there on that particular night, who shot nobody (or at least not successfully). But on that night a maladjusted person Rosenbaum decided to chase, charge and initiate an attack on one boy who attempted attempting to run from him.

So what is your point, that maladjusted unarmed people don't physically attack others, ever?

Not sure about "ever". The other wannbe Rambo's didn't stray away from the place they said they were protecting and, thusly, didn't feel the need to shoot anyone.

The prosecution is going for many things, modified today by the court to include lessor 'attempt' charges. However, none of them are warranted but I wouldn't be surprised if an emotional and ignorant jury found him guilty on the recklessness charges as a "compromise" (and certainty the gun charge).

We shall see.

Yeah, I don't think they get a murder conviction.

 

[dncc]

Gotta love people who trash a jury if they don't agree to give a verdict you want before they've even been handed the case.

Verdicts don't bother me as much as sentencing does. Usually the juries get it right. A lady down in Texas got convicted of 2nd degree murder. She got 10 years for it. Ten years is the max for animal cruelty. You'd figure that murder of human would get a more lenghty prison sentence than someone being cruel to an animal. But the victim was black...

 

[beerftw]

Maybe the prosecutor thinks he's in a court in Portlandia?

It almost looks like the prosecutor is completely gone in terms of logic, however the prosecutor does not decide to lay charges, that is the role of the state, the prosecutor in this case is the attack dog told to attack what they wish, but the state is the one who decides the charges, and the state decided to go with charges before any proper investigation was done.

This does not help the prosecution as the prosecutor is a complete moron, however the blame does not just stick with him, he is a cog in an over all machine that was so hasty to make a political statement that the cog could not pull it's head out of it's ass and think logically for 10 seconds to actually scan the battlefield before making a judgement.

 

[maxparrish]

Usually there are no signs indicating that someone is walking in "the wrong neighborhood". There was a curfew of 10PM. He ignored it.

It sounds pretty silly that you think I'm "blaming the victim" since the "victim" is still alive. LOL

Not sure about "ever". The other wannbe Rambo's didn't stray away from the place they said they were protecting and, thusly, didn't feel the need to shoot anyone.

Yeah, I don't think they get a murder conviction.

I see that you studiously avoided comprehending what I wrote, and took refuge in avoidance.

The example of walking in the wrong neighborhood has ZERO relevancy to posting a sign. You missed the very clear point was that if you make a bad judgement by INTENTIONALLY risk walking in bad neighborhood at night, you don't forfeit your right of self-defense. Nor do you forfeit that right if you stay out past curfew - you may defend yourself against an aggressor because they don't have the right to threaten or take your life unlawfully...PERIOD.

The "victim" is not, in any moral sense, Rosenbaum. He had a choice, and could have ignored or not chased and then charged KR. He got exactly what he earned. However the victim of his attack, who is still alive is being blamed by you for staying out past curfew ... as if that is worthy of a murder charge.

I've always been curious about the mental makeup of those who seek to blame victims for being attacked, raped, robbed, or embezzled. Why can't they deal with the fact that Rosenbaum was a low life scum that physically attacked a person attempting to flee?

 

[HangLow]

appears you are pleased to defend the actions of a child-molesting perv
who attempted to disarm a juvenile who was fleeing from him
wear that proudly

Trayvon Martin

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Where is the evidence he didn't? He admitted to pointing his gun at a guy on a car. That is not provoking?

Kyle Rittenhouse has the presumption of innocence, meaning the burden of proof is up to others to provide to show he did.