DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Rittenhouse Trial

"You see, you see, you see"...

No I don't, I don't care to. You think you can pick any angle to any topic and people should be expected to respond to it as if you are some Oracle to all things just and true. Laughable, if not ridiculously arrogant.

And there you have it.

Civility is a two-way street, and I don't see much civility from your side of the aisle anywhere, including here. And I understand that you just put that out there because it's how you felt... or what you think... that doesn't make it true. But you stated it like it was fact and it simply isn't. That said, I accept your critique of me being less than sociable with all of you Trumpian types... not sure if you are or aren't one, but you take that side often. And to be honest, I think you are an intelligent and decent dude. But you come hard at times, just like me. As for my shortness, I'm sick of all the damn lying the right is doing. It's like y'all don't think we share the same reality. All this Trumpian crap from the big lie, the insurrection, the fascism, the bigotry, white supremacy, immigrant (other) hate, and the rest of the constant stupidity on the right just starts weighing on you after a while. And I will apologize if you feel like I was attacking you personally, I am and have been attacking the misinformation, lies, conspiracy theories, and how it is all spread so unintelligently in places just like this. I'm just as sick of the constant going after each other as anyone, but when your side loses it's mind and stops believing facts and reality or refuses to stop spreading lies and hate, you can't treat that as something rational adults would do... So you call it out. Just like I did. And never apologize about it when the truth hurts Trumpian feelz.

Thanks for taking the time to explain things. While my saying "99.9%" sounds like I was stating it as fact, I thought it was obvious that my post was just pointing out how ridiculous the notion was (my opinion) that there are all these conservatives ready to have a shoot-out with democrats. With that said, I believe 100% (lol) that the 99.9 would hold up.

Whatever... we all argue about everything in the Outhouse... some of it so trivial and meaningless that it's definitely not worth typing. My biggest problem with all of this here is that there is an automatic, instant, incessant need to constantly group together everyone with a conservative bone in their body as a Trumpster, Trumpian, etc...

Agree with anything Trump has ever said: Trumpian.
Say anything that doesn't stand in lockstep with the pandemic or vaccines: Trumpian.
Make any comment about taxes, entitlement programs, or any subject where you might sound like you even lean to the right? Trumpian, and despicable human being at that.

Now it's gone so far as to call everyone conservative viewpoint "Trumpian" by association.

Case in point is the constant posting by a few here that "Trump still holds all the power of the Republican Party" (hogwash in my mind anyway), therefore, if you say something that even sounds conservative, you must be a Trumpster. It's just ridiculous. If I like tacos and Hitler liked tacos, it doesn't mean I like Hitler. That crap just has to stop if you (anyone) ever wants something productive to come out of any of these threads.

Disclaimer before this next rant, I'm as guilty as anyone. I will try to be better since I'm part of the problem. I hope others can read it and commit to the same...

There is nothing wrong with just saying "hey, I don't agree with that but to each his own." Or: "really, that's not the way I see things, here's why"... rather than the constant attacks. It doesn't make you weak or lesser of a person. Instead it's sarcasm, digs, talking down to others and sometimes outright vitriol. Add the constant moving of goalposts and we've effectively eliminated a lot of very intelligent people from every conversation because they basically have no desire nor energy for the playground antics.

I'll do better, I promise. Thanks again for being fair. I know you're not a bad person even if your politics suck (100% just kidding lol). You are a good dude, and above most of the people I argue with here, I respect your intellect as well. I've learned a lot reading your posts, on a number of subjects.

Peace, truce, shake hands and move along.

And I'm not a Trumpian. You make others out to be what you want them to be, and that's a fail.

Civility is a 2 way street. Class is not.

FWIW, unless the Democrats start mobilizing and burning Kenosha in order to 'persuade' the jury... so far it looks like Rittenhouse is going to get a slew of Not Guilty(s). 3 days in to the trial and the prosecution has presented nothing so far that flies in direct contradiction to Rittenhouse's self defense claim. If anything what he has presented so far in terms of evidence, or at least in how he has presented it is really only illustrating the conditions that the defense is going show justify his actions.

-Prosecution has spent a lot of time detailing the circumstances between the first guy he killed, the child rapist Rosenbaum. Its strange because he keeps making it a point to show that Rosenbaum was the only person out of the crowd chasing him to assault him while also simultaneously demonstrating the extent Rittenhouse was trying to escape (which he had not duty to do). He practically got in to an argument with the States own witness, the victim of the reckless related charge. That witness/victim testified Rosenbaum lunged for Rittenhouse's rifle and pushed back when the DA tried to mischaracterize what he was testifying to. All the video and testimony so far shows that Rosenbaum was trying to assault Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse was clearly attempting to fell, and then Rosenbaum attempts to take the rifle away from him without lawful authority or cause. A not unimportant note on this: typically speaking, when a person is attempting to assault you, and they attempt to take your gun by force, that's solid grounds to use deadly force against your attacker because there is a reasonable presumption that if they are able to disarm you, they will then use it on you. the attempt doesn't have to be successful, it only has to be imminent which was clearly demonstrated.

-The prosecution also opened the door for some potential prosecutorial misconduct in regards to advising the lead Detective to not execute the already obtained search warrant for the data on the phone of the guy with the pistol who got his bicep blown away for his troubles.

-Oddly the prosecution has also showed plenty of footage showing Rittenhouse asking people if they need medical attention, running around with a fire extinguisher to put out literal dumpster fires. Actions that show he's trying to de-escalate events around him. So far nothing that shows him escalating anything about the encounter. So far no video evidence presented be it people on the ground or the FBI overhead surveillance has put him in a negative light. Some are going to argue that he shouldn't have been there in the first place. Maybe, but you could say that about everyone else too.

I thought the the first shooting was going to be the biggest challenge for the defense but after today's testimony and evidence.. justified. The second and third should follow suit. When someone hits you over the head with a skateboard, that is deadly force all day long. Justified. When the third guy tries to sneak up on you with a Glock, twice... justified.


I'm sorry (not really) that some of you will be upset by this because it doesn't fit your political agenda. And yes you think Rittenhouse is guilty because of politics. At any other time if you were told that a convicted child rapist was killed when he went after another kid, you'd all say he got what he deserved.

If anyone is interested in some play by play, https://legalinsurrection.com/ is a pretty decent site. The lawyers covering the cases have their positions, but they are usually really good about being objective in their assessments when it comes to which side "carried the day".

It wouldn't surprise me if they let him go and throw him a parade. Everything is upside down these days.

But I think he's guilty because I saw him shoot the people on video with my own eyes. Just saying.

After making my other post I went back and checked the thread from the beginning. Based on the last several posts I didn't think anyone had actually made any relevant posts to the thread topic. But to clear a couple things up factually:

1st) Rittenhouse didn't transport the gun across state lines. That is a media assertion, not fact. The DA did not make that assertion in opening arguments and on the first day of testimony it was shown in court that the family friend who bought the rifle for him, lives in Wisconsin, the gun was only shot on their property, and they agreed to store the gun on his property. There is ZERO evidence he brought the gun across state lines.

2nd) It was established in court that the group Rittenhouse was with had been in contact with the property owner who had indeed agreed to let them be there for the purposes of protecting it. So this isn't a case where they showed up claiming to provide protection that wasn't asked for. In terms of things like a castle doctrine, I don't think it would be hard to argue that it should extend to the non-property owner or resident if its demonstrated that owner/resident asked for their assistance and extended that authority to them.

3rd) as for Rittenhouse waiving and pointing his gun at people and that is what they were trying to disarm him... so far there hasn't been any video evidence presented by the prosecution that shows it. That's not to say there isn't any, but after today's testimony, the DA needs to bring it in to evidence real quick.

I do want to ask you about this though...
you conservatives need to understand that there is a growing population amongst you that look at guns from a masculinity perspective, rather than a protection perspective.

and there is a major difference between those

I said this very thing a couple years ago. I was making the point that there are 2 gun "cultures" in the U.S.: one that views firearms from the protection or last resort perspective, and another that views guns as a primary means to get what they want. IIRC you said something to the effect that I was full of it. I'm glad you've come around

At the very least he deserves a statue?

Um.. everyone saw him on video shoot them. Not a single person is disputing that. The people he shot were not being peaceful. All 3 of them were clearly intending to do him harm. Now you may believe that they had a right to cause him harm. We'll disagree on that. But they weren't exactly trying to stop a mass shooter in a peaceful mall on Saturday morning.

NOPE. That's where we disagree. He had NO business being there and murdered people IMHO. But the court can decide that.

Daman doesn't believe that happened. Ask him.

No one had any business being there. He and others were there because people like the ones he killed had been destroying and burning people's livelihoods under the guise of protesting the shooting of that POS Jacob Blake.

Your argument is equivalent to saying that just because a teenage girl snuck out of a house to go to a frat party that she had not right to defend herself when she was sexually assaulted because she had no business being there. Whether or not anyone thinks he had any business being there is actually beside the point because what matters is what he did once he was there. So far the evidence shows he was armed just as dozens of other people from all aspects of the 'protest' were. So far the evidence shows he was making attempts to help anyone who might be in need. So farthe evidence shows him attempting to flee several people attempting to harm him. Its just strange you say "But the court can decide that" when it seems as though you don't have any use for the evidence or facts (that have been admitted so far).

Let me ask you this: what happens if this jury should come back Not Guilty on all counts? Or at least on the important charges? Will you believe that justice was done? Will you believe that the decision was reached while maintaining the integrity of our legal system? OR will you claim its a miscarriage of justice because you've seen all you needed to see and you know all you needed to know and whatever was presented in Court doesn't really matter because you already know what the outcome should be?

When a teenage girl grabs her gun and has mommy drive her to another state to "protect" random businesses from Black people (BLM protestors who happen to be multicultural) resulting in her killing said people in self-defense after harassing them... her ass can go to jail too.

I'll admit part of this is political on my part, because the kid did this due to his political views. Show me one dem that showed up with a gun. One. But the other part is just watching a kid shoot people like dogs in the street. I didn't see every detail and if something comes out showing this kid's life was truly in danger and those guys chasing him had nothing to do with his previous actions, then I'd be good with him getting off. But just because the chased him down after being provoked by his actions, that doesn't make him killing them right, fair, or just. Simple fact is, he should never have been there. And his momma should go to jail too.

You can't help some people I guess.

And the guy you're tried, nicely, to respond to numerous times, is a troll.

One Dem that showed up with a gun? I like you OCD, but I wish you wouldn't say nutty things like that because it makes it hard to take you seriously. I'll give you one.. the 3rd guy with the Glock and got his bicep blown away for his troubles. Unless you are going to try and tell me that he was a mythical Trumpian who was actually trying to do the right thing and "police his own" by attempting to disarm Rittenhouse C'mon man lol

And so far you have ZERO proof that Rittenhouse provoked anyone by his actions... IIRC I think there was some testimony in court that people in the crowd, maybe even Rosenbaum, was pissed at him because he was trying to extinguish a fire.

So far all you have is this weird concern for a child rapist., more concern for what happened to him than you care to even attempt to have for a 17yr old because that 17yr old might vote (R) when he's old enough. That's actually pretty messed up. I hopw that's not how you really feel. Anyway, I've dipped my toes in the PP water enough for the evening. FWIW though, just about all the stuff you've posted recently in regards to the state of the Browns I'm nearly 100% in agreement with.

You got me there, I completely forgot about that gun and that idiot. Was he a rioter? Was he a left-winger for sure? The reason I ask is that umbrella man burning businesses turned out to be far right... I really don't remember and don't feel like looking it up in my current state.

But I am almost positive there was footage of him prior to this that showed him running up in a parking lot, then somebody getting shot... that's when the others chased him down. Prior to that I'm not sure what all he did, but a thorough investigation should show it. And seriously, if the kid was in a life and death situation that he just found himself in suddenly, I could buy the self-defense bit. But calling his buddy to tell him he just killed somebody, instead of calling police, was pretty sketchy for somebody afraid for their lives and claiming self-defense.

Not sure what you are talking about child rapist? Tell me what you mean. And I get along just fine with you too. Political differences are ok bro, Trumpism for me, is not. That said, as far as I know, we're cool. Most of my rants since Trump got sent packing have been against all the ignorance he ushered or helped to usher in.

Never mind, I found this describing the victims of Rittenhouse's shooting spree. Honestly, I feel the kid should fry. But I can see both side a litle clearer now. thanks for reminding me about that homeless guy with the mental health issues that wasn't even part of the protests that night... forgot he had a conviction for sex with a teen. But he wasn't on either side, so I was hardly ("So far all you have is this weird concern for a child rapist") concerned for him, just concerned this kid was just popping people in the name of Trumpian politics.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/01/us/kyle-rittenhouse-shooting-victims-trial/index.html

Affluenza sucks
White privilege on full display
He is a proud boy

Haiku is ideal:
Give each post what it is worth.
Then, just walk away.

Only way to deal
Too many fronts on the storm
Found some catharsis

Thanks, will try this out.
Might get on y'all's level.
"Loud noises!" says he.

j/c

Juror in Kyle Rittenhouse trial dismissed for telling joke about police shooting of Jacob Blake

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/04/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-thursday/index.html

Sounds like this jury will be unbiased.

Family behind Kenosha car dealership says Kyle Rittenhouse wasn't asked to guard their property
Michelle Mark
Fri, November 5, 2021, 6:58 PM


Two brothers said they never asked Kyle Rittenhouse or anyone else to guard their Kenosha car dealership.

Rittenhouse's defense attorneys have said the teenager was asked to protect the property on August 25, 2020.

The brothers' testimony is significant for prosecutors' efforts to paint Rittenhouse as a vigilante.

Two brothers from the family-owned car dealership Kyle Rittenhouse said he was guarding on the night of the Kenosha shootings testified on Friday that neither had requested armed protection that night, from Rittenhouse or anyone else.

Sahil and Anmol Khindri said they both encountered Rittenhouse and other armed men on August 25, 2020, the day of the shooting, but only briefly.

The Khindri brothers' testimony is significant for prosecutors' efforts to paint Rittenhouse as a vigilante who recklessly and needlessly brought an AR-15 rifle into a dangerous situation. Rittenhouse's defense attorneys have sought to portray their client as a Good Samaritan who was providing much-needed protection to a family business that had requested it.

Rittenhouse is charged with fatally shooting two men, one of them in a Car Source parking lot, and injuring a third. He has pleaded not guilty and said he opened fire in self-defense because the men were chasing him.

The Khindri brothers explained that their parents owned three car-related properties along Sheridan Road in downtown Kenosha, and that both brothers had arrived at their parents' properties that day to inspect damage from previous nights of protests.

Sahil, who posed for a picture outside the Car Source with Rittenhouse and a group of heavily armed civilians, testified that he hadn't actually known any of the men at the time. He requested a photo because he was "so impressed" by the way the men were dressed, and had previously only seen armed men like that on television, he said.

He told the court that he didn't ask the men to protect the business, but he also didn't ask them to leave.

Witness Sahil Khindri testified that he took a photo with Kyle Rittenhouse and other armed men on the day of the shootings, but denied that he asked them to protect the business. FOX6

Anmol, who at the time was an inventory manager at the Car Source properties, recalled briefly chatting with Rittenhouse earlier in the day and giving the then-17-year-old his phone number.

Anmol said Rittenhouse, like many others that day, had expressed sorrow for the damage the properties had already sustained and interest in helping him fundraise for repairs.

But, Anmol added, he did not ask Rittenhouse to guard any Car Source locations, nor did he ask anyone else to do so.

Rittenhouse has said he was asked to guard the car dealership

Both Rittenhouse and Dominick Black, a friend accompanying him at the time, previously said they were in Kenosha that evening because the owners of the Car Source asked them to guard the properties. But the Khindri brothers' testimony on Friday conflicted with those statements.

One of Rittenhouse's attorneys, Corey Chirafisi, asked Anmol during cross-examination why he would simply leave the properties unguarded during the third night of civil unrest in Kenosha following the police shooting of Jacob Blake.

"After seeing the destruction, there was nothing I could do," Anmol said.

Chirafisi also repeatedly asked Anmol whether he was fearful of being sued if he admitted that he requested armed protection on the property where Rittenhouse ultimately shot Joseph Rosenbaum. Anmol appeared not to understand the question.

A text message from Kyle Rittenhouse to the Car Source used car lots offering to protect the businesses is shown on monitors to the witness and jury by Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger as one of the sons of the owner of Car Source is questioned during the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse on November 5, 2021 in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Mark Hertzberg/Pool via Getty Images
More

Prosecutors asked both brothers to read a text message sent to Anmol's phone on August 25, 2020, that said, "Hey Sam it's Kyle do you need anyone to protect your business tonight I'm more then willing and will be armed I just need address. Me and my brother would both be thwre armed."

Anmol confirmed that he goes by the name Sam, and that he received the text on his cellphone.

He denied responding to the message, however. He said he hadn't known who "Kyle" was at the time and didn't see the message until the following day.



https://www.insider.com/brothers-say-they-never-asked-rittenhouse-to-guard-car-source-2021-11

That should put this misguided rumor to rest.

BS,, you have supported Trump in way to many ways not to be a trumpian

I honestly don't care about anything other than Rittenhouse going to jail for the rest of his life..

He came there with a clear purpose.. He accomplished that task. He's guilty.....

You declare him guilty before the trial is even finished? You want to deny people their constitutional right to due process? Yet you complain about fascists. People like you are what America needs to be afraid of.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

(Just so you know though, it's only fascism when they say it's fascism. )

Pretty sure that it's fascism when the government denies your rights. Kinda like the Texas abortion law.

What Daman is doing is offering an opinion.
You are saying that opinion is premature. I think we all have premature opinions about one thing or another. Those opinions are subject to change was more information becomes available.

I'm not a trumpian. I voted for him over the other person. But you go on believing your own crap.

Making excuses for bad behavior is a form of support.

Yes,,, I think he's guilty... Is it not allowed to have an opinion?

I'm not going to declare him guilty before a trial. A trial of course decided by 11 white people and 1 black person. But I will put forth one obvious truth.

It is illegal for a 17 year old to be open carrying a rifle on the streets of Wisconsin.


So at the time this happened he was committing a criminal act. Had he not been in the process of committing a criminal act, he would have had no rifle with which to kill anyone with. One of his defenses has already been proven to be a lie. The property owners he claims asked him to help protect their property say that never happened. So if that wasn't why he was there, why was he there?

j/c:

Seems like odd questioning by the prosecutor on his own witness.



.....and the other prosector looks like he is face-palming at the question and/or response.

Correction: That is the defense attorney asking the question, but the prosecution's witness.

If this punk gets off, it's a complete breakdown and failure of the court system.... He came there to get into trouble..... he got trouble.

I want him to get a real "fair" trial and a first rate hangin'....