DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Rittenhouse Trial

If you're going to start a battle, don't wuss out and blame someone else for it. When you're civil, I'm civil. You start your BS you're going to get it back in kind and then some. That's how this works. Get used to it. You started the "whining" and "broken record" BS. So stop acting like some wounded animal.

Anyone have the surveillance videos they were showing? I haven't seen them and know little about the case

I'm not missing reality - but thanks for that. I have not read every post in this thread - maybe that's my bad. i merely commented and asked for confirmation on what you wrote.

Your reply makes sense. I think the "murder" charge completely depends on his motivation for inserting himself - armed and willing to kill people - into a hostile situation like that. I mean the easy cop out is to call him stupid. But the reality is it is understandable and easy to believe he inserted himself looking to be a vigilante and to put himself in harms way as a justification for shooting people he clearly despised. Whether his intentions and predetermined mind set can be proven in a court of law is doubtful.

State of mind is a tough one to prove unless Rittenhouse revealed that during his courtroom examination. I don't think many think the prosecution got to anything other than what the guy has been saying from the beginning.

From what I have seen, Rittenhouse was in retreat before he shot, so to me at least, that tells you his state of mind. I don't think he went there with the intent to shoot people. Why wait until you are being kicked at and chased? Why he went there? I am not going to speculate any more than offer being a bit stupid because we could come up with multiple reasons and in the end, it doesn't really matter why he went there unless it could be shown he went there to shoot people.

State of mind isn't that hard to figure in this case... this was a planned thing.. His mom drove him across state line... They knew just what they were doing.. I'm convinced that Mom is a moron Trumpian who figured that a 17 years old wouldn't be tried as an adult.

As for him being in retreat, I have one question, what the hell was he doing there in the first place.... My opinion is that he came to kill..

Sorry my friend. Your opinion doesn't count and hopefully you are never asked to be on a jury of any consequence.

That wasn't meant as a "you're out of touch with reality" slam, just merely that you were missing the reality of what I was saying. My apologies if you took it that way.

That's a very reasonable approach as a way to string events together and paint this kid as a killer worthy of a murder charge. I would actually think that would be the blueprint the prosecution is following... mainly because that's really their only hope at a murder conviction. I'm not watching the "play by play" of the trial so I can't really speak to their strategy.

Video evidence is basically a be all, end all in courtrooms nowadays. It's hard to "unpaint" a picture as it's painted on a video screen. All the video in this case shows (beyond a reasonable doubt, imo) that there is a reason for him to fear for his life. It's in "real time" in front of every juror's mug. That doesn't excuse any of his crimes, but it makes it nearly impossible to pin "murder" on him.

While you can get try to get a jury to follow your line of reasoning, you have a huge stumbling block as far as I can see... "put himself in harms way as a justification for shooting people he clearly despised" is too large of a leap. Way to large. It's one thing to imagine it may have crossed is mind as a "if/then" scenario; as far as how he may intend to react. It's quite another to say (or prove) it was an orchestrated event.

So yes, proving his intentions in a courtroom is, as you said, doubtful... I'll add another word - "very".

I can agree with those sentiments - the issue is what the law says.

I know Trump has tried his utmost to make it not so - but we are still a nation of laws.

Peen - yes state of mind is difficult to prove - but that's why one would logically believe that his past, his social media and any associations he has etc would all be relevant.

It's especially hard to prove when the judge won't allow evidence that plainly shows how your mind works and how you have used violence not long ago.

State seeks to admit video of Rittenhouse in separate incident threatening to shoot men with AR-15

https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/lo...ddeb29f-5a86-5151-ab20-a3834456304e.html

bump

Poor little misunderstood hero.
He deserves freedom... and maybe a statue in downtown Kenosha.

Lets all be glad you are no longer involved in the legal system....

With this trial and the Aubry trial going on, I'd bet we're all about to go through some crap again. Rittenhouse gets off and the left will lose its' mind, the right will feel justified to all become violent tourists (heard that lamo label on msnbc tonight). The kid gets convicted and the right will all roll up into fetal position and start crying/claiming victimhood and the left will let their guard down again thinking nothing worse is coming, allowing this type of case to be normalized.

The other trial will have racial (or racists?) feelings hurt on one side or the other with equally charged political and activism fallout. If acquitted, BLM 2.0 Intensity: GOD LVL will spark 2 seconds after the verdict. If convicted, the right will scream reverse racism while ignoring that they actually killed a black man for jogging and looking around... The left will be hair on fire either way.

So, you'd rather the case be decided by your opinion, as opposed to the laws. Got it.

Oh brother. Do you actually believe that stereotyping? You know quite well that a lot of people on the right don't support those clowns that shot Aubry.

I watched the Rittenhouse trial and I'm not sure whose team was more successful. We'll see.

In the Arbery case I can only say there is no way those dudes get off. It was straight murder and everyone of all races can see it.

Doesn't matter what the 'silent majority' thinks, the messaging will be what Trump says or does from top to bottom in GOPer DC.

Hope you are right, and I am wrong on this one. Like you said, we'll see.

The problem with open carry of an AR15 is that others think you are an active shooter.

In the video there were a bunch of people with ARs. There were a lot of people milling about. They thought there was an active shooter because they heard gun shots without neccessarily knowing where it was coming from. Some people saw him shoot Rosenbaum and it became a mob mission to stop him.

This is the problem. Nobody was wrong.

He wasnt an active shooter. He was being assaulted, feared for his life, and defended himself.

They were playing hero and thinking they were taking out a bad guy. Their intentions werent wrong based on the first shooting.

So I dunno how the jury will go on this one.

Rittenhouse was a stupid kid that should not have been where he was but he acted in self defense against a mob. A drink girl might be stupid but just because she is where she should not be does not give anyone the right to rape her. Same as this kid. Just because he was somewhere he should not have been he does not lose the right to defend himself.

The men that killed Aubry are guilty as all get out. The only way they would have legal right to act in deadly force is if they felt their life was threatened and from all accounts I have heard that is not what happened. They assumed they witnessed a crime and acted. The proper thing they should have done if they thought they witnessed a crime is call the authorities. I think the men that killed Aubrey are guilty and the 11 white jury members will prove to the Nation that the race baiting doen by the left is fictional in today's world.

I don't disagree with anything you said, but it conveniently ignores the fact he was there in the first place. Do you think justice would be served if he walked free with no punishment at all? His gun charge was just dismissed (which was the 'slam dunk' charge vs KR), and with how the case has gone, I don't see guilty charges coming at all on the rest. I know the law and its application can get caught up in its own feet (just a reality in any system), but do you think the jury declaring him not guilty is 'right'?

I trust myself more than I do some of the judges out there.. I don't oppose the law,, that's you attempting to put words in my mouth....

Well I'll say this, if Rittenhouse walks, the protesters on the left (activists), will feel like it's open season on them the way the alt-right likes to show up and stir crap. This case became much more than a stupid kid doing dangerous stuff the second it was politicized. It's now about setting precedent that you can claim self-defense after willingly putting yourself in a situation to need self-defense. It's about setting precedent that we can, for political purposes, strap up and harass and assault the opposition, yet claim self-defense when it goes south. He must be found guilty IMHO.

Totally disagree. Even though he put himself somewhere he should not have been there is no excuse for those that assaulted him. Again, a girl that gets sloppy drunk put her self in a bad situation but she does not deserve to have bad things happen to her. Even after making mistake after mistake a person still has the right to defend themselves.

Protesters have a right to peacefully protests. Once they go beyond peaceful their rights end. If they attempt to assault someone that someone then has the right to defend themselves. There is a huge difference between peaceful protests and rioting. Whether it is BLM riots or January 6th riots once it turns violent those rioters are opening themselves up to consequences. If they assault someone and make someone feel threatened they are opening themselves up to someone defending themselves with deadly force.

You seem to say that his location was the only problem. It's not. He was also illegally carrying a firearm. A firearm with which without it, nobody would have been killed. The fact is these people were shot and killed during the commission of a crime, which if that crime were not being committed, their deaths never could have happened.

I don't know if that constitutes murder or not. My guess is it doesn't. But if he goes unpunished, it opens the door and gives legal approval of anyone going anywhere, using firearms as a means of intimidation to garner a reaction and killing anyone who reacts. Soon you will be seeing both sides armed to the teeth and vigilante justice will become the norm.

None of this will turn out well either way.

The prosecution agreed yesterday that the gun was legal. The judge dismissed that charge. It was not concealed and met a length requirement. So he was not committing a crime at the time he was being assaulted. Now the jury must decide did he have the right to defend himself or not.

After the 2020 riots and the crime happening in big cities I think everyone should be armed to the teeth. If your not you will become a statistic. That is the society of the large cities, Blue States, and Progressives. They let criminals walk free and turn away from riots as long as it fits their political narrative.

I didn't see where anyone agreed him carrying that gun was legal. I did see where they chose not to move forward with that charge. Those are two different things.


It goes on to give the exceptions. None of which is the length of the gun and actually mentions rifles in its description of dangerous weapons.


That's the actual state law from the Wisconsin State Legislature website.

I think the property owners felt like it was open season on them, considering there was over 50 million in damages due to arson and destruction by these activists.


The peaceful activists were out during daylight hours. The destructive goons and arsonists were out at night. Anyone on the streets at that time of night was up to no good, looking for trouble and putting themselves in harms way. Those "protestors" out there late at night aren't innocent victims holding any moral high ground.

That said, I can see a need to arm yourself and protect what's yours or even ask for armed help if the police can't protect you, but patrolling the streets with a weapon as Rittenhouse was doing gives the appearance that you're out looking to shoot someone. I didn't see anywhere that his help was requested from any of the locals. I believe he was defending himself, but he had no business being there in the first place. It will all boil down to the letter of the law.

While I actually agree with you for the most part, I don't think saying everyone on the street were "destructive goons and arsonists". I do agree with you that a good many of them were. When you start lumping "everyone there" as being and doing exactly the same thing is the only place we really disagree. I believe if you weren't one of the people engaged in such activity common sense should have told you to go the hell home or leave.

If that drunk girl is running around playing security and then shoots multiple people, she would deserve to have bad things happen. So, your little comparison doesn't hold up to reasonable scrutiny. And you keep saying assault when describing the people attacking him that night... well, those same people thought they were attacking an active shooter. So, by the right's gun toting ideals, the good guys tried to take out the bad guy and got shot for their efforts. And honestly, I don't think a guy striking you with a skateboard rises to the level of requiring a deadly force response. But I too would definitely want to put the guy hitting me with a skateboard down... just because he hit me.

You are right about protests not being riots. But then you start using right wing talking points and lose all credibility. First, January 6th was an insurrection, period. There were no patriots there that day, just Trump's traitorous hatriots. It may have resembled a riot and even fit the definition: a violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd. But the right overlooks a subtle but glaring difference in the definitions of riot vs. insurrection, where rioting is a violent disturbance of the peace and insurrection is defined as a violent uprising against an authority or government. This was an assault on the government, period. That by definition is an insurrection.

And threatening somebody does not mean deadly force is all good either. Physically harming somebody justifies self-defense, but the first guy and the guy without the skateboard did not touch him that I know of. Some reports say the first guy grabbed at his gun, while others say he didn't. And the other guy had his gun in hand but never pointed it at Rittenhouse, and never touched him that I'm aware of. In both cases, Rittenhouse chose to use deadly force regardless of the actual threat to himself. That's murder or at minimum some sort of manslaughter.

And the rights of protesters OR anyone else don't simply end just because they went outside the bounds of what you might consider 'inbounds' for a protest. That's ridiculous. We all have the basic human right to not be killed rather protesting or not. That right does not go away unless we do something bad enough to make it go away. Chasing him down as a potential mass shooter, hitting him with a skateboard, or calling him murderer or other names... none of it requires a deadly response. The skateboard hitting is debatable, the other things not so much. Having a gun in your hand but not threatening/pointing it at him is no different than open carry. Especially if you think the guy you are after is a mass shooter. He most definitely is not innocent and deserves to go to jail, how long and on what charge is up in the air.

Only plucking this out because it seems to be an ongoing narrative that doesn't appear to be true. Rittenhouse shot and killed Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber and wounded Gaige Grosskreutz...

Rosenbaum threatened to kill Rittenhouse numerous times, according to witnesses, before chasing him through a parking lot. Huber is striking him with a skateboard as well as trying to take his gun. That results in someone getting shot about 100% (don't quote me lol) of the time. Grosskreutz pointed a gun in his face... his own testimony.



https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/st....html#tracking-source=in-article-popular

I have said multiple times before that I don't think what Rittenhouse did qualifies as murder. But he wasn't some innocent bystander. He is guilty of "something". I don't know the Wisconsin law so I don't know the appropriate term but something like reckless endangerment or something like that.

If they find him guilty of a lesser crime and he does some time, this will just die. This might be the best-case outcome honestly.

They did not agree. The judge declared he was dropping the charge due to some weird technicality which may or may not be applicable. He also did so at such a time that leaves basically no time for the prosecution to do anything about it (had he issued a ruling back when it originally came up, the prosecution would fired up an appeals process to gain clarity on this law's application to the situation... but he instead issued a ruling at the last minute). I read an article with a former prosecutor that said that was a black mark on the judge for doing it like that, but the 'L' ultimately falls on the prosecution for allowing a gray area to remain so until it's too late. They could've proactively started up the appeals process in anticipation of this.

Criminal Negligence maybe.

https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/laws/criminal-negligence/

Just a reminder - no one should have even been there that night, including the protesters.

This incident in mainly on those who wanted to rush to judgement in the Jacob Blake case, without waiting for all the facts and looking at it logically. Turns out the cops was 100% justified in what he did when looking at all the facts.

Instead, people want to fan the flames with wild opinions.

Maybe this will be a reminder for the next time a situation like the Jacon Blake case arises....

While I agree that nobody should have been there, without a minor illegally open carrying 40 miles away from his home there would be no incident.