Men shot by Rittenhouse can be described as ‘rioters’ and ‘looters’ but not ‘victims,’ judge rules ahead of trial

Kyle Rittenhouse’s lawyers can refer to the men he shot as “rioters” and “looters,” but prosecutors still may not call them “victims” at any time during the teen’s upcoming murder trial, a judge ruled Monday.

Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder cautioned the defense team against using pejorative terms during opening statements, but he said they could use them in their closing arguments if the evidence suggested the men engaged in criminal acts.

“He can demonize them if he wants, if he thinks it will win points with the jury,” Schroeder said.

Rittenhouse has pleaded not guilty to the charges and says he acted in self-defense when he fatally shot Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber and wounded Gaige Grosskreutz in August 2020.

Then 17 and living in Antioch, Rittenhouse fired the shots while patrolling downtown Kenosha with an AR-15-style rifle amid the turmoil surrounding the shooting of Jacob Blake, a Black man, by a white police officer. Despite not being old enough to openly carry a gun, Rittenhouse volunteered as an armed security guard after businesses had been burned and vandalized during demonstrations held the previous night.

Schroeder earlier had ruled the three men cannot be referred to as “victims” during the trial because it would be prejudicial to Rittenhouse. Such rulings are not uncommon in self-defense cases where there is a dispute over who bears responsibility.

In allowing the defense to describe the people Rittenhouse shot in pejorative terms, the judge stressed that he had not changed his mind about calling them victims.

“The word victim is a loaded, loaded word,” Schroeder said.

The ruling — among the last issued by Schroeder before jury selection begins Nov. 1 — clearly frustrated prosecutors, who suggested the judge was creating a double standard by allowing Rosenbaum and Huber to be disparaged when they could not defend themselves.

“The terms that I’m identifying here such as rioter, looter and arsonist are as loaded, if not more loaded, than the term victim,” Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger said.

The defense intends to argue that Rosenbaum, in particular, posed a danger that night as he threatened to kill people and engaged in arson. None of the acts, however, occurred in the moments immediately preceding the shooting.

“The behavior of many people there was lawless,” defense attorney Mark Richards said. “Mr. Rosenbaum was at the top of that list.”

Schroeder indicated he would allow evidence of bad behavior that night by the men Rittenhouse shot because it could speak to how dangerous they would have seemed to the teen. Prosecutors failed to convince the judge that the defense wanted to sully Rosenbaum’s reputation so the jury could more easily justify the shooting.

“This is an attempt to tell the jury that Mr. Rosenbaum was a bad guy who deserved to die,” Binger said. “That’s really what’s going on here, your honor.”

Schroeder also rejected the prosecution’s request to block any evidence that local law enforcement provided water to vigilantes the night of the shooting and thanked them for their presence. In video taken before Rittenhouse fired his gun, officers in an armored vehicle tossed bottles of water to him and other armed civilians who were clearly violating the city’s 8 p.m. curfew.

One officer can be heard on the recording expressing his gratitude to the group.

“We appreciate you guys,” the officer said. “We really do.”

“I’m concerned this is going to be turned into a trial over what law enforcement should or shouldn’t have done that night,” Binger said. “And I don’t think that’s what this court or this trial should be deciding.”

In opting to allow the evidence, Schroeder said he wouldn’t permit the defense to argue the encouraging words reflected the police department’s overall opinion. It could, however, help explain Rittenhouse’s mindset that night.

“I would not let it be used to prove that the entire police presence on that evening appreciated Mr. Rittenhouse’s behavior or his presence,” he said. “Relevance is another matter.”

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news...25-3vr7rdlo6zbzhmdsz3bvol4kxm-story.html

So now when a killer guns down people, they can't be called victims during the trial? smdh

But "Rittenhouse fired the shots while patrolling downtown Kenosha with an AR-15-style rifle amid the turmoil surrounding the shooting of Jacob Blake, a Black man, by a white police officer." and "Despite not being old enough to openly carry a gun, Rittenhouse volunteered as an armed security guard after businesses had been burned and vandalized during demonstrations held the previous night" among other whitewashing language, sure makes this look like the fix is in and a killer will walk.

If I'm the prosecutor, I'd repeatedly refer to them as "the dead men," "the deceased," or "your targets." After all, it still is a murder trial. If I'm not allowed to refer to them as "victims," it's my responsibility to paint Rittenhouse as their killer.

Love how the judge placed his thumb on the scale. Not sure what his motivation could have been.

He was patrolling...

Yeah, it couldn't be that he's sympathetic to the killing of "certain people".

The kid should not have been there with a gun. But, the video clearly shows self defense. If the video is played I do not know how the kid will not be freed.

Doesn't matter what you call them.. He still had no right to kill them.. He himself wasn't in danger and he wasn't protecting his own home..

this makes sense but it goes deeper than that. i bet you can even agree on this.

first, he was underage, meaning he shouldnt be carrying a rifle anyway. then, crossing state lines with a rifle you aren't supposed to have in the first place is a straight up felony all on its own.

then, he goes there to protect SOMEONE ELSE'S property. not life, property.

when i saw the video just by itself, yea, im probably shooting at two guys trying to beat my ass with skateboards as well.

but there were a whoooooolle bunch of horrible decisions made prior to that. he intentionally put himself in a situation where the threat of violence multiplied.

intent matters.

So is this going to be one of those cases where it's more about what the prosecutor tries to charge him with than the act itself? Sounds to me like he's not going to get stuck with murder, but clearly committed a whole host of serious crimes leading up to the act.

Jc

So I break into someones house with a gun. They attack me, perhaps with their own gun. I shoot and kill them but it isn't murder because I was defending myself. I feared for my life. Is that what we are saying?

I do believe he committed crimes being there with a gun. Never should have happened but he was physically attacked and he only shot in self defense protecting himself. He should not have been there, he should not have been there with a AR-15, but he was and so was the rioters who chose to attack the kid and he defended himself. Not murder, but a series of bad decisions for sure.

baffling that anyone could think that.

Going off the definitions that I posted below, this is clearly not 1st degree murder. 2nd degree murder could be argued but based on the definitions below I think that would be hard to convict. I suspect manslaughter is probably the crime he committed.



Murder vs Manslaughter: What’s The Difference?
by Gabriel QuinnanAug 6, 2019

Manslaughter and murder are two of the most serious crimes you can be charged with. Between the two, murder is the more serious charge, but manslaughter also carries significant punishment if convicted.

From a legal standpoint, there is a very clear difference between murder vs manslaughter, and knowing which charges you face is critical when speaking with a criminal defense attorney.

Manslaughter
Manslaughter is defined as an unlawful killing that doesn’t involve malice aforethought (intent to seriously harm or kill) or extreme, reckless disregard for life. Because someone who commits manslaughter, by definition, did not intend to kill the victim, the punishment is less severe than for murder.

There are two types of manslaughter charges that can be brought against you: voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter.

Voluntary Manslaughter
Commonly referred to as a “heat of passion” crime. Voluntary manslaughter charges are brought against someone who:
Was strongly provoked under circumstances that could similarly provoke a reasonable person
Kills in the heat of passion resulting from that provocation
A typical example of voluntary manslaughter would be if you came home and unexpectedly found your spouse cheating on you, and you became so angry in the moment that you killed the person your spouse was cheating with.

Involuntary Manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter typically refers to an unintentional homicide resulting from criminally negligent or reckless conduct. It can also refer to an unintentional killing through the commission of a crime other than a felony.

The line between murder and involuntary manslaughter can sometimes be difficult to discern, mainly because an accidental killing due to extreme recklessness may constitute second-degree murder.

Murder
Similar to manslaughter, there are two different types of murder charges:
First Degree Murder includes felony murder and premeditated, intentional killings. This is the most serious crime you can possibly be charged with.
Second Degree Murder is defined as an unplanned intentional killing or a death caused by reckless disregard for human life.

Often the difference between being charged with first or second-degree murder comes down to intent, and there is often a very fine line between a first and second-degree killing. First-degree murder requires that a defendant plan and intentionally carry out the killing, whereas second-degree murder requires that the killing either be intentional or reckless and occur in the spur of the moment.


https://quinnanlaw.com/criminal-defense/murder-vs-manslaughter/

I think that's a fair assessment.

There is the fact that had he not have broken laws that placed him there with a rifle in the first place neither of those people would be dead. So no matter how anyone tries to spin this, he's certainly totally responsible for the event that took place.

I think this kid is just another white supremacist gun toting thug and should be put down like a rabid dog. Self-defense or not, this kid went looking for trouble and found it. He wanted this all.

Had a BLM protestor killed three of the gun toting WS thugs that night, they would have never made it to jail. The police handed this kid bottled water and let him walk around playing soldier all night. At the very minimum this kid should get sentenced on 2 manslaughter one and a felony assault charge. But they will probably go straight murder and his punk ass will be let off the hook.

That's kinda what I was getting at. He's responsible, but the prosecution also has a responsibility to make sure that what they charge will stick. It seems like some of the particulars here will make an otherwise easy case tougher.

It does no good if the prosecutor charges based on what 'feels right' and then gets tripped up in particulars.

I certainly do not disagree with you. I just see people say that he was doing nothing more than defending himself. Yet it was he himself who broke laws that set the entire stage of the event without which none of this would have ever happened.

And that's the rub, right? I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that going for a more fitting sentence (IMO) is REALLY running the risk coming up empty-handed, with the way the laws are written and with how this played out. Based on what I know of the case, I'd probably be a little more risk-averse in terms of charges to make sure I do nail him. Also make sure I get him on every single little thing he did leading up to the shooting.

Although, if he was not attacked by those rioters none of them would be dead now. Once attacked he does have the right to defend himself. He should not have been there but the rioters should not have been there either. Then the rioters choose to attack and he protected himself.

Had he have not broken multiple firearms laws he wouldn't have been there in there with a rifle in the first place. Had he not have been there none of this would have happened no matter how you spin it. We often hear how it's not those who follow firearms laws that lead to gun deaths. That is true. Here is a prime example of what happens when people do not follow firearms laws.

I agree the kid broke laws and should have never been there. he needs to be held accountable for the laws he broke. The rioters also were breaking laws and should have never been there. If thet would not have attacked the kid they would be alive. Even though the kid broke laws once attacked he still had/s the right to defend his own life. Those people rioting were burning building, beating, people, killing people and they choose to attack this kid. Was he looking for trouble. Yes, I think he was. But, the video shows him clearly attacked and using the weapon in defense and not shooting randomly at other rioters. He should face charges but not for what he did to those rioters. He had a right at the time he was attacked to defend himself.

At the end of the day, I think the law might actually be on your side in terms of the "defending himself" argument goes (not sure, though). The law doesn't always follow common sense, though. Dude armed/mounted up and went into a riot Rambo-style... just to turn around and claim self defense. Ridiculous.

Thousands upon thousands of people involved in those riots over the summer were arrested for their crimes as they should have been. He had no right to be there with a rifle in the street according to the very laws he broke. You seem to keep trying to avoid the fact that had he not have broken those laws in the first place none of this would have ever happened. His unlawful acts alone created the situation. Nothing else. If he's not there with a rifle this doesn't happen.

He should be charged for crossing a State line with a fire arm. I agree. There are probably other charges that he should be charged with. But, if you or I go somewhere we do not belong and break laws in doing so we are still not free game to be attacked. And, if we are attacked we do have the right to defend ourselves. The Kid should face charges, serious charges for the bad decisions he made. The rioters choose to physically assault the kid did they not? Watching the video I could see him fearing for his life. He defended himself with lethal defense. I have no problem with that. The rioters had that coming for assaulting the kid. He made mistakes. But, no mistake should ever open some one up to assault. The rioters had to right to be doing what they were doing and the ones who attacked him had no legal right to attack him.

You have to look at the letter of the law. Some states have a statute that if someone dies in the commission of a crime, those involved with committing the crime are guilty of murder. Since he was committing a crime while a situation arose where he had to defend himself, does that rule apply? The lawyers and jury have a tough job on their hands if it's not clear.

I have a real hard time buying the "he was fearing for his life" shtick based solely on the fact that he was there and armed.

Just look at jfanents post. The kid was committing a criminal offense. He broke the law and during the commission of breaking those laws he killed people. First he was not old enough to possess the weapon. Secondly he crossed state lines while possessing it. Anyone who believes the kid didn't go there with ill intent is fooling themselves. He was on a hunting expedition. Waiting for any excuse to kill someone. The cops who just passed him by and did nothing should also be held partly responsible.

Didn't his mom drive him there? IMO, she should be prosecuted.

You can do all of those things but it still does not make it open season on being attacked. You and I can make bad decision after bad decision and it still does not give anyone the right to physically assault us. At that time we do have legal rights to defend ourselves. He was attacked. I do not care what you think about the kid. He should be charged with a variety of crimes but he still had a right to defend himself once he was attacked.

Again I ask:

So I break into someones house with a gun. They attack me, perhaps with their own gun. I shoot and kill them but it isn't a crine because I was defending myself. I feared for my life. Is that what we are saying?

He did not break into anyone's house and neither did the rioters. He was outside and they were outside. There are no laws in this Country that would prohibit either party for being where they wre at the time. Both parties were in the progress of committing crimes. This kid crossed State lines with a fire arm, was not legal to carry that fire arm, I am sure there are other crimes committed. The rioters were in the process was damaging property that was not their own, they were also in the process of committing assault on this kid when he acted in self defense and shot his assailants. If he would have entered into the homes of the rioters then their attacking him would not be assault and there would be no self defense it would be plain and simple murder. That was not the case.

It would be interesting to see him address you or j's post. This happened while he was committing federal gun crimes.

So you are unaware that if someone is killed during the commission of a crime it's the one committing the crime that's responsible?

Both sides were committing crimes. As I said the kid should be charged with multiple crimes. Murder is not one of them because he was in the process of being assaulted. When being assaulted he has legal rights to defend himself.

Once again, it was the crimes Rittenhouse committed that created the situation and him being there in the first place. Your argument is, "Well after he committed crimes that put him there with a loaded gun, then after that other people committed a crime too."

The law you are referring to will not apply to this situation. It's intent is if you are involved in a robbery, and high speed chase, etc... and someone gets killed whether you committed the act or not you will be responsible for the murder. In this case, the kid committed crimes yes, but he was attacked. Not lawfully, attacked. The rioters had no legal right to attack the kid. They choose to do so. The kid then has the right to defend himself. The video shows that.

So if they can provide evidence that he went there with the intent to cause trouble it counts and if they can't it doesn't. I don't think it will be that hard to prove that intent and that some excuse of going to a neighboring state to help protect other people's property is a bunch of BS. We'll see.

You don't think so. I think it will be VERY hard to prove he went there with intent to shoot someone.

Agree. The video shows otherwise. He tried to run from each attack first and was tackled then fired. The video is the defendants main weapon. The Prosecution has to prove other circumstances that the video does not show. The video clearly shows self defense.

I don't know. These days there's almost always an internet footprint. Google searches and social media often time reveal a lot. The actual event itself may be overshadowed with his intent and laws he broke going there in the first place.

Let's just wait until we see what his intent of going there in the first pace was. You've already admitted that will be a key factor.

I am one...and I agree

I think proving intent is a tricky thing in this case. Again, I'm not a lawyer so maybe this isn't as tricky as I think it is... but doesn't the prosecution have to firmly prove that he left his house with the intent to shoot someone to prove intent? The way I see it, the defense only has to say that Rittenhouse didn't understand the consequences of his actions until it was too late and the whole intent argument goes out the window. Prosecution basically has to have Rittenhouse saying "I'm going to go commit a crime now" or they have nothing (if they need to prove intent).

I don't like saying that as I think he more or less knew what he was doing... but where do I have this wrong?

Really, Tell me how he was in danger...

Let me come try to bash your head in with a skateboard. Then tell me you weren't in danger.

Yeah, but is that really danger??

Your point of reference does not apply. Rittenhouse was not on his own property so castle laws/theory do not apply.

He was in a public place with an open firearm. It is a very complex case, agreed, but half the battle is not to willingly place yourself in a risky position in the first place.

My guess is that he will be found guilty of the crimes that placed him in the position that he found himself, transporting firearms across a state lines, and reduced charges associated with the crime itself. It was a dumbass move in the first place. He was not and is not law enforcement. He can’t go into a volatile situation and inflame it.

Reread my post and found it ambiguous. The point was that the person breaking with a gun in kills the homeowner, but it isn't a crime because the homeowner attacked him in the house and the criminal feared for his life.


But I need to rephrase it anyway as Duty is picking nits digging deep into specifics rather than being able or more likely being unwilling to conceptualize.

Let's say I go into a Walmart brandishing a gun. The other customers fear that I am about to start shooting people. Some run and hide other try to take the gun away. I shoot and kill them but it isn't a crime because I feared for my life.

I guess I don't see claiming that he feared for his life is a free pass to kill whomever you choose.

I tend to agree with the scenario as you described. If brandishing means open carry, then others are equally fearful of their lives. They “conceputulize” that they are in danger. But the first move was to brandish the gun. Defense of oneself can only be applied when you are placed at risk by someone else. You can’t be in an offensive position in the first place and use the self defense claim of oneself as justification for killing another.

While in some ways I agree, you don't know his state of mind or intent.

He went there to kill libs.

I agree completely with your post, but those defending him seem to be arguing that you can be in an offensive position in the first place and use the self defense claim of oneself as justification for killing another

Show me where he was threatened with a skate board

To be clear, my own hangup is how the prosecution words this in court. 'Without a reasonable doubt' is a big big hurdle here, the way I see it. Things are much simpler in oober's courtroom.

And that is why I see the possibility of his cyber footprint as possibly being critical in this case. As I said, most everyone at his age has a cyber footprint. Social networks, e.mails, google searches and the like. In many criminal cases these days such information is used in court to show intent. I have no idea as to what they will find in that regard but it could be a very critical component in this instance. It will be an interesting case to say the least and the reaction no matter which way it's decided will not be pleasant.

We might move over to your side of Butler-Warren in the next 2 years or so, so you just let me know when you're running for judge, and you'll have my vote.

Now, I'm not defending him being there. I'm not defending him being underage and carrying a rifle in public. I'm not defending him apparently having taken said weapon across state lines.

Chased, kicked in the face, then bashed with a skate board.

The first shot he fired? I have no statement on that - probably a wrong thing to do though.

Yes you appear to be defending him in all areas.. He went looking for trouble, he found it... He got what he deserved..

We can't have idiots running around being a comic book super hero...

By the way the video won't play

If that were the case he would have been firing at random into crowds.

bro, you do realize the reason he got chased is because he was getting into people's faces, pointing the weapon at others and threatening them, and they tried to take the gun away, right?

again, in a vacuum, i would've shot dudes trying to hit me with skateboards as well. but we need to stop acting as if this was unprovoked. the kid went there looking for trouble, and went out of his way to have a reason to shoot someone.

at some point, 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 do not, swish. I'm conservative. A gun is my last line of defense, at home, or elsewhere. At home, I'm not backing down. Elsewhere, I'm leaving the scene asap. If I'm cornered, different scenario. At "elsewhere", a gun is not for me to defend others other than myself and the people I'm with. It would/could be a tool to be able to escape a bad situation.

Then thank god for you.. But there is a growing number of Conservatives (perhaps it should read Trumpians instead) that think that political disagreement is a call to arms.. I forget where,, maybe Iowa or some other place in the Midwest, A guy stood up and asked a politician when will it be time to take up guns against the Democrats....

Given your stance, you must disagree with that thinking....you must? Right

A growing number? Lol.

Got news for you, Bub. 99.9% (if not higher) of conservatives think that notion is ridiculous.

You and yours have a real penchant for creating some scary-azz-monster out of "a guy stood up".

And then you ask arch, as if he may be one in favor of going out and shooting democrats?? Not sure if that's more of an insult to arch or the boards collective intelligence. Wow!

It's far more than "one crazy guy" at this point but not some huge trend. The reality is that it's somewhere in the middle.

Some in the GOP parrot far-right talk of a coming civil war

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/some-in-the-gop-parrot-far-right-talk-of-a-coming-civil-war

Madison Cawthorn speaks openly about civil war at this point

“If our electoral systems continue to be rigged and stolen, it will lead to one place, and that is bloodshed,” Cawthorn said at the Republican event. “And I want to tell you: As much as I am willing to defend our freedom at all costs, there is nothing I would fear to do more than have to take up arms against an American. And the way we can make use of it is if we all passionately demand that we have security of choice in all 50 states. ”

https://mcutimes.com/madison-cawthorn-speaks-openly-about-civil-war-at-this-point/

He's not just some random crazy guy standing up and asking a politician a question. He is a congressman of North Carolina's 11th Congressional district who said this to a crowd of supporters in his own district. I certainly feel it's only a fringe element of the Republican party. I don't think it represents the vast majority of Republicans by any means. But it's certainly more common now than any point in my lifetime and not isolated to a select few. But let's be honest here, if they're supporting and electing politicians who are saying these things, they must agree with the sentiment.

And for the record I don't think arch is such a person. While he is seldom ever willing to speak out against many things he most likely disagrees with, that's just how political issues work these days. Everyone has their heels dug in and feel if they agree on anything the "other side" says or does, or if they criticise anyone in the party they normally endorse it's some sign of weakness.

99.9%,,, NO,, Not hardly.. But let's say you are right,, just for the sake of this discussion. 99.9% of Conservatives don't follow that thinking. then Why the hell doesn't that 99.9% stand up and SHUT down the rest?

What, are they afraid of Trump? You and yours seem to have a penchant for downplaying anything that makes Trumpians look like fools.

If 99.9% don't agree, then 99.9% of Conservatives are WEAK because they aren't standing up to the 1/10th that thinks there should be civil war! That 1/10th is running around like a bunch of Loons threatening everybody and Anybody that in any way shape or form disagrees with them. That 1/10th is all we ever hear from. They are pretty damn loud for such a small group... I hear almost no other conservatives stand up. Cheney is one. That's about it. And when one does, they get shunned by the Trumpians...

For the record, I think your percentages are way off.....I don't know what the right numbers are, but I'll bet you that you are wrong.

"A Guy Stood UP"

You mean like this Rittenhouse idiot... Or did you mean the hundreds that stormed the capital on 1/6. Or how about that jackass that doesn't feel he needs a mask because God will protect him, but he feels the need to carry a semi automatic weapon into at Dunkin Donuts for protection (I suspect he's over compensating for a tiny penis)? Or maybe the politicians like Bobert or Green or Gaetz who run around stirring up anger towards those that oppose their ideas that the election was stolen

By the way, MY NAME AIN'T BUB....

lmao.

99.9 would not equal one tenth... it would equal 1/1000

"A guy stood up" is referring to your example, you used it to try to paint some ludicrous, absurd narrative of "growing numbers" of people that think they should arm themselves to "take back their country", or some such nonsense.

These would not be "Trumpians", they would be wack jobs. Calling them Trumpians is like calling a serial killer a bully. But let's lump everybody together in the name of Trump so that you can then blame all the people that aren't doing it... for doing nothing to stop it??? Just can't make this stuff up!

I'm generally a conservative, so now that I'm weak... and obviously responsible for their actions... please explain to me what you think is my responsibility in an effort to "shout them down"?

"Hey, stop it, that's not very nice!!" You crack me up.

Lastly, they are not that "damn loud". They have a small voice that the media and people like you hand a megaphone with all your paranoid theories... and not stop posting of each anecdotal event as if it is some pulse of the real world. Funny thing is, it's your clan that is the #1 reason for any growing numbers at all. You insult everyone that has any affiliation with "conservative" as if they are scum of the earth -- while you sit atop your pedestal as some strange model of everything just and pure.

99.9%? That's a damn lie.

And anybody paying attention knows if Trump ever gets back into the OVAL, the empty suits in power on the right will fold with zero fight and help Trump usher in fascism.

It's a lie??

Prove me wrong, I'll wait.

Start compiling your list of 75,000 conservatives that think they should take up arms against democrats.

You're the one telling lies, you prove it to me. Bring receipts or shut up.

So you aren't going to address an actual Republican congressman supporting this idea to his constituents? Others in the first link I posted? You keep pointing to "one whack job" when I've clearly shown it's a far bigger issue than that.

Gaetz Tells Supporters Second Amendment Is For ‘Armed Rebellion Against The Government’

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) told supporters Thursday that they should “use” their Second Amendment rights and that the amendment’s provision of a right to bear arms is meant for “armed rebellion” rather than hunting—but on Friday he denied criticism that he was fomenting violence.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrew...-against-the-government/?sh=86215b6196f4

Marjorie Taylor Greene indicated support for executing prominent Democrats in 2018 and 2019 before running for Congress

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/26/politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-democrats-violence/index.html

You really need to stop acting like it's just a few nut jobs. This is the message that even some elected Republican officials are espousing to their voters. And let's not pretend those people aren't listening. After all, those voters are electing them.

Big freakin deal,,, You still are full of BS on the 99.9% crap

As of Right now, the Republican Party is saying that roughly 66% of republicans support and believe the BIG LIE.. So once again, you are dead nuts wrong.

As for the weak comment, I never said you were responsible for their actions.. I said what you are responsible for is not standing up and fighting the stupidity of the Big Lie...

Not that Damn Loud? Is that like 1/6 was just a peaceful demonstration? You must hard of hearing...because it's freakin loud..

My Clan? I was a republican until the Republican party decided to support Trump. But I can no longer be a part of a party that overwhelmingly supports that liar..

I DO NOT insult everyone that has an affiliation with "conservative" thinking.. I do attempt to insult everyone that is Trumpian..

The hey stop that comment,, don't get it,, I don't remember saying that.. sounds like you being foolish again.

yeah, all that. And you had the nerve to question me in my post? I laid it out, explicitly, and you had the nerve to question/ask me? Please, you've gotten your names on here honestly.

They get their jollies talking about getting their guns and owning libs... If half of them got punched in the nose they would fold like a cheap suit. But the other half is just nuts enough to take this rhetoric serious and really do want violence to happen. And there are a lot mor than .01 percent of GOPers in that club. My guess is more like 5-10 percent minimum. Too many of them talk this ish like it's a goal.

Awwwe. Panties in a bunch again? You called me a liar, now it's "shut up". Seems like you have little to no semblance of emotional maturity. I'll let you and your buddy have the thread back.

[quote=archbolddawg]yeah, all that. And you had the nerve to question me in my post? I laid it out, explicitly, and you had the nerve to question/ask me? Please, you've gotten your names on here honestly.

When it comes to Trumpians, I question everything...

You can think whatever the hell you want Fate. But when you come in here spewing CRAP and expect us to accept it as fact just because you said it... well this ain't 4chan or a Trump rally bro. And please do leave the thread, thanks for making DT great again.

Yet you conveniently refuse to answer any of the legitimate points I brought up. Why is that?

Honestly? Because I don't even read your posts anymore. 100% (not 99.9) of them change the narrative or move the goalposts. It's all whatabouts and endless gurble-gobble, I've moved on from engaging with you months ago. A magic 8 ball provides more stimulating conversation and is usually more accurate.

Get your LWL, then have a nice day.

You seem to have a hard time with reading comprehension and a tougher time with ever being civil in conversation. Anything you don't like results in name-calling and telling people to shut up. I would never expect you to accept anything that doesn't fit your convoluted belief system.

I said 99.9% because I believe it to be accurate. I can't imagine anymore than 1 in a thousand people that would think they should arm themselves and shoot democrats to solve any political divide. If you believe that's inaccurate, good for you. It was never presented as anything more than conjecture. YOU then called me a LIAR.

Your boy tried to use an example of one dude standing up at a rally as further evidence that there are "growing numbers" of people that think they should arm themselves and shoot people of the opposing political party. Even typing this has my head spinning, all I can picture is Chicken Little. Are there people that would do this or advocate this? YES... on both sides of the fence., but they would be very small groups... on both sides. If you and your group of conspiracy theorists want to believe this is some wide swath of America -- good for you.

Bottom line, my opinion is no more CRAP than yours is, I don't expect anyone to believe it and can't really care less if you do or not. If you think that yelling, calling me names, telling me to shut up, etc, will make me run and hide, you are clearly delusional.

75,000,000 people voted for Trump, even more that didn't would consider themselves "conservative". Simple math says that removing 99.9% would leave 75,000.

If you believe that many Americans believe they should take up arms and shoot the opposition, you're welcome to your opinion, just as I'm welcome to mine. Doesn't make you or I a LIAR.

Still dodging them. At least this time you made some weak excuse for it. Everything I posted was on topic. It was relative to the conversation. You see, there is a vast chasm between a few isolated incidents and an epidemic. As of now this issue seems to be neither. But it is a growing problem. As of now you even have Republican elected officials espousing this tripe. Your claims of a few isolated cases is incorrect.

I can see why trying to shoot the messenger would be far easier than addressing that. It seems as though you just stooped to the exact same level you are demeaning OCD for. Not surprising.

"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'....

There won't be a fair trial. The judge has decided to keep all the actions of Rittenhouse leading up to that day out of being entered into the trial.

I heard the jugse chastizing the prosecutor for a line of questioning that would lead to the jury hearing about how 2 weeks earlier he was sitting in a store parking lot saying that he wished he had his gun to shoot some shop lifters because the judge had ruled that it wasn't relavent.

Not relavent? Really?

That's the way most of it has been going. The defense is allowed to paint him as a choir boy while the prosecution isn't allowed to present the contrary. A very one sided version for the jury to look at.

Rittenhouse will get off. The prosecutor is blowing it.

I think he's guilty of manslaughter at minimum, but 100% think he will walk on all of it due to the way this is going. I can't decide how I feel about this judge. He's an odd bird for sure, but he seems to be trying to be impartial, yet very opinionated on the whole thing. I honestly think he acted like Rittenhouse was wrong in his actions at first but now seems to be looking at him as a boy who made a mistake. That's all 100% my interpretation of just what I'm seeing in the little bit I've watched, maybe 2 hours.

I've been reading about this. I'm no legal expert at all but I'm trying to figure out why the judges decisions seem to be so one-sided.

The prosecutor can not enter into evidence the things the judge refuses to allow. His hands are tied. That isn't blowing it. That's stacking the trial in the defenses favor by the judge.

The prosecutors attempt to get around the judge's ruling of what is allowed and sending the judge on a tirade, that never bodes well for a prosecutor. Add that to a mostly white jury and I just don't see them convicting him. How many times as the judge sent the jury out of the room today? And the talking heads are talking mistrial now...

Without that kind of evidence they couldn't convict him either. The defense made him look lika choir boy and any and all evidence to the contrary was barred from being presented.

I get all of that Pit. But that happens, I don't think it's right, but it is what it is. The Judge is there for those determinations. The prosecutor knows he's pushing the limits of this judge's ruling, and they just rehashed it for the third time since I've been watching. When a judge admonishes you for the same thing multiple times... bruh. smh.

I'm going to err with the side that the prosecutor knows he is has to get the jury to hear some of it. All he can get away with anyway. If not the choir boy image that the defense has presented will be all the jury sees. Neither one is a good look so I understand what you're trying to say.

Innocent until PROVEN guilty.

As long as a jury actually gets to see all of the proof.

I listened to 10-15 minute on the radio in my car today while Rittenhouse was being questioned by the prosecution. During the questioning Rittenhouse totally contradicted himself and the prosecutor completely missed it. Now it wasn't anything case shattering but he should have pointed it out to show that Rittenhouse isn't afraid to distort his recollections. The 1st thing he said was clearly a coached answer but then he threw in an extra statement to another tangentially related question that was obviously an off the cuff truth which made his earlier statement false.

All the evidence legally allowed.

this was in a NYT article, could explain why he's excluding more than he's allowing...

In one of the judge’s highest-profile cases, the 2008 murder trial of Mark Jensen — who was accused of poisoning his wife, Julie, with antifreeze and then smothering her in their garage — a conviction was overturned when appellate courts and the state Supreme Court ruled that Judge Schroeder had improperly allowed evidence in the trial.

The judge allowed the prosecution to present a letter that Julie Jensen had written and given to a neighbor, as well as voice mail messages she left for a police officer, suggesting that if anything happened to her, her husband would be responsible. Mr. Jensen will face a new trial next year.

NYT

LOL I'll be happy with life in prison....

I think he will be not guilty on murder charges and guilty on gun charges.

I agree Eve. This kid made a stupid mistake to be there and be there with a gun. He ended up using the gun in self defense when scum of the earth human beings physically attacked him. He did not set out to kill.

Way to blame the victims. smh.

Totally one sided. I can't understand how someone's previous actions, history, posts on social media ... whatever it might be ... are not relevant to his intentions when he went to a flash point armed and willing to kill. It boggles the mind. Most especially, as OCD said, he's been painted (inaccurately) as a choir boy. Based on the way the judge has stacked this I do not see a guilty verdict.

It begs the question - if a Antifa activist went or in the future turns up to a flash point similarly armed and ends up shooting a Nazi in self defense after putting himself in danger. Would they get the same treatment. I think we know the answer to that.

They were not victims. They were rioters. Criminals who paid the price for their crime the hard way.

They were not victims. They were rioters. Criminals who paid the price for their crime the hard way.
He had no criminal history. I would guess Antifa thugs would have a criminal past so no they would not be treated the same. If they lived a criminal free life first I would guess they would not be joined to a terrorist organization but if they did then I could see them treated the same.

Yet if he hadn't been breaking those gun laws none of this would have happened. Those people were killed and wounded during the commission of a crime.

Or they were people trying to disarm someone who had been waving a gun around because they felt threatened.

So you wish to assassinate the character of people based on your "guess"?


Sort of like many of the the people that attacked the capital on January 6th? Those terrorists?

So the people who were out rioting, looting, destroying property, and may have attacked somebody first.. are the victims because from a purely political perspective, you agree with their side...

The way I see it, and I have no idea what will eventually happen in this case, is that I can believe he had no business being there, he broke multiple gun laws, he might have been looking for a fight, he might be a total racist...

But if he was attacked first, he had a right to defend himself. Those two points are not mutually exclusive.

I agree those that attacked the Capital were terrorists. I think both are wrong the Capital rioters and the Antifa/BLM rioters. It is perfectly OK to protest but when protest turns to threatening, rioting, intimidating, etc... they are no longer within their rights they are conducting criminal behavior.

Example, those that blocked the car of the Democratic Senator last week from West Virginia. That is no longer a protest those actions became criminal. Or when protests end up in peoples homes, inside restaurants, or physically touching someone like what happened to the Republican Senator from Kentucky. A protest is peaceful what has been happening is far from peaceful. It is disgraceful.

When someone is out there waving a gun around, at what point do you feel threatened by him? These people were killed during the commission of a crime. Had he not been breaking gun laws he would never have been there with that rifle and without the rifle nobody would have been killed.

Here's the thing. Often times in a crowd of people, not everyone is doing the same thing. We saw it during the summer riots. There were a lot of peaceful protestors yet at the same time, after dark some of them turned violent. Not nearly all of them and even many after dark were not violent. So is it fair to label all of them the same? It seems as though you're making a sweeping generalization of everyone who was there based on the actions of some.

When screaming angry mobs are destroying property and marching down your street illegally, at what point are you allowed to feel threatened by THEM?

Had these people not been out there night after night rioting, looting, destroying property, with almost no government interference, he wouldn't have felt the need to go out there with a gun.

Yes, but it wasn't Rittenhouses "street" or even his town. So the excuse is that he needed to cross state lines to protect a town he didn't even live in? He felt the desire to go there, not the need to. He was 17 for God's sake.

Ok but when Mark and Patricia McCloskey had rioters on their own street, who had broken through a locked gate, and they came out with guns to protect their own home and family... the left wanted them locked away forever too.. so what exactly is your argument?

Do you have any evidence those people were "rioting"? I saw videos of the incident and from everything I saw they were just walking down the sidewalk when the McCloskey's came out waving guns at them. And while yes it was a private neighborhood it was not the McCloskey's property nor did it appear anyone was being violent or threatening at the time they brought out those guns. So what's your point?

Yes, they can see with their eyes what is happening. A peaceful person and person who is innocent will want to have no part of that and end their affiliation with that scene. When the chose to stay in a group with the rioters they their selves become rioters.

Are you kidding me with the McCloskey's? They broke down a fence, trespassed on private property, waved guns them selves, shouted threats and insults. The McCloskey's are hero's not villains. They stood up to the mob without breaking the law.

They had illegally broken through a locked gate. They were trespassing. And the McCloskey's never left their own property or shot anybody who chose to stay in the street, just a show of force to discourage anybody from thinking about coming onto their property. Plus, there was plenty of recent history of non-violent protests suddenly turning violent, so they had every reason to believe the same thing could quickly happen here.

There were no reports of any physical or property damage in that entire neighborhood. None. The protestors were on the sidewalk and never went on the McCloskey's "private property" either. The McCloskey's own "their home and property". Not the "neighborhood".

Show me anywhere that they "waved guns at the McCloskey''s". And were those insults after the McCloskey's pointed guns at them or before?

Video shows gate was intact when St. Louis couple pointed guns at protesters

https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/l.../63-14a1582a-9372-4494-b8ee-41d5d4d71b61

Yeah, no, they didn't break down a gate either.

The McCloskey's also entered a guilty plea. That doesn't sound like heroes to me.

Uh, the entire street and properties on it were Private Property.

They broke through the gate and trespassed on up the road.

Read the article. The gate was in tact. It wasn't broken down as you allege it was.



The gate was easily held open as others went through. Or will your claim be this is a fake news video? As you can see the protestors were on the sidewalk and were not threatening anyone. So please, just stop it.

Sorry but breaking down a gate, opening a gate, holding a gate or walking through a gate on Private Property is Trespassing.

They broke the law and no one knows how many other laws they were about to break.

in that entire neighborhood? In the weeks preceding this event multiple police officers had been shot at protests, David Durn had been shot for confronting looters, property was defaced, fireworks were shot off at people and buildings. I assume if that happened in your town, then it made it's way to your doorstep, you would just assume "Well, I'll just wait until they start getting violent, then I'll do something."

Exactly, which is why nobody got shot at.

Now, back to Rittenhouse. I thought the left's position was always to avoid violence and de-escalate if at all possible? Yet on this night, we have these armed civilians guarding a car dealership (why isn't really important).. and you have this angry mob coming down the street, not really heading anywhere specific that I'm aware of... and seeing these armed folks, instead of making the decision to take their protest in a different direction, decide to confront the armed people, up to the point of physically attacking them.. then when a few people get shot, it's 100% the armed groups fault for being there and not the mobs fault for pushing the issue and initiating the violence..

If it appeared on my door step? Yes, if protestors came on my property or were trying to destroy my property. Not if they're marching down the sidewalk. No, I don't think any rational person would try to confront people marching down a sidewalk by pointing firearms at them. I don't think you believe that either. And these same protestors stayed on that sidewalk during the entire walk through that neighborhood where nobody else tried to act like Rambo and confront them with guns.

I think you may wish to look a little deeper into the Rittenhouse situation. He wasn't even close to the dealership he claimed to be "protecting" when the shooting occurred. I'll ask you again, if you were on that street and someone was waving an AR15 around, at what point would you feel like the one being threatened?

Sorry but since your argument fell apart now you're trying to divert attention away from that.

Someone shoplifting a candy bar is breaking the law too, that doesn't mean you can take it on yourself to point a gun at them. So you decided to shift it to "no one knows how many other laws they were about to break." Now you are trying to rationalize pointing guns at people for "things you think they might do".

I notice you refuse to address the fact that the McCloskey's entered a guilty plea. That's not what innocent people do is it?

I think you are taking this out of the context of what had been going on in St. Louis (and around the country) for 4 weeks or so prior... it's a nice Sunny day in my neighborhood today, things in the greater Raleigh area have been peaceful for a long time, if a group of 500 people were to march down my street today, chanting and yelling about some social or political issue, it would be a different vibe than what was going on that day. I would not go out into the yard with a show of force.. but I can almost guarantee you that I would be sitting inside my home, watching through the window, gun in hand.... does that make me less than a rational person?

Using your "rational person" standard.. when confronted by an armed militia of people, unless this is an actual combat situation where you are prepared to die for your cause, if leaving is an option, a rational person would leave... not initiate a fight. The problem is, and we know this to be a fact, otherwise rational people don't always make rational decisions when they are part of a mob. Just like I wouldn't count on an untrained, adrenaline filled 17 year old with an AR-15 to make rational decisions.

500 people? It certainly didn't look like 500 people from anything I saw. And no, I think being armed and ready to act if need be is a rational thing to do. Going outside and confronting people who aren't even on your property is not. Once again, as much as you seem to be trying to make the point they were somehow in the right by their actions, even you admit you wouldn't have done what they did.

Only those people weren't facing an "armed militia". Rittenhouse was pretty much by himself at the time this occurred waving a gun around. It seems you are sidestepping the reality that those protestors were quite possibly as much or more feeling threatened by Rittenhouse as he was of them. The difference is Rittenhouse was in the very process of committing gun crimes when this happened. I'm still not quite sure how people can keep avoiding the fact that if Rittenhouse hadn't been committing gun crimes none of this could have ever happened.

That's because what you saw was mostly the protestors pointing their cell phones at the McCloskeys and not what was behind them. I seen reports from "several hundred" up to 500 or more...

Yea but I don't claim to be the final arbiter or what is "rational"... just because they did it different than I would have doesn't mean they are less rational. If I did it my way and bricks started flying through my windows and my house was overrun, some would say I was irrational to expect them to behave themselves.. the truly "rational" decision is usually only known once an event is over.

You keep using the expression waving a gun around.. as I understand the sequence of events, rittenhouse wasn't waving a gun around, he was running, he was running away from Rosenbaum, who was chasing him and throwing things at him. He was trying to avoid a potentially violent encounter.... but the violent mob member continued to pursue him... so back to your point about how "threatened" they felt?.... If you feel threatened by a random guy in the street with an AR-15 who is running away from you, do you really chase after him? Really? Is that a rational response by an unarmed person who was just out for a peaceful protest? then during the chase another violent mob member, Ziminski, fired the first shot, a warning shot (he said) into the air. Rittenhouse stopped and not knowing where the shot came from or who it was aimed at, aimed his gun at Rosenbaum... So he's been threatened, he's been chased, he's had things thrown at him, then he hears a shot... and NOW he finally aims his gun. But that wasn't enough, did Rosenbaum take that as a good reason to let it go? Heck no, after a brief verbal confrontation, he initiated the fight and tried to take the gun off of him. Then, and only then, was he shot.

So we can agree all day long that Rittenhouse had no business being where he was at the time and that he broke a couple gun laws... but what happened after that, I don't see how you can pin it on him... he's not some kind of a hero but he's not a murderer either.

We will probably get to test that theory soon. Antifa may even organize into battalions. I mean with over 23 million members nationwide; we are the biggest military in the world. (And yes, arch those number are complete BS, or are they?)...

From what I have seen of this trial, the Prosecution has blown it by overcharging the kid and asking questions of his witnesses that go in favor of the kid.

People are dismissing the Prosecutor as being inept and the Judge corrupt. Ticking off the Judge by asking questions not allowed under the law, which he well knows, is interesting.

But the Prosecution is not dumb. He is trying to have a mistrial declared so they can have a do-over in the future with different charges.

He will be perfectly happy to lose this trial.

Afterwards, the Nation will explode in violence, which our leadership will irresponsibly refuse to stop.
President Biden has already referred to the kid as a white supremacist. The Media is calling the kid a murderer.
The stage is set.

Let me try this again and hopefully you won't ignore it this time. I know you said you weren't the arbiter of what is rational. But do you think gun paws are? Do you think trying to keep going to bat for people who know they're guilty and plead guilty to a gun crime is rational?

Mark and Patricia McCloskey plead guilty to lesser charges in gun case

The couple who went viral for pointing weapons at protesters in front of their Central West End home entered a plea deal Thursday

https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/c.../63-59f745ba-7b5d-4644-a01e-49e74f276a0e

They copped to a lesser plea and you seem to keep making excuses for their criminal behavior.

As for Rittenhouse. This is the type of thing that led up to the shooting.


A few frames of a movie isn't going to explain the plot line.

Rittenhouse went to that location packing a semi auto rifle... To me that smacks of intent,,, End of discussion.. Let's introduce that punk to "ole Sparky"!

While we are at it,, how about we have a strong discussion with the judge... Seriously,, can't call the victims victims, Ringtone on his phone a Trump staple at Rallies, and congrats to a Defense witness.. How freaking bias can this fool actually be

Those rioters were no victims. They were actually scum of the earth human beings.

They may have been but it wasn’t that punk’s job to be judge, jury, and executioner.

They should not have attacked the kid! It is called stand your ground. He actually retreated from the threats each time and they keep attacking. He attacked in self defense and the threats were eliminated.

Wrong on all levels except for him possibly being a punk.

Murder is Murder... And Rittenhouse is scum also....

He’s neo Nazi scum.

So going to a location where this is civil unrest packing a weapon like his is NOT intent? Is that the crap you are shoveling?

Can't call a victim a victim is OK with you? Ringtone on the Judges Phone being a Trump staple is OK with you? Congratulating a defense witness in Open Court is OK with you?

I can't speak to intent. Nor can you. The evidence shows him being chased and threatened before shooting rather than taking a position and acting like a sniper. Why he went down there, I couldn't tell you other than the guy might be a bit stupid, but then that isn't a crime. I think we both agree there are a lot of stupid people in this world. The same could probably be said for the people who got shot. It would have been far smarter for them to stay home as well.

Calling them victims by the prosecution would be much the same as the defense calling them criminals. You really don't know the tag that applies until the trial has concluded. Just trying to explain the way it is...calling them the deceased or wounded would be a factual statement.

As to ringtones...I don't know anything about it but it really has nothing to do with the judge being able to conduct a fair trial.

Y'all keep tellin' the boy that, all the way to the gallows. But it's all good 'cause the rigged the jury. He could have sat there and said he killed those lefties and got clean away with it.

A kid committing a crime by being a minor who was open carrying had a right to stand his ground? If he wasn't engaged in a criminal act playing Rambo in the first place there would have been no need for anyone to claim they were standing their ground. His crime set the stage for the victims to be murdered. That's scum since you brought it up. He was the one engaged in criminal activity and you call his victims scum.

I'd have a lot more sympathy for him if he stood his ground AT HOME. He was a punk who left home looking for trouble. Now, at the age of 18, he's a defendant in a murder trial. Guess he found what he was looking for.

He's a killer, no matter how much of a fan you are.

So a woman doing heroin behind a dumpster deserves to be raped? She was breaking the law, right?

Of course he deserves to stand his ground. By breaking the law he is not obligated to stand there and let people beat him to death. Do you even read some of this trash that you type? "Victims were murdered" lmao. I guess that would fall in line with OCDs constant "Darwin" comments about people that aren't vaccinated then... Actually, even worse, I would thing that chasing someone down who's armed with a semi-automatic weapon would be a lot more dangerous than Covid. Yep, that would definitely earn a Darwin award.

Slam dunk win for Rittenhouse. The prosecution are clowns.

What a reach of epic proportions. If she was high waving a gun around in a crowd those around her may consider her a danger to those around her. Just like some kid playing the part of a wannabe Rambo. As you just described, she posed no threat.


While I don't agree we should let the Darwin theory of survival play out, which is why I continue to advocate doing all we can to greatly decrease the death rate, it does seem like that will be the end result for a lot of Americans.



Actually what's worse is if the kid hadn't been breaking the law and traveled there to break the law, nobody would be dead and he wouldn't be on trial. But keep trying to avoid that.

You said since he was breaking the law, he had no right to defend himself.

Is that what you believe?

I believe those around him had just as much right to defend themselves against a a kid waving a gun around. Considering both parties had a right to defend themselves, I look at who was committing a criminal act at the time. That would be Rittenhouse. As I said and you have once again failed to address, had he have not been committing a crime at the time, there would have been no rifle and none of those people would be dead.

From what I saw, one was chasing the other. That isn't standing your ground.

Why did he go there
He should have stayed at home safe
Reckless idiot

We agree.

There is nothing to address, you've said it -- literally -- 500 times.

Crime or no crime, he has a right to defend himself. Cut and dried, end of story. You can think it shouldn't be that way, and whine about it , page after page after page like a broken record. That will never change the fact.

Was he actually waving the gun around or just open carrying? There's a big difference. Were the protesters defending themselves by chasing him down? It sounds like you're embellishing.

It seems that by your rationale, anyone can insert themselves, armed to the gills to "protect" themselves, into a hostile environment .... when they feel threated they can legally stand their ground and start shooting whoever they feel threatened by.

What am I missing?

Reality.

I said nothing of the sort. I merely said he had the right to defend himself. Pit insists that because he was committing a crime he thereby forfeits any right to defend himself. You're just adding theatrics to a narrative that does not exist, at least not with me. I think there is a good chance he is guilty of manslaughter. But it's not up to me, it's up to the court.

Since you want to make sure you're not missing anything... a few posters think he is automatically guilty of "murdering victims" (victims that were chasing a guy down the street to beat him, while he's armed with a semi-auto weapon, can't make up that lunacy), simply because he should have never been there with a gun. They think that automatic guilt should result in a seventeen-year-old in the electric chair.

Some people don't believe in innocent until proven guilty, especially if there is a political component. Give it time and the Gulag system will be imposed in this country where we send off our political prisoners.

That would be so much different had he been defending his home.. But this kid crossed state lines and like you said, Went looking for trouble and he found it.. He says he was carrying this weapon because it "looked cool"..

I think he said he bought it partly because it looked cool.

Just to be clear.

It sounds like many of you are trying to diminish the fact this all happened during the commission of a crime. He was committing a crime by being a minor open carrying a firearm. Rewarding a criminal is not what our society is supposed to do. Excusing the fact he killed people during the commission of a crime is not what our laws say we're supposed to do. And yes, anyone watching some kid walking around with an AR-15, if a normal person, would feel a reasonable threat. I do believe if he was not acting like Rambo and committing a crime that he would ever have been attacked and there would not have been people killed. It seems many of you refuse to hold the kid accountable for that and as such justify all of this. The popular opinion among some of you seems to be that people intervening in someone during the commission of a crime are the perpetrators and the one committing the crime had the right to take actions he could have only taken by committing a crime in the first place.

You making senseless rants won't change the fact this kid should never have been carrying that gun in the first place. You see, you think gun laws only count when it supports something you agree with. Had someone who was a convicted felon been carrying a gun killed those same people under the same circumstances, would you still be upholding him? Probably so considering the corpses would still belong to people you don't like. As I've said, if the kid hadn't dressed himself up like Rambo, went some place he didn't even live and carry an AR-15, an illegal act, none of this would ever have happened. To you none of that makes any difference. The only reason that is, is because you only think the law applies when it supports something you agree with. You act like the kid setting the stage for all of this by his illegal actions mean nothing. Acting like people have no right to speak out about it says more about you than it does me.

Everything in the above post is just verbal vomit translated to the written word. None of it even applies to me or anything I've ever posted here. Get your LWL and be done with this, I'll go talk to the dog.

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.

... there would probably still be no incident if not for an out of control adult threatening to kill him numerous times, challenging armed protesters to do the same, and then chasing him through the streets, just hours after being released from a hospital after an attempted suicide. I'd say they both needed to be there for this incident to occur.

Rittenhouse couldn't have killed anyone and could not have been threatened if he had not been there. Thus the incident could not have occurred had Rittenhouse not have been there. Not only that, Rittenhouse was in the act of committing a gun crime by being a minor open carrying a weapon. Had he not have been committing a crime none of this could have happened.

None of those people would be dead if they hadnt threatened and assaulted him. Mobs seem to think their daily violence is ok, but they had to learn the hard way that its not ok.

Yeah, that's what killing people is called now, "learning the hard way". The kid was in the process of breaking the law. Had he not been in the process of committing a crime, none of this would have happened. But that's how people think these days. That you reward the person who was the initial breaker of the law.

If you threaten and physically assault someone with a gun then you are a moron and learn the hard way.

The gun charge was dropped because he was not breaking the law based on the actual law.

Sorry, your feelings dont count.

My feelings have nothing to do with the law in Wisconsin. It was posted on the previous page yet you wish to ignore it...

Quote
948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(2) 
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60/2/a

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.

Quote
(3) 
(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.
History: 1987 a. 332; 1991 a. 18, 139; 1993 a. 98; 1995 a. 27, 77; 1997 a. 248; 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 163; 2011 a. 35.
Sub. (2) (b) does not set a standard for civil liability, and a violation of sub. (2) (b) does not constitute negligence per se. Logarto v. Gustafson, 998 F. Supp. 998 (1998).

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

Many people are disarmed during the commission of a crime. You just don't like the fact someone you are trying to uphold for their criminal activity happens to be the subject matter. Your feelings don't count either.

The key thing about this case is that the police stood down.

Rittenhouse was the only one that could help Rittenhouse.

I probably trust the decision of the court with regards to the actual law than some keyboard warrior.

Bottom line is: He is not charged with any gun crime. He had every right to be there with his gun.

Those people chose to threaten and physically assault him.

They paid with their life.

Mobs arent usually known for their intelligence and it shows. They were morons.

I didn't give you my opinion of the law. I gave you the actual law straight from the state of Wisconsin. But you do you. He did not have a right to be there with his gun. The law makes that obvious. He was a minor. Minors are not allowed to open carry by law in Wisconsin. I'm give you the benefit of the doubt that you can actually read it but if this continues maybe I am wrong about that.

You dont get to decide what he is guilty of. The court does that and they decided that he is not guilty of any gun crime. He had every right to be there with his gun. Only morons threaten and physically assault someone with a gun.

Fair statement... and despite how many posts anyone racks up in this thread, the charge has been thrown out. But does that interpretation of this law make any sense to you whatsoever? If he was armed with a handgun, brass knuckles, or nunchucks then he's going to prison for up to 9 months, but because his rifle is 35 inches, then he's in the clear?

And for context, this is from the same judge that said the people killed in the incident can't be called victims and his brain pretty much imploded when the defense used pinch-to-zoom with a video.

There's a reason Kyle Rittenhouse is standing trial and Clemdawg isn't: Clemdawg didn't drive to Kenosha WI with his loaded weapon. He stayed away from protests, riots and chaos. He put no slugs in anyone that night. He's still a free man because he exercised some common effing sense.

I don't know the letter of the law, so I won't weigh in on if this is murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, or something else. What I do know is this: some price must be paid by this person. Actions have consequences. Two people are dead. One is maimed for life. Total impunity should not be an option for someone who was illegally in possession of a lethal weapon that wasn't his transported it across state lines with intent to insert himself into a situation where violence was possible/probable.

Had he stayed his as at home, those rioters may or may not have died that night. What it certain: had he not left home that night, he'd be home tonight.

Rioters should not have been there.
Rittenhouse should not have been there.

You can't just hide in your house forever because someone may assault you and you may defend yourself. Those people died because of their actions on him. They are to blame for their own deaths. Maybe not assault someone next time. Espsecially don't be so stupid to assault someone who has a gun. Just because you are in a mob doesn't mean you can jump people.

You are correct. Because of their actions, they're dead. If they weren't dead they'd be on trial right now, but because they are the trial is out KR and his portion of responsibility.

Exactly.

Common misconception.

When the court finds someone not guilty that does not mean that they are innocent, it does not mean that he did nothing wrong, it does not mean that he had every right to do what he did. It means that the prosecution was not able to prove wrong doing beyond a shadow of doubt. Not the same thing.

They dropped the charge. If he broke the law or it was even questionable there would still be a charge.

Not true

The judge said he dismissed it because no one bothered to challenge the gun length.
Just shows that the prosecutor is bordering on incompetent

j/c

I am 100% for peaceful protesting.

If I show up to your house and burn that thing to the ground, smash your vehicle windows in, and attempt to cause you physical harm... am I a protestor?

j/c


If I become a looter/agitator/aggressor/criminal should there be laws against me that protect the business owners, employees, hired/requested security, people on the property?

This isn't about the prosecution proving anything. There is a subsection of the gun law that was passed in 1991 to curb gang violence and the number of youth walking around with sawed-off shotguns. That subsection added language that makes the law a bit ambiguous by basically stating that guns would be legal for minors so long as their barrels are a certain length. Basic legal doctrine insists statutes must be read in favor of the defense when they aren’t crystal clear.

The judge was non-committal when this was questioned in October, so the prosecution was basically blindsided by the decision when he ruled on it last week. Still their fault, they knew the issue wasn't settled and did nothing to question it with an appellate court.

So, bottom line -- Rittenhouse was perfectly legal, and so will anyone else be until Wisconsin can find itself capable of drafting clear laws.

Does anyone have the videos that the security camera footage that the jury has seen?

Why did his mom take him across state lines and put him in the position to be in a crowd of people.... Him holding a gun? Why? did she think he was going to a picnic?

He went there to cause trouble,, and he found it.

Fake News.

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...houses-mother-did-not-bring-him-kenosha/

Keep in mind who you're replying to. Facts don't matter, just HIS facts. After all, he trusts HIS judgment more than most judges.

Not knowing the laws is irrelevant for him. Politics is all that matters.

The problem is that doesn't include all the sub sections that were subsequently added. The section in question is
941.28.

The charge was dismissed. End of story

Mainly on the protesters protesting senseless killing of yet another black man? Come on, you gotta be kidding me! This kid took a gun he couldn't have to a state he doesn't live in to act as security that nobody asked for and then killed two and wounded another... but it's on the protesters? You are ridiculous.

Yet Rittenhouse was the only person to kill anyone that night in the protest area. Don't worry, I'm sure one of the right-wing Trumpian jurors will free your boy.

Yes, those Trumpian MOBS sure do.

But the protest and protesters should have been there! Don't let them infer from your statement because they like to lump all BLM into the 'rioters' label. Peaceful protests make them stain their undies.

Ladies and gentlemen! We've reached that point in our programming once again. Stay tuned as we now take you on a journey, back on the train... The TRUMP train. Where everything is Trump's fault. And if you don't see eye to eye with those in here pouting and screaming the loudest, well, then you'll be a TRUMPSTER.

Trump Trump Trump Trump, Chugga, Chugga, Chugga... Trump Trump Trump Trump.

What drugs are you on? The "peaceful protestors" threatened and assaulted him. They got their own dumb asses shot assaulting someone who had a gun.

They died because he shot them. Their actions wouldn't have even got them arrested that night because he had already shot somebody, and they were chasing him down so he couldn't escape justice. The right makes a big deal about how good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns... They were attempting to stop a bad guy. How in the hell can anyone call that assault? And why isn't the right taking the side of the good guys? Well one good guy because only one had a gun. The other wielded the deadly skateboard assault weapon... Problem is, the right likes to change the narrative to fit their alternative facts way too much. And they water down every damn thing somebody on their side does wrong. Insurrectionist = tourist, Traitor = POTUS, lies = good news and truth = fake news... GOPers are all twisted up in knots trying to keep the lies straight and their thoughts semi coherent, and it's way too much for the mental capabilities of most of them.

Rittenhouse is a killer, he will never not be a killer, and he damn well deserves jail, about 20-30 years of it minimum if you ask me.

Your feeling don't count. Try to come up with some facts. Such as people who assault other people who are packing, get shot. Don't want to get shot? Then don't attack someone.

No. The judge dropped it because he was going to allow the jury to consider lessor charges IF they do find him guilty OR find him innocent of the most severe charges against him. I think he did it to take the least punishable crime off the table. And I think he intentionally went hard at the prosecutor and what he would allow to avoid having the verdict overturned later on appeals... he supposedly had an earlier issue with his cases being overturned.

Also, each of these is multiple counts due to there being three victims and make no mistake they are victims in these shootings, assaults, and murders. So, he isn't just facing one count of murder, but two, along with 3 of almost all other charges including any lessor charges the jury might consider. So, Rittenhouse has more to 'get off' of than most realize. I bet if he is found guilty on all accounts, he'll get the max on each. I think this crazy ass judge is just playing CYA and wants to make sure the verdict, whatever it is, is solid and won't be overturned for the wrong reason.

That's not true at all. Maybe you should reread this thread.

I like how some people are already sentencing him on all counts, without knowing the REAL facts. You know, the ones the prosecutors, the judge, and the defendants attorneys know, and live.

We've got 1 person say he trusts his judgment over the judge.

One person posting Wisconsin law while apparently ignoring the rest of the law that was added after his..........eh, not worth it.

I'd love to know what someone would do if I came after them with a skateboard, trying to bash their head in.

The jury will decide. If Rittenhouse is guilty, so be it. If he's not, so be it. I have no dog in this show.

This is what I mean, they can't tell the difference between rioters, looters, and protesters. Here's a clue SBDdoubleG, the protesters aren't destroying property or murdering people on the streets. The people doing those things are criminals.

Bro, if you don't like being seen as wearing the brown shirt, take it off. Otherwise, you are what you are and no amount of crying and playing victim will change that.

I'll stop bashing Trump a decade after I pee on his grave. Until then, it is what it is and he deserves it all.

That speaks more about you than you could even imagine. Thanks for the proof of what I've, and others, have been saying for years.

100%.... I haven't followed any of the Arbery trial yet, but watching the video I feel like every one of those guys deserves jail time... just despicable...

Drugs? I'm not on any at the moment, thank you very much... But once again, you must be at the bar, because a sober person doesn't think like that. Rittenhouse was filmed being chased by witnesses to his crime, who were trying to stop him from shooting somebody else and they got shot while during a heroic act. Stop trying to lay the blame on the victims. Time to drop the goofy BS and call it what it is, murder/manslaughter/dumbassery.

You win this one. My timeline and events during this trial are off because I haven't had time to watch and only getting tidbits when I watch the news or read GOPer teras for a murderer in here.

The violent protesters were not "heros", they were thugs who assaulted him while he was trying to get to the police. He repeatedly told them that he was a friendly. Don't want to be shot? Don't assault people. It's really simple. They are responsible for their own deaths.

Some people think the little jackass is guilty of murder from the jump and have seen NOTHING that changes their mind. But you should at least give me credit for saying it might be a lesser charge. smh. And please don't act like you weren't talking about me.

You should re-read my entire trump era history in here, maybe you'll see enough to stop talking to me.

In the words of the infamous orange blob, WRONG.

He really does live in your head.

I totally agree that I don't think Rittenhouse should have been there... I get why he went... and frankly if he went to help then more power to him... but I don't think he had any business getting a gun unless he was trained with it....

with that said... from what I've seen... he was chased by a mob before shooting anyone... the first guy lunged at him and tried to take the gun away from him and got shot for it... Kyle then tried to run away and was chased by others.... the next guy attacked him with a skateboard and got shot for it.... unless the prosecution can prove he went there with the intention of shooting people beyond a shadow of a doubt, I would be surprised if he doesn't get off on the murder charges...

Ahhh... now I'm a Nazi?

You're despicable, and that ish is totally uncalled for.

No, I never called you a Nazi. You don't like being lumped in with the Trumpian right, so stop acting like the Trumpian right... simple fix and nobody hurts your feelings. You know, just like everyone in here, that I think Trump and company, as well as most of his hardcore supporters are fascist. Yet, you get in the way when I'm taking shots at them then wonder why you got hit. I usually say NOTHING to you about your politics, but when we are both in the deep end and you take the side of my enemy, well you know the rest.

And I'll wear that despicable as a badge of honor. Every time I make a Trumpian angry or emotional, I win. I like winning.

And BTW, YOU started this back and fourth between us tonight by immediately saying this as soon as I came in and posted responses. I wasn't remotely thinking of you until then. smh

100% B.S. Cry me a river. I've done nothing but post FACTS in this thread. Well, that and reply to LWL's endless "he had a gun, therefor he's guilty of murder" rhetoric. You and your ilk don't like facts so you change the narrative or cry "Trump!". Thread after thread.

"Angry or emotional" from the resident crybaby.

And if that is what you consider winning, you lead a sad, sad, life.

Funny, but I'm much more like this:



And I don't see all that the Jay sees the same. I see good people trying to stop an active shooter. And the story about the first guy is unclear at best with conflicting witness statements. Initially, it was Rittenhouse killed a homeless guy that was half nuts and HARMLESS. All I'm saying is this right-wing take doesn't mesh with the things I've heard. Nor my preconceived notion that his ass is guilty as hell. Guess it's good for him that I'm not the judge or jury. But we'll see what the do. I fully expect him to walk.

YOU live in a world of make believe. Not one word of what you just said is true. Nothing really new there though.

Liar! You posted this and we both know who you were directing it to...


Like I said above, I wasn't ewven thinking about you before I saw that. You get what you got because you came for it. Boo-Bleeping-Who.

That's because you jump in here with your Trump b.s. STARTING with your response to me and the stupid "I'm sure the Trumpian jury will get your boy off". Not that I expect you to remember your comments from a whole hour ago.

Isn't it past your bedtime??

lol, man you really are butt hurt over this huh? My Trump BS is necessary, especially around here, without the diehard lefties this place would read like little 4chan or notes from a Qanon meeting.

No sweetie. I'm not butt hurt about anything. I know you're a little colicky right now, but the incessant comments from you and your cronies like "rent free", "butt hurt"and calling everyone whiners is just a reflection of your own shortcomings and lack of actual substance in your comments. If you want an example, just read your latest absurd, childish post.

You seem butt hurt.

I know a couple guys in Georgia that would agree with that statement.

Kinda puts this case in perspective doesn't it!!!

And that right there is the rub, isn't it? The judge didn't allow any of that material to be admitted as evidence (the social media videos where KR is talking about what he wants to do to the rioters).

Yup,, Turns out you were right,, The difference here is that I will admit a mistake..

How do you feel about allowing Trump to lie to you for 5 years and you got nothing to say about it and still support the fool?

This is probably just semantics to many, but the burden is beyond a "reasonable" doubt. Just saying that because I used to say "shadow" and my first Crim Law professor outed me in front of the whole class. That was fun.

This whole thing - from a collective perspective - seems to be a joint botching among judge, prosecutor and procedure (jury selection process). I wouldn't be surprised to see some major overhauls, both amongst the code and procedure after all this wraps up.

Is there any sort of "dude...wtf"/ or eject button someone can hit when things get so ridiculous (like when a judge "just can't" over a key video because of pinch-to-zoom)? I'm waiting for some sort of little-known procedure to come out when a trial goes so far off the rails.

That's the thing though - based on the info we have now, the shooting (not killing) of Jacob Blake makes 100% sense; it was not a senseless shooting.

I never said this was on the protesters; I said it was on those who wished to rush to judgement and fan the flames of racial discord, mainly the media and people like you on the Left.

If you didn't have the media and the Left pushing the false and at the time unproven narrative that this was a "senseless" shooting, none of this happens - no violent riots, no shootings, nothing. That seems like the best scenario out of all possible outcomes.

Sing along to the tune of "Mother in Law": "What about Trump........Trump Trump Trump Trump"

Actually, being in the field of law as long as you have been, you know that's not true. The fact this charge never reached the jury means he was never tried for this crime. Which means a prosecutor could once again file charges and try this as a crime. Never getting to the jury simply means he was never tried for the crime. If he had been found not guilty of the crime by a jury of his piers, you would be correct. He could not be tried in the future due to double jeopardy. The entire answer revolves around if the charge was dismissed without prejudice or not. I have no idea whether the judge dismissed the charge with our without prejudice. But if it was without prejudice he can be charged with the gun offense again. I had no idea you wouldn't know that.

Who are "these people"?


Yet you don't understand the law either. If the judge dismissed the charges without prejudice it doesn't mean he can't be tried on those charges. It simply means they're dropped for now and the prosecutor can refile the charges later.


I wonder what someone would do if a person was walking down the street with an AK-47 and felt threatened by that person? If that person had traveled 40 miles to interject himself into a scene which made him carrying around an AK-47 appear to be threatening? You certainly are leaving out a lot of details to paint a different reality.


Which is what most everyone has said with possibly the way they've set the stage. Just like you did.


Yet your tail has been wagging during your entire post.

Only in this juvenile delinquent rant of yours you have once again resorted to name calling, drug me into it and lied claiming I said something I have never said. You now have shown yourself to be exactly what I've claimed. Sometimes you try to have a rational discussion. Sometimes you act like an idiot and lie your ass off.


Who is "your ilk"? Who else has brought trump's name into this other than OCD and possibly Damon? Or was Damon responding to comments about orange man bad" lol ( I know you'll appreciate that one ) Just as I thought. Nobody. Composure is not your strong suit. Commenting about others being unhinged isn't something that appears to be a good look when you can't even control yourself.


I see you think acting the way you claim others act must make you feel justified. If "angry and emotional" is your gauge of success, you just failed miserably.

Of an unarmed man? You're far too smart to be serious about this comment.

You seem butt hurt.

Ha, most of that proverbially happens for the defendants when the judge seems arbitrary, which I do get since it's a constitutional premise.

The number one responsibility for a judge is to make sure the constitution (state and federal) is upheld. The number two job in trial that are high profile such as this one, is to make sure that it doesn't turn into a circus. This judge failed on that front in spectacular fashion, without even speaking to the merits. You could argue the prosecutor enabled that, too.

It would take far more than the likes of you to ever accomplish that. I've actually taken on contenders and not pretenders. You have a long way to go.....

Not all internet heroes wear capes.

You're right. I don't.

Has anyone else considered this could all end with a Hung Jury?

I have. But if you look at the things that were not allowed to be presented into evidence, it certainly leans towards acquittal on at least the most serious charges.

You talking about those things deemed by a Judge to not be admissible by law but you think they should be admissible? ok,

Funny thing. I never said that. But of course you never let facts get in your way.

You talking about YOUR facts or the COURTS facts here?

WTH are you talking about? I never said what should or should not be allowed. I simply said with the things that weren't allowed. You aren't an English major are you?

Ask Daman about that. He trusts his own judgement more than a judge, and attorneys. Ask others, they know the law better than the judge and the attorneys, apparently.

Race has no place in this, as the shooter is white, the people shot were white. (to my recollection. If I'm wrong, I know I'll be called out on it.)

People keep saying "if he hadn't been there (rittenhouse) none of this would've happened." Probably correct.

On the other hand, if the people that chased him hadn't been there, or hadn't chased him and threatened him hadn't been there, none of this would've happened either.

I'm not an attorney, or a criminal attorney at that. My opinion means nothing, just as most on here. Let the law decide.

I trust Damans judgement, to be consistently wrong, but I do want to say the kid had the same right to be there as the thugs or you and I for that matter.

And you're far too smart not to see the hypocrisy going on here.

They had no idea if Aubry was armed or not. Even if he was open carrying, the men chasing him down need to be prosecuted.

I get why you're laughing, but I have yet to read a reasonable explanation on those decisions.

When you know someone is armed you know a threat is there. When you have no idea if someone is armed you're making an assumption someone is armed. Your imagination isn't the same as seeing someone is armed.

Reasonable to you or to a Judge?

You're expecting to get an actual straight forward answer to that from 40?

Perhaps your contorting 2 different cases. In the Rittenhouse case, he was fleeing. He was armed. If I'm correct, his first shot was when someone tried to take away his weapon. After that, he was leaving, fleeing/running. Attempted beating on his head with a skateboard. Also, someone pointed a gun at him.

In the Arbury case, as much as I can tell, 3 guys got out and chased a jogger, then shot him. No evidence of him being armed, at all.

Different situations.

Glad the trials will be/have been held. I'll leave it up to the attorneys, the judges, and finally, the jury.

EXPLAINER: Why did judge drop Rittenhouse gun charge?
By TODD RICHMOND
November 15, 2021

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — On the surface, it looked like prosecutors’ easiest task at Kyle Rittenhouse’s murder trial would be convicting him of a much less significant charge — being a minor in possession of a firearm.

Rittenhouse was 17 when he shot three people, killing two, with a semi-automatic rifle on the streets of Kenosha, Wisconsin, during a protest against police brutality last year. Prosecutors brought multiple charges against him, including first-degree intentional homicide, attempted homicide, reckless endangerment and the firearm possession count.

With legal experts saying prosecutors struggled to counter the Illinois man’s claims of self-defense, the best bet for a conviction looked like the gun charge. But Rittenhouse’s defense team dug up an exception to the prohibition and Judge Bruce Schroeder dismissed the count Monday, just hours before jurors got the case.

“It’s very significant,” former federal prosecutor Phil Turner, who is not involved in the case, said of Schroeder’s decision. “It sounds like he’d be guilty of that and he’d get a conviction. You can at least assuage the public you’ve got something as opposed to coming away with absolutely nothing, which is a distinct possibility in this case.”

Under Wisconsin law, anyone under 18 who possesses a dangerous weapon is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to nine months behind bars.

On its face, convicting Rittenhouse on that count looked like a legal slam dunk. No one contested that he was 17 the night of the protest in August 2020. Bystander and surveillance video clearly shows him walking around with the rifle strapped to his chest before the shootings, using the gun to shoot and kill Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber and wound Gaige Grosskreutz.

But Rittenhouse’s attorneys seized on a subsection of the Wisconsin law that states the ban on minors possessing dangerous weapons applies to minors armed with rifles or shotguns only if those weapons are short-barreled. The language stems from a bill that then-Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson signed in 1991. Lawmakers across the country were trying to find ways to curb gang violence around that time. Kenosha defense attorney Michael Cicchini said the law was likely intended to prevent youths from carrying sawed-off shotguns.

Rittenhouse’s AR-15-style rifle was not short-barreled.

They asked Schroeder to dismiss the possession count on those grounds at a pretrial hearing in October. The judge acknowledged the intersection of the statutes was murky but ultimately refused to toss the charge. He said he might revisit the defense request, however.

As Schroeder and attorneys from both sides debated the wording of jury instructions on Monday the defense renewed its request to dismiss the possession charge. Assistant District Attorney James Kraus argued that reading the statute to allow minors to carry any weapon except a short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun basically negates the prohibition on minors carrying weapons.

“I believe that this . . . essentially swallows the entire statute,” Kraus said.

But this time Schroeder dismissed the charge after Kraus acknowledged that Rittenhouse’s rifle wasn’t a short-barreled. The judge noted that prosecutors filed a “very nice brief” laying out their arguments but that it should have been clear he had a “big problem” with the prohibition statute.

He said prosecutors could have asked a state appeals court to rule on whether the charge was valid “all along.” Then he caught himself, noting that he never issued a ruling against the prosecution that might have triggered such a request until just then with closing arguments minutes away.

“I think it ought to have been mighty clear that I had big problems with this statute,” Schroeder said. “I made no bones about that from the beginning. And there always was access to the court of appeals all along here. Well, I guess that’s not fair for me to say because I was sitting on it. So shame on me.”

Cicchini, who is not involved in the case, said legal doctrine demands that when statutes aren’t clear they must be read in favor of the defense.

“This is the price the government must pay when it is incapable of drafting clear laws,” Cicchini wrote in an article discussing the doctrine.

Prosecutors can ask a state appeals court for clarifications and rulings in the middle of a case; they don’t have to wait until a verdict comes down. But usually prosecutors don’t make such a move unless a judge hands down an adverse decision, Cicchini said. In Rittenhouse’s case, Schroeder didn’t rule against Kraus until minutes before closing arguments began.

Turner, the former federal prosecutor, said prosecutors should have realized the issue wasn’t settled and headed Schroeder off by asking an appellate court for a ruling or filing more briefs.

“I’m hesitant to jump to the conclusion that the judge is doing something unfair to (prosecutors),” Turner said. “When the judge expressed skepticism early, they should have done something to make sure it’s clear. In a case of this magnitude, if I’m the prosecutor and the judge has expressed some skepticism or doubt about this, I’m going to do everything I can to sustain that count. When you heard early on there was some doubt, you’ve got to get on this.”

Prosecutors could immediately ask the court of appeals to stop the proceedings pending a ruling on the charge’s validity, but there was no indication Monday that they planned to do so.

Former Waukesha County District Attorney Paul Bucher downplayed the dismissal of the charge. He argued that it might even clarify the case for jurors.

“You’re talking about this extremely minor charge,” Bucher said. “(Prosecutors) are missing the boat. This is a homicide case. We had two individuals killed and one almost killed and they’re focusing on possession of a firearm. If the government thought this was the only count they could succeed on, yikes.”

https://apnews.com/article/why-did-...-charge-d923d8e255d6b1f5c9c9fc5b74e691fb

I know you are just playing your usual silly games but...

Since the Judges ruling is now public knowledge I assumed he disagreed with it. So I asked.

I've missed your deflection over the past year.

The Good Lord gave you two ears and one mouth, you should listen more than you talk.

Why do you Libs insist on making this thread about me instead of the trial?

I think if Kyle Rittenhouse were black, so many people would argue this case in a different way.
I think the reason that doesn't happen is there is a lot of hate for people who just happen to have white skin, and it's fashionable in this country to attack them out of pure racism. The prosecution going after this person shows a systemic bias of the government going after this person to publicly establish that a white person isn't safe anywhere in America, even if they are holding a whatever type riffle.

You sure like to listen more on some things and less on others.

And I'm not a lib.

I've been having substantive discussions all over this thread with people who are willing.

I think we're having a miscommunication here. That was my point. These are two entirely different cases with entirely different circumstances. None of us have any choice but leave it up to the justice system. This has however been a very odd trial with what would seem to be some strange rulings involved. In the end I have no way of knowing if it makes any difference in the final results.

Baw
snort
Haw
BawHawhahahahahaha

Good one!

Look and listen to FATE's posting of the Judges ruling.

It's all there for the reading. Why would I disagree with the Judge? It's his call!

Oh, goodness. This will put some heads on here spinning. You know, the guy that posted the laws, but forgot the subsections, etc.

I guess the keyboard legal experts are..............opinions.

Since I'm not a judge and it's very rare for another judge to go on record calling out one of their own, I think the answer is pretty obvious.

This is funny, but not the way you think it is.

Well I once was a Judge so that makes the answer even more obvious!

No, despite your ramblings, nobodies head is spinning. I'm willing to learn things and realize when I'm wrong or missed something. You may wish to try that once in a while. I think the law is crazy that would allow a minor to walk around in public with a loaded AK-47, but that's the law.

And yes, those who have no legal degree have opinions and can sometimes miss the nuances of the laws. Shocking I know.

I didn't know you practiced law.

Then what is your opinion on the judge's brain exploding when prosecutors used pinch-to-zoom on a video? When he wouldn't allow KR's social media posts about what he wanted to do to the rioters?

Yeah and he paid his gardener all that money too.

No no no, My community asked me to Judge a beauty pageant years ago and I accepted.

Well that's disappointing, if not surprising. My question(s) still stand, though. What do you think about those decisions?

Well, when I was a Judge, my decision was final.

Unlike this case, they can appeal.

That's what people say when they are upset that someone called them on Supporting Trump with all his lies...

It doesn't change the fact that he lies and misleads..

It doesn't change the fact that people clearly support a LIAR..

IT doesn't change the fact that all you can do is deflect.



Try this,,,,,, DUMB DUMB DUMB...

Trump derangement syndrome in action, folks!

Nice to know you finally learned.

You ARE aware, aren't you, that this thread is about Rittenhouse, and not politics? Or, should I say it's about Rittenhouse for everyone that that cares, and only about Trump for the delusional.

Thank you for sharing that article... I was surprised that charge was dropped as (I'm sure like most) I felt that was a pretty clear cut violation...

You and I both. Just ridiculous that this "technicality" has existed for thirty years and never been fixed. I wonder if it's been challenged before? What do these politicians and "lawmakers" do all day besides beg for money? What a joke.

Same. IIRC, I thought the judge also alluded to the fact that it was dropped because the prosecutor didn’t appropriately cite the legal violation, but I might be off on that.

The way I've read it, the timeline is as follows, in layman's terms:

DEFENSE asked charge to be tossed citing subsection at PRETRIAL
JUDGE kicks the can down the road saying "intersection of the statutes was murky"; said he may rule on it later.
TRIAL starts, defense renews request, states that the statute is basically "swallowed whole" by this subsection (basically true, imo)
JUDGE simply agrees and tosses charge, his words, from the article: (mine in parenthesis)


He said prosecutors could have asked a state appeals court to rule on whether the charge was valid “all along.” Then he caught himself, noting that he never issued a ruling against the prosecution that might have triggered such a request until just then with closing arguments minutes away. (In other words, "kicking the can" never gave the prosecution real impetus for approaching appeals court. Bottom line to me, the impression the judge gave initially is that the subject would be explored. I feel like the prosecution was a bit blindsided by the charge getting tossed so quickly.)

“I think it ought to have been mighty clear that I had big problems with this statute,” Schroeder said. (Then you should have stated that at the beginning) “I made no bones about that from the beginning. (Really?? You said the waters were "murky") And there always was access to the court of appeals all along here. (True, but you never gave any indication that should be protocol) Well, I guess that’s not fair for me to say because I was sitting on it. So shame on me.” (No, really, shame on you.)

He seems like a nice old man. He also seams like a bit of a clown in the courtroom at times. Both paragraphs above show him arguing with himself like he has a split personality. He seems pretty "goofy" overall but still likes to impress the court with his vast knowledge of the law of the land. Which makes it seem even stranger that he went Jekyll/Hyde on the weapons charge.

For the first time in my life I'm daydreaming about Lance Ito coming out of retirement.


Alas, the law is the law, in this case. They may want to put all their heads together (smash them together if you have to) and take care of this one. Doesn't make much sense to roll out the red carpet to the subjects you'd least want to bypass your gun laws. Some of these cities should be on cartoon network. Some, they let you burn it down while they bring you ice water; this one they want to have angry teens patrolling the streets with semi-automatic weapons. They thank them... and bring them ice water.

Crazy world.

What you 'think' is irrelevant, in this instance.
What you 'think' has nothing to do with this case or the discussion in this thread.

Kyle Rittenhouse isn't Black.
The people he slew weren't Black.
The Judge and counsel on either side weren't Black.
"Black/White" wasn't featured in either the prosecution's or defense's motions during the course of the trial.

This is just another one of your stupid, transparent attempts to turn a thread into yet another Tucker Carlsonesque "White Grievance" op.

Stop it.
It's dumb, it's ham-fisted... and it's as transparent as Saran Wrap.®

I never said he was found not guilty of the charge. I said the charge was dismissed, as in Rittenhouse no longer faces said charges in this trial and the jury can't consider that as a verdict option. I suppose the state could try to bring said charge forward in the future in a stand alone context, but in light of this dismissal due to the written law, it would probably be a frivolous attempt and a day late.

Don't get mad or frustrated with me because the prosecution couldn't make the charge stick. They have the same ability to read and understand the laws just as the defense team does.

LOl....maybe a touch of dyslexia showing here, but on first glance I read that as Warren Sapp