This message was self-deleted by its author

[WarGamer]

This message was self-deleted by its author (WarGamer) on Wed Nov 17, 2021, 10:15 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[onecaliberal]

1. Killing someone is illegal.

[WarGamer]

3. If you would have said "Killing someone is wrong..." that'd be a better claim.

But every single State in the US DOES cut out certain situations where killing someone is NOT illegal.

[ForgedCrank]

13. IMHO, you guys are looking for

an absolute, and there is no reliable method (well, not one that I could think of anyway) to making this absolute.
Killing another human is not always illegal, and not always wrong. Yes, it is definitely horrible and something I would dread having to live with regardless of the circumstances, but it's just not that simple. There are some really bad people out there among us.
If you custom tailored a law around the very circumstances of the trial in question, it would unlikely ever match another messed up future set of circumstances, not to mention, innocent people and their freedoms can be trampled.
As an example, we all probably agree that Rittenhouse should not have been where he was, I believe that is undisputed. Should we make a law that says if you are at a location that is a known spot of contention that you are guilty of xxx if it happens while you are there? But what about the peaceful protesters who were also there?
See, laws like that can start trapping innocent people too, so this is very difficult to define in a way that wouldn't do more harm than good.

[onecaliberal]

30. I hear you and should have clarified. For this instance.

The people killed by that evil piece of shit with a gun were not threatening him.
The killer crossed state lines with a gun for a reason. He has zero business there. Zero.

[ForgedCrank]

35. I'm not sure how this misinformation keeps spreading.

Last edited Wed Nov 17, 2021, 02:04 AM - Edit history (1)

1) Rittenhouse did not bring a gun across state lines
2) "not being threatened" is a matter of perspective, and the facts show otherwise (see below)
3) yes, he did have "business there" (again, see below)

I'm not TRYING to be contrary, and I don't disagree on the mood of the subject. 2 people are dead because he wanted to play cowboy, and that is absolutely disgusting. But, we should argue facts, not false information, that does us no good.
Many of us live in either a rural area, or small town, and "our community" can span a 30 mile radius as a result, just like Rittenhouse. Most of Rittenhouse family lives in Kenosha, which is about 15 minutes away from where he lives, so he had good reasons to be there. The rifle in question was purchased and stored in WI, undisputed facts. I've heard SO much incorrect information about this case, it's kind of making my head swirl.
However, even though he generally had every right to be in Kenosha, and every good reasons, that's not at all why he was there on this particular night. He was there to insert himself into a a very unstable and dangerous environment as opposition, and he brought a gun when he did it. If he didn't think it was dangerous, he wouldn't have brought a gun. If he DID think it was dangerous, he should have stayed home and watched cartoons or polished his Trump hats or something. I think his response was disproportional in all but one case (guy with the pistol pointed at him who got his arm shot up). I see one case of actual self-defense, and 2 cases of something lesser than murder, whatever that is. You don't respond to a swinging skateboard with a gunfire, you don't respond to someone chasing you and throwing a plastic bag at you with gunfire. If someone is pointing a pistol at you, THAT justifies pulling the trigger (shot in the arm guy who didn't get killed).
I'm not sure under WI law what he can be guilty of, but I don't believe it's murder. I don't know how they define all the sub-sets there.
And yes, I believe he carries the weight of some responsibility here, a lot of it in fact. There would be no dead people had he just stayed home that night.

[yagotme]

38. Correction:

The gun was kept in WI, not IL. Think you had a cranial misfire there...

[ForgedCrank]

48. You are correct. Not sure how I

pulled that one off.

[yagotme]

51. I know how.

I do it occasionally, therefore, I always try to read over my post before hitting the "I'm a Moron button". Cranial gastritis. It's a "thing".

[onecaliberal]

39. Travon had good reason to be at his dad's house in his dads neighborhood.

The same argument you just used,
was used AGAINST Trayvon for being in his fathers neighborhood.
The problem is the law is NOT applied equally. Everything is twisted to protect the gun humping murder loving women controlling fascist bastards in this country.
I am fucking over it.

[ForgedCrank]

100. I'm not talking about the Zimmerman trial. That was

completely different circumstances, not even remotely similar.
I'm trying to set correct information out there so people will look for themselves and know what actually happened, not what they are reading in online forums. The misinformation is really out of control.
I'm just talking strictly about the law and the evidence, I'm not arguing right and wrong, those can be entirely different things, and commonly are.
I cant tell you what I THINK of Rittenhouse, and I can tell you what I WANT to happen to him, but that doesn't align with the current law or the evidence that has been presented in this case. And yes, that totally sucks.
It doesn't matter anyway, this trial will end with a hung jury or a mistrial will be declared. The prosecutor royally blew this one and executed what I can only describe as a weak and terrible plan throughout the entire thing.

[Mr.Bill]

56. I agree with you about passing laws

tailored to specific events.

But let's face it, although it won't be said in court, if Kyle Rittenhouse was black, cops would have emptied their magazines into him that night. That's the larger problem.

[PTWB]

29. Many times it's perfectly legal. Try again.

*from someone who thinks Rittenhouse is guilty

[treestar]

49. Not always

1. Self defense
2. Executioners

Homicide is a neutral concept. By itself, it only means a human was killed. Murder, manslaughter with no defense and the degrees are times when it is illegal and the penalties vary.

[Mr.Bill]

58. To be more specific,

homicide means a human was killed by another human. But yes, there are times it can be legal.

[Zeitghost]

63. Most of the time.

Justifiable homicide exists, which is why we're having a trial. We shall find out soon if this is the rule or the exception to your statement.

[Hoyt]

2. Not sure, but bet if Rittenhouse walked down a NY street with a rifle dangling from his neck

during a protest, police would not have ignored it like Wisconsin, where it's legal to strut down the street with a rifle dangling from you neck.

[Decoy of Fenris]

14. Can confirm that you can walk down the street with a longrifle in NY.

It just can't be chambered/loaded, and if it's registered, it can even be an "assault weapon". I know, distinction that you probably don't care about, but gun laws are really fiddly, even in "restrictive" states. Lots of misinformation about NY gun laws out there in general; There have been a lot of 'carve outs' for Upstate hunting purposes. For instance, a bog-standard stock AR-style gun is entirely legal (Magazines are somewhat regulated), even though people think they've been banned, for one reason or another.

Unless you were talking about NYC. In that case, I got no clue, that place is whackadoo and may as well be a different country altogether.

[kcr]

82. ...

"Unless you were talking about NYC. In that case, I got no clue, that place is whackadoo and may as well be a different country altogether."

Unintentional humor is the best.

[Decoy of Fenris]

92. Well the man said you couldn't walk around in NY with a rifle. That's patently false.

Most of NY cities, towns, and villages allow just that. Including, IIRC, the capital of New York, Albany.

It's not the rest of NY's fault that NYC is off-the-rails bonkers. They're filled with crazies and nutjobs that will shank you for fifty cents or a half-smoked joint, not exactly worthy of consideration of "Civilized society".

[jcgoldie]

4. Seems like an attempt to preemptively excuse...

...a trial which has been biased by the judge to the point of ridiculousness. You are not alone here making such excuses.

[WarGamer]

5. in what way was the LAW not followed?

Do LAWS exist for a reason?

Should laws be flexible depending on community attitude?

[jcgoldie]

7. the judge has repeatedly put his thumb on the scale in favor of the defense

These antics have been reported extensively through multiple outlets. If you choose to ignore that then you are saying more about your personal motivations with regard to this topic than the law.

[lagomorph777]

8. The weapons charge being pre-emptively dismissed?

WI law allows WI kids to go hunting in the woods with hunting rifles (I will leave the questionable sanity of that for another debate).

It does not allow them to hunt human prey on city streets with assault rifles.

[WarGamer]

9. That's not how the LAW reads.

Start by reading here:

Link to tweet

?s=20

I can't get these 2 to display automatically.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FEP1m45XEAMOnEc?format=jpg&name=4096x4096
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FEP1qEFXMAQL9mp?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

[lagomorph777]

11. Sorry, your CITATION didn't come through on my browser.

[WarGamer]

12. Look again.

[lagomorph777]

15. Oops. Looks like a Twit thread.

I don't have a Tweeter.

Fixed it for ya:

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60/3/c

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.

[WarGamer]

16. Actually the Twitter thread displays the laws involved... did you even look?

And the last 2 links in my post display the State Law text...

Your cut-n-paste doesn't even show the applicable laws, lol... look at mine or the reporter from CNN I linked to.

It'll help you greatly.

[lagomorph777]

17. Twit is a RW platform; I don't click on it.

[WarGamer]

18. Then you missed out on the applicable text of the law with highlighted sections

That explain why the Judge made the CORRECT legal decision.

Is the law written like SHIT? yes.

But that's the law today. Don't like it, get the legislature to change it.

[Torchlight]

10. Let's not discount the interpretation of laws as a mechanism.

And outside of mathematics, interpretation is rarely absolute and inerrant in its conclusions.

[whathehell]

6. He won't walk..The court allowed for conviction on lesser charges

and today, from.what I can see, the prosecution is doing a VERY.good in his closing argument.

[TexasBushwhacker]

42. I've always thought second degree intentional homicide

was a more appropriate and provable charge. It still carries a penalty of up to 60 years.

[whathehell]

44. Yes, I'm not sure how it works in Wisconsin

I think the sentencing and criminal charged vary from state to state, but I DO think he'll be charged with something significant.

[TexasBushwhacker]

45. Wisconsin does not have a "manslaughter" charge

Instead, they have second degree intentional homicide. The difference is premeditation. While I wouldn't have an issue of convicting him of first degree murder, some might.

[mzmolly]

19. Uhm.

I think Wisconsin has laws against murder.

[WarGamer]

20. But murder has a legal definition and exceptions that apply...

It's all there, in black and white.

Don't like the law, change it.

[mzmolly]

21. There are no valid exceptions

in this case. The law is sufficient as it is written.

[WarGamer]

22. The Jury will decide if the self-defense standard, as written into LAW applies...

[mzmolly]

24. And should the jury be reasonable

they'll determine that the people Rittenhouse murdered were A. not a danger and B. entitled to defend themselves and others against an active shooter.

[WarGamer]

25. #2-3 were clearly a danger.

A wooden plank with metal parts being swung at you is certainly a threat as is a Glock in the hand.

I heard an expert on TV say that it's possible that #2-3 probably BOTH had SD rights so it's possible that Rittenhouse and #2-3 ALL had SD rights but Rittenhouse shot first so he's alive.

It all comes down to shooting #1.

If it was legitimate SD, then #2-3 are done.

We're just going to have to wait for the Jury, I guess.

[mzmolly]

26. You should

watch the presentation by the prosecution. I used the term reasonable, for a reason.

[WarGamer]

27. Why would I listen to the arguments of salesmen?

That's what closing arguments are.

Look at the evidence and the law.

Closing arguments are an appeal to emotion which has no place in rendering a judgement.

I have no interest in watching the Defense close either.

Opening and closing arguments are frequently filled with bluster, empty promises and frankly... lies (by the Defense and Prosecution)

The trial time IN BETWEEN is where the facts are found

[mzmolly]

32. The evidence is that Rittenhouse committed

murder. I've been 'looking' at the evidence since he slaughtered people.

What law do you suggest absolves him of murder?

[WarGamer]

34. We clearly disagree...

I'm not going to argue with you.

I'll simply say... a strong argument has been made that WI LAW clearly absolves KR of legal consequences under the Self-Defense exceptions in the law.

WI LAW has no duty to retreat, like NY does... and the Prosecution introduced the videotape showing Rosenbaum chasing KR with witnesses confirming the verbal threats made... and reaching for the rifle.

Let's just wait for the Jury, ok?

[mzmolly]

37. The prosecution pointed out

that one can't instigate a deadly encounter and later claim self defense.

Yes, agree to disagree.

[yagotme]

40. The prosecution kind of left out the "retreat" angle.

If you are the instigator, and you stop, back away, turn away, retreat, whatever, without causing any physical harm, and as you are retreating, the initial victim begins chasing you, they become the new aggressor. In the videos, KR was observed running from ALL of the individuals he shot, until he wasn't able to run anymore. Under this observance, the self defense will probably stand.

[mzmolly]

41. Rittenhouse was chased after his first blatant murder. Others, had a right to self defense.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8670717/Disturbing-new-footage-shows-gunman-17-shooting-dead-victim-Kenosha.html

[yagotme]

46. Who are you referring to as "others"?

The last 2 shot? If so, chasing a so-called "active shooter" down a street, while you are unarmed, is Darwin award type stuff. (Yes, GG was armed, but didn't fire.) Chasing is usually considered an "aggressive" move, as is striking someone with a skateboard.

From your article:

: Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, was arrested on Wednesday at his home in Antioch, Illinois, 20 miles from Kenosha
IIRC, during testimony, his mother drove him to the police station, and turned himself in.

: He is accused of killing two people at protests over Jacob Blake's shooting Tuesday while 'defending' the city

: Videos from Tuesday night's protests had already shown a gunman, later identified as Rittenhouse, being tailed by protesters as he ran down a street before he fired three or four shots hitting at least two people
Yes, two people. That were chasing him. Hitting them at basically contact distance. While he was sitting on his backside, a poor defensive posture for someone not having a weapon.

: Now a new earlier clip appears to shed light on how the ordeal unfolded after a first man was shot in the head
Again, after being chased into a car lot, and running out of running room.

: The victim is seen on the ground while the gunman stands nearby before running away
Running, because a group of people are coming at him, yelling. I'd run, too.

: It is then that the second and third shootings are thought to have happened after the gunman was chased
AHA! "was chased". He was being pursued by several angry individuals, calling for his blood.

[mzmolly]

47. Anyone in the area, who didn't want to get shot

by an AR15, (especially) after witnessing the first murder.

I'm not going to argue against the Fox News talking points you inserted into the conversation.

[yagotme]

50. What talking points?

You mean what was actually shown in the videos? I watched them, several times, looking for what others have been saying here that KR did. I have seen the opposite, mostly. I watched a good bit of the prosecution. The State's witnesses did a horrible job of convincing me, and the cross of GG by Defense had to be excruciating to Prosecution. Got him to admit he was standing over KR, with gun drawn, pointing it at him. Self defense 101. Not a talking point, court record.

[mzmolly]

52. I get it.

You can't defend yourself against a guy with an AR15, but a skateboard or a plastic bag, is a deadly threat.

The only person with a gun who was shot, was attempting to protect HIMSELF and others from Rittenhouse.

I'm not sure what videos you watched, but it seems common sense was left out of the equation regardless.

[yagotme]

54. You CAN defend yourself against a guy with an AR-15...

if he is actually attacking you with it. Herein lies our different points. If KR was just out on the town to shoot anyone at any time, he could have shot GG well before GG came into close contact distance with him. He didn't until GG actually pointed his pistol at him, causing KR to assume he was going to be shot. Starting to pint a gun at an individual that already has a gun pointing at you, as I said earlier, is Darwin Award stuff. This isn't TV, it's real life. Question is, would KR have shot GG if GG had maintained distance, and NOT pulled/pointed his pistol at him? We will never know for sure, but KR didn't fire until being closed upon and directly threatened by a pistol.

As far as Huberd, skateboard guy, KR was running away, and was struck from behind, fell to the ground, and had the skateboard swung at his head. I haven't been hit in the head by a skateboard, nor do I want to. Skateboards CAN be used as weapons, causing severe injury or death. And not just from riding them (LOL).

Plastic bag? Rosenbaum was chasing KR as he threw the bag, before KR was somewhat cornered in the car/parking lot. Turning to JR, who was still running toward him, he fired only when JR was a few feet from him, grabbing for his rifle. I don't know about you, but no one without a badge is just going to grab my rifle and pull it from me without some sort of resistance from me. Especially after being threatened to be killed by that individual, at an earlier time.

[mzmolly]

55. Without haggling over your play by play,

I agree with the common sense synopsis pointed out by the prosecution:

"If you created the danger, you forfeit the right to self-defense by bringing that gun, aiming it at people, threatening people's lives," said Binger, who aimed the gun in front of the jury to demonstrate. "The defendant provoked everything."

REUTERS

[yagotme]

57. (sigh) Again, the Prosecutor, (a lawyer), is leaving out the other part of the argument.

If you cease, and retreat, you are no longer the attacker/aggressor. Law. If you are then attacked, while retreating, you are now the victim. Law. If one is threatened by someone with a firearm, then they leave, CALL THE COPS! Then they can be arrested for assault, and you're scot free. Run them down, and beat them to death, YOU'RE going to jail. (I realize that 911 was on vacation those nights, but just for general purposes).

He says this while presenting his closing, correct? He is saying what he thinks will sway the jury to lean to his side. That's his job. If he leaves something out, like above, well, if the Defense thinks it's a big deal, then THEY can correct him.

[mzmolly]

60. I might buy that nonsense

if the liar had dropped and/or given up his assault weapon. He did not. Thus, he did not retreat. He maintained control of a deadly weapon and pointed it at people prior to being chased. He shot numerous times, to kill those trying to defend themselves.

By your logic, Rittenhouse can walk into a local Wisconsin high-school, point his gun at people and if someone attempts to disarm him, he can legally slaughter them? Bullshit.

Read the article for the portion of the law that pertains to the quote I mentioned above.

Also: The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.

Great bodily harm does not mean you're adverse to a black eye. It means you reasonably fear your life is in immediate danger.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48

Adding: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48/2/a

A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.

[yagotme]

64. He did "retreat". He turned, and left the immediate area.

He maintained control of his weapon, because there were no authorized persons to give it TO. When he finally DID make it to the police line, (yes, there's video), he attempted to surrender to them, and he was sent home instead. Police's fault, not KR's.

"pointed it at people prior to being chased. He shot numerous times, to kill those trying to defend themselves."

We've gone over this numerous times. He pointed the weapon. He then retreated. He was then chased. Had a plastic bag thrown at him, by the man who threatened to kill him, earlier. Got cornered by same man. Shot man while he was running toward him, trying to grab his weapon (he would have been a prohibited person, prior felony conviction). Group advances toward KR. He retreats again, (NOT shooting), until struck from behind, falling down, and being attacked/threatened by 3 different people (Face Kicker, Skateboard, and GG). He shot 2 of the above, only killing one. Why didn't he continue to fire on GG? His gun hand was disabled, an easy target, just a few feet away, right? But the mass murderer didn't fire, did he? Could it be he realized that the threat was no longer?

"By your logic, Rittenhouse can walk into a local Wisconsin high-school, point his gun at people and if someone attempts to disarm him, he can legally slaughter them? Bullshit."

A: Illegal to carry firearm into school. B: If he is in the act of assault, he is breaking the law. My point has always been, he was RETREATING from conflict, no longer "initiating" it. Disregarding "A:", if someone walks up to you on the street, and points a gun at you, he is committing assault. If he puts the gun down/away, and walks off, and you take off after him, you risk being shot, and self defense being claimed by him, because you assaulted him. Thus, my statement of, to call the police, and let them chase him down. Sorry you missed that part.

"Also: The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.

Great bodily harm does not mean you're adverse to a black eye. It means you reasonably fear your life is in immediate danger."

"A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself."

He was being chased by a man who threatened to kill him. Per testimony, said person had his hand(s) on his rifle, attempting to pull it from him. What part of this doesn't seem like a deadly threat?

[mzmolly]

65. Good grief.

I feel like I stumbled on a different forum.

I wish some people were arguing the facts vs. rumors, based upon the assertions of a proven liar. You're basically regurgitating RW talking points vs. considering the evidence.

Cheers.

[WarGamer]

67. And I see other people "making up" laws that apply to their narrative.

[mzmolly]

68. Funny,

as I cited specific laws that were pertinent to the case in question.

[WarGamer]

72. You relied on the phrase "unlawful conduct"

And you'd be correct IF it's found that shooting #1 was unlawful

Otherwise, it's not pertinent.

[Zeitghost]

69. It's all there on video

Have you seen it? It clearly shows KR retreating and Rosenbaum chasing him, medical examiner testimony states Rosenbaum's hand was on the muzzle of the rifle when he was shot. The physical evidence indicates he was aggressor at that point.

[mzmolly]

78. The scenario you mention,

was addressed at trial.

A Wisconsin jury on Tuesday watched a high-definition drone video of the moments before Kyle Rittenhouse shot one of two men he killed in August 2020.

The enhanced video showed Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, apparently chasing Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse, 17 at the time, turned and opened fire at close range, killing Rosenbaum.

A forensic pathologist, Dr. Doug Kelley, testified that the fatal shots were fired at a downward angle with Rosenbaum being horizontal, suggesting the victim wasn't a threat at that moment.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/enhanced-drone-footage-shows-first-two-fatal-shootings-kyle-rittenhous-rcna5094

Rosenbaum was defending himself against an armed gunman.

[yagotme]

75. What I've stated, I've viewed on video,

or gone to the pertinent websites and copied. A jury looks at the evidence, not what MSM puts out. They saw the same video I saw during the trial. Watch the videos in real time, not slo-mo, and you'll realize all this happened in a very short span of time. 2nd and 3rd shooting were just a minute or two apart, for example. Same part of the street, IIRC. Jury had the pertinent laws explained to them (muddled as they were). If I have brought something up that is merely a rumor, please bring it forward. I have done the best I can to put forward the correct presentation of the testimony/my interpretation of the videos I can.

[WarGamer]

66. Your mistake is calling shooting #1 unlawful conduct.

If it's found that shooting #1 was lawful (self defense)

Then the other 2 shootings don't meet your "definition"

In fact... KR, Huber and GG probably all 3 had the right to self defense and KR just shot first.



Example: Rob a bank and if people in the street try to stop you, there is NO self defense exception.

But if there's a bank robbery and you're minding your own business walking down the street and 2 guys THINK you're the bank robber, all 3 of you have the right to self defense. Sounds crazy but that's the law.

Example #2

If GG had shot KR, he would not be liable for killing KR because he was in fear of his life after seeing the armed dude and being in fear.

But if KR is found not guilty on shooting #1, he literally CAN NOT be convicted of the other 2.

[mzmolly]

70. My mistake is calling shooting #1 unlawful conduct?

Your 'mistake' is calling the first shooting lawful, along with defending an armed assailant pointing assault weapons at innocent people.

[WarGamer]

73. Well we're going to see... maybe tomorrow :)

[WarGamer]

74. I really understand your emotions...

And I'm not going to argue.

I admire your passion. Good night!

[mzmolly]

88. I guess

we'd be an example of a hung jury?

[uponit7771]

80. +1, I pray the jury doesn't leave this part out cause KR's defenders are

[mzmolly]

81. Indeed.

It's bizarre, frankly.

[yagotme]

71. On your #2,

GG was advancing towards KR while KR was on the ground. GG had his hands up, initially, until he closed the distance, then he aimed his gun at KR. KR would have had difficulty proving SD prior to the gun being aimed, but GG was advancing, being the most aggressive of the 2. If GG had shot KR earlier in his advance, it would have been hard for him to prove SD, as KR wasn't pointing his rifle at him, not until he moved closer.

Huber was actualy assaulting KR with the skateboard, had 2 hits on him, and KR apparently wasn't going to take a 3rd. Again, KR just didn't pick Huber out of the crowd, and take a shot. All 3 individuals chasing KR were in the attack mode, from what I saw in the videos.

[DFW]

23. I haven't followed the details enough to get specific, BUT...........

If he walks, I think he will have a stiff neck from looking over his shoulder for the next 20 years.

As well he should.

[JI7]

28. LOL

[BlackSkimmer]

31. No,if he walks, it'll be because the jury is ignoring facts.

Sorry, not sorry. My opinion.

[mzmolly]

33. Exactly. If he walks it's

clear evidence of white privilege at play, in our 'justice' system.

[BlackSkimmer]

36. Yes, sadly, this.

This whole thing is a tragic circus. And this judge is the ringmaster.

[mzmolly]

53. Indeed.

[uponit7771]

59. +1, the prosecutor did an excellent job of showing KR *STARTED* all the violence then ran ...

... and turned around for more violence.

[mzmolly]

62. Yep.

I hope the jury uses logic and applies the law, accordingly.

[Zeitghost]

76. This is simply not backed up by the video evidence.

It clearly shows KR retreating. Have you seen it?


The blind faith shown to a prosecutor who has been shown to be either dishonest or mistaken about key evidence, who committed serious 5th amendment violations and who had pressured a prosecution witness to change his story, by some here is downright scary to me. We used to be the party that stood up for the rights of the accused. If this case didn't involve gun violence and a right wing defendant, many would be singing a far different tune.

[uponit7771]

79. Sophistry, KR ***ADMITTED*** to pointing his weapon at Rosenbaugh to "deter" him BEFORE he ran

... the crowd wasn't chasing KR because they had nothing else to do.

KR initiated the bullshit as an active shooter then tried to call no joy when he was chased, fine ... then he doesn't get to point his weapon ... AGAIN ... at the crowd including Rosenbauh while RUNNING away!!

Nice try though.

[Zeitghost]

83. As soon as he disengaged and retreted

There right to physically confront him was over. Video clearly shows the child rapist chasing him down.

[uponit7771]

84. "reasonable means to escape death" is not shooting at KNOWINGLY unarmed people who are chasing

... a person who provoked aggression.

That's not reasonable or self defense

[Zeitghost]

85. Not quite

It's a reasonable fear of death or bodily injury.

The law allows for those who provoke to regain the right to self defense by retreating. That's what KR was captured on video doing, retreating from Rosenbaum who is seen chasing after him.

[uponit7771]

86. You forgot the "unarmed" Rosenbaum ... that's the gating issue. KR could've just kept running, he

... didn't

[Zeitghost]

87. He did not have a legal requirement to continue retreating

Rosenbaum chasing him, combined with the death threats he had made and his attempt to grab the weapon created a reasonable fear.

[mzmolly]

89. The only person who heard supposed death threats

was lying Kyle.

[Hav]

93. The witnesses of the prosecution testified

that they heard the death threats. Whether they are believable is another question.

[mzmolly]

97. Thanks for the clarification.

Yet with all the film from that day, no one had the quote in question on tape? Not believable.

That said, I'm not convinced that an unarmed man of small stature, saying anything, constitutes an imminent threat regardless.

[Zeitghost]

98. The main footage

Was from an FBI drone...

[mzmolly]

99. That's not the only footage. Regardless, it's a shame the people of Wisconsin are

(according to some) not allowed to defend themselves against a guy with a deadly AR15.

[Zeitghost]

96. Not true

Not true, there was collaborating witness testimony, from the prosecution no less. .

[uponit7771]

94. Maybe, then he didn't have the legal right for lethal force ... he had other options bottom line

... the law looks like if you start some shit and can't finish it get the hell out of dodge and don't stop.

That's not what KR did

[Hav]

95. I want the little shit in prison

but have you seen the footage? He did run away with several people running after him. A gun was shot by someone else, he turned around after he was chased into a parking lot that was described by an eye witness as a dead end, blocked by cars. It doesn't look like he could run forward anymore. Rosenbaum was already very close to him at that time and continued charging at him.

[mzmolly]

90. Exactly. He should have exercised all other options. Instead,

he gained ground to position himself to shoot and kill Rosenbaum.

[Amishman]

61. If he's found guilty, it will be the jury judging on character rather than law

By the letter of the law, this does appear to be self defense. Unless the prosecution proved intent of provocation beyond a reasonable doubt was to entice a violent situation; then his retreat is sufficient to claim self defense against his pursuers. I don't think the prosecution tried to hard to prove he went there with the intent of shooting people - let alone proved it to the degree for a criminal case.

Doesn't make it right, doesn't mean the law isn't messed up.

[kcr]

102. It isn't the letter of the law that is the problem

It's people like you who think "Gee, the prosecution didn't try to show the guy who showed up with an assault rifle and shot three people in the span of minutes actually wanted to shoot anybody!" Letter of the law will not protect us if society at large basically doesn't give a shit about gun violence and is perfectly happy to let mass shooters get away with it as long as they approve of the motivation behind it.

[Shellback Squid]

77. he won't walk

he'll be carried on his supporters shoulders


be prepared

[Stuart G]

91. Rittenhouse will NOT WALK..If you were on the jury, would you let him walk?

...That is my opinion. The facts are very clear, Rittenhouse went to kill, and he killed. He took a loaded gun to somewhere
and used the loaded gun to ...KILL SOMEONE!!!!

if I were on the jury, and if you were too, we would find a way to put him in prison...No matter what the f**king judge says..
Rittenhouse is guilty................................................................................

........................If you were on the jury would you let him walk? (no matter what the judge said) (f**k the judge)

[Hekate]

101. Based on everything this OP insists is "the LAW" I kind of think he would let the little monster go

The OP has stated multiple times in just this thread that “the LAW” (his emphasis) will be followed and that “the LAW” could allow the baby-faced murderer to go free. Because, you know, “the LAW.”