Rittenhouse/Kenosha Shooting Split

[Metaphor]

No.

Only charges 6 and 7, if they have a defense, would rely on having a 'good reason'. For charge 6, I can imagine if somebody was coerced into carrying the gun, it would be a good reason to have been carrying it. For charge 7, if you were out on the streets because of a medical emergency, I reckon that would be a defense to disobeying curfew.

But the homicide charges do not stand or fall depending on whether Rittenhouse had a 'good reason' to be at the protest.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Do you think bank robbers can claim self defense if they shoot at police officers or security guards who are pursuing them?

Exactly. You forfeit the right of self defense in certain situations.

If Rittenhouse was truly fleeing then the original situation is over and a new situation is started, it can be self defense. However, he retained his weapon, his actions can also be viewed as moving to a better location--thus part of the same incident. The lines can be pretty blurred.

This is the fundamental difference between police and civilians--they retain the right of self defense even when they legally initiate a situation. The policeman busting down your door yelling "Search warrant!" has the right of self defense that a civilian would not. (And, yes, in emergency situations a civilian might bust down a stranger's door. I remember reading about one--traffic accident takes out a propane tank at a gas station. Guy at the gas station grabs an extinguisher, runs to the nearby house, breaks down the door and uses the extinguisher on their fireplace.)

 

[Arctish]

I said it undermines his claims. I did not say it completely invalidates them.

No, it does not undermine them. Whether he shot people in self-defense is not changed by whether he looked intimidating to people beforehand.

It isn't self defense if the people he shot were defending themselves from him.

Honestly, are you having trouble understanding that there is more than one point of view to consider here? That more than one person might be to blame for the confrontation? That blame should be apportioned according to the contributions of each person who had a hand in it?

Rittenhouse was old enough to be let out of the house unsupervised. He was responsible for his choices, his actions, and their consequences. We have yet to fully understand his choices and actions but justice isn't served by ignoring what can be known about them.

That doesn't mean he is the only one responsible for what happened. It means he is responsible for his part.

 

[Metaphor]

It isn't self defense if the people he shot were defending themselves from him.

Honestly, are you having trouble understanding that there is more than one point of view to consider here? That more than one person might be to blame for the confrontation? That blame should be apportioned according to the contributions of each person who had a hand in it?

What a breathtaking thing to say. I'm the one trying to provide an alternative to the people convinced he did not act in self-defense.

Rittenhouse was old enough to be let out of the house unsupervised. He was responsible for his choices, his actions, and their consequences. We have yet to fully understand his choices and actions but justice isn't served by ignoring what can be known about them.

If A attacks and kills B because A reasonably thought B was about to kill A, A would have the reasonable option of claiming self-defense.

If B parries A's attack and instead A gets killed, B would have the reasonable option of claiming self-defense, too.

And if everyone who felt intimidated by my presence decided that justified them attacking me, I reckon I'd have been beaten up a lot more than I have.

 

[Enigma]

And yes, KR was committing crimes just by being there.

It was after the 8:00 PM emergency curfew was in effect. Literally everybody there was committing a crime.

and?

You seemed to think that being in the process of committing crimes means something in regards to claiming self defense.

Apparently breaking curfew means that you are required to allow yourself to be chased by someone who threatens to kill you, knocked down and beaten in the head with a blunt object by someone else, and take no defensive actions against someone (who, by their own testimony) was pointing a gun at you.

Speaking of which, has Grosskruetz paid his $200 fine for breaking curfew?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Again, you are just plain denying reality, or at the very least, completely ignorant of how the law works with regards to justifiable use of deadly force. In *every* single case that night Rittenhouse was completely justified in using his gun.

The self-defense defense for homicide is not available to use for any kind of threat, it only applies to threats of imminent death or great bodily harm. It's not at all clear cut that that is the case for every shot fired by KR.

Sufficient numbers constitutes such a threat even with no weapons involved.

If he has clean hands the second and third cases look justified. I do not think he has clean hands, though.

 

[J842P]

It is absolutely clear cut. In all 4 instances, the persons were actively attacking Rittenhouse, and Rittenhouse had been actively fleeing in all the cases. Even *Grosskreutz himself* admitted as much, that Rittenhouse was in danger of significant harm, in hist cross examination!

Have you all even been watching the trial? Have you *seen* the videos?

Again, self-defense by deadly force only applies to a threat of imminent death or great bodily harm. I'm not sure what video you've seen that you think shows that for every shot fired.

I've enumerated this plenty of times, and I notice that pretty much no one, except at least Toni, has even tried to talk about the specifics.

1) Rosenbaum: Rosenbaum chased after and corned Rittenhouse with a friend of his who shot a handgun into the air. This apparently was all in response to Rittenhouse putting out fires that Rosenbaum and his friend's had started. Rosenbaum *articulated* that he was going to kill Rittenhouse. Again, after chasing and cornering Rittenhouse, Rosenbaum lunges at Rittenhouse and attempts to -- or actually manages to -- grab Rosenbaum's weapon. It is only at this point that Rittenhouse shoots Rosenbaum. Note, this is clear from several video sources, including various persons, a drone, and a police helicopter. And eyewitness testimony of the guy that was in the same parking lot trying to record it.

2) The second guy, "jump-kick guy" (he is unidentified, he is wearing blue I believe) kicks Rittenhouse in the head while Rittenhouse is on the ground having fallen after being chased by a mob (or otherwise "angry, agitated group of people") screaming to get him and "cranium him". Again, this is all on video from several angles. Rittenhouse shoots this guy, and apparently doesn't hit him. Then Huber knocks Rittenhouse in the head with his skateboard and manages to actually grab the gun which is when Rittenhouse shoots him. Even Grosskruetz admits under oath that he perceived Rittenhouse to be in danger at this point, particularly of head trauma -- his words unelicited by the defense attorney cross-examining him! Now, Grosskreutz first claimed that he was only sort of "following" the mob, not chasing Rittenhouse, without a gun. After cross examination, he admits that he was actually "running towards" Rittenhouse with a gun in his hand. Now, after Huber is shot, Grosskruetz basically stops in his tracks and sort of jumps up with his arms near his head. Grosskruetz claims that Rittenhouse shot him at this point, but in my opinion, the video's don't even show Rittenhouse pointing the gun at Grosskruetz *until* Grosskruetz points the handgun that he had in his hand at Rittenhouse's head, at which point he is shot.

What part of this do you think disqualifies Rittenhouse from making a valid self-defense claim? Every single one of the people shot by Rittenhouse was either actively attacking him, or chasing him and pointing a gun at his head.

There are some unsupported allegations in your post that really skew your argument.

You say "Rosenbaum chased after and corned Rittenhouse with a friend of his who shot a handgun into the air. This apparently was all in response to Rittenhouse putting out fires that Rosenbaum and his friend's had started" but do you have evidence Rosenbum was friends with anyone else there, that Rosenbaum started fires, or that Rittenhouse put those fires out?

The only fires I know about that Rosenbaum had something to do with was a dumpster fire. I don't believe evidence of who started it has been presented. There is evidence Rittenhouse ran towards the dumpster fire but not that he put one out, or even attempted to put it out.

And there is no evidence Rittenhouse was being chased by a 'mob'.

People were following him because he was an active shooter who had just fatally wounded someone. Mostly they were keeping their distance, though. It was only couple of very brave men who confronted Rittenhouse directly and tried to disarm him.

1) In a previous post I already said that the fire thing was speculation. Regardless, this isn't "skewed" because you can leave that out and it doesn't change the conclusion at all. The important point is there is *no evidence* that Rittenhouse provoked Rosenbaum. The prosecution was trying to say that Rittenhouse might have gone up to Rosenbaum beforehand, saying the helicopter evidence showed this. But those videos clearly show Rittenhouse running towards the parking lot originally, there was some speculation by the witness to that shooting about the cause, I don't recall atm. The point being, none of it involved provoking Rittenhouse. There is evidence of Rittenhouse putting out fires, like running around with a fire extinguisher, although, not when he was running towards the parking lot where the shooting occured

2) Yes, there absolutely is evidence he was chased by a mob. It's amazing, I already even gave you the alternative of "angry, agitated group of people". You call them "people were following him because he was an active shooter who had just fatally wounded someone.". That is exactly what I said, so you can withdraw the claim that there is no "evidence he was chased by a mob". You can call the group whatever you like, but this is just grasping at straws. Fine, a group of people running in the general direction of Rittenhouse, following him, yelling "get him" and "cranium him". Whatever you want to call it - we both know exactly what I'm talking about. The only fact about their intentions that matter is *whether they were intending to do Rittenhouse harm*. And all three members of that group who were shot were either clearly doing him harm actively attacking him), or could reasonablly be expected to -- running towards him with a handgun and pointing a handgun at him.

I don't know why you think anything that you stated changes the conclusions about the justified use of deadly force in this case -- it doesn't. You haven't even *attempted* to contradict that. Indeed, the very guy, Grosskruetz, who was shot by Rittenhouse, **himself on the stand claimed so**. He even admitted, **on the stand** that it would be reasonable for Rittenhouse in that context to fear for his life if someone ran at him with a gun. I don't think you are being honest about how devastating that cross examination was.

 

[J842P]

I said it undermines his claims. I did not say it completely invalidates them.

No, it does not undermine them. Whether he shot people in self-defense is not changed by whether he looked intimidating to people beforehand.

It isn't self defense if the people he shot were defending themselves from him.

Honestly, are you having trouble understanding that there is more than one point of view to consider here? That more than one person might be to blame for the confrontation? That blame should be apportioned according to the contributions of each person who had a hand in it?

Rittenhouse was old enough to be let out of the house unsupervised. He was responsible for his choices, his actions, and their consequences. We have yet to fully understand his choices and actions but justice isn't served by ignoring what can be known about them.

No, actually. This is *fundamentally wrong*. Those people, like Grosskruetz, could claim they were reasonably afraid of Rittenhouse, *if they were being tried*, and it could very easily be a valid defense *at the same time* for their own use of (deadly) force. Rittenhouse would be still be justified in his own use of deadly force. I think this is a fundamental stumbling block for people. We can postulate that Huber and Grosskruetz were justified in believing they were capturing a murderer *and this does not affect Rittenhouse's criminal culpability*. It's a red herring.

That doesn't mean he is the only one responsible for what happened. It means he is responsible for his part.

In some sense, but in the relevant sense, he is not *criminally responsible* for the homicides that day, because all of them involved clear-cut cases of self defense, as documented meticulously throughout the trial.

 

[J842P]

Again, you are just plain denying reality, or at the very least, completely ignorant of how the law works with regards to justifiable use of deadly force. In *every* single case that night Rittenhouse was completely justified in using his gun.

The self-defense defense for homicide is not available to use for any kind of threat, it only applies to threats of imminent death or great bodily harm. It's not at all clear cut that that is the case for every shot fired by KR.

Sufficient numbers constitutes such a threat even with no weapons involved.

If he has clean hands the second and third cases look justified. I do not think he has clean hands, though.

Loren, you imagine all sorts of things. Explain what evidence exists that Rittenhouse "didn't have clean hands", and as a bonus, please site the relevant statute about how that would affect his claim of self-defense in the case of Rosenbaum, vis a vis the *facts on the ground* of that shooting.

 

[ZiprHead]

And yes, KR was committing crimes just by being there.

It was after the 8:00 PM emergency curfew was in effect. Literally everybody there was committing a crime.

and?

You seemed to think that being in the process of committing crimes means something in regards to claiming self defense.

That's because it does. This is a well established fact in law.

Apparently breaking curfew means that you are required to allow yourself to be chased by someone who threatens to kill you, knocked down and beaten in the head with a blunt object by someone else, and take no defensive actions against someone (who, by their own testimony) was pointing a gun at you.

Leaving a few facts out of that, aren't you.

Speaking of which, has Grosskruetz paid his $200 fine for breaking curfew?

Who cares. Someone else committing crimes does not absolve another for their crimes.

 

[Toni]

It is absolutely clear cut. In all 4 instances, the persons were actively attacking Rittenhouse, and Rittenhouse had been actively fleeing in all the cases. Even *Grosskreutz himself* admitted as much, that Rittenhouse was in danger of significant harm, in hist cross examination!

Have you all even been watching the trial? Have you *seen* the videos?

Again, self-defense by deadly force only applies to a threat of imminent death or great bodily harm. I'm not sure what video you've seen that you think shows that for every shot fired.

I've enumerated this plenty of times, and I notice that pretty much no one, except at least Toni, has even tried to talk about the specifics.

1) Rosenbaum: Rosenbaum chased after and corned Rittenhouse with a friend of his who shot a handgun into the air. This apparently was all in response to Rittenhouse putting out fires that Rosenbaum and his friend's had started. Rosenbaum *articulated* that he was going to kill Rittenhouse. Again, after chasing and cornering Rittenhouse, Rosenbaum lunges at Rittenhouse and attempts to -- or actually manages to -- grab Rosenbaum's weapon. It is only at this point that Rittenhouse shoots Rosenbaum. Note, this is clear from several video sources, including various persons, a drone, and a police helicopter. And eyewitness testimony of the guy that was in the same parking lot trying to record it.

2) The second guy, "jump-kick guy" (he is unidentified, he is wearing blue I believe) kicks Rittenhouse in the head while Rittenhouse is on the ground having fallen after being chased by a mob (or otherwise "angry, agitated group of people") screaming to get him and "cranium him". Again, this is all on video from several angles. Rittenhouse shoots this guy, and apparently doesn't hit him. Then Huber knocks Rittenhouse in the head with his skateboard and manages to actually grab the gun which is when Rittenhouse shoots him. Even Grosskruetz admits under oath that he perceived Rittenhouse to be in danger at this point, particularly of head trauma -- his words unelicited by the defense attorney cross-examining him! Now, Grosskreutz first claimed that he was only sort of "following" the mob, not chasing Rittenhouse, without a gun. After cross examination, he admits that he was actually "running towards" Rittenhouse with a gun in his hand. Now, after Huber is shot, Grosskruetz basically stops in his tracks and sort of jumps up with his arms near his head. Grosskruetz claims that Rittenhouse shot him at this point, but in my opinion, the video's don't even show Rittenhouse pointing the gun at Grosskruetz *until* Grosskruetz points the handgun that he had in his hand at Rittenhouse's head, at which point he is shot.

What part of this do you think disqualifies Rittenhouse from making a valid self-defense claim? Every single one of the people shot by Rittenhouse was either actively attacking him, or chasing him and pointing a gun at his head.

There are some unsupported allegations in your post that really skew your argument.

You say "Rosenbaum chased after and corned Rittenhouse with a friend of his who shot a handgun into the air. This apparently was all in response to Rittenhouse putting out fires that Rosenbaum and his friend's had started" but do you have evidence Rosenbum was friends with anyone else there, that Rosenbaum started fires, or that Rittenhouse put those fires out?

The only fires I know about that Rosenbaum had something to do with was a dumpster fire. I don't believe evidence of who started it has been presented. There is evidence Rittenhouse ran towards the dumpster fire but not that he put one out, or even attempted to put it out.

And there is no evidence Rittenhouse was being chased by a 'mob'.

People were following him because he was an active shooter who had just fatally wounded someone. Mostly they were keeping their distance, though. It was only couple of very brave men who confronted Rittenhouse directly and tried to disarm him.

1) In a previous post I already said that the fire thing was speculation. Regardless, this isn't "skewed" because you can leave that out and it doesn't change the conclusion at all. The important point is there is *no evidence* that Rittenhouse provoked Rosenbaum. The prosecution was trying to say that Rittenhouse might have gone up to Rosenbaum beforehand, saying the helicopter evidence showed this. But those videos clearly show Rittenhouse running towards the parking lot originally, there was some speculation by the witness to that shooting about the cause, I don't recall atm. The point being, none of it involved provoking Rittenhouse. There is evidence of Rittenhouse putting out fires, like running around with a fire extinguisher, although, not when he was running towards the parking lot where the shooting occured

2) Yes, there absolutely is evidence he was chased by a mob. It's amazing, I already even gave you the alternative of "angry, agitated group of people". You call them "people were following him because he was an active shooter who had just fatally wounded someone.". That is exactly what I said, so you can withdraw the claim that there is no "evidence he was chased by a mob". You can call the group whatever you like, but this is just grasping at straws. Fine, a group of people running in the general direction of Rittenhouse, following him, yelling "get him" and "cranium him". Whatever you want to call it - we both know exactly what I'm talking about. The only fact about their intentions that matter is *whether they were intending to do Rittenhouse harm*. And all three members of that group who were shot were either clearly doing him harm actively attacking him), or could reasonablly be expected to -- running towards him with a handgun and pointing a handgun at him.

I don't know why you think anything that you stated changes the conclusions about the justified use of deadly force in this case -- it doesn't. You haven't even *attempted* to contradict that. Indeed, the very guy, Grosskruetz, who was shot by Rittenhouse, **himself on the stand claimed so**. He even admitted, **on the stand** that it would be reasonable for Rittenhouse in that context to fear for his life if someone ran at him with a gun. I don't think you are being honest about how devastating that cross examination was.

It seems to me that if you shoot and kill a man in front of a mob of people, it is not unreasonable to expect that at least some of them will give chase if you don’t do something like immediately call for the police. Why would any reasonable person assume they were the only vigilante in the crowd?

 

[Enigma]

And yes, KR was committing crimes just by being there.

It was after the 8:00 PM emergency curfew was in effect. Literally everybody there was committing a crime.

and?

You seemed to think that being in the process of committing crimes means something in regards to claiming self defense.

That's because it does. This is a well established fact in law.

So because everybody there was breaking the law, nobody there had a legal right to self-defense?

Apparently breaking curfew means that you are required to allow yourself to be chased by someone who threatens to kill you, knocked down and beaten in the head with a blunt object by someone else, and take no defensive actions against someone (who, by their own testimony) was pointing a gun at you.

Leaving a few facts out of that, aren't you.

Plenty. But none that you have established as relevant.

Speaking of which, has Grosskruetz paid his $200 fine for breaking curfew?

Who cares. Someone else committing crimes does not absolve another for their crimes.

I ask because I can easily see a situation where the breaking curfew charge is the only one that sticks.

 

[ZiprHead]

And yes, KR was committing crimes just by being there.

It was after the 8:00 PM emergency curfew was in effect. Literally everybody there was committing a crime.

and?

You seemed to think that being in the process of committing crimes means something in regards to claiming self defense.

That's because it does. This is a well established fact in law.

So because everybody there was breaking the law, nobody there had a legal right to self-defense?

Apparently the prosecutors think so. That's why there is a trial.

If someone tries to rob a liquor store and the clerk pulls a gun is the robber entitled to claim self defense. Your argument breaks down severely in the real world.

Apparently breaking curfew means that you are required to allow yourself to be chased by someone who threatens to kill you, knocked down and beaten in the head with a blunt object by someone else, and take no defensive actions against someone (who, by their own testimony) was pointing a gun at you.

Leaving a few facts out of that, aren't you.

Plenty. But none that you have established as relevant.

Speaking of which, has Grosskruetz paid his $200 fine for breaking curfew?

Who cares. Someone else committing crimes does not absolve another for their crimes.

I ask because I can easily see a situation where the breaking curfew charge is the only one that sticks.

Not minor in possession of a firearm?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Rittenhouse may be found guilty of carrying the rifle underage. That is a misdemeanor, with, I think, a maximum of something like 90 days in jail.

You are being very emotionally reactionary about this and I disagree because your argument is shallow. Rittenhouse could be found guilty of such thing easily you have mentioned in this post, but your other posts show shallow dismissal of a reasoned middle ground. Whether or not KR is guilty of other things is not a thing you want to even think about it and he could easily be, provided those things have a factual and documented basis, able to be proved and demonstrated to an impartially minded jury or judge. Of course, he might not even be charged with the right crimes, much like Zimmerman wasn't comprehensively charged of the crimes that could _all_ be proved. So, for example, KR could easily also be guilty of reckless endangerment due to bringing and putting an illegally obtained gun on display and his motivations to hurt people, thus showing a reckless disregard for life. He could also be guilty of serious armed assault, provided certain things can be established in regard to the armed person he shot. Charges of murder are a bit extreme, sure, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water simply because you are getting emotional.

This is just your own emotional response that because I disagree with your conclusions I somehow am not considering "a reasoned middle ground", and in the context of this thread, it should be clear I am talking about the charges as they exist. Your hypotheticals are just that - hypotheticals.

But even in your hypothetical, merely possessing a weapon, or as you put it, "putting it on display" is not illegal, unless it is illegally *brandished*. And no, for the specific instances we are talking about, e.g. the two people killed and the two people shot at, I am fairly certain after watching the videos and listening to the testimony that there are no grounds for any charges like armed assault. Everyone of those instances is a clear-cut case of self-defense. About as clear cut as it gets, especially considering the amount of footage available.

No, and now you are being political.

Let's review.

You: start claiming a bunch of people in the thread are "disgusting." Yes, that is emotional, especially in the context of being polarized, lacking a critically thought out argument regarding a middle ground.

You most recently: "This is just your emotional response..." No, it is not an emotional response. I am pointing out that your disdain for the other side has caused you to dismiss a reasonable middle ground.

You most recently: "...in the context of this thread, it should be clear I am talking about the charges as they exist. Your hypotheticals are just that - hypotheticals." These are not mere hypotheticals, but rather they are fundamentals. A fundamental understanding of reckless endangerment allows one to also understand greater charges that are most like expansions of reckless endangerment, containing all the elements of that criminal offense but also more.

Of course Rittenhouse ought to have been charged with illegal weapon possession by a minor and reckless endangerment. He is charged with the former, and not merely the latter, but an expansion of it.

FIRST-DEGREE RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING SAFETY, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON x2
POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON BY A PERSON UNDER 18
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH AN EMERGENCY ORDER FROM STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Again, you are just plain denying reality, or at the very least, completely ignorant of how the law works with regards to justifiable use of deadly force. In *every* single case that night Rittenhouse was completely justified in using his gun.

The self-defense defense for homicide is not available to use for any kind of threat, it only applies to threats of imminent death or great bodily harm. It's not at all clear cut that that is the case for every shot fired by KR.

Sufficient numbers constitutes such a threat even with no weapons involved.

If he has clean hands the second and third cases look justified. I do not think he has clean hands, though.

Loren, you imagine all sorts of things. Explain what evidence exists that Rittenhouse "didn't have clean hands", and as a bonus, please site the relevant statute about how that would affect his claim of self-defense in the case of Rosenbaum, vis a vis the *facts on the ground* of that shooting.

Loren does have an incredible propensity to seeking the hypothetical. Loren also has a very low bar for what is deemed self defense shootings. A very low bar. That even he questions what occurred should cause one to pause and reflect.

 

[blastula]

KR is testifying now.

 

[laughing dog]

It is absolutely clear cut. In all 4 instances, the persons were actively attacking Rittenhouse, and Rittenhouse had been actively fleeing in all the cases. Even *Grosskreutz himself* admitted as much, that Rittenhouse was in danger of significant harm, in hist cross examination!

Have you all even been watching the trial? Have you *seen* the videos?

Again, self-defense by deadly force only applies to a threat of imminent death or great bodily harm. I'm not sure what video you've seen that you think shows that for every shot fired.

Agreed. The right to self-defense isn't an automatic authorization for deadly force.

But these shooting

I said it undermines his claims. I did not say it completely invalidates them.

No, it does not undermine them. Whether he shot people in self-defense is not changed by whether he looked intimidating to people beforehand.

It isn't self defense if the people he shot were defending themselves from him.

Honestly, are you having trouble understanding that there is more than one point of view to consider here? That more than one person might be to blame for the confrontation? That blame should be apportioned according to the contributions of each person who had a hand in it?

Rittenhouse was old enough to be let out of the house unsupervised. He was responsible for his choices, his actions, and their consequences. We have yet to fully understand his choices and actions but justice isn't served by ignoring what can be known about them.

No, actually. This is *fundamentally wrong*. Those people, like Grosskruetz, could claim they were reasonably afraid of Rittenhouse, *if they were being tried*, and it could very easily be a valid defense *at the same time* for their own use of (deadly) force. Rittenhouse would be still be justified in his own use of deadly force. I think this is a fundamental stumbling block for people. We can postulate that Huber and Grosskruetz were justified in believing they were capturing a murderer *and this does not affect Rittenhouse's criminal culpability*. It's a red herring.

That doesn't mean he is the only one responsible for what happened. It means he is responsible for his part.

In some sense, but in the relevant sense, he is not *criminally responsible* for the homicides that day, because all of them involved clear-cut cases of self defense, as documented meticulously throughout the trial.

Too bad for Mr. Rittenhouse, you are not a member of the jury.

 

[Shadowy Man]

KR is testifying now.

I watched a little bit of it and found a couple of things he said interesting. He said that he drove back and forth to work without a license, essentially admitting to a different crime while under oath. He also said that he would have had a handgun if it were legal for him to carry one, seemingly implying that he thought it was legal for him to carry the AR-15.

 

[Trausti]

Hey now.

 

[Patooka]

Wow, that's not incoherent at all. Maybe someone needs to install an immobilizer on the judge's bench. If he blows more than 0.05, the court is in recess.