# Rittenhouse/Kenosha Shooting Split

#### jab

##### Veteran Member
I guess I'm a little bit out of the loop these days wrt slang. What exactly does it even mean that Ben's wife is "dry"? She's in menopause?
I assumed it meant her vagina is dry, because Ben Shapiro does not sexually excite her.

Of course, that would be an unkind thing to say, and we know the left is always kind.
It is a reference to Shapiro going on a tear badmouthing the Cardi B song WAP (Wet Ass P****y). One statement he posted on twitter was that his wife said that is a sign of an infection. Which led people to believe he has never gotten his wife wet.
OK, that clears things up a bit. I was thinking dry, as in her eggs are "dried up" due to advancing age. I found this on Ben's Twitter feed:

Ben Shapiro's wife is dry?

As I also discussed on the show, my only real concern is that the women involved -- who apparently require a "bucket and a mop" -- get the medical care they require. My doctor wife's differential diagnosis: bacterial vaginosis, yeast infection, or trichomonis.

I don't see the connection, though, between his doctor wife's medical diagnosis of excessive vaginal fluid (not sure if its true, maybe some of the ladies can chime in here) and her not getting aroused by her husband. It doesn't follow.
Well, Kyle Rittenhouse scrunched up his Cardi B-less eyes just as hard as he could and quavered his chin like Kate Hepburn trying to act emotional--but as Dorothy Parker once wrote in a review of Miss Hepburn's acting, he ran the gamut of emotions from A to B. At least he was trying unlike the civilian shooter of an unarmed black man who, on the stand thus week, kept repeating in a more or less "manly" tone that the shooting was the most traumatic event of his life, with nary a word for the trauma of the man he shot.

#### jab

##### Veteran Member
I wonder if all these Rittenfans would be pleased if “Antifa” and BLMers started policing Trump rallies with AR15s.
I wasn't aware that Trump rallies end up in rioting, arson and grafitti resulting in $50m property damage a pop. No wonder presidential campaigns are so expensive. Raise yer awareness: Jan. 6, except for the arson--but shit did get flung, and coops killed and injured #### jab ##### Veteran Member So a minor in Wisconsin was legally in open carry possession of a semi-automatic rifle? Wisconsin sucks! Not just that...but the curfew violation was also dropped and his pointing the gun in a video at someone has been disallowed from zooming in (sort of--I am confused on this) and so it seems like all claims of self-defense will become valid because any that were invalid due to committing a crime can't be invalid since all crimes are dismissed or risk of having committed them has been mitigated by minimizing evidence. His claim to self defense was never invalidated by having been committing those crimes. But I guess the point is moot now that they've been dropped. There was more than one claim of self-defense and not all of them were equally valid or invalid, but all of them are nuanced and some of them are dependent upon whether one is committing a crime to a certain extent: "939.48(2) (2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows: 939.48(2)(a) (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. " Right, although in that particular case it is referring to illegal behavior that provokes. Such as pointing at someone with an illegally obtained weapon during a curfew you are not supposed to be out in? Well, therein lies the rub. The prosecution’s entire theory rests on his pointing the gun at Ziminski just before Rosenbaum chases him. But remember, they must prove that is what happened beyond a reasonable doubt. So what’s the evidence of that? Rittenhouse sure as hell didn’t admit it. It’s all based on a grainy video that the prosecution enhanced. Even then the judge admitted he couldn’t determine if it showed what they purport. Here’s the still. View attachment 36092 There’s a couple of problems with this picture. One, Rittenhouse is not left handed As this shot would seem to imply. He’s a right handed shooter. Second, the white blob above the arrow is supposed to be Rittenhouse’s right hand on the weapon, but the white blob is there before Rittenhouse ever shows up. here’s a screenshot from a split second before Rittenhouse shows up. View attachment 36093 The same white blob can be seen to the left of the pole before he walks to that point. This is part of a vehicle that is parked there. it can’t be his hand. And thus this picture does not depict Rittenhouse pointing a rifle at anyone. It’s just way too unclear what this is. It’s got to be beyond a reasonable doubt. there are other problems as well. Supposedly Zaminski is the one targeted. But Zaminski admits he was armed and had fired a shot in the air. Zaminski doesn’t go after Rittenhouse, Rosenbaum did. And Zaminski denies knowing Rosenbaum. The whole thing is insane. You’ve got a kid with a weapon, another guy with a handgun, and a third guy whose made violent threats before and just been released after a suicide attempt. IMHO, they’re all a bunch of losers. Rittenhouse is no hero. Now he’ll have to live with the consequences of his stupid decision to go down there. But in the end he gets off on self defense. So, his possible victims were supposed to call out to him, "Hey, baby Face, are you left handed?" #### jab ##### Veteran Member The market value of the property can be quantified. The sentimental value of the property cannot- Oh, but it can be compared - to the "sentimental value" of a human life. And guess what? Right wingers have made that comparison, and determined that the sentimental value of any given inanimate object may very well exceed the sentimental value of a human. Especially a black human. Sometimes they even cite dollar values as "proof". "Damn those property damagers - free the murderers!" - Trumpsucker credo Well, except, perhaps, when it comes to bombing or otherwise vandalizing abortion clinics, or the Capital--remember that sweet reckless Ashley Babbit (sorry, can't be bothered to look up correct spelling of this thug's name) is a patriotic martyr to many MAGGOTS. #### Toni ##### Contributor If cops hadn’t shot up some unarmed guy whose small children were in the back of the car, there wouldn’t have been unrest in Kenosha. Toni, give it a rest with your misinformation! 1. Jacob Blake was armed. He was holding a knife. 2. The vehicle was not his. 3. He did not have custody of the kids. 4. He had a felony sexual assault warrant. And note that even if the shooting was not justified, rioting, looting and arson certainly is not. If there were not dozens and dozens and dozens of other instances of cops shooting unarmed people, there would not be these demonstrations and protests that turn into riots with collateral damage, both property and human. Most police shootings involve armed subjects. And often unarmed subjects can also be a threat justifying use of lethal force. If the police officer is too hesitant in shooting, un unarmed assailant can disarm that police officer and use his or her weapon against the cop. This has happened numerous times in the past. Also, often armed perps also precipitate rioting. Jacob Blake was armed. Mario Woods was armed. Keith Smith was armed (it was not a book after all!) It is hard to have peace without justice. What justice? Jacob Blake - no matter how much Kamala Harris is proud of him - brought the shooting on himself. He didn't have a knife in his hand. They found knife after they shot him. It doesn't matter if it was his car or if he had custody of his kids. The police were not attempting to rescue his kids. They shot him in front of his 3 young children, in a car. They could have very easily killed one or more of his children, rather than just traumatizing them. I realize you are perfectly fine with police shooting as many black men as possible but a lot of people are tired of this shit and they are not all black people. Baby-Face Kyle is white, not a cop, and his victims were all, I beli It is assholes like Rittenhouse — or the adults who filled him with hatred and gave him access to a gun — who have helped turn the U.S.A. into a shit-hole country. No, it is assholes like Rosenberg, Huber and Grosskreutz, as well as elsewhere assholes like Colinford Mattis and Urooj Rahman that are threatening to turn this country into a shithole country with their regular violent rioting whenever they feel upset about something. If there weren't violent unrests in Kenosha over several days, Rittenhouse would have just chilled and we all would not know his name Thughuggers Commit Capital Treason A riot is a state of war. Every citizen has an obligation to use his gun to kill the rioters. They are the enemy; merely arresting them would just encourage more riots. Also, during wartime regulations about illegal possession of weapons are waived. Where do I find this in the law? One Riot, One Ranger It's the natural law, which had protected civilization for millennia until the thughuggers took over. Your "rule of law" is the law of your rulers. Patriots must take the law back into our own hands. How do you tell a patriot, then, from a political thug?--oh yeah, they're on the side you agree with. To me Baby Face Rittenhouse, like Don the Con, are all-American thugs. Thug, yes. I prefer to stick to the law and to do our utmost as citizens to hold our criminal justice system to the highest standards. Rittenhouse is still a kid, albeit one who probably has little chance of actual redemption, given the hero worship he's garnered. To call Trump a thug is extremely euphemistic. #### J842P ##### Veteran Member Jury asks Judge if he'd be angry if they voted to convict on any charges. Judge affirmed he would. Not quite at this point, but pretty close. What the hell are you talking about? #### SLD ##### Veteran Member The video allegedly showing .... What video? I declare a mistrial and that SLD should be disbarred immediately! Yeah it’s not on YouTube anymore. It’s a conspiracy! But I can't argue the point with you anymore and I had these really good points I was going to make. MISTRIAL! So a minor in Wisconsin was legally in open carry possession of a semi-automatic rifle? Wisconsin sucks! Not just that...but the curfew violation was also dropped and his pointing the gun in a video at someone has been disallowed from zooming in (sort of--I am confused on this) and so it seems like all claims of self-defense will become valid because any that were invalid due to committing a crime can't be invalid since all crimes are dismissed or risk of having committed them has been mitigated by minimizing evidence. His claim to self defense was never invalidated by having been committing those crimes. But I guess the point is moot now that they've been dropped. There was more than one claim of self-defense and not all of them were equally valid or invalid, but all of them are nuanced and some of them are dependent upon whether one is committing a crime to a certain extent: "939.48(2) (2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows: 939.48(2)(a) (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. " Right, although in that particular case it is referring to illegal behavior that provokes. Such as pointing at someone with an illegally obtained weapon during a curfew you are not supposed to be out in? Well, therein lies the rub. The prosecution’s entire theory rests on his pointing the gun at Ziminski just before Rosenbaum chases him. But remember, they must prove that is what happened beyond a reasonable doubt. So what’s the evidence of that? Rittenhouse sure as hell didn’t admit it. It’s all based on a grainy video that the prosecution enhanced. Even then the judge admitted he couldn’t determine if it showed what they purport. Here’s the still. View attachment 36092 There’s a couple of problems with this picture. One, Rittenhouse is not left handed As this shot would seem to imply. He’s a right handed shooter. Second, the white blob above the arrow is supposed to be Rittenhouse’s right hand on the weapon, but the white blob is there before Rittenhouse ever shows up. here’s a screenshot from a split second before Rittenhouse shows up. View attachment 36093 The same white blob can be seen to the left of the pole before he walks to that point. This is part of a vehicle that is parked there. it can’t be his hand. And thus this picture does not depict Rittenhouse pointing a rifle at anyone. It’s just way too unclear what this is. It’s got to be beyond a reasonable doubt. there are other problems as well. Supposedly Zaminski is the one targeted. But Zaminski admits he was armed and had fired a shot in the air. Zaminski doesn’t go after Rittenhouse, Rosenbaum did. And Zaminski denies knowing Rosenbaum. The whole thing is insane. You’ve got a kid with a weapon, another guy with a handgun, and a third guy whose made violent threats before and just been released after a suicide attempt. IMHO, they’re all a bunch of losers. Rittenhouse is no hero. Now he’ll have to live with the consequences of his stupid decision to go down there. But in the end he gets off on self defense. So, his possible victims were supposed to call out to him, "Hey, baby Face, are you left handed?" WTF? No. The issue is did he point the rifle, with malicious intent (if while he was setting down the fire extinguisher the rifle swung around in a small arc and may have accidentally fanned someone is not sufficient), at anyone before Rosenbaum started to chase him? More specifically has the prosecution proven that fact beyond a reasonable doubt? That's the ultimate question in this trial. I don't think they have and the fact that he is right handed not left handed shows it far more clearly that he most likely did not point the rifle at anyone. No one here has presented any evidence that he did. I am unaware of any witness stating that they saw him do that. Zaminski didn't testify because he's under indictment for his part as well, including firing a weapon a few seconds before. He was also accused by Rittenhouse of telling Rosenbaum to kill him and to my knowledge, that fact also remains undisputed by any testimony or video evidence. If you've got other evidence, let me know. I'd like to see it. A dozen eyewitnesses saying he pointed his gun at Zaminski would be damning. Another video showing it clearly happening would too. But frankly it doesn't make sense that he would. He's going around trying to play the medical hero moments before - anyone need medical? One guy mocks him for doing so while carrying a weapon. He backs away from that rather than confronts him. He's not acting aggressive in any of these situations that happen before hand. Bottom line is simply this: what is the evidence that he pointed the gun at someone in the seconds before Rosenbaum started to chase after him? If you've got some, share it. If not, vote to acquit. You don't have to like the guy. I don't either. But deal with the law and not speculation. If he didn't point that gun at anyone at that moment, he should be acquitted. #### Elixir ##### Made in America Jury asks Judge if he'd be angry if they voted to convict on any charges. Judge affirmed he would. Not quite at this point, but pretty close. What the hell are you talking about? I heard that His Honor was going to adopt the little Rittenhouse boy as his own child. #### blastula ##### Contributor Allegedly, the producer is a freelancer. Suspicions and allegations abound that the freelance producer was taking pictures, but it turns out that there are no pictures. Allegedly, the producer received orders from headquarters at NBC to follow the bus but there is no substantiation of that claim. Since there are no pictures, what is the alternative cause for following a bus of jurors? Could it be to report on when exactly deliberations would start again to get a head start on those things, to watch if when jurors get off the bus if there's any kind of violent incident to be there when it happens or some nefarious reason? If it is true that the producer is the one who said orders came from NBC headquarters, then it seems valid to ban NBC from the court room, pending investigation. I heard a court reporter say it's typical for the media to try to get jurors' license plate numbers so they can identify and contact them after a verdict. Creepy job. #### blastula ##### Contributor Bottom line is simply this: what is the evidence that he pointed the gun at someone in the seconds before Rosenbaum started to chase after him? If you've got some, share it. If not, vote to acquit. Not quite. The gun pointing is hardly the deciding issue. The right to self-defense doesn't always mean the right to kill someone. To have the right to use deadly force you have to be threatened by that kind of force. I would vote guilty on the JR charge. #### TomC ##### Celestial Highness Allegedly, the producer is a freelancer. Suspicions and allegations abound that the freelance producer was taking pictures, but it turns out that there are no pictures. Allegedly, the producer received orders from headquarters at NBC to follow the bus but there is no substantiation of that claim. Since there are no pictures, what is the alternative cause for following a bus of jurors? Could it be to report on when exactly deliberations would start again to get a head start on those things, to watch if when jurors get off the bus if there's any kind of violent incident to be there when it happens or some nefarious reason? If it is true that the producer is the one who said orders came from NBC headquarters, then it seems valid to ban NBC from the court room, pending investigation. I heard a court reporter say it's typical for the media to try to get jurors' license plate numbers so they can identify and contact them after a verdict. Creepy job. I wish I could say, "No! Our media isn't that creepy, ugly, invasive, or counterproductive, or capitalist." However... Tom #### blastula ##### Contributor Jury asks Judge if he'd be angry if they voted to convict on any charges. Judge affirmed he would. Not quite at this point, but pretty close. What the hell are you talking about? I didn't think the judge showed any bias either way, other than once or twice raising his voice to the prosecutor while the jury was there. The main bias he had was to camera whoredom. During the lawyers only discussions, he would waste everyone's time on a lot of tangents into his favorite yarns, or go off on rants about what he read in the media. He commented this week about considering never having cameras in his court again. Yeah, sure. #### Don2 (Don1 Revised) ##### Contributor Bottom line is simply this: what is the evidence that he pointed the gun at someone in the seconds before Rosenbaum started to chase after him? If you've got some, share it. If not, vote to acquit. Not quite. The gun pointing is hardly the deciding issue. The right to self-defense doesn't always mean the right to kill someone. To have the right to use deadly force you have to be threatened by that kind of force. I would vote guilty on the JR charge. That one is complicated for me, personally. I am not sure I commented on this before. I meant to, but then I think I erased it... Anyway, you can see in the videos that KR is not trapped like it's been said by right-wing sources. After shooting, he easily runs around a car and back around to assess the situation and possibly do even more damage. That said, he does have to go through a narrow space between the front of a car and something in front of the car, either a dumpster or a hitch or something rectangular prism-looking that might be connected or not to another car in front of the space. That choice to go through there could actually be a real choice for a bait and switch but it can't be proved. On the other hand, since he's slowing down, one could try to argue that JR is catching up to him and intends harm and so turning around and shooting once or twice might not be completely unreasonable. Once JR is there, he's helpless. Even if he initially "lunged forward"--not sure about that--next, he's falling forward. His range of motion as he falls into the space is extremely limited, not being able to move left or right and NOT lunging forward at all after any initial alleged lunge forward. So at that point where his back is exposed to being shot he's not lunging forward--the defense claim. I can only deduce that the shot to the back, presumably the last shot was provably unnecessary. At this point I think it is necessary to look at context holistically--KR's previous statements that show he devalues the lives of these people, his bringing a gun, his being out after curfew. Could these be relevant to frame of mind? Yes, maybe. But also, he has the presumption of innocence which I think in this case would mean that it could be counter-argued that maybe since he was defending himself, maybe he simply pulled the trigger an extra time out of nervousness or bad timing since JR was falling quickly. The defense specifically didn't make that argument for some reason, maybe there is still legal culpability with it or maybe they expect a jury to come up with it. In any case, I think whether we allow KR to have the privilege of benefit of doubt to making a mistake during self-defense, shooting an extra time or two, it depends upon whether or not he provoked the attack initially. I don't like that because it feels an awful lot like an unstable system where we make one very small tweak and giant changes come about--this one in conclusions. At this point, I don't think people on the Internet are really dealing with this final issue of what is what in a proper, original video and I am trusting the jury to analyze this part. I have no analysis of what is there at the alleged point of provocation, but things seem dependent upon that. #### SLD ##### Veteran Member Bottom line is simply this: what is the evidence that he pointed the gun at someone in the seconds before Rosenbaum started to chase after him? If you've got some, share it. If not, vote to acquit. Not quite. The gun pointing is hardly the deciding issue. The right to self-defense doesn't always mean the right to kill someone. To have the right to use deadly force you have to be threatened by that kind of force. I would vote guilty on the JR charge. You don’t have to be threatened. You just have to have a reasonable fear of your life or great bodily harm. In this case, even the prosecution’s forensic specialist admitted that Rosenbaum either had his hand on the weapon, or was very close to it. You most definitely can be shot trying to grab someone’s weapon From them. Furthermore, the uncontradicted evidence is that Zaminski yelled that they should kill Rittenhouse - although I’m not sure if that was directed at Rosenbaum specifically or just shouted. No way did Rosenbaum not have a reasonable belief that he would be either killed or seriously injured. I don’t see the jury convicting him on that grounds, unless he provoked the attack. i see it boiling down to whether he provoked Rosenbaum and that’s what the prosecution emphasized in closing. That’s why the defense is up in arms over the version of the video they got. Provocation is everything. Note that this is very different from the Arbery case. In that situation, the defendant, acting as a citizen cop pointed his rifle at the victim without any provocation. He was trying to stop Arbery from continuing to jog away. He can’t claim self defense at that point. Arbery logically concluded he was being threatened and tried to grab the gun. #### SLD ##### Veteran Member another interesting analysis of the case. I realize now that the missing video I had heard about was the HD version of the FBI’s flir video, which this guy discusses. They only have the lower resolution of that one, not the other one I posted above. The one I posted above was apparently first shown by Fox News. Someone leaked it to them a long time ago. I wonder if you could find that broadcast online. IAE, this guy claims that the flir video shows that at most Rittenhouse just pointed his hand at Zaminski, because the gun wouldn’t give off an IR signature. But the video is very grainy. This guy also raises the switching of the hands issue. I see that as really hurting the prosecution’s case. #### Derec ##### Contributor Well, except, perhaps, when it comes to bombing or otherwise vandalizing abortion clinics, or the Capital-- The last time the Capitol was bombed was by - checks notes - the . Listen, I am not saying that the January 6th riot was not serious, but the Left only wants to talk about that, while completely downplaying monthslong rioting in 2020 that caused far more damage - not only to property (many billions vs$30M) but also in terms of human life. The leftists rioting in 2020 also occupied territory for weeks in cities like Seattle, Atlanta and Minneapolis. Imagine if the Right proclaimed a "Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone" in DC? But nothing like that happened, unlike with the left-wing riots.

remember that sweet reckless Ashley Babbit (sorry, can't be bothered to look up correct spelling of this thug's name) is a patriotic martyr to many MAGGOTS.
Conversely, to the Antifa/#BLMers she totally deserved to be killed even though she was unarmed and attacked nobody - she was only guilty of trespassing. But the likes of Michael Reinoehl or Joseph Rosenbaum are considered heroes.

#### Don2 (Don1 Revised)

##### Contributor

another interesting analysis of the case. I realize now that the missing video I had heard about was the HD version of the FBI’s flir video, which this guy discusses. They only have the lower resolution of that one, not the other one I posted above. The one I posted above was apparently first shown by Fox News. Someone leaked it to them a long time ago. I wonder if you could find that broadcast online.

IAE, this guy claims that the flir video shows that at most Rittenhouse just pointed his hand at Zaminski, because the gun wouldn’t give off an IR signature. But the video is very grainy.

This guy also raises the switching of the hands issue. I see that as really hurting the prosecution’s case.

Are these two narratives consistent?

The IR video shows something on right side of KR pointed at Z. Guy analyzing videos says it's an arm, not a gun. (Not mutually exclusive).

But the other story says it can't be a gun because it's on the left?

#### Derec

##### Contributor
To me Baby Face Rittenhouse, like Don the Con, are all-American thugs.
What is your opinion of Jacob Rosenbaum, Anthony Huber and Gaige Grosskreutz? Or Colinford Mattis, Urooj Rahman, Michael Reinoehl etc. for that matter.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
I wonder if they all see themselves as The Ruler in the totalitarian scenario of their wet dreams. Because if/when the time comes and some trumpish tinpot dictator gets hold of this Country, each one of them is going to be either slave to the State, or among The Privileged Few.
The vast majority of them are going to be very unhappy and dismayed with the lot assigned to them when they find out that the privileged few are in fact ... very very very few. The fact that The Few are all white, won't make all whites part of The Few.

I don't think they expect to see themselves in power, but they think those in power will be doing what they want so it doesn't matter if they're in power or not. They don't realize how badly this would backfire.