Rittenhouse/Kenosha Shooting Split

[blastula]

Binger trying anything probably at this point. KR had a convincing bawling fit breakdown on stand while first discussing getting chased, they had to take a break.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

Yeah, I think the prosecutor made a good argument based upon the new testimony.

 

[ZiprHead]

Binger trying anything probably at this point. KR had a convincing bawling fit breakdown on stand while first discussing getting chased, they had to take a break.

Some of the HLN lawyers commenting on that incident thought he was faking.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I thought there was a significant chance he was faking it, but it is hard not to give a person the benefit of a doubt.

 

[blastula]

Looking again, I couldn't see any tears so who knows. Probably unnecessary at this point though, unless preparing for fakes during cross-exam.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That is unimpressive fake crying! You know what to look for. Like when the WR takes a dive and looks at the ref immediately afterwards... 'did ya buy it?' as Rittenhouse does likewise. If it were from the prosecution, I could more believe it, as he is being attacked and confronted. Everything the Defense is doing, was practiced. So it seems so unlikely that he'd suddenly be overcome.

If he weren't a sociopath, he'd have turned himself in with the Cops after the three killings.

"I went down there to provide first aid," Rittenhouse testified, adding that he brought along his medical supplies as well as his AR-style semiautomatic rifle.

*poking wound with AR-15*
Damn it, the wound isn't healing.

For fuck sakes! I went to help... with my gun. Just like when the ambulance showed up when my Dad was suffering a seizure, the medics carried in their medical equipment and several guns.

It was self defense! People were acting oddly around me while I carried my AR-15 around. It made me nervous! I only shot them when they showed me they had a gun.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Looking again, I couldn't see any tears so who knows. Probably unnecessary at this point though, unless preparing for fakes during cross-exam.

Whites Who Are Born Rich Hate and Fear All Other White People. No One Else Matters.

His whole race has been struck by tragedy ever since our vicious ruling class turned loose its pet savages on us.

 

[blastula]

If he weren't a sociopath, he'd have turned himself in with the Cops after the three killings.

He did so about an hour after the 2 killings, of 4 targeted.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If he weren't a sociopath, he'd have turned himself in with the Cops after the three killings.

He did so about an hour after the 2 killings, of 4 targeted.

He talked to the police almost right after killing the third person. That he'd leave out the part about him being the shooter is not something that goes in his favor column.

 

[blastula]

He said he did tell them, but they told him to get out of there.

Hey now.

So that was over trying to introduce this evidence, which he had not allowed.

Kyle Rittenhouse was recorded weeks before the Kenosha shooting saying he wished he 'had my f---ing AR' to shoot at people leaving CVS, prosecutors say

Kenosha prosecutors say a new video provides "crucial insight" into Kyle Rittenhouse's vigilante state of mind in summer 2020.

www.insider.com

Binger says should be because KR testified he knows you can't use deadly force to protect property and also testified about what he said to yellow pants guy that night. That guy had said to him in a video that KR had pointed his gun at him for sitting on a car. And KR testified he replied to him "I did" but he testified he was being sarcastic (a blatant lie).

So he started to introduce that earlier incident, "you had previously indicated you wished you had your AR 15 to protect someone's property, correct." And the judge was not having it.

 

[blastula]

Here's the judge having difficulty with those consarned newfangled notions like zoom.

 

[Derec]

Well, if the zoom algorithm is interpolating between existing pixels when you zoom in, then technically new pixels are added.

But all of this, including the Rittenhouse cross-examination by the hipster doofus prosecutor is just smoke and mirrors to detract from the fact that this was very clearly self defense.

 

[Derec]

For fuck sakes! I went to help... with my gun. Just like when the ambulance showed up when my Dad was suffering a seizure, the medics carried in their medical equipment and several guns.

Your dad had a seizure in the middle of some violent riots?

 

[Derec]

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

That does not mean that there is a legitimate reason for him being prosecuted. This is a political trial. Kyle Rittenhouse is being scapegoated to detract from the colossal failures of the Kenosha mayor.

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.

This is not akin to stopping an armed robbery. This is some rioters (two of them felons) attacking a kid who defended himself.

 

[Patooka]

Your dad had a seizure in the middle of some violent riots?

No, Jimmy's father had a seizure, so Jimmy drove him to another state before asking for medical attention. Try to keep up.

 

[Derec]

The "drove to another state" is a BS claim by KR opponents. The fact is, Kyle was already in Kenosha because he has connections to the town. And the town is only ~20 miles from his hometown of Antioch.

Gaige Grosskreutz is from Milwaukee, and has no connections to Kenosha. What was he doing there?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

No. I don't think there's any question Rittenhouse was defending himself. To me the issue is whether he was legally allowed to at that point. If he initiated the violence he doesn't get to shoot when he finds himself on the losing end.

Say A initiates violence, B decides to go after A, A runs away, B gives chase, both have guns, and B shoots and is going to kill A unless A shoots back. Does A have a legal obligation not to shoot back, even though that means certain death?

I don't know exactly where the line falls in this regard.

If that is the law, it looks like a pretty bad one: A person on the run would have to choose between getting killed and breaking the law. The rational choice would almost certainly be to break the law and shoot, which might or might not get him killed years later, depending on the punishment for shooting back and of course whether he actually gets caught. There is still a question as to whether that's a morally acceptable choice, of course: maybe it would be rational but immoral to shoot back, yet permissible but irrational not to! However, there probably are plenty of cases that do not fall into that category because it's not immoral to shoot back - e.g., at least, most of the cases in which the violence that was initiated did not amount to something for which he deserves to be executed.

 

[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.

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?

I really have no idea what point you are trying to make here. I'll grant you that it is reasonable for him to believe the crowd was trying to chase him, I think it was more than reasonable, given the video and audio evidence, for him to believe that the crowd was trying to harm him. OK. We agree.

 

[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.

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?

Did you notice the video clip I posted above?

Grosskruetz testified that he raised his hands in surrender and Rittenhouse re-racked his weapon. And shot him.

Yes, I saw the whole testimony. "re-racking" his weapon doesn't make it an unjustified shooting. He didn't "surrender", he raised his hands and immediately lowered them to point his handgun at Kyle's head. Now, he may have been *intending* to surrender. But at this point, all Rittenhouse knows is that this guy was charging at him *with a gun in his hand extended towards him*. Note, that fact was admitted by Grosskruetz on cross examination, pretty much after he lied about that fact earlier!

Notice, the other guy, right next to Grosskruetz without a weapon who held his hands up *didn't get shot*.

You're not telling the whole story. I too saw the testimony. KR fired his weapon at Grosskreutz while he had his hands up. There was no bullet in the chamber so no bullet to fire. KR then re-racked his weapon and that's when G lowered his arms fearing for his own life. He just didn't have the guts to pull the trigger. If he had he might still have his arm.

You're description was, to say the least, a little self-serving. I won't say what I really think of it.

No, I'm responding to *exactly those claims* as brought up by Toni, I'm not leaving out anything. But fine, this is merely what Grosskreutz claims, after being caught in a major lie about having a firearm by the way. There is no evidence that Rittenhouse shot him in the videos when he had his hands up, and indeed, it doesn't seem like Rittenhouse's gun was pointed anywhere but off to the side while he was barely able to sit up straight after having shot Huber. But *regardless* at this point, all Rittenhouse knows is that Grosskruetz is *running at him with a gun in his hand pointed towards him*.

Grossreutz knew that Rittenhouse had shot a man before giving chase and had just witnessed him kill another man. Grosskreutz is the one who had reason to fear Rittenhouse. He just killed 2 men.

As fir ‘barely being able to sit up straight’ after killing Huber, we’re supposed to believe he was prostrated with grief? I don’t think so. He wasn’t too injured to have killed Huber abs he tried to kill Grosskreutz..

Toni, again, **it is entirely irrelevant what Grosskruetz believe at the time**. You are making no sense.

 

[J842P]

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

No, it hasn't. The myriad of video evidence conclusively showing that Rittenhouse acted in self defense, along with the eyewitness testimony, indeed, even the testimony of Grosskruetz himself is what causes me to dismiss *what you claim is a reasonable middle ground*. Your emotional need to believe that this is a reasonable middle ground is not something born out of my emotions. It is born out of yours. My disdain comes from the clear, and repeated avoidance of the relevant evidence by the "opposing side" -- not my words -- and has no bearing on whether or not I find your purported "reasonable middle ground" reasonable at all.

And the hypotheticals I was referring to where the hypotheticals you posited when you said things like:

"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."

Those are purely hypothetical reasons why he could be found guilty under those charges. Their is no evidence for any of that, and indeed, the extensive video, audio, and eyewitness testimony establish quite clearly that it isn't the case, and he was justified in using his gun to shoot those people.

Sorry for messing up the quoting, still getting used to the new forum.