Rittenhouse trial

[JackLadd]

Anyone watch his testimony? Claims it was kill or be killed with the two he shot, the one he injured and the one he missed with two bullets. Didn't wash with me that he was under threat of imminent death so I'd find him guilty but this is Wisconsin and he'll probably walk or get 12 months in a youth facility. 

[Tazio]

Fair trial? 

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

It's a complete shambles. The judge forbid the prosecution from referring to the two people he killed as "victims," but let the defense refer to every protestor as a "rioter."

 

The defense has now asked him to declare a mistrial with prejudice, which means he walks free with no chance of retrial, and he might do it. (No, I don't know if the mistrial with prejudice decision can be appealed.)

[Tazio]

 

[JackLadd]

The judge is definitely favouring Rittenhouse although the Littefinger lookalike prosecutor is giving him free ammo (pun intended). Absurd country and legal system, I like some of their freedoms but no other democracy would tolerate what Rittenhouse did. 

[Sharpie]

Watched it most of today. The accused strikes me as a glory hunter. And a liar and cheat. He claims to be a  medic, had a first aid course, drives regularly without a licence, claimed to be a Fire Department cadet, was in fact not so but did have some participation with a Fire Department Youth program. Had a friend purchase a weapon for him, gets a most powerful A15, volunteers to guard a motor vehicle storage area, arrives with his rifle strapped to his body in an accessible for use manner. Is advised there is a fire and because of his Fire Department training leaves his place of security to go with a small fire extinguisher to put out fire. Offers medical help to people, saying he is a medic and is carrying a medical kit. He is a kid who lives in a world of fantasy with himself as the stalwart hero, whether in battle, fire fighting or offering aid and assistance to the wounded. The Judge is something I have never witnessed before in real life or theatre, his outbursts at the Prosecutor were to say the least unproffessional, and his shouting in anger was almost a state of unbalance. The tears by the accused were missing one thing tear drops, instead he looked like he was bordering on an epileptic fit. He may well at some point have been in fear of his life, and he may even have killed others in defence of his own life, but he was playing the part of a Clint Eastwood character, and because of that deserving or not others are dead, he deserves some punishment, but having been on here a critic, I don't know how I would judge him, what I do know is that what he needs is a Damn good spanking, and a lesson in reality.

[hughesie27]

Sounds like a carve up by all accounts. However aside from that the other day one if the people he shot at admitted that they were gunning at him, with a gun drawn, as Rittenhouse was on the ground. 

That's self defense in every definition. 

[Des Lynam]

I think the bias is because of the background of one of men shot. Joseph Rosenbaum is a convicted sex offender against children. He’d been released from hospital that day having tried to commit suicide. The whole case is just so tragic. 
 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/10/03/kenosha-shooting-victims/

[dobmisterdobster]

7 hours ago, Led Tasso said:

It's a complete shambles. The judge forbid the prosecution from referring to the two people he killed as "victims," but let the defense refer to every protestor as a "rioter."

 

The defense has now asked him to declare a mistrial with prejudice, which means he walks free with no chance of retrial, and he might do it. (No, I don't know if the mistrial with prejudice decision can be appealed.)

 

Because the Prosecution behaved appallingly.

Insinuating that using his 5th Amendment rights post-arrest proved his guilt. Trying to present non-admissable evidence to the jury.

[dobmisterdobster]

1 hour ago, hughesie27 said:

Sounds like a carve up by all accounts. However aside from that the other day one if the people he shot at admitted that they were gunning at him, with a gun drawn, as Rittenhouse was on the ground. 

That's self defense in every definition. 

 

Most of the procecution witnesses have imploded on the stand.

Absolutely bizzare trial. Not guilty.

[Des Lynam]

 

[Jeffros Furios]

He didn't need to be there and travelled to that area to act as some sort of militia 

Obviously admires groups like The Oathkeepers and Three Percenters .

Theres video footage of him and a few other kids protecting property and being abused by the same guys he later shot .

His own decisions have left him in the shit and like a lot of incidents in the US when guns are involved its not a pretty ending .

[Cade]

Far-right judge.

Far-right killer.

Black victims.

 

Only one way this is ending.

[JackLadd]

He's a complete liar as another poster has said, was driving a car about with no license and was there on the night claiming he was a qualified medic and fire fighter along with his illegally held weapon. When the first kid is chasing him and throws the paper bag he stops, turns and puts four shots into his body. It's on tape clear as day what he does, a conscious decision to kill. The other two shootings look no better for him. At this point he's lost all control and is shooting at anything that comes near him. 

[dobmisterdobster]

14 minutes ago, Cade said:

Far-right judge.

Far-right killer.

Black victims.

 

Only one way this is ending.

 

None of the victims were Black.

[hughesie27]

1 hour ago, Des Lynam said:

 

First guy he shoots is chasing him down/throwing something at him and gets extremely close as Rittenhouse turns around and pulls the trigger. Clear intension to do Rottenhouse harm. Self defense.

Second guy he shoots attacks him with a skateboard as he lay on ground, with others homing in on him. Self defense.

Third guy he shoots literally has his own gun drawn at him. Self defense.

 

 

Regardless of the reasons Rittenhouse has for being there, with that weapon. And ignoring previous lies he has told that have no bearing on these filmed instances. He will be found Not Guilty. The politics of the judge don't matter. It's an open and shut case.

 

[AndyNic]

19 minutes ago, Cade said:

Far-right judge.

Far-right killer.

Black victims.

 

Only one way this is ending.

 

Explain this one please?

 

Do you know the facts or are you guessing here?

[AndyNic]

2 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

First guy he shoots is chasing him down/throwing something at him and gets extremely close as Rittenhouse turns around and pulls the trigger. Clear intension to do Rottenhouse harm. Self defense.

Second guy he shoots attacks him with a skateboard as he lay on ground, with others homing in on him. Self defense.

Third guy he shoots literally has his own gun drawn at him. Self defense.

 

 

Regardless of the reasons Rittenhouse has for being there, with that weapon. And ignoring previous lies he has told that have no bearing on these filmed instances. He will be found Not Guilty. The politics of the judge don't matter. It's an open and shut case.

 

 

Hard to argue with this. Eyes of the law it's self defence.

 

I'll caveat this by saying I still think he wanted to cause harm and shoot folk. Possibly for a laugh. 

Edited November 11, 2021 by AndyNic

[hughesie27]

16 minutes ago, JackLadd said:

He's a complete liar as another poster has said, was driving a car about with no license and was there on the night claiming he was a qualified medic and fire fighter along with his illegally held weapon. When the first kid is chasing him and throws the paper bag he stops, turns and puts four shots into his body. It's on tape clear as day what he does, a conscious decision to kill. The other two shootings look no better for him. At this point he's lost all control and is shooting at anything that comes near him. 

The first guy was 36 years old, not a kid. 

[JackLadd]

Just now, hughesie27 said:

First guy he shoots is chasing him down/throwing something at him and gets extremely close as Rittenhouse turns around and pulls the trigger. Clear intension to do Rottenhouse harm. Self defense.

Second guy he shoots attacks him with a skateboard as he lay on ground, with others homing in on him. Self defense.

Third guy he shoots literally has his own gun drawn at him. Self defense.

 

 

Regardless of the reasons Rittenhouse has for being there, with that weapon. And ignoring previous lies he has told that have no bearing on these filmed instances. He will be found Not Guilty. The politics of the judge don't matter. It's an open and shut case.

 

 

The other three he shot at had just watched him murder an unarmed man and flee the scene. According to you he could shoot dead anyone that approached with any intent to disarm or apprehend him.

[hughesie27]

1 minute ago, AndyNic said:

 

Hard to argue with this. Eyes of the law it's self defence.

 

I'll caveat this by saying I still think he wanted to cause harm and shoot folk. Possibly for a laugh. 

100% agree with the 2nd part. Rittenhouse is clearly a right wing, likely racist, and very possibly a violent threat to others in the future. But in this instance. He won't be found guilty.

[hughesie27]

7 minutes ago, JackLadd said:

 

The other three he shot at had just watched him murder an unarmed man and flee the scene. According to you he could shoot dead anyone that approached with any intent to disarm or apprehend him.

He only shot at 3 people total? That unarmed man was running at him trying to disarm him. Why? Would his own gun have then been turned on him? Somebody else before this even fired a "warning shot" into the air.

Us eof language is really important here. You say "flee the scene" as those he had just left a road traffic accident. Forgetting that he was still being chased by multiple people.

 

And with regards to your last point. Yes, under the laws of USA I believe he could shoot anyone trying to do the same.

Of you want to discuss the suitability of those laws and gun laws in USA I  general then that's a different matter. Bit you can only judge him on the laws that exist now 

 

Edited November 11, 2021 by hughesie27

[JackLadd]

Just now, hughesie27 said:

He only shot at 3 people total? That unarmed man was running at him trying to disarm him. Why? Would his own gun have then been turned on him? Somebody else before this even fired a "warning shot" into the air.

 

He also fired two shots at a guy that swung a skateboard at him at the scene he killed the second victim. Fortunately for him Rittenhouse missed but his intention was to kill him also, likewise the guy with the pistol which was holstered when Rittenhouse first aimed at him. I don't know what the first guys intentions were, he ran unarmed at Rittenhouse and threw a paper bag at him. That's all he did. Rittenhouse claims he also touched his weapon but there is no evidence for that. From what I can see there is no evidence he was in a kill or be killed situation. 

[hughesie27]

7 minutes ago, JackLadd said:

 

He also fired two shots at a guy that swung a skateboard at him at the scene he killed the second victim. Fortunately for him Rittenhouse missed but his intention was to kill him also, likewise the guy with the pistol which was holstered when Rittenhouse first aimed at him. I don't know what the first guys intentions were, he ran unarmed at Rittenhouse and threw a paper bag at him. That's all he did. Rittenhouse claims he also touched his weapon but there is no evidence for that. From what I can see there is no evidence he was in a kill or be killed situation. 

You have a huge gun. Someone is running towards you, having attempted to injure you by throwing something at you before. They keep running at you even when you turn around. That's grounds for lethal force. Simple. Should it be? A question for another day. 

 

Same applies to other assaulting him with their own weapons, including being hit across the head or back with a skateboard. This man was shot and killed 

 

The 3rd man had a gun as well and has testified that he was running at Rittenhouse with his gun drawn before Rittenhouse aimed and shot him in the arm.

 

 

Edited November 11, 2021 by hughesie27

[Des Lynam]

25 minutes ago, AndyNic said:

 

Hard to argue with this. Eyes of the law it's self defence.

 

I'll caveat this by saying I still think he wanted to cause harm and shoot folk. Possibly for a laugh. 

Rittenhouse was filmed putting out fires earlier in the evening. He’s an odd kid and shouldn’t have been there legally armed or not. 

[Des Lynam]

48 minutes ago, Cade said:

Far-right judge.

Far-right killer.

Black victims.

 

Only one way this is ending.

Might be helpful if you read up on this. 

[JackLadd]

1 minute ago, hughesie27 said:

You have a huge gun. Someone is running towards you, having attempted to injure you by throwing something at you before. They keep running at you even when you turn around. That's grounds for lethal force. Simple. Should it be? A question for another day. 

 

Same applies to other assaulting him with their own weapons, including being hit across the head or back with a skateboard. This man was shot and killed 

 

The 3rd man had a gun as well and has testified that he was running at Rottenhouse with his gun drawn before Rittenhouse aimed and shot him in the arm.

 

 

 

 

Attempted to injure with a paper bag? Really? He was running at him but Rittenhouse could have ran also or used some other means of self defence, instead he stopped, turned and put four slugs into him. The first shot dropped him btw.

 

He didn't shoot the skate boarder, he shot dead the dude before him who kicked Rittenhouse when he tripped over. And Rittenhouse had his gun aimed at the guy with the pistol when it was holstered, under your rules he's entitled to draw his weapon and kill Rittenhouse. 

[hughesie27]

13 minutes ago, JackLadd said:

 

 

Attempted to injure with a paper bag? Really? He was running at him but Rittenhouse could have ran also or used some other means of self defence, instead he stopped, turned and put four slugs into him. The first shot dropped him btw.

 

He didn't shoot the skate boarder, he shot dead the dude before him who kicked Rittenhouse when he tripped over. And Rittenhouse had his gun aimed at the guy with the pistol when it was holstered, under your rules he's entitled to draw his weapon and kill Rittenhouse. 

Did Rittenhouse know it was a paperbag? I assume it wasn't empty.

Rittenhouse did run, until he heard a gunshot, which could have been directed towards him so he likely stopped to reassess his risk. Then he has victim number 1 within yards of him chasing him down. Why would he try to engage in a fist fight when he had a gun and someone else in the crowd is also firing bullets?

He did shoot the skateboard guy.

Where are you seeing that Rittenhouse had his gun drawn and aimed at 3rd victim whilst his gun was holstered?

 

The time between 2nd and 3rd shootings are about 3 seconds. And the guy has his gun drawn before Rittenhouse even shoots the skateboard guy.Have you even bothered to watch the video posted above?

Edited November 11, 2021 by hughesie27

[Jeffros Furios]

1 hour ago, Cade said:

Far-right judge.

Far-right killer.

Black victims.

 

Only one way this is ending.

[Jeffros Furios]

19 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

You have a huge gun. Someone is running towards you, having attempted to injure you by throwing something at you before. They keep running at you even when you turn around. That's grounds for lethal force. Simple. Should it be? A question for another day. 

 

Same applies to other assaulting him with their own weapons, including being hit across the head or back with a skateboard. This man was shot and killed 

 

The 3rd man had a gun as well and has testified that he was running at Rittenhouse with his gun drawn before Rittenhouse aimed and shot him in the arm.

 

 

Also the guys he shot had already threatened him and chased him from  a business he and others were trying to protect.  

[JackLadd]

7 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

Did Rittenhouse know it was a paperbag? I assume it wasn't empty.

Rittenhouse did run, until he heard a gunshot, which could have been directed towards him so he likely stopped to reassess his risk. Then he has victim number 1 within yards of him chasing him down. Why would he try to engage in a fist fight when he had a gun and someone else in the crowd is also firing bullets?

He did shoot the skateboard guy.

Where are you seeing that Rittenhouse had his gun drawn and aimed at 3rd victim whilst his gun was holstered?

 

The time between 2nd and 3rd shootings are about 3 seconds. And the guy has his gun drawn before Rittenhouse even shoots the skateboard guy.Have you even bothered to watch the video posted above?

 

I watched the whole trial and footage yesterday, dude, clearly you didn't.

[hughesie27]

7 minutes ago, JackLadd said:

 

I watched the whole trial and footage yesterday, dude, clearly you didn't.

 

19 mins 52 seconds. Shoots and kills Skateboard attacker. A person you said he never shot having watched the whole of proceedings yesterday  If you pause here you will also see 3rd victim has his gun drawn already. How can he both aim at 3rd victim whilst shooting the 2nd?

[Beni]

59 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

You have a huge gun. Someone is running towards you, having attempted to injure you by throwing something at you before. They keep running at you even when you turn around. That's grounds for lethal force. Simple. Should it be? A question for another day. 

 

Same applies to other assaulting him with their own weapons, including being hit across the head or back with a skateboard. This man was shot and killed 

 

The 3rd man had a gun as well and has testified that he was running at Rittenhouse with his gun drawn before Rittenhouse aimed and shot him in the arm.

 

 

 

Surely the force used in self defence should be proportional to the threat. Shooting an unarmed man looks like an over reaction, and the argument that "I was scared he would take my gun and shoot me with it' is a kind of bizarre circular argument that allows anyone with a gun to shoot whoever they want as long as they claim they perceived a threat.

Although this is America so any reasonable assumptions are probably unwise.

[hughesie27]

10 minutes ago, Beni said:

 

Surely the force used in self defence should be proportional to the threat. Shooting an unarmed man looks like an over reaction, and the argument that "I was scared he would take my gun and shoot me with it' is a kind of bizarre circular argument that allows anyone with a gun to shoot whoever they want as long as they claim they perceived a threat.

Although this is America so any reasonable assumptions are probably unwise.

Sure, but there is video evidence to support that the unarmed man was chasing him down. Getting his gun off him is a safe assumption here. After that who knows. 

 

I think it helps in these situations to put yourself in the scenario. I'd, for whatever reason you had a gun and someone was chasing you down, others are firing their own weapons, what would you do? 

 

I've been reluctant to bring it up till now but also, what sort of person runs at another with a huge weapon like that?

Especially in America. Strange choices. 

Edited November 11, 2021 by hughesie27

[Seymour M Hersh]

1 hour ago, dobmisterdobster said:

 

None of the victims were Black.

 

And the Judge was appointed by democrats so unlikely (although not impossible) to be far right. 

[Beni]

11 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

Sure, but there is video evidence to support that the unarmed man was chasing him down. Getting his gun off him is a safe assumption here. After that who knows. 

 

I think it helps in these situations to put yourself in the scenario. I'd, for whatever reason you had a gun and someone was chasing you down, others are firing their own weapons, what would you do? 

 

I've been reluctant to bring it up till now but also, what sort of person runs at another with a huge weapon like that?

Especially in America. Strange choices. 

 

The charge for the first killing is reckless homicide as opposed to intentional homicide for the second death, so a lower evidence bar for the prosecution to get over.

Whether being chased is enough to justify killing an unarmed man I don't know, although I agree it's a probably foolhardy to start chasing down someone with a gun.

It was a chaotic situation, but a 17 year old with an illegal assault rifle put himself voluntarily into that situation and when the adrenaline started pumping he shot 3 people and walked away.

[Des Lynam]

4 minutes ago, Beni said:

 

The charge for the first killing is reckless homicide as opposed to intentional homicide for the second death, so a lower evidence bar for the prosecution to get over.

Whether being chased is enough to justify killing an unarmed man I don't know, although I agree it's a probably foolhardy to start chasing down someone with a gun.

It was a chaotic situation, but a 17 year old with an illegal assault rifle put himself voluntarily into that situation and when the adrenaline started pumping he shot 3 people and walked away.

Yeah I got that wrong. If he was over 18 he would have been allowed to march around with that rifle. It’s frightening. 

[Mysterion]

As sad as it sounds I think if he gets away with it his card will be marked. 

 

He will lead a short life. 

 

The mother should be in court on some charge for facilitating the child and taking them across State border lines with a weapon. 

 

 

[Sharpie]

4 hours ago, Des Lynam said:

 

 Obviously a man who was present to offer medical aid,  fight fires, and generally a good citizen. It almost looks like he has his finger on or near the trigger of that automatic weapon.

[dobmisterdobster]

1 hour ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

And the Judge was appointed by democrats so unlikely (although not impossible) to be far right. 

 

People are calling the Judge biased because he scolded the Procecution over a 5th amendment violation.

Which is very serious. That type of misconduct got Bill Cosby released from prison.

[Sharpie]

2 hours ago, hughesie27 said:

100% agree with the 2nd part. Rittenhouse is clearly a right wing, likely racist, and very possibly a violent threat to others in the future. But in this instance. He won't be found guilty.

 

No disagreement with your points, sometimes you wonder if with the characteristics of all involved some form of guilt may be a savior for him, one may be suspicious to think associates of the characters he killed will be looking for some kind of revenge if he walks out of Court unscathed. The whole thing is just another tragedy of life in the United States, violence guns, protests,demonstrations, insurrection, where does it all end, how does it all end, and who is the potential leader to bring the end.Its no Biden, and I doubt Trump will. 

[Des Lynam]

52 minutes ago, Sharpie said:

 Obviously a man who was present to offer medical aid,  fight fires, and generally a good citizen. It almost looks like he has his finger on or near the trigger of that automatic weapon.

He looks like a fantasist and a weirdo. At 17 you should be drinking and trying to get a shag not defending someone else’s neighbourhood. 

[Sharpie]

5 minutes ago, Des Lynam said:

He looks like a fantasist and a weirdo. At 17 you should be drinking and trying to get a shag not defending someone else’s neighbourhood. 

 Thats what I was trying to say in a sarcastic sort of manner.

 

[Zico]

4 hours ago, Cade said:

Far-right judge.

Far-right killer.

Black victims.

 

Only one way this is ending.

Bro, did you just like, assume their race?

 

Anyway, Rittenhouse is a piece of shit but the arcane gun/self defence laws in the States will probably mean he gets away with it. 

[AndyNic]

His sobbing / fake crying on the stand was laughable. The judge also seems to have made up his mind in his open defence of Rittenhouse. 

[dobmisterdobster]

27 minutes ago, AndyNic said:

His sobbing / fake crying on the stand was laughable. The judge also seems to have made up his mind in his open defence of Rittenhouse. 

 

The judge has a duty to ensure his defendant receives a fair trial. Fake sobbing or not.

[Des Lynam]

1 hour ago, Sharpie said:

 Thats what I was trying to say in a sarcastic sort of manner.

 

Haha! I get you now. Doh! 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

5 hours ago, hughesie27 said:

You have a huge gun. Someone is running towards you, having attempted to injure you by throwing something at you before. They keep running at you even when you turn around. That's grounds for lethal force. Simple. Should it be? A question for another day. 

 

Same applies to other assaulting him with their own weapons, including being hit across the head or back with a skateboard. This man was shot and killed 

 

The 3rd man had a gun as well and has testified that he was running at Rittenhouse with his gun drawn before Rittenhouse aimed and shot him in the arm.

 

 

It is absolutely not grounds for lethal force. WTF is wrong with you.

 

Yes, some states have passed absolutely horrible "stand your ground" laws. Oddly, those are never accepted when the ones pulling the trigger are Black.

 

1 hour ago, dobmisterdobster said:

 

The judge has a duty to ensure his defendant receives a fair trial. Fake sobbing or not.

 

Not allowing unarmed people who were killed at gunpoint to be referred to as "victims" is a fair trial? Get off of Facebook, it's eating your mind.

[AndyNic]

1 hour ago, dobmisterdobster said:

 

The judge has a duty to ensure his defendant receives a fair trial. Fake sobbing or not.

 

He does indeed - and he's making a complete arse of it. 

 

Unprofessional at best and impartial at worst. 

[JackLadd]

The judge is still to rule whether the weapon was illegal, it was by most readings of the state law so surely he can't use that to shoot anyone confronting him for his illegal weapon. Would be like one of us armed with a gun in a Edinburgh street blowing away people trying to remove the weapon.