Rittenhouse trial

[hughesie27]

1 hour 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. 

No way that sobbing was faked. Not suggesting it was 100% because of the trauma he claims to have experienced, could equally be down to his fear of a guilty verdict, but it was 100% real. Seen plenty people hyperventilate just like that. If he was faking it he wouldn't have tried that hard to get his words out. 

14 minutes ago, Led Tasso said:

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.

 

 

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.

At what point would it have been acceptable to you for him to use his weapon then? After a tussle with a likely stronger guy? Remember there were multiple people chasing after. And someone had just fired their own weapon (he had no idea what direction the bullet was fired). People really struggling to separate the actual events and facts from the likelihood that this 18 year old is a piece of shit. 

3 minutes ago, JackLadd said:

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.

Any reply to my previous post proving you wrong or you good?

[dobmisterdobster]

18 minutes ago, Led Tasso said:

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.

 

 

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.

 

Self-defence applies in all 50 states. Nothing to to with Stand your ground or Castle Doctrine.

 

I haven't used Facebook since 2007

[Sharpie]

For the olders can you remember what you were doing at 17. I can, I was being rousted  around carrying a rifle, however it was unloaded spit shined with the metal parts polished and shining. I was at the Guards Depot Caterham Surrey. We got some minimal firearms training but our rifle was strictly to be carried when on Royal Duties which we spent twelve weeks learning to act as one.Later at the early age of eighteen was then at Pirbright for advanced infantry training. Taught hand to hand fighting, bayonet fighting and of course high level firearms training. My next stop was in Port Said Egypt when the advance infantry training was used,not so much the Ceremonial. At age nineteen I came home on leave after 20 months in Egypt on active service, after all that time, I was finally with Scots Guards on my shoulder, two stripes on my sleeve, a two year Good Conduct stripe on my left arm with marksman on the Bren and Marksman on the rifle badges above it. At that time I felt I had earned the right to use a Guards mans swagger, that little pipsqueak  never earned any swagger rights, and is rightfully now regardless of ultimate finale is getting what he earned.

[dobmisterdobster]

21 minutes ago, AndyNic said:

 

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

 

Unprofessional at best and impartial at worst. 

 

Unprofessional is a procecution lawyer running afoul of the 5th amendment and breaking pre-trial rulings by presenting inadmissible evidence to the jury.

Edited November 11, 2021 by dobmisterdobster

[dobmisterdobster]

13 minutes ago, JackLadd said:

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.

 

The weapon was purchased through Kyle's sister's boyfriend. Not sure of the legality and he was underage of course. So there may be charges arising from that.

 

Impossible to compare the situation to the UK where people don't run around with the guns. There is no precedent for this.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

5 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

No way that sobbing was faked. Not suggesting it was 100% because of the trauma he claims to have experienced, could equally be down to his fear of a guilty verdict, but it was 100% real. Seen plenty people hyperventilate just like that. If he was faking it he wouldn't have tried that hard to get his words out. 

At what point would it have been acceptable to you for him to use his weapon then? After a tussle with a likely stronger guy? Remember there were multiple people chasing after. And someone had just fired their own weapon (he had no idea what direction the bullet was fired). People really struggling to separate the actual events and facts from the likelihood that this 18 year old is a piece of shit. 

 

 

It was an absolutely fake sob. There wasn't anything remotely believable about it.

 

Lethal force is only acceptable with a clear and present threat of legal force. He was responsible for creating the situation—open carrying an assault rifle is an act of intimidation, and only the looniest of NRA nuts think otherwise. As for the threat of weapons, he'd taken it on himself to put on a bullet proof vest.

 

I know people in the UK think the US is a gun ridden hellscape and they're not entirely wrong, but only violent people put on a bullet proof vest and take a gun to a protest where they're going to be outnumbered. He created the lethal situation. He, and nobody else, enacted lethal violence. This is absurd.

[Sharpie]

The whole Trial has almost lost its purpose, the Prosecution, the Defence, and the judge it almost seems like are vying for the Television coverage, this individual is being used as a key to that coverage, its almost like the Trial has lost its way and the part players are taking over the whole script, and the "star" is being out acted.

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

8 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said:

 

Self-defence applies in all 50 states. Nothing to to with Stand your ground or Castle Doctrine.

 

I haven't used Facebook since 2007

 

Lethal self-defense requires clear threat of severe physical harm and proportional response.

 

The response of any responsible person in that situation would have been to turn and run, or better yet, never be in that situation to begin with.

 

You don't have a right to escalate violence.

[hughesie27]

2 minutes ago, Led Tasso said:

 

It was an absolutely fake sob. There wasn't anything remotely believable about it.

 

Lethal force is only acceptable with a clear and present threat of legal force. He was responsible for creating the situation—open carrying an assault rifle is an act of intimidation, and only the looniest of NRA nuts think otherwise. As for the threat of weapons, he'd taken it on himself to put on a bullet proof vest.

 

I know people in the UK think the US is a gun ridden hellscape and they're not entirely wrong, but only violent people put on a bullet proof vest and take a gun to a protest where they're going to be outnumbered. He created the lethal situation. He, and nobody else, enacted lethal violence. This is absurd.

Utter shite on a legal footing. 

As much as you are correct about open carry being an intimidating act. If it is legal in that state it matter not a jot. Same with wearing a bullet proof vest. Means absolutely nothing in terms of the trial, and also doesn't take away any potential threat he may have felt. If somebody has a gun you aren't taking less precaution because you have a vest on. 

 

Do we know why the crowd started chasing him in the first place? Without that info the only people who enacted violence in teh first instance were those chasing and trying to assault him. 

I could flip your argument on it's head and say only someone who has full intention of doing physical or life threatening harm to another would dare chase down an individual carrying such a weapon, whilst they themselves were unarmed. 

 

But that statement would hold as much water as yours does regarding the perception of open carrying. 

It comes down to the fact he doesn't appear to have actually been violent or aggressive to anyone until the crowd decided to turn on him. 

 

We can disagree on the real/fake nature of the crying, it also won't have any bearing on the verdict.

[dobmisterdobster]

10 minutes ago, Led Tasso said:

 

open carrying an assault rifle is an act of intimidation, and only the looniest of NRA nuts think otherwise.

 

It's not under the Second Amendment. I'm talking from a legal perspective. I'm not trying to argue Kyle is a good person or anything. He isn't.

Edited November 11, 2021 by dobmisterdobster

[hughesie27]

7 minutes ago, Led Tasso said:

 

Lethal self-defense requires clear threat of severe physical harm and proportional response.

 

The response of any responsible person in that situation would have been to turn and run, or better yet, never be in that situation to begin with.

 

You don't have a right to escalate violence.

He did turn and run, until a bullet was fired. That is a clear escalation in the situation and which presented a clear threat of violence. 

[hughesie27]

1 minute ago, dobmisterdobster said:

 

It's not under the Second Amendment. I'm talking from a legal perspective. I'm not trying to argue Kyle is a good person or anything. He isn't.

This is EXACTLY where I am coming from. People appear to struggle to separate these.

Edited November 11, 2021 by hughesie27

[doctor jambo]

6 hours ago, Jeffros Furios said:

Cade racistly assumes that those on the liberal side of the protest are non-white.

then asserts dubiously that white folks only kill black people.

or that anyone at a protest carrying weapons is either black or white extremist  which is racist in both directions.

 

[Seymour M Hersh]

1 hour ago, hughesie27 said:

Utter shite on a legal footing. 

As much as you are correct about open carry being an intimidating act. If it is legal in that state it matter not a jot. Same with wearing a bullet proof vest. Means absolutely nothing in terms of the trial, and also doesn't take away any potential threat he may have felt. If somebody has a gun you aren't taking less precaution because you have a vest on. 

 

Do we know why the crowd started chasing him in the first place? Without that info the only people who enacted violence in teh first instance were those chasing and trying to assault him. 

I could flip your argument on it's head and say only someone who has full intention of doing physical or life threatening harm to another would dare chase down an individual carrying such a weapon, whilst they themselves were unarmed. 

 

But that statement would hold as much water as yours does regarding the perception of open carrying. 

It comes down to the fact he doesn't appear to have actually been violent or aggressive to anyone until the crowd decided to turn on him. 

 

We can disagree on the real/fake nature of the crying, it also won't have any bearing on the verdict.

 

The little I saw of it looked more like a panic attack than sobbing. 

[hughesie27]

27 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

The little I saw of it looked more like a panic attack than sobbing. 

Could well be. Was definitely genuine. Either because of the trauma or his fear of guilty verdict.

Edited November 11, 2021 by hughesie27

[Sooperstar]

Also on the go at the moment is the trial of the killers of Ahmaud Arbery, an unarmed black kid who was out jogging and was hunted and killed by 3 white men. Wouldn't be surprised if that ends up as a not guilty too.

[Des Lynam]

8 hours ago, Sooperstar said:

Also on the go at the moment is the trial of the killers of Ahmaud Arbery, an unarmed black kid who was out jogging and was hunted and killed by 3 white men. Wouldn't be surprised if that ends up as a not guilty too.

Why? 
 

Because America is a racist country? 

[ArcticJambo]

Aye, so an unarmed man is out jogging and is hunted down and killed by three others.  Not Guilty you say. 

[AndyNic]

11 hours ago, Sooperstar said:

Also on the go at the moment is the trial of the killers of Ahmaud Arbery, an unarmed black kid who was out jogging and was hunted and killed by 3 white men. Wouldn't be surprised if that ends up as a not guilty too.

 

They have claimed self defence despite the whole thing being filmed. Absolutely shameful. 

[Tazio]

6 minutes ago, AndyNic said:

 

They have claimed self defence despite the whole thing being filmed. Absolutely shameful. 

The thing is if he gets off the gun nuts will call it out as proof that guns protect you as he was would have died if he didn’t have a rifle on him. 

[hughesie27]

1 hour ago, Tazio said:

The thing is if he gets off the gun nuts will call it out as proof that guns protect you as he was would have died if he didn’t have a rifle on him. 

Another man literally pointed a gun at him.

 

I do see your overall point though of course.

[indianajones]

On 11/11/2021 at 10:24, Cade said:

Far-right judge.

Far-right killer.

Black victims.

 

Only one way this is ending.

 

[Tazio]

1 hour ago, hughesie27 said:

Another man literally pointed a gun at him.

 

I do see your overall point though of course.

Wasn't that after he'd already shot a couple of people? So maybe the other guy should be the poster boy for the NRA?

[hughesie27]

Just now, Tazio said:

Wasn't that after he'd already shot a couple of people? So maybe the other guy should be the poster boy for the NRA?

It was after the first guy yeah. About same time as 2nd. The 3rd guy (with his own gun) was shot in the arm after aiming at him and then ran away.

[Sooperstar]

4 hours ago, Des Lynam said:

Why? 
 

Because America is a racist country? 

Yep

[Sooperstar]

3 hours ago, ArcticJambo said:

Aye, so an unarmed man is out jogging and is hunted down and killed by three others.  Not Guilty you say. 

No, I say they are guilty as hell. I'm not on the jury though.

[Sooperstar]

14 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

It was after the first guy yeah. About same time as 2nd. The 3rd guy (with his own gun) was shot in the arm after aiming at him and then ran away.

1st guy: he was chasing Rittenhouse but was unarmed. Rittenhouse turned round and shot him. Some say Rittenhouse may have heard another gunshot and thought the chaser was shooting at him. Don't care, you can't just say I thought he was shooting at me. Guilty.

 

2nd guy: was attacking Rittenhouse with a skateboard because he had just shot someone else and he wanted to disarm him. Tries to wrestle the gun from him and gets shot. If that's a terrorist doing the shooting then he doesn't get off with that one in self defence. Neither should Rittenhouse. Guilty.

 

3rd guy: points his gun at Rittenhouse and then gets shot. OK, he can have a not guilty for the attempt charge.

[JackLadd]

21 minutes ago, Sooperstar said:

1st guy: he was chasing Rittenhouse but was unarmed. Rittenhouse turned round and shot him. Some say Rittenhouse may have heard another gunshot and thought the chaser was shooting at him. Don't care, you can't just say I thought he was shooting at me. Guilty.

 

2nd guy: was attacking Rittenhouse with a skateboard because he had just shot someone else and he wanted to disarm him. Tries to wrestle the gun from him and gets shot. If that's a terrorist doing the shooting then he doesn't get off with that one in self defence. Neither should Rittenhouse. Guilty.

 

3rd guy: points his gun at Rittenhouse and then gets shot. OK, he can have a not guilty for the attempt charge.

 

 

3rd guy was looking down the barrel of Rittenhouse's gun first. Not sure what you do when a live shooter is killing people around you and you have a weapon, as it happened he didn't fire one shot. 

[hughesie27]

1 hour ago, Sooperstar said:

1st guy: he was chasing Rittenhouse but was unarmed. Rittenhouse turned round and shot him. Some say Rittenhouse may have heard another gunshot and thought the chaser was shooting at him. Don't care, you can't just say I thought he was shooting at me. Guilty.

 

2nd guy: was attacking Rittenhouse with a skateboard because he had just shot someone else and he wanted to disarm him. Tries to wrestle the gun from him and gets shot. If that's a terrorist doing the shooting then he doesn't get off with that one in self defence. Neither should Rittenhouse. Guilty.

 

3rd guy: points his gun at Rittenhouse and then gets shot. OK, he can have a not guilty for the attempt charge.

Still don't know what happened that lead to him being chased in the first place. Did the crowd just not like that he had a gun and felt like they could easily disarm are young scrawny guy? 

 

1. Why can you not say I thought he was shooting at me. He was the target of the mob chase and someone fires a bullet. That's a fair assumption to make. Rittenhouse also claims the 1st guy touched his gun after he stopped and turned around. Not enough video evidence to say if he did or not but if nobody testifies otherwise then its another tick for his Not Guilty verdict if the jury buy it. 

2. If he is not guilty for 1 then your argument for 2 doesn't stand. It's not up to Skateboard man to determine his guilt or not for the first victim. 

3. If you are letting him off on this one then is it that different from almost being knocked out by a skateboard whilst on the ground and shooting in defense? Because surely the gun wielding guy had just as much right to point the gun, and even shoot, as the skateboard guy did, if the judtification is that he was a terrorist.

 

 

 

[hughesie27]

38 minutes ago, JackLadd said:

 

 

3rd guy was looking down the barrel of Rittenhouse's gun first. Not sure what you do when a live shooter is killing people around you and you have a weapon, as it happened he didn't fire one shot. 

Still peddling this despite video proof you are wrong. 

[Sooperstar]

1 minute ago, hughesie27 said:

Still peddling this despite video proof you are wrong. 

Seems to have been accepted in court that Rittenhouse pointed his gun at the 3rd guy first but only shot once guy 3 aimed his gun at Rittenhouse.

[hughesie27]

1 minute ago, Sooperstar said:

Seems to have been accepted in court that Rittenhouse pointed his gun at the 3rd guy first but only shot once guy 3 aimed his gun at Rittenhouse.

Don't see how they get that from the video.  It mustn't have much bearing on the justification for shooting if they have accepted that.  

[Sooperstar]

6 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

Don't see how they get that from the video.  It mustn't have much bearing on the justification for shooting if they have accepted that.  

Was a big part of the defence case when cross examining guy 3 yesterday. 

[JackLadd]

9 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

Still peddling this despite video proof you are wrong. 

 

It was on the footage in the trial. Rittenhouse claimed his weapon was moving down and not towards Grosskreutz but it's there for all to see. Put yourself in Grosskreutz shoes, a live shooter is fleeing a murder scene and has just shot another guy in front of you who tried to grab his gun, he's waved the same gun at you and you also have a weapon. What do you do. It cost Grosskkreutz use of an arm not drawing fast enough. 

[Shanks]

What a country

 

Also the fake crying is one of the funniest things I’ve seen, the wee side look to the jury to see if they are buying it. 

[EH11_2NL]

20 hours ago, Sharpie said:

The whole Trial has almost lost its purpose, the Prosecution, the Defence, and the judge it almost seems like are vying for the Television coverage, this individual is being used as a key to that coverage, its almost like the Trial has lost its way and the part players are taking over the whole script, and the "star" is being out acted.

 

OJ Simpson trial instigated what we see now. 

[Des Lynam]

1 hour ago, Sooperstar said:

Yep

 

[hughesie27]

24 minutes ago, JackLadd said:

 

It was on the footage in the trial. Rittenhouse claimed his weapon was moving down and not towards Grosskreutz but it's there for all to see. Put yourself in Grosskreutz shoes, a live shooter is fleeing a murder scene and has just shot another guy in front of you who tried to grab his gun, he's waved the same gun at you and you also have a weapon. What do you do. It cost Grosskkreutz use of an arm not drawing fast enough. 

If I'm in Grosskreutz shoes I'm not chasing a guy down with a rifle who just shot someone.

 

 

[hughesie27]

31 minutes ago, JackLadd said:

 

It was on the footage in the trial. Rittenhouse claimed his weapon was moving down and not towards Grosskreutz but it's there for all to see. Put yourself in Grosskreutz shoes, a live shooter is fleeing a murder scene and has just shot another guy in front of you who tried to grab his gun, he's waved the same gun at you and you also have a weapon. What do you do. It cost Grosskkreutz use of an arm not drawing fast enough. 

Here is a still taken at the exact moment he shoots at the 2nd victim. Notice Grosskreutz (Right) already has his gun drawn and its only the sound of the gun shot that causes him to stop charging in.

 

After slowing the video down on YT it does appear that Rittenhouse then has the gun pointed towards Grosskreutz as he sits himself back upright.

Time between shots is about 3 or 4 seconds. 

 

Interesting to note that Rittenhouse doesn't try to "finish off" either of the attackers and only shoots people who are trying to or have caused him harm/been aggressive first. 

 

When is verdict likely to be given? 

 

[JackLadd]

6 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

If I'm in Grosskreutz shoes I'm not chasing a guy down with a rifle who just shot someone.

 

 

 

Smeaton at Glasgow Airport should have just say back in 07 a

1 minute ago, hughesie27 said:

Here is a still taken at the exact moment he shoots at the 2nd victim. Notice Grosskreutz (Right) already has his gun drawn and its only the sound of the gun shot that causes him to stop charging in.

 

After slowing the video down on YT it does appear that Rittenhouse then has the gun pointed towards Grosskreutz as he sits himself back upright.

Time between shots is about 3 or 4 seconds. 

 

Interesting to note that Rittenhouse doesn't try to "finish off" either of the attackers and only shoots people who are trying to or have caused him harm/been aggressive first. 

 

When is verdict likely to be given? 

 

 

 

This is at the point he's tripped over and is killing Huber and let off at the other guy on the left, was at least a few seconds before that he had the gun aimed at Grosskreutz and his pistol was not drawn. 

[hughesie27]

7 minutes ago, JackLadd said:

 

Smeaton at Glasgow Airport should have just say back in 07 a

 

 

This is at the point he's tripped over and is killing Huber and let off at the other guy on the left, was at least a few seconds before that he had the gun aimed at Grosskreutz and his pistol was not drawn. 

Wasn't Smeaton's guy unarmed and on fire? 

That guy was also a terrorist who acted as the initial aggressor.

 

You'd have to show me footage of him doing this before hand. Can't see it in the video above.

[Sharpie]

The wisdom of the past.

 

Son. I ken't there was gonnae be trubble, but a wisnae goney get involved.

Old Scots Mother. Aye ye ken't if you put your hand in the jeely jar it wisnae goney get all sticky.

 

To bad someone didn't use that form of wisdom to advise Rittenhouse if he was going to carry a weapon such as he did, someone was going to challenge him. His own statements that he was going to give medical assistance or fire fighting assistance if he saw any that was all, but he thought he would take a powerful weapon with him, he then left his place pf authorised duty and proceeded to patrol with a high powered rifle slung in an at use manner, cap on in reverse so that his vision would not be impaired, and exposed himself as a figure to be challenged. Yes when I challenge verbally the pub bully to fight I am the instigator, but when he is getting the better of me i am not self defencing I am still the aggressor  losing the fight. I see Rittenhouse as the same, he was strutting around with the AK15, his hat turned around, in an environment full of hostility, and it would seem challenged by those who saw him as opposition. He won the gun battles, taking out challengers, but when by action you provoke in my opinion you are involving yourself basically in a duel, and in his case he won, but has to face some consequences. 

[hughesie27]

7 minutes ago, Sharpie said:

The wisdom of the past.

 

Son. I ken't there was gonnae be trubble, but a wisnae goney get involved.

Old Scots Mother. Aye ye ken't if you put your hand in the jeely jar it wisnae goney get all sticky.

 

To bad someone didn't use that form of wisdom to advise Rittenhouse if he was going to carry a weapon such as he did, someone was going to challenge him. His own statements that he was going to give medical assistance or fire fighting assistance if he saw any that was all, but he thought he would take a powerful weapon with him, he then left his place pf authorised duty and proceeded to patrol with a high powered rifle slung in an at use manner, cap on in reverse so that his vision would not be impaired, and exposed himself as a figure to be challenged. Yes when I challenge verbally the pub bully to fight I am the instigator, but when he is getting the better of me i am not self defencing I am still the aggressor  losing the fight. I see Rittenhouse as the same, he was strutting around with the AK15, his hat turned around, in an environment full of hostility, and it would seem challenged by those who saw him as opposition. He won the gun battles, taking out challengers, but when by action you provoke in my opinion you are involving yourself basically in a duel, and in his case he won, but has to face some consequences. 

In a state where open carry is legal and without pointing the weapon at anyone he probably won't be seen as an aggressor.

[Sharpie]

27 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

In a state where open carry is legal and without pointing the weapon at anyone he probably won't be seen as an aggressor.

 

I look at the film provided of he walking around in that hostile atmosphere, its on the news here all the time. His rifle is slung in a prepared position, and in some shots his hand is in the direct area of the trigger assembly. I tried to explain in one post how I was trained to show respect for my weapon and how to carry it dependent on circumstance. I was also seventeen.  Rittenhouse was desperately trying to show that he was a well armed individual, he had on occasion his weapon in an at ready position with finger in the area of the firing mechanism. I have studied enough people and have studied the psychology of people sufficiently to venture an opinion that Rittenhouse physical attitude was sufficient in his mind to assure everyone that "I am armed, I have a powerful weapon, and I am ready to use it if challenged". He did, and now he is giving an accounting for his taking of lives.

This young man is to me a psychological mess,  he participates with the Fire Department, where if he reacts in a fire situation he would be seen as a hero, he studies first aid, where if he and he does acts as a medic he will be seen as a hero and saviour, he patrols troubled streets in the manner one sees armed police or even military patrol in troubled areas. Again if trouble breaks out and he quells it,his psychological urge to be seen as a savior and hero is again satisfied. He gets his opportunity and acts, but he is a boy, he is an untrained, incapable object of his own desires and lives are lost, and in a way so is his. He is getting support now during his Trial, but when he needed support and recognition of his problems the help was not there, when this concludes however it does, in a few quiet corners there should be a number of persons quietly telling themselves, I think I could have if I had just spoken up averted this whole bloody death causing incident, but like happens so often remorse is too late a time.

 

[hughesie27]

3 minutes ago, Sharpie said:

 

I look at the film provided of he walking around in that hostile atmosphere, its on the news here all the time. His rifle is slung in a prepared position, and in some shots his hand is in the direct area of the trigger assembly. I tried to explain in one post how I was trained to show respect for my weapon and how to carry it dependent on circumstance. I was also seventeen.  Rittenhouse was desperately trying to show that he was a well armed individual, he had on occasion his weapon in an at ready position with finger in the area of the firing mechanism. I have studied enough people and have studied the psychology of people sufficiently to venture an opinion that Rittenhouse physical attitude was sufficient in his mind to assure everyone that "I am armed, I have a powerful weapon, and I am ready to use it if challenged". He did, and now he is giving an accounting for his taking of lives.

This young man is to me a psychological mess,  he participates with the Fire Department, where if he reacts in a fire situation he would be seen as a hero, he studies first aid, where if he and he does acts as a medic he will be seen as a hero and saviour, he patrols troubled streets in the manner one sees armed police or even military patrol in troubled areas. Again if trouble breaks out and he quells it,his psychological urge to be seen as a savior and hero is again satisfied. He gets his opportunity and acts, but he is a boy, he is an untrained, incapable object of his own desires and lives are lost, and in a way so is his. He is getting support now during his Trial, but when he needed support and recognition of his problems the help was not there, when this concludes however it does, in a few quiet corners there should be a number of persons quietly telling themselves, I think I could have if I had just spoken up averted this whole bloody death causing incident, but like happens so often remorse is too late a time.

 

Can't disagree with that. 

[Jeffros Furios]

2 hours ago, hughesie27 said:

Still don't know what happened that lead to him being chased in the first place. Did the crowd just not like that he had a gun and felt like they could easily disarm are young scrawny guy? 

 

1. Why can you not say I thought he was shooting at me. He was the target of the mob chase and someone fires a bullet. That's a fair assumption to make. Rittenhouse also claims the 1st guy touched his gun after he stopped and turned around. Not enough video evidence to say if he did or not but if nobody testifies otherwise then its another tick for his Not Guilty verdict if the jury buy it. 

2. If he is not guilty for 1 then your argument for 2 doesn't stand. It's not up to Skateboard man to determine his guilt or not for the first victim. 

3. If you are letting him off on this one then is it that different from almost being knocked out by a skateboard whilst on the ground and shooting in defense? Because surely the gun wielding guy had just as much right to point the gun, and even shoot, as the skateboard guy did, if the judtification is that he was a terrorist.

 

 

 

Rittenhouse and a couple of other guys were protecting property from being burned down or looted , they were confronted by an angry crowd issuing threats and they retreated to deflate the risk of violence .

The main instigators issuing the threats pursued him which lead to the shootings .

There was footage of this online .

[hughesie27]

39 minutes ago, Jeffros Furios said:

Rittenhouse and a couple of other guys were protecting property from being burned down or looted , they were confronted by an angry crowd issuing threats and they retreated to deflate the risk of violence .

The main instigators issuing the threats pursued him which lead to the shootings .

There was footage of this online .

Cheers. 

[Gizmo]

.

Edited November 12, 2021 by Gizmo

[Sharpie]

1 hour ago, Jeffros Furios said:

Rittenhouse and a couple of other guys were protecting property from being burned down or looted , they were confronted by an angry crowd issuing threats and they retreated to deflate the risk of violence .

The main instigators issuing the threats pursued him which lead to the shootings .

There was footage of this online .

I thought Rittenhouse left the motor yard he was assigned to guard to go and put out a fire in a container. He then went from there as filmed walking with his slung rifle and his hand in the area of the trigger. He then met an hostile crowd and offered medical assistance advising the he was a medic, not true, at the best a first aider, the hostility rose and he said loudly Friendly,Friendly,Friendly.  It was post these incidents that he later became involved in the case at hand.

I repeat I do not want his blood, he is a sadly mixed up young person, he has no respect for laws ,rules , and will affect methods to bypass them, no drivers licence, has a friend buy his weapon which he, because of age, could not own, he falsely identified himself as holding different positions, medic one example. Liar is an awful description of someone, a strong word, but someone who habitually tells mistruths, has to sadly be identified as such. The old polis in me says, lock him up throw away the keys, the old father figure in me says someone, probably a parent either ignored or missed very obvious signs in this young person, but he needs help and as has ben proven urgently. Innocent or guilty whatever the finding he has to whether voluntarily or by court order be subject to some serious mental therapy.

[JFK-1]

The boy is a Billy Liar, a fantasist who premeditatedly put himself into a volatile situation. A location where the situation was so volatile the authorities had imposed a curfew he was ignoring.

That's not to say the self defence plea is flawed, in terms of US laws it's probably a sound plea. In normal circumstances that is.

By normal circumstances I mean someone just walking along the street minding their own business and being set upon unprovokedly.

But these weren't normal circumstances were they? It was a major disturbance with a curfew in place and this fantasist just can't resist getting into the drama. Play out a character.

Is this acceptable? A vigilante Mad Max style society where any young/old wacko can take to the streets toting military style kit? Simply adding to the confusion and the likelihood of deadly incidents.

If this boy killed or injured anybody who thought he was an active shooter he's guilty of murder. Murder with a weapon he was illegally carrying during a curfew he was illegally breaking.

What would you have thought if you had come across him shooting people with a rifle? in a country where there are frequent active shooter drills exactly because of the fact such incidents are frequent?

 

If this boy just walks away from this he's going to be a poster boy for every far right gun nut in the country and it will further embolden said gun nuts. That's just one thing that's at stake here.
 

Edited November 12, 2021 by JFK-1