Kyle Rittenhouse - The Truth in 11 Minutes

[NurseGoodVol]

The MSM said it was a cell phone.

Blind as ever…

 

[MG1968]

And if, ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a merry christmas

Exactly. We all speculate. Speculation isn’t truth, though.

 

[clarksvol00]

Blind as ever…

I'm so blind that I couldn't find any of the reports that it was a cell phone.

Granted all I did was search Rittenhouse cell phone and didn't find anything.

 

[KB5252]

I'd say they played right into the hands of Trump who ginned them up with his bs stop the steal crap.

As he said the truth is somewhere in the middle but your attempt to deflect from the party in power and responsible party for security that day is noted.

 

[TheDeeble]

View attachment 412641

I knew little about this story till I looked it up about 20 min ago. Is that twitter guy being objective? The attorney says Jordan has confessed to nothing about being the killer.

Jordan was released from prison in 2014, according to Jones' clemency petition. An attorney for Jordan, Billy Bock, told ABC News in September that "Chris Jordan maintains his position that his role in the death of Paul Howell was as an accomplice to Julius Jones. Mr. Jordan testified truthfully in the jury trial of Mr. Jones and denies 'confessing' to anyone."

Julius Jones is scheduled to be executed today and Oklahoma's governor has still not decided if he will commute the death sentence - CNN

 

[davethevol]

Sounds like the BLM protests. A few bad actors ruined it for everyone.

Not at all the same.

 

[DynaLo]

I'm so blind that I couldn't find any of the reports that it was a cell phone.

Granted all I did was search Rittenhouse cell phone and didn't find anything.

They must have only been looking at his left hand since the right hand was holding a Glock.

And for those that don’t know. The model 27 Glock .40 caliber he had is a subcompact firearm. It holds 10 +1 standard mag with the +one round chambered and has no external safety switch being it’s a Glock. It’s one of the smallest and lightest .40 cal Glock makes and yes it can be easily fired with one hand because of that. The recoil is negligible for its size if you have a clue on how to properly grip a handgun, even one handed.

I’ve put a lot of lead down range with that same model Glock one hand and off hand included.

 

[Vol8188]

It's pretty pathetic that this is the case that would cause anybody to think think our judicial system is becoming draconian. As far as injustices go, this is a nothing burger. He shot people and we had a trial to see if he was justified. Big fkn deal. God, do you guys even know what happens every day in the CJS? Innocent people go to prison all the time. We make criminals out of thin air by limiting basic freedoms. But bc Rittenhouse shot people and had to face a trial, we have a banana republic all of a sudden. You can't make this **** up.

Was it necessary for him to face trial given the evidence? That’s the real issue here. That’s a massive undue burden to place on someone.

 

[Vol8188]

the guys he shot are viewed as "selfless heroes"?

guess that's as nuts as the people who think KR was some sort of hero

That is amazing. Watching the left admonish Rittenhouse for what they call vigilantism (although he didn’t shot someone to protect a business). While simultaneously proclaiming the group of men who attacked him were heroes for their vigilantism.

 

[n_huffhines]

I knew little about this story till I looked it up about 20 min ago. Is that twitter guy being objective? The attorney says Jordan has confessed to nothing about being the killer.

Julius Jones is scheduled to be executed today and Oklahoma's governor has still not decided if he will commute the death sentence - CNN

Thanks for looking into the accuracy. The tweet does seem to have some key details wrong. Jordan did take a plea bargain and said JJ was the shooter. 4 different people have said Jordan confessed to them that he was the shooter, and they told this to the parole board.

 

[RockyTop85]

Are you insane? People decline to prosecute all the time in domestic cases, robberies, rapes etc. this isn’t some new thing

Oh yay, a lecture on law from the former cop who didn’t know what felony murder was.

This post is basically false. Once the charges are brought, it’s not the victim’s call. There are situations where it can work out that way (which is why your post isn’t entirely false) but it’s not something they are entitled to and there are definitely ways for prosecutors to work through it.

Also, more importantly to this situation, they still prosecuted him for a charge against the same victim.

 

[RikidyBones]

Oh yay, a lecture on law from the former cop who didn’t know what felony murder was.

This post is basically false. Once the charges are brought, it’s not the victim’s call. There are situations where it can work out that way (which is why your post isn’t entirely false) but it’s not something they are entitled to and there are definitely ways for prosecutors to work through it.

Also, more importantly to this situation, they still prosecuted him for a charge against the same victim.

Yeah but it's really tough to get a conviction without the victim. That's why the detectives assigned to cases like that need to be good with victims.

 

[RockyTop85]

Yeah but it's really tough to get a conviction without the victim. That's why the detectives assigned to cases like that need to be good with victims.

It depends on the other evidence, which is the salient point.

If you’ve got a rape kit with a DNA match and images of injuries, especially to the face, then you maintain the charge and leverage it. You don’t get a rape conviction but you can probably get a plea with jail time.

If you don’t have anything other than the withdrawn accusation, you leverage the guy’s desire to get out of jail and send him home on misdemeanor probation and disqualify him from owning firearms.

If you’re calling that guy a rapist then stfu about “Kyle Rittenhouse shouldn’t have even gone to the grand jury because there wasn’t enough evidence.” You’re just taking positions based on tribal politics at that point and don’t give a **** about the justice system.

 

[RikidyBones]

It depends on the other evidence, which is the salient point.

If you’ve got a rape kit with a DNA match and images of injuries, especially to the face, then you maintain the charge and leverage it. You don’t get a rape conviction but you can probably get a plea with jail time.

If you don’t have anything other than the withdrawn accusation, you leverage the guy’s desire to get out of jail and send him home on misdemeanor probation and disqualify him from owning firearms.

If you’re calling that guy a rapist then stfu about “Kyle Rittenhouse shouldn’t have even gone to the grand jury because there wasn’t enough evidence.” You’re just taking positions based on tribal politics at that point and don’t give a **** about the justice system.

You can certainly pressure without the victim but a full conviction is very difficult.

I never called him a rapist nor have I said Rittenhouse shouldn't have gone to a GJ.

In regards to the guy that's being called a rapist, is this in reference to Blake?

 

[RockyTop85]

I never called him a rapist nor have I said Rittenhouse shouldn't have gone to a GJ.

In regards to the guy that's being called a rapist, is this in reference to Blake?

I didn’t say you did The “you” was intended generically; that’s the genesis of this conversation.

Could be Blake, could also apply to a certain Supreme Court justice. The evidence is basically the same.

 

[Vol8188]

It depends on the other evidence, which is the salient point.

If you’ve got a rape kit with a DNA match and images of injuries, especially to the face, then you maintain the charge and leverage it. You don’t get a rape conviction but you can probably get a plea with jail time.

If you don’t have anything other than the withdrawn accusation, you leverage the guy’s desire to get out of jail and send him home on misdemeanor probation and disqualify him from owning firearms.

If you’re calling that guy a rapist then stfu about “Kyle Rittenhouse shouldn’t have even gone to the grand jury because there wasn’t enough evidence.” You’re just taking positions based on tribal politics at that point and don’t give a **** about the justice system.

A rape kit with a dna match and bruising=plea deal according to you

So we should be able to agree that digital penetration (so no dna match) and without corporation from the victim, is something a lot of prosecutors wouldn’t spend a lot of time.

It’s very possible Jacob Blake is a rapist.

But just to clarify Jacob Blake didn’t go to trial because there wasn’t enough evidence, that’s okay with you. But Rittenhouse should go to trial, despite no actual evidence?

Can you point me to any valid reason (media attention isn’t a valid reason) for why this should have went to trial?

 

[RikidyBones]

I didn’t say you did, but that’s the genesis of this conversation.

Could be Blake, could also apply to a certain Supreme Court justice. The evidence is basically the same.

It's not close to the same at all lol. Didn't Blake have a restraining order for the ordeal? Not pinning him as a rapist but they aren't on the same level at all. That's asinine, RT.

Kavanaughs accuser lacked any corroboration from her own named references, had zero recall to anything and didn't even confirm it was for sure Kavaunagh. That entire episode was an embarrassment to this country. That was a clear partisan attempt and it was gross. He got sent through and not a damn democrat cared about the Dr. after that.

 

[Vol8188]

I didn’t say you did The “you” was intended generically; that’s the genesis of this conversation.

Could be Blake, could also apply to a certain Supreme Court justice. The evidence is basically the same.

The Supreme Court justice who multiple women took back their allegations against and admitted to lying? The only accuser left is a Hillary donor without any collaborating witnesses.

When Cosby was released did you assume him to be innocent like Blake?

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Not at all the same.

The primary difference being you agree philosophically with one group of protesters and disagree with the other.

 

[RockyTop85]

It's not close to the same at all lol. Didn't Blake have a restraining order for the ordeal? Not pinning him as a rapist but they aren't on the same level at all. That's asinine, RT.

Kavanaughs accuser lacked any corroboration from her own named references, had zero recall to anything and didn't even confirm it was for sure Kavaunagh. That entire episode was an embarrassment to this country. That was a clear partisan attempt and it was gross. He got sent through and not a damn democrat cared about the Dr. after that.

More tribal partisan flag waiving, as demonstrated by everything after the first sentence of your second paragraph, which is just gratuitous shot-taking that’s completely irrelevant to comparing the relative evidence.

Blake’s accuser lacks any corroboration as well, as I was just explaining.

 

[Vol8188]

Sounds like the BLM protests. A few bad actors ruined it for everyone.

Seems that blm has a lot of bad actors given the number of protestors that have turned into riots, looting, murdered or attempted murders of police and or private citizens.

 

[RikidyBones]

More tribal partisan flag waiving, as demonstrated by everything after the first sentence of your second paragraph, which is just gratuitous shot-taking that’s completely irrelevant to comparing the relative evidence.

Blake’s accuser lacks any corroboration as well, as I was just explaining.

Shot taking at people sending someone out in hopes to smear a nomination to spit in the face of every rape victim past present and future? Spare us your "iTz JuSt YeR pArTiSaN" on that.

If the lady that Blake was involved with has the same motivations, she can go to hell too. But one had true partisanship influence and the other had zero outside influence. They are not the same. That doesn't indict Blake but it's a ridiculous comparison

Edit: I may misremember but I recall you being pretty fair about the whole Kavanaugh issue. I just think it's a bad comparison.

 

[Vol8188]

More tribal partisan flag waiving, as demonstrated by everything after the first sentence of your second paragraph, which is just gratuitous shot-taking that’s completely irrelevant to comparing the relative evidence.

Blake’s accuser lacks any corroboration as well, as I was just explaining.

Yet at a minimum we know he violated a restraining order, showed back up to harass her, and then acted insane when police arrived.

Is Brett K really a valid comparison?

 

[davethevol]

The primary difference being you agree philosophically with one group of protesters and disagree with the other.

One group beats up innocent bystanders and burns down buildings, the other not so much.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

One group beats up innocent bystanders and burns down buildings, the other not so much.

But they did assault people and destroy property that day.