Kyle Rittenhouse - The Truth in 11 Minutes

#3,476
#3,476
bamawriter said:
They didn't formally object. Schroeder noted them shaking their heads, and he asked them what their issue was. They made mention of jurors researching the instructions on the internet, which is a thin reed. This all happened in front of the jury.

But the judge should not have put the defense in the position of needing to object. It's not fair to either side to make them object to something the jury was requesting in front of the jury.

This is teeing up an easy appeal if a conviction is handed down.
Click to expand...
You sure? I read they did object
 
#3,479
#3,479
utvols88 said:
I think it's fair to assume that a grouping at an irrelevant location has more malicious intent than arriving days after multiple incidents to assist in defending from destruction. There have been substantially more video showing Kyle's intent on being there and the purpose of his gun is glaringly clear.

I will attribute the act of blind siding someone with a skateboard who was walking/jogging toward police and fell as someone who is bad. Yes. In terms of the guy with a gun, he raised his gun to point it at Kyle and then go shot. Not before. We all agree that this is all self defense. Therefore, we all agree that he was being attacked without direct provocation. Because of that, we can safely say that the ones shot had a nefarious intent. Whether it was all night or just that moment is not relevant. They had the mentality to attack. One of them had the mentality to attack AFTER he was told by Rittenhouse that he is going to police. Instead of assisting to help escort, he engages and encouraged the attack of Rittenhouse by yelling "get him" several times.

All of these guys have violent crimes on their sheet, iirc. We have hindsight and can see that.
Click to expand...
You’re also assuming, without providing any evidence, that it’s an irrelevant location. I gave circumstantial evidence that it’s not. It also seems like you are actually (and selectively) saying that mere presence actually is enough to infer guilt. Actually, I think one other person was essentially arguing that: lawgator. So that’s good that you’re not alone. 😁

I don’t think see how the second attack on Rittenhouse can be criticized with any consistency by somebody unwilling to call Rittenhouse stupid. He’s just shot and killed somebody. Those guys don’t have training, either. They’re not lawyers. They’re not cops. I think it was reasonable for them to believe he’s a murderer at that point. Hell, anybody being objective only concluded that he’s not after watching a bunch of videos and reading about or watching the proof at trial. Sure, they were wrong, but it was a reasonable mistake of fact just like Rosenbaum maybe wouldn’t actually have killed Rittenhouse, but under the circumstances I think deadly force was justified.

I don’t see how you can simultaneously say that going armed to defend some random piece of property is not only not stupid but laudable and that attempts to subdue somebody that is reasonably perceived to be a murderer, who is still walking around equipped to kill, is criminal.

I think you have to accept that citizens defending themselves and other citizens is going to be handled imperfectly. Our society accepts a margin of error with Police, right? Disagreement over that margin is what sparked off this whole thing. Why would we shrink the margin for untrained people defending themselves and others other than to discourage this type of behavior that you say isn’t stupid?
 
#3,481
#3,481
RockyTop85 said:
You’re also assuming, without providing any evidence, that it’s an irrelevant location. I gave circumstantial evidence that it’s not. It also seems like you are actually (and selectively) saying that mere presence actually is enough to infer guilt. Actually, I think one other person was essentially arguing that: lawgator. So that’s good that you’re not alone. 😁

I don’t think see how the second attack on Rittenhouse can be criticized with any consistency by somebody unwilling to call Rittenhouse stupid. He’s just shot and killed somebody. Those guys don’t have training, either. They’re not lawyers. They’re not cops. I think it was reasonable for them to believe he’s a murderer at that point. Hell, anybody being objective only concluded that he’s not after watching a bunch of videos and reading about or watching the proof at trial. Sure, they were wrong, but it was a reasonable mistake of fact just like Rosenbaum maybe wouldn’t actually have killed Rittenhouse, but under the circumstances I think deadly force was justified.

I don’t see how you can simultaneously say that going armed to defend some random piece of property is not only not stupid but laudable and that attempts to subdue somebody that is reasonably perceived to be a murderer, who is still walking around equipped to kill, is criminal.

I think you have to accept that citizens defending themselves and other citizens is going to be handled imperfectly. Our society accepts a margin of error with Police, right? Disagreement over that margin is what sparked off this whole thing. Why would we shrink the margin for untrained people defending themselves and others other than to discourage this type of behavior that you say isn’t stupid?
Click to expand...
I agree with you mostly. But I must first address this, you can shut your dirty whore mouth in regards to comparing me to LG. 🤦

I would prefer that police handle this situation. They weren't and they didn't. In those situations, I do encourage citizens to protect themselves and communities. 100%. I can understand your point on thinking he was a murderer but Gaige directly spoke with him while he was going to police and still yelled "get him". That removes all benefit of the doubt. It was in malice and directly confrontational. If Gaige did not do that and helped escort him peacefully, the other guy is still alive and he has his arm.

It is an irrelevant location. Blake was not shot there. He was shot in a residential area and the dealership is in a commercial area.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RockyTop85
#3,482
#3,482
Vol8188 said:
Who did he confront? Why go there with a gun? I literally go everywhere with a gun. Why do I have a gun in my home? Because I may have to protect myself and/or property.

His actions are clear. He went there to put out fires and render aid. Did you see him doing anything other that? Did you see him confront anyone?
Click to expand...

You roam the streets with a rifle during civil unrest? You keep strawmaning what you'd do in unsimilar situations and pretending it's virtuous.

If you go to a riot for any reason that doesn't include law enforcement, fire or ambulance services - you're an idiot. Doesn't matter what side you're on with regards to the conflict. If you go, you're an idiot. Full stop.

You can keep dodging or carving out what you believe to be valid excuses but rational people who aren't looking for trouble don't participate in riots.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rjd970
#3,486
#3,486
utvols88 said:
Here's a map of the Blake shooting. You see the courthouse. The dealerships are near 63rd.
View attachment 412921

It's not a relevant location.
Click to expand...
The car source on Sheridan Rd is where this happened, right? That’s like 3 blocks from the courthouse and police station and it’s that same general area where all of these events took place several nights in a row.

It also still seems inconsistent that there is universal agreement that even non-violent people had congregated in that vicinity on the night of the shooting. It just doesn’t seem like a safe assumption to me that anybody there was planning on criminal activity. But, again, my focus for the trial was on Rittenhouse/Rosenbaum and whether he provoked Rosenbaum because that’s what I thought determined the outcome.

P.S. I wonder if the Dinosaur museum is cool?
 

Attachments

  • 74B82439-AEA3-42CB-AF9B-EA45261859F4.png
    74B82439-AEA3-42CB-AF9B-EA45261859F4.png
    625.4 KB · Views: 2
  • Like
Reactions: RikidyBones
#3,492
#3,492
RockyTop85 said:
The car source on Sheridan Rd is where this happened, right? That’s like 3 blocks from the courthouse and police station and it’s that same general area where all of these events took place several nights in a row.

It also still seems inconsistent that there is universal agreement that even non-violent people had congregated in that vicinity on the night of the shooting. It just doesn’t seem like a safe assumption to me that anybody there was planning on criminal activity. But, again, my focus for the trial was on Rittenhouse/Rosenbaum and whether he provoked Rosenbaum because that’s what I thought determined the outcome.

P.S. I wonder if the Dinosaur museum is cool?
Click to expand...

Looks like Sheridan is a few blocks from the incidents.
2815ddb9-e32b-483b-8c37-9edd344f5e24-map-draft-shooting3x-100.jpg

He was running from rosenbaum after he had a bag thrown at him after rosenbaum popped out from being behind a car. Rosenbaum was close enough to the barrel to have burn marks in his hand. He also ran up on with Rittenhouse and had him cornered. I don't see how it's anything but self defense. I think we agree on that.
 
#3,495
#3,495
If its a verdict Gotta think it's guilty I don't see some of them budging on some kind of punishment for the deaths especially women
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top