Kyle Rittenhouse - The Truth in 11 Minutes

[lawgator1]

Intended to create conflict? By showing up with a weapon? Again if that's the standard then 100s (1000s) of people are guilty.

What testimony established this intent "to create conflict"?

It's a reasonable inference from all of the evidence, including his own statement at the time.

You don't want to draw the inference because you are predisposed to defend him, in turn because you have so much antipathy towards the protestors at the time.

 

[C-south]

It's a reasonable inference from all of the evidence, including his own statement at the time.

You don't want to draw the inference because you are predisposed to defend him, in turn because you have so much antipathy towards the protestors at the time.

When you assault someone, vandalize property, loot, and riot you aren’t a protester. You’re a criminal.

 

[Wireless1]

Huh??

View attachment 410871

View attachment 410872

21 miles, cedar bluff in west knoxville to downtown Lenoir city

 

[VolnJC]

 

[BreatheUT]

I've never seen such a fool in a big name sports star.

 

[volfanhill]

The solution is two fold.

First, Rittenhouse provoked confrontation. It's why he was there. So he bears at least some criminal culpability for going out of his way (far out of his way) to create his own need to use deadly force.

Second, those who then took the bait as it were and confronted or threatened him also bear some criminal responsibility for what happened.

But the latter does not justify the former.

Had a BLM protestor from Detroit shown up with a rifle to register his dissatisfaction with what was going on and ended up shooting several folks I guarantee you a lot of the people here would view this differently.

Showing up with a firearm doesn't mean he provoked anything. Good lord.

 

[volinbham]

It's a reasonable inference from all of the evidence, including his own statement at the time.

You don't want to draw the inference because you are predisposed to defend him, in turn because you have so much antipathy towards the protestors at the time.

ha ha ha

wow

 

[vols4sure]

It's a reasonable inference from all of the evidence, including his own statement at the time.

You don't want to draw the inference because you are predisposed to defend him, in turn because you have so much antipathy towards the protestors at the time.

So "reasonable inference" that he was looking for confrontation = criminal culpability even though there is no evidence that he initiated a confrontation?

 

[volinbham]

So "reasonable inference" that he was looking for confrontation = criminal culpability even though there is no evidence that he initiated a confrontation?

this coming from a lawyer

 

[n_huffhines]

It's obvious this is a complete political circus. We're seeing the birth of a dictatorship style justice system,, not better than Russia, Cuba.

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.

 

[BreatheUT]

The solution is two fold.

First, Rittenhouse provoked confrontation. It's why he was there. So he bears at least some criminal culpability for going out of his way (far out of his way) to create his own need to use deadly force.

Second, those who then took the bait as it were and confronted or threatened him also bear some criminal responsibility for what happened.

But the latter does not justify the former.

Had a BLM protestor from Detroit shown up with a rifle to register his dissatisfaction with what was going on and ended up shooting several folks I guarantee you a lot of the people here would view this differently.

So Rittenhouse provoked the criminals?

 

[BreatheUT]

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.

According to Slo Jo he is a white supremacist. Why is Beijing Biden talking about the case?

 

[volfanhill]

It's a reasonable inference from all of the evidence, including his own statement at the time.

You don't want to draw the inference because you are predisposed to defend him, in turn because you have so much antipathy towards the protestors at the time.

You are a dishonest clown if you think the people he engaged with were "protestors." GTFO.

 

[volinbham]

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.

well the comments are in a thread specifically about this trial so...

 

[Jxn Vol]

It's a reasonable inference from all of the evidence, including his own statement at the time.

You don't want to draw the inference because you are predisposed to defend him, in turn because you have so much antipathy towards the protestors at the time.

You live in your own reality tunnel. And just because you say things that you believe about another person’s thoughts, doesn’t make them true outside of your reality tunnel.

 

[n_huffhines]

well the comments are in a thread specifically about this trial so...

The comment specifically called this "the birth...."

 

[Hunerwadel]

So your argument is you can't protect your property from vandals? The vandals should have free reign to destroy and terrorize but the minute someone is defending against vandals and vandals are wounded or killed, it's the defendents fault? Ookkaay...got it!

View attachment 410865

no no NO. I wasn't making an argument at all. I asked the question if you pay someone with a gun to protect your property does that make that person a "hired gun". (you have to go back a few pages) And I certainly was not offering an opinion on what kind of rights a person has to protect his or her property. I was also wondering what kind of a person pays a teen with a gun to protect his property. BTW I'm pretty sure I haven't offered my opinion whether the kid is guilty or not. I have no idea and don't really care. I hope the court gets it right though.

 

[volfanhill]

no no NO. I wasn't making an argument at all. I asked the question if you pay someone with a gun to protect your property does that make that person a "hired gun". (you have to go back a few pages) And I certainly was not offering an opinion on what kind of rights a person has to protect his or her property. I was also wondering what kind of a person pays a teen with a gun to protect his property. BTW I'm pretty sure I haven't offered my opinion whether the kid is guilty or not. I have no idea and don't really care. I hope the court gets it right though.

During that time I am sure people were desperate. The police and government decided to not give a shat about their business being ruined. Media pretended like rioting wasn't rioting

 

[Cdywolfe]

Yep - in Knoxville terms it's like driving from E. Knoxville to W. Knoxville.

I drive almost as far to get to work/take my kids to school every day.

Also I live right on the Georgia line and there are several places in Georgia (including my dad’s house) that are farther from my house then he traveled that I would consider to be part of the community I live in.

This whole crossing state lines thing is silly AF. Although I suppose when you have absolutely nothing else…

 

[Vol737]

I've never seen such a fool in a big name sports star.

You know, I liked LeBron initially. Turning pro at a really young age, he seemed to keep it together and between the lines making that kind of money and the fame that goes with the territory. And he has a right to his opinion and has created his own platform in which to do so, but his takes on many of today’s events is just embarrassing.

 

[NCFisher]

The solution is two fold.

First, Rittenhouse provoked confrontation. It's why he was there. So he bears at least some criminal culpability for going out of his way (far out of his way) to create his own need to use deadly force.

Second, those who then took the bait as it were and confronted or threatened him also bear some criminal responsibility for what happened.

But the latter does not justify the former.

Had a BLM protestor from Detroit shown up with a rifle to register his dissatisfaction with what was going on and ended up shooting several folks I guarantee you a lot of the people here would view this differently.

The BLM militia - NFAC (Not Fkin' Around Coalition) - assembled last year in Louisville and promptly shot three of their own members.

I don't recall anyone viewing it differently.

 

[ButchPlz]

When you assault someone, vandalize property, loot, and riot you aren’t a protester. You’re a criminal.

And you can't bitch when armed security defends said property.

 

[ButchPlz]

Is nobody else concerned that someone that is (presumably) part of a state bar somewhere is arguing that existing somewhere "provokes confrontation" and should result in a charge, court case, and conviction?

 

[RikidyBones]

Is nobody else concerned that someone that is (presumably) part of a state bar somewhere is arguing that existing somewhere "provokes confrontation" and should result in a charge, court case, and conviction?

LG has had many takes that are concerning coming from an alleged lawyer. I hope he's trolling with this one

 

[Zues1]

Guys gonna walk.