Kyle Rittenhouse trial

Post Reply New Topic

It muddies the water for Rittenhouse.

Remember, Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum FOUR TIMES, and once in his back, in supposed self-defense.

Rosenbaum was unarmed.

So, it seems like a claim of self-defense was already sketchy.

The things you seem to think matter, don't.

Four times is actually on the low end for a defensive shooting, things happen fast, and you're not required to shoot, pause to check if it worked, then shoot again, you shoot until the threat is stopped, no matter how many times it takes. With a 30 round magazine and a semiautomatic action, he could have really lit Rosenbaum up, but didn't, the shooting was actually pretty restrained.

As to being shot in the back, also matters less than you think, it's not uncommon at all for someone to get twisted up in the chaos of a close range encounter and catch one in the back, or try to turn away from the gun when they realize they're actually being shot, or even for a ricochet to hit their back, it happens in police shootings all the time and isn't really meaningful unless all the shots are in the back.

Rosenbaum being unarmed also doesn't mean he didn't pose a deadly threat at the time he was shot, he's seen as the aggressor on video, chasing and cornering KR and attempting to grab his rifle, all of which can contribute to the legal requirement that KR felt in reasonable fear of death or great harm to use lethal force. KR is also on the small side, which does play a role in these determinations, a slightly built woman is allowed to defend herself with a firearm against a much larger man, for example.

Rosenbaum appears to make a taunting motion of possibly grabbing for Rittenhouse's rifle, or as the prosecution says of pushing it away.

Does this motion justify deadly force?

This seems like a bad police encounter , "Police: suspect made a motion and I thought he was going for my gun, so I killed him".

Secondly, four shots seems like overkill to stop *the motion* (which is apparently the threat).

Likely, after the first shot, there was no motion, no threat.

I don't understand the threat. Rittenhouse has a strapped rifle pointed at unarmed Rosenbaum and is somehow justified in shooting him four times, so he won't make a motion near him?

I was not speculating he just wanted to randomly shoot rioters but to play hero by creating a situation wherby he has to shoot in self defence or more likely to scare rioters. If the latter was the intent his running away when chased might make sense in that he was not expecting that reaction. Taking potshots at people from 100 or so feet away is not heroic.

As far as the judge not allowing “victim” on a regular basis all it might suggest is not bias in this particular case but in self defense cases in general.

We have a they said, they said situation. My source said striking “victim” is unusual yours say it is not uncommon. ????.

It seems rather odd that those backing Rittenhouse see no issue with a minor crossing state borders illegally armed supposedly entering a protest (what they call a riot)?

But they do have an issue with Gaige Grosskreutz travelling to Kenosha? Grosskreutz is a paramedic and was also there to render support to anyone injured during the protest.

It's interesting and relevant that Gaige is filing a seperate federal lawsuit against the Wisconsin authorities for deputizing a roving militia to 'protect property' and 'assist in maintaining order.'Grosskreutz says the coordination between authorities and armed citizens like Rittenhouse deprived the protestors of their constitutional right to freedom of speech, endangering them during the demonstration.

The lawsuit also alleges that the police treated Rittenhouse the way they did because he was white, and makes a valid point that if an armed Black man had offered to patrol the protest, "he most likely would have been shot dead." (No need to second guess this one, in the history of the United States police have never deputized armed black men to police the streets during a protest).

One (perhaps) positive outcome of this investigation might be why Kenosha police were turning a blind eye to the local armed Kenosha militia roaming the streets, a group whom Rittenhouse was involved with. Again seems strange Judge Bruce Schroeder is unwilling to include this rather important information in the court case?

Here's why people shot by Kyle Rittenhouse can be called "rioters," "looters" and "arsonists" – but not "victims" at trial

Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-rules-explained/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&linkId=137804538

A former prosecutor explaining the reason why the term "victim" is not being permitted, yet the terms "rioters", "looters", and "arsonists" are:

Again though, if that were his goal, why show up early to clean graffiti, carry a med kit, and guard a stationary point rather than doing something more active if his whole goal was to provoke some sort of "heroic" confrontation? What is your evidence for these speculations about his motive?



It's not bias, it's a common precaution in cases where the responsibility for an action has not been determined yet, in order to avoid prejudicing the jury. If a guy jumped out of the bushes and rushed me with a knife and I shot him, would you say he was my "victim"? In that situation, I would have been the victim of his attack, but I foiled it by shooting him, but if it went to court, neither of us would be described as the victim of the other until a ruling of who was responsible was made.



I'm not a lawyer, but it makes sense whether it's standard practice or not, it is a loaded word to use before responsibility for an incident has been determined, like people prematurely using the word murder before a killing has been adjudicated as unlawful, also a common error.



Like I mentioned to another member, too many liberals these days have a set of cookie cutter terms they just throw out there regardless of whether or not they're really applicable to the situation, "white supremacist" or other racially loaded claims just being a voguish one at the moment. Hell, they even try to do it to non white people these days, they'll call them "white adjacent", or "non-white soldiers in the cause of white supremacy", things like that. In my opinion, that behavior is a good indication that a person or news outlet is not to be taken seriously in the future.

It actually was a riot, just look at the videos that have been posted approximately a million times over the multiple threads on this incident you've participated in, and no, I'm not particularly exercised about a 17 year old carrying a rifle, state line or not, because it's just not that big of a deal. This may blow your mind, but it's not uncommon in America for kids younger than that to have their own .22s, and in rural areas, regularly carry them around for pest control and impromptu plinking. IIRC, my late father got his first BB gun at 8 and his .22 at 12, and that was completely normal and unremarkable, and still is in certain parts of the country.



I believe he's a street medic, not a paramedic, though if you have a source for the claim I'd be happy to read it.



Well, good luck with that, there was no deputizing, just some individual cops tossing water bottles and giving some words of support, and none of the armed citizens did anything to suppress speech, only to prevent property damage.



Even dumber than the previous point, and it was pretty dumb, we had tons of armed black protestors last year, and the only ones to get shot were other members of their group because they didn't know how to handle their weapons and negligently discharged them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_Fucki ... _Coalition





You should also do your homework on how many black people the police actually kill, in 2019 they only killed 13 unarmed black men nation wide according to the Washington Post database, generally considered the most comprehensive on the subject, not exactly the holocaust presented by progressive activists and their enablers.



Open carry is legal in Wisconsin, there was no illegal activity to turn a blind eye to.

Maybe come back when you have something that isn't actually disinformative to add?

Was this the person who was shot in the arm, and who was carrying a handgun (I don't know if he was openly carrying it prior to the events, or carrying it in a concealed manner).

A little off topic, and I've lost a lot of the details I knew last summer, but I do recall this being one of the news stories I delved into together with my most politically conservative friend. Breaking down stories together was something we were doing when we saw completely opposite characterizations by media deemed to be politically right v. left. We both ended up being able to see the inappropriately narrowed corners where each side was drawing arguments, but also agreeing that nearly every person on the scene acted in ways we felt contributed to the escalation. I can't remember who it was, but I think one of those shot struck me as really carrying the least blame; I'm just not sure anymore.

Maybe it's because my friend and I are both moms, but the point we kept going back to was that KR, as a minor, is the one who never should have been there, period. You can't stop legal adults from acting like idiots, but someone should have stopped the 17 year old.

Once it was clear the case was being handled by the justice system, and realizing how many people contributed to the outcome, we felt it appropriate to stop trying to reach any conclusion on guilt and innocence. But both of us found ourselves frustrated with attempts to make martyrs or heroes out of any of the people there, and both of us found ourselves concerned for KR as a teen whose brain isn't yet fully formed. The messages he's getting, the people in his ear ... its all messed up.

It's a pity you and your friend don't work in the US justice system then. A lot of 17 year old boys don't get the considerations that KR got.

He's being tried as an adult, and not in New Jersey...

To show not only is he a hero but what a good wonderful guy he is?


Obviously, I am no lawyer either

Rittenhouse is charged with curfew violation and possession of a firearm by a minor.

These can be used to invalidate his self-defense claim.

Wisconsin law generally does not permit legal self-defense claims when a person is engaging in illegal activity.

"Whether or not Rittenhouse was engaged in unlawful activity when he fired shots could also add a complication to his invocation of self defense. The defense is generally not available to people involved in illegal activity that could provoke an attack — except if their lives are threatened, but then the person claiming it must show they "exhausted every other means of escape," before resorting to deadly force"
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/cri ... 549233002/

Rittenhouse's intent is being conveniently re-written by his defense team.

Just a question how well they can sell the narrative and cancel all the eyewitness testimony