Judge in Rittenhouse case might be a tad biased.
- Thread starter crimson5pheonix
- Start date
But the claims actually have been proven true. Every person Rittenhouse shot had a conviction of some kind to their name lol. Jut because you choose not to believe them doesn't make it true the info is literally out there.
This is becoming like a real life version of the Freedom Toons parody characters
The comedy is they're trying to charge him with planned pre-meditated murder as one of the charges.
Just like to take a moment to remind people of just how much some forum users here project so obviously and don't realise it.
Please for Cthulhu's sake read up on the fucking case a bit from a source other than occupy democrats "It's going down" or where ever you're reading these claims from because so much of what you keep saying is mis-information.
He didn't cross state lines to be there he was already in Kenosha at the time having just finished work.
As far as we know he was given the firearm.
His friends house was apparently within smelling distance of the fires in Kenosha
He was perfectly allowed to be in public. This is the same kind of argument of "Well she shouldn't have gone into said area if she didn't want to be attacked or raped" like this is victim blaming of the highest order because in all this clown show it was Kyle who was attacked and has had to put his life on hold for defending himself when he was out in public and people are out here pulling the "Oh if he didn't want to get attacked he shouldn't have gone out dressed like that" bullshit. Really? Fucking really?
Jim Crow existed for a century after the abolition of slavery in the United States (and the 200 before that in North America), and the war on drugs and the contemporary carceral state is simply the next iteration of Jim Crow, so...yes?
You're...not well read on the history of police forces in the US, are you.
As far as the Capitol, White House, and the courts, I mean...yeah?
Something for you
Ah yes the attitude and intellect of of Zapp Brannigan alive and well I see
No it doesn't.
It removes protection of the castle doctrine which under the state laws says you don't even have to retreat if some-one breaks into your home you can shoot them on the spot to defend your home, life or property. Basically f the owner of the lot had shot the people trying to attack him it would have been fully legally self defence no questions asked and he wouldn't have had to have even retreated.
Yes it does as open carry doesn't add extra proposed offences to the list. Nor could the attackers have known his age they could have assumed he was an easy target 18 year old.
Also not how it works. Rittenhouse had the right to be where he was. Also no-one was attempting to disarm him rather take the gun for their own ends up knock him unconscious which isn't disarming.
Also he fled towards the police lights to turn himself in.
There's also no laws saying he couldn't be there. The group he was with actually had spoken with and organised with the police that night it turns out with the police even thanking them for being there earlier in the night lol. He wasn't law enforcement but they were aware of the group there and more than happy to allow it.
But hey if you want to argue "He was asking for it because of what he chose to wear" it's on you there to maybe stop for a bit of self reflection.
yes yes we get it you think you're on the right side of history and the details don't actually matter just winning for "your side" lol
Not quite he pulled the gun after backing away and I linked the video of his testimony where he said Kyle only shot him when he approached with his gun drawn beginning to point it at Kyle. A gun which BTW he definitely was illegally in possession of due to the fact he has convictions to his name so is banned from owning firearms. So if he'd not pulled the illegal fire arm he had then he wouldn't have been shot, funny how people here are using the argument Kyle is guilty because his possession of the gun may have been illegal when one of the people shot did for definite have a firearm illegally in his possession that night and pulled it on Kyle.
Also
Shooting victim says he was pointing his gun at Rittenhouse
A protester and volunteer medic wounded on the streets of Kenosha by Kyle Rittenhouse testified Monday that he was unintentionally pointing his own gun at the rifle-toting Rittenhouse when the young man shot him.
The Florida trial would count as different because the guy accosted the couple first. You can't claim self defence when you start something and get your ass beat.
I'm also hearing a rumour (again this is a rumour only) that Grosskreutz's friend was served papers compelling him to appear as a witness as he sat in the public gallery of the trail and which point he apparently ran from the court having been served the papers......
This is important because his friend is the one who relayed Grosskreutz's words to facebook including how Grosskreutz told him he wanted to shoot Kyle and regretted not taking the shot when he had it.
No because the mob doesn't get to play police either. Come on some consistency here you were trying to get at Kyle for playing police but suddenly it's fine for the mob to be the police?
And something from Fox News
www.foxnews.com
Apparently it wasn't a bluff and there was some-one trying to get the identities of the jurors out there.
Rittenhouse judge says person caught filming jurors, orders deletion along with 'new procedures'
The Wisconsin judge overseeing the murder trial of Kyle Rittenhouse announced Tuesday that deputies had caught someone recording video of the jurors earlier in the day and would be taking new steps to ensure the incident did not happen again, in addition to ordering the person to delete the images.
www.foxnews.com
Apparently it wasn't a bluff and there was some-one trying to get the identities of the jurors out there.
- May 6, 2020
- 1,133
- 1,213
- 118
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- White Male
That's no bueno.
In controversial cases like these, jurors should be entitled to have their identities concealed upon request even after the case is over. Indefinitely.And something from Fox News
Rittenhouse judge says person caught filming jurors, orders deletion along with 'new procedures'
The Wisconsin judge overseeing the murder trial of Kyle Rittenhouse announced Tuesday that deputies had caught someone recording video of the jurors earlier in the day and would be taking new steps to ensure the incident did not happen again, in addition to ordering the person to delete the images.
Apparently it wasn't a bluff and there was some-one trying to get the identities of the jurors out there.
I see the US District Attorney's office learned precisely Jack and Shit from the Bill Cosby debacle.
Ok, but...that's the whole problem. First off, this is why the whole 'he should not have been there' keeps getting brought up. He was fully expecting chaos enough to feel the need to bring supplies (from where? were they in his car or what?), so this seems like exactly the place a kid should not be, because I doubt being a volunteer lifeguard, in a state that is nice enough to actually swim in five months out of the year, is applicable knowledge to being a field medic. And unless the protest was literally at his place of work, he would have had to make the choice to go to the protest (which, again, for all of this to make sense is so dangerous that we need armed civilians protecting businesses from all the arson/looting/rape/pillaging/etc). The fact he should not have been there is emphasized by them giving him a fucking gun. If he was truly there to help people, he should have either asked for a bigger medical bag instead or simply walked away. It's not like the guy held him at gunpoint to have him take the rifle, anybody with half a brain would have realized 'oh shit, maybe I, a volunteer lifeguard, am in over my head' (...I just realized after typing it the pun...), but he didn't. He willingly picked up that rifle. He chose to wander the streets (you keep saying that he was on private property, but outside of the one bit in a lot, there's tons of footage of him wandering the streets I remember seeing). Like, everyone here is hung up on him defending himself, but to me, the only reason he had to protect himself in the first place all stems back to him carrying this fucking rifle around (I can't even remember if he ever had the thing slung across his back or if he actually just carried it around the whole time). A rifle which was illegal for him to carry. But honestly, none of this shit matters because...
Between the doomed to fail murder charges, and this awful display in the courtrooms, I can only conclude that the prosecution is deliberately throwing this case. They want to look like they're doing something while doing what they actually want to do (let him walk scot-free). This is a farce.
When these are you normal protest / riot "medics"
I'd take the 17 year old Lifeguard any day because he's still probably far better trained than them and will at least have half a clue what he's gotta do..
Also it was a paid lifeguard job not volunteer.
The wandering the streets thing was him fleeing towards the police lights in the distance.
Yeah, but how do we know the people in that video weren't lifeguards themselves? Plus, him being paid versus volunteer doesn't really invalidate the fact that it's Wisconsin, a state where it's nice enough to swim about 4-5 months out of the year. And I was talking about before, that 'anybody need a medic' one and I believe I remember seeing a video of him at a gas station float around here last year.
But again, this situation is nonsense. Yes, open carry is indeed a thing, and you can indeed be out in public places, duh. However, this is during normal times, and one would imagine the second tons of police barricades and squads of cops in riot gear show up that you are no longer operating in 'normal times' (cue police state joke). It can't both be that he was walking down a random street minding his own business and that he was in the middle of a pseudo-battlefield where if he was going to be a medic he would need a gun. It's less 'don't wear a skimpy outfit if you don't want to be raped' and more 'don't jump into a lion enclosure and play lion tamer'.
Because even with non certified First Aid training I can tell you why those people are idiots.
Rules don't change around being out just because crap is going on.
He was also on the edge of the city at the lot not in the middle of the city.
A car dealership was torched the day before the shootings so it's less jumping in the cage and playing lion tamer and more trying to tame the lions that roam loosely across the zoo because nobody else is doing anything about em and you were asked by the zebra enclosure to not let em meet the end that the wildebeests met the day before.
Basically the police folding under protester pressure against police violence are the ones to blame, and if I were a relative of the dead that's who I'd sue, cause it was fundamentally them absconding their responsibilities the day before and of the incident that necessitated some take matters into their own hands. You can't just have whole streets torched and expect people not to go out and do something about it or call that vigilantism. And it doesn't matter where you live, aren't we supposed to care about our fellow man, even if they're in a different state? So yeah, the cops letting people riot and pillage and not ending it instantly are the issue here.
Basically the police folding under protester pressure against police violence are the ones to blame, and if I were a relative of the dead that's who I'd sue, cause it was fundamentally them absconding their responsibilities the day before and of the incident that necessitated some take matters into their own hands. You can't just have whole streets torched and expect people not to go out and do something about it or call that vigilantism. And it doesn't matter where you live, aren't we supposed to care about our fellow man, even if they're in a different state? So yeah, the cops letting people riot and pillage and not ending it instantly are the issue here.
That happens when you don't have the evidence to prosecute successfully, have a pile of evidence to build a legal defense around unless the defense lawyer is an utter moron, and absolutely cannot drop the case for political reasons.
I'd say the American police being so out of control that it even requires these protests is what's to blame. If they just trained their officers better, rooted out the bad apples themselves and actually responded correctly when these shootings happen then these riots wouldn't have happened to begin with.
The problem isn't so much that the cops let people riot, its that they give people no other choice than to riot.
Oh, I have.
But I have also been clear that, in my perspective, his degree of self defence in the instances only really alters severity of the manslaughter he is responsible for.
Is it at all normal to double check with a witness that they are happy with their statement after it has been given, for instance provide them an opportunity to expand on it if they remembered more details?
- May 6, 2020
- 1,133
- 1,213
- 118
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- White Male
It's never a good idea to ask a witness a question you don't already yourself know the answer to.
If you ask a question and get an answer unfavorable for your case, that's a bad thing.