Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why did the judge not allow any lesser offenses?
That's hugely problematic.

This entire court case has been a complete sham.

If the prosecution didn’t think the higher charges were justified then they shouldn’t have gone for them. It was completely their choice. They were making a political statement rather than doing the right thing. That’s hugely problematic.

Court shouldn’t be a buffet where they get to throw everything at the wall and see if something sticks. They’re supposed to think carefully about which charges should apply and then charge the person with those things.

In this case the witnesses for the prosecution may as well have been witnesses for the defense, since it is such a clear case of self defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If people here would just admit they want him to be guilty because he’s a white conservative we wouldn’t need pages of people ignoring the evidence that it’s was 100% self defense.

This. This is it 100%.

Bullshit. Rosenbaum wasn't a credible threat. All he had was a plastic bag with socks and deodorant.

You obviously have not watched. He threatened to kill Kyle earlier and was in the process of trying to take his gun. He had his hands on the barrel when he was shot. That’s what the prosecution witnesses testified to, not even the defense.

Think about that, the prosecution agrees that he was trying to take the gun away. That’s not a threat?

I did watch and saw no such evidence. Neither the forensic enhancements of the drone video nor the FLIR video conclusively show Rosenbaum grab his gun.
There is also nothing I've seen in the powder residue that conclusively proves Rosenbaum was grabbing the gun. Powder residue on his hands could also be from Rosenbaum raising his hands defensively as Rittenhouse turned and raised his gun at him.

Meanwhile it's also known that Rittenhouse provoked the interaction. It's a serious problem if people can go around provoking fights with random people and then shoot those people if the situation you provoked goes sour. It's basically legalizing shooting anyone you don't like.

It does not matter what you think based on what you "see" on the video. The prosecution witnesses testified that he grabbed the gun. The coroner testified the residue was from him grabbing the gun. There is no doubt he was grabbing the gun according to the prosecution, not the defense. The people that charged him with a crime say Rosenbaum had his hands on the gun

That fact is not in dispute, no matter how much you’d like it to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did the judge not allow any lesser offenses?
That's hugely problematic.

This entire court case has been a complete sham.

If the prosecution didn’t think the higher charges were justified then they shouldn’t have gone for them. It was completely their choice. They were making a political statement rather than doing the right thing. That’s hugely problematic.

Court shouldn’t be a buffet where they get to throw everything at the wall and see if something sticks. They’re supposed to think carefully about which charges should apply and then charge the person with those things.

In this case the witnesses for the prosecution may as well have been witnesses for the defense, since it is such a clear case of self defense.

No, that is exactly how prosecutions work. When there are multiple potential charges, all of them should be on the table. That way if one fails, the others will still stick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If people here would just admit they want him to be guilty because he’s a white conservative we wouldn’t need pages of people ignoring the evidence that it’s was 100% self defense.

This. This is it 100%.

Bullshit. Rosenbaum wasn't a credible threat. All he had was a plastic bag with socks and deodorant.

You obviously have not watched. He threatened to kill Kyle earlier and was in the process of trying to take his gun. He had his hands on the barrel when he was shot. That’s what the prosecution witnesses testified to, not even the defense.

Think about that, the prosecution agrees that he was trying to take the gun away. That’s not a threat?

I did watch and saw no such evidence. Neither the forensic enhancements of the drone video nor the FLIR video conclusively show Rosenbaum grab his gun.
There is also nothing I've seen in the powder residue that conclusively proves Rosenbaum was grabbing the gun. Powder residue on his hands could also be from Rosenbaum raising his hands defensively as Rittenhouse turned and raised his gun at him.

Meanwhile it's also known that Rittenhouse provoked the interaction. It's a serious problem if people can go around provoking fights with random people and then shoot those people if the situation you provoked goes sour. It's basically legalizing shooting anyone you don't like.

It does not matter what you think based on what you "see" on the video. The prosecution witnesses testified that he grabbed the gun. The coroner testified the residue was from him grabbing the gun. There is no doubt he was grabbing the gun according to the prosecution, not the defense. The people that charged him with a crime say Rosenbaum had his hands on the gun

That fact is not in dispute, no matter how much you’d like it to be.

Baffling that they would say this given it's not backed by any evidence.
But then again that's only one of the many flaky things this prosecutor has done to go out of his way to hand Rittenhouse a win.

The entire court case has been a joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did the judge not allow any lesser offenses?
That's hugely problematic.

This entire court case has been a complete sham.

If the prosecution didn’t think the higher charges were justified then they shouldn’t have gone for them. It was completely their choice. They were making a political statement rather than doing the right thing. That’s hugely problematic.

Court shouldn’t be a buffet where they get to throw everything at the wall and see if something sticks. They’re supposed to think carefully about which charges should apply and then charge the person with those things.

In this case the witnesses for the prosecution may as well have been witnesses for the defense, since it is such a clear case of self defense.

No, that is exactly how prosecutions work. When there are multiple potential charges, all of them should be on the table. That way if one fails, the others will still stick.

That’s on the prosecutor for not including them. You can’t include them after the fact because you’re losing the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If people here would just admit they want him to be guilty because he’s a white conservative we wouldn’t need pages of people ignoring the evidence that it’s was 100% self defense.

This. This is it 100%.

Bullshit. Rosenbaum wasn't a credible threat. All he had was a plastic bag with socks and deodorant.

You obviously have not watched. He threatened to kill Kyle earlier and was in the process of trying to take his gun. He had his hands on the barrel when he was shot. That’s what the prosecution witnesses testified to, not even the defense.

Think about that, the prosecution agrees that he was trying to take the gun away. That’s not a threat?

I did watch and saw no such evidence. Neither the forensic enhancements of the drone video nor the FLIR video conclusively show Rosenbaum grab his gun.
There is also nothing I've seen in the powder residue that conclusively proves Rosenbaum was grabbing the gun. Powder residue on his hands could also be from Rosenbaum raising his hands defensively as Rittenhouse turned and raised his gun at him.

Meanwhile it's also known that Rittenhouse provoked the interaction. It's a serious problem if people can go around provoking fights with random people and then shoot those people if the situation you provoked goes sour. It's basically legalizing shooting anyone you don't like.

It does not matter what you think based on what you "see" on the video. The prosecution witnesses testified that he grabbed the gun. The coroner testified the residue was from him grabbing the gun. There is no doubt he was grabbing the gun according to the prosecution, not the defense. The people that charged him with a crime say Rosenbaum had his hands on the gun

That fact is not in dispute, no matter how much you’d like it to be.

Baffling that they would say this given it's not backed by any evidence.
But then again that's only one of the many flaky things this prosecutor has done to go out of his way to hand Rittenhouse a win.

The entire court case has been a joke.

It’s backed by their evidence, that’s why they’re saying it. It doesn’t matter what you think the evidence is

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If people here would just admit they want him to be guilty because he’s a white conservative we wouldn’t need pages of people ignoring the evidence that it’s was 100% self defense.

This. This is it 100%.

Bullshit. Rosenbaum wasn't a credible threat. All he had was a plastic bag with socks and deodorant.

You obviously have not watched. He threatened to kill Kyle earlier and was in the process of trying to take his gun. He had his hands on the barrel when he was shot. That’s what the prosecution witnesses testified to, not even the defense.

Think about that, the prosecution agrees that he was trying to take the gun away. That’s not a threat?

I did watch and saw no such evidence. Neither the forensic enhancements of the drone video nor the FLIR video conclusively show Rosenbaum grab his gun.
There is also nothing I've seen in the powder residue that conclusively proves Rosenbaum was grabbing the gun. Powder residue on his hands could also be from Rosenbaum raising his hands defensively as Rittenhouse turned and raised his gun at him.

Meanwhile it's also known that Rittenhouse provoked the interaction. It's a serious problem if people can go around provoking fights with random people and then shoot those people if the situation you provoked goes sour. It's basically legalizing shooting anyone you don't like.

It does not matter what you think based on what you "see" on the video. The prosecution witnesses testified that he grabbed the gun. The coroner testified the residue was from him grabbing the gun. There is no doubt he was grabbing the gun according to the prosecution, not the defense. The people that charged him with a crime say Rosenbaum had his hands on the gun

That fact is not in dispute, no matter how much you’d like it to be.

Baffling that they would say this given it's not backed by any evidence.
But then again that's only one of the many flaky things this prosecutor has done to go out of his way to hand Rittenhouse a win.

The entire court case has been a joke.

It’s backed by their evidence, that’s why they’re saying it. It doesn’t matter what you think the evidence is

That's been an assertion made, but not proven. That's yet another part of what's made this case a joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did the judge not allow any lesser offenses?
That's hugely problematic.

This entire court case has been a complete sham.

If the prosecution didn’t think the higher charges were justified then they shouldn’t have gone for them. It was completely their choice. They were making a political statement rather than doing the right thing. That’s hugely problematic.

Court shouldn’t be a buffet where they get to throw everything at the wall and see if something sticks. They’re supposed to think carefully about which charges should apply and then charge the person with those things.

In this case the witnesses for the prosecution may as well have been witnesses for the defense, since it is such a clear case of self defense.

No, that is exactly how prosecutions work. When there are multiple potential charges, all of them should be on the table. That way if one fails, the others will still stick.

That’s on the prosecutor for not including them. You can’t include them after the fact because you’re losing the case.

It was said the judge wouldn't allow the lesser offenses.
The same biased judge who has a Trump ringtone and who wouldn't allow the people shot to be referred to as 'victims.'

The whole thing feels like a joke, to the point where the judge, prosecution and defense are all in on it. And lots of people see that.

It's no wonder they're getting the National Guard ready for when the verdict comes out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If people here would just admit they want him to be guilty because he’s a white conservative we wouldn’t need pages of people ignoring the evidence that it’s was 100% self defense.

This. This is it 100%.

Bullshit. Rosenbaum wasn't a credible threat. All he had was a plastic bag with socks and deodorant.

You obviously have not watched. He threatened to kill Kyle earlier and was in the process of trying to take his gun. He had his hands on the barrel when he was shot. That’s what the prosecution witnesses testified to, not even the defense.

Think about that, the prosecution agrees that he was trying to take the gun away. That’s not a threat?

I did watch and saw no such evidence. Neither the forensic enhancements of the drone video nor the FLIR video conclusively show Rosenbaum grab his gun.
There is also nothing I've seen in the powder residue that conclusively proves Rosenbaum was grabbing the gun. Powder residue on his hands could also be from Rosenbaum raising his hands defensively as Rittenhouse turned and raised his gun at him.

Meanwhile it's also known that Rittenhouse provoked the interaction. It's a serious problem if people can go around provoking fights with random people and then shoot those people if the situation you provoked goes sour. It's basically legalizing shooting anyone you don't like.

It does not matter what you think based on what you "see" on the video. The prosecution witnesses testified that he grabbed the gun. The coroner testified the residue was from him grabbing the gun. There is no doubt he was grabbing the gun according to the prosecution, not the defense. The people that charged him with a crime say Rosenbaum had his hands on the gun

That fact is not in dispute, no matter how much you’d like it to be.

Watch the video. If he grabbed the gun it was a defensive instinct and Kyle shot him immediately.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXl4bLQqTjw

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did the judge not allow any lesser offenses?
That's hugely problematic.

This entire court case has been a complete sham.

If the prosecution didn’t think the higher charges were justified then they shouldn’t have gone for them. It was completely their choice. They were making a political statement rather than doing the right thing. That’s hugely problematic.

Court shouldn’t be a buffet where they get to throw everything at the wall and see if something sticks. They’re supposed to think carefully about which charges should apply and then charge the person with those things.

In this case the witnesses for the prosecution may as well have been witnesses for the defense, since it is such a clear case of self defense.

No, that is exactly how prosecutions work. When there are multiple potential charges, all of them should be on the table. That way if one fails, the others will still stick.

That’s on the prosecutor for not including them. You can’t include them after the fact because you’re losing the case.

It was said the judge wouldn't allow the lesser offenses.
The same biased judge who has a Trump ringtone and who wouldn't allow the people shot to be referred to as 'victims.'

The whole thing feels like a joke, to the point where the judge, prosecution and defense are all in on it. And lots of people see that.

It's no wonder they're getting the National Guard ready for when the verdict comes out.

The judge doesn’t have to allow them if they were not put in the original charging documents. That’s the way it works.
If you got a speeding ticket, went to court and beat it, is it ok for the judge to decide to fine you for running a stop sign because he feels like it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If people here would just admit they want him to be guilty because he’s a white conservative we wouldn’t need pages of people ignoring the evidence that it’s was 100% self defense.

This. This is it 100%.

Bullshit. Rosenbaum wasn't a credible threat. All he had was a plastic bag with socks and deodorant.

You obviously have not watched. He threatened to kill Kyle earlier and was in the process of trying to take his gun. He had his hands on the barrel when he was shot. That’s what the prosecution witnesses testified to, not even the defense.

Think about that, the prosecution agrees that he was trying to take the gun away. That’s not a threat?

I did watch and saw no such evidence. Neither the forensic enhancements of the drone video nor the FLIR video conclusively show Rosenbaum grab his gun.
There is also nothing I've seen in the powder residue that conclusively proves Rosenbaum was grabbing the gun. Powder residue on his hands could also be from Rosenbaum raising his hands defensively as Rittenhouse turned and raised his gun at him.

Meanwhile it's also known that Rittenhouse provoked the interaction. It's a serious problem if people can go around provoking fights with random people and then shoot those people if the situation you provoked goes sour. It's basically legalizing shooting anyone you don't like.

It does not matter what you think based on what you "see" on the video. The prosecution witnesses testified that he grabbed the gun. The coroner testified the residue was from him grabbing the gun. There is no doubt he was grabbing the gun according to the prosecution, not the defense. The people that charged him with a crime say Rosenbaum had his hands on the gun

That fact is not in dispute, no matter how much you’d like it to be.

Baffling that they would say this given it's not backed by any evidence.
But then again that's only one of the many flaky things this prosecutor has done to go out of his way to hand Rittenhouse a win.

The entire court case has been a joke.

It’s backed by their evidence, that’s why they’re saying it. It doesn’t matter what you think the evidence is

That's been an assertion made, but not proven. That's yet another part of what's made this case a joke.

It’s an assertion made by the prosecution, testified to by their witness, and agreed upon. As far as the PROSECUTION is concerned, it’s proven.

That assertion was not made by the defense, stop twisting into a pretzel to fit your narrative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If people here would just admit they want him to be guilty because he’s a white conservative we wouldn’t need pages of people ignoring the evidence that it’s was 100% self defense.

This. This is it 100%.

Bullshit. Rosenbaum wasn't a credible threat. All he had was a plastic bag with socks and deodorant.

You obviously have not watched. He threatened to kill Kyle earlier and was in the process of trying to take his gun. He had his hands on the barrel when he was shot. That’s what the prosecution witnesses testified to, not even the defense.

Think about that, the prosecution agrees that he was trying to take the gun away. That’s not a threat?

I did watch and saw no such evidence. Neither the forensic enhancements of the drone video nor the FLIR video conclusively show Rosenbaum grab his gun.
There is also nothing I've seen in the powder residue that conclusively proves Rosenbaum was grabbing the gun. Powder residue on his hands could also be from Rosenbaum raising his hands defensively as Rittenhouse turned and raised his gun at him.

Meanwhile it's also known that Rittenhouse provoked the interaction. It's a serious problem if people can go around provoking fights with random people and then shoot those people if the situation you provoked goes sour. It's basically legalizing shooting anyone you don't like.

It does not matter what you think based on what you "see" on the video. The prosecution witnesses testified that he grabbed the gun. The coroner testified the residue was from him grabbing the gun. There is no doubt he was grabbing the gun according to the prosecution, not the defense. The people that charged him with a crime say Rosenbaum had his hands on the gun

That fact is not in dispute, no matter how much you’d like it to be.

Watch the video. If he grabbed the gun it was a defensive instinct and Kyle shot him immediately.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXl4bLQqTjw

That’s a good argument for the prosecutor to make if the defense said he grabbed the gun. That’s not what happened. Why is it so difficult to understand that the people saying he grabbed the gun to take it away are the ones trying to convict him, not defend him. It’s comical.

[Anonymous]

Grosskreutz should be charged with attempted murder. He tried to shoot Rittenhouse, was in illegal possession of a loaded firearm that night, and lied to the police officers and even lied in the official police report saying that he dropped his gun before approaching Rittenhouse. He knew it would be obvious that he was the aggressor so tried to change his story. Unfortunately for him there was video evidence that he was pointing his gun at Rittenhouse before he was shot, or else it would have been his word against the others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did the judge not allow any lesser offenses?
That's hugely problematic.

This entire court case has been a complete sham.

If the prosecution didn’t think the higher charges were justified then they shouldn’t have gone for them. It was completely their choice. They were making a political statement rather than doing the right thing. That’s hugely problematic.

Court shouldn’t be a buffet where they get to throw everything at the wall and see if something sticks. They’re supposed to think carefully about which charges should apply and then charge the person with those things.

In this case the witnesses for the prosecution may as well have been witnesses for the defense, since it is such a clear case of self defense.

No, that is exactly how prosecutions work. When there are multiple potential charges, all of them should be on the table. That way if one fails, the others will still stick.

That’s on the prosecutor for not including them. You can’t include them after the fact because you’re losing the case.

It was said the judge wouldn't allow the lesser offenses.
The same biased judge who has a Trump ringtone and who wouldn't allow the people shot to be referred to as 'victims.'

The whole thing feels like a joke, to the point where the judge, prosecution and defense are all in on it. And lots of people see that.

It's no wonder they're getting the National Guard ready for when the verdict comes out.

The judge doesn’t have to allow them if they were not put in the original charging documents. That’s the way it works.
If you got a speeding ticket, went to court and beat it, is it ok for the judge to decide to fine you for running a stop sign because he feels like it?

I don't think you understand the concept of lesser included offense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Grosskreutz should be charged with attempted murder. He tried to shoot Rittenhouse, was in illegal possession of a loaded firearm that night, and lied to the police officers and even lied in the official police report saying that he dropped his gun before approaching Rittenhouse. He knew it would be obvious that he was the aggressor so tried to change his story. Unfortunately for him there was video evidence that he was pointing his gun at Rittenhouse before he was shot, or else it would have been his word against the others.

Grosskreutz and Huber were acting on a mistake of fact...or potential mistake of fact. They thought they were being heroic in taking down a bad guy. If Kyle killed Rosenbaum without justification, then Huber and Grosskreutz were heroic. If Rosenbaum's killing was justified (i.e. self defense), then Huber and Grosskruez were not heros, THEY were the vigilantes...and they made a huge mistake.

Hot mess and bad choices all around.