Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. I feel very confident that pp, in fact, does not understand the concept of lesser included offenses.

[Anonymous]

Good discussion by a defense attorney. https://defendingpeople.substack.com/p/thoughts-from-the-rittenhouse-trial?r=7271n&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

See the problem here is some people think there were heroes in this story. There weren't. They were ALL playing the role of vigilante. Rittenhouse, Huber, Grosskreutz, all of them. The whole reason Rittenhouse was there in the first place was to act as an armed vigilante against protesters, it got out of hand and he escalated with Rosenbaum thinking his gun was going to be enough to make Rosenbaum back off, which was a miscalculation on Rittenhouse's part. Rosenbaum called his bluff and chased him despite Rittenhouse having the upper hand of a gun versus Rosenbaum only being armed with socks and deodorant. And then it just went all the more off the rails.

There were NO "good guys" in any of this. If Rittenhouse gets off that will be a problem.

[Anonymous]

^ It wasn’t a bluff, it was a warning. Rosenbaum chased and then charged at a guy with a rifle and attempted to take it from him without any justification after telling him that he would kill him if he caught him alone that night (and he was alone). He was rightfully shot.

If Rittenhouse DOESN’T get off then there will be a problem. Simone tried to murder him, he has a right to defend himself.

[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.

From a witness called by the prosecution:

https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-racial-injustice-wisconsin-kenosha-homicide-21bc78b702c2998ba227216aeebed2c5

Another witness, videographer Richie McGinniss, described Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse and lunging for Rittenhouse’s gun. When prosecutor Thomas Binger pressed McGinniss to concede he didn’t know what Rosenbaum’s intent was, McGinniss had a pointed — and damaging — answer.

“Well,” McGinniss promptly replied, “he said, `F—- you.′ And then he reached for the weapon.”

[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.

From a witness called by the prosecution:

https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-racial-injustice-wisconsin-kenosha-homicide-21bc78b702c2998ba227216aeebed2c5

Another witness, videographer Richie McGinniss, described Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse and lunging for Rittenhouse’s gun. When prosecutor Thomas Binger pressed McGinniss to concede he didn’t know what Rosenbaum’s intent was, McGinniss had a pointed — and damaging — answer.

“Well,” McGinniss promptly replied, “he said, `F—- you.′ And then he reached for the weapon.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html Richie McGinniss, grown man with child's nickname, was at the riots to report for the Daily Caller. He was not an objective observer. He was there to stir up some propaganda for his employer. The prosecution should have impeached his testimony.

I think the prosecution wants to lose this 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.

From a witness called by the prosecution:

https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-racial-injustice-wisconsin-kenosha-homicide-21bc78b702c2998ba227216aeebed2c5

Another witness, videographer Richie McGinniss, described Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse and lunging for Rittenhouse’s gun. When prosecutor Thomas Binger pressed McGinniss to concede he didn’t know what Rosenbaum’s intent was, McGinniss had a pointed — and damaging — answer.

“Well,” McGinniss promptly replied, “he said, `F—- you.′ And then he reached for the weapon.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html Richie McGinniss, grown man with child's nickname, was at the riots to report for the Daily Caller. He was not an objective observer. He was there to stir up some propaganda for his employer. The prosecution should have impeached his testimony.

I think the prosecution wants to lose this case.

Clearly! No one is that stupid. There will be no justice. KR will walk.

[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.

From a witness called by the prosecution:

https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-racial-injustice-wisconsin-kenosha-homicide-21bc78b702c2998ba227216aeebed2c5

Another witness, videographer Richie McGinniss, described Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse and lunging for Rittenhouse’s gun. When prosecutor Thomas Binger pressed McGinniss to concede he didn’t know what Rosenbaum’s intent was, McGinniss had a pointed — and damaging — answer.

“Well,” McGinniss promptly replied, “he said, `F—- you.′ And then he reached for the weapon.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html Richie McGinniss, grown man with child's nickname, was at the riots to report for the Daily Caller. He was not an objective observer. He was there to stir up some propaganda for his employer. The prosecution should have impeached his testimony.

I think the prosecution wants to lose this case.

Seems as if the prosecution was trying to force a mistrial since they knew they were losing.
When Binger called into question Rittenhouse's silence post-arrest I think most people thought WTF? That was way over the line and something even novice attorneys know not to do.

[Anonymous]

IF Kyle was an unjustified shooter who killed someone, THEN Huber and Grosskruetz were the heroic vigilantes. But, from what the evidence has been, it appears Kyle might have been justified (in the moment) of killing an aggressor...which means Huber and Grosskruetz made a bad decision to try to stop/attack Kyle (the "justified" shooter).

Huber and Grosskreutz made an assumption and thought tbey were doing a good thing --- they were trying to police the situation....but there assumption got them killed/injured.

That doesn't take away from the fact that Kyle should not have been there and the mentally unstable person (Rosenbaum) should not have been in a war zone. No one should have been there.

[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.

From a witness called by the prosecution:

https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-racial-injustice-wisconsin-kenosha-homicide-21bc78b702c2998ba227216aeebed2c5

Another witness, videographer Richie McGinniss, described Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse and lunging for Rittenhouse’s gun. When prosecutor Thomas Binger pressed McGinniss to concede he didn’t know what Rosenbaum’s intent was, McGinniss had a pointed — and damaging — answer.

“Well,” McGinniss promptly replied, “he said, `F—- you.′ And then he reached for the weapon.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html Richie McGinniss, grown man with child's nickname, was at the riots to report for the Daily Caller. He was not an objective observer. He was there to stir up some propaganda for his employer. The prosecution should have impeached his testimony.

I think the prosecution wants to lose this case.

Seems as if the prosecution was trying to force a mistrial since they knew they were losing.
When Binger called into question Rittenhouse's silence post-arrest I think most people thought WTF? That was way over the line and something even novice attorneys know not to do.

Tbe prosection wasn't trying to comment on Kyle's silence...they were trying to show that by listening first, he was able to mold his testimony to what he has heard other people say. It's a slight difference, and the judge didn't appreciate the distinction.

[Anonymous]

What are the odds that three men, a couple with serious criminal histories, were there that night to ‘be good people’? JFC

[Anonymous]

I ferl like there are people who want Kyle convicted because they are offended/angered by a 17 yr old with an AR-15. PERIOD. They don't really care about the legal requirements for conviction. They hate guns and someone died, the end.

I hate guns too, but I saw/heard the evidence and I see a lot of reasonable doubt regarding conviction. That's not an injustice...it's simply the law. I don't have to like Kyle to find him not guilty...or to accept a not guilty verdict. I hate what he did. But, the law allows for him to walk under the evidence as I see it (except for the possession charge).

[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.

From a witness called by the prosecution:

https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-racial-injustice-wisconsin-kenosha-homicide-21bc78b702c2998ba227216aeebed2c5

Another witness, videographer Richie McGinniss, described Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse and lunging for Rittenhouse’s gun. When prosecutor Thomas Binger pressed McGinniss to concede he didn’t know what Rosenbaum’s intent was, McGinniss had a pointed — and damaging — answer.

“Well,” McGinniss promptly replied, “he said, `F—- you.′ And then he reached for the weapon.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html Richie McGinniss, grown man with child's nickname, was at the riots to report for the Daily Caller. He was not an objective observer. He was there to stir up some propaganda for his employer. The prosecution should have impeached his testimony.

I think the prosecution wants to lose this case.

Seems as if the prosecution was trying to force a mistrial since they knew they were losing.
When Binger called into question Rittenhouse's silence post-arrest I think most people thought WTF? That was way over the line and something even novice attorneys know not to do.

Tbe prosection wasn't trying to comment on Kyle's silence...they were trying to show that by listening first, he was able to mold his testimony to what he has heard other people say. It's a slight difference, and the judge didn't appreciate the distinction.

But he did comment on Rittenhouse's silence. And, that is something that you just can't do.... it is a constitutional right. And, doing so implies that he is somehow guilty for not speaking publicly before the trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I ferl like there are people who want Kyle convicted because they are offended/angered by a 17 yr old with an AR-15. PERIOD. They don't really care about the legal requirements for conviction. They hate guns and someone died, the end.

I hate guns too, but I saw/heard the evidence and I see a lot of reasonable doubt regarding conviction. That's not an injustice...it's simply the law. I don't have to like Kyle to find him not guilty...or to accept a not guilty verdict. I hate what he did. But, the law allows for him to walk under the evidence as I see it (except for the possession charge).

He will walk on that one with the way it is written.

This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593."

Since there is no evidence that Rittenhouse violated Section 941.28, he presumably must be in violation of both sections 29.304 and 29.593. The defense conceded Rittenhouse was in violation of Section 29.593, which requires certification for weapons. However, he is not in violation of section 29.304, entitled "Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age." As the title indicates, the section makes it illegal for persons under 16 to use firearms. Rittenhouse was 17.

[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.

From a witness called by the prosecution:

https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-racial-injustice-wisconsin-kenosha-homicide-21bc78b702c2998ba227216aeebed2c5

Another witness, videographer Richie McGinniss, described Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse and lunging for Rittenhouse’s gun. When prosecutor Thomas Binger pressed McGinniss to concede he didn’t know what Rosenbaum’s intent was, McGinniss had a pointed — and damaging — answer.

“Well,” McGinniss promptly replied, “he said, `F—- you.′ And then he reached for the weapon.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html Richie McGinniss, grown man with child's nickname, was at the riots to report for the Daily Caller. He was not an objective observer. He was there to stir up some propaganda for his employer. The prosecution should have impeached his testimony.

I think the prosecution wants to lose this case.

Well you’ve convinced me he’s not to be trusted! Solid logic there, my friend.