Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Prosecutor’s office is throwing the case to stay on good terms with the Kenosha PD. This is a dirty business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Prosecutor’s office is throwing the case to stay on good terms with the Kenosha PD. This is a dirty business.

Or, you know, it's clearly self defense....

[Anonymous]

Is it normal for a judge to have a chair like that?

[Anonymous]

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

The odds are 100%. Because they were all unarmed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

The odds are 100%. Because they were all unarmed.

Did you watch the trial? Gaige Grosskreutz was armed with a pistol.

[Anonymous]

Count 6- possession of weapon by a person under 18- was just dismissed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Count 6- possession of weapon by a person under 18- was just dismissed.

Like, that was the most obvious of the counts. He is under 18. He possessed a weapon and even used it on people. There is video and everything. What a crock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Count 6- possession of weapon by a person under 18- was just dismissed.

Like, that was the most obvious of the counts. He is under 18. He possessed a weapon and even used it on people. There is video and everything. What a crock.

Wisconsin state law does not prohibit a 17 year old from possessing a rifle. Due to terribly misleading media reports, most people were led to believe otherwise. That is why the count was dismissed.

[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.

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

My impression, as someone with experience in both criminal defense and prosecution, is that these particular prosecutors are stuck trying a case that they know is terribly weak. The decision to charge Rittenhouse was likely made by their bosses to appease a certain public demand. But now they are in a bind trying to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when the evidence just isn't there. Imagine trying to prove up these charges when all the key witnesses to the incidents in question can offer testimony favorable to the defense. Rittenhouse will likely be acquitted of all charges. But it won't be because anyone took a dive. It will be because an impartial look at all the evidence provides ample grounds for self-defense and the prosecution could not get within a country mile of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Count 6- possession of weapon by a person under 18- was just dismissed.

Like, that was the most obvious of the counts. He is under 18. He possessed a weapon and even used it on people. There is video and everything. What a crock.

Wisconsin state law does not prohibit a 17 year old from possessing a rifle. Due to terribly misleading media reports, most people were led to believe otherwise. That is why the count was dismissed.

Only if it is used for hunting. I guess hunting humans during a riot it ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Count 6- possession of weapon by a person under 18- was just dismissed.

Like, that was the most obvious of the counts. He is under 18. He possessed a weapon and even used it on people. There is video and everything. What a crock.

And don’t forget he cross state lines. The onion did an article recently titled Judge Rittenhouse Judge plans to adopt Kyle at the end of the trial or something similar. This is a travesty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Count 6- possession of weapon by a person under 18- was just dismissed.

Like, that was the most obvious of the counts. He is under 18. He possessed a weapon and even used it on people. There is video and everything. What a crock.

And don’t forget he cross state lines. The onion did an article recently titled Judge Rittenhouse Judge plans to adopt Kyle at the end of the trial or something similar. This is a travesty.

Have you watched any of the trial? He did not cross state lines with any weapon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Count 6- possession of weapon by a person under 18- was just dismissed.

Like, that was the most obvious of the counts. He is under 18. He possessed a weapon and even used it on people. There is video and everything. What a crock.

Wisconsin state law does not prohibit a 17 year old from possessing a rifle. Due to terribly misleading media reports, most people were led to believe otherwise. That is why the count was dismissed.

Only if it is used for hunting. I guess hunting humans during a riot it ok.

No, the statute does not limit it to hunting. Again, it is legal for a 17 year old to possess a rifle (of sufficient barrel length) in Wisconsin, for any purpose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Count 6- possession of weapon by a person under 18- was just dismissed.

Like, that was the most obvious of the counts. He is under 18. He possessed a weapon and even used it on people. There is video and everything. What a crock.

And don’t forget he cross state lines. The onion did an article recently titled Judge Rittenhouse Judge plans to adopt Kyle at the end of the trial or something similar. This is a travesty.

Have you watched any of the trial? He did not cross state lines with any weapon.

No, he affected an illegal straw purchase. Just as bad, if not worse. Unless you are biased about the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Count 6- possession of weapon by a person under 18- was just dismissed.

I posted why that would happen on page 122. If you follow the law and not just what’s reported in the news, you see why the case is weak