Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If he hadn't been there, none of this would have happened.

He was there. It happened. He bares responsibility for his actions.

Period.

Don’t try that line of argument. The rioters went there to cause destruction and commit crimes. That’s far worse than a kid breaking a curfew.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If he hadn't been there, none of this would have happened.

He was there. It happened. He bares responsibility for his actions.

Period.

So when a jogger gets raped the defense is "if she wasn't there, she wouldn't have been raped"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he hadn't been there, none of this would have happened.

He was there. It happened. He bares responsibility for his actions.

Period.

Don’t try that line of argument. The rioters went there to cause destruction and commit crimes. That’s far worse than a kid breaking a curfew.

Absolutely not. Burning a dumpster or a car is not worse than shooting or killing people.

How many people did Rosenbaum kill that night? Or Skateboard Guy?

How many people did the kid kill?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Two people who were unarmed are dead at the hand of the only person that fired a gun that night.

This isn't a clear cut case in any way. A jury should absolutely be deciding if self-defense was reasonable.

I can't believe you have much experience in criminal defense or prosecution if you're contending that this case should not have been brought by the prosecution.

There is undisputed evidence that the first person shot-a clearly deranged individual-was the aggressor and that Rittenhouse only pulled the trigger when the individual chased him down and lunged for the weapon. That is self-defense under the legal standard. You do not have to wait until someone disarms you and then attacks you or others with your rifle until you use force. That is just not the law in any jurisdiction. With respect to the other two individuals who were shot, one was trying to split Rittenhouse's head open with a skateboard while he was on the ground in a vulnerable position and the other was rushing toward him with a pistol pointed at him. I do in fact have years of experience defending and prosecuting criminal cases. However one might feel about Rittenhouse walking around with a weapon that night are legally irrelevant. He had a right to defend himself and I expect the jury will reach that conclusion.

DP- I totally agree with you but it wouldn't surprise me if there is at least one or two of the same type of people on the jury as there are on this website who repeatedly make false claims about crossing state lines, shouldn't have been there etc plus buy into the provocation claim by the prosecution. My money is on a hung jury.

DP. If a provocation claim was put forward, then the evidence is disputed.

And you wonder why people are confused? Words have meaning.

I'm familiar with the provocation instruction, but I am not aware of any testimony during the trial that shows provocation on Rittenhouse's part, unless you think that him carrying the rifle was itself some sort of provocation. I do not believe it is. I don't believe any witness testified to Rittenhouse "provoking" the individual who chased after him (the man's name escapes me).

The prosecution was alleging that some heavily pixelated, highly zoomed in still-image from FBI drone footage was Rittenhouse raising his rifle in the direction of the Ziminsky's just before Rosembaum's chase began, and that is provocation and wipes out the entire self defense claim. Nobody who was there testified that ever happened and I think it's BS that should have never even been admitted into evidence in the first place, but I can see some anti-gun nut on the jury buying it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Two people who were unarmed are dead at the hand of the only person that fired a gun that night.

This isn't a clear cut case in any way. A jury should absolutely be deciding if self-defense was reasonable.

I can't believe you have much experience in criminal defense or prosecution if you're contending that this case should not have been brought by the prosecution.

There is undisputed evidence that the first person shot-a clearly deranged individual-was the aggressor and that Rittenhouse only pulled the trigger when the individual chased him down and lunged for the weapon. That is self-defense under the legal standard. You do not have to wait until someone disarms you and then attacks you or others with your rifle until you use force. That is just not the law in any jurisdiction. With respect to the other two individuals who were shot, one was trying to split Rittenhouse's head open with a skateboard while he was on the ground in a vulnerable position and the other was rushing toward him with a pistol pointed at him. I do in fact have years of experience defending and prosecuting criminal cases. However one might feel about Rittenhouse walking around with a weapon that night are legally irrelevant. He had a right to defend himself and I expect the jury will reach that conclusion.

DP- I totally agree with you but it wouldn't surprise me if there is at least one or two of the same type of people on the jury as there are on this website who repeatedly make false claims about crossing state lines, shouldn't have been there etc plus buy into the provocation claim by the prosecution. My money is on a hung jury.

DP. If a provocation claim was put forward, then the evidence is disputed.

And you wonder why people are confused? Words have meaning.

I'm familiar with the provocation instruction, but I am not aware of any testimony during the trial that shows provocation on Rittenhouse's part, unless you think that him carrying the rifle was itself some sort of provocation. I do not believe it is. I don't believe any witness testified to Rittenhouse "provoking" the individual who chased after him (the man's name escapes me).

Yeah, i think the only real mistake Rittenhouse made that night is not understanding just how violent and unhinged the rioters were. If he had understood that his life was truly in danger then he probably would have been more obsessed about not getting separated from his friends, even if it was to put out fires or whatever.

It was his community so he felt safe there, but he wasn’t safe. That’s not his fault of course. The local council should never have allowed a situation where citizens truly weren’t safe in a part of their community.

[Anonymous]

^ And he never expected that the rioters were so violent and unhinged that they would attack him even when he was holding a loaded rifle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If he hadn't been there, none of this would have happened.

He was there. It happened. He bares responsibility for his actions.

Period.

If he shot in self defense, he will go free. Because that’s not illegal.

Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he hadn't been there, none of this would have happened.

He was there. It happened. He bares responsibility for his actions.

Period.

Don’t try that line of argument. The rioters went there to cause destruction and commit crimes. That’s far worse than a kid breaking a curfew.

Yes only one person had a gun and used it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ And he never expected that the rioters were so violent and unhinged that they would attack him even when he was holding a loaded rifle.

They attacked him because he used it.

They were defending themselves, just as Rittenhouse claims he was defending himself.

HE provoked the action. Are the others not allowed to defend themselves as well? Or is only the white kid with a gun allowed to defend himself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Two people who were unarmed are dead at the hand of the only person that fired a gun that night.

This isn't a clear cut case in any way. A jury should absolutely be deciding if self-defense was reasonable.

I can't believe you have much experience in criminal defense or prosecution if you're contending that this case should not have been brought by the prosecution.

There is undisputed evidence that the first person shot-a clearly deranged individual-was the aggressor and that Rittenhouse only pulled the trigger when the individual chased him down and lunged for the weapon. That is self-defense under the legal standard. You do not have to wait until someone disarms you and then attacks you or others with your rifle until you use force. That is just not the law in any jurisdiction. With respect to the other two individuals who were shot, one was trying to split Rittenhouse's head open with a skateboard while he was on the ground in a vulnerable position and the other was rushing toward him with a pistol pointed at him. I do in fact have years of experience defending and prosecuting criminal cases. However one might feel about Rittenhouse walking around with a weapon that night are legally irrelevant. He had a right to defend himself and I expect the jury will reach that conclusion.

DP- I totally agree with you but it wouldn't surprise me if there is at least one or two of the same type of people on the jury as there are on this website who repeatedly make false claims about crossing state lines, shouldn't have been there etc plus buy into the provocation claim by the prosecution. My money is on a hung jury.

DP. If a provocation claim was put forward, then the evidence is disputed.

And you wonder why people are confused? Words have meaning.

I'm familiar with the provocation instruction, but I am not aware of any testimony during the trial that shows provocation on Rittenhouse's part, unless you think that him carrying the rifle was itself some sort of provocation. I do not believe it is. I don't believe any witness testified to Rittenhouse "provoking" the individual who chased after him (the man's name escapes me).

Yeah, i think the only real mistake Rittenhouse made that night is not understanding just how violent and unhinged the rioters were. If he had understood that his life was truly in danger then he probably would have been more obsessed about not getting separated from his friends, even if it was to put out fires or whatever.

It was his community so he felt safe there, but he wasn’t safe. That’s not his fault of course. The local council should never have allowed a situation where citizens truly weren’t safe in a part of their community.

No, HIS community was in Illinois. His dad lives in Kenosha, but that wasn't HIS community and not his to defend, particularly with an illegally possessed automatic rifle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he hadn't been there, none of this would have happened.

He was there. It happened. He bares responsibility for his actions.

Period.

So when a jogger gets raped the defense is "if she wasn't there, she wouldn't have been raped"?

Conservatives usually focus on what the jogger was wearing but yes, this is typically what they say. Why not apply it to all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he hadn't been there, none of this would have happened.

He was there. It happened. He bares responsibility for his actions.

Period.

So when a jogger gets raped the defense is "if she wasn't there, she wouldn't have been raped"?

Conservatives usually focus on what the jogger was wearing but yes, this is typically what they say. Why not apply it to all?

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Two people who were unarmed are dead at the hand of the only person that fired a gun that night.

This isn't a clear cut case in any way. A jury should absolutely be deciding if self-defense was reasonable.

I can't believe you have much experience in criminal defense or prosecution if you're contending that this case should not have been brought by the prosecution.

There is undisputed evidence that the first person shot-a clearly deranged individual-was the aggressor and that Rittenhouse only pulled the trigger when the individual chased him down and lunged for the weapon. That is self-defense under the legal standard. You do not have to wait until someone disarms you and then attacks you or others with your rifle until you use force. That is just not the law in any jurisdiction. With respect to the other two individuals who were shot, one was trying to split Rittenhouse's head open with a skateboard while he was on the ground in a vulnerable position and the other was rushing toward him with a pistol pointed at him. I do in fact have years of experience defending and prosecuting criminal cases. However one might feel about Rittenhouse walking around with a weapon that night are legally irrelevant. He had a right to defend himself and I expect the jury will reach that conclusion.

DP- I totally agree with you but it wouldn't surprise me if there is at least one or two of the same type of people on the jury as there are on this website who repeatedly make false claims about crossing state lines, shouldn't have been there etc plus buy into the provocation claim by the prosecution. My money is on a hung jury.

DP. If a provocation claim was put forward, then the evidence is disputed.

And you wonder why people are confused? Words have meaning.

I'm familiar with the provocation instruction, but I am not aware of any testimony during the trial that shows provocation on Rittenhouse's part, unless you think that him carrying the rifle was itself some sort of provocation. I do not believe it is. I don't believe any witness testified to Rittenhouse "provoking" the individual who chased after him (the man's name escapes me).

Yeah, i think the only real mistake Rittenhouse made that night is not understanding just how violent and unhinged the rioters were. If he had understood that his life was truly in danger then he probably would have been more obsessed about not getting separated from his friends, even if it was to put out fires or whatever.

It was his community so he felt safe there, but he wasn’t safe. That’s not his fault of course. The local council should never have allowed a situation where citizens truly weren’t safe in a part of their community.

No, HIS community was in Illinois. His dad lives in Kenosha, but that wasn't HIS community and not his to defend, particularly with an illegally possessed automatic rifle.

The rifle was legally possessed, stop making stuff up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If he hadn't been there, none of this would have happened.

He was there. It happened. He bares responsibility for his actions.

Period.

Don’t try that line of argument. The rioters went there to cause destruction and commit crimes. That’s far worse than a kid breaking a curfew.

Absolutely not. Burning a dumpster or a car is not worse than shooting or killing people.

How many people did Rosenbaum kill that night? Or Skateboard Guy?

How many people did the kid kill?

Yeah! Not to mention: the rioters were supposed to be there as part of an organized civil rights riot.

Arson is a constitutionally-protected form of expression, as is looting and vandalism. They were given “space to destroy” by the mayor and police. And they were there to support BLM.

So they had a right, but Rittenhouse didn’t.

Perfectly clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Two people who were unarmed are dead at the hand of the only person that fired a gun that night.

This isn't a clear cut case in any way. A jury should absolutely be deciding if self-defense was reasonable.

I can't believe you have much experience in criminal defense or prosecution if you're contending that this case should not have been brought by the prosecution.

There is undisputed evidence that the first person shot-a clearly deranged individual-was the aggressor and that Rittenhouse only pulled the trigger when the individual chased him down and lunged for the weapon. That is self-defense under the legal standard. You do not have to wait until someone disarms you and then attacks you or others with your rifle until you use force. That is just not the law in any jurisdiction. With respect to the other two individuals who were shot, one was trying to split Rittenhouse's head open with a skateboard while he was on the ground in a vulnerable position and the other was rushing toward him with a pistol pointed at him. I do in fact have years of experience defending and prosecuting criminal cases. However one might feel about Rittenhouse walking around with a weapon that night are legally irrelevant. He had a right to defend himself and I expect the jury will reach that conclusion.

DP- I totally agree with you but it wouldn't surprise me if there is at least one or two of the same type of people on the jury as there are on this website who repeatedly make false claims about crossing state lines, shouldn't have been there etc plus buy into the provocation claim by the prosecution. My money is on a hung jury.

DP. If a provocation claim was put forward, then the evidence is disputed.

And you wonder why people are confused? Words have meaning.

I'm familiar with the provocation instruction, but I am not aware of any testimony during the trial that shows provocation on Rittenhouse's part, unless you think that him carrying the rifle was itself some sort of provocation. I do not believe it is. I don't believe any witness testified to Rittenhouse "provoking" the individual who chased after him (the man's name escapes me).

Yeah, i think the only real mistake Rittenhouse made that night is not understanding just how violent and unhinged the rioters were. If he had understood that his life was truly in danger then he probably would have been more obsessed about not getting separated from his friends, even if it was to put out fires or whatever.

It was his community so he felt safe there, but he wasn’t safe. That’s not his fault of course. The local council should never have allowed a situation where citizens truly weren’t safe in a part of their community.

No, HIS community was in Illinois. His dad lives in Kenosha, but that wasn't HIS community and not his to defend, particularly with an illegally possessed automatic rifle.

The rifle was legally possessed, stop making stuff up

Really?

So why is the DA prosecuting Rittenhouse's friend for a straw purchase?