Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

[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?

You appear to be completely ignorant of the facts of this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Doesn't matter. He was legally allowed to possess that gun, thats why count 6 was dropped

[Anonymous]

What are the bets as to how long the jury deliberates here?

I am guessing days. This case is really hard. Very close. I agree the prosecutor could have done a better job; he isn’t very nice.

I feel so sorry for the poor jurors here - they have a tough job!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are the bets as to how long the jury deliberates here?

I am guessing days. This case is really hard. Very close. I agree the prosecutor could have done a better job; he isn’t very nice.

I feel so sorry for the poor jurors here - they have a tough job!

Sarcasm?

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are the bets as to how long the jury deliberates here?

I am guessing days. This case is really hard. Very close. I agree the prosecutor could have done a better job; he isn’t very nice.

I feel so sorry for the poor jurors here - they have a tough job!

Given the gross judicial misconduct in the case it may be sooner than you think. The conservatively-skewed establishment media also hasn’t been too helpful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the bets as to how long the jury deliberates here?

I am guessing days. This case is really hard. Very close. I agree the prosecutor could have done a better job; he isn’t very nice.

I feel so sorry for the poor jurors here - they have a tough job!

Given the gross judicial misconduct in the case it may be sooner than you think. The conservatively-skewed establishment media also hasn’t been too helpful.

Gross misconduct? The judge may be a bit eccentric; plenty of judges are. But exactly what decisions has he made that you believe constitute reversible error? I have seen the media get spun up on decisions in this case that were well-grounded in legal precedent and/or well within the province of the judge's discretion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Gross misconduct? The judge may be a bit eccentric; plenty of judges are. But exactly what decisions has he made that you believe constitute reversible error? I have seen the media get spun up on decisions in this case that were well-grounded in legal precedent and/or well within the province of the judge's discretion.

And Hitler was a little off.



The guy is unfit to be on the bench.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Gross misconduct? The judge may be a bit eccentric; plenty of judges are. But exactly what decisions has he made that you believe constitute reversible error? I have seen the media get spun up on decisions in this case that were well-grounded in legal precedent and/or well within the province of the judge's discretion.

And Hitler was a little off.



The guy is unfit to be on the bench.

Wow, a Hitler reference. I'll bet people tell you all the time what a thoughtful, intelligent human being you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know this is Wisconsin, but is anyone else sort of shocked at how incompetent the prosecution is? It’s so disappointing.
Perhaps if the crime involved cheese or beer they’d have done better.

The prosecution did what they could. Unfortunately for them this trial isn't taking place on DCUM, the WaPo comment section or Twitter. They need evidence to make their case and it's just not there. That said, this is a jury trial and anything could happen. I'm betting that he walks free though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are the bets as to how long the jury deliberates here?

I am guessing days. This case is really hard. Very close. I agree the prosecutor could have done a better job; he isn’t very nice.

I feel so sorry for the poor jurors here - they have a tough job!

There’s nothing hard about this case. The prosecution needs to prove BEYOND reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse either provoked the first attack or that he could have fought off all of those attackers with his bare hands while preventing any of them from getting his gun. The fact that you claim it’s “very hard” means that by definition there is (at the very least) reasonable doubt. So he walks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are the bets as to how long the jury deliberates here?

I am guessing days. This case is really hard. Very close. I agree the prosecutor could have done a better job; he isn’t very nice.

I feel so sorry for the poor jurors here - they have a tough job!

My estimate is 2 days, max.

The evidence is clear that he acted in self-defense. Once they reach this conclusion, the verdict is easy,.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the bets as to how long the jury deliberates here?

I am guessing days. This case is really hard. Very close. I agree the prosecutor could have done a better job; he isn’t very nice.

I feel so sorry for the poor jurors here - they have a tough job!

Given the gross judicial misconduct in the case it may be sooner than you think. The conservatively-skewed establishment media also hasn’t been too helpful.

Yeah the liberal media reporting facts that are not there hasn’t been helpful either

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the bets as to how long the jury deliberates here?

I am guessing days. This case is really hard. Very close. I agree the prosecutor could have done a better job; he isn’t very nice.

I feel so sorry for the poor jurors here - they have a tough job!

Given the gross judicial misconduct in the case it may be sooner than you think. The conservatively-skewed establishment media also hasn’t been too helpful.

Yeah the liberal media reporting facts that are not there hasn’t been helpful either

I hope he sues the crap out of all of them. But they will settle first, just like the other guy did about the native Americans.

I really hope Rittenhouse does not settle. The publicity of a trial will be good for getting the point out there to more people that CNN is reporting misinformation.