Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha

[dowie]

I'm not interested in all of your questions, because most of them are tedious and/or nonsensical or based on things I've answered countless times. You just weigh in on conversations with inane and boring replies.

No, they're based on things you've posted and you can't then back up.

Its hilarious to watch you post "deflection!" at me like a gibbering parrot that has lost its marbles, whilst immediately going into deflection mode about whether you think the prosecutors have explained their case or not

You replied with a whole paragraph where you made some silly analogies, even acknowledge one of the analogies was silly and then still didn't just provide an explanation/argument... I think it's because you can't. When it comes down to it, when you've got an assertion you can't really support you just deflect. You'll spend plenty of time replying still but you'll not be able to answer.

 

[dowie]

Why was he so scared about continuing to run towards them , whilst being chased by Rosenbaum then?

Because at that point he's then being pursued by one of them surely? I'm not a mind reader - that mob was hostile, he's been getting along fine milling around shouting medic etc.. shouting "friendlies" from a distance but running into a group of rioters while being chased by another rioter has the obvious risk of them being hostile.

(There you go - straight answer to a direct question, not too hard now is it Jono)

 

[dowie]

Ive supported and backed them up countless times and you tediously saying otherwise like a person possessed isn't going to change that.

You haven't though, you can literally see it in the chain of responses - a whole paragraph where you throw in some analogies but you don't actually provide an argument, you just state the assertion... I quote you and ask Why and you deflect/can't answer... then you shift to the latest attempt to keep things vague with some handwaving in reference to the prosecutors.

Why bother making up additional silly analogies instead of simply explaining your reasoning?

Hm i find that very dubious and a bit of a cope to be honest. That isnt a very straight answer to me. How can they be hostile, whilst also friendly? Does someone turn hostile just because they see someone running?

You are just deflecting again.

Whats your point?

Yes being chased by a fellow rioter could well turn them hostile, note again he wasn't running into groups of them before, he was walking around cautiously, shouting "friendlies" in advance etc... no I'm not deflecting I literally answered you and am answering the followup.

As for my point, it was in relation to the claim that he was a vigilante, most protestors were happy with him earlier on, he wasn't going around harassing them etc.. he was going around shouting "friendlies" and "medic" etc..

^^^ see again, I answer your direct quesitons

 

[dowie]

There was nothing silly about them.

You admitted yourself that it was flippant

I also acknowledge Kyle's situation was more threatening than the rather flippant example above

What was the point of it then? It seems pretty silly to throw in a rather flippant example - are you able to just explain the point you were trying to make?

Sounds highly dubious to me and a bit of a cope.

That's fine but again, you (as usual) don't give an argument why? Why don't you think the force he was using was reasonable? Why are you confident he could have just run into the mob instead of seeing that as a potentially dangerous route to take when trying to flee? Don't you see that that is a rather different context (running up to/through a group while being chased) vs walking around not bothering people and saying "friendlies" "medic" etc..?

 

[dowie]

This right here man.....

I have answered this COUNTLESS times in this thread.

Stop asking me the same thing i've answered a million times. Its just **** weird at this point.

And there we go, more deflection. You've just asked me direct questions, I simply answer you. Then when asked some yourself look at what happens, again...

 

[dowie]

He asked me "Why don't you think the force he was using was reasonable? ?"

Ive explained all afternoon why i think that.

He's literally just quoted the recent questions you've tried to avoid to you, you've still not answered. You've spent the majority of your replies to me actively avoiding questions not answering them. I wouldn't need to ask them in the first place if you actually provided arguments/answers instead of relying on stating empty assertions or throwing in silly analogies re: fights in clubs etc..

I don't understand why it's so difficult for you to just give straight answers instead of constantly deflecting.

 

[dowie]

As i said, and i will say it again, i've answered the question of why i didn't think the force he used was reasonable (in detail) during this afternoon's posting.

I simply refuse to repeat myself on demand, because i think you should try and follow whats being said better instead of repeatedly asking people to repeat themselves.

That wasn't all I asked, you've also kept things rather vague, I'm aware you think he could have run further but you seem to have the position that it was unreasonable regardless of that (yet won't elaborate on that point). It is rather difficult to have any sort of dialogue with someone who is so evasive, the only reason I find myself repeating myself is when you reply with non-answers/deflection (which you'll happily do over several posts instead of just providing an answer/explanation in a single post). You've done it all through the thread, it's not just re: one point today and it's not just me that has raised questions in relation to your assertions or analogies.

 

[dowie]

Correct. I will maintain the point that i dont wish to keep repeating myself (even if that means repeating that point...to make a point ).

But you're not being asked to repeat yourself, you're being asked to clarify things you've said... elaborate on, provide your reasoning for some assertion etc.. You'll spend a dozen replies arguing about how you've already answered something or finding an excuse not to answer instead of one or two replies simply answering the point/providing clarification.

 

[dowie]

Jury breaking for the night, with question if they can take the jury instructions home.

If I were to read into that, I'm guessing theyre stuck on a "technical aspect" of the instructions which may conflict with what they have found as to guilt.

Could be in relation to the jump kick guy or Huber. Incidentally, there is a possible ID for jump kick guy (that the prosecution may have already been aware of pre-trial) and sure enough, it's (yet another) person with a criminal past.

Alternatively could be some are just being stubborn/not budging nor giving much reasoning etc.. as can be seen on social media or even in this thread some people won't be very rational re: this case at all.

One thing that could cause even more outcry is this possibility of a mistrial - like supposing the jury compromises and does eventually come back with one or more guilty verdicts, there is a plausible chance the judge then rules on the mistrial request from the defence... US news media then goes nuts.

 

[dowie]

This shooting wasn't what kicked this off. It's was the shooting a few days earlier, and riot's that followed.

I have no idea what will happen. I wouldn't be surprised at any possible outcome. It's a political football now.

More media distortion of the case and riling people up.

I mean it's getting silly now, regardless of the outcome the main media talking points have been blown out of the water already.

There is more controversy than necessary over this trial as a result of media manipulation just as the original riots that resulted in these shootings were, in turn, the result of a police shooting that was subject to media manipulation. Some people still believe that the guy shot (Jacob Blake) is now dead when he's not and have no idea he was a sex offender turning up at his victim/ex's house armed with a knife nor that he was tasered twice before they ended up shooting him. Same sort of thing with stuff like this "State Lines" nonsense and claims of his mum dropping him off with his AR15 etc..

 

[dowie]

That's what we have all been saying....since day 1
And this is your first post you actually stated stuff.

At least that's something. and @dowie missed it

It's a miracle!

Anyway, I guess we should get a verdict today... I know it's wrong to be amused by farce as there is someone's life/future at stake but a guilty verdict or two on some lesser charges then the judge declaring a mistrial and the prosecutors having to start all over again next year would be quite amusing!

In the first encounter with Rosenbaum (count 1) - he barely even touched him, he just chased him around. I'm pretty confident that the force Rittenhouse used, was disproportional compared to the threat from Rosenbaum, who was unarmed, and the defendant knew he was unarmed (because he agreed with the prosecutor under cross examination)

I suspect he'll get found guilty on count 1.

Count 4, on Huber, there are three charges, (first degree intentional homicide, second degree, and first degree reckless homicide)

I'd be very surprised re: the first one Rosenbaum, there was a prosecution witness (the journalist) who supported the defence's claims there + forensic evidence to support the grabbing of the gun + other witnesses referring to death threats... don't see how they can easily get past reasonable doubt there - they've also gone with the crazy guy/off his meds line + it's been introduced that he's out of the hospital that day + the jury can clearly see him as an aggressor/crazy guy in the video footage.

It is the count 4 on Huber that I'd assume is the riskiest (and/or jump kick guy). Maybe second degree or 1st degree reckless?

But then, IF there is one or two of those guilty verdicts, lots of potential for the comedy finish of him walking anyway after the judge declares a mistrial, social media blows up with "muh Trumper judge/white supremacist" etc.. and we get all the schenanegans again next year.

 

[dowie]

Some of the posts in here are just insanity.

Having someone threaten to kill you and attempt to grab your rifle somehow isn't an imminent danger to your life? What, you think he's just going to take your rifle and that's the end of it? Hilarious.

Having a skateboard slammed at your head doesn't constitute grevious bodily harm?

Think some of you watch too many movies.

Some of them are blinded by politics/can't seem to bring themselves to be objective and/or make any rational arguments here. Probably supported the officer in the Capitol building who shot an unarmed subject several feet away from him in self-defence* while simultaneously coming out with very tenuous copes re: why Kyle can't claim self-defence in response to arguably far greater threats - actually being assaulted, having a gun pointed at him etc..

As soon as you get people relying on irrelevant talking points about state lines, how he shouldn't have been there, was a vigilante etc.. or stuff about shoot to kill etc.. instead of just putting forth an argument re: why it was or wasn't reasonable force/self defnece given the facts of the immediate threat and context of the riot then it's obvious they're not really serious people, they're just making some uninformed statements. Don't like him or what he did therefore he's a murderer because [insert silly points that have little bearing on his guilt or innocence].

(*that probably was a tad excessive and other officers didn't open fire, she didn't seem to present an imminent serious threat to life through it's arguable, in the heat of the moment etc..etc.. - he could certainly give that justification and the context of the Capitol riot was extreme and I doubt anyone would want to convict him beyond reasonable doubt - it was a legal shooting that was a bit close to the line and caused some controversy.)

 

[dowie]

My bad, I thought that's what the Police are for, I didn't realize heavily armed teenagers were the answer.

Thats what they should be for, but when you've got political control of them at a local level and the people in charge decide to hold them back and/or not call in the national guard then you leave things wide open for plenty of civil disorder/rioting./.. ergo some business owners took matters into their own hands and asked people to help protect their property.

Shootings happened, state/county/city looks v.bad... those in power go after the Kyle, so determined to get him that a rioter who had an illegal gun on him isn't charged for that, doensn't have his phone searched despite a search warrant being available... seemingly all so he can be a key witness in the prosecution's case.

christ i hope the jury hurries up

Presumably a reasonable chance of them not wanting to drag it out over the weekend so they'll maybe reach some consensus/compromise verdict today. Would be so frustrating to be waiting for a jury verdict if it actually affected your life... damn it's a Friday and they really want to go home so the holdouts finally decide to compromise on the lesser charge with a 12 year sentence, even though they think you're not guilty, as they're getting bored now and don't want more of this nonsense next week, it's Thanksgiving next week and they have plans, need to just go with it now....

Edit - actually if there is a mistrial (unlikely in trials in general but very plausible here) and it is based on the prosecution questioning Kyle's silence (a constitutional right) then it could be with prejudice even. Drone video stuff wouldn't be though and so would prompt a second trial next year if prosecutors wanted to go again (which seems likely). Of course, he hasn't ruled and there might not be a mistrial at all, or at least not at this point.

 

[dowie]

I can see it now, guilty of some minor weapons charges but not guilty of Murder or something.

Come on, at least familiarise yourself with the basics before comenting, you did this yesterday too. There isn't a weapons charge for him to answer, it was legal for him to open carry a long-barreled rifle aged 17.

 

[dowie]

That's gotta be a relief for the judge, he doesn't need to deal with the mistrial stuff re: the ridiculous behaviour by the prosecutors.

Almost like he's trolling?

I don't think he's trolling (aside from a couple of posts yesterday where he was getting wound up at being called out) I think he genuinely believes some of the stuff he's posted - there is some bias perhaps and a bit of credulity re: some of the dodgy arguments by prosecutors but basically, I don't think it's some intentional wind up (that would be a bit silly to maintain for so long) I think he just has a bit of cognitive dissonance when the obvious contradictions are pointed out and/or when challenged to back up aseertions he's made with some sort of argument or explanation - that's when deflection mode kicks in.

 

[dowie]

I backed up my arguments many, many times.

Except for all the times when you were directly questioned... anyway I wasn't talking to you I was replying to another poster - so you don't need to quote me multiple times all over again with excuses for why you can't back up assertions you've been asked about... as that isn't constructive to the thread at all. You're welcome, of course, to simply go back and elaborate on the things asked but I already know that isn't going to happen thus I've not even bothered quoting you today, I've specifically avoided doing so to prevent more nonsense.

I'd ask therefore that if you're going to reply to me again, either do so with some answers or don't bother as yet another deflection post isn't really needed and I didn't engage with you today to begin with.

 

[dowie]

Damn, twitter is not happy - https://twitter.com/search?q=rittenhouse&src=recent_search_click&f=live

Look how many replies are trying to cite his race as a reason...

 

[dowie]

Whelp. Not guilty. I can't see anything but more gun toting Magahats tooling up against protestors and just waiting for someone to wave a gun at them or run towards them so they can claim self defence when they start shooting.

That doesn't necessarily work... There are already strong self-defence laws in place in various US states, stand your ground, castle doctrine etc.. This is hardly the first time someone armed with a firearm has opened fire in self-defence and had to justify it later in court, it's simply a prominent case.

If you're at a riot or protest and you see someone you don't like, armed with a semi-auto rifle, then it's probably not a good idea, in general, to chase after them and try to attack them, it's not that hard to do - don't go and start fights with people carrying AR15s is something most normal people can manage to do.

These weren't normal people though, every single person he shot or shot at seems to have been a criminal - whether it was someone who bummed small boys and was let out of a mental ward that morning or someone who was into kidnapping and abusing women.

 

[dowie]

So now you're saying the victims history needs to be taken into account and this somehow justifies their killing?

LOL no I didn't say that, learn to read.

 

[dowie]

These weren't normal people, every single person he shot or shot at seems to have been a criminal - whether it was someone who bummed small boys and was let out of a mental ward that morning or someone who was into kidnapping and abusing women.

That's exactly what you said. Right there. You're implying in some way because they had a criminal history that somehow it was justified or they deserved it?

Again, learn to read... where was that implied?

Try thinking about context, this isn't hard, what does the sentence before that one deal with?

Normal people, the implication (literally spelled out for you in the line before) being that most normal people wouldn't chase and attack someone carrying an AR-15. It's not that hard to follow, go back to the post and read more carefully...

don't go and start fights with people carrying AR15s is something most normal people can manage to do.

These weren't normal people though, every single person he shot or shot at seems to have been a criminal -[...]