Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha

C Kent said:
Clear case of self defense, it's insane how this has gone to trial
Click to expand...

I mean we all saw the video... was pretty clear but also quite amusing to see him admit to it in court.

IIRC he also expressed regret to a friend that he hadn't shot Kyle, surely must be a pretty clear case of self-defence for that shooting too.

I guess that leaves the case of the skateboard guy.

I wonder if they will still try to get some sort of "reckless homicide" charge to stick even if first degree homicide doesn't work out.

LOL @ the prosecutors' reaction to that witness just outright confirming he wasn't shot until he pointed his firearm at Kyle first:

GUXNaRo.jpg
 
Last edited:
Funny how some of the US media covers this - NPR provides a whole story about his coverage without once mentioning that he aimed at Rittenhouse and it was only then that he was shot...

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/08/1053567574/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-gaige-grosskreutz-testimony-kenosha

And you wonder why there are still people on social media coming out with; something something crossing state lines with an assault rifle something something etc..

Realtiy is these days that unless you read multiple sources the media, even including npr, can be rather biased and leave out pretty key bits of information.
 
C Kent said:
Clear case of self defense, it's insane how this has gone to trial [..]
Click to expand...

Not when you realise it's a political trial at least as much as a criminal trial. Violent fashionably racist authoritarians have enough power in the USA to freely riot without risk of being arrested as the police will be ordered to stand aside. They want more power, obviously. They're authoritarians - they want absolute power. This trial is useful for them - either they get someone convicted for not allowing them to kill him or they don't. Either way, they win. If they do get a conviction, they have demonstrated their power and increased the amount by which they're feared. If they don't get a conviction, they can use that as a "justification" for more overt violence and intimidation.

It would have been more useful for them if the dead people weren't of what they consider to be the most inferior race, but they're doing a good job of working with what they've got. They're politically skilled.
 
I think some of you guys are misinterpreting what happened, thinking that latest witness testimony is some sort of gotcha.

The key part in all this is the first guy that he shot dead. After that, Kyle is perceived to be an active shooter by the public as he just shot an unarmed man dead ( so you could just totally reverse the whole "self defense" thing).

Its a tricky case. If it was me, based on everything I've read i think the intentional homicide charges may be steep. I'm not convinced he wanted to kill people, but he put himself in a situation he didn't need to be in and lost his ****.

Therefore the "reckless" charges, and the gun related charges, i think he possibly deserves.
 
Last edited:
It's clear the motivation for this trial is the inevitable verdict which keeps the culture war fresh for the oligarchs to exploit whilst they pinch middle-America's wallet.
 
Jono8 said:
I think some of you guys are misinterpreting what happened, thinking that latest witness testimony is some sort of gotcha.

The key part in all this is the first guy that he shot dead. After that, Kyle is perceived to be an active shooter by the public as he just shot an unarmed man dead ( so you could just totally reverse the whole "self defense" thing).

Its a tricky case. If it was me, based on everything I've read i think the intentional homicide charges may be steep. I'm not convinced he wanted to kill people, but he put himself in a situation he didn't need to be in and lost his ****.

Therefore the "reckless" charges, and the gun related charges, i think he possibly deserves.
Click to expand...
He was running towards the police saying he had shot someone, why would anyone need to intervene when someone is in the process of surrendering?

I think your definition of someone losing their **** and mine differ wildly! He fired 5 shots (I believe) all at people threatening his life and 4 of them hit, and had to clear a weapon jam in the process. That's not someone being reckless, that's ice cold control under extreme circumstances.
 
Jono8 said:
I think some of you guys are misinterpreting what happened, thinking that latest witness testimony is some sort of gotcha.

The key part in all this is the first guy that he shot dead. After that, Kyle is perceived to be an active shooter by the public as he just shot an unarmed man dead ( so you could just totally reverse the whole "self defense" thing).

Its a tricky case. If it was me, based on everything I've read i think the intentional homicide charges may be steep. I'm not convinced he wanted to kill people, but he put himself in a situation he didn't need to be in and lost his ****.

Therefore the "reckless" charges, and the gun related charges, i think he possibly deserves.
Click to expand...

The active shooter idea doesn't hold any water. An active shooter would be shooting, and wouldn't be showing restrain in defending themselves. In all cases (AFAIK) he only shot when attacked.
Lost his **** doesn't hold water either, for the same reason. He only fired a very limited number of times.

But he certainly put himself in harms way, but I'm not sure thats a crime, especially in the US. Questionable judgment from our view point certainly.
 
StriderX said:
It's clear the motivation for this trial is the inevitable verdict which keeps the culture war fresh for the oligarchs to exploit whilst they pinch middle-America's wallet.
Click to expand...
Or that its only due process that it should go to trial after a guy shot three people killing two of them. If the evidence in court proves his innocence in the events that night then so be it.
You don't need to fantasise some weird 'war' for this, Capitalism has been rife for decades ... the ultra rich don't need excuses.
 
C Kent said:
Clear case of self defense, it's insane how this has gone to trial
Click to expand...


I was watching the trial.
That guy has put in for $10 mil against Rittenhouse and some other deals.

He never mentioned to the cops that he had a gun TWICE.
He never told the feds he had a gun.
He hid his weapon but never had a permit.
He hasn't been charge with attempted murder\carrying a concealed weapon\lying in 3 statements.

The guy is an liar of the highest order.
 
iamtheoneneo said:
Or that its only due process that it should go to trial after a guy shot three people killing two of them. If the evidence in court proves his innocence in the events that night then so be it.
You don't need to fantasise some weird 'war' for this, Capitalism has been rife for decades ... the ultra rich don't need excuses.
Click to expand...

Due process? Evidence? Nah. I'm more worried about jury tempering. The rest is pretty much a done deal.

I have to admit, the MSM consensus against Rittenhouse is weird though. If there was a black guy among the people shot, I'm sure you can guess what the headlines would be.

Same as always, it seems there is one narrative being shared around, and it's always skewed to one side. Hmm, kind of like the 2020 election irregularities.... That's what's bothering me the most. Apart from maybe Fox and what's reamining of the controlled oppositions, who have no real stakes in the outcome. The entire media apparatus is moving in lock step. I'm waiting for them to do a 180-turn, or maybe 90 degrees, once it becomes unsustainable (which it kind of is already). Anyway, this trial will be a sign of the times, that's for sure. So many narratives, and we haven't even yet gone with the final judgement and jury decision, which will be interesting (if it goes to jury).

Either way, he and others will write books about it, interviews, make a few bucks, and retire somewhere, hopefully not behind bars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom