Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha

StriderX said:
Vigilantism should never be excused.
Click to expand...

My Grandads generation parachuted into France but this generation thinks stopping their cities being smashed and looted is a crime.

dLockers said:
You across like one of those folks who has swallowed the red pill big time and moved to the middle east to fight alongside the Peshmerga.
Click to expand...

I hope you're always in a position where you're able to rely on the government to protect you, the people in the city Kyle was in were watching their ability to earn a living to feed their families be destroyed and burned by rioters and maggots on here are defending the rioters.
 
C Kent said:
Slightly off topic (or maybe not seeing as it's the reason the 2 dead and other injured guy where in Kenosha) but is rioting after a perceived injustice acceptable?
Click to expand...

Of course not, but one does not justify the other. The police don't need people getting in the way of their job and wasting their time.
 
StriderX said:
Of course not, but one does not justify the other. The police don't need people getting in the way of their job and wasting their time.
Click to expand...
And if the police aren't doing their job and protecting businesses and private property? Should homeowners/citizens and business owners just let their livelihoods and homes be burnt down?
 
C Kent said:
I don't actually know if the defense commentated on it, but if you can't be 100% sure if it was Rittenhouse why would it be allowed as evidence?
Click to expand...

Im not sure there has been much disputing it was him. It got denied as evidence for different reasons (which i don't agree with personally).
 
Energize said:
I don't see anyone portraying Kyle as an angel.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's bizarre. I think most people can see it is unhinged for a 17-year-old to be out on the streets with a military-style rifle when there is unrest occurring nearby, he's one of those kids who is too into guns etc.. (plenty of adults like that in the US). But he's more comparable to the say general protestors & rioters than to Rosenbaum.

Suicidal Rosenbaum who hadn't taken his meds, was released from a mental facility that morning, who had made explicit threats to kill any of the armed guys if he caught them alone and who was the guy causing most of the trouble/attention in the earlier footage - getting very heated, kicking off at people etc..

This was a violent paedophile who had anally raped several young boys, who is shown as the aggressor in the footage and who witnesses state became enraged with Kyle when he put out a bin fire. It seems so far from the evidence that he's the instigator that sparked the series of shootings. It seems like a odd thing to try and equate them - well actually... Kyle was bad too because he stepped into a fight that involved his sister or he's too into guns etc.. was venting about wanting to shoot shoplifters to a buddy etc.. Sure, Kyle is worrying too but it's just not in the same league.
 
C Kent said:
And if the police aren't doing their job and protecting businesses and private property?
Click to expand...

I think it's a bit harsh to criticise the police for not being omniscient and omnipresent. In that case I would hope those businesses were insured in the extremely unlikely event that violent rioters chose them as a target, but I accept that a lot of small businesses can't afford insurance and may then require some level of help from their community if they can't get it in time from the police. Considering the business in question didn't actually ask for Rittenhouse's help, I'm inclined to view his presence as disruptive, which it was.
 
StriderX said:
I think it's a bit harsh to criticise the police for not being omniscient and omnipresent.
Click to expand...

So a 17-year-old could see the risk along with some gun-toting militia types (who let's face it aren't generally known for their intelligence) but it would require the authorities to be omniscient to see that after one night of rioting which lead to arson and destruction a second night would likely bring more of the same?

This was political (as was the decision to not charge the 3rd guy who was shot and carrying an illegal firearm), note how after the shooting the authorities called in lots of national guard troops, something they could have done the day before to help prevent both incidents like this and of course all the arson/trashing of the town etc..
 
Interesting stuff in the testimony - he had a bulletproof vest (issued to him by the police department when he was a cadet - but he gave it to someone else to use that night because they'd need it more/he was just there to provide medical care etc...)
------------------

Also, contrast what actually happened and his testimony with these talking heads and the narrative they spun some of which seems to have been sucked up by people in this thread too:


His weapons charge is perhaps going to stick and maybe the second person he shot could be the harder one to defend (some risk of guilty there but seemingly more likely not)... I suspect there are some potential defamation lawsuits from the comments in those clips - in some cases they make it sound like he was some mass shooter who just turned up and started shooting protestors.
 
So some more info about the initial encounter - according to his testimony the guy who fired the first shot (Joshua Ziminski) also first stepped out to confront Kyle with a pistol, Kyle then tried to get away from the guy with the pistol... (note he didn't shoot at him but proceeded to flee) that's when he was pursued by the guy with the pistol + Rosenbaum and the guy with the pistol fired (into the air behind Kyle) then Rosenbaum managed to catch up with Kyle... which is where he lunges for the rifle and is shot.

The prosecution is going to have a difficult time with that first shooting instance.
 
Another new bit of info - he had an initial encounter with the person he shot third... while trying to get away, he didn't shoot him because he didn't see him as a threat to his life. It's only in the later encounter and after that person pointed a pistol at him that he fired.

also dubious testimony from that guy yesterday - he claims the rifle was "re-racked" but the defence gets kyle to point out that had happened then a live round would be ejected.

Kyle testifies that he shot him once (in the arm) and then doesn't shoot him again as he is no longer a threat... doesn't look like the attempted homicide charge there is too strong either.
 
Judge not happy at all with the opening questioning from the prosecutor - sends jury out and warns the prosecutor he's right on the border of a constitutional violation by bringing up defendant's right to remain silent.
 
Oh jeeze, the prosecutor tried to bring up the comments that weren't allowed to be submitted to evidence, the jury is sent away again... judge doesn't look happy

edit -

I guess the'yve got some angles for appeal - the potential constitutional violation + trying to bring in evidence that was specifically not allowed.

Defence says they'll file for mistrial if it happens again - judge shouting at him LOL
 
The judge is a bit of an ass tbh. It honestly seems that he is actively trying to disrupt the prosecutions case at every step.

Which is exactly what people were saying he was going to do before the trial even started!
 
iamtheoneneo said:
The judge is a bit of an ass tbh. It honestly seems that he is actively trying to disrupt the prosecutions case at every step.

Which is exactly what people were saying he was going to do before the trial even started!
Click to expand...

Do you not understand why he was angry here? They're not just stopping the trial for fun, this sort of thing gives the defence grounds for a mistrial or potentially simply overturning everything on appeal so it's not surprising he's getting angry at the prosecution.
 
C Kent said:
Are the prosecution trying to get this declared a mistrial because they've ****** up so much? Last 30 odd minutes have been nuts.
Click to expand...

I did see some comment by one academic on Twitter that he thinks even the prosecutors don't really want this case to succeed that they're just going through it for show/politically etc...

That seems a bit wild to me but it does seem like they've overcharged and this guy really is pushing it with the judge - barely into his questioning and he's had objections leading to the jury being sent out twice and had to be admonished by the judge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom