Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha

Digging up someones dirty laundry to make the fact you killed them in a completely separate incident more acceptable.

Ah that's the good victim blaming stuff, saying the people that got killed had it coming.
 
Hotwired said:
saying the people that got killed had it coming.
Click to expand...

Dont really care if its victim blaming.

Kyle could have stayed home.

So could the idiot who got himself shot instead of you know, being out rioting, being aggressive to someone with a gun on display.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. For both of them.
 
kindai said:
Dont really care if its victim blaming.

Kyle could have stayed home.

So could the idiot who got himself shot instead of you know, being out rioting, being aggressive to someone with a gun on display.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. For both of them.
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with being out that night.

I'm talking about this.
Guest2 said:
Looks to me like the angry mob were asking for it.

Kyle was shot at, then fired 4 shots killing Rosenbaum, a scum bag who may also be a sex offender
Kyle was then chased by the angry armed mob, fired a shot in self defence but missed. He then shot Anthony Huber, someone who has a load of charges. Huber dies.

Gaige was then shot, another guy who had a gun pointed at Kyle
Click to expand...

That's not the facts of the shooting incident, that's trying to sell it as justice because of past history.
 
Skunkworks said:
TBH it's about time someone fought back against the forces of chaos and dysfunction sweeping the west. Hopefully it will spread here and Europe.
Click to expand...
It was only a matter of time until someone acted in self defense, antifa have been kicking the **** out of folks for the past 5 odd years.
 
Energize said:
No that's definitely a worse system and people have been wrongly convicted in the UK and later had their convictions overturned because of it.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you will be able to cite one case where the right of a court to draw an inference from an explanation given in court that wasn't given beforehand resulted in a wrongful convictions where the law around inferences had been properly applied then?

Defendant's absolutely should not be able to remain silent until trial and them come out with a pack of answers that can't properly be tested when they were asked about thoose matters before and reasonably could have answered.

They can of course remain silent and leave it to the prosecution to make their case independently.


It clearly should not be acceptable for a defendant to wait until being examined in court to give an explanation without an inference being drawn.

They can say nothing if they like but if they do speak the court should know when that account was first provided and not allow the defendant to act as if they have consistely given whatever defence they suddenly spring on the court after all the prosecution witnesses have given their evidence.
 
Last edited:
Caracus2k said:
I'm sure you will be able to cite one case where the right of a court to draw an inference from an explanation given in court that wasn't given beforehand resulted in a wrongful convictions where the law around inferences had been properly applied then?

Defendant's absolutely should not be able to remain silent until trial and them come out with a pack of answers that can't properly be tested when they were asked about thoose matters before and reasonably could have answered.

They can of course remain silent and leave it to the prosecution to make their case independently.


It clearly should not be acceptable for a defendant to wait until being examined in court to give an explanation without an inference being drawn.

They can say nothing if they like but if they do speak the court should know when that account was first provided and not allow the defendant to act as if they have consistely given whatever defence they suddenly spring on the court after all the prosecution witnesses have given their evidence.
Click to expand...

Yep agree with this. You still have a right to remain silent and no guilt can be inferred by your silence but you can't then produce your testimony in court and not have the court ask the question of why wait until then to speak.
 
So all evidence finished today including some very boring final few hours about image enhancement.

I think he walks on all the serious stuff, its just if they get some of petty stuff to stand.

The prosecution has been an absolute disaster in this case, start to finish it was just slinging crap to see what could stick.
 
The whole situation is stupid. Allowing a child to take a weapon of war on to the streets during a riot is stupid, no way he is emotionally mature enough to deal with what might happen. The police not doing their jobs and instead allowing members of the public to act as vigilantes is stupid. Members of the public burning their own city is about as stupid as it gets.
 
Moley said:
Closing arguments due next week and lots of cities are now cancelling all police leave in anticipation of riots if he's let off.
Click to expand...

He wont be 'let off' if he is not guilty, cant change the rule of law just because a group of fanatics will riot if they disagree with the result.
 
Last edited:
200sols said:
He wont be 'let off' if he is guilty, cant change the rule of law just because a group of fanatics will riot if they disagree with the result.
Click to expand...
Isn't that the opposite of what Moley said? Moley implied if he was let off there would be riots. I read your response you can't let him off if he's guilty because you fear riots. Your positions are opposed as to what will cause riots.

edit: re-reading your statement again, it is quite ambiguous maybe I've misread it :confused:
 
PlacidCasual said:
Isn't that the opposite of what Moley said? Moley implied if he was let off there would be riots. I read your response you can't let him off if he's guilty because you fear riots. Your positions are opposed as to what will cause riots.

edit: re-reading your statement again, it is quite ambiguous maybe I've misread it :confused:
Click to expand...

Somebody being 'let off' means they committed an offence but were not punished. Its the wrong term.
 
So Thomas Binger want's to bring in lesser charges now.
He knows he has been beaten, so is hoping these lesser charges do the trick.

Most know that this is a political trial.
After all. Thomas Binger ran unsuccessfully as a Democrat for district attorney in Racine County.
If he wins this. They will promote him.
 
djxput said:
The endangerment and weapons charges seem unlikely he will get out of, the other charges are looking good for the defendant atm...
Click to expand...

reading a bit more it seems the law isn't as clear as I first thought re: the weapons charge either - Rittenhouse *might* have an argument re: local law re: the weapon's charge, he specifically noted in his back and forth with the prosecutor that he'd rather have but wasn't able to carry a pistol as that would be illegal for him.

djxput said:
I agree... He did well on the stand and the jury would be one of his peers ie from that area that may not have wanted the city to burn but they are still obliged to uphold the law.
Click to expand...

Well not necessarily and that is what is being referred to here; "jury nullification", look it up if you're unaware of it, it's quite interesting.

djxput said:
... The argument about state lines is brought up many times. How he travelled across state lines with a gun to... I think the defendant is from antioch IL and he went to kenosha and worked in the area which is relatively close.
Click to expand...

I mean he didn't even do that, I don't know why it even gets brought up at this point, he was already in Kenosha and the rifle came from his friend's house where it was stored.

C Kent said:
I can't see how he gets off of the possession of a weapon under the age of 18, it is a misdemeanor charge so maybe the jury will go with a suspended sentence or community service if they find for self defence with the 3 other major ones.
Click to expand...

Possibly there is a legal argument re: local law on his side, possibly some 2nd amendment nonsense on appeal or possibly jury nullification. Otherwise, yeah, I guess it is a misdemeanor. Though media/Twitter will go nuts if it is seen as a light sentence as they're already convinced the judge is bad etc...

OspreyO said:
The time between the first and last shooting is about a minute. In every case he only fired while being attacked. You're dissecting this as if each incident was slow and calculated.
Click to expand...

Where did I do that? nothing I've said is conditional on anything being slow and calculated?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom