Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha

crazyDAJT said:
<edit the below is wrong and confused between witness but the general point about proving bias by other means is still valid>

A witness who was present at the first shooting now works for them. He states that Rosenbaum said “**** you” and grabbed the gun.

the prosecution wanted to say affiliation with American Voice makes him biased. The judge wouldn’t allow this as it’s political. The judge however allowed other questions that gave the same results.

the point the prosecution where trying to make is that he is unreliable as a witness to the gun grabbing. However this clearly syncs up with the video and audio that included the “**** you” from Rosenbaum.

edit: sorry I have got my witness mixed up. The American Voice guy was recording the crowd not a witness to the shootings.
Click to expand...

Amazing, someone can give a straight answer!
 
Clear case of self defence, but the left wing media have judged him guilty..... Awkward, but not surprising.

These are the same people who still claim they were peaceful protests and not riots.. Deluded far-left psychopaths, that unfortunately have full media backing, because, Democrats. :p
 
I havnt read the past x pages - but did you guys listen to the 2 closing arguments? ... as the defence says the prosecution now says kyle was an active shooter and thats why all these people were attacking him (so he is changing tactics because he's original arguments didnt hold up), I liked the defences response to this: So a kid that was trying to help and clean up and protect businesses and that could have worn body armor that did not is an active shooter? ... A kid that is running away while others are running up to him throwing rocks, hitting with a skateboard to the head and neck and a kick to the head and pulled a gun to his head is the active shooter?

Regretfully the term active shooter is a highly charged thing in the states hence why the prosecution has changed tactic in describing him (Kyle) as one.

I dont know what the outcome will be - but I liked the main defence attorney and his closing statement - was well put together even if brash/brazen regarding the allegations; he went through every witness - he really studied the case and knew the case and names really well.

This is a highly charged and political case. I hope the the jury decides this case on facts and not for political reasons.

Oh before you ask how can a 17yo kid have an ar15 and claim self defense. In wisconsin this is not illegal, and the judge dismissed the gun charges.
 
Last edited:
So what do we reckon? Case seems so polarising that you just need one entrenched person from either side to have a hung jury - so much reporting of it before the trial and rather dubious coverage that you could easily get a jury member who wanted Rittenhouse to go down before the trial started. Likewise, you could easily get someone with completely different rules, mega ****ed at all the damage the rioters caused and who might have pushed for not-guilty on the weapons charge too even if the law did support a guilty verdict.

Obvs they push juries to avoid it but a hung jury/mistrial seems like a strong possibility on some of the charges. (total lottery really they've still got like 18 jurors to choose from - presumably selecting 12 at random from them later today?)

Next likely IMO is perhaps acquittal on all, less likely than previously thought as they now have lesser charges to consider too. I also think the second shooting incident poses the most risk for convictions - 1st guy is ridiculous, some blurry enhanced photo as "evidence" of provocation and he's clearly a belligerent little psycho on film, the last guy was a total numpty on the stand and has footage of him pointing the gun before being shot... It's the jump kick guy and the guy with the skateboard that the prosecution have their strongest arguments for IMO.

C Kent said:
Cheers, nice to see somebody reply without being a tit :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's been bemusing at times to see some people simply can't just give straight answers, in some cases it seems they're just being belligerent for the sake of it, on other occasions, it's because they have a weak argument or no argument at all and so stick to vague assertions made without justification.
 
dowie said:
Yeah, it's been bemusing at times to see some people simply can't just give straight answers, in some cases it seems they're just being belligerent for the sake of it, on other occasions, it's because they have a weak argument or no argument at all and so stick to vague assertions made without justification.
Click to expand...

LOL, there was no straight answer to give. He asked: "what's real American voice got to do with anything", highlighting that he hadn't watched the video quoted.If he had watched the video quoted, he would have known where Real American Voice came into it. He even admitted he hadn't watched the whole thing because he gave up on it after 3 minutes!

It seems like you and others need everything spoon fed to you.
 
200sols said:
Ok



Errr, so you did vote BNP?

This is the level of debate from yourself. BNP, its a far right fascist party.
Click to expand...


Selective posting.....again.

"Yes I did vote bmp and 100,000s of others did as well to get the gov of the day to change it's direction.
Guess what. It worked. I and others said the same in that thread."

Time to grow up now :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom