Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,650
Is there more to this, or did he really try to go down the video games makes murderers line of thinking that has never had any reason ?
Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 7,126
Ah ok, I mean personally I cant make out anything conclusive at all from the video, HD or not.
Don
Right. You may have noticed that this thread was closed over night.
I've re-opened it but please can you all refrain from name calling and stick to the topic in hand.
I've re-opened it but please can you all refrain from name calling and stick to the topic in hand.
Soldato
The prosecution is just literally throwing anything to try to give the Jury the idea Rittenhouse came to the riot he’ll bent on shooting someone. It’s all textbook FUD . It doesn’t matter if he answers well, just bringing it up may resonate with someone in the Jury. It’s the reason he keeps bringing up an AR-15, the bullets, pointing the gun at the jury etc..
in one way if you have next to nothing as a case, what else can you do.
Honestly I think it’s worked for the prosecution, 3rd day of deliberation.. With such convoluted instructions on each count to the Jury, I think enough FUD has been raised to put doubt in anyones mind who’s information was only what was shown to them in that court.
Soldato
The convulted instructions thats mostly came from the defense? Easy to twist it now its clear that it hasn't become an easy win.
But twitter highlights do be like that..
But twitter highlights do be like that..
? All the additional charges etc were added by the prosecution adopting a scatter gun approach.
Anyway, after the screen grab of the fat lawyer dude's (krause was it?) laptop there seemed to be a fair few compression software programs on there, and he couldn't keep his story straight. Hopefully someone has grabbed that laptop and thrown it in an evidence lockup as we're getting a expert testimony in ..seeing how much of a **** show this trial is, probably not!
You see him running away and bring chased and caught. After that is conjecture other then the physical evidence. But running away is hard to argue with in terms of self defense.
Yup, the prosecution argument relies on some very weak claim of provocation based on some blurry footage/stills etc.. (with some enhancement etc..) to claim that those bunch of pixes show him pointing a rifle first.
IF the jury are following the instructions then how can they really conclude anything beyond reasonable doubt re: the provocation claim? And IF they can't do that then the argument against self-defence is blown, he clearly retreated and the attack was unprovoked.
Of course, as can be seen on both twitter and in this thread people will have all sorts of bad takes on stuff like this despite lacking the ability to articulate a supporting argument for them or explain their reasoning etc... one or two jurors like that, digging their heels in and refusing to reason their way through their position and you have the mistrial.
Mistrials are rare, we don't really know what is going on in the jury room, they might simply be making sure to be very thorough. The safety issues/worries about threats might have caused things to drag out too either through them taking everything really slowly, not wanting to be seen to come back too soon or through some people being holdouts as a result of being scared of the resulting fallout.
The difficulty with the first killing is that he does stop running even though he still can continue.
He is running...until he is not and then turns and shoots Rosenbaum 4 times, killing him before he even lays a hand on him (and possibly not even his weapon - that isn't proven).
I don't think the jury will be hung up on whether he acted in self defense as such (in terms of his mindset). I imagine a lot of the deliberation will be about whether it was lawful self defense and that reasonable force was used/Kyle acted reasonably.
Page 2 and 3 go over it here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/cont...e-trial/e32f975c-0af3-4382-80fa-5f4edc8003cc/
Its all going to be down to the jurors views on what could be considered reasonable actions at the time of the event.
That's pretty dubious and was demolished during the trial - Rosenbaum catches up with him, after not stopping when he turned and pointed the rifle at him mid chase, Kyle reaches the parked cars and there is a mob the other side.
The key argument seems to be the claim of some initial provocation before the chase, if they don't have that then it's absolutely clear cut. This notion you have that he wasn't at risk of serious injury or death is just nonsense.
Unsurprising given the inane observation. Anything to add re: state lines etc.. perhaps?
Actually yes, he crossed state lines when he had no reason to do so. It could almost be suggested that he was looking for someone to shoot. Happy?
Suspended
It was a journey of 20 miles. I do that if I need to go shopping. In the states 20 miles is nothing at all.
Dubious in your opinion. There was clearly ample room for Kyle to keep running in various directions. Rosenbaum only catches up to him because Kyle chose to stop, turn and kill him, and even then Rosenbaum was still a decent way away from him (he had to lunge/leap to even come close to touching the barrel of Kyle's weapon, IF he even touched it at all)
Also, nothing is clear cut when it comes to whether the force he used was reasonable. There is absolutely a good argument to be made for why deadly force was not necessarily reasonable in this situation.
The guy who had his arm shot travelled further
So a guy that threatened to kill him, if anything sped up after Rittenhouse had pointed his gun at him (he didn't even pause or slow down, or seem taken back which would be a natural reaction to having a weapon pointed at you) mid chase and then made a lunge for either the weapon or person. Given that Rittenhouse feared for his life, what in your opinion should he have done when confronted by a person who wasn't acting in a normal way?
Soldato
Except he didn't and he did have reason. He was staying at a friends house the day before the riots so was already in Kenosha. He worked in Kenosha, his dad, several relatives and friends lived in Kenosha. He had every right to be there and in the morning before the riots he and others were cleaning graffiti from the walls of a local school.
This narrative that he crossed state lines - as if that's some big deal - has been thoroughly debunked already. The narrative that he crossed state lines carrying a weapon has been debunked. The narrative that he crossed state lines to patrol the riots or whatever has been debunked - he was there already.
At least continue running for starters. He ran for what, 10 meters? Then just seemed to give up, turn around and kill him. The instructions specifically say "There is no duty to retreat. However in determining whether the defendant reasonably believed the amount of force used was necessary to prevent or terminate interference, you may consider whether the defendant had the opportunity to retreat with safety, whether such retreat was feasible, and whether the defendant knew of the opportunity to retreat". One could could quite easily argue (and the prosecution did), that he still had ample opportunity to keep running/retreating.
The lunge/leap from Rosenbaum after Kyle turned and aimed his rifle at him seconds before shooting him dead could have been for a number of reasons. Quite likely he could have been trying to get out of the way/push the barrel away so he didn't get shot.
What do you mean he had no reason to do so? Why are state lines relevant vs someone else traveling a similar distance within the same state?
That's just not true and the defence showed it.
Kyle didn't choose to kill him, Kyle had little option when he caught up and leaped forwards...
Make it then... what's the argument?
You often make assertions then have nothing to back them up with. He'd already tried pointing a weapon at Rosenbaum mid-chase and that didn't stop him he had seconds to react, the guy had grabbed his rifle what is the argument for shooting not being reasonable in that situation?
You only have to watch the video to see he had various avenues to still keep running in.
Rosenbaum only caught up/got that close because Kyle stopped and turned
When someone stops and turns with someone chasing them, generally the person chasing them gets closer...Also, what are you on about with no making arguments/backing anything up? I've made it pretty clear that i agree with the prosecution's arguments (and which ones) a number of times in this thread. Most of the time anything is met by you with "eh, thats dubious". So Dowie thinks it's dubious? So what? Doesn't make you correct or provide any sort of substance as a reply.
I agree with the a lot of the prosecution's arguments. You agree with a lot of the defenses. That is all there is to it.