It is kind of difficult to follow what you are meaning with your posts.
Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
It is kind of difficult to follow what you are meaning with your posts.
Don
It's almost as though we have a very different gun culture to the US!
Armed militia are viewed as necessary and in some cases patriotic by a large amount of the population.
It's no wonder people from the UK struggle with the concept of what Kyle was doing, as if you copy/paste it into the UK it sounds nuts.
I genuinely believe that Kyle was operating under the view that what he was doing was a valuable service, sure, one which he did out of enjoyment and a feeling of duty.
Unfortunately some people then attempted to attack someone who was legally open carrying a rifle.
Play silly games, win silly prizes.
Armed militia are viewed as necessary and in some cases patriotic by a large amount of the population.
It's no wonder people from the UK struggle with the concept of what Kyle was doing, as if you copy/paste it into the UK it sounds nuts.
I genuinely believe that Kyle was operating under the view that what he was doing was a valuable service, sure, one which he did out of enjoyment and a feeling of duty.
Unfortunately some people then attempted to attack someone who was legally open carrying a rifle.
Play silly games, win silly prizes.
Soldato
Get off the internet and move to Texas..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLtKCC7z0yc
He got off that scot free!
Last edited:
Soldato
The prosecution said they did not know the guy that stomped on Kyle.
And they never would.
It took a UK news paper to find him. Daily Mail.
His name is Maurice Freeland.
"Freeland has admitted that he attacked Rittenhouse moments before another man, a domestic abuser called Anthony Huber, started bashing Rittenhouse in the head with a skateboard"
So that's another piece of evidence the jury never got to hear because of the crooked prosecution.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tuc...ution-action-threaten-america-judicial-system
So the count of "recklessly endangering the safety of a man" has to be thrown out now.
The state knew all along exactly who Maurice Freeland was but they withheld that information from Kyle Rittenhouse's lawyers.
"Joshua Ziminsky, like Maurice Freeland, never testified in this case. Why? Because prosecutors made sure he couldn't. Prosecutors charged Ziminsky with arson and then delayed his trial so he would not be available to testify and the Rittenhouse trial. By the way, and this is relevant too, authorities say the Minsky brought a gun to the riot and fired a shot before Kyle Rittenhouse ever pulled his own trigger. How's that for relevant? But jurors never got to hear Joshua Ziminsky explain that."
"
Kyle Rittenhouse is constitutionally entitled to see all the evidence against him at the trial, and he didn't"
And they never would.
It took a UK news paper to find him. Daily Mail.
His name is Maurice Freeland.
"Freeland has admitted that he attacked Rittenhouse moments before another man, a domestic abuser called Anthony Huber, started bashing Rittenhouse in the head with a skateboard"
So that's another piece of evidence the jury never got to hear because of the crooked prosecution.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tuc...ution-action-threaten-america-judicial-system
So the count of "recklessly endangering the safety of a man" has to be thrown out now.
The state knew all along exactly who Maurice Freeland was but they withheld that information from Kyle Rittenhouse's lawyers.
"Joshua Ziminsky, like Maurice Freeland, never testified in this case. Why? Because prosecutors made sure he couldn't. Prosecutors charged Ziminsky with arson and then delayed his trial so he would not be available to testify and the Rittenhouse trial. By the way, and this is relevant too, authorities say the Minsky brought a gun to the riot and fired a shot before Kyle Rittenhouse ever pulled his own trigger. How's that for relevant? But jurors never got to hear Joshua Ziminsky explain that."
"
Kyle Rittenhouse is constitutionally entitled to see all the evidence against him at the trial, and he didn't"
Last edited:
Soldato
He drove armed with guns to an area to patrol it and to secure it from potential rioters. NOTE! That is the job of the police. Regardless of his legitimate ownership of weapons he put himself in an area and proceeded to act like police. He was a vigilante. He put himself into an area and engaged in conflict with it.
MILES!!!!! From his home. And he was not a cop!!
You know multiple times the IRA planted bombs but did not set them off. So multiple times the IRA could have killed people but chose not to.
Saints they are!!!
I cannot get over this he multiple times did not kill people.
I have lived a life of frustration at not being able to kill people due to legislations and it not being so easy but believe me if I could oooooo I would for sure!!!
Like it is a commendation in 2021 to not kill people multiple times.
Like a certificate.
Sorry that has tickled me too much
Wow someones been listening to Ben n Jerrys propaganda on twitter xD
Last edited:
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
Soldato
This thread or some posters in this thread so remind me of the Derek Chauvin thread. We had many armchair lawyers in there telling people they didn't understand the case or the law. What is clear as day is that if anyone has a perfect understanding of the law they'd have a law degree and would be a lawyer. Also I have seen several legal commentators point out, no one except those present in court know how the jury reacted to the evidence and witnesses presented before them, we only know how we reacted. It clearly isn't an open and shut case as many in here believe as we are now days into deliberations. If they come back with guilty I'm expecting Chauvin levels of outrage in here, though I don't expect a guilty verdict on the most serious charges.
That is an over simplification. You get people all the time with deep knowledge of a subject, with or without relevant qualification, who for various reasons don't work in that field.
Soldato
You have to agree that it's the same with you.
I've seen your denial posts of the existence of crt in Virginia.
When it's on the Virginia state school board website
No one is perfect.
Genuine question, did anyone change their mind in the chauvin trial? Has anyone changed their mind over the course of this trial? Pretty certain folks here are a rather closed minded bunch.
As to the jury now entering day 4 of deliberation I'm not sure what that would mean personally, good or bad. I do remember Barnes (on the Rekita Law channel) saying that the due diligence he did prior to leaving the defence showed that the jury pool was 'tainted' with two thirds having a guilty of murder outlook due to the media reporting on the case. Having it take longer than the likes of other high profile cases - OJ/chauvin could simply mean that they aren't so set in their minds as people here.
As to the jury now entering day 4 of deliberation I'm not sure what that would mean personally, good or bad. I do remember Barnes (on the Rekita Law channel) saying that the due diligence he did prior to leaving the defence showed that the jury pool was 'tainted' with two thirds having a guilty of murder outlook due to the media reporting on the case. Having it take longer than the likes of other high profile cases - OJ/chauvin could simply mean that they aren't so set in their minds as people here.
Caporegime
Uh for law, that's pretty important. It's because they don't have the relevant qualifications in that field and exactly describes the type of behaviour we see in numerous GD threads: people with (mostly) good intentions but with a little knowledge and a lot of self belief telling similar people why they are right and the other lot are wrong.
There are a multitude of good reasons why the people who are acutally involved in [x] and we moan about but are actually qualified and doing the very thing we're making quack comments about on a computer forum are doing that and we're doing this.
Caporegime
Again, who were you before?
It not painting a great picture of people in the riot is it.
Soldato
I think with the amount of footage and coverage available of the whole event, most people would have already viewed it and come to a reasonable conclusion.
My viewpoint is that yes he was stupid for putting himself in that position, but I do not think for a second he went out with any intention of having to use the rifle. I do feel he was very naive but genuinely comes across as having good intentions.
As for the for the shooting incidents... Well I do strongly feel it was a case of self defence. I don't know how I would have reacted in that situation, it's difficult to put yourself in his shoes as we come from such a different society (as much as we like to think we are similar to USA, we most definitely are not).
That said, I don't think my opinion was effected at all by the trial, both sides did such a terrible job at making there arguments that I am very much inclined to go with my original gut instinct from viewing the majority of the available footage.
Yes he was stupid for putting himself in that position, but I feel he was justified in his self defence.
Either way its something he will have to live with for the rest of his life. However, in hindsight, given the records of the people he shot, I certainly wouldn't be losing any sleep.
Last edited:
From my standpoint, it was pretty obvious that his actions were that of self defense - we can all see it from the original videos.
The problem is how that relates to the wording of the law. He can only be found 'not guilty' of the reckless homicide charges if his use of force was because he believed he was about to be killed or sustain 'great bodily harm'. For example if somebody ran at him with a machete, or was aiming a gun at him. I think this is where he's going to struggle, because the first person (Rosenbaum) was unarmed, and merely threw a bag of junk at him - I don't think Rittenhouse's life was in any actual danger at that point. Ok he was being chased around and people were shouting at him, throwing stuff at him etc, but I think the prosecution's argument that the use of force (shooting with a rifle) was excessive, is fair.
You can read the charges and jury instructions here; https://context-cdn.washingtonpost..../59bb6750-6912-4372-90d2-ce0eb485ae6e.#page=1
The problem is how that relates to the wording of the law. He can only be found 'not guilty' of the reckless homicide charges if his use of force was because he believed he was about to be killed or sustain 'great bodily harm'. For example if somebody ran at him with a machete, or was aiming a gun at him. I think this is where he's going to struggle, because the first person (Rosenbaum) was unarmed, and merely threw a bag of junk at him - I don't think Rittenhouse's life was in any actual danger at that point. Ok he was being chased around and people were shouting at him, throwing stuff at him etc, but I think the prosecution's argument that the use of force (shooting with a rifle) was excessive, is fair.
You can read the charges and jury instructions here; https://context-cdn.washingtonpost..../59bb6750-6912-4372-90d2-ce0eb485ae6e.#page=1
Last edited:
Permabanned
Guys an idiot who has fallen foul of the terrible gun laws and conservative murica rhetoric.
Perhaps you should read the thread and the arguments put forth yesterday (ie jury instructions re retreating quoted etc).
Also, claiming that you don't intend to kill someone whilst shooting them 4 times with an AR-15 at close range is totally ridiculous (as the prosection pointed out in the trial).
This is pretty much my feelings on it to.
I suppose it's handy that the jury is taking their responsibilities seriously on such a 'simple' case
It's almost like it's quite a complex case with no actual clearly defined answer....