@contenchess saidThis was after he already gunned down two people.
Some witnesses called by prosecutors testified that Rosenbaum threatened to kill Rittenhouse and chased him down; that Huber rushed up to him and hit him with a skateboard; and that Grosskreutz pointed a gun at Rittenhouse while Rittenhouse was sitting in the street.
These are the prosecutions witnesses 😄
@averagejoe1 saidBreak into my house in the middle of the night and find out how much I 'fear' guns.
Oh Kev give it up, you are jus like Suzianne, always going the wrong way. Maybe guns scare you, I don't know. I know Suzianne 'fears' them. He will be acquitted, he wanted to protect the area,.... guys, including one who said he would kill him, made him have to protect himself. Prosecutors cannot counter his self defense without reasonable doubt, it is over. You and S ...[text shortened]... uzy says he was just acting? What a great judge of character, she should start a character thread!!
The evidence really clearly points to self-defense.
Rosenbaum was charging forward and grabbing the gun while screaming obscenities. This was after saying that he would kill one of these guys if he caught them alone. The coroner testified to as much.
Huber had just struck Rittenhouse violently with a skateboard.
Grosskreuz admitted on the stand that he was shot while pointing a loaded weapon at Rittenhouse.
It would be very strange for him to be convicted.
@contenchess saidWHAT!?!?!? Why, that is like not reading a myriad of links, you can get in trouble on the Forum for not spending your day reading links.
@AverageJoe1
Neither of them are watching the trial.
I think links are stupid. Said it and I'm glad.
@liljo saidA good observation. An example of the diff of FOX with CNN. How is it that such takes on one certain matter are viewed 180 degree differently from each other? Do lib media get up in the morning bent on using pure lib logic, while conservatives seem to avoid stirring the pot, but rather apply common sense and logic to the matter? It is extremely obvious in this case, given the clear evidence of self-defense.
I've watched a little bit. For entertainment, I've watched CNN essentially find the defendant guilty. I've heard little about it from other sources. Haven't bothered to look into it, while working two jobs.
But I did see some of the video. I think he will get off with "self-defense." The prosecution is pretty bad, from what little I've seen.
Give it up, libs.
@kmax87 saidWhat a post, which mentions absolutely nothing about the evidence, which will exonerate him.
Its all great for Kyle when he gets support from Trump and Tucker and the alt right huddle around him to raise money to bail him out because he's such a patriotic hero, singing along with the Proud Boys and wearing T shirts emblazoned with "Free as ....." but when he is on the stand and he has to face the gravity of what he has done and the time he could possibly serve, and this wannabe Paul Revere breaks down like a sobbing whiny little bitch.
Libs make me so angry!!!! I could scream. Hey KMax, did I see you on the field at the Northwestern game skipping with the trans people, carrying flags to disband the police? Y'all reminded me of the Sugar Plum Fairies in the Nutcracker. Were y'all trespassing, school property? Breaking some law? But it's OK?
@no1marauder saidMarauder......your same song, 35th verse.
IF his "bravado after the incident is irrelevant to his guilt or innocence" why were two defense witnesses allowed to testify he seemed shaken and regretful in the aftermath of it? Shouldn't that have "opened the door" to testimony about how he acted after the killings?
And the video from two weeks before where Rittenhouse stated he would have shot people leaving a CVS ...[text shortened]... //www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-10/defense-witnesses-rittenhouse-badly-shaken-by-shootings
@averagejoe1 saidand the judge has made quite clear his opinion on this…undoubtedly the judge doesnt know marerider lives in a special world
Marauder......your same song, 35th verse.
2 edits
@philokalia saidThe coroner didn't testify as to what Rosenbaum was doing. He did testify that the last two shots to Rosenbaum was in his back and head and fired at a downward angle.
The evidence really clearly points to self-defense.
Rosenbaum was charging forward and grabbing the gun while screaming obscenities. This was after saying that he would kill one of these guys if he caught them alone. The coroner testified to as much.
Huber had just struck Rittenhouse violently with a skateboard.
Grosskreuz admitted o ...[text shortened]... while pointing a loaded weapon at Rittenhouse.
It would be very strange for him to be convicted.
@mott-the-hoople saidThe judges' evidentiary rulings I mentioned are legally incorrect and show a clear bias.
and the judge has made quite clear his opinion on this…undoubtedly the judge doesnt know marerider lives in a special world
2 edits
@no1marauder saidThe immediate aftermath seems to indicate his state of mind during the incident. If the prosecution wants to bring a witness that, that night, he said "Ha! Those Antifa-bots got what they deserved" then sure, but months later? Doesn't seem relevant to me.
IF his "bravado after the incident is irrelevant to his guilt or innocence" why were two defense witnesses allowed to testify he seemed shaken and regretful in the aftermath of it? Shouldn't that have "opened the door" to testimony about how he acted after the killings?
And the video from two weeks before where Rittenhouse stated he would have shot people leaving a CVS ...[text shortened]... //www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-10/defense-witnesses-rittenhouse-badly-shaken-by-shootings
As for the the comments weeks earlier about the CVS, it's relevant, sure. But it seems like classic character evidence to me. That would be showing his propensity to prove that he acted in conformity therewith on a later occasion.
You're a trial lawyer. You tell me. If someone is on trial for robbery and the prosecutor tries to introduce his TikTok from last month where he says "These privileged tourists that come into our neighborhood and flaunt their wealth at us - they deserve to be robbed." Does any judge in America allow that in without some sort of "opened the door" argument?
3 edits
@shavixmir said===They don’t drive over borders with guns to enter semi-warzones. ===
Looks that way to me.
The problem is not the self-defence. That looks quite solid.
It’s what the hell was a 17 year old with an illegal gun doing so far from home in an area of voilence?
And why were the police thanking vigilantes?
That’s what needs addressing.
And the answers are complicated. He was there protecting businesses he’d never heard of before???
BS.
...[text shortened]... ter semi-warzones. There are other motivations at play there. And that’s what needs to be addressed.
He was living in Kenosha for weeks before the incidents and the gun was not moved over any border (at least not that day) - was at Dominic Black's house. Second, he'd driven past the businesses every day and defending the Car Source was suggested by Nick Smith to Black because he worked there. He didn't just go downtown with a gun looking for some business to protect. He was staying in Kenosha, so the "far from home" comment isn't really applicable.
But in any case, you might be right. As the judge so eloquently put it, if Rittenhouse were on trial for "exquisitely bad judgment," he'd be guilty as sin. But he's not. He's on trial for homicide. There has been evidence of self-defense that's been corroborated by one of the victims and the prosecution has not rebutted it beyond a reasonable doubt. He's entitled to an acquittal, as stupid and immature as his decision to be there in the first place may have been.
As for the societal factors that led him to be there, I'd postulate that the societal factors that led to the riots in the first place are more concerning.
@no1marauder saidAgain, as a trial lawyer, did you get the refusal to allow the zoom in on the iPad? I thought that was bizarre. The defense didn't put on any evidence that zooming in alters the image and it's the common experience in all of our lives that it doesn't. Why should the proponent have to prove something that seems obvious to everyone?
The judges' evidentiary rulings I mentioned are legally incorrect and show a clear bias.