Rittenhouse judge and jury threatened by George Floyd nephew

Big riots soon

Rittenhouse didn't kill a black guy, right? Why is everyone so worked up about the jury?

r1 is positively salivating

The truth is mouthwatering r3

Has he got porn tape like Uncle George?

Mob tactics.

I hope rittenhouse is strung up and quartered. He deserves no less.

They will acquit the Ritt.

I thought Rittenhouse was guilty, but now I think the guy who was killed was trying to take his gun.

Kyle should have just let the mob burn down that fast food restaurant. It wasn’t his anyways.

Kyle is a murderous piece of shit and belongs on death row.

R11, except the star witness for the prosecution admitted on the stand today that he lied and was actually pointed a gun at Rittenhouse first, before he was shot.

Kyle would not have needed to shoot somebody if he hadn't been carrying a gun in the first place.

The nephew should be arrested for threatening a jury and a judge, and Rittenhouse should get the death penalty. The little shit went out to hunt and kill liberals and that's exactly what he did.

[quote] anyways

Oh, dear!

It’s insane that he and the capital rioters are all on trial. Is anyone on trial that took part in all the violence and looting and burning of private property all summer long all over the country last year?

[quote] The little shit went out to hunt and kill liberals and that's exactly what he did.

Looks like they were hunting him first

Rittenhouse judge says person caught filming jurors, orders deletion along with 'new procedures'

The Wisconsin judge overseeing the murder trial of Kyle Rittenhouse announced Tuesday that deputies had caught someone recording video of the jurors earlier in the day and would be taking new steps to ensure the incident did not happen again, in addition to ordering the person to delete the images.

"I've been assured that … the video, which had been taken, has been deleted," Schroeder told the jury, "and new procedures are being instituted so that something like that … should not recur."

Before the jury arrived, Schroeder told the court that if a similar incident were to happen again, he had instructed deputies to "take the phone and bring it here."

[quote]Kyle is a murderous piece of shit and belongs on death row.

Wisconsin doesn't have a death penalty.

[quote] and belongs on death row.

Might not be so easy now

As much as I want that fat little pig to be found guilty and sent to prison where he will made to squeal like the fat little pig he is what George Floyd's nephew is doing is threatening and intimidating the jurors and borders on jury tampering which will further undermine the case against Rittenhouse.

Riots this weekend

Floundering Rittenhouse prosecutor tries to provoke mistrial

Emily Zanotti @emzanotti

This. Is. Wild.

This prosecution should be shown in law school classrooms as an example of what happens when you, a prosecutor, think your trial is a foregone conclusion and see no need to make basic preparations.

Hector Oseguera, Esq. @Oseguera2020

The prosecution seems to be throwing the Rittenhouse case.

Philip Klein @philipaklein

This may be the most incompetent prosecution since, "Hey OJ, why don't you try on this glove?" 12:35 PM · Nov 10, 2021

Why does George Floyd's nephew care so much? Why is it any of his business?

Is Rittenhouse a mongoloid? He looks like a mongoloid.

[quote]Looks like they were hunting him first

How do you hunt someone first when they drove there knowing the situation was volatile?

A duck can't just show up to the gun range and claim they were being hunted.

1) riots are bad 2) vigilantes protecting corporations from rioters with guns is bad 3) both Rittenghouse and the guy he shot were scumbags 4)the posters ITT salivating at throwing people in prison and doling out the death penalty are bad too.

Everyone making false accusations against Rittenhouse should be held accountable.

R25..

I predict riots

Everything in this world is just plain fucking depressing right now. I keep thinking I'll wake up from this horrible dream and see kind, compassionate people walking about.

R31, I agree. The elites are creating this division . They are all on same side ultimately.

People depending Kyle rittenhouse are garbage people. I watched him take the witness stand on tv and he was trying to squint out those tears. He is terrible at trying to get sympathy. If he gets off there will be riots.

R33 I’m glad you’re not on the jury.

If he is acquitted someone will take care of the little shit. Everyone knows what he looks like, it will be an easy task to draw a bead on his forehead.

I do agree with r33 that Kyle is faking emotion. Bad call for defense . I still believe an acquittal.

R34 so you are indirectly admitting you are a garbage person just like Kyle rittenhouse. You are who you defend.

Obb B don’t have much compassion for this “ victim.”

Well, it is very cold out so I could see that warding off rioters. But then again, stores have started getting their inventory in for Black Friday. So riots will probably happen but protesting racial injustice will only occur at Best Buy, Target, and the liquor store.

A white doughy boy in tears = NOT GUILTY! court adjourned.

Crocodile tears.

He's an asshole person.

He will be acquitted, but he will forever be an ugly, crying, carb faced meme.

I hope verdict this week

Rittenhouse will join the list of people like Richard Jewell and Nick Sandmann who were falsely accused but later vindicated.

Why should anyone, especially blacks, even care about this one? It's a white-only murder. They should be gleeful that there are 2 fewer white people in society.

Kyle is going to make millions on lawsuits against media etc

He'll get off and become a right-wing darling and get a spot on Fox or some other fake news outlet.

My Trump-loving boss was talking to my co-worker about this piece of shit. She was saying how good of a job he was doing on the stand. I wanted to tell her the little trouble maker is a sociopath who will kill again. His mother is un ugly hag too.

I hope the victims families are ready to file civil suits against this murdering, smug pos and that he's tied up in these courts for many years to come.

He lied about been an EMT worker. He really thought he was rambo since that is what most maga think they are. Rightwing vigilantes owing the libs.

He shot a pedophile/domestic terrorist.. He did a good deed.

He did go our looking for trouble. What kind of deplorable family is he from?

[quote]The elites are creating this division .

Don't blame the "elites" for predominantly white trash shitheads who worship Trump because he was a bigoted, racist pile of shit who IS an elitist. And they clearly don't believe in democracy or equality in the justice system.

[quote]He shot a pedophile/domestic terrorist.

There is no one stupider and more psychotic than people like you who use this excuse. Then I guess by your logic, since Rittenhouse beat up a girl, I have a right to kill him. He's a psycho 17 yo given an assault rifle for no other purpose than wanting to hurt humans. He went looking for trouble. He didn't fucking know anything about that guy. Nothing. Using postmortem justification for murder makes you a fucking moron.

[quote] He shot a pedophile/domestic terrorist.. He did a good deed.

True. It’s incredible how deranged people are in our society that they side with the child molester who had just been released from the insane asylum over the young man who was trying to protect innocent people during a riot.

R55 How the hell did Rittenhouse know the backgrounds of his victims? He didn't! If he'd shot a preacher, would you feel differently? The comments on this thread are deranged. The fat punk murdered complete strangers while carrying a weapon he had no business with in a place he had no reason to be....except to look for trouble, which he found.

This pretty much says it all. Rittenhouse is guilty.

[quote] It’s incredible how deranged people are in our society

We know.

As I said in the other thread: The same people defending this trash for going towards chaos with an assault rifle looking for trouble, are the same people demonizing the Capitol PO who did his job when he shot that terrorist bitch who was LITERALLY climbing through a window they had broken to go KILL people.

That's all you need to know about the shits who defend Rittenhouse.

AB was killed breaking into a building. She was a rioter. KR was there to protect property from a mob some of whom were armed. Legit protestors had already left.

Anyway that’s not what the case is about. It’s about self defense.

The same people who defend And make excuses for the domestic terrorists who were terrorizing citifies all last summer are the same people who are demandingcapitol rioters be locked up.

The capitol rioters and the blm rioters are the same..

[quote] KR was there to protect property from a mob

That is complete bullshit that Fox News is spewing out.

KR was there looking for people to kill.

Kyle did what he had to do just like the capitol police did what they had to do. The blm rioters had no business burning private property to the ground and looting.

[quote]AB was killed breaking into a building. She was a rioter. KR was there to protect property from a mob some of whom were armed. Legit protestors had already left.

Breaking into a building? No, you low-life. It was the CAPITOL. Not "a building." Why are you stopping there? She was there to attack people.

And no one hired a fucking 17yo with an assault rifle from another state to do a damn thing. Why are you dismissing the actual context of everything? You're pathetic in your attempt to defend Rittenhouse or in any way thinking that the people who defend Rittenhouse aren't the same people who want the officer arrested or worse for protecting our democracy,

When rioters protest police brutality they can break into buildings. When they’re MAGAs they can’t. Isn’t that hypocritical? Police and army should have shut down both events.

[quote]Kyle did what he had to do just like the capitol police did what they had to do. The blm rioters had no business burning private property to the ground and looting.

It wasn't a 17yo's job to just kill people as he pleased, you moron. What kind of sick mind thinks the job of the capitol police is the same as a 17yo driven by his fucking mother, carrying an AR to just go out in the street like it was his right?

[quote]When rioters protest police brutality they can break into buildings. When they’re MAGAs they can’t. Isn’t that hypocritical? Police and army should have shut down both events.

No, they can't, you stupid shit. BLM protesters WERE arrested for breaking into buildings and actual BLM leaders called out those who used the protests to riot. Trump literally encouraged that mob to do what he did and he enjoyed it.

You people are fucking deranged. Not a single Democratic member of Congress would actually defend the looting or damage done by BLM protests. Meanwhile, the GOP is denying January 6th even happened.

You people are in fact sick beyond belief because you have to lie about how everything is actually viewed and portrayed. MTG went to visit those MAGAts. No one is visiting a BLM looter.

what they* did.

So many people repeating facts that just aren’t true. I recommend watching the trial.

R70, I recommend you stop acting as though he had any business being there in the first place. A 17yo. An assault rifle. Going towards chaos. Only white trash could get away with that behavior.

R71, He had just as much of a right to be there as the people he shot in self defense.

[quote] Kyle would not have needed to shoot somebody if he hadn't been carrying a gun in the first place.

Both sides of this were carrying guns out there. Did you know that? Including someone who had been with Rosenbaum all night & in the moments right before the first shooting and who actually fired his gun near Rittenhouse just before Rosenbaum reached Rittenhouse and grabbed for his gun. That sounds just like a set up to me to get Rittenhouse as Rosenbaum had threatened to do earlier when he threatened to kill him when he got him alone.

Also the guy who got shot but did not die pulled HIS illegal gun from his holster and chased Rittenhouse down and aimed it at Rittenhouse's head as Rittenhouse was on the ground with no way to escape.

Are some of you people just hating on this kid for your imagined political reasons and refusing to look at facts? What are you thinking?

R72, how stupid. In self-defense? Why is it self-defense for him but not for them?

Self-defense isn't when you literally go looking for trouble WITH a gun.

It's when you're actually minding your own fucking business and it comes to you. He went to the trouble. The trouble didn't come to him. He went looking for it.

R75, What the fuck do you think rosenbaum was doing that night? Walking home from a church meet? They were ALL looking for trouble. Stop trying to paint the ones shot as saintsz. You are just as deranged as the people you claim to hate.

.......

R77, Would that biased guy ever refer to the other side as terrorists? We’re comparing terrorists being killed to the innocents that died on 9/11?

[quote] I recommend you stop acting as though he had any business being there in the first place. A 17yo. An assault rifle. Going towards chaos.

I recommend you try to get facts right.

First there was no assault rifle. Stop listening to these drama queens hoping you are too stupid to know guns. It was a simple, normal sport rifle. It was not an assault rifle or an automatic rifle. The AR in the name comes from the manufacturer - Armalite. This idiot DA hopes you are an idiot and if he uses that name continually that you will think it is some assault rifle. LOL! Well, it's not. Period.

The chaos was created and caused by the rioters who tried to torch the police precinct up Sheridan Road from the businesses including the businesses Rittenhouse had been there to protect from arson etc. That business, the Car Source, had just lost one of their lots on Sheridan the night before with 100 cars burned plus other damage.

How perverse can you be to even suggest those who showed up to prevent more chaos and protect against the chaos creators were the bad guys? WTF is going on in your mind?

I agree that a teenager may not have been the best person there. But until he was physically attacked and threatened, he did fine. He helped put out fires, He never misused his rifle. He assisted wrapping the ankle of an injured person. and you better believe that people carrying weapons acted as a deterrent to more violence against those businesses. Though the rioters still assaulted the protectors with chemical bombs and concrete chunks.

[quote] Self-defense isn't when you literally go looking for trouble WITH a gun.

Sorry but you don't know the law nor the facts of this case. There was nothing in what Rittenhouse did that justified others coming at him and attacking him.

As I said upthread, BOTH SIDES brought guns to this "event". Only one side threatened to kill people. Only one side was setting fires and trying to blow up a gas station and a police precinct. Only one side charged at Rittenhouse. Only one side was attacking the other side with chemical bombs and concrete chunks.

This is what happens when you go after someone, back them into a corner, threaten their life - and that victim is armed so he can fight back. You can end up dead.

None of the people shot by Rittenhouse had any right or business to be near him at the time of the shootings.

But in AmeriKKKa he will most likely WALK! Get a high paying JOB at Fox and then Run for and be elected to political office.

R76, you're too fucking stupid to live or understand my point. Rittenhouse WENT TO WHERE THOSE PEOPLE WERE. WTF do you think a 17 yo with a fucking AR should've been there in the first place? I'm not defending the looters, you fucking shit.

You can't be shocked and scream "OMG, I got burned!" as you're running into a house fire like it isn't expected. A 17yo carrying a fucking AR knew precisely where he was going. He was carrying that thing anticipating he would potentially use it. Why? An out-of-control tea party?

Had he gotten killed himself by someone saying "This guy threatened me with an assault rifle," would that be "self-defense"?

R82, You’re a sick fuck. Rittenhouse was there to help.

Kyle Rittenhouse had his mommy drive him across state lines with a military weapon to hunt humans.

He was 'defending' nothing and no one.

His victims were and are exactly that. Victims.

Not "arsonists" or "looters". Victims. Of a racist, anti-Semitic, inhuman mass murderer.

You think the mob would’ve killed him but only 2 people died that day. Guess who killed those 2?

R84, keep fucking that chicken. You're insane without even facts to back you up. Take your meds. Like Rosenbaum should have done and avoided all this trouble.

[quote][R82], You’re a sick fuck. Rittenhouse was there to help.

LOL, I'm the sick one??? You are defending a 17yo having a fucking assault rifle going to a city on fire. A fucking 17 yo isn't even allowed to vote and you think I'm the sick one because I think it is beyond insane that a 17 yo is given a god damned assault rifle that should be in NO ONES HANDS who isn't military?

There is no civilized society on this planet who would think I was the sick one between the two of us. Look at the insanity you are justifying.

BTW, you cunt @R83, you couldn't even answer the question: If someone saw a guy who had just killed two people and they killed that guy who had just killed two people, would that be self-defense if Rittenhouse was the one who got killed or do you get to be Monday Morning QB and decide who is and who isn't allowed to use "self-defense" as an excuse?

R88, One was there to help people and protect property and the other was there to burn down police stations and gas stations. I know which side you support.

Sick fuck.

The meme about this judge is so whacked out.

So far, he has ruled nothing out of the ordinary. I get it that people don't know the law or rules of evidence. I am very disappointed in some people who SHOULD know better though.

There are comments from people who were in his court as defendants who say he gave them second chances rather than send them to jail when they were young men. He just doesn't have a rep among the legal circles up there as some right leaning judge. The issues he got enraged at were ones that as a defense attorney I am grateful he got enraged at. This DA is unethical and deliberately, and continually even after being warned, defied the judge's rulings on what evidence could come in and what couldn't. Those evidentiary rulings at issue are about some of the most important Constitutional rights we have and that afford defendants get a fair trial without undue prejudice. Are we now to throw those rights away because some people have made unproved assumptions about the defendant and now about the judge?

I suggest you watch on youtube some of the trial coverage with actual lawyers including defense attys and prosecutors commenting on the proceedings. Maybe you'll get a better understanding. I am totally disgusted by anyone who discards First Principles in law and constitutional rights to feed a braying mob judging events through politically biased eyes.

I continue to be astounded by the rank political hypocrisy tainting the commentary about this case.

R89, you're really just an idiot. You're not a deep-thinker at all, so it's no surprise you're a Rittenhouse defender. You guys are all very dumb and arrogant as hell.

Are you psychic, you failed abortion? Aside from the fact that you think it's perfectly normal for a civilian -let alone a teenage-r to have an assault rifle (making you the sick one to begin with), no one fucking knows *in the moment* who is good and who is bad. If I have a gun and I just saw someone kill two people, am I supposed to get the CVs of the victims before I decide to kill the shooter?

You guys are embarrassingly stupid.

[quote] 17yo having a fucking assault rifle

Once again for the mentally impaired. NOT AN ASSAULT RIFLE. Got that yet? NOT an assault rifle. AR does not mean Assault Rifle. AR does not mean Automatic Rifle. AR means ARMALITE - the company name. Just a normal sport rifle used by millions in places where rifles are a normal part of life and part of growing up. Not every part of the country is freaked out by rifles. IIRC it is the most popular rifle in the US.

In Wisconsin - where this happened - it is LEGAL for a 17 year old to possess a long barrel rifle. The AR 15 is a long barrel rifle. Okay? Got that?

Personally, I have grown up where people are scared of guns - well, except the criminals - so I get scared whenever I see a gun. But I also realize that I am not of those areas where rifles and guns are commonplace. Not everyone is me or has my experiences.

R91, You’re the one repeating media spoon fed talking points over and over again that have been debunked several times on this VERY thread.

Motherfucker, I haven't even watched the media coverage of this beyond clips. What I know is that you're the psycho defending an assault rifle in a 17yo's hands. At that point, you're already the deranged one.

BTW, R93, what did I just say that was incorrect? So Rittenhouse knew one of the victims was a pedophile when he killed him? Is that what I got wrong? So a 17yo wasn't given a fucking assault rifle? Did I get that part wrong?

There is nothing you could say to justify the lunacy of a 17yo being given an assault rifle in the first place. This is why the civilized world thinks America is full of mentally-deranged gun nuts.

Fucking freak.

R94, You’re repeating social media spoon fed talking points that have been debunked several times in this thread. Are you gonna tell us he drove cross country again ( actually it was more like 10 miles from where he lived). Or that the people shot were peaceful protestors?

“ So a 17yo wasn't given a fucking assault rifle? Did I get that part wrong”

Yup.

WTF did I say they were peaceful protesters?

[quote]Yup.

So how did he kill them? A twizzler? I saw him on the fucking street with the AR. God, you must be a MAGAt. You just lie so easily.

ONCE AGAIN, THIS KID DO NOT HAVE AN ASSAULT RIFLE.

HOW STUPID ARE YOU?

Don't make me come over there.

R98, You reject any facts that don’t fit your biased view, don’t you

Here's the reality: You're doing everything in your power to defend an assault rifle in the hands of Rittenhouse. Shove your "yup" up your ass. He had an assault rifle in his hands and he used it. A 17 yo had an AR, that alone is disturbing. You're also lying about what I said. Never once did I claim they were peaceful protesters, but you've claimed -without proof- that most of the protests were violent. Still no link from you. So you get to claim something without actual proof. Quelle surprise.

You're using information about the victims -information Rittenhouse had no knowledge of prior to killing them- to justify what he did and you think that's normal. So unless you have proof that Rittenhouse knew he had killed a pedo, there's nothing I actually got wrong.

Rittenhouse was not there to help. Even then he had as much as a right to be there as the other lunatics who showed up with guns. Everyone who showed up was looking for trouble. The martyrdom of Rosembaum et. al is in such bad faith. In the end, I just see a bunch violent white guys with guns albeit with different politics. None of that matter because all of the involved were violent low life losers who were burning down a mostly minority part of the city.

R100:

Did he know the guy was a pedo. Yes or no?

Did he have an assault rifle: Yes or no?

Do you think it's normal for a 17yo to have an assault rifle when he isn't even old enough to vote? Yes or no.

You don't actually deal in facts. You are defending an insane gun culture where a fucking assault rifle ends up in the hands of a 17yo.

Rioters were driving in from Chicago suburbs to burn down Kenosha because they wanted to burn shit down. These were not people concerned with police violence against black people, they were mentally ill white people who wanted to loot, burn, and otherwise partake in anarchy.

Exactly, R102. That's what the person claiming I don't deal in "facts" doesn't get. Not once did I say they were peaceful protesters. Not once. Yet this person thinks he's the one dealing in "facts."

What I am saying is that it isn't up to some 17yo punk to just show up to add to that chaos. I don't understand defending him nor do I defend the assholes on the other side. How stupid to "root" for either side.

The thing about the pedophile stuff with Rosenbaum made me wonder if he became fixated on Rittenhouse because he looked so young.

Paraphilias usually have more than one diagnosis. Rosenbaum was a pedophile, bi-polar probably meds non-compliant that night. His behavior that night was beyond bizarre and violent. He directly threatened Rittenhouse and wanted to get him alone. Not so sure how far removed his pedo crimes against 5 minor males (including anal rape) was from going after a baby faced "opponent" to his behavior that night. Pedos slide into violence against their targets rather easily.

Just saying. I know Rittenhouse wasn't aware of these crimes so doesn't go to Rittenhouse's state of mind but it can go to Rosenbaum's state of mind and whether his state of mind explains his actions toward Rittenhouse.

Grosskreutz was holding a pistol and pointing it at people. Interesting how a lot of people are just finding out about this today.

R106 Riots tend to attract these sorts of mentally ill weirdos. I doubt Rosembaum was even political. Some people get whiff of anarchy and join the violence. There are some people who don't care who is in power, they just want to burn shit down and loot.

There is no point on trying to win anyone over here. You're either on one side or the other. That's it.

R109 I think most sane people will agree that none of these people should have had guns. Hopefully the people who think their side is pure, justified, and morally superior while their enemies are evil incarnate are so mentally deranged in real life that no one takes them seriously. A serious oversight is that police let these riots get out of hand on purpose. Police, when under pressure, will allow anarchy to take over so that people have no choice but to accept militarized police as a vanguard against anarchy/vigilantism.

The link someone upthread posted that compared Rosenbaum to people that died in 9/11. That’s crazy.

"Rittenhouse came looking for trouble"

And the armed rioters setting fires were there to hand out water bottles and help old people cross the street. OK.

[quote] You think the mob would’ve killed him but only 2 people died that day. Guess who killed those 2?

That’s why when people on the Left talk about exterminating the people on the Right, they get reminded that it’s the people on the Right who have the guns.

It's posts like R113 that make me think that this country is finished. There will be no more unity, only hate and division. Before Trump I didn't think it was possible, but here we are.

R114 This started way before Trump. Social media has made it so the most charismatic and bitchy sociopaths get the most oxygen. The media runs on outrage and hate clicks so they are all too happy to throw gas on the fire.

Reminder that rich media types do not suffer in any material or spiritual way from the violence, in fact they make money off it and it deflects attention away from redistribution of wealth and gentrification.

The hatred the far left has for Rittenhouse is racially motivated. There’s is nothing they hate more than young while men.

PPG and GLW

Kyle is a real Manly Batman. He took out two bad guys

The "star witness" of the prosecution, Gaige Grosskreutz, was a complete failure and should have been vetted far better. I've been watching the full trial live, and if he wasn't committing perjury, he sure seemed to be walking a fine a line.

He admitted in his testimony, under oath, KR didn't point the gun at him until he pointed his gun at KR and that's when he got shot. Then he went on Good Morning America today and said he never pointed his gun at KR. So he was either lying under oath or lying on national TV.

[quote] Then he went on Good Morning America today and said he never pointed his gun at KR. So he was either lying under oath or lying on national TV.

And did anybody on Good Morning American note the inconsistency for their audience? Or did they just thank him for his spin.

R121 no on on GMA called him out, they just thanked him for giving his side of the story. I'm guessing if he was ever called back to explain himself in court, he could just say he lied on GMA as what would be the penalty for that?

Fact is, this guy seems to be elusive with his answers and was called out in court for deliberately omitting he had a gun that night in his statement to police, and in his $10M lawsuit against the city. He simply is not a credible witness and it would turnoff the jury.

I just don't know what the DA was thinking.

R117 What a stupid fucking comment.

Get lost, loser.

Grosskreutz tried to be cute with his answers. I think at some point when he was finally oinned down and shown pictures/videos whatever that he was fearful he'd be perjuring himself if he kept on that course.

Like, dude, do you mean pointed pointed? Or just pointed?

He's a larper who was going to all the places of unrest over last summer. I wonder if he carried that unlawful gun ACROSS STATE LINES.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[quote] they get reminded that it’s the people on the Right who have the guns.

We have guns too.

R125 are you as good as Grosskreutz with them?

R126 That pudgy-faced incel Rittenhouse would have his head blown off.

Nobody on GMA asked him why his testimony was different under oath? GMA is very invested in being woke so I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised, They don’t like to deviate from the accepted narrative.

Nice screencaps.

........

[quote] We have guns too.

uhhuhhh

What is it like to fire an AR-15? It’s horrifying, menacing and very very loud

By Gersh Kuntzman NEW YORK DAILY NEWS | Jul 14, 2016 at 11:20 AM

I've shot pistols before, but never something like an AR-15. Squeeze lightly on the trigger and the resulting explosion of firepower is humbling and deafening (even with ear protection).

The recoil bruised my shoulder, which can happen if you don't know what you're doing. The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions — loud like a bomb — gave me a temporary form of 𝐏𝐓𝐒𝐃. 𝐹𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑡 𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑡 𝑎𝑛 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑎𝑓𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑓𝑖𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑢𝑛 𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡 𝑎 𝑓𝑒𝑤 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑠, 𝐼 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑥𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑖𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒.

[quote] The recoil bruised my shoulder, which can happen if you don't know what you're doing.

I don't give a shit about this kid, but if I was on the jury I would have to acquit. There just isn't enough evidence if you've been paying attention.

[quote] There just isn't enough evidence if you've been paying attention.

R133 Not enough evidence of what?

There's clearly OVERWHELMING evidence that he shot and killed 2 people. Rittenhouse even admits to this.

It's his defense that's at play here.

Pay attention harder.

He walks

[quote] It's his defense that's at play here. Pay attention harder.

Better yet you pay attention. The burden of proof is on the State, which by its own witnesses has fallen short of the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Trying to shift that burden is what got the prosecutor spanked in court.

2 Million Dollars were raised by Republicans for he legal defense before the court room drama. I guess they got what they paid for.

R136 If only you know what you're talking about...

The burden of proof isn't always on the prosecution.

The defendant here raised self-defense as an affirmative defense, and has the burden of proof to show evidence of self-defense. In Wisconsin, the bar is quite low but your assertion is still incorrect.

Once again for the slow learners. All a defendant has to do to assert self-defense is offer some evidence, any evidence. Could be testimony by the defendant, by a witness or by other evidence such as a video or photograph. There is no "burden of proof" for the defendant. There is no special "level" of evidence required. The burden never shifts from the government to the defendant. .

Once the defense is raised then the government must DISPROVE the self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt.

So essentially in a self-defense case the government has a double burden: prove the essential elements of each count AND disprove the self-defense claim. All of this beyond a reasonable doubt.

Well, I doubt it's self defense when you cross state lines to join in on a street riot. Not like he was walking home from school.

[quote] The burden never shifts from the government to the defendant.

R139 Never? Incorrect! Apparently, you're one of those slow learners.

Please learn that...the burden of proof in self-defense differs from state to state. In fact, in many states, the defendant who raises self-defense has the burden of proof shifted to them (by a preponderance of the evidence).

Never say never.

All the people in this scenario (killer and victims) suck equally. That being said, Rittenhouse will definitely walk. The prosecutor is blowing it.

Something popped up in my news feed about the judge being scrutinized. He appears to be biased towards the defense.

The judge is frustrated at the prosecution for doing a terrible job of proving their case. He knows what’s going to happen if he walks.

[Quote]they get reminded that it’s the people on the Right who have the guns.

Sorry but I have a few relatives, all raging liberals, who own arsenals. One has an enormous gun safe and regularly goes to the shooting range and it's not just pistols. Don't be lulled into thinking only the right has guns. That's just what they want you to believe and they probably believe it themselves.

[quote] Sorry but I have a few relatives, all raging liberals, who own arsenals.

It’s good that you are apologizing.

R145 ok..... how many people on the UWS do you think have ENORMOUS gun safes and are packing heat?

Only liberals live in NY? I'm in Houston and so is my family. Maybe it's a Texas thing.

Oh, Geez. This thread has now deteriorated into who owns the most guns?

DL has definitely gone downhill.

Relax R49. I was just responding to R147 who seems to think liberals only live in the UWS.

Carry on.

A long time ago I clerked at a law firm with base offices in Alaska. It was full of liberals so I felt comfortable in its DC office which it set up for environmental causes and lobbying. My best friend from HS had been murdered with a gun and I had just learned about it. I was discussing it as I learned the info via the Congressional Record and the debate over gun control legislation. This was early 1980s. When I expressed my opinion my support for tough gun control I probably mentioning Dems being on the "right" side and liberal vs conservatives, this very hip, bearded liberal lawyer told me that this was not a liberal/conservative matter nor a Dem/Rep thing. That it was a matter of where and how you were raised and that many gun rights supporters were very liberal but had a real familiarity with guns and didn't treat them as some mysterious force for evil.

As much as I still fear guns and get a visceral freak-out when I see them in public, I understand better that my fears and experiences are not everyone's and that this is not so good or bad as I thought in my youth. When I watch British TV police shows and when cops or some smartly dressed detectives go looking for some killer I scream at the TV where is your gun? Are you crazy? Get a gun! A big gun!

Nothing is as simple as some people want to make it.

Housto here again. My liberal, gun owning relatives are very experienced with guns but also teach safety to their kids from a young age and keep them unloaded and locked. Some of them hunt and take their kids with them and instill the importance for land management and conservation responsibility in them. They don't hunt for sport. The eat everything. They also loathe poachers, usually redneck trumpers, and litterbugs.

I guess it really does depend on location.

r152, maybe they are some of those people who call themselves liberal, but when you look at the totality of their political positions, they’re not.

No, R153. You don't get to reframe these people because they don't agree with you on one issue. Very liberal people can still feel you should be able to own a gun.

r154, gun ownership is only one issue. What are the views of your “very liberal” relatives on other issues?

R155, not who you are referring to. But I do have friends and colleagues not only liberal but as left as you can get. LOL! They have guns at home, one after being burglarized while he was home. That was terrifying. I get it. If I loved in house, not an apartment, I'd have a gun and the biggest dogs alive. The Alaska law firm liberals were liberal on everything else I was aware of - social issues, sexuality, politics, taxing the rich, the environment, criminal justice, you name it. Of course, now they'd probably be called nazis cause they think defunding the police is stupid.

I cant see R55 (blocked) but I am assuming it's some asshole insisting liberals don't own guns. Fucking idiot hence the block.

.........

That is one unprepossessing youth.

[quote] That is one unprepossessing youth.

Yes but not everybody can be a Timothée Chalamet

R157, most young liberals loathe guns and especially their owners .

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

R162 What's gonna happen to the gay prosecutor after this?

Biden will probably make him an Admiral

When Rittenhouse is acquitted, it means repukes can start killing people at will. Right? The precedence will be set. We are heading into dangerous territory.

r165, the “precedent” would be that, yes, it’s okay to fire a gun at anyone who is actively trying to kill you or cause you grave bodily harm, as the three people who were shot were trying to do to Rittenhouse.

Apparently Mr. Binger is not gay.

Rittenhouse hopefully will be found guilty of a lesser charge. He may have shot two people dead in self defense, but he should never have been there in the first place.

[quote]he should never have been there in the first place.

This has no legal significance whatsoever. The prosecutor tried to bring it up, it went nowhere. Why people keep bringing up this point is bizarre since you could argue that point for any defendant that they shouldn't have "been there" in the first place.

Luckily, modern legal principles are better than that.

r168, the curfew charge was dropped by the judge, so there’s no charge for him “being there” and you can toss your nonsense in the rubbish bin.

[quote] Apparently Mr. Binger is not gay.

He's been lying about everything else. Why wouldn't he lie about this?

Fully exonerated by Wednesday

Rittenhouse being stomped on

We need some more Rittenhouses to take on Antifa.

R173, it looks like the guy stomping Rittenhouse is stomping in self defense because some punk ass Rambo wannabe is pointing an automatic weapon at him.

R175 Which is the reason judgements based on photos alone are dangerous. There is plenty of video from a variety of angles that shows "jump-kick guy" (this was how we was referred in court because his identity was never determined) attacked him. The direction the gun is pointing in the photo is a consequence of Rittenhouse rolling as he fell on the ground.

Also, the gun is not an automatic weapon.

Someone needs to bitchslap that mother of his.

R178. Mark Levin the nutjob.

May Saint George Fraud protect us all. 👼

If Packers lose today, Wisconsinites will be more enraged to riot

R176, So I misidentified the weapon, (eyeroll). No matter what YOU call it, it's still a weapon that when aimed at someone by some teenaged vigilante with an itchy trigger finger, who had no business being there, can still kill someone.

And as far as the "different angles" showing an unarmed man jump kicking this kid who was waving around a weapon in a threatening manner, it looks to me that the unarmed man was trying to stop this punk from causing anymore mayhem. The "jump kick man" was brave and heroic.

[quote] No matter what YOU call it, it's still a weapon that when aimed at someone by some teenaged vigilante with an itchy trigger finger, who had no business being there, can still kill someone.

Like how a skateboard can be used to kill someone when bashed against someone’s head. When someone is intent on using a skateboard to bludgeon someone else to death, the person being attacked needs to have the right to defend themself.

[quote] The "jump kick man" was brave and heroic.

And when gay men and trans women have been murdered by someone literally stomping on their head until they died, did you celebrate that too, you sick freak?

R184, So you condone pointing a loaded weapon at strangers because you disagree with the protesters ? Not only pointing the weapon, but killing and wounding people.

You're nothing but a race baiting, homophobic troll.

You're stupid.

r185, if you watched any of the trial you would know Rittenhouse pointed his gun at the people who tried to kill him, not random strangers.

[quote]the “precedent” would be that, yes, it’s okay to fire a gun at anyone who is actively trying to kill you or cause you grave bodily harm, as the three people who were shot were trying to do to Rittenhouse.

Rittenhouse's first shot at Rosenbaum fractured his pelvis and dropped him on the ground. He was unarmed and was out of reach of Rittenhouse's rifle which was strapped to his body. Whatever immediate threat he posed was gone at that point. The next three shots were not fired in self defense.

Welp, the only saving grace is that there's no doubt that Rittenhouse will get off, but it won't be long until he's in trouble again and the next time, he won't have a white supremist, MAGA, racist judge .

[quote] Rittenhouse's first shot at Rosenbaum fractured his pelvis and dropped him on the ground. He was unarmed and was out of reach of Rittenhouse's rifle which was strapped to his body. Whatever immediate threat he posed was gone at that point. The next three shots were not fired in self defense.

Your suggestion that the shots were fired minutes apart with time for a re-assessment between each one, instead of all being part of a burst, is patently absurd.

[quote]Your suggestion that the shots were fired minutes apart with time for a re-assessment between each one, instead of all being part of a burst, is patently absurd.

The fatal fourth shot went through his back, while he was on the ground. Wouldn't a reasonable person (which is the legal standard here) consider any immediate threat to be gone?

r191, not if you are continuing to pump the trigger, as any rational person would do. Rittenhouse showed restraint by only firing four rounds. If someone was attacking me, like Rosenbaum was doing to Rittenhouse, I would empty the magazine in him to ensure that the threat was neutralized.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

It's ridiculous that anyone thinks that the mind can operate that quickly. In closings I always have to remind my jury that an event at issue at trial did not occur over the length of the trial or even one direct or cross examination or even one sentence. But rather we are often talking about seconds and milliseconds.

Once you are in self-defense mode then what happens within those seconds-milliseconds is really one act.

In fact, Rittenhouse did react quickly and appropriately toward those not threatening him. Even Grosskreutz at first when Grosskreutz put his arms up before he changed up completely and charged at Rittenhouse with his gun pointed at Rittenhouse's head.

R193. Kyle Rittenhouse is a criminal so how does the star prosecutors witness criminal record come into play.

[quote] Less than ten days before he was shot by Rittenhouse, Grosskreutz was arrested and charged with prowling when he was caught videotaping cops' personal cars

That was the second time during these riots that he had done that. So you know why he was doing that: he was providing info to the rioters for doxing or some other nefarious purpose. He himself claims he had been going to all these demonstrations/riots over the summer. He was live streaming events and claims to have been a "legal observer". I never heard of a non-lawyer doing that.

Plus, of course, he was illegally carrying a gun.

[quote] I would empty the magazine in him to ensure that the threat was neutralized.

How about simply walking or running away from him once he was down? Why wouldn't that be sufficient to deal with the threat of a wounded, unarmed man?

When Grosskreutz was testifying, and perjuring all over the place, he had 5 or 6 (it was quite a few) of his communist people's revolution friends there. Why so many? Are they trying to dox the jury?

All of them trash.

The fatty prosecutor is breathing very heavily into the microphone during closing statements.

Mayonnaise Militia

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

How the prosecutor tried to blue out the self-defense

r203, that’s a huge difference in quality. A mistrial is warranted,

The quality is a minor issues an cheap shot at a technicality. Doesn't matter because guess what? The jury saw the high resolution one in the court room. The defense cant claim they didn't know about it or that it was given to them after both sides finished their arguments. In fact, if it was an issue, they could have said something about it then but they did not.