# The Kyle Rittenhouse Trial: What Will Be the Outcome?



## Irwin (Nov 13, 2021)

For those of you following the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, what do you think will be the verdict and if found guilty of any of the charges, what will be his sentence?

Closing arguments begin on Monday. After that, it's up to the jury for the verdict and then the judge will decide his sentence.


----------



## Tom 86 (Nov 13, 2021)

Gets off free!


----------



## bowmore (Nov 13, 2021)

IMO, he is responsible for the deaths. He went to Kenosha at his own accord. He illegally armed himself with an assault style weapon, and went looking for trouble.
I hope they will find him guilty of at least manslaughter.  When you knowingly go into a situation of unrest, you are just looking for trouble.


----------



## hollydolly (Nov 13, 2021)

Can I just intercept for a second and take this slightly off topic.. and say if this guy gets off free.. when in fact he travelled across the state border full armed, underage, and then killed people... then it's an absolute  travesty that this should have happened in the UK today...

_*Two brothers who believed Covid jabs were part of a conspiracy to turn people into "unthinking beings" have been jailed for buying a firearm.*
Carlisle Crown Court heard Harry Wilson, 24, from Kendal, ordered a Glock 19 pistol which was intercepted by police and replaced with a replica.
In a covert recording heard by the court Ashley Wilson, 27, said: "This is good, innit? Order another."
Judge Andrew Jefferies QC said the response was "excited and immature".
Prosecutor Chloe Fordham told the court the pair "held extreme views about there being a conspiracy by the elite to have the general population vaccinated against Covid in order to infect them with a substance which would kill the God particle in humans and turn them into unthinking beings".
As part of the theory this "elite" wanted to reset the economy, resulting in worldwide food shortages which would require them to defend themselves and their property, she said._
_'Quite extraordinary case'_​_Harry Wilson paid for the pistol, a Glock magazine and 50 rounds of ammunition with cryptocurrency but the parcel was intercepted by law enforcement agencies in the United States.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-59274090_


----------



## helenbacque (Nov 13, 2021)

I think he will be shown leniency because he is young and illiterate.  Judge appears to be sympathetic.


----------



## Jackie23 (Nov 13, 2021)

I agree with bowman and I think the Judge was heavy handed with his rulings to the Prosecutor.


----------



## S. Mary Cole (Nov 13, 2021)

I have been following the trial.  I am truly on the fence as to how the jury will vote.  A 17 year old "vigilante" for lack of a better word.  I guess we shall see.


----------



## AnnieA (Nov 13, 2021)

Jackie23 said:


> I agree with bowman and I think the Judge was heavy handed with his rulings to the Prosecutor.



From what little I've read and a clip I saw, the judge has a career reputation of being tough on lawyers and the lead prosecutor is by no means a hotshot ...came across as a whiner in the clip I watched. It's not fair that appearance impacts jurors but it does and the prosecutor looks dorky and sounds that way at times.  It's looking like Rittenhouse got lucky in the people involved in this trial.  I don't think he'll be found guilty of the homicide charges, but if it's a hung jury, he'll face another trial.


----------



## hollydolly (Nov 13, 2021)

helenbacque said:


> I think he will be shown leniency because he is young and illiterate.  Judge appears to be sympathetic.


The concern will be if he is shown leniency how is that going to prevent other potential murders in the name of defence carried out by under 18 year old  illiterates... ( rhetorical question ) I'm sure the prisons are full of illiterate murderers.. why would this young man be any different to them..

That boy knew exactly what he was doing when he took that full loaded gun to a another state to join a protest..IMO...


----------



## helenbacque (Nov 13, 2021)

hollydolly said:


> The concern will be if he is shown leniency how is that going to prevent other potential murders in the name of defence carried out by under 18 year old  illiterates... ( rhetorical question ) I'm sure the priosns are full of illiterate murderers.. why would this young man be any different to them..
> 
> That boy knew exactly what he was doing when he took that full loaded gun to a another state to join a protest..IMO...


 I didn't say it was the right thing to do. I only gave my opinion of trial outcome.


----------



## hollydolly (Nov 13, 2021)

helenbacque said:


> I didn't say it was the right thing to do. I only gave my opinion of trial outcome.


If you read again...I wasn't addressing you personally I said it was a Rhetorical question ....


----------



## Colleen (Nov 13, 2021)

Tom 86 said:


> Gets off free!


Yup


----------



## Harry Le Hermit (Nov 13, 2021)

The court hasn't completely decided on the full scope of charges, with potential lesser charges being presented to the jury. Will the jury convict on the top counts or shift to conviction on some of the lesser counts?

I doubt the top counts will hold, and the outcome will be completely unsatisfactory for some. TV news will have their visual moments, imo.


----------



## Gemma (Nov 13, 2021)

He will found guilty IMO.


----------



## squatting dog (Nov 13, 2021)

bowmore said:


> IMO, he is responsible for the deaths. He went to Kenosha at his own accord. He illegally armed himself with an assault style weapon, and went looking for trouble.
> I hope they will find him guilty of at least manslaughter.  When you knowingly go into a situation of unrest, you are just looking for trouble.


I assume you feel the same about the 3 thugs (2 down) who also went looking for trouble. (oh yeah... and old 1 arm was also armed).


----------



## squatting dog (Nov 13, 2021)

Also................
Why has Gaige Grosskreutz who aimed a gun at Kyle Rittenhouse not been charged with attempted murder?   Media bias maybe.


----------



## ohioboy (Nov 13, 2021)

squatting dog said:


> Also................
> Why has Gaige Grosskreutz who aimed a gun at Kyle Rittenhouse not been charged with attempted murder?   Media bias maybe.


Did he fire his gun at kyle? If not then there was no attempt..


----------



## squatting dog (Nov 13, 2021)

Harry Le Hermit said:


> The court hasn't completely decided on the full scope of charges, with potential lesser charges being presented to the jury. Will the jury convict on the top counts or shift to conviction on some of the lesser counts?
> 
> I doubt the top counts will hold, and the outcome will be completely unsatisfactory for some. TV news will have their visual moments, imo.


In a shocking admission on Friday, the prosecution said that because of the evidence presented in the case “a reasonable jury or juror” could acquit Rittenhouse on the most serious charges that he faces.
 Therefore.......... Wisconsin’s Assistant District Attorney James Kraus acknowledged the slim prospects for a guilty verdict as he indicated the state’s intentions to switch out Rittenhouse’s current charges with “a multitude of lesser charges” for the jury to come to a decision on. So, if we can't get a real conviction, let's try for an easier one.


----------



## squatting dog (Nov 13, 2021)

ohioboy said:


> Did he fire his gun at kyle? If not then there was no attempt..


I'd be curious to see how you would react if someone points a gun at your face while you're on the ground. Would you wait to see if he really means to shoot you?


----------



## ohioboy (Nov 13, 2021)

squatting dog said:


> I'd be curious to see how you would react if someone points a gun at your face while you're on the ground. Would you wait to see if he really means to shoot you?


That does not mean a charge of attempted murder exists for the person pointing it.


----------



## squatting dog (Nov 13, 2021)

ohioboy said:


> That does not mean a charge of attempted murder exists for the person pointing it.


Missing the point obviously. If you were to say try to run somebody over with your car, but missed... would that be attempted murder? Aiming a gun at someone whether you pull the trigger or not would get you an attempted murder charge in the real world.


----------



## hollydolly (Nov 13, 2021)

squatting dog said:


> Missing the point obviously. If you were to say try to run somebody over with your car, but missed... would that be attempted murder? Aiming a gun at someone whether you pull the trigger or not would get you an attempted murder charge in the real world.


..but he didn't miss, because he didn't fire.  If your car is pointed in the direction of  another car but not actually moving, does it give the car in the opposite direction the right to crash into you.. ?.. same scenario...


----------



## Nathan (Nov 13, 2021)

Irwin said:


> The Kyle Rittenhouse Trial: What Will Be the Outcome?


Kyle Rittenhouse, oh is that the punk kid that has a freakin' assault rifle shooting people at some public demonstration?    He is the darling of the domestic terrorists, he'll likely get a slap on the wrist because you know he was just protecting himself against the _unarmed _demonstrators.
His parents should be prosecuted no only for the murders but for child neglect.



hollydolly said:


> The concern will be if he is shown leniency how is that going to prevent other potential murders in the name of defence carried out by under 18 year old  illiterates... ( rhetorical question ) I'm sure the prisons are full of illiterate murderers.. why would this young man be any different to them..
> 
> That boy knew exactly what he was doing when he took that full loaded gun to a another state to join a protest..IMO...


Rittenhouse would thrive in prison, he would be right at home, he could join with the Aryan Brotherhood, or any one of several similar racial affiliated prison gangs.


----------



## Harry Le Hermit (Nov 13, 2021)

squatting dog said:


> So, if we can't get a real conviction, let's try for an easier one.


The defense has to agree to the lesser charges as well. It is all about that unbiased jury of peers and reasonable doubt, which varies by individual. Unbiased does not mean unaware of the social fabric of the community or it wouldn't be a jury of peers and they are not machines. They would not be unaware of the consequences of the verdict rendered and the possible consequences for each of them.

Lesser charges would take a hung jury off the table, which is likely what the jury would prefer at this point, imo.


----------



## hollydolly (Nov 13, 2021)

Nathan said:


> Kyle Rittenhouse, oh is that the punk kid that has a freakin' assault rifle shooting people at some public demonstration?    He is the darling of the domestic terrorists, he'll likely get a slap on the wrist because you know he was just protecting himself against the _unarmed _demonstrators.
> His parents should be prosecuted no only for the murders but for child neglect.


Actually tbh.. I have to say that watching this trial , I was actually getting annoyed at the mother who sat their blubbing in the court at her 'poor boy being told off'...... I kept saying , if she'd raised him properly or at least kept an eye on what and who  he was involved in, she might not be sitting there knowing her 'baby' was a killer


----------



## ohioboy (Nov 13, 2021)

squatting dog said:


> Missing the point obviously. If you were to say try to run somebody over with your car, but missed... would that be attempted murder? Aiming a gun at someone whether you pull the trigger or not would get you an attempted murder charge in the real world.


I 'm talking Attempt by criminal definition, not what one would think it is. Wisconsin statutes define it, but can't paste right now.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Nov 13, 2021)

This kid should have been home in bed.

Very sad that this impressionable young man bought into this form of vigilantism.

I think that he will be found guilty and the judge will use the sentence to send a message to those with a similar mindset.

Tragic situation for all involved.


----------



## ohioboy (Nov 13, 2021)

Wisconsin statutes 939.32: (3)

Case law citations/definition of what constitutes the crime of ATTEMPT. If someone wants to read of copy and paste here.


----------



## win231 (Nov 13, 2021)

He will be acquitted of most (if not all) charges.
The only crime that can be proved was underage possession of a firearm.  That's a minor offense.
As for shooting 3 people, one of them - that moron Gaige Grosskreutz is lucky he's still breathing.  When you point a gun at someone, they have the right to defend themselves with whatever means they have.  And, Mr. Grosskreutz was illegally carrying a concealed handgun without a concealed carry permit.  He will be reminded of his stupidity every time he tries to use his right arm. 
A for the other 2 idiots, if someone hit me in the head with a skateboard (or any object capable of causing harm), or kicked me in the head, I'd have done the same thing.


----------



## Harry Le Hermit (Nov 13, 2021)

ohioboy said:


> Wisconsin statutes 939.32: (3)
> 
> Case law citations/definition of what constitutes the crime of ATTEMPT. If someone wants to read of copy and paste here.


You may be referencing 941.20(1)(c) which is a class A misdemeanor. Which was likely waived for testimony provided.


----------



## ohioboy (Nov 13, 2021)

Harry Le Hermit said:


> You may be referencing 941.20(1)(c) which is a class A misdemeanor. Which was likely waived for testimony provided.


That has nothing to do with attempted murder as we are discussing.


----------



## Don M. (Nov 13, 2021)

It appears that Wisconsin has put 500 members of the National Guard on Standby, in case the judge/jury doesn't hand down a severe sentence.  I guess Wisconsin is gearing up for riots and protests.


----------



## Nathan (Nov 13, 2021)

win231 said:


> Rittenhouse​He will be acquitted of most (if not all) charges.
> The only crime that can be proved was underage possession of a firearm.  That's a minor offense.
> As for shooting 3 people, one of them - that moron Gaige Grosskreutz is lucky he's still breathing.  When you point a gun at someone, they have the right to defend themselves with whatever means they have.  And, Mr. Grosskreutz was illegally carrying a concealed handgun without a concealed carry permit.  He will be reminded of his stupidity every time he tries to use his right arm.
> A for the other 2 idiots, if someone hit me in the head with a skateboard (or any object capable of causing harm), or kicked me in the head, I'd have done the same thing.


It sounds like you support Rittenhouse's actions,is that correct?   No sympathy whatsoever for the victims of Rittenhouse, who were trying to stop the [attempted] murder spree of an active shooter?


----------



## Irwin (Nov 13, 2021)

Rittenhouse is being tried for several crimes...

He's charged with killing Joseph Rosenbaum. This is my understanding of what happened in that crime.

Somebody else fired a handgun. I don't think it's known who that was.
Rosenbaum went chasing after Rittenhouse. Did Rosenbaum think Rittenhouse fired the shot?
Rosenbaum was unarmed but was shouting obesities at Rittenhouse. He threw a bag of medical supplies at Rittenhouse and grabbed the gun barrel.
Rittenhouse may have assumed it was Rosenbaum who fired the shot and thus, in self-defense, shot Rosenbaum.
Obviously, had Rittenhouse not been brandishing his illegally obtained and carried assault-style rifle, Rosenbaum wouldn't have gone after him.
Rosenbaum was a perceived threat to Rittenhouse but not an actual threat. I don't know what the standard is for self-defense in Wisconsin. Does the threat need to be real or simply perceived?
In traffic accidents, if one of the drivers involved was driving without a valid drivers license, I believe that person is automatically at fault since he or she shouldn't have been behind the wheel in the first place, providing, of course, that the other driver was driving legally. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong. So if that's the case, if someone who is illegally carrying a gun, uses that gun in a shooting and kills someone, is he or she automatically in the wrong, even if it's in an act of self-defense?
Next!

He's charged with killing Anthony Huber.

Huber chased after Rittenhouse after Rittenhouse killed Rosenbaum.
Huber was unarmed and was probably trying to prevent anyone else from being shot by Rittenhouse. With all the mass shootings we've seen by people with assault-style rifles, that was a pretty heroic thing to do.
Rittenhouse felt threatened as he was surrounded by people trying to get his weapon. That's the part where he broke down on the witness stand and cried uncontrollably when recalling the event.
He's charged with shooting and injuring Gaige Grosskreutz

Grosskreutz was armed with a pistol, which he pointed at Rittenhouse but never fired. Rittenhouse was on the ground at the time.
Did Grosskreutz tell Rittenhouse to "drop your weapon" or anything like that. Grosskreutz ran up to Rittenhouse, probably in an attempt to disarm Rittenhouse and prevent another shooting.
Rittenhouse shot Grosskreutz but not fatally.
Is that self-defense? Again, Rittenhouse may have perceived Grosskreutz to be a threat, but not in actuality.
There are other charges... illegally obtaining and brandishing a weapon and a few other misdemeanors. I'm not sure at this point how I'd decide as a juror. I'll need to learn more about the laws in Wisconsin and get some more details on the case.

In the sentencing phase, a few things are clear... Rittenhouse has shown absolutely no remorse for killing two men and injuring another. He was wearing a t-shirt with the words "FREE AS F*CK" on it a few weeks after the shootings. He attended a white supremacist meeting afterwards and flashed white supremacist hand signs.

In all likelihood, Rittenhouse is a sociopath. How can you kill another human being and not be affected by it? That a sure sign of sociopathy.

We shall see if the judge factors those things into his sentencing.


----------



## Irwin (Nov 13, 2021)

Don M. said:


> It appears that Wisconsin has put 500 members of the National Guard on Standby, in case the judge/jury doesn't hand down a severe sentence.  I guess Wisconsin is gearing up for riots and protests.


I don't think there will be much fallout if Rittenhouse goes free since the people he killed were White. That pretty much takes the race card out of it.


----------



## Pepper (Nov 13, 2021)

Excellent assessment @Irwin


----------



## Alligatorob (Nov 13, 2021)

I am thinking not guilty.

He is guilty of being stupid, and reckless, but nothing like criminal murder or manslaughter.  Maybe some minor gun or curfew violations. 

My far from an expert opinion.


----------



## mrstime (Nov 13, 2021)

I don't know what the verdict will be but I do know that judge needs to be removed from the bench!


----------



## hollydolly (Nov 13, 2021)

mrstime said:


> I don't know what the verdict will be but I do know that judge needs to be removed from the bench!


I agree with this tbh...


----------



## Pepper (Nov 13, 2021)

He won't be though, @mrstime t


----------



## mrstime (Nov 13, 2021)

Pepper said:


> He won't be though, @mrstime t


yes I know, unfortunately.


----------



## Nathan (Nov 13, 2021)

Pepper said:


> He won't be though, @mrstime t


Where criminal law falls short, sometimes civil law can bring "some" justice.    I'm betting money he won't serve any time, but maybe he can spend the rest of his life making restitution to some of his victim's families.


----------



## rgp (Nov 13, 2021)

Don M. said:


> It appears that Wisconsin has put 500 members of the National Guard on Standby, in case the judge/jury doesn't hand down a severe sentence.  I guess Wisconsin is gearing up for riots and protests.



No point commenting on the case, as just about all has been said.

But ;

"


Don M. said:


> It appears that Wisconsin has put 500 members of the National Guard on Standby, in case the judge/jury doesn't hand down a severe sentence.  I guess Wisconsin is gearing up for riots and protests.





Don M. said:


> It appears that Wisconsin has put 500 members of the National Guard on Standby, in case the judge/jury doesn't hand down a severe sentence.  I guess Wisconsin is gearing up for riots and protests.



 IMO this is the real tragedy of it all. The fact that certain segments of our society just cannot come to terms with the justice system, and what it deals out. They just must be heard, have their way , or riot when they do not get it.


----------



## Irwin (Nov 13, 2021)

Pepper said:


> Excellent assessment @Irwin


Why thank you, @Pepper.    I wanted to be a lawyer at one time before I got into computer science. I'm still fascinated with criminal and business law. I would have sucked as a lawyer, though, because you it requires good people skills and I'm horribly inept when it comes to dealing with people.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Nov 13, 2021)

hollydolly said:


> The concern will be if he is shown leniency how is that going to prevent other potential murders in the name of defence carried out by under 18 year old  illiterates... ( rhetorical question ) I'm sure the prisons are full of illiterate murderers.. why would this young man be any different to them..
> 
> That boy knew exactly what he was doing when he took that full loaded gun to a another state to join a protest..IMO...


Exactly!  And the Proud Boy wannabe met up with them after the murders and he wasn't blubbering then, seemed very smug and proud.  He wanted to play with his new toy, and two people are no longer breathing because of it.  I would like to see him charged with murder, but that won't happen.  What he did can be seen as self defense, but the little brat shouldn't have been there at all, and he wouldn't have to worry about defending himself.  Very much like Zimmerman, took his gun and put himself in a position he had no business being in, the cops even told him to stand back.  He murdered a man for no reason at all, then the killer cries self defense.  I have zero tolerance for these types.
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-...t-on-bail-drinking-with-members-of-proud-boys






> Kyle Rittenhouse, the 18-year-old who has been charged with fatally shooting two protesters during a protest in Wisconsin, was seen drinking with members of the far-right Proud Boys group while flashing a gesture equated with white supramecist movements, according to prosecutors.
> The Washington Post reported that Rittenhouse was seen by state prosecutors at a bar where the 18-year-old was wearing a shirt that read "Free as f---" and socializing with known members of the group.


----------



## Sassycakes (Nov 13, 2021)

I am very happy I am not on the jury, In my opinion, he is guilty. I have no respect for the Judge and his treatment of the Prosecuting Attorney.


----------



## win231 (Nov 13, 2021)

Nathan said:


> It sounds like you support Rittenhouse's actions,is that correct?   No sympathy whatsoever for the victims of Rittenhouse, who were trying to stop the [attempted] murder spree of an active shooter?


You are confused.  Rittenhouse was not shooting until he was assaulted by 3 morons.
Would you criticize a police officer who shot someone who pointed a gun at him?  Please tell us how much sympathy you would have for a cop's victim in that situation.
Or clubbed him in the head with a skateboard?


----------



## ohioboy (Nov 13, 2021)

Sassycakes said:


> I am very happy I am not on the jury, In my opinion, he is guilty. I have no respect for the Judge and his treatment of the Prosecuting Attorney.


There were 2 court/law violations committed by the prosecutor. 1. He attempted/succeeded to introduce evidence which was already ruled on by the judge as inadmissable.

2. He made  reference to the fact of Kyle not taking the stand implied guilt or something along that legal point. Clearly a Constitutional violation.


----------



## win231 (Nov 13, 2021)

SeaBreeze said:


> Exactly!  And the Proud Boy wannabe met up with them after the murders and he wasn't blubbering then, seemed very smug and proud.  He wanted to play with his new toy, and two people are no longer breathing because of it.  I would like to see him charged with murder, but that won't happen.  What he did can be seen as self defense, but the little brat shouldn't have been there at all, and he wouldn't have to worry about defending himself.  Very much like Zimmerman, took his gun and put himself in a position he had no business being in, the cops even told him to stand back.  He murdered a man for no reason at all, then the killer cries self defense.  I have zero tolerance for these types.
> https://thehill.com/homenews/state-...t-on-bail-drinking-with-members-of-proud-boys


You are 100% correct - about both Rittenhouse and Zimmerman.  Neither one of them should have put themselves in that situation.  Both had a need to look like "Heroes" & "Protectors."  Both are stupid.
But, after that fact, both acted in self defense - which is why one was already acquitted & the other will likely be acquitted - except for underage possession of a firearm.


----------



## Butterfly (Nov 14, 2021)

mrstime said:


> I don't know what the verdict will be but I do know that judge needs to be removed from the bench!



I strongly agree.  At one point in an argument about whether something had been excluded from entry by a previous written order or the court, after a previous pre-trial hearing on the matter, the judge, after looking at the order, said he may have signed it but that didn't mean he had read it.  Which is just CRAZY!  Then he said something to the effect that if he had signed it that wasn't what he understood the order to mean, even tho the order was clear on its face what it meant and referred to.  It's the judge's JOB to read and understand what he is signing and to be sure it conveys clearly what he is ordering.  Anyway the judge waffled and finally allowed in the evidence or testimony or whatever it was that he had previously excluded by his own order.

He's also gone off on at least one religious rant, which is inappropriate as all get-out.


----------



## win231 (Nov 14, 2021)

Irwin said:


> Rittenhouse is being tried for several crimes...
> 
> He's charged with killing Joseph Rosenbaum. This is my understanding of what happened in that crime.
> 
> ...


You neglected to mention that Anthony Huber hit Rittenhouse on the head with his skateboard.  As stupid as can be.
As for Grosskreutz, when someone points a gun at you, it would be really stupid to tell him to "drop your weapon."  Do you really think any police officer in his right mind wouldn't immediately shoot to stop someone who was already pointing a gun at him?


----------



## squatting dog (Nov 14, 2021)

Also failed to mention that Grosskreutz was a convicted felon carrying a gun, and that Rittenhouse was there originally to help protect his employers business from the (ahem) peaceful protesters before getting separated from his group.


----------



## Alligatorob (Nov 14, 2021)

win231 said:


> Do you really think any police officer in his right mind wouldn't immediately shoot to stop someone who was already pointing a gun at him?


Only the dead ones...  

No expert here, but I have always believed that you should only point a gun if you plan to quickly use it, and assume the same of others.


----------



## GeorgiaXplant (Nov 14, 2021)

helenbacque said:


> I think he will be shown leniency because he is young and illiterate.  Judge appears to be sympathetic.


Illiterate? No. But his attorney is tech illiterate. He kept saying logarithm instead of algorithm. He also questioned the use of the pinch-to-zoom feature when showing a video because "artificial intelligence" could distort the original video.

The judge _appears_ to be sympathetic? The judge is biased. For crying out loud! His phone rang during proceedings, and his ringtone played "God Bless the USA", the theme song for Trump rallies.

The judge refused to allow prosecutors to refer to the dead men as victims but allowed the defense to refer to them as "looters" or "rioters".

The judge has not allowed any mention of Rittenhouse's Proud Boys connection. Proud Boys is a far-right, neo-fascist organization made up of exclusively male members, and has been declared a terrorist organization in Canada.

The defense attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the case with prejudice, and the judge is "taking it under advisement". If granted, dismissing with prejudice means the case cannot be retried.

My guess is that this poor little underage boy (my words), whose _mother_ drove him across state lines armed with an AR15, will walk free.


----------



## Nathan (Nov 14, 2021)

win231 said:


> You are confused.  Rittenhouse was not shooting until he was assaulted by 3 morons.
> *Would you criticize a police officer who shot someone who pointed a gun at him? * Please tell us how much sympathy you would have for a cop's victim in that situation.
> Or clubbed him in the head with a skateboard?


I am not confused at all, I am trying to verify your moral stance and perspective.   Here[in bold,above] your are giving the Rittenhouse scumbag the same status as a police officer?   Simply amazing.


----------



## Nathan (Nov 14, 2021)

Alligatorob said:


> Only the dead ones...
> 
> No expert here, but I have always believed that you should only point a gun if you plan to quickly use it, and assume the same of others.


Exactly.
When someone has a firearm in their possession the intentions are clear:  they are prepared to kill someone, plain and simple.   Nobody in their right mind carries a firearm just to "scare" off the bogyman, even that will get you a felony.


----------



## squatting dog (Nov 14, 2021)

Nathan said:


> Exactly.
> When someone has a firearm in their possession the intentions are clear:  they are prepared to kill someone, plain and simple.   Nobody in their right mind carries a firearm just to "scare" off the bogyman, even that will get you a felony.


So, you are agreeing that  Grosskreutz came prepared to kill someone... right?   checkmate.


----------



## Nathan (Nov 14, 2021)

squatting dog said:


> So, you are agreeing that  Grosskreutz came prepared to kill someone... right?


Yes,  Grosskreutz should have not have  hesitated to fire at Rittenhouse, the active shooter.   As I said before, if you carry a gun be willing to use it.


----------



## squatting dog (Nov 14, 2021)

Nathan said:


> Where did you get that?     We're talking about Rittenhouse here.


Yes, you said referring to Rittenhouse... "When someone has a firearm in their possession the intentions are clear: they are prepared to kill someone, plain and simple". 
So, what I took from that quote is you would you then agree that Grosskreutz came prepared to kill. Right?


----------



## Nathan (Nov 14, 2021)

squatting dog said:


> Yes, you said referring to Rittenhouse... "When someone has a firearm in their possession the intentions are clear: they are prepared to kill someone, plain and simple".
> So, what I took from that quote is you would you then agree that Grosskreutz came prepared to kill. Right?


I wasn't referring to Grosskreutz specifically, but I can see how you assumed that.    See my edited post.


----------



## win231 (Nov 14, 2021)

Nathan said:


> I see that you are getting defensive, I have no "position", ridiculous or otherwise...I'm questioning _your_ quite ridiculous position, which you're apparently sensitive about.
> Don't bother to reply, unless you have something more substantial to say other than gibberish and obfuscation.


You are speaking from a _moral _perspective.  That's where your confusion lies.  I am speaking from a _legal _perspective.  Morals are completely irrelevant.
I think Rittenhouse is an idiot; just as I think Zimmerman is an idiot.  But being an idiot doesn't take away the right to self defense.  And being an idiot doesn't make someone guilty of a crime.
There were _four _idiots in this case:  Rittenhouse, Huber, Grosskreutz & Rosenbaum.


----------



## Alligatorob (Nov 14, 2021)

win231 said:


> I think Rittenhouse is an idiot; just as I think Zimmerman is an idiot. But being an idiot doesn't take away the right to self defense. And being an idiot doesn't make someone guilty of a crime.
> There were _four _idiots in this case: Rittenhouse, Huber, Grosskreutz & Rosenbaum.


Yep, 2 idiots who stupidly and unnecessarily, but not unlawfully caused the deaths of others.  And 3 who got shot for their own stupidity.

Life is hard, harder if you are stupid.


----------



## Nathan (Nov 14, 2021)

win231 said:


> You are speaking from a _moral _perspective.  That's where your confusion lies.  I am speaking from a _legal _perspective.  Morals are completely irrelevant.
> I think Rittenhouse is an idiot; just as I think Zimmerman is an idiot.  But being an idiot doesn't take away the right to self defense.  And being an idiot doesn't make someone guilty of a crime.
> There were _four _idiots in this case:  Rittenhouse, Huber, Grosskreutz & Rosenbaum.


@win231, thanks for your reply.  No "confusion" here, but just so you know if I sense someone's attempting to hide the meaning of their words...I'll be asking hard questions.
_"Morals are completely irrelevant"_, O.K., we can leave morality out of a discussion about Rittenhouse's trial, don't want anybody getting confused over morality and the law.  So the victims were "idiots" as you say, there is a saying about bravery & stupidity: " *Bravery and Stupidity are the same thing, the outcome determines your label.*"   So if one of the 3 victims had been able to kill Rittenhouse he'd be a hero instead of an idiot.  The former potus said the same about disabled veterans(called soldiers who died fighting for their country “losers” and “suckers” and that he asked a military parade to exclude wounded veterans because “nobody wants to see” amputees.), a pretty contemptible statement if you ask me.


----------



## Irwin (Nov 14, 2021)

Had Rittenhouse simply been defending himself, as he claims, he would have dropped his weapon and possibly even rendered aid to Rosenbaum, who before that point, was his only victim. Instead, he ran away with his rifle drawn. People in the crowd were screaming, "He just shot somebody!" Most people scattered but a few tried to stop and disarm Rittenhouse.

Huber rushed in, hit Rittenhouse in the head with his skateboard, and tried to control the rifle, which is when he was shot in the chest. He staggered back and fell. Grosskreutz was a few feet away with his handgun drawn and is shot next in the arm. I don't remember if Rittenhouse claims that's why he fired. Everything was moving so fast at that point, he seemed like he was just firing at anyone who was approaching him.

Grosskreutz is a paramedic, which could be why he wasn't more aggressive against Rittenhouse. His job is to save lives, which is what he was trying to do when he rushed in and what got him shot. Had he shot and killed Rittenhouse, he might be the one on trial right now had the D.A. pressed charges.

Rittenhouse, who was in illegal possession of his rifle, was also violating the curfew, as was everyone else in the area. But, while the police were trying to disperse the protesters, they were thanking the armed vigilantes and even gave them water. They also moved the protesters directly into the area where there was a heavy concentration of armed vigilantes.

One thing is clear, though. Huber and Grosskreutz are heroes. They were trying to stop what they thought was an active shooter.


----------



## jerry old (Nov 14, 2021)

Count the bodies. then decide

Judges  is making trial a farce

post 54, mentions Proud Boys-that should muddy the water for judge & prosecution

Seems like a lot of idiots wandering around  Wisconsin ; not to worry about unemployment, there are several openings in the Criminal Justice Sy


----------



## AnnieA (Nov 14, 2021)

GeorgiaXplant said:


> ...
> 
> The judge _appears_ to be sympathetic? The judge is biased. For crying out loud! His phone rang during proceedings, and his ringtone played "God Bless the USA", the theme song for Trump rallies.
> 
> ...



The second quoted point is very concerning.

The first is a huge stretch.  I've liked Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA" ever since he released it in the 90s.  As a person who loathes Trump, I had no idea he used it at rallies, but learning it from your post changes nothing about how I feel about the song.  I'm sure there are lots of Americans who used the song as a ringtone long before 2016.   I'm betting that crap came from the deliberately polarizing media.


----------



## AnnieA (Nov 14, 2021)

squatting dog said:


> ...Rittenhouse was there originally to help protect his employers business from the (ahem) peaceful protesters before getting separated from his group.



That's the first I've heard of that.  I thought the little angel said he went to the protest all heroic to render first aid.      If Rittenhouse had been an adult and accompanied his boss--the owner by request to sit inside with him to protect the business, I could see where shooting an intruder might be justifiable depending on the circumstances.  Otherwise, there's no reason he should've been there armed or even unarmed at his age.


----------



## Jace (Nov 14, 2021)

I am "torn"..


----------



## jerry old (Nov 14, 2021)

AnnieA said:


> The second quoted point is very concerning.
> 
> The first is a huge stretch.  I've liked Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA" ever since he released it in the 90s.  As a person who loathes Trump, I had no idea he used it at rallies, but learning it from your post changes nothing


 I had retired form giving any attention to political system, until, until, until that
Fella took office.
He awaking my dormant interest in politics-the sad part is, 'That Fella' resulted in me thinking ill of my fellow citizens.


----------



## win231 (Nov 14, 2021)

Irwin said:


> Had Rittenhouse simply been defending himself, as he claims, he would have dropped his weapon and possibly even rendered aid to Rosenbaum, who before that point, was his only victim. Instead, he ran away with his rifle drawn. People in the crowd were screaming, "He just shot somebody!" Most people scattered but a few tried to stop and disarm Rittenhouse.
> 
> Huber rushed in, hit Rittenhouse in the head with his skateboard, and tried to control the rifle, which is when he was shot in the chest. He staggered back and fell. Grosskreutz was a few feet away with his handgun drawn and is shot next in the arm. I don't remember if Rittenhouse claims that's why he fired. Everything was moving so fast at that point, he seemed like he was just firing at anyone who was approaching him.
> 
> ...


Obviously, you are not clear on the definition of an_ "Active Shooter."_
*"Active shooter* or *active killer* describes the perpetrator of a type of mass murder marked by rapidity, scale, _*randomness, *_and often suicide, usually associated with the United States. The United States Department of Homeland Security defines an _active shooter_ as "an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area; in most cases, active shooters use firearms and _*there is no pattern or method to their selection of victims."*_

Rittenhouse did not fire his rifle until he was attacked by 3 idiots.  And those 3 idiots are the only people he shot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_shooter


----------



## Butterfly (Nov 15, 2021)

squatting dog said:


> Also failed to mention that Grosskreutz was a convicted felon carrying a gun, and that Rittenhouse was there originally to help protect his employers business from the (ahem) peaceful protesters before getting separated from his group.


He was never employed by that car business.  The business didn't hire him to do anything.  That was clear from testimony by the business owners.  Rittenhouse had no connection whatsoever to that business.  He was an interloper.


----------



## rgp (Nov 15, 2021)

Butterfly said:


> He was never employed by that car business.  The business didn't hire him to do anything.  That was clear from testimony by the business owners.  Rittenhouse had no connection whatsoever to that business.  He was an interloper.



 He never stated that he [worked] for them.

  Two days later, Rittenhouse went to downtown Kenosha and volunteered to clean graffiti off a high school. He met the owners of a car dealership where vehicles had been burned, offered his “condolences,” and said he wanted to help. He said the owners asked his friend to protect their business, and that he joined his friend and others that night. He took his semi-automatic rifle and first-aid supplies. He gave his bulletproof vest — which he said was issued by the Grayslake Police Department — to a friend. He said he felt he wouldn’t need it “because I’m going to be helping people.”


----------



## JimBob1952 (Nov 15, 2021)

The judge has opened the door to lesser charges, some sort of weapons count I guess. 

Rittenhouse is an idiot and shouldn't have been there.  Neither should the people doing the rioting and property burning.  I don't have much sympathy for anyone involved, including the dead.


----------



## JimBob1952 (Nov 15, 2021)

bowmore said:


> IMO, he is responsible for the deaths. He went to Kenosha at his own accord. He illegally armed himself with an assault style weapon, and went looking for trouble.
> I hope they will find him guilty of at least manslaughter.  When you knowingly go into a situation of unrest, you are just looking for trouble.





Nathan said:


> I am not confused at all, I am trying to verify your moral stance and perspective.   Here[in bold,above] your are giving the Rittenhouse scumbag the same status as a police officer?   Simply amazing.   How about the violent traitors storming the capital on Jan. 6th?   Are they "heroes" in your view?





Nathan said:


> Where criminal law falls short, sometimes civil law can bring "some" justice.    I'm betting money he won't serve any time, but maybe he can spend the rest of his life making restitution to some of his victim's families.




Rosenbaum was homeless and just released from a psychiatric ward that day.  He had spent 10 years in prison for sex crimes against minors.  What exactly would "restitution" look like in this case?


----------



## JimBob1952 (Nov 15, 2021)

It's not at all clear that Huber and Grosskreutz were heroes.  Both were there because -- remember? -- they were rioters, participants in a violent uprising.  Huber was a felon, druggie, domestic abuser, mental patient and all-around loser who tried to brain Rittenhouse with a skateboard.  Grosskreutz was carrying an illegal Glock, which he pointed at Rittenhouse.  

A pox on all their houses.


----------



## AnnieA (Nov 15, 2021)

Big blow for Rittenhouse today as judge rules drone footage admissible--his defense team did not want that.  The dropped charge for illegal firearm is not much of a gain for him since it specifically did not meet the conditions of Wisconsin state law ...would not have held up anyway.


----------



## AnnieA (Nov 15, 2021)

JimBob1952 said:


> It's not at all clear that Huber and Grosskreutz were heroes.  Both were there because -- remember? -- they were rioters, participants in a violent uprising.  Huber was a felon, druggie, domestic abuser, mental patient and all-around loser who tried to brain Rittenhouse with a skateboard.  Grosskreutz was carrying an illegal Glock, which he pointed at Rittenhouse.
> 
> A pox on all their houses.



The only people who should've been there were on-the-clock first responders and property owners on their premises.  I don't have much sympathy for bad things that happen to anyone else who shows up at this sort of action whether they're injured, killed or go to prison for injuring or killing.

.


----------



## Irwin (Nov 15, 2021)

The judge threw out the charge for illegal possession of a firearm this morning. I watched the videos of the attacks again last night and it seems like the claims of self-defense are perfectly valid. Rittenhouse was attacked by the people he shot and laws allow the use of deadly force if you feel like your life is in danger.

I'm betting on full acquittal in this case. Like Rittenhouse said, according to the laws in our country and in Wisconsin, he didn't do anything wrong.


----------



## AnnieA (Nov 15, 2021)

Irwin said:


> The judge threw out the charge for illegal possession of a firearm this morning.



It was a misdemeanor charge and wouldn't have held up since the barrel of his rifle was over 26 inches.  I read the law and it's legalese gone off the rails.    It's a good thing that the jury doesn't have to grapple with this bizarre law on top of the more serious charges.

.


----------



## JimBob1952 (Nov 15, 2021)

squatting dog said:


> Also failed to mention that Grosskreutz was a convicted felon carrying a gun, and that Rittenhouse was there originally to help protect his employers business from the (ahem) peaceful protesters before getting separated from his group.




Grosskreutz was carrying a weapon despite an expired carry permit.  He had a misdemeanor weapons charge but no felony convictions.  Both of the men killed (Huber and Rosenbaum) were felons.  That, of course, does not mean they "deserved" what they got or anything of the sort.  

Everybody's actions are on tape.  It's up to the jury now.


----------



## ohioboy (Nov 15, 2021)

AnnieA said:


> It was a misdemeanor charge and wouldn't have held up since the barrel of his rifle was over 26 inches.  I read the law and it's legalese gone off the rails.


 How so? He was still under 18.


----------



## AnnieA (Nov 15, 2021)

ohioboy said:


> How so? He was still under 18.


The age law links to the barrel length law in such a way that it 'could' be interpreted that a barrel over 26 inches provides an exemption to age.  It is very poorly written.


----------



## Nathan (Nov 15, 2021)

JimBob1952 said:


> Rosenbaum was homeless and just released from a psychiatric ward that day.  He had spent 10 years in prison for sex crimes against minors.  What exactly would "restitution" look like in this case?


Who knows?    Whatever his attorney could achieve in a civil suit.


----------



## JimBob1952 (Nov 15, 2021)

Nathan said:


> Who knows?    Whatever his attorney could achieve in a civil suit.



He doesn't have an attorney because he's, well, dead.  And the world is better off without him.  So that's maybe one good thing that came out of this miserable situation.


----------



## ohioboy (Nov 15, 2021)

941.28 Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.

Universal Citation: WI Stat § 941.28 (2012 through Act 45)
941.28  Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.

(1) In this section:

(a) "Rifle" means a firearm designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder or hip and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of a propellant in a metallic cartridge to fire through a rifled barrel a single projectile for each pull of the trigger.

(b) "Short-barreled rifle" means a rifle having one or more barrels having a length of less than 16 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a rifle having an overall length of less than 26 inches.

(c) "Short-barreled shotgun" means a shotgun having one or more barrels having a length of less than 18 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a shotgun having an overall length of less than 26 inches.

(d) "Shotgun" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder or hip and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of a propellant in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of ball shot or a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger.

(2) No person may sell or offer to sell, transport, purchase, possess or go armed with a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.

(3) Any person violating this section is guilty of a Class H felony.

(4) This section does not apply to the sale, purchase, possession, use or transportation of a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle to or by any armed forces or national guard personnel in line of duty, any peace officer of the United States or of any political subdivision of the United States or any person who has complied with the licensing and registration requirements under 26 USC 5801 to 5872. This section does not apply to the manufacture of short-barreled shotguns or short-barreled rifles for any person or group authorized to possess these weapons. The restriction on transportation contained in this section does not apply to common carriers. This section shall not apply to any firearm that may be lawfully possessed under federal law, or any firearm that could have been lawfully registered at the time of the enactment of the national firearms act of 1968.

(5) Any firearm seized under this section is subject to s. 968.20 (3) and is presumed to be contraband.

History: 1979 c. 115; 2001 a. 109.

The intent in sub. (1) (d) is that of the fabricator; that the gun is incapable of being fired or not intended to be fired by the possessor is immaterial. State v. Johnson, 171 Wis. 2d 175, 491 N.W.2d 110 (Ct. App. 1992).

"Firearm" means a weapon that acts by force of gunpowder to fire a projectile, regardless of whether it is inoperable due to disassembly. State v. Rardon, 185 Wis. 2d 701, 518 N.W.2d 330 (Ct. App. 1994)


----------



## Nathan (Nov 15, 2021)

Regardless of the outcome of this case, I am dumbfounded by the lack of sympathy for the victims, and the apparent support for this sick, violent perpetrator.     Was it the crocodile tears he shed on the witness stand?


----------



## Nathan (Nov 15, 2021)

JimBob1952 said:


> He doesn't have an attorney because he's, well, dead.  And the world is better off without him.  So that's maybe one good thing that came out of this miserable situation.


You can bet money that some relative will crawl out of the woodwork to file a wrongful death suit.


----------



## ohioboy (Nov 15, 2021)

ohioboy said:


> Wisconsin statutes 939.32: (3)
> 
> Case law citations/definition of what constitutes the crime of ATTEMPT. If someone wants to read of copy and paste here.


Requirements. An attempt to commit a crime requires that the actor have an intent to perform acts and attain a result which, if accomplished, would constitute such crime and that the actor does acts toward the commission of the crime which demonstrate unequivocally, under all the circumstances, that the actor for
There is no crime of “attempted homicide by reckless conduct" since the completed offense does not require intent while any attempt must demonstrate intent. State v. Melvin, 49 Wis. 2d 246, 181 N.W.2d 490 (1970).
Attempted 1st-degree murder was shown when only the fact of the gun misfiring and the action of the intended victim prevented completion of the crime. Austin v. State, 52 Wis. 2d 716, 190 N.W.2d 887 (1971).
The victim's kicking of the defendant in the mouth and other resistance was a valid extraneous factor preventing the completion of a crime, an essential requirement for the crime of attempted rape. Adams v. State, 57 Wis. 2d 515, 204 N.W.2d 657 (1973).
The screams and struggles of an intended rape victim were an effective intervening extrinsic force not under the defendant's control. Leach v. State, 83 Wis. 2d 199, 265 N.W.2d 495 (1978).
The failure to consummate the crime is not an essential element of criminal attempt under sub. (2). Berry v. State, 90 Wis. 2d 316, 280 N.W.2d 204 (1979).
The intervention of an extraneous factor is not an essential element of criminal attempt. Hamiel v. State, 92 Wis. 2d 656, 285 N.W.2d 639 (1979).
To prove attempt, the state must prove intent to commit a specific crime accompanied by sufficient acts to demonstrate unequivocally that it was improbable that the accused would have desisted of his or her own free will. State v. Stewart, 143 Wis. 2d 28, 420 N.W.2d 44 (1988).


----------



## win231 (Nov 15, 2021)

Nathan said:


> Regardless of the outcome of this case, I am dumbfounded by the lack of sympathy for the victims, and the apparent support for this sick, violent perpetrator.     Was it the crocodile tears he shed on the witness stand?


That's because your judgement is clouded by your unwillingness to see how the "victims" contributed to their deaths.


----------



## AnnieA (Nov 15, 2021)

@ohioboy   You can't read--or post--the law and make it make sense ...that's the problem.

Here's an attempt at an explanation by a UCLA law professor. It and the subsequent discussion in the comments show how unclear it is.

A comment made at 3:18 by username Kazenski explains better than I can why I think dropping the charge is a bad thing for Rittenhouse.

​_The defense preserved the issue for appeal so then they could have appealed the class A misdemeanor if he was cleared on all the other charges._​​
Taking the lesser and potentially very confusing misdemeanor charge out of play is helpful for the jury in considering the more serious charges and removes a loophole for his lawyers.

.


----------



## ohioboy (Nov 15, 2021)

I see what you mean AA. I've read other poorly written laws too.


----------



## Nathan (Nov 15, 2021)

win231 said:


> That's because your judgement is clouded by your unwillingness to see how the "victims" contributed to their deaths.


  You accuse others of "clouded judgement" and reject any notion of morality as being relevant, what a hoot!    
It appears that you support having some sick bastard bringing an assault rifle to a demonstration because the  protest was over the murder of a *black man *by the police.  And, because some of the victims are not upstanding citizens you feel their killing was their fault.

You value system is dead, I would feel sorry for you but somehow I think such energy would be a waste.


----------



## win231 (Nov 15, 2021)

Nathan said:


> You accuse others of "clouded judgement" and reject any notion of morality as being relevant, what a hoot!
> It appears that you support having some sick bastard bringing an assault rifle to a demonstration because the  protest was over the murder of a *black man *by the police.  And, because some of the victims are not upstanding citizens you feel their killing was their fault.
> 
> You value system is dead, I would feel sorry for you but somehow I think such energy would be a waste.


Your legal knowledge is dead.


----------



## AnnieA (Nov 15, 2021)

Nathan said:


> Regardless of the outcome of this case, I am dumbfounded by the lack of sympathy for the victims, and the apparent support for this sick, violent perpetrator.     Was it the crocodile tears he shed on the witness stand?



I don't have a bit of sympathy for any of them.  Not a single one of them should've been there (all violated curfew in a time of violence) and had Rittenhouse been shot and killed that night as well, it would've been no great loss.

.


----------



## Della (Nov 15, 2021)

I agree with Annie, except for a little bit of general sympathy for stupid people.

All four of those boys thought they were going to be heroes that day.  Kyle thought he was going to protect businesses, Rosenbaum, the skate board guy and the medic all saw Kyle's gun and thought they were stopping an "active shooter." 

Kyle's mother drove him to the protest with his gun.  I'm just shaking my head.


----------



## JimBob1952 (Nov 15, 2021)

Nathan said:


> You can bet money that some relative will crawl out of the woodwork to file a wrongful death suit.





Nathan said:


> Regardless of the outcome of this case, I am dumbfounded by the lack of sympathy for the victims, and the apparent support for this sick, violent perpetrator.     Was it the crocodile tears he shed on the witness stand?




Why exactly do the "victims" deserve sympathy?  They had congregated to riot and burn.  Grosskreutz, like Rittenhouse, was carrying a loaded weapon and was pointing it at Rittenhouse when he was shot.  The other two were violent felons, one a rapist of children.  I don't have any sympathy for Rittenhouse, either.


----------



## Murrmurr (Nov 15, 2021)

Della said:


> I agree with Annie, except for a little bit of general sympathy for stupid people.
> 
> All four of those boys thought they were going to be heroes that day.  Kyle thought he was going to protect businesses, Rosenbaum, the skate board guy and the medic all saw Kyle's gun and thought they were stopping an "active shooter."
> 
> Kyle's mother drove him to the protest with his gun.  I'm just shaking my head.


That one of the guys would use a skateboard to bonk a dude carrying a rifle gives you a good idea of the level of ...erm... sophistication we're dealing with here. Seems to me that everyone involved thought he was a superhero.


----------



## AnnieA (Nov 15, 2021)

Della said:


> Kyle's mother drove him to the protest with his gun.  I'm just shaking my head.



I just looked that one up.  Rittenhouse's mom didn't drive him to the protest and he never had the gun at her home.  He was staying with the older friend who bought the gun for him and where he kept it.   After the killing/maiming, Kyle went to his mother's home and she drove him to the police station.


----------



## JimBob1952 (Nov 15, 2021)

Murrmurr said:


> That one of the guys would use a skateboard to bonk a dude carrying a rifle gives you a good idea of the level of ...erm... sophistication we're dealing with here. Seems to me that everyone involved thought he was a superhero.



As a general rule of urban combat, rifle > skateboard.


----------



## Nathan (Nov 15, 2021)

JimBob1952 said:


> *Why exactly do the "victims" deserve sympathy? * They had congregated to riot and burn.  Grosskreutz, like Rittenhouse, was carrying a loaded weapon and was pointing it at Rittenhouse when he was shot.  The other two were violent felons, one a rapist of children.  I don't have any sympathy for Rittenhouse, either.


@JimBob1952 ,    I could explain this to you, but I think I'd be wasting my time.


----------



## Irwin (Nov 15, 2021)

This video changed my attitude towards Kyle Rittenhouse.





While I don't believe people should be allowed to walk around with AR-15 style rifles, it's perfectly legal thanks to our gun culture. I also don't believe people should destroy businesses and property because of a perceived wrong, but that's part of the social justice warriors culture and hip hop culture. There is also the white supremacist culture, of which Rittenhouse is a part, but there's nothing illegal about that, either.

America has a culture problem.


----------



## JimBob1952 (Nov 15, 2021)

Nathan said:


> @JimBob1952 ,    I could explain this to you, but I think I'd be wasting my time.



And mine.  Holier than thou is not a good look on anybody.


----------



## AnnieA (Nov 15, 2021)

Irwin said:


> America has a culture problem.



A well-orchestrated one.

.


----------



## Judycat (Nov 15, 2021)

Negligent homicide. He'll probably get probation.


----------



## Nathan (Nov 15, 2021)

win231 said:


> Your legal knowledge is dead.


That is "a" comeback, but not a very good one, nor an accurate one...'nuf said. 




JimBob1952 said:


> And mine.  Holier than thou is not a good look on anybody.


Looks like we have a run on weak argumentative replies designed to dodge the issues raised.  OK, maybe you feel slighted because I didn't address your question: "Why exactly do the "victims" deserve sympathy?"    My answer:  for those with the _Holier than thou_ attitude like yourself, I guess the question is moot, being murdered doesn't warrant sympathy from other humans if you as a person don't "deserve it".


----------



## JimBob1952 (Nov 15, 2021)

Nathan said:


> That is "a" comeback, but not a very good one, nor an accurate one...'nuf said.
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like we have a run on weak argumentative replies designed to dodge the issues raised.  OK, maybe you feel slighted because I didn't address your question: "Why exactly do the "victims" deserve sympathy?"    My answer:  for those with the _Holier than thou_ attitude like yourself, I guess the question is moot, being murdered doesn't warrant sympathy from other humans if you as a person don't "deserve it".



Ok.  Enjoy your evening.


----------



## Nathan (Nov 15, 2021)

You too.


----------



## hollydolly (Nov 15, 2021)




----------



## JimBob1952 (Nov 15, 2021)

Nathan said:


> You too.




Nathan, just an afterthought...you are a regular poster here.  I respect your opinions and I apologize for any snark in previous posts.


----------



## Nathan (Nov 15, 2021)

JimBob1952 said:


> Nathan, just an afterthought...you are a regular poster here.  I respect your opinions and I apologize for any snark in previous posts.


@JimBob1952 , thanks for that, I apologize as well for being a cranky, overly-opinionated old man.  I do respect you and everyone here, just for the record.


----------



## Matrix (Nov 15, 2021)

Please don't make this discussion political, it's really not necessary to mention Trump or Capitol attack, it doesn't help at all unless you want to end the discussion. And it's not easy to remove the political reference without interrupting the flow.


----------



## Della (Nov 15, 2021)

AnnieA said:


> I just looked that one up.  Rittenhouse's mom didn't drive him to the protest and he never had the gun at her home.  He was staying with the older friend who bought the gun for him and where he kept it.   After the killing/maiming, Kyle went to his mother's home and she drove him to the police station.


I got to  quit believing everything I read in the Youtube comments.


----------



## JimBob1952 (Nov 15, 2021)

Nathan said:


> @JimBob1952 , thanks for that, I apologize as well for being a cranky, overly-opinionated old man.  I do respect you and everyone here, just for the record.



Look up "cranky, overly-opinionated old man" in the dictionary and there you will find my picture.


----------



## AnnieA (Nov 15, 2021)

Della said:


> I got to  quit believing everything I read in the Youtube comments.



It's understandable with all the disinformation we're fed these days!

.


----------



## dseag2 (Nov 15, 2021)

Irwin said:


> This video changed my attitude towards Kyle Rittenhouse.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Very insightful.  Every one of them was in the wrong.  All just questionable people.  I would hate to be a member of that jury.


----------



## Butterfly (Nov 16, 2021)

rgp said:


> He never stated that he [worked] for them.
> 
> Two days later, Rittenhouse went to downtown Kenosha and volunteered to clean graffiti off a high school. He met the owners of a car dealership where vehicles had been burned, offered his “condolences,” and said he wanted to help. He said the owners asked his friend to protect their business, and that he joined his friend and others that night. He took his semi-automatic rifle and first-aid supplies. He gave his bulletproof vest — which he said was issued by the Grayslake Police Department — to a friend. He said he felt he wouldn’t need it “because I’m going to be helping people.”



I didn't say that Rittenhouse said he worked for them.  Squatting Dog, in his post, said that Rittenhouse was intending to protect the business of "his employers."


----------



## Butterfly (Nov 16, 2021)

rgp said:


> He never stated that he [worked] for them.
> 
> Two days later, Rittenhouse went to downtown Kenosha and volunteered to clean graffiti off a high school. He met the owners of a car dealership where vehicles had been burned, offered his “condolences,” and said he wanted to help. He said the owners asked his friend to protect their business, and that he joined his friend and others that night. He took his semi-automatic rifle and first-aid supplies. He gave his bulletproof vest — which he said was issued by the Grayslake Police Department — to a friend. He said he felt he wouldn’t need it “because I’m going to be helping people.”



So he didn't need a bulletproof vest because he was going to be helping people but he DID need an assault rifle?  I've never heard of real medics or EMTs carrying assault rifles.


----------



## Butterfly (Nov 16, 2021)

Nathan said:


> Regardless of the outcome of this case, I am dumbfounded by the lack of sympathy for the victims, and the apparent support for this sick, violent perpetrator.     Was it the crocodile tears he shed on the witness stand?



I didn't see any tears at all.  He just squinched up his face and "sobbed."


----------



## JimBob1952 (Nov 16, 2021)

Butterfly said:


> So he didn't need a bulletproof vest because he was going to be helping people but he DID need an assault rifle?  I've never heard of real medics or EMTs carrying assault rifles.




Gaige Grosskreutz, one of the "victims", was a paramedic carrying a loaded Glock pistol.


----------



## win231 (Nov 16, 2021)

hollydolly said:


> ..but he didn't miss, because he didn't fire.  If your car is pointed in the direction of  another car but not actually moving, does it give the car in the opposite direction the right to crash into you.. ?.. same scenario...


If you watched the testimony of Mr. Grosskreutz, you would know that he admitted pointing his gun at Kyle.


----------



## win231 (Nov 16, 2021)

ohioboy said:


> That does not mean a charge of attempted murder exists for the person pointing it.


What it does mean is that Kyle had the right to stop him - which he did.


----------



## win231 (Nov 16, 2021)

Nathan said:


> It sounds like you support Rittenhouse's actions,is that correct?   No sympathy whatsoever for the victims of Rittenhouse, who were trying to stop the [attempted] murder spree of an active shooter?


It sounds like you are reading things into my post that aren't there.
I do not support _all _of Rittenhouse's actions.  Being at such a chaotic scene is stupid.
I support Rittenhouse's right to self defense.
Look up _"Active Shooter."_  You obviously don't know what the term means.


----------



## win231 (Nov 16, 2021)

Nathan said:


> I am not confused at all, I am trying to verify your moral stance and perspective.   Here[in bold,above] your are giving the Rittenhouse scumbag the same status as a police officer?   Simply amazing.


"Status" is irrelevant in the eyes of the law.  _Anyone _has the right to self defense.


----------



## Irwin (Nov 16, 2021)

Rittenhouse claims that he would have been killed if he wasn't armed with his AR-15 style rifle. (One must put "style" in the description or the pedantic gun enthusiasts will have a field day.) But he was attacked _because _he was carrying the rifle. He wouldn't have been a target had he been out there to simply help. He was perceived to be a threat and people don't like to be threatened, especially those with a death wish like Rosenbaum.


----------



## hawkdon (Nov 16, 2021)

Yeah, it is like he put himself out there in the middle of
a bunch of unpredictable people, he was armed, most
probably were not, he has no kind of training in crowd
control, medical or anything...just a wannabee....this calls
for a jail sentence in my opinion.


----------



## Irwin (Nov 16, 2021)

hawkdon said:


> Yeah, it is like he put himself out there in the middle of
> a bunch of unpredictable people, he was armed, most
> probably were not, he has no kind of training in crowd
> control, medical or anything...just a wannabee....this calls
> for a jail sentence in my opinion.


What you said is true, but I don't believe he broke any laws, and that's generally required for someone to be sent to jail.


----------



## hawkdon (Nov 16, 2021)

He was not legal to carry a firearm for one.


----------



## hollydolly (Nov 16, 2021)

win231 said:


> If you watched the testimony of Mr. Grosskreutz, you would know that he admitted pointing his gun at Kyle.


..but he didn't shoot.. so he couldn't possibly have 'missed'


----------



## squatting dog (Nov 16, 2021)

I think we should all look at the motive that some people want to establish. At this time we have a right to defend ourselves as per the constitution; This case was an attempt to take that right away. The prosecution has claimed anyone who takes their weapon anywhere has no right to self defense. Should they succeed it would effectively eliminate the ability to carry a gun anywhere because the idea of defense would have been eliminated! ( A flanking move to circumnavigate the constitution if ever I saw one).   I therefore think every American should be concerned about this case! Once any one amendment goes, it speeds up the process to remove more of the same.


----------



## AnnieA (Nov 16, 2021)

squatting dog said:


> This case was an attempt to take that right away. The prosecution has claimed anyone who takes their weapon anywhere has no right to self defense. ...



Know I'm being lazy asking this ...but do you have a link with the direct text for that?


----------



## JimBob1952 (Nov 16, 2021)

We'll see what the jury says.  This is a depressing subject.  I'm going to go post some songs I like.


----------



## squatting dog (Nov 16, 2021)

AnnieA said:


> Know I'm being lazy asking this ...but do you have a link with the direct text for that?


You tube has removed most of the video's, however, It can still be found on twitter, but, I don't know how to show it here.  
His direct quote was... PROSECUTOR THOMAS BINGER: “You lose the right to self-defense when you’re the one who brought the gun.”


----------



## AnnieA (Nov 16, 2021)

squatting dog said:


> You tube has removed most of the video's, however, It can still be found on twitter, but, I don't know how to show it here.
> His direct quote was... PROSECUTOR THOMAS BINGER: “You lose the right to self-defense when you’re the one who brought the gun.”



Thanks.  I used the quote to find a lot of documentation.   If Rittenhouse goes free of the most serious charges, he can count the day Binger was assigned prosecutor as the luckiest day of his life.


----------



## JimBob1952 (Nov 16, 2021)

AnnieA said:


> Thanks.  I used the quote to find a lot of documentation.   If Rittenhouse goes free of the most serious charges, he can count the day Binger was assigned prosecutor as the luckiest day of his life.




How about the photos yesterday of Binger taking aim at the jury with an (unloaded) AR-15 type rifle?  The man should not be a prosecutor.


----------



## win231 (Nov 16, 2021)

hollydolly said:


> ..but he didn't shoot.. so he couldn't possibly have 'missed'


You couldn't possibly think anyone would have to wait & see if someone shoots before defending themselves.


----------



## hollydolly (Nov 16, 2021)

win231 said:


> You couldn't possibly think anyone would have to wait & see if someone shoots before defending themselves.


Win, if i point a knife at you, are you going to knife me to death ?.. I've commited no crime .. I haven't stabbed you, nor touched you with an offensive weapon... I've simply held a knife in your direction.. how would that give you the right to kill me ? Doesn't make any sense whatsoever...


----------



## Della (Nov 16, 2021)

A knife's a different story, that knife isn't going to jump from your hand to  Win's heart the way a bullet will.  If someone points a gun at you, it's logical to think they might pull the trigger, so you should pull your trigger before they can pull theirs.

I think the part that's going to get Kyle sent to prison is shooting Rosenbaum for throwing a plastic bag of hospital freebies  at him, or shooting someone who is running away with his skateboard. 

The way I've understood the laws regarding self-defense claims is they usually say you are allowed to return force that is the same, or a _little bit_ more.  A gun is a whole lot more than a bag or a skateboard.

I do know from the Dateline school of law, where I got my degree, that you are allowed to shoot someone who's after you with a baseball bat and a skateboard might be equal to that.

This jury has a lot to think about.


----------



## squatting dog (Nov 16, 2021)

JimBob1952 said:


> How about the photos yesterday of Binger taking aim at the jury with an (unloaded) AR-15 type rifle?  The man should not be a prosecutor.


 That idiot (Binger) should never be allowed to handle a gun again. Even us right wing, gun loving, gung ho nut jobs (sarcasm) know you never put your finger on the trigger unless you mean to fire one. And, one should consider all guns to be loaded and dangerous. what a moron. Watching too many Perry Mason shows I think.


----------



## ohioboy (Nov 16, 2021)

squatting dog said:


> You tube has removed most of the video's, however, It can still be found on twitter, but, I don't know how to show it here.
> His direct quote was... PROSECUTOR THOMAS BINGER: “You lose the right to self-defense when you’re the one who brought the gun.”


The Jury instructions permit a self defense defense, they can assert or reject it.

Some annotations:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/III/48


----------



## ohioboy (Nov 16, 2021)

hollydolly said:


> Win, if i point a knife at you, are you going to knife me to death? I've committed no crime.



Not necessarily true. Could be Disorderly conduct/Menacing, etc.


----------



## Alligatorob (Nov 16, 2021)

hollydolly said:


> if i point a knife at you


Go ahead, you could point it at me. I think we're far enough apart that I'll be safe.


----------



## win231 (Nov 16, 2021)

hollydolly said:


> Win, if i point a knife at you, are you going to knife me to death ?.. I've commited no crime .. I haven't stabbed you, nor touched you with an offensive weapon... I've simply held a knife in your direction.. how would that give you the right to kill me ? Doesn't make any sense whatsoever...


Uh......I think you aren't aware of the fact that Mr. Grosskruetz did not point a _knife _at Rittenhouse.  He pointed a _*GUN *_at him.  Big difference.


----------



## Murrmurr (Nov 16, 2021)

hollydolly said:


> Win, if i point a knife at you, are you going to knife me to death ?.. I've commited no crime .. I haven't stabbed you, nor touched you with an offensive weapon... I've simply held a knife in your direction.. how would that give you the right to kill me ? Doesn't make any sense whatsoever...


It is a crime in the US to point a knife at someone, and it's legal for that someone to defend themselves, but the laws are very specific. The type of defense someone is allowed to use depends on the Level of Threat, i.e., Reasonable Threat, Imminent Threat, and several more. If you point a knife at someone, and he feels you are an Imminent Threat, you could get shot. The defender must show the court that your actions were an Imminent Threat, i.e., you took a step toward the person, you appeared intent on using your knife, you said "I'm going to kill you", etc.


----------



## Murrmurr (Nov 16, 2021)

win231 said:


> Uh......I think you aren't aware of the fact that Mr. Grosskruetz did not point a _knife _at Rittenhouse.  He pointed a _*GUN *_at him.  Big difference.


Really no difference, win. A deadly weapon is a deadly weapon.


----------



## DaveA (Nov 16, 2021)

If we didn't have so many candy-a$$es running around carrying weapons , these thing wouldn't happen. Before the days of "I'm afraid to go to the store without packing" , crap like this rarely happened among non- criminal  types.  Enact some stiff "stop and search"  laws and make the penalties serious, first offenders included . Stiff jail sentences with no exceptions.

It won't stop everyone but it'll cut back on a lot of unnecessary weapons on the street,


----------



## hollydolly (Nov 16, 2021)

win231 said:


> Uh......I think you aren't aware of the fact that Mr. Grosskruetz did not point a _knife _at Rittenhouse.  He pointed a _*GUN *_at him.  Big difference.


No difference at all if he didn't fire the gun, in the same way someone holding a knife didn't stab someone...


----------



## win231 (Nov 16, 2021)

Murrmurr said:


> Really no difference, win. A deadly weapon is a deadly weapon.


True, but I was referring to hollydolly's post (#136) which suggested Rittenhouse was not justified in shooting even after Grosskreutz pointed a gun at him.


----------



## Irwin (Nov 16, 2021)

If you watch the video of the shootings, there seemed to be gunshots going off all over the place. WTF?     So it's reasonable to assume that Rittenhouse, when being attacked by any of the three men who he shot, feared for his life. Any one of them could have been armed with a gun. And when things are happening that fast, he didn't have time to stop and think about how he was being attacked. He just knew he was being attacked, and had someone wrestled the gun away from him, they could have used it on him.


----------



## Murrmurr (Nov 16, 2021)

hollydolly said:


> No difference at all if he didn't fire the gun, in the same way someone holding a knife didn't stab someone...


But Holly, you don't wait until you're stabbed or shot before you take steps to defend yourself. That would be foolish.

I'm not defending Ritten-whozit, btw, I'm just saying....


----------



## win231 (Nov 16, 2021)

hollydolly said:


> No difference at all if he didn't fire the gun, in the same way someone holding a knife didn't stab someone...


You can't be seriously suggesting that anyone who has a gun pointed at them should wait until it's fired at him before defending himself.


----------



## Murrmurr (Nov 16, 2021)

win231 said:


> You can't be seriously suggesting that anyone who has a gun pointed at them should wait until it's fired at him before defending himself.


idk, maybe in London.


----------



## hollydolly (Nov 16, 2021)

win231 said:


> You can't be seriously suggesting that anyone who has a gun pointed at them should wait until it's fired at him before defending himself.


I didn't say that..I started off by saying that the guy couldn't possibly have 'missed'' if he didn't even fire the gun... then it took feet...however, I do think it's crazy that a child takes a gun to a demonstration or protest , then kills someone in ''self defence''... he wouldn't have had another gun pulled on him in the first place if he hadn't gone there armed.. so it's nuts to think he should be found not guilty, he'd clearly gone there with the intention of shooting someone ..

However American Law is nuts, so I can't argue against that can I .... ?


----------



## AnnieA (Nov 16, 2021)

hollydolly said:


> however, I do think it's crazy that a child takes a gun to a demonstration or protest...



I do too and especially since there was an 8pm curfew for All! ages. 

The child thing tho....he's being tried as an adult as he should be.


----------



## ohioboy (Nov 16, 2021)

Murrmurr said:


> Really no difference, win. A deadly weapon is a deadly weapon.


WI defines Dangerous Weapon as such. Absent definition, to me, the "Dangerous" term would be the degree of "on the scene harm it could cause by infliction of" by minimal effort,  etc. Meaning I would rather defend myself against a knife than a shotgun.         

(10) “Dangerous weapon" means any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm; any ligature or other instrumentality used on the throat, neck, nose, or mouth of another person to impede, partially or completely, breathing or circulation of blood; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); or any other device or instrumentality which, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm.


----------



## Nathan (Nov 16, 2021)

win231 said:


> It sounds like you are reading things into my post that aren't there.
> I do not support _all _of Rittenhouse's actions.  Being at such a chaotic scene is stupid.
> I support Rittenhouse's right to self defense.
> Look up _"Active Shooter."_ *You obviously don't know what the term means.*


Listen up win231, your sophomoric comments are becoming tiresome, a 14 yr. old has more finesse than you..."obviously".


> I support Rittenhouse's right to self defense.


That is laughable, a guy that comes from out of state with an assault rifle (obviously looking for trouble) claiming self defense when up against those that are not armed in a similar fashion...yea sorry, the skateboard doesn't count.
The judge is a clown, as are those that share his attitudes.

The point where I have to begrudgingly agree with you is: yeah, don't try to be a hero, tuck your tail between your legs and turn and run, confronting a douchebag that has an AR-15 at the ready is just stupid.


----------



## dobielvr (Nov 16, 2021)

just jumping in here......where did Rittenhouse get an AK47 rifle in the first place?  He's just a kid!

Aren't those illegal?


----------



## ohioboy (Nov 16, 2021)

dobielvr said:


> just jumping in here......where did Rittenhouse get an AK47 rifle in the first place?  He's just a kid!
> 
> Aren't those illegal?



His friend bought it.


----------



## Pauline1954 (Nov 16, 2021)

ohioboy said:


> That does not mean a charge of attempted murder exists for the person pointing it.


The threat is there. That is enough when a criminal pulls one on the cops. It was a life threatening action.  I dont know how that is translated into right to defend oneself. But I think it could be a sticky point.


----------



## win231 (Nov 16, 2021)

dobielvr said:


> just jumping in here......where did Rittenhouse get an AK47 rifle in the first place?  He's just a kid!
> 
> Aren't those illegal?


Not in that state.  CA's AK's & AR's have a 10-rd magazine limit & a few other design changes.


----------



## Pauline1954 (Nov 16, 2021)

Don M. said:


> It appears that Wisconsin has put 500 members of the National Guard on Standby, in case the judge/jury doesn't hand down a severe sentence.  I guess Wisconsin is gearing up for riots and protests.


They should have called in the National Guard to stop the riots.  This would have never happened.


----------



## Pauline1954 (Nov 16, 2021)

hollydolly said:


> I didn't say that..I started off by saying that the guy couldn't possibly have 'missed'' if he didn't even fire the gun... then it took feet...however, I do think it's crazy that a child takes a gun to a demonstration or protest , then kills someone in ''self defence''... he wouldn't have had another gun pulled on him in the first place if he hadn't gone there armed.. so it's nuts to think he should be found not guilty, he'd clearly gone there with the intention of shooting someone ..
> 
> However American Law is nuts, so I can't argue against that can I .... ?


If you believe this then why didnt he shoot before this incident?  Or was he waitingfor someones to point a gun at him?


----------



## win231 (Nov 16, 2021)

Nathan said:


> Listen up win231, your sophomoric comments are becoming tiresome, a 14 yr. old has more finesse than you..."obviously".
> 
> That is laughable, a guy that comes from out of state with an assault rifle (obviously looking for trouble) claiming self defense when up against those that are not armed in a similar fashion...yea sorry, the skateboard doesn't count.
> The judge is a clown, as are those that share his attitudes.
> ...


You are (of course) mistaken once again.  Mr. Grosskruetz was armed with a Glock, which he pointed at Rittenhouse.  And at that close range, it doesn't matter what type of gun or what caliber; it's whomever fires first.
And Grosskruetz was carrying a gun illegally, so....if Rittenhouse was looking for trouble, so was Grosskruetz.


----------



## ohioboy (Nov 16, 2021)

Pauline1954 said:


> The threat is there. That is enough when a criminal pulls one on the cops. It was a life threatening action.  I dont know how that is translated into right to defend oneself. But I think it could be a sticky point.


Under WI law it is illegal to simply point a firearm at a person, without cause that is, but if you read my prior post 88 about ATTEMPT, simply doing so does not support an attempted murder charge.


----------



## oldpop (Nov 16, 2021)

The air seems a little thick in here so I hope what I think will not add to the thickness. Personally I am on the side of Justice. What is not acceptable to me in this case is the fact that jurors are being threatened. How can anyone make an honest judgement in a murder trial if they fear their verdict might very well cause harm to them and their families and trigger riots and burning in there own city? This trial needs to be ruled a mistrial for justice to be served as it should be. IMO


----------



## ohioboy (Nov 16, 2021)

Threatening officials is no new societal element. When the SC decided Roe v. Wade, the  Justices received numerous ones.


----------



## Irwin (Nov 16, 2021)

dobielvr said:


> just jumping in here......where did Rittenhouse get an AK47 rifle in the first place?  He's just a kid!
> 
> Aren't those illegal?


AKs are Russian rifles. What Rittenhouse has is an AR-15 style rifle, which is the civilian version of an M-16 — the American automatic military rifle, or one of them, anyway. AK-47s are what terrorists and African tribes often use. They're cheap and reliable, but not very accurate.


----------



## Pauline1954 (Nov 16, 2021)

ohioboy said:


> Under WI law it is illegal to simply point a firearm at a person, without cause that is, but if you read my prior post 88 about ATTEMPT, simply doing so does not support an attempted murder charge.



Lots of things being said. I said it could be a sticky point. 


oldpop said:


> The air seems a little thick in here so I hope what I think will not add to the thickness. Personally I am on the side of Justice. What is not acceptable to me in this case is the fact that jurors are being threatened. How can anyone make an honest judgement in a murder trial if they fear their verdict might very well cause harm to them and their families and trigger riots and burning in there own city? This trial needs to be ruled a mistrial for justice to be served as it should be. IMO



Theres no way a trail can be fair if the jurors are threatened. I think doing threats like this is a crime.  I hope those threats can be stopped.


----------



## ohioboy (Nov 16, 2021)

Threatening jurors is a crime.


----------



## Butterfly (Nov 16, 2021)

Exactly who is threateniong the jurors?  Have they received specific threats?   Or is there a perception of threat because the jury might be worried about the effect whatever verdict they render might have on the community?


----------



## Butterfly (Nov 16, 2021)

I do not see how the killing of Mr. Rosenbaum can be characterized as self defense.  Rosenbaum was unarmed and allegedly threw a plastic bag of personal items at Rittenhouse.  Rttenhouse fired at Rosenbaum and the first shot shattered his hip, effectively incapacitating him and he started to fall to the ground.  Rittenhouse then shot Rosenbaum three more times, including a shot to the back.

I do not think self defense allows Rittenhouse to continue shooting Rosenbaum after he was incapacitated and until he was dead, and I do not see how a shot to the back can ever be considered self defense.   Self defense says you can stop the imminent threat to yourself, It doesn't say you can keep firing bullets into an incapacitated man until he is dead.

Also, I don't think the threat of a plastic hospital bag containing small personal items tossed at Rittenhouse is enough to allow Rittehouse's use of deadly force in retaliation.  Rittenhouse could have just walked away; videos of the event showed that he had plenty of room to get away, rather than continuing to shoot.


----------



## jerry old (Nov 16, 2021)

We weren't there,_ 
we would not  have been there, 
we had better sense.

The defense confused the jury-that's his job.  
The judge assisted..._


----------



## Butterfly (Nov 16, 2021)

JimBob1952 said:


> Gaige Grosskreutz, one of the "victims", was a paramedic carrying a loaded Glock pistol.



Yeah, but (a) he wasn't on duty at the scene and (b) he was carrying concealed on an expired permit.


----------



## oldpop (Nov 16, 2021)

Butterfly said:


> Exactly who is threateniong the jurors?  Have they received specific threats?   Or is there a perception of threat because the jury might be worried about the effect whatever verdict they render might have on the community?


My suggestion would be to Google it if you are really interested. Depending on what source you read the jurists are living in high cotton or being threatened with death.


----------



## ohioboy (Nov 16, 2021)

oldpop said:


> My suggestion would be to Google it if you are really interested. Depending on what source you read the jurists are living in high cotton or being threatened with death.


Speaking of death, that's one thing Kyle can not get if convicted of 1st degree murder, the death penalty.


----------



## Della (Nov 17, 2021)

oldpop said:


> What is not acceptable to me in this case is the fact that jurors are being threatened. How can anyone make an honest judgement in a murder trial if they fear their verdict might very well cause harm to them and their families and trigger riots and burning in there own city?


That mob outside the court house with their signs declaring their personal verdict are so disgusting to me.

 There's a jury inside who have listened to every minute of this trial, plus some rather outrageous closing arguments, and now they are sitting down with all that information and testimony and trying to apply that long piece of Wisconsin law that Ohioboy provided for us.  I have nothing but respect for them.


----------



## OneEyedDiva (Nov 17, 2021)

That boy, armed with an "oozie" came looking for trouble. You don't walk around carrying that type of weapon "just because". He was feeling his oats. There's a saying, two wrongs don't make a right. Maybe he was attacked because he was perceived as the threat he wound up being. It seems nobody involved in this acted with common sense. Well, I guess we shouldn't expect someone who'd just been released from the psych ward to do so. Since he was a sex offender, I can't feel sorry for him either.

But I digress. That boy had no business coming to the event with an assault rifle....*period. *As my cousin used to say.."Don't start no rootin' and tootin'...won't be no cuttin' and shootin". Would he have been approached and hit if he was not carrying the rifle? He certainly wouldn't have been able to shoot someone without it. He told two lies about why he was there. Then he's in the stand shedding those crocodile tears...PUH-Leeze!! Maybe if he gets off he should take acting lessons. If he does get off with a slap on the wrist, I will be further disgusted with our justice system! Plus I think a light sentence will send the wrong message to others who think it's okay to go out, get assault weapons and shoot people.


----------



## squatting dog (Nov 17, 2021)

Irwin said:


> AK-47s are what terrorists and African tribes often use. They're cheap and reliable, but not very accurate.


I seriously doubt that you have been shot at by someone holding an AK-47. I have seen it up close and personal and believe me, they are deadly accurate. My first confirmed kill was a sniper who killed the point man, then the medic before I was able to pin point her. Yes, it was a female and she was deadly with that AK.   Now, I have to live with the thoughts of her family and what they must feel.


----------



## JimBob1952 (Nov 17, 2021)

Butterfly said:


> Yeah, but (a) he wasn't on duty at the scene and (b) he was carrying concealed on an expired permit.



Distinctions without differences?  Differences without distinctions?  I forget how it goes.  Anyway, it's up to the jury now.


----------



## dobielvr (Nov 17, 2021)

Irwin said:


> AKs are Russian rifles. What Rittenhouse has is an AR-15 style rifle, which is the civilian version of an M-16 — the American automatic military rifle, or one of them, anyway. AK-47s are what terrorists and African tribes often use. They're cheap and reliable, but not very accurate.


Thank you for explaining that Irwin, I really didn't know.

He should get some kind of punishment just for having that kind of weapon in his possession.  jmo


----------



## JimBob1952 (Nov 17, 2021)

dobielvr said:


> Thank you for explaining that Irwin, I really didn't know.
> 
> He should get some kind of punishment just for having that kind of weapon in his possession.  jmo



Punishing someone for owning something that is legal seems like a bad way to mete out justice.  The judge in the case said as much by throwing out the illegal firearm possession charge.  Change the laws, by all means, but don't punish people who follow existing laws.


----------



## dobielvr (Nov 17, 2021)

JimBob1952 said:


> Punishing someone for owning something that is legal seems like a bad way to mete out justice.  The judge in the case said as much by throwing out the illegal firearm possession charge.  Change the laws, by all means, but don't punish people who follow existing laws.


Is it a legal or illegal weapon?

Thank you.


----------



## Nathan (Nov 17, 2021)

win231 said:


> You are (of course) mistaken once again.  Mr. Grosskruetz was armed with a Glock, which he pointed at Rittenhouse.  And at that close range, it doesn't matter what type of gun or what caliber; it's whomever fires first.
> And Grosskruetz was carrying a gun illegally, so....if Rittenhouse was looking for trouble, so was Grosskruetz.


Of course, it must be _me_ that's mistaken- since you change the direction of the conversation with every reply.


----------



## JimBob1952 (Nov 17, 2021)

dobielvr said:


> Is it a legal or illegal weapon?
> 
> Thank you.



It's murky.  It's apparently legal for 17 year olds to have possession of a rifle or shotgun in Wisconsin, but the intent of the law might be to allow them to hunt with their parents.  At any rate, the judge threw out the possession charge in this case.  Not that this particular judge seems like a font of wisdom on any matter.


----------



## Irwin (Nov 17, 2021)

dobielvr said:


> Thank you for explaining that Irwin, I really didn't know.
> 
> He should get some kind of punishment just for having that kind of weapon in his possession.  jmo


But what he was doing was perfectly legal. Dozens of people were walking around with AR-style rifles. Rosenbaum just went after what he thought was the smallest and weakest member of the herd, and he might have done so in hopes of being shot and killed. He had attempted suicide before and suffered from depression I believe, and he was going around telling men carrying AR-style rifles to "SHOOT ME!!" He got his wish.


----------



## Gemma (Nov 17, 2021)

JimBob1952 said:


> It's murky.  It's apparently legal for 17 year olds to have possession of a rifle or shotgun in Wisconsin, but the intent of the law might be to allow them to hunt with their parents.  At any rate, the judge threw out the possession charge in this case.  Not that this particular judge seems like a font of wisdom on any matter.


It is my understanding the judge threw it out mainly because Dominick Black bought and owns the AR-15.  It was a straw purchase for Rittenhouse.  Black will be tried in court for that offense after this trial is over.


----------



## Ruthanne (Nov 17, 2021)

I have the feeling he'll be found not guilty.  Who knows really tho?


----------



## HarryHawk (Nov 17, 2021)

hollydolly said:


> Win, if i point a knife at you, are you going to knife me to death ?.. I've commited no crime .. I haven't stabbed you, nor touched you with an offensive weapon... I've simply held a knife in your direction.. how would that give you the right to kill me ? Doesn't make any sense whatsoever...


If you happen to point a knife at a police officer, there is a positive chance you will be shot.  Depending on the situation, officers are justified shooting you if you are brandishing a knife 20 feet away.

Knives are definitely considered deadly weapons --

_According to the FBI, across the United States in 2018, there were: 1,515 deaths by knives or cutting instruments, 443 people were killed with hammers/clubs/other blunt objects, 672 people were killed from fists/feet/’personal weapons’ compared to the 297 killed by (any) rifles.
The number of people killed by rifles declined from 2017 to 2018. In 2017, 400 people were killed by rifles and nearly four times as many people were stabbed to death than killed with rifles._


----------



## CarolfromTX (Nov 17, 2021)

Should the kid have been there? No. Should the rioters have been there? Also a big no. Were the rioters ( or perhaps you consider them mostly peaceful protesters) trying to beat the life outta that kid? Yes. Yes they were. One admitted to threatening Rittenhouse and pointing a gun at him.  There was a whole lotta stupid going on that night, but what happened was clearly self defense.  And if he gets off, as I hope he does, there will be riots, and looting, and burning, and a whole lot more of stupid.


----------



## Ruthanne (Nov 17, 2021)

CarolfromTX said:


> Should the kid have been there? No. Should the rioters have been there? Also a big no. Were the rioters ( or perhaps you consider them mostly peaceful protesters) trying to beat the life outta that kid? Yes. Yes they were. One admitted to threatening Rittenhouse and pointing a gun at him.  There was a whole lotta stupid going on that night, but what happened was clearly self defense.  And if he gets off, as I hope he does, there will be riots, and looting, and burning, and a whole lot more of stupid.


I agree.


----------



## CarolfromTX (Nov 17, 2021)

hollydolly said:


> Actually tbh.. I have to say that watching this trial , I was actually getting annoyed at the mother who sat their blubbing in the court at her 'poor boy being told off'...... I kept saying , if she'd raised him properly or at least kept an eye on what and who  he was involved in, she might not be sitting there knowing her 'baby' was a killer



And if the parents of the rioters had raised them properly, we wouldn’t be talking about this at all.  But they didn’t, and she didn’t, and 17 year old kids do stupid things.  He defended himself. If the mob had succeeded in beating him to death, do you think they’d be prosecuted? I seriously doubt it.


----------



## Ruthanne (Nov 17, 2021)

CarolfromTX said:


> And if the parents of the rioters had raised them properly, we wouldn’t be talking about this at all.  But they didn’t, and she didn’t, and 17 year old kids do stupid things.  He defended himself. If the mob had succeeded in beating him to death, do you think they’d be prosecuted? I seriously doubt it.


The way things have become I doubt it too.


----------



## mrstime (Nov 17, 2021)

JimBob1952 said:


> Punishing someone for owning something that is legal seems like a bad way to mete out justice.  The judge in the case said as much by throwing out the illegal firearm possession charge.  Change the laws, by all means, but don't punish people who follow existing laws.


Wasn't illegal for a 17 year old to own or have?


----------



## ohioboy (Nov 17, 2021)

Even if a person was so called raised "improperly" that does not mean they are predisposed to attend riots with a rifle. The same could be said of a teenager that smokes or uses drugs or drinks alcohol that the parents did not raise him properly?

Even if raised so called "properly" does that mean they will turn out to be a productive member of society all their life?


----------



## dseag2 (Nov 17, 2021)

Tough case to judge.  EVERYONE was in the wrong here.


----------



## hollydolly (Nov 18, 2021)

HarryHawk said:


> If you happen to point a knife at a police officer, there is a positive chance you will be shot.  Depending on the situation, officers are justified shooting you if you are brandishing a knife 20 feet away.


Granted..but Rittenhouse isn't  a Police officer... .. and in this country if someone  points a knife at you but doesn't actually do anything with that knife to hurt you , and you stick a knife through his chest in retaliation and kill him.. you're going to prison for manslaughter at the very least...


----------



## HarryHawk (Nov 18, 2021)

hollydolly said:


> Granted..but Rittenhouse isn't  a Police officer... .. and in this country if someone  points a knife at you but doesn't actually do anything with that knife to hurt you , and you stick a knife through his chest in retaliation and kill him.. you're going to prison for manslaughter at the very least...


That is interesting.  In the U.S., every citizen has the right to defend oneself.  You do not have to wait until an attacker shoots, stabs, clubs, chokes, etc before you respond.  If you use deadly force to defend yourself, you will most likely be tried, just like the case we are discussion.  It is not a foregone conclusion that you will be found guilty, just like the case we are discussing.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Nov 18, 2021)

I agree that we all have the right to defend ourselves.

I also believe that we should not insert ourselves into dangerous situations that are none of our business.

That applies to many of the people involved in this tragic situation.

_“There are just two rules of governance in a free society: Mind your own business. Keep your hands to yourself.” _- P. J. O’Rourke


----------



## Della (Nov 18, 2021)

If we're going to talk about how these people were raised, I can't resist bringing up fathers, or the lack thereof.
As far as I can tell neither Rittenhouse nor Rosenbaum had his father in the home.  A father might have taught Rittenhouse how to be manly without carrying a big gun and a father would have been there to protect Rosenbaum from the ****** abuse he suffered as a child and helped offset the trauma of his mother being sent to prison when he was thirteen. 85% of youths in prison come from fatherless homes, 90% of homeless come from fatherless homes -- we really need to bring back fathers.


----------



## CarolfromTX (Nov 18, 2021)

hollydolly said:


> Granted..but Rittenhouse isn't  a Police officer... .. and in this country if someone  points a knife at you but doesn't actually do anything with that knife to hurt you , and you stick a knife through his chest in retaliation and kill him.. you're going to prison for manslaughter at the very least...


The mob was beating the tar out of him.  Surely that deserved a response.  Like I said, whole lotta stupid going on.


----------



## Tom 86 (Nov 18, 2021)

JimBob1952 said:


> As a general rule of urban combat, rifle > skateboard.


Old saying.  "You don't take a knife to a gunfight. "


----------



## AnnieA (Nov 18, 2021)

Would be great if the verdict comes today.  High for Kenosha today is 38 F, partly cloudy with a stiff breeze.  There are groups gathered that  are going to be angry regardless and today is not good protest weather.


----------



## WhatInThe (Nov 18, 2021)

Part of the issue is over the last 5 years or so protests got so common and violent some law enforcement started declaring the battling protestors mutual combatants and stopped intervening and this is just one example of what can happen when they don't.


----------



## Butterfly (Nov 18, 2021)

JimBob1952 said:


> Distinctions without differences?  Differences without distinctions?  I forget how it goes.  Anyway, it's up to the jury now.


It isn't a distinction without a difference.  The rules about what medics can and cannot do to not rule their personal off  duty lives.  And there is a very real difference between carrying concealed with or without a valid license.  That's what the law says.


----------



## Butterfly (Nov 18, 2021)

CarolfromTX said:


> And if the parents of the rioters had raised them properly, we wouldn’t be talking about this at all.  But they didn’t, and she didn’t, and 17 year old kids do stupid things.  He defended himself. If the mob had succeeded in beating him to death, do you think they’d be prosecuted? I seriously doubt it.



The mob wasn't trying to beat him to death.  They weren't even paying any attention to him until after he had killed the first man.  The other two were trying to stop him from killing any more.


----------



## win231 (Nov 18, 2021)

Butterfly said:


> The mob wasn't trying to beat him to death.  They weren't even paying any attention to him until after he had killed the first man.  The other two were trying to stop him from killing any more.


The other two idiots would have seen the entire incident & should have known better than to attack someone who defended himself.  
Example:  Let's say someone clubbed me in the head with a skateboard or kicked me in the head.  If I'm armed, they will be shot.  If anyone else attacked me, they would also be shot.


----------



## JimBob1952 (Nov 19, 2021)

Butterfly said:


> It isn't a distinction without a difference.  The rules about what medics can and cannot do to not rule their personal off  duty lives.  And there is a very real difference between carrying concealed with or without a valid license.  That's what the law says.



I don't understand your point.  Grosskreutz is the paramedic with the loaded Glock and the expired concealed carry license. Are you criticizing him or saving all your ire for Rittenhouse?  Seems like they are both in the wrong.  Anyway, as I said, it's up to the jury now.


----------



## Della (Nov 19, 2021)

The jury has now had a day to discuss each of the three shootings separately.  I'm hoping that today they bring it all together and give us a verdict before the weekend.  

It's 41 degrees in Kenosha right now, surely not many people are going to feel like rioting if the verdict doesn't go their way.


----------



## squatting dog (Nov 19, 2021)

Della said:


> The jury has now had a day to discuss each of the three shootings separately.  I'm hoping that today they bring it all together and give us a verdict before the weekend.
> 
> It's 41 degrees in Kenosha right now, surely not many people are going to feel like rioting if the verdict doesn't go their way.


Are you kidding? This close to Christmas, any excuse to go (ahem shopping) will trump any weather condition.
As they say in the business... "got bricks?"


----------



## Don M. (Nov 19, 2021)

I would imagine that any stores/businesses near the courthouse are closing down, and boarding up their doors/windows.  With all the publicity this trial has received, there are probably a bunch of people just waiting for the verdict, so they can start their riots and looting....no matter what the verdict is.


----------



## Alligatorob (Nov 19, 2021)

Irwin said:


> The Kyle Rittenhouse Trial: What Will Be the Outcome?


A revenue boost for many media outlets. That's the only thing I can be sure of.


----------



## JimBob1952 (Nov 19, 2021)

Butterfly said:


> The mob wasn't trying to beat him to death.  They weren't even paying any attention to him until after he had killed the first man.  The other two were trying to stop him from killing any more.





Don M. said:


> I would imagine that any stores/businesses near the courthouse are closing down, and boarding up their doors/windows.  With all the publicity this trial has received, there are probably a bunch of people just waiting for the verdict, so they can start their riots and looting....no matter what the verdict is.





Alligatorob said:


> A revenue boost for many media outlets. That's the only thing I can be sure of.




This just in, not guilty on all counts. Get out the plywood.


----------



## win231 (Nov 19, 2021)

Verdict is in:  Not Guilty on all counts.
Just as I expected.  The jury got it right.


----------



## Della (Nov 19, 2021)

I guess from now on the protest marches belong to the people with the guns.  The rest of us better stay home in case we get between someone like Kyle and someone wielding a plastic bag.

About twenty years ago a cop friend of my brothers told him, "If you ever kill someone, just say you were afraid for your life and you'll get off."  I guess he was right.


----------



## Nathan (Nov 19, 2021)

Looks like white supremacy maintains it's power with the judicial system in Kenosha.   Not a day to be proud of.


----------



## Alligatorob (Nov 19, 2021)

Nathan said:


> Looks like white supremacy maintains it's power with the judicial system in Kenosha.   Not a day to be proud of.


I thought all involved in this one were white.  So what does it have to do with "white supremacy"?


----------



## Nathan (Nov 19, 2021)

Alligatorob said:


> I thought all involved in this one were white.  So what does it have to do with "white supremacy"?


Not referring to Rittenhouse's victims, but to Rittenhouse himself, as being a white supremacist operative.


----------



## Alligatorob (Nov 19, 2021)

Nathan said:


> Rittenhouse himself, as being a white supremacist operative.


OK, I didn't know.


----------



## JimBob1952 (Nov 19, 2021)

Nathan said:


> Not referring to Rittenhouse's victims, but to Rittenhouse himself, as being a white supremacist operative.




That's BS and I think you know it.  He had no known contact with white supremacists before the event.  Since then he let his picture be taken with some Proud Boys in a bar.  Does that make him a "white supremacist operative?"


----------



## Nathan (Nov 19, 2021)

JimBob1952 said:


> That's BS and I think you know it.  He had no known contact with white supremacists before the event.  Since then he let his picture be taken with some Proud Boys in a bar.  Does that make him a "white supremacist operative?"


On the contrary, the BS lies in your efforts to deny his white supremacist leanings.  I'll let the public record speak for itself.


----------



## Della (Nov 19, 2021)

This article covers a lot of the misinformation that's been going around about Rittenhouse:https://nypost.com/2021/11/17/10-debunked-heinous-lies-about-kyle-rittenhouse-devine/
There's never been any clear evidence that he was a white supremacist.


----------



## Don M. (Nov 19, 2021)

I'm not surprised that this kid was found Not Guilty.  I think this verdict reflects the increasing backlash concerning hundreds of thugs descending on our communities, in the name of BLM...or whatever...and rioting, looting and destroying local businesses all in the "name" of their "cause".  

Most people would accept the right to peaceful protest, but when it descends into destroying communities, an increasing number of people are losing their patience.  Perhaps this verdict will send a message to the extremists that their actions will no longer be tolerated.


----------



## WhatInThe (Nov 19, 2021)

Della said:


> This article covers a lot of the misinformation that's been going around about Rittenhouse:https://nypost.com/2021/11/17/10-debunked-heinous-lies-about-kyle-rittenhouse-devine/
> There's never been any clear evidence that he was a white supremacist.


What get's lost the most is the friends and family he has in Wisconsin. Including Kenosha and/or area.


----------



## oldpop (Nov 19, 2021)

I was going to post this yesterday but I wanted to be sure. I think the outcome will definitely be not guilty......


----------



## old medic (Nov 19, 2021)

Alligatorob said:


> I thought all involved in this one were white.  So what does it have to do with "white supremacy"?


Part of the mentality that has kept me away from this place...


----------



## jerry old (Nov 19, 2021)

Inept Prosecution-do not confuse a jury
I am beginning to think the only way to have a jury know what actually occurred is to bring the carcasses into the court room as silent observes for the duration of the  trial.


----------



## win231 (Nov 19, 2021)

Della said:


> I guess from now on the protest marches belong to the people with the guns.  The rest of us better stay home in case we get between someone like Kyle and someone wielding a plastic bag.
> 
> About twenty years ago a cop friend of my brothers told him, "If you ever kill someone, just say you were afraid for your life and you'll get off."  I guess he was right.


The person who said that was a cop.  He's right, but that defense only works for cops; not regular civilians.


----------



## hollydolly (Nov 20, 2021)

headlines in the media today...

'This entire country has slapped us in the face': Kyle Rittenhouse's acquittal sparks protests across the nation​
_Masses of people gathered coast-to-coast Friday night to decry Kyle Rittenhouse’s acquittal in protests that reflected the divisiveness and anger stoked by the high-profile case.

Hundreds gathered outside the Barclays Center in Brooklyn, New York, to express their fury in the verdict as similar events unfolded across the nation.

Rittenhouse, 18, was acquitted by jurors on all charges - two counts of homicide, one count of attempted homicide for wounding a third man, and two counts of recklessly endangering safety - after killing two people during protests marred by arson, rioting and looting on Aug. 25, 2020, in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

A protest in Portland, Oregon was declared a riot late Friday after some of the 200 people started smashing windows, throwing objects at police, and threatening to burn down the local Justice Center, KOIN reported. 

Meanwhile, scores of people were seen marching through New York about 7 p.m. carrying signs that branded Rittenhouse as a ‘racist killer’ and the judicial system as biased.

‘The message is that when you stand up for black liberation, when you stand up for black lives, no matter who you are you automatically become a target of the system,’ Na-Lakan Masego, a protester, told CBS New York. 

Another speaker at the rally said the jury’s verdict was a blow to the entire nation.

'By allowing Kyle Rittenhouse to walk away, this entire country – this government – has slapped us all in the face for the millionth time,’ he told the crowd. ‘We cannot allow them to continue treating us like we do not exist because they hurt us.’  
_






https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...nhouses-acquittal-sparks-protests-nation.html


----------



## hollydolly (Nov 20, 2021)

_President Biden is 'angry and concerned' after Kenosha shooter Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty on all charges Friday, but says he stands by the jury's decision. 

The president weighed in on the divisive, high-profile case hours after the verdict was read, telling reporters, 'I stand with the jury as the jury system has concluded. The jury system works and you have to abide by it.'

In an attempt to placate both sides, he later released a statement that read: 'While the verdict in Kenosha will leave many Americans feeling angry and concerned, myself included, we must acknowledge that the jury has spoken.

'I urge everyone to express their views peacefully, consistent with the rule of law. Violence and destruction of property have no place in our democracy.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10208475/Kenosha-murder-case-jury-reached-verdict.html_


----------



## squatting dog (Nov 20, 2021)

hollydolly said:


> _President Biden is 'angry and concerned' after Kenosha shooter Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty on all charges Friday, but says he stands by the jury's decision.
> 
> The president weighed in on the divisive, high-profile case hours after the verdict was read, telling reporters, 'I stand with the jury as the jury system has concluded. The jury system works and you have to abide by it.'
> 
> ...


Biden’s written statement came an hour after he spoke to reporters and did not mention being “angry and concerned,” instead saying he had not watched the trial, adding, “Look, I stand by what the jury has concluded. The jury system works and we have to abide by it.”  

I'm guessing someone else wrote his "written statement" to feed to the media.


----------



## squatting dog (Nov 20, 2021)

Did any of you even watch the Kyle case live? 
If not, then here’s what most of the public didn’t know as per the testimony of everyone under oath...
Most didn't know that Kyle helped put out a dumpster fire that was being rolled down to a gas station to blow up, with people all around.
Most didn't know that the Police were told to stand down as businesses were destroyed.
Most didn't know that Kyles Dad, Grandma and Friends all lived in Kenosha, 20 minutes from where he resided with his Mom part time (by the way) in Illinois. 
Most didn't know that Joseph Rosenbaum knocked him down twice and then attempted to kick him with lethal force to the head. 
Most didn't know that Huber had hit him in the head 2 times with a skateboard.
Most didn't know Gaige Grosskreutz, aimed his gun at Kyle first, as he finally admitted on the stand.
Most didn't know that in the State of Wisconsin, it is legal for Kyle to have a gun, even at 17 (which was why the gun charge was dismissed).
Most didn't know that Kyle did not cross state lines with a gun he wasn't supposed to have. The rightful gun owner did, as he was legally permitted to do. 
Most didn't realize that Rosenbaum was a 5 time convicted child rapist and that Huber was a 2 time convicted woman beater.
Most didn't know that Grosskreutz was a convicted Burglar with an assault on his record also. 

IF THE MEDIA DID THEIR JOB... we would ALL have known this!
Does this not concern everyone?


----------



## Della (Nov 20, 2021)

squatting dog said:


> Most didn't know that Joseph Rosenbaum knocked him down twice and then attempted to kick him with lethal force to the head.
> Most didn't know that Huber had hit him in the head 2 times with a skateboard.


I didn't know those two things and it would have made a difference to my way of thinking.  I only saw the video which made it look like Rosenbaum only threw a bag at Kyle and that he had only one hit from Huber.

I don't think it was important for us to know the criminal history of the two dead men. Kyle didn't know their history when he shot them and one life shouldn't be more important than another when it comes to the law.


----------



## Jackie23 (Nov 20, 2021)

Well the trial is over, the verdict is in, Rittenhouse, not guilty... he is being declared a hero and even being considered for a job in the United States Congress.....stupidity rules.....and so it goes.


----------



## Pauline1954 (Nov 20, 2021)

squatting dog said:


> Did any of you even watch the Kyle case live?
> If not, then here’s what most of the public didn’t know as per the testimony of everyone under oath...
> Most didn't know that Kyle helped put out a dumpster fire that was being rolled down to a gas station to blow up, with people all around.
> Most didn't know that the Police were told to stand down as businesses were destroyed.
> ...


And a lot almost MOST dont care to learn the truth.  It actually takes a lot of free thinking energy and effort.

The way the jurors were protected was  super.


----------



## win231 (Nov 20, 2021)

squatting dog said:


> Did any of you even watch the Kyle case live?
> If not, then here’s what most of the public didn’t know as per the testimony of everyone under oath...
> Most didn't know that Kyle helped put out a dumpster fire that was being rolled down to a gas station to blow up, with people all around.
> Most didn't know that the Police were told to stand down as businesses were destroyed.
> ...


I think many people who disagree with the verdict are anti-gun & they base their opinion on that, alone.
They would find fault with _any _use of a gun - including legitimate self defense.


----------



## Irwin (Nov 20, 2021)

hollydolly said:


> headlines in the media today...
> 
> 'This entire country has slapped us in the face': Kyle Rittenhouse's acquittal sparks protests across the nation​
> _Masses of people gathered coast-to-coast Friday night to decry Kyle Rittenhouse’s acquittal in protests that reflected the divisiveness and anger stoked by the high-profile case.
> ...


Communists.


----------



## squatting dog (Nov 20, 2021)

hollydolly said:


> headlines in the media today...
> 
> 'This entire country has slapped us in the face': Kyle Rittenhouse's acquittal sparks protests across the nation​
> _Masses of people gathered coast-to-coast Friday night to decry Kyle Rittenhouse’s acquittal in protests that reflected the divisiveness and anger stoked by the high-profile case.
> ...



When you see this many folks carrying well produced sign, I get the feeling they are useful dupes for someone's agenda. Nothing spontaneous about this bunch. It was well planned in advance.


----------



## Devi (Nov 20, 2021)

> In political jargon, a _*useful idiot*_ is a derogatory term for a person perceived as propagandizing for a cause without fully comprehending the cause's goals, and who is cynically used by the cause's leaders.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot


----------



## dobielvr (Nov 20, 2021)

dbm


----------



## squatting dog (Nov 20, 2021)

Devi said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot


Thus the term useful dupes.
*Dupe* usually refers to someone who has been deceived into going along with an idea or program.
Please note that nowhere are they called idiots.


----------



## Devi (Nov 20, 2021)

I've heard them called "useful idiots" (in writing), but okay.


----------



## Alligatorob (Nov 20, 2021)

hollydolly said:


> headlines in the media today...
> 
> 'This entire country has slapped us in the face': Kyle Rittenhouse's acquittal sparks protests across the nation​
> _Masses of people gathered coast-to-coast Friday night to decry Kyle Rittenhouse’s acquittal in protests that reflected the divisiveness and anger stoked by the high-profile case._


These people need to find something more productive to keep them busy.

I see nothing to complain about with  the verdict.  It seems to pretty much follow the law.  I suspect Win is right, this may have more to do with wanting more gun control then the facts of this case. Or just people bored we wanna go out and protest something I suppose. But we live under the rule of law and we have to accept but this is the law. Otherwise we're going back to the Salem witch trials.

I believe Rittenhouse did several stupid things leading to the death, the unnecessary death and injury of others. However in this case I believe the law was on his side. Perhaps those shot or their families would do better bringing a civil suit, but I still doubt it would come out differently.

I see no need for semi automatic rifles of this kind, certainly not for hunting. But changing that law is very different from wanting a different outcome from this trial.  

I also believe those who were shot were doing very stupid things, things that lead to them getting shot. Took a lot of stupidity, by several people to make this tragedy happen.


----------



## Irwin (Nov 20, 2021)

If people are protesting the laws that allowed the shooting to occur, all the more power to them. If they want to implement communism in our country, well... that could work on a small scale to help poor people transition into our capitalist system, but I don't think that's what they want. I think they want the entire country to become socialized (in the economic sense — not in the interpersonal sense), which is misguided and ill-conceived. Our current economic system is failing young people because they don't have the means to succeed in it. They don't have the opportunities we had growing up.


----------



## oldpop (Nov 20, 2021)

Just an FYI
I have no ax to grind on either side of the coin here. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I respect that. Many people seem to think the 2cnd Amendment of the United States has something to do with hunting and personal self defense. The 2cnd. Amendment mentions neither. The words are about as clear and simple to comprehend as can be (see below).

2cnd Amendment to the United States Constitution.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I am of the opinion that this is why our shores have not been invaded by any military force since the war of 1812.


----------



## win231 (Nov 20, 2021)

oldpop said:


> Just an FYI
> I have no ax to grind on either side of the coin here. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I respect that. Many people seem to think the 2cnd Amendment of the United States has something to do with hunting and personal self defense. The 2cnd. Amendment mentions neither. The words are about as clear and simple to comprehend as can be (see below).
> 
> 2cnd Amendment to the United States Constitution.
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Depends how you interpret "The right of the people."_  "The People"_ can be regular everyday citizens.  Or it can be the "Well Regulated Militia."


----------



## ohioboy (Nov 20, 2021)

oldpop said:


> Just an FYI
> I have no ax to grind on either side of the coin here. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I respect that. Many people seem to think the 2cnd Amendment of the United States has something to do with hunting and personal self defense. The 2cnd. Amendment mentions neither. The words are about as clear and simple to comprehend as can be (see below).
> 
> 2cnd Amendment to the United States Constitution.
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



Textually you are correct, however, many court rulings address the self defense issue as part of the 2nd's purpose.

From McDonald v. Chicago:

Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A, II–B, II–D, III–A, and III–B, concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. Pp. 5–9, 11–19, 19–33.


----------



## oldpop (Nov 20, 2021)

ohioboy said:


> Textually you are correct, however, many court rulings address the self defense issue as part of the 2nd's purpose.


Which is part of my point. To me it is simple. The words speak for themselves.


----------



## oldpop (Nov 20, 2021)

ohioboy said:


> Textually you are correct, however, many court rulings address the self defense issue as part of the 2nd's purpose.
> 
> From McDonald v. Chicago:
> 
> Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A, II–B, II–D, III–A, and III–B, concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. Pp. 5–9, 11–19, 19–33.


Anything can be made complicated and often is. The 2cnd Amendment is comprised of simple words and simple is to comprehend. IMO


----------



## ohioboy (Nov 20, 2021)

Textually the 4th Amendment mentions nothing about the Automobile exception, Emergency or Exigent exceptions to the warrant requirement, so should existing case law be ignored?


----------



## oldpop (Nov 20, 2021)

As I mentioned it is simply written and simple to comprehend. Any and all words can be bent to fit the desired outcome. Even my own. A law should not be ignored. A law can be incorrect. As many are. The text of the 2cnd Amendment says what it says. One could change the meaning of the words and throw laws at it all day long. The words speak for themselves and were designed that way to be understood by all. When/if the words are changed and laws made to bend the words of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to fit any given agenda they are being compromised. IMO


----------



## ohioboy (Nov 20, 2021)

When the BoR was adopted it only applied to the federal government, so they had no business from then on deciding otherwise for the states, that eliminates the 2nd applying to the states, then it is a matter of their own Constitutions. Do we go back?


----------



## Been There (Nov 20, 2021)

I watched the videos several times and also I watched everyday of the trial. It would have been almost impossible to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. The problem with people not being able to accept the verdict is for one; the main stream media has turned the case into a political narrative and issue. When every news station repeats the same story, people are more apt to go along with it. We seldom think for ourselves anymore since we have become a divisive country. Even the president prematurely called Rittenhouse a white supremacist and by his own admission, he never watched any of the trial or followed the case. He just followed the narrative. What it comes down to now is that Democrats think he is guilty and Republicans think he is innocent. It was never like this in our country. It seems we are now being controlled by the main stream media, which is all part of the grand plan to divide the country. Congratulations, they have succeeded.


----------



## oldpop (Nov 20, 2021)

ohioboy said:


> When the BoR was adopted it only applied to the federal government, so they had no business from then on deciding otherwise for the states, that eliminates the 2nd applying to the states, then it is a matter of their own Constitutions. Do we go back?


I tried but I just cannot understand what this has to do with the wording and comprehension of the 2cnd Amendment. I will say this though. I feel as if I derailed the OP. I apologize as it was not my intention. I would be willing to discuss the 2cnd Amendment in a new thread?


----------



## Irwin (Nov 20, 2021)

If you look at the original intentions of our Founding Fathers, the 2nd Amendment is a collective right of states to implement "well regulated militias." That's how it was interpreted since its inception up until 2008 when justices legislating from the bench redefined it as a personal right to self-defense.


----------



## oldpop (Nov 20, 2021)

Been There said:


> I watched the videos several times and also I watched everyday of the trial. It would have been almost impossible to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. The problem with people not being able to accept the verdict is for one; the main stream media has turned the case into a political narrative and issue. When every news station repeats the same story, people are more apt to go along with it. We seldom think for ourselves anymore since we have become a divisive country. Even the president prematurely called Rittenhouse a white supremacist and by his own admission, he never watched any of the trial or followed the case. He just followed the narrative. What it comes down to now is that Democrats think he is guilty and Republicans think he is innocent. It was never like this in our country. It seems we are now being controlled by the main stream media, which is all part of the grand plan to divide the country. Congratulations, they have succeeded.


And I am sure there is more to come. Unfortunately my thoughts lean towards the phrase "watch your six"


----------

