Kyle Rittenhouse

[Hawktawk]

Once again a political spectacle surrounding protests and death. The judge is absolutely in the bag for the defense to the point of being ridiculous. The prosecutor is a fool. My guess the kid will get a hung jury at worst or walk. Get ready for more shootings at protests by armed civilians then.
Seeing the video etc its clearly a case of a young man overwhelmed and immature killing 2 people and wounding one, shooting each multiple times with a weapon of war. The right will see him as a cult figure and hero no matter what happens. The left will see him as a cold blooded murderer no matter what happens. The truth is he is neither a martyr or a cold blooded murderer. He and his victims the prosecution was not able to describe as such but allowed the defense to call them rioters and looters are all collateral damage of the insanity, the lunacy of a nation coming apart at the seams.

[RiverDog]

Once again a political spectacle surrounding protests and death. The judge is absolutely in the bag for the defense to the point of being ridiculous. The prosecutor is a fool. My guess the kid will get a hung jury at worst or walk. Get ready for more shootings at protests by armed civilians then.
Seeing the video etc its clearly a case of a young man overwhelmed and immature killing 2 people and wounding one, shooting each multiple times with a weapon of war. The right will see him as a cult figure and hero no matter what happens. The left will see him as a cold blooded murderer no matter what happens. The truth is he is neither a martyr or a cold blooded murderer. He and his victims the prosecution was not able to describe as such but allowed the defense to call them rioters and looters are all collateral damage of the insanity, the lunacy of a nation coming apart at the seams.

IMO Rittenhouse isn't going to walk. They'll get him on something. There's too much video evidence of him firing his assault weapon when he wasn't being threatened. It's extremely difficult to argue that an assault weapon is used for self defense. The mere fact that he had brought a fully loaded AR with him is enough evidence of intent to either kill or inflict grave bodily damage.

The defense has put Rittenhouse on the witness stand. A confident defense lawyer never puts their client on the witness stand as it runs the risk of them saying something self incriminating. It's their Hail Mary, hoping that their client will appear human and evoke a sense of sympathy from the jury, that he's not the monster the prosecution is making him out to be. His testimony has already proved to be very damaging. Rittenhouse has lied on the witness stand several times. Here's some snippets of his testimony:

"If I would've let Mr. Rosenbaum take my firearm from me, he would've used it and killed me with it and probably killed more people," Rittenhouse said. Thomas Binger, the prosecutor, questioned why he felt threatened when Rosenbaum did not physically touch his body.

Flustered and on the verge of tears, Rittenhouse claimed, "He could have ran away instead of trying to take my gun from me. It didn't stop him."

The prosecutor wanted to understand why Rittenhouse wanted to scare Rosenbaum: "You felt you were about to die... That's what you wanted him to feel."

"'No!" Rittenhouse exclaimed. "I pointed the gun at him so he would stop chasing me."

"I didn't want to have to kill Mr. Rosenbaum," Rittenhouse said. When asked why he continued firing after the first shot, he said, "I continued to shoot until he was no longer a threat to me."

The state then showed a video of Rittenhouse falsely telling the crowd that Rosenbaum had a gun. On the stand, he admitted that Rosenbaum was not armed.

That's pretty damning testimony. He claims that he didn't want to kill Rosenbaum so he continued to shoot until he was no longer a threat even though he admitted to knowing that he was unarmed?

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/ky ... testimony/

[Hawktawk]

As I already said the judge is so biased it’s laughable . He disallowed referring to 2 dead men as victims but allowed referring to 2 dead men as rioters and looters . He disallowed introduction of evidence that 15 days before the shooting rittenhouse had watched footage of looters entering a store and stated that if he had a gun he would “ take some shots at them”. The Judge screamed literally at the prosecution for suggesting this should be introduced as evidence to show frame of mind , also pointing out that this was Rittenhouse telling his story for the first time . On Veterans Day the judge asked veterans to stand and be honored . There was one vet in attendance , a witness for the prosecution . Later in the day he made a bizarre quip about not wanting any more “Asian food”. The guy is a right wing kook doing everything in his power to get the kid acquitted or at least get him off the most serious charges . I think activist judges will be more and more common .

[RiverDog]

As I already said the judge is so biased it’s laughable . He disallowed referring to 2 dead men as victims but allowed referring to 2 dead men as rioters and looters . He disallowed introduction of evidence that 15 days before the shooting rittenhouse had watched footage of looters entering a store and stated that if he had a gun he would “ take some shots at them”. The Judge screamed literally at the prosecution for suggesting this should be introduced as evidence to show frame of mind , also pointing out that this was Rittenhouse telling his story for the first time . On Veterans Day the judge asked veterans to stand and be honored . There was one vet in attendance , a witness for the prosecution . Later in the day he made a bizarre quip about not wanting any more “Asian food”. The guy is a right wing kook doing everything in his power to get the kid acquitted or at least get him off the most serious charges . I think activist judges will be more and more common .

I'm not sure how much effect the judge's allowing or disallowing of certain adjectives will have on the jury, but I agree, it does seem a little silly.

I agree that the judge does seem a little biased, but it's not going to change the evidence that already has been presented, of which is very damning. Like I said, the mere fact that the defense has put Rittenhouse on the stand is an indication of how desperate they are. You heard it here first: He's not going to walk.

[c_hawkbob]

"A little biased"? This judge is comically biased! The worst I can remember seeing, ever.

[RiverDog]

"A little biased"? This judge is comically biased! The worst I can remember seeing, ever.

I dunno. Judge Ito of the OJ Simpson trial made some very controversial decisions.

[Hawktawk]

I gotta agree with Bob . This guy is the most blatantly biased judge I’ve ever seen . I believe he’s the longest tenured judge in that area so he’s an old school law and order guy. He’s likely waiting for trump to be restored to the presidency . He’s not made a single move that even leveled the playing field for the prosecution and has YELLED at them repeatedly in front of the jury as opposed to going to a private meeting to discuss disagreements . Worst judge ever .

[RiverDog]

The judge's bias isn't going to mean squat if the jury returns a guilty verdict. Personally I think it's a slam dunk.

[Aseahawkfan]

IMO Rittenhouse isn't going to walk. They'll get him on something. There's too much video evidence of him firing his assault weapon when he wasn't being threatened. It's extremely difficult to argue that an assault weapon is used for self defense. The mere fact that he had brought a fully loaded AR with him is enough evidence of intent to either kill or inflict grave bodily damage.

The defense has put Rittenhouse on the witness stand. A confident defense lawyer never puts their client on the witness stand as it runs the risk of them saying something self incriminating. It's their Hail Mary, hoping that their client will appear human and evoke a sense of sympathy from the jury, that he's not the monster the prosecution is making him out to be. His testimony has already proved to be very damaging. Rittenhouse has lied on the witness stand several times. Here's some snippets of his testimony:

"If I would've let Mr. Rosenbaum take my firearm from me, he would've used it and killed me with it and probably killed more people," Rittenhouse said. Thomas Binger, the prosecutor, questioned why he felt threatened when Rosenbaum did not physically touch his body.

Flustered and on the verge of tears, Rittenhouse claimed, "He could have ran away instead of trying to take my gun from me. It didn't stop him."

The prosecutor wanted to understand why Rittenhouse wanted to scare Rosenbaum: "You felt you were about to die... That's what you wanted him to feel."

"'No!" Rittenhouse exclaimed. "I pointed the gun at him so he would stop chasing me."

"I didn't want to have to kill Mr. Rosenbaum," Rittenhouse said. When asked why he continued firing after the first shot, he said, "I continued to shoot until he was no longer a threat to me."

The state then showed a video of Rittenhouse falsely telling the crowd that Rosenbaum had a gun. On the stand, he admitted that Rosenbaum was not armed.

That's pretty damning testimony. He claims that he didn't want to kill Rosenbaum so he continued to shoot until he was no longer a threat even though he admitted to knowing that he was unarmed?

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/ky ... testimony/

Once most people start shooting, they don't stop usually unless they're a highly trained and disciplined soldier like Spec Ops. I wouldn't even consider an average soldier trained to stop once they start. Shooting is something people do when they're scared and in a highly emotional state, then they don't stop until they regain emotional control and feel unthreatened. It's why cops don't usually shoot once and are done. They shoot until they can regain control of their emotions because is shooting someone is a trained response in an emotionally charged situation where they feel threatened within the course of their duty. Usually only career criminals who kill as part of their profession or trained spec ops soldiers train to control their emotions on a consistent enough basis to stop firing and confirm a kill in a controlled fashion. So firing a lot isn't really relevant to the discussion of a threat as it is easy to prove once someone who isn't well-trained starts firing their weapon, they won't usually stop quickly. With semiauto weapons able to fire off so many rounds within the span of a few seconds, lack of emotional control is easy to prove which is why how many times you fired is rarely relevant in shooting cases unless you can prove the person was trained on a consistent enough basis to control his emotions once the firing starts and fear and adrenaline are maximum levels.

This is a weird case. Judge is obviously biased towards the defendant. Maybe he just wants to make sure this kid gets a fair trial given the mainstream liberal press is obviously biased against this kid and has turned their viewers against this kid in a big way. Same as anyone using a weapon to protect their rights and property is pilloried by the liberal press regardless of the circumstances. Same as the liberal press often sides against the police, while Fox news sides with the police in almost every shooting, especially if it is racial.

Kind of hard not to find bias in these cases, especially when they are so heavily pushed on a national level. Generically speaking and completely unaware of actual polls, it seems like half the country wants this kid punished and half the country wants him exonerated.

That whole time was a crazy time. This kid got caught up in the insanity and went way overboard. Now he's a lightning rod for both sides pushing their agenda.

I think he should likely do some time. If he doesn't have some serious criminal past, I would give him a lighter sentence myself with psychological monitoring. It was an insane time in the country and lots of people over the past few years have done lots of insane things. I think it should be taken into account for sentencing and correction. You don't want to toss people away in the garbage that are not truly terrible citizens, but at the same time you don't want this kind of behavior repeated. So you have to send a clear message this isn't acceptable while at the same time not completely tossing people in the trash forever due to the circumstances of the last few years and all the insanity this nation has experienced.

[Hawktawk]

The kid planned out a little night at the riots imo, stashed a gun, what's more fun on a Friday night? Then it went horribly wrong. As I see it the first guy described as an idiot by prosecution witnesses got a darwin award. You reach for the barrel of an AR held by a inexperience punk kid thats what you get. IMO the next 2 were trying to subdue and active shooter and had they not been in the middle of a riot might have been called heros. Bottom line. Rittenhouse is no hero. he's not a victim. He and the 2 dead and 1 wounded are collateral damage in a nation gone utterly mad with everyone in their corners. The kid is a polititcal football.

[RiverDog]

Once most people start shooting, they don't stop usually unless they're a highly trained and disciplined soldier like Spec Ops. I wouldn't even consider an average soldier trained to stop once they start. Shooting is something people do when they're scared and in a highly emotional state, then they don't stop until they regain emotional control and feel unthreatened. It's why cops don't usually shoot once and are done. They shoot until they can regain control of their emotions because is shooting someone is a trained response in an emotionally charged situation where they feel threatened within the course of their duty. Usually only career criminals who kill as part of their profession or trained spec ops soldiers train to control their emotions on a consistent enough basis to stop firing and confirm a kill in a controlled fashion. So firing a lot isn't really relevant to the discussion of a threat as it is easy to prove once someone who isn't well-trained starts firing their weapon, they won't usually stop quickly. With semiauto weapons able to fire off so many rounds within the span of a few seconds, lack of emotional control is easy to prove which is why how many times you fired is rarely relevant in shooting cases unless you can prove the person was trained on a consistent enough basis to control his emotions once the firing starts and fear and adrenaline are maximum levels.

This is a weird case. Judge is obviously biased towards the defendant. Maybe he just wants to make sure this kid gets a fair trial given the mainstream liberal press is obviously biased against this kid and has turned their viewers against this kid in a big way. Same as anyone using a weapon to protect their rights and property is pilloried by the liberal press regardless of the circumstances. Same as the liberal press often sides against the police, while Fox news sides with the police in almost every shooting, especially if it is racial.

Kind of hard not to find bias in these cases, especially when they are so heavily pushed on a national level. Generically speaking and completely unaware of actual polls, it seems like half the country wants this kid punished and half the country wants him exonerated.

That whole time was a crazy time. This kid got caught up in the insanity and went way overboard. Now he's a lightning rod for both sides pushing their agenda.

I think he should likely do some time. If he doesn't have some serious criminal past, I would give him a lighter sentence myself with psychological monitoring. It was an insane time in the country and lots of people over the past few years have done lots of insane things. I think it should be taken into account for sentencing and correction. You don't want to toss people away in the garbage that are not truly terrible citizens, but at the same time you don't want this kind of behavior repeated. So you have to send a clear message this isn't acceptable while at the same time not completely tossing people in the trash forever due to the circumstances of the last few years and all the insanity this nation has experienced.

I agree with a somewhat lenient sentence, certainly not life w/o parole. Rittenhouse was just 17 years old and doesn't appear to have a criminal record. He got caught up in this madness that's infected our nation over the past several years.

The Governor has put the National Guard on alert in anticipation of violence once the jury's decision is announced.

[RiverDog]

The kid planned out a little night at the riots imo, stashed a gun, what's more fun on a Friday night? Then it went horribly wrong. As I see it the first guy described as an idiot by prosecution witnesses got a darwin award. You reach for the barrel of an AR held by a inexperience punk kid thats what you get. IMO the next 2 were trying to subdue and active shooter and had they not been in the middle of a riot might have been called heros. Bottom line. Rittenhouse is no hero. he's not a victim. He and the 2 dead and 1 wounded are collateral damage in a nation gone utterly mad with everyone in their corners. The kid is a polititcal football.

Yeah, he had to drive 30 miles to get to the protest. He obviously was looking for trouble, and he found it. Outside of the fact that he was just 17 years old, I don't have a lot of sympathy for him.

But the victims weren't as pure as the wind driven snow, either, and it's given the far right a credible argument in Rittenhouse's defense. Rosenbaum was a registered sex offender convicted of sexually abusing, including sodomizing, boys from 9-11 years old, was out on bond for a domestic abuse battery accusation, and was caught on video acting aggressively earlier that night. Huber was a felon convicted in a strangulation case who was recently accused of domestic abuse. Grosskreutz was convicted of a crime for use of a firearm while intoxicated, was under a court order not to posses a firearm, and was armed with a handgun when shot. They, too, had intentionally put themselves in harm's way, so it's difficult for me to shed tears for them, either.

[Aseahawkfan]

Yeah, he had to drive 30 miles to get to the protest. He obviously was looking for trouble, and he found it. Outside of the fact that he was just 17 years old, I don't have a lot of sympathy for him.

But the victims weren't as pure as the wind driven snow, either, and it's given the far right a credible argument in Rittenhouse's defense. Rosenbaum was a registered sex offender convicted of sexually abusing, including sodomizing, boys from 9-11 years old, was out on bond for a domestic abuse battery accusation, and was caught on video acting aggressively earlier that night. Huber was a felon convicted in a strangulation case who was recently accused of domestic abuse. Grosskreutz was convicted of a crime for use of a firearm while intoxicated, was under a court order not to posses a firearm, and was armed with a handgun when shot. They, too, had intentionally put themselves in harm's way, so it's difficult for me to shed tears for them, either.

Is this really true? If so, killing Rosenbaum was justice from up on high. Sodomizing 9-11 year old boys? What is some scumbag like that doing on the streets?

[RiverDog]

Is this really true? If so, killing Rosenbaum was justice from up on high. Sodomizing 9-11 year old boys? What is some scumbag like that doing on the streets?

For example, yes, at age 19, Rosenbaum was sentenced to prison for sexually abusing five children — all boys between the ages of 9 and 11 — in Arizona’s Pima County in early 2002, according to his case file obtained via a public records request by Snopes.

The documents said Rosenbaum was temporarily living with the boys’ parents after his mother had kicked him out for disobeying her rules about one month earlier. Over the course of his weeks-long stay, Rosenbaum molested the boys, showed them porn, and performed oral sex on them, among other offenses, the documents showed. He was sentenced to prison for roughly 15 years, and authorities believed at the time “his risk to recidivate being of great concern to the community” considering the victims’ gender and age. (Let us note here: The records included an interview with Rosenbaum in which he said his stepfather sexually abused him and his brother on an almost daily basis when he was a preteen.)

https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/09/11/ ... s-records/

Like I said, I have zero sympathy to Rittenhouse's victims. But that shouldn't make any difference in his guilt or innocence.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

My thoughts on it:

1.) Rosenbaum was acting in a threatening way. His death was the most contentious of the people shot because he was chasing Rittenhouse with who knows what intention and grabbed Rittenhouse's rifle. Rittenhouse had put out a fire and was universally disliked by the protesters because he was putting out fires and carrying around an assault rifle didn't help the perception of him. To me, Rosenbaum seemed unhinged and who knows what he would have done had he finished out what ever he was thinking towards Rittenhouse. I'd have more sympathy for Rosenbaum, but, he chose to chase down Rittenhouse. During the chase, Rittenhouse points his weapon towards Rosenbaum, who, undeterred, continues the chase. Upon reaching the parked cars, Rittenhouse turns around and Rosenbaum attempts to grab the barrel of the rifle. This complicates things. Similar to Arbery, can one claim self defense if someone tries to take their firearm from them? Dissimilar to Arbery in that Rittenhouse wasn't pursuing Rosenbaum; it was the other way around. It will hinge on does the jury consider Rosenbaum a real threat to Rittenhouse, and do they consider just the very act of carrying a firearm an open threat to others.

2.) For Grosskreutz and Huber, I think the case was effectively made for self defense. They (and two others) attacked Rittenhouse after he ran away. He wasn't facing them; he wasn't pointing his gun at them; he didn't fire warning shots. His back was turned and he was running away from them. Huber did, in fact, put his hands on Rittenhouse's rifle after he hit him with a skateboard. Grosskreutz had his pistol drawn and pointed in Rittenhouse's direction. That's enough to be concerned about one's life. Neither of those men were required or compelled to chase Rittenhouse down. The "active shooter" accusation is weak here, in my opinion, and it does a disservice to past events (Columbine, VA Tech, Sandy Hook, Orlando, etc..) where there were active shooters. These were individuals who showed up with the deliberate purpose to hunt down and kill as many people as they could. If you want to say it fits the definition of the word, you can try and do that, but that's not why the comparison is being made by the prosecution here. It is being made to deliberately evoke memories of the very incidents I listed. It is not a term I think should be used loosely, much like the comparison of our border crisis to concentration camps. Some words transcend their literal meaning.

3.) I completely disagree with showing up to incidents like these with firearms and even more completely disagree with the malcontents and losers showing up and burning and destroying property. I can understand the desire to protect personal property, but that's still not enough to justify militia types showing up with firearms. That goes for the protesters, too. I think it is a recipe for disaster, again, like the Arbery case. I don't think Rittenhouse warrants a homicide conviction. Not sure what else they'll get him on with the gun charge dropped, but, regardless of his intentions, it was irresponsible for him and anyone else to show up with firearms. This one showed it doesn't take much for things to go sideways.

[RiverDog]

I don't think Rittenhouse warrants a homicide conviction. Not sure what else they'll get him on with the gun charge dropped, but, regardless of his intentions, it was irresponsible for him and anyone else to show up with firearms. This one showed it doesn't take much for things to go sideways.

Regardless of his intentions? Intent is a huge part of any homicide charge. IMO an assault rifle by definition is not a defensive weapon, so his choice of firearm is a huge component to establishing intent. He brought the weapon with him 30 miles in order to participate as a counter demonstrator. He was looking for trouble. He was not an innocent bystander.

Rittenhouse fired his assault rifle, an offensive weapon. As a matter of fact, he is the only one that fired a weapon at all. As the prosecutor said, you can't claim self defense in a hazard that you have created by your own actions.

As far as his victims go, I don't have any sympathy for them, either. I'll stop short of saying that they deserved what they got, but had they lived and Rittenhouse died, I would have been amicable to homicide charges against them.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

Yes, regardless of his intentions. Coming to a situation like that armed with any kind of weapon does not automatically equate to lethal intent; if that's your stance, then every person there who was armed, including many protesters, some with pistols, are culpable for what happened.

If were to take a 2x4 or a skateboard like Huber and swing it at somebody's head, I've made offensive use of a weapon. If I'm standing around with said 2x4, and someone nearby says to themselves "That could hurt me.", have I created a hazard? If they dislike it enough and feel threatened, can they chase me, and if they try to take it, can I hit them with it? Rosenbaum could have just as easily chose not to chase Rittenhouse but did so. Rosenbaum chose; Rittenhouse's assault rifle did not force him to do so.

You know this, but many things can be turned into weapons, and there use can be offensive and defensive depending on the situation. Yes, an assault rifle is called such because it allows for heavier firepower on the move, but it can just as easily be used in a defensive role. I don't like that these weapons or any weapon were brought to the situation. I believe that Rittenhouse and others like him there armed with assault rifles had the intent to act as a deterrent to protesters and to protect themselves if necessary. A "better to have and not need it, than need it and not have it" situation. Good idea? No. Should there be some kind of reckoning for that decision? Yes. Does it equate to homicidal intent? No. Not in my book.

I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on this, and that's okay. I'm anxious to see the verdict. This, and the Arbery case (though I think it is more damning for those men since they aggressively pursued and unarmed person), both hinge what you and the prosecutor in the Rittenhouse case are positing. That merely bringing a firearm to a situation is enough to be culpable for shooting and the outcome of that shooting.

[RiverDog]

Yes, regardless of his intentions. Coming to a situation like that armed with any kind of weapon does not automatically equate to lethal intent; if that's your stance, then every person there who was armed, including many protesters, some with pistols, are culpable for what happened.

If were to take a 2x4 or a skateboard like Huber and swing it at somebody's head, I've made offensive use of a weapon. If I'm standing around with said 2x4, and someone nearby says to themselves "That could hurt me.", have I created a hazard? If they dislike it enough and feel threatened, can they chase me, and if they try to take it, can I hit them with it? Rosenbaum could have just as easily chose not to chase Rittenhouse but did so. Rosenbaum chose; Rittenhouse's assault rifle did not force him to do so.

You know this, but many things can be turned into weapons, and there use can be offensive and defensive depending on the situation. Yes, an assault rifle is called such because it allows for heavier firepower on the move, but it can just as easily be used in a defensive role. I don't like that these weapons or any weapon were brought to the situation. I believe that Rittenhouse and others like him there armed with assault rifles had the intent to act as a deterrent to protesters and to protect themselves if necessary. A "better to have and not need it, than need it and not have it" situation. Good idea? No. Should there be some kind of reckoning for that decision? Yes. Does it equate to homicidal intent? No. Not in my book.

I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on this, and that's okay. I'm anxious to see the verdict. This, and the Arbery case (though I think it is more damning for those men since they aggressively pursued and unarmed person), both hinge what you and the prosecutor in the Rittenhouse case are positing. That merely bringing a firearm to a situation is enough to be culpable for shooting and the outcome of that shooting.

That merely bringing a firearm to a situation is enough to be culpable for shooting and the outcome of that shooting.

It wasn't just a firearm. It was an AR15. It's a huge distinction. Had it been a handgun, I would have a lot more sympathy for him.

Sure, an assault weapon can be used for self defense in certain specific situations, but that's not what they are designed to do. If you want to defend yourself, you keep a handgun by your bedstand, not an AR-15, and it's not j/b of legalities. A hand gun is much easier to manipulate, much easier to load, easier to carry/conceal, easier to aim quickly, more difficult to be separated from, and so on. That's why they have laws banning assault rifles, because they are not designed to be used as a defensive weapon.

An AR15 is much more visible and is going to attract immediate attention from anyone within a couple hundred feet of him, and that's what created the hazard. The mere fact that he's carrying one poses an immediate threat. Had he been carrying a handgun in his pocket, it's likely that no one would have even paid attention to him. But he wanted to make a demonstration, he wanted to intimidate others or show people how macho he was with that weapon. Simply by bringing that rifle with him, at night and into a crowd of unruly people, he created a dangerous situation to himself as well as others.

I'm not saying what charge he should be judged guilty of, but if I'm a juror, I'm damn sure not letting him walk. He's at least partially at fault for the deaths of 3 individuals. 3rd degree manslaughter would seem to be appropriate, but he has to be held accountable.

I'm also not for locking him up and throwing the key away. He was 17 years old, a babe in the woods, and not yet a mature adult. Sentencing should take into account that he was a minor.

[c_hawkbob]

He was underage and across state lines which makes him having shot these people during the commission of a crime. Self defense is not applicable during the commission of a crime. He got himself an AR and went hunting rioters. He deserves to do his time, but unlike you Riv, I don't think he will. There will be someone on this jury that will hold out from any major conviction. He'll do minimal time, if any at all.

[RiverDog]

He was underage and across state lines which makes him having shot these people during the commission of a crime. Self defense is not applicable during the commission of a crime. He got himself an AR and went hunting rioters. He deserves to do his time, but unlike you Riv, I don't think he will. There will be someone on this jury that will hold out from any major conviction. He'll do minimal time, if any at all.

I didn't say that there will be a conviction, I said that don't think they're going to let him walk. I can't see 12 people chosen more or less at random seeing this case in a fundamentally different way that I'm looking at it. I think that the defense senses the same thing, which is why they put him on the witness stand. IMO worst case scenario is that there's a hung jury. But I've been surprised before.

I'm not sure what you're definition of 'minimal' is, but I don't want to lock him up for 20+ years. 10 seems more appropriate, out before he turns 30.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

Cbob, there is zero evidence he went hunting rioters. Even the prosecution couldn’t make that argument. Had Rittenhouse or any of his companions been hunting we’d have had a much more awful outcome. You and Riverdog both are assuming a lot about the unknown intentions of Rittenhouse solely because you have an axe to grind over the type of weapon involved. I don’t think it was a good idea for anyone in either side to show up with firearms to a protest, but that doesn’t mean any of them brought them solely with the intent to kill. It most definitely opens up the possibility of the situation going very badly.

And as far as hunting goes, that makes no sense given what happened. Someone tell me why Rosenbaum decided to chase someone armed with a semi-automatic rifle? It makes zero sense to do such a thing. I’ll make an assumption about Rosenbaum; he was already clearly agitated and aggressive in the moments preceding the chase. He saw what was an easy target that he thought he could intimidate and subdue. Rittenhouse ran, and Rosenbaum chose to chase him. He continued to chase him even after Rittenhouse turned once and pointed his weapon at him. Rosenbaum caught up to him and and tried to grab the rifle and paid for it with his life. I am not sure why Rosenbaum was not accorded as a threat at that point by the prosecution when he clearly was. Even prosecution played both sides of the intent of someone with a firearm. On one hand, they stated that Rosenbaum felt threatened by the rifle so that’s why he tried to get ahold of Rittenhouse. Then fast forward to Grosskreutz, and the prosecution is grilling Rittenhouse about how because Grosskreutz didn’t fire his pistol from 10 ft away that wasn’t going to fire it from 2 ft away. So Rosenbaum was allowed to feel threatened at the mere sight of the rifle, but Kyle should not have felt threatened by the sight of Grosskreutz pistol. Doesn’t hold water.

[c_hawkbob]

"Zero evidence" huh? Well we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. As far as I'm concerned the fact that he came to the riot with an AR, from out of state, is conclusive. The prosecutors weren't able to make most any argument with that judge sitting the case, he's as right wing nutjob as the kid is.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

Yes we will, but using the world hunting is a big claim, so help me out with the evidence of hunting. Some synonyms to hunting would be pursuing and stalking. Again, the prosecution couldn’t make the claim of hunting because that’s not what was happening. Just showing up armed even with an AR is not indicative of intention to hunt and Rittenhouse didn’t do anything to support that claim.

[c_hawkbob]

Just showing up armed even with an AR is not indicative of intention to hunt

And there is where we disagree. At the very least showing up armed with an AR is intent to bully and intimidate, not just to counter protest.

[RiverDog]

Just showing up armed even with an AR is not indicative of intention to hunt

And there is where we disagree. At the very least showing up armed with an AR is intent to bully and intimidate, not just to counter protest.

That's the same point I was trying to make. Rittenhouse's choice of weapon is indicative of his intent. If all he wanted to do was protect himself against an unknown threat, he would have taken a hand gun and not an AR-15 as is his decision to drive 30 miles to get to the scene of where the incident occurred. Whether you want to characterize his actions as "hunting" or simply out looking for trouble, it is clearly not just idle curiosity that motivated him to pack up his gear and head for the rumble.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

Not missing your point, gentlemen, but I disagree with it. Had a response prepared but opted to delete it. Bottom line is I don’t think it was a good idea for anyone to show up possessing any weapon of any kind on either side. These situations are tense enough without them. I’ll leave the adjudication to the adjudicators.

[RiverDog]

Not missing your point, gentlemen, but I disagree with it. Had a response prepared but opted to delete it. Bottom line is I don’t think it was a good idea for anyone to show up possessing any weapon of any kind on either side. These situations are tense enough without them. I’ll leave the adjudication to the adjudicators.

I can agree with that. Like I said, although I don't think they deserved to die, I have very little sympathy for the victims. It's a good example of what can happen in these so-called peaceful demonstrations.

Even though I've disagreed with you on a number of points in this thread, you're a good debater that always keeps things civil.

[Aseahawkfan]

For example, yes, at age 19, Rosenbaum was sentenced to prison for sexually abusing five children — all boys between the ages of 9 and 11 — in Arizona’s Pima County in early 2002, according to his case file obtained via a public records request by Snopes.

The documents said Rosenbaum was temporarily living with the boys’ parents after his mother had kicked him out for disobeying her rules about one month earlier. Over the course of his weeks-long stay, Rosenbaum molested the boys, showed them porn, and performed oral sex on them, among other offenses, the documents showed. He was sentenced to prison for roughly 15 years, and authorities believed at the time “his risk to recidivate being of great concern to the community” considering the victims’ gender and age. (Let us note here: The records included an interview with Rosenbaum in which he said his stepfather sexually abused him and his brother on an almost daily basis when he was a preteen.)

https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/09/11/ ... s-records/

Like I said, I have zero sympathy to Rittenhouse's victims. But that shouldn't make any difference in his guilt or innocence.

It does to me. Child molesters are wastes of life. You abuse a child in that kind of manner and I don't care if someone punches your card.

[Aseahawkfan]

Yes, regardless of his intentions. Coming to a situation like that armed with any kind of weapon does not automatically equate to lethal intent; if that's your stance, then every person there who was armed, including many protesters, some with pistols, are culpable for what happened.

If were to take a 2x4 or a skateboard like Huber and swing it at somebody's head, I've made offensive use of a weapon. If I'm standing around with said 2x4, and someone nearby says to themselves "That could hurt me.", have I created a hazard? If they dislike it enough and feel threatened, can they chase me, and if they try to take it, can I hit them with it? Rosenbaum could have just as easily chose not to chase Rittenhouse but did so. Rosenbaum chose; Rittenhouse's assault rifle did not force him to do so.

You know this, but many things can be turned into weapons, and there use can be offensive and defensive depending on the situation. Yes, an assault rifle is called such because it allows for heavier firepower on the move, but it can just as easily be used in a defensive role. I don't like that these weapons or any weapon were brought to the situation. I believe that Rittenhouse and others like him there armed with assault rifles had the intent to act as a deterrent to protesters and to protect themselves if necessary. A "better to have and not need it, than need it and not have it" situation. Good idea? No. Should there be some kind of reckoning for that decision? Yes. Does it equate to homicidal intent? No. Not in my book.

I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on this, and that's okay. I'm anxious to see the verdict. This, and the Arbery case (though I think it is more damning for those men since they aggressively pursued and unarmed person), both hinge what you and the prosecutor in the Rittenhouse case are positing. That merely bringing a firearm to a situation is enough to be culpable for shooting and the outcome of that shooting.

The people in the Arbery case were obvious racists engaged in behavior that far exceeded the situation. I hope they burn them down to send a message that accosting someone because of their race with a gun is far exceeding your powers of citizen arrest. That entire sheriff's department allowing that trash was unbelievable and an egregious miscarriage of justice. Even if for some reason they proved this guy stole building materials, that is not a death sentence and they are not the police.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

That’s why I say it is more damning to the shooters in the Arbery case, but I think it will still come down to whether or not the jury will think they had a right to shoot once Arbery tried to take the gun or that they are liable for introducing the lethal weapon into the situation that resulted in Arbery’s death due to their aggressive pursuit of him.

[Aseahawkfan]

That’s why I say it is more damning to the shooters in the Arbery case, but I think it will still come down to whether or not the jury will think they had a right to shoot once Arbery tried to take the gun or that they are liable for introducing the lethal weapon into the situation that resulted in Arbery’s death due to their aggressive pursuit of him.

I agree with that. The Arbery case is far worse.

Rittenhouse seems to me to be some kid watching the madness in America and wanting to protect his country from the burning and looting who ended up caught in a bad situation. I hardly call that hunting protesters as he was opposing looters and vandals who were looking to do more than protest.

That's what I see looking from afar. I don't know any of the people involved and hope the courts and juries deliver appropriate justice.

[Hawktawk]

There was evidence of Rittenhouse having made statements about taking shots at rioters he had seen on TV. It occurred 15 days before the shootings . It was not allowed by the judge . There’s plenty of evidence this was an aggressive kid who stashed a gun he couldn’t legally purchase and deliberately drove to a riot to pack it around . Of the likely hundreds if not thousands of weapons in the hands of citizens one was fired 7 times taking 2 lives and injuring a third person . As I analyze what happened it’s clear why kids can’t join the military till they are 18. He panicked in the same chaotic environment many others didn’t . The first victim absolutely was self defense . After that it’s what is called the fog of war . Nobody will ever know what the guy with the skateboard was thinking but the one with no bicep said he was dealing with an active shooter . If those guys had stayed home they would be alive but the same is true if rittenhouse had stayed home .

[Aseahawkfan]

There was evidence of Rittenhouse having made statements about taking shots at rioters he had seen on TV. It occurred 15 days before the shootings . It was not allowed by the judge . There’s plenty of evidence this was an aggressive kid who stashed a gun he couldn’t legally purchase and deliberately drove to a riot to pack it around . Of the likely hundreds if not thousands of weapons in the hands of citizens one was fired 7 times taking 2 lives and injuring a third person . As I analyze what happened it’s clear why kids can’t join the military till they are 18. He panicked in the same chaotic environment many others didn’t . The first victim absolutely was self defense . After that it’s what is called the fog of war . Nobody will ever know what the guy with the skateboard was thinking but the one with no bicep said he was dealing with an active shooter . If those guys had stayed home they would be alive but the same is true if rittenhouse had stayed home .

Does Rittenhouse have some kind of criminal history? I don't know him.

I just know looking at what was being done to the country by political loons hiding amongst the legitimate protests with the looting and vandalism might make someone who loved their country stand up for it while the left made excuse after excuse after excuse for the terrible behavior of some the scum associated with the protests. I watched this firsthand in Seattle. Just like I watched Democrat politicians tie police hands from stopping them from destroying businesses and ripping up the city as well as driving the police out of of the East Precinct and controlling six city blocks in an American city where they denied access to emergency services, denied people from engaging in commerce, and forced negotiation holding the area hostage while our Major Jenny Durkan made it sound like they were a bunch of hippies living the "Summer of Love." A city councilwoman Kshawa Sawant opened City Hall for them and supported their violent assault on the police and the holding of six city blocks of a city hostage while the Democrats made excuses for these scummy people until they had to do something after someone was shot and left dead on the street because emergency services couldn't respond.

All downplayed by the left wing media in the same manner the right wing media downplayed Trump's scumbaggery.

I still don't know more people aren't questioning the support of these two scumbag parties who have showed their pathetic scumbag willingness to overlook terrible behavior to gain power over the last few years. You would think intelligent people would seek to reshape the political environment given how both these parties showed a willingness to sell this country out to maintain power. But nope, they both want to continue on with the vulgar idiocy.

[RiverDog]

The jury is entering its 2nd day of deliberations. As a rule, a long deliberation is good news for the defense. Quick decisions by the jury usually result in a guilty verdict.

[Hawktawk]

The jury is entering its 2nd day of deliberations. As a rule, a long deliberation is good news for the defense. Quick decisions by the jury usually result in a guilty verdict.

I disagree. OJ, the most famous celebrity's trial ended with 1 hour of deliberation. Rittenhouse is now a celebrity as sick as that is. This isn't an open and shut case and jurors have already asked the Judge for a written copy of instructions, video of the shootings etc. Sounds to me like they are bypassing all the Judges BS along with all the national attention and going to the law and the video evidence.

There's one drone shot the defense is protesting, claiming it was illegally withheld from evidence until late in the trial. its pretty devastating and shows Rittenhouse firing multiple shots at people who are still 10 or 15 feet away from him and clearly unarmed. he stops fleeing, turns and shoots at them. That's when he falls down and continues shooting. They are demanding a mistrial. I dont think the judge is going to grant it but it sets the stage for a strong appeal. IMO if were in our third day there's no consensus for outright acquittal. Its not legal to shoot someone to keep from getting your @ss kicked and he was not cornered when he fired shots at the second victim which is shown on the recent video.

Either there's a holdout or 2 or they are gonna pin something on him, probably a lesser charge or maybe just the first guy or perhaps the second or third. I dont see it as good news for the defense at all.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

That doesn’t sound right, though I’d be glad to be shown otherwise. You’re saying there’s a video showing Rittenhouse firing towards protesters before the Rosenbaum chase and shooting?

I didn’t think there was anything showing Rittenhouse firing on anyone other than Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

And it was my understanding the defense objected to receiving a compressed video pre trial that was of poorer quality than the one shown at trial. I watched the prosecution and all the videos they showed, but I don t recall anything about shooting towards protesters prior to Rosenbaum.

[curmudgeon]

I still don't know more people aren't questioning the support of these two scumbag parties who have showed their pathetic scumbag willingness to overlook terrible behavior to gain power over the last few years. You would think intelligent people would seek to reshape the political environment given how both these parties showed a willingness to sell this country out to maintain power. But nope, they both want to continue on with the vulgar idiocy.

This!

[Hawktawk]

And it was my understanding the defense objected to receiving a compressed video pre trial that was of poorer quality than the one shown at trial. I watched the prosecution and all the videos they showed, but I don t recall anything about shooting towards protesters prior to Rosenbaum.

I’m mistaken about firing the weapon. He’s on tape pointing the weapon at them prior to being physically confronted which he said from the stand he didn’t do . It’s an important distinction because if he was the first to threaten it’s also reasonable to assume the person being threatened by having a gun pointed at them might try to subdue that person . It’s a Darwin Award obviously but sets the defense case on its head . It’s the worst video for him either way. The prosecution is protesting that it was released in a lower quality form but also due to it being released so late in the process . It’s their biggest problem and jurors wanted to see it again . We will see. Going on 3 full days now .

[Hawktawk]

I still don't know more people aren't questioning the support of these two scumbag parties who have showed their pathetic scumbag willingness to overlook terrible behavior to gain power over the last few years. You would think intelligent people would seek to reshape the political environment given how both these parties showed a willingness to sell this country out to maintain power. But nope, they both want to continue on with the vulgar idiocy.

This!

Yeah I completely agree. There’s nobody to celebrate no matter the verdict . 3 basic scumbags although previously breaking the law is not a capital offense . But these are the idiot anarchists that blow the genuine opportunity for policing reforms with their overreach and overreaction .

This little white supremacist punk was looking for trouble . As the prosecutor said in closing of all the people and guns in the streets that night only one fired shots and killed people . Kyle Rittenhouse . But mark my words if he’s acquitted he will be on Fox News the next morning after partying with his white nationalist cult all night . I predict another Zimmerman . He has no remorse whatsoever , just trying to stay out of jail.