Closing Arguments
After a series of blunders and a bit of misconduct by the prosecution, combined with a year of biased reporting, the Rittenhouse case will hear final arguments today and then will finally be placed in the hands of the jury. The prosecution's case has been flawed to say the least, but you'd never know it based on certain media accounts.
Therefore, it's time for a review of where the case stands:
1) The prosecution presented Gaige Grasskreutz, a college senior/activist, who was the third man shot by Rittenhouse. Grasskreutz took the stand and after observing the evidence admitted that he actually got shot when he pointed a gun at the head of Kyle Rittenhouse.
2) Another prosecution witness, Ryan Balch, testified that one of the other people shot, Joseph Rosenbaum, said that he intended to kill Rittenhouse. Other witnesses described Rosenbaum as "belligerent" or "hyperagressive." (Rosenbaum had an interesting record).
3) The prosecution’s own medical expert, Dr. Doug Kelly, appeared to confirm that the forensic evidence of soot injuries on Rosenbaum’s hand could be consistent with Rosenbaum trying to grab the barrel of Rittenhouse's rifle when it was fired.
4) The lead porosecutor committed a glaring constitutional violation by beginning his cross examination of Rittenhouse by commenting on his decision to remain silent. For anyone who doesn't know: you have a Constitutional right to remain silent.
5) The national media has sought to find Rittenhouse guilty in the court of public opinion.
If we have an impartial, unintimidated jury, there can only be one verdict - Acquittal
Tags
Who is online
437 visitors
Some people say that Rittenhouse never should have gone to Kenosha. That should go for those he shot and killed: One was a convicted pedophile who again had raped a child. The other was a serial domestic abuser. Both were part of the mob that chased Rittenhouse.
Laws only apply to those on the right. From the President, to Congress, to the AG, all the way down the line the left's goal is a two tier justice system. They are trying to turn the US into their very own version of China.
I heard people blasting Rittenhouse for being armed. Funny how many leftist loons were armed. What were they doing armed at a "peaceful" protest?
I heard people blasting Rittenhouse for violating the curfew. What were all of those on the left doing exactly at the time of tracking and attacking Rittenhouse? They couldn't have been shot if they weren't on the street; and there were far more of the loons than actually were shot by Rittenhouse hounding him. They just didn't have the balls to attack an armed individual that was able to defend himself. Didn't stop them from urging the morons on that attacked him.
Every last Democrat, including the President, needs to be sued for defamation. The media didn't learn their lesson from the Sandmann settlements; so they can line up for another round of payouts.
I think everyone has noticed that the same media which rightly criticized those who encouraged riots on Jan. 6 with unsupported claims of electoral fraud ran out and published distorted accounts of this trial.
You have written about this trial so extensively it makes one wonder how much faith you have in Rittenhouse's complete innocence. If it's so obvious there wouldnt be so much need to hammer on it.
Kyle Rittenhouse is an oddball. He felt a "calling" to insert himself into a situation that should have been handled by law enforcement authorities. He claims that he just wanted to "help people" but kept a rifle strapped to his chest the entire time so he would have it virtually in a hair trigger posture.
What I took from this trial is what a weird and disturbing sense of entitlement this kid has. I heard his mother won't even rule out her son doing the same thing again if the situation arises.
If the national media hadn't spun it the way they did, you'd be right.
Kyle Rittenhouse is an oddball.
As opposed to a convicted pedophile, a wife beater and hundreds of leftist thugs.
What I took from this trial is what a weird and disturbing sense of entitlement this kid has.
What I took away was the double standard that the left has completely manipulated for 5 years.
Was anyone molesting children or beating wives on the night of the incident? It is completely irrelevant.
On the other hand Rittenhouse's oddball views of his role in society led to the confrontations that resulted in three people being shot.
If protesters were breaking laws then the police or national guard should have arrested them. It is not up to a 17 year old kid to decide that putting out a dumpster fire was an emergency that required his armed intervention. I believe he pointed his weapon at the protesters/rioters in that used car lot and that is why one of them chased him through the lot.
They were rioting and damaging property. That is relevant when you chose to examine Rittenhouse's character.
On the other hand Rittenhouse's oddball views of his role in society led to the confrontations that resulted in three people being shot.
So the lead prosecutor is claiming. We'll see if the jury buys it.
If protesters were breaking laws then the police or national guard should have arrested them.
No shit! Yet blue city mayors had them stand down - and that is Rittenhouse's case!
I believe he pointed his weapon at the protesters/rioters in that used car lot and that is why one of them chased him through the lot.
I don't. No one has testified to that. Nor do I believe that crazed mob needed any excuse to chase anyone. 20 against one is their odds.
Why it is brought up time and time again and in disgusting graphic detail is beyond me because it is indeed completely irrelevant!
You are correct regarding those breaking laws should have been arrested. It's not up to fat little killers like Rittenhouse to be judge, jury, and executioner.
When can we expect that to happen?
Rittenhouse, the killer, was breaking plenty of laws.
Any police presence there would have arrested these folks who were breaking the law, if that is what they were doing.
That is for the jury to decide; and with the way the case went in court it doesn't look good for those butt hurt leftists that let emotions dictate bringing charges.
If he is acquitted the deranged lunatics on the left will be out rioting again; which is the reason the national guard has been called out. It is already a forgone conclusion.
"At points in the trial the prosecutor seemed to be learning facts at the same time as the jury."....Jonathan Turley
The specific people he shot were doing this? I saw none of that in any of the videos.
The specific people he shot were threatening him. One assaulted him with a skateboard. Another grabbed the barrel of his gun, A third pointed a gun at his head.
I guess you haven't been paying attention to the trial. There's plenty of evidence that the serial child molester was setting a dumpster on fire when Rittenhouse approached with a fire extinguisher, enraging the child molester and causing the child molester to chase yet another minor with bad intent.
That's not what you said that I responded to. Moving goalposts again?
Anthony Huber
So one victim brought a skateboard to a gun fight? Why did he hit him with a skateboard?
Anthony Huber
So the barrel was pointed at him for him to grab? Not the brightest thing to do, but what would you do if someone pointed a gun at you?
Gaige Grosskreutz
He put his hands in the air and then began to move toward Rittenhouse, who then fired one shot, hitting Grosskreutz in the arm, according to the complaint. Grosskreutz was holding a handgun but had his hands up, the complaint says.
No matter how the trial ends the fact remains that Rittenhouse went there looking to get into trouble, and succeeded. His presence changed nothing in the wider area of what was going on at the time, but his presence did end the lives of 3 men who were NOT threatening anyone else with firearms.
Let's face it the only reason for this trial was to try to placate the Left Wing Mob and prevent more property destruction. Anyone with any sense could see who was running away and who was chasing and throw in a video of the chaser saying "Shoot Me N;@@er" and come to the conclusion that it was self defense. As for the second shooting it was entirely on film so there's little question about that being self defense. You'd have to close your eyes pretty damn tight not to see one of the clearest and well documented cases of self defense in many years.
No, they weren't.
Doesn't matter one penny's worth, it is a clear cut case of self defense, as the prosecution's very own witnesses proved quite admirably.
So it doesn't matter that the people he shot were law abiding at that moment? That they only, "allegedly", acted in the manner that got them shot, AFTER encountering Rittenhouse?
Self defense against a guy with a skateboard, and another guy with a gun, but who wasn't pointing it? What about the 3rd guy? No skateboard, no gun....
I am really sorry you can't recognize self defense even when the prosecution presents such a strong case for it.
Maybe you can read the trial transcripts and discover what it is I am referring to.
Interesting that Tony Evers, the Democrat WI governor, currently has 500 national guard on stand-by in anticipation of the trial's conclusion but didn't bother to deploy them during the 2020 riots and violence, is it not?
And I am sorry that you don't recognize when a lethal degree of self defense is appropriate and when it is not.
Since you very very rarely refer to any facts, that is unlikely.
If only you could recognize when facts are in your face.
Maybe he actually learned something????
Seems so. He's 1/2 way through his four year term, so maybe he's thinking about a successful re-election.
That's why Rittenhouse was overcharged within 48 hours of the shootings.
And when he is found not guilty, will you apologize for this comment?
You John, have written hundreds of times about Trumps guilt in collusion with the Russians. If his guilt was so obvious you wouldn't have needed to hammer on it so much.
Although the MSM, other left-wing media, and their disciples falsely tried and convicted Rittenhouse before the trial began, the jury hasn't even deliberated yet. So ... sit tight and wait before accusing him of "entitlement" or anything else. REMEMBER -- Due process is a constitutional right given to every American, even those with whom we disagree or dislike.
"You have written about this trial..."
Grosskreutz was on TV, talking about his 'would-be murderer' while the trial was on-going but Vic's opinion annoys you. SMMFH.
Who, after his testimony, went on interviews giving a story that did not match what he had stated in court.
The trouble with these idiots is that 90% of the time they are ill informed and run on feelings instead of fact. (They're wrong)
In a nutshell, the prosecution did a good job making the case for the defense.
Wasn't that unbelievable? I'm guessing that once he graduates college he will seek employment in government.
In a nutshell, the prosecution did a good job making the case for the defense.
They are down to a final closing argument.
I can see it now. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we provided evidence and proof that Mr. Rittenhouse is guilty of Self Defense".
Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there that night. Neither should the rioters have been there.
Law enforcement was not allowed to control the violent protestors
Ahhh, if it hadn't been for the media lying about Jacob Blake!
The media didn't lie about the killing of Jacob Blake by cops.
They did. They claimed that he was unarmed.
BTW, he wasn't killed.
WAIT!!!! WTF are you talking about. He's not dead.
And you accuse others of passing false information.
Since he was shot 7 times in the back at point blank range that probably qualifies as a miracle.
I think you are confused. They are talking about Jacob Blake
Sounds like the racist cops tried their best to kill him or paralyze him.
Oh, so the media didn't report he died?
Hallelujah, at least they got something right about the case.
Why are you spreading the lie that he died?
Oops!
I made an error when I said Blake was dead. I guess some will harp on that relentlessly.
"Much like the Rittenhouse case," Reid explained, "the Zimmerman case was fundamentally about American vigilantism.
What does the Zimmerman case have to do with this killer Rittenhouse?
Both are killers. Zimmerman killed some innocent kid for no reason.
Rittenhouse is just a killer, plain and simple. He shouldn't have been there - he wasn't doing anything to help anyone - he wasn't asked to guard or protect any property or anyone. He just wanted to shoot someone.
Is that what the jury said?
He shouldn't have been there
Who should have been there?
George Zimmerman stalked Trayvon Martin. Martin realized what was happening and confronted Zimmerman and a fight ensued. Because he was losing the fight Zimmerman feared for his life and shot and killed Martin. The idea that Zimmerman was "innocent" is ridiculous.
I'm asking what the jury said?
Zimmerman was on his way off the gated condo complex to go to the store. While he was driving towards the gate he noticed someone emerging from between two houses. This was a young black man in a hoodie, Trayvon Martin, who was breaking no law and doing nothing suspicious other than walking. Zimmerman began to trail Martin in his car at very slow speed for at least a quarter of a mile. Martin saw someone stalking him in this way and reacted by confronting Zimmerman after Zimmerman exited his car to continue stalking Martin on foot. Zimmerman had been told by the police to stay in his car.
Zimmerman was anything but an innocent participant.
"The idea that Zimmerman was "innocent" is ridiculous."
Ya! Indeed. He killed an innocent young man for no reason whatsoever.
Not what the 911 transcriptions say however..
It's the same thing for heaven's sakes.
Zimmerman thought he was justified in stalking Martin because he thought Martin was "suspicious". Martin was doing NOTHING wrong.
This is one of the reasons we have Black Lives Matter today.
Ah, the famous 911 call NBC edited to make Zimmerman sound like a racist.
Time and time again, the media stirs up the leftist base with lies that never go away.
For accuracy's sake: Zimmerman got out of the car to see a house number so he could tell police his exact location and on the way back to his car Martin attacked him. Martin was shot while scuffling over Zimmerman's gun.
George Zimmerman stalked Trayvon Martin. He thought it was appropriate to do so.
It is one of the reasons we have black lives matter today.
Only an idiot does not accept that Zimmerman stalked Martin. He followed him, at extremely slow speed, from his car, for at least a quarter of a mile. Martin saw him and assumed he was in danger.
Jury didn't agree with you. Despite Obama as his DOJ & AG's strong arm tactics.
Martin was a real nice gang banger.
The left do love their criminals; so long as they have the correct political leanings that is.
Every single word you just typed is irrelevant to the fact that Zimmerman was stalking Martin that night.
Convenient, since the other person in the fight was dead.
Your denial of facts is irrelevant. Martin was not some sweet innocent kid. He could have easily deescalated the situation and not attacked Zimmerman; but being the gang banging homophobe he was seize the target of opportunity.
Convenient that the left loves to defend gang banging homophobes.
As I remember, even his girlfriend testified that he was home at his fathers fiancee's home when he turned back to find Zimmerman... should have just gone inside.
Kind of hard to believe anyone is still debating that old case.
Zimmerman was found not guilty, and that destroyed the narrative the media and left-wing pundits were pushing.
Pissed them off no end.
"Zimmerman was on his way off the gated condo complex to go to the store. While he was driving towards the gate he noticed someone emerging from between two houses. This was a young black man in a hoodie, Trayvon Martin, who was breaking no law and doing nothing suspicious other than walking. Zimmerman began to trail Martin in his car at very slow speed for at least a quarter of a mile. Martin saw someone stalking him in this way and reacted by confronting Zimmerman after Zimmerman exited his car to continue stalking Martin on foot. Zimmerman had been told by the police to stay in his car.
Zimmerman was anything but an innocent participant"
That is really ignorant and not true, like the majority of your comments. .
Wow, y'all are just making up hateful shit as you go . . . . . .
Funny how some think that a dispatcher has the power to tell anyone ANYTHING like "Stay in your car or else....." especially when they have no power. They aren't LEO's FFS.
Please explain what I made up or what is hateful about what I posted. Otherwise just stop responding to me
I'll respond to whoever I like and there's nothing you can do about it.
In other words you have nothing to back up what you say, you are just trolling. bye bye
Do you mean ruled? Jurors are rarely allowed to speak except the one who reads their verdict.
WOW!!! What a fucking stupid and illiterate meme.
Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman and bashed his head into the concrete.
Zimmerman defended himself and blew a nice big hole in Martin.
Martin no longer attacks and bashes people's heads in.
The world is a better place.
Why did George Zimmerman stalk Trayvon Martin?
Because the dead little shit was cutting through people's yards and Zimmerman, being the neighborhood watch, or at the least, a concerned citizen, did the right thing and followed the little dead shit while he was speaking to the cops.
There had been reports of recent break ins in that neighborhood.
Trayvon Martin had been at a convenience store a couple blocks down from the condo complex. On the way back home he cut through an opening between two houses, as many other people who lived there have done. It was, you know, a short cut.
No reason to to slow speed stalk someone from your car.
Now you have black lives matter annoying you, hopefully forever.
Trayvon dead, Zimmerman found not guilty.
Rehashing the past won't change it.
Nope, that would be you. bye bye
You hear that dog whistle loud and clear don't you John and that ignorant hateful shit? That Trayvon deserved to die for nothing because some impotent wannabe neighbordhood watch dick shot him for no reason.
So he deserved to die. Man those dog whistles are deafening.
Yea. except that attacking and bashing someone's head in the concrete is a damn good reason to put a slug in someone's chest.
Zimmerman did the right thing.
More death wishing from our tolerant alleged conservatives and those hateful racist dogwhistles.
Trayvon was just walking home with a bag of skittles and a bottle of iced tea. Zimmerman killed that kid for no reason whatsoever. Zimmerman had no reason to execute this young man who was just heading back to his family's house.
He could have been Barack Obama's son.
Wow, they still can't get over Zimmerman/Martin or even Obama's pal, the racist Cambridge prof.
Kind of strange that progressives insist on living in the past.....................lol.
All incidents that the media hyped up and Barrack Obama reacted to.
WTF are you talking about? This entire 'article' is titled:
"Much like the Rittenhouse case," Reid explained, "the Zimmerman case was fundamentally about American vigilantism.
"Much like the Rittenhouse case," Reid explained, "the Zimmerman case was fundamentally about American vigilantism.
How ridiculous when this how 'article' is based on the above title.
You'll have to ask racist Marxist Joy Reid. She's obviously still obsessing about Zimmerman for the past 9 years.
perhaps you've heard by now that Zimmerman was put on trial and was not convicted.
So you're going to ignore the part where Martin attacked Zimmerman?
Zimmerman killed some innocent kid for no reason.
I'll ask again - So you're going to ignore the part where Martin attacked Zimmerman?
So you are going to ignore proven facts of the situation. Not surprising with your track record here.
NO one here defending either of these killers has provided any facts, proven or otherwise.
That certainly is far from what the jury who actually heard and listened to testimony determined.
Watch LIVE at 8AM: Closing arguments in Rittenhouse trial - KVIA
KENOSHA, Wisconsin — Attorneys are set to make closing arguments at Kyle Rittenhouse’s trial in the shootings of three men during street unrest in Wisconsin.
The arguments Monday morning will be the last word of some two weeks of courtroom drama before a jury begins deliberating in a case that underscored Americans’ bitter divisions on issues of guns, protests and policing.
Rittenhouse, who was 17 at the time, faces charges ranging from an intentional homicide charge that could mean life in prison to an underage weapons charge that could mean just a few months in jail.
The prosecution has sought to portray Rittenhouse as a teenage vigilante who illegally possessed the gun and acted criminally and recklessly.
Defense lawyers -- backed up by the defendant's riveting and emotional testimony -- argued that he acted in self-defense.
After closing arguments, the jury will get the case.
The panel will consider five felony counts and the misdemeanor weapons charge against Rittenhouse. Using an AR-15-type rifle, he killed Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26, and wounded Gaige Grosskreutz, 27, during street demonstrations over the police shooting of Jacob Blake.
Here are the counts the jury will weigh after Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder instructs them on the law:
First-degree reckless homicide, use of a dangerous weapon
Count 1 states that Rittenhouse recklessly caused the death of Rosenbaum under circumstances that showed utter disregard for human life.
The judge denied a prosecution request for the jury to also be instructed on second-degree reckless homicide.
Rittenhouse testified he acted in self-defense when he fatally shot Rosenbaum after the man threw a plastic bag at him and chased him.
"I didn't do anything wrong. I defended myself," he testified.
Under cross, Rittenhouse said that he knew Rosenbaum was unarmed. He said he pointed his rifle at Rosenbaum in an attempt to deter him and acknowledged that was dangerous.
"If I would have let Mr. Rosenbaum take my firearm from me, he would have used it and killed me with it and probably killed more people," he testified.
Rittenhouse broke down in tears at one point, leading to a short break.
"I think it was a game changer to put him on the stand," legal analyst Joey Jackson said. "Number one, you humanize him... More important, number two, he explained his uses of force."
Rittenhouse's testimony couldn't have been scripted any better, criminal defense attorney Mark Eiglarsh said.
The "biggest issue" is whether the jury finds Rittenhouse credible, he said. "Secondly, do they believe then that it equals he reasonably feared death or great bodily harm?"
Wisconsin law allows the use of deadly force only if "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm."
"Whether he engaged in self defense and did so reasonably and thought his life was in immediate danger ... that's what the jury has to assess ultimately," Jackson said of Rittenhouse.
Prosecutors also requested the jury be given instruction on provocation. They argued Rittenhouse provoked Rosenbaum by raising his gun and pointing it at somebody, which led to the victim running after him.
The judge agreed to allow that the panel consider whether Rittenhouse provoked Rosenbaum into attacking him -- thus negating self-defense.
Ellie Honig, a legal anaylst and a former prosecutor, said the provocation instruction was an important win for the prosecution.
Honig said the instruction allows prosecutors to argue "the defendant went too far, used deadly force when it wasn't reasonably necessary" and that he "provoked the attack, and hence cannot argue self-defense."
First-degree recklessly endangering safety, use of a dangerous weapon
Count 2 states that Kyle Rittenhouse recklessly endangered the safety of Richard McGinniss -- a journalist with the conservative Daily Caller -- under circumstances that show utter disregard for human life.
The state asked that the jury also be instructed on second-degree recklessly endangering safety. Schroeder said he was inclined to give the additional instruction on the lesser charge.
The judge told Rittenhouse that presenting lesser offenses lowered the possibility of a second trial but increased the risk of a conviction.
Allowing jurors to weigh less serious charges could help the prosecution.
"A lot of times ... the jury gets into a heated discussion about whether he's guilty or not guilty of intentional conduct," said legal analyst and former prosecutor Paul Callan.
"And they compromise on a lesser charge when they have one available. If they don't have one available, it's either guilty of one of the higher charges or not guilty."
First-degree intentional homicide, use of a dangerous weapon
Count 3 states that Rittenhouse did cause the death of Huber, with intent to kill him. It's the most serious charge he faces, with a mandatory life sentence. Huber swung his skateboard at Rittenhouse after Rosenbaum was fatally shot.
Prosecutors asked that the jury also be instructed on second-degree intentional homicide, first-degree reckless homicide and second-degree reckless homicide.
Defense attorneys objected to second-degree reckless homicide. The judge said he "embraced" the defense's argument. But he will likely allow lesser charges of second-degree intentional homicide and first-degree reckless homicide.
"I think the jury is going to want to hold him responsible for something in this case," former prosecutor Mark O'Meara said. "Then giving the lesser is an opportunity for the jury to hold him responsible but at a much lower charge than the intentional homicide or even the reckless homicide."
First-degree recklessly endangering safety, use of a dangerous weapon
Count 4 states that Rittenhouse did recklessly endanger the safety of an unknown male, referred to as "jump kick man" in court, under circumstances that show utter disregard for human life.
The man jumped at Rittenhouse at one point, trying to kick him and the teen opened fire. "I thought if I were to be knocked out, he would have stomped my face in if I didn't fire," he said.
Rittenhouse fired at the man twice and missed.
Attempted first-degree intentional homicide, use of a weapon
Count 5 states that Rittenhouse attempted to cause the death of Grosskreutz, with intent to kill him.
After shooting Huber, Rittenhouse testified, he saw Grosskreutz lunge at him and point a pistol at his head. Rittenhouse shot him, he testified. Grosskreutz was wounded.
Grosskreutz testified that he pulled out his own firearm because he believed Rittenhouse was an active shooter.
Grosskreutz said he and a crowd followed Rittenhouse, who had just fatally shot another man. Rittenhouse fell to the ground, fired twice at an unknown person and then fatally shot Huber.
Grosskreutz, just feet away, put his hands in the air, videos show. He testified he then saw Rittenhouse rerack his weapon -- a motion that loads it for gunfire.
Prosecutors asked for lesser charges of attempted second-degree intentional homicide, first-degree reckless endangerment and second-degree reckless endangerment. Schroeder said he was inclined to agree with the prosecution.
Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18
Count 6, a misdemeanor, states that Rittenhouse was under 18 years old with a dangerous weapon.
Aside from the evidence presented at trial and the instructions on the law, the personal views of jurors and the polarizing nature of the case could also come into play.
"It's a very difficult case," said Laura Coates, a legal analyst and a former federal prosecutor. "You cannot extract and divorce from the political, the sociological, the cultural, the actual everyday conversations ... It's very difficult to just look at this from the idea of -- was this person entitled to self-defense? There are so many different aspects of it. The jury is going to have to whittle that down."
I think this is the most likely guilty count.
And this one
This does not strike me as justification for trying to kill someone. Rittenhouse says that he "felt" that if the man had successfully "knocked him out" the man would have killed him. There is no evidence of such a conclusion.
That last one for sure.
Your Count 6 is now in doubt - if that rifle is regarded as a long barreled rifle.
I told you it was a complicated law!
Count 6 dismissed and not for jury consideration....
Correct! We are down to 5 counts.
Another staggering blow for the prosecution.
Is that all the prosecution has left? The Wisconsin law is complicated and very generous in terms of self defense.
It will be very interesting.
Fox News now turns to trial coverage......
It wasn't self defense.
Faux 'news' - LOL!
I'm going to wait for the jury.
When they don't get the verdict they want, the jury will be stupid, wrong, racist, exude white privilege, etc, etc, ..... wait for it, wait for it .....
I'm sure. We'll be hearing from the race lady on MSNBC, who already called Rittenhouse a "vigilante."
Most mass media reporters are clueless asshats these days.
Completely out of touch with reality.
Kind of like when you don't get the results you want, the election was stolen, fraudulent, etc., etc., etc.?
Reliving 2016 are you?
No, 2020.
And you start a 4 year investigation into something that isn't even a crime according to US Code.
Are you still trying to convince everyone that accepting campaign aid from a foreign country is not a crime? Is that what you are harping back on???
I'm telling you that the investigation was to look into "collusion". Something that is not in the US Code.
So, all you have is word play.
"So, all you have is word play."
Ya! Not a fact to be found!
So prove me wrong. Tessylo has failed many times. Care to try to match that record?
They won't, because they can't.
Not rationally any way.
I have never failed. Jeremy on the other hand has never provided any facts, 'proven' or otherwise.
To do so would take critical thinking, comprehension and rationalization. None of which exist with this group.
I have never failed. Jeremy on the other hand has never provided any facts
Only a sith deals in absolutes.
He's the guy that claimed slavery in America was not based on race. His credibility is non-existent.
It's kind of a bitch when people use your own methods back at ya isn't it...................
And whatever still remains standing in Kenosha will be burned, looted, and destroyed.
Tessylo's success or failure is not determined by YOUR opinion.
Going by your logic....
A man goes into a bank and demands money, but gets caught outside before he can get away. Upon interviewing the bank teller, she identified him and stated that he took $5,000.
By your argument, the police must now let him go because there is no law against "taking", but only against "theft" and "robbery". Since all he did was take the money, they could not charge him with a crime because simply taking something is not illegal.
I didn't base it on opinion. I based it off history.
And I notice you took to challenge to match her record. I ask you to prove me wrong. Not blather on about nothing.
You based it off of absolutely nothing.
You're the one who blathers on about nothing.
Nice meme. Looks like your learning. let me know when you graduate to something higher than children games.
You have been proven wrong many many times, but much like small children, refuse to admit it....nuh uh.....
No I haven't. All you've done is blather on about nothing. Sorry, I'm not as gullible as the left.
When one is dead they don't know they're dead. It's the same way when one is stupid.
Allow me to correct you...
Tessylo has failed EVERY time.
Well, yeah, but.......
She doesn't answer to you
She doesn't have to prove DICK to anyone
She isn't here 24/7 like SOME people
She simply can not prove it.
I have a fan club. I'm not flattered! I have quite a few stalkers and admirers here that hang on my every word and follow me all around. Really creepy.
Like this guy...
And the stupidity and ignorance from the SJW's and those how "believe" Rittenhouse is guilty continues.
Many on the left are completely unhinged.
I believe their chronic TDS has rotted away what little gray matter they might have had left.
But hey, that's just my opinion, i could be wrong.
This isn't even TDS. It's just plain, outright ignorance.
Rittenhouse is yawning through the mind-numbing jury instructions (which are almost 40 pages). His lawyers should offer him some coffee.
The judge fucked up in his jury instructions and had to call a sidebar.
This judge loves to hear himself talk, to say the least.
The prosecution wants the jury to have the option of lesser charges, since they overcharged. A unanimous acquittal prevents lesser charges.
Since they made the Defense's case for the other charges.
One of the unforgettable highlights was when the prosecution put Richard McGinniss, the Daily Caller reporter on the stand. Binger said to him "I mean you have no idea what Mr Rosenbaum was thinking at any point in his life. You have never been inside his head, you never met him before.”
McGinnis said, “I never exchanged words with him, if that’s what your question is.”
Binger then pressed McGinnis on how he had no idea what Rosenbaum was thinking because it “is complete guesswork, isn’t it?”
That is when McGinnis delivered a gut punch, noting, “Well he said fuck you, and then he reached for the weapon.”
Binger looked physically ill at that point...One of my favorites!
Thomas Binger is going to have a 2 hour closing argument? We are way overtime just with the Judge's instructions!
He has to use the "think of the damage and destruction the rioters will cause it he is acquitted" argument. Being a lawyer he can stretch that into at least 1 hour.
This judge has diarrhea of the mouth.
Now Mr Binger...
Yeah, anyone want to lay odds on his being a prosecutor in the future?
I think the best they can hope for is a hung jury/mistrial... That is a possibility as there may be some braindead woke people on the jury... But a reasonable critically thinking person can only acquit given the actual evidence...
I think they are hoping for lesser charges. They'll settle for at least one.
He called the group that terrorized Kenosha for days a crowd full of heroes. He must be auditioning for a job in the Biden DOJ or MSNBC (one and the same)
. I can't believe he could ever be elected again in Kenosha again after his epically dishonest performance, starting from his decision to indict Rittenhouse without an investigation.
Brother, they are so desperate, they will settle for anything at this point and call it a victory...
Rittenhouse looks scared shitless as the prosecutor shows video of him raising his gun to point it at people in the car lot.
Binger did a bang up job with that yesterday!
The FBI drone video shows that Rosenbaum never grabbed Rittenhouse gun.
So far the prosecutor closing argument is about a 9 out of 10.
Lol ... so he finally did something well in this trial eh?
Good for him.
He's literally lying. He just claimed there's no evidence of a threat from Rosenbaum to Rittenhouse. There's plenty of evidence, including eyewitness testimony.
If the jury paid attention to the evidence, he has no credibility. They don't like to be lied to.
Another lie:
No evidence Rosenbaum reaching for gun.
I've watched 5 minutes and he's just lying, not even trying to explain the evidence, simply pretends it doesn't exist.
Unless the jury is full of morons who weren't paying attention to the trial, he's not helping himself.
Rittenhouse looks scared to death.
I didnt follow the testimony minute by minute like you did. The prosecutor is doing a good job although I think he's making a mistake by trying to go into too much second by second detail of Rosenbaum being shot.
If Rittenhouse was pointing his gun at people that is justification for chasing him. Stupid, but justified.
So much for calling the police- and no good guys with guns- BS. The lefts' hypocrisy is shining through.
1) The rioters had no intention of calling the police on Rittenhouse because they were stalking him and wanted the confrontation.
2) The rioters would never call the very people they were rioting so damn hard against.
3) What mighty mental midgets escalate a conflict with an armed individual with an AR-15 that the left is scared to death of?
4) Since they were stalking him- the intent was always to confront and chase. So they didn't need any excuses. Again, butt hurt leftist emotions brought this case to court; despite all evidence. The prosecution didn't do their damn job; didn't look at all the evidence; and damn well didn't vet their witness or alleged "victims".
How were they stalking him? He went to their location.
Rittenhouse left the business he was originally guarding and walked (then ran) a few blocks down the road to where he had heard there was some sort of action going on. He was bored because the original location he was guarding was declared secure by the police.
The prosecution did a remarkable job of proving self-defense.
Haven't you been paying attention?
dont troll me
LMAO--typical leftist response when they can't think of anything intelligent to rebut with.
Everyone on this site knows you are a troll. Its a shame NT allows you to get away with it.
You are nothing if not entertaining.
Congrats!
I saw an interesting question on twitter just now. If Rittenhouse didnt have a gun but pulled out a knife and stabbed Rosenbaum to death because Rosenbaum was chasing him , would Rittenhouse be justified?
Of course not.
Replace the AR-15 with a knife and nobody files charges.
I dont think you can stab an unarmed man to death in a fight but maybe you know something the rest of us dont.
If he knows you have a knife and chases you down, then he's clearly not afraid of your knife. If he's within stabbing range he must have caught you. So now here you are in the grasp of a person so intent on harming you that the knife didn't dissuade them.
Nobody files charges when you stab that guy.
Unless the guy attacking you is a politically favored race.... (and you aren't)
JR has stated that shooting someone who is kicking you isn't allowed. So I don't see how you can convince him with logic like that.
In order to use deadly force you have to believe you are in imminent danger of grievous bodily injury or death. Rosenbaum was described as 5 ft 4 and 140 lbs. How would someone with a knife be able to claim he was in fear of grievous injury or death from someone who was smaller than him and unarmed?
You cant kill someone because you are afraid of losing a fight.
Interesting you are injecting race into a case where everyone involved was white.
Not surprisingly, I have yet to see you make any similar comment to the fools who keep calling Rittenhouse a white supremacist.
A crazy person chasing me down creates that belief.
I'm 6'4" and 210lbs. Any 5'4"/140 guy crazy enough to chase me looking for a fight is crazy enough to for me to believe he will cause grievous injury or death.
I have every reason to suspect such a person must have a weapon I have not seen. I also don't know if he's on drugs or not and if so what drugs they might be. I don't know WTF is going on inside that head, and if I've made a significant effort to leave/de-escalate and he's still coming after me and my knife.... he's completely lost his mind and I'm not risking it.
Of course you can. "Grievous bodily injury". Why on earth would I think a person displaying such insanity would show restraint should they win the fight? At the very least this asshole intends to render me unconscious and/or send me to the hospital. I'm supposed to stake my life on the idea he won't beat me to death?
Interesting that the MSM, other left-wing media, and Joe Biden did in 2020.
Further evidence that self defense is not understood.
A "fight" would likely be and usually is mutually agreed on . What Rosenbum did was assault , not mutually agreed on , besides , there is no provision in the self defense statute that says the attacker has to be armed , people have died with a person simply using their hands and feet .
The only prerequisite for use of deadly force is that the person being attacked has to believe the attack would cause serious injury or death, of course they also could not instigate the whole thing as well, but simply being armed is not considered provocation or reason to attack someone either .
You can't really believe that. There were two dead bodies that night. Stabbing or gunfire, arrests were going to happen.
Cops do it EVERY day
But this fat little killer isn't a COP.
Your name fits you to a tee with that comment. Buh bye!
And if no one attacked him, he wouldn't have shot anyone.
Well comparing this to the Zimmerman trial only serves to reveal the ideal, the government is afraid of the racist BLM Mob....
The Zimmerman trial was a mob generated trial, this is a mob generated trial, Floridian's saw this and acquitted under the law, Wisconsan's should also see it and acquit under the law...
I'm going to project some common sense here..
AS these acquittals, (I believe this will be one) keep happening, the mob will eventually get the idea they they cannot get their satisfaction thru the courts and sympathetic politicians....
They will then abandon the government altogether... The Politicians have little to no control of the mob as it stands, with their standing orders for the authorities to stand down and avoid confrontations with said mob.... (because the politicians would love for all these protests to be "peaceful")
Who's left to defend the citizenry? the citizenry itself....
And since this is a government of the people by the people and for the people, the only ones that can fix this are the people...
And I feel very sad for the mob, who have apparently forgot who the real government is...
Any YES it does get right down to the simple basics... Your either a hater of this nation and join the mob or a lover of this nation and join the people...
It's rapidly coming down to that simple choice....
[Deleted.]
Well said.
I totally disagree. It has nothing to do with that. There are so many shades of gray to this case, that it boggles my mind that this is what you got out of it.
There were two groups of people out there. Some were doing peaceful protests. Others were hooligans who came with their own agenda and were hardly peaceful. In the US we have the right to protest. You do not have the right to riot.
Then you have people who thought that they should insert themselves into a situation that they had no business inserting themselves into. That kid was from out of state, and not a member of law enforcement. He came there to engage the rioters and he did so with a gun. He shot 3 people, 2 died. Whether or not it was self-defence, the need would have never happened, if he didn't fancy himself as a vigilante.
This whole business is not about mob rule. It is about gross stupidity and unlawful behaviour. The rioters were thugs who should have been rounded up by the police and charged. The kid shouldn't have been there and then he wouldn't have shot 3 people, killing 2. What he did was not murder, but he is also responsible for 2 deaths, so a lesser charge would be appropriate. The rioters are dead or injured, so I think they have paid for their actions.
No, I have to disagree with you in part. Did Rittenhouse need to be there? No, he didn't need to be there but he had just as much right to be there as those who were protesting.
Personally I would be careful in saying he fancied himself a vigilante as you don't really know what was in his mind. The jury will decide if it meets the criteria for self-defense but the other side if it is also it might not have happened if he was not attacked by the 3 people.
I would have loved for the police to have been more involved so that this could have been prevented, but politics were used to hold them back and allow the protestors free movement and actions. Once the police were kept out of it....
Yep, I believe the prosecution over-reached and over-charged. Was that due to politics? We will probably never know. All we do know is the prosecution really did a poor job. But I also think that Rittenhouse will also have to live with his actions and the knowledge that he killed two people for the rest of his life. I can't imagine what his mind is like with that knowledge.
Excuse me, I have just finishing listening and watching two different broadcasts of the proceedings, one was the prosecutor excusing a guy that was killed when he attacked AFTER going on a rampage of destruction AND screaming that he was going to kill... The other was the defense attorney showing the video of each shooting, YES they have complete video of each shooting... Five people attacked him the second one knocked him down, he was running away. The skateboard guy swung at his head which he blocked with his gun ,once down, the skateboard guy was winding up for another swing That is when he was shot... Another guy comes running up and tries to kick him in the head, he wasn't shot another guy come lunging in and tries to take the gun he was shot... then the last one who ran in with the previous guy stops and holds his hands up until the victim looks away he then pulls out his gun and points it at the head of the guy down on the ground... The guy on the ground lifts his weapon and fires... all this while in the video there is a third guy who rand in with the last two that just stands there with his hands up and another standing approx 30 feet away on the sidewalk brandishing a board like it was a sword, ready to move in as well... They guy collects himself gets up and runs to the police...
That was self defense
There was nothing peaceful in the video I saw, there was a mob that actually repeatedly tried to chase down and kill the victim....
The defense attorney stated the law correctly, if he was justified under self defense on the first charge then he was justified on all the rest, the "lesser included" charges go away as justified as well.. What I saw was a classic case of self defense against multiple attackers based upon the law and the law alone... Self defense is justified when you are in fear of your life or someone else's life...
He was clearly in fear of his life, in that situation I would have been as well.. And, if able, acted accordingly...
The trial is a mob generated politically motivated trial.... The threats being made from outside the courtroom of the mob rioting if he is not convicted prove beyond any doubt that this is mob generated, and if the jury does cave to the mob and convicts from the clear evidence they have shown then there is no law...
Then YES it is now a mob rule situation... This is the US, anyone can go anywhere they like, the argument that he inserted himself into the situation falls flat on it's face cause ALL the rioters inserted themselves as well...
What you call shades of grey are all rationalizations, the plain and clear evidence from the videos call for a justified self defense verdict, if we are still a nation of laws....
What happened is terrible, but it started when the mob ran him down and attacked him which the video clearly shows... Any other rationalization can only lead to the conclusion that feelings and emotions are more important than the law...
Which I respectfully disagree with...
Been there and done that...
Pure speculation. There is no evidence that anyone tried to kill Rittenhouse.
Swinging a skateboard at someone's head is just a love tap? The defense doesn't have to prove that people tried to kill him, only that their actions caused Rittenhouse to fear for his own safety.
LMAO
There is a guy they called Jump Kick Man. The defense lawyer said that Jump Kick Man kicked Rittenhouse in the head and then Rittenhouse shot at him. That is not what happened. As Jump Kick Man is running toward Rittenhouse who is sitting on the ground Rittenhouse turns toward Jump Kick Man and raises his weapon. As Jump Kick Man is leaping over Rittenhouse to kick him, simultaneously Rittenhouse is pulling the trigger.
The defense argument is that Rittenhouse can shoot someone to death that may be about to kick them. That should not be acceptable.
Of course it is acceptable.
THAT is self defense.
Rittenhouse killed these people because he had a gun attached to himself like a third arm. If you get in a fight with someone on a street you cant just shoot them dead.
If that becomes the standard we are going to need a lot more body bags.
No, he shot because he was under attack and had been threatened.
You keep making these odd, false claims. Why?
Perhaps. Each case is unique. But it already is the standard. Self defense in play.
The next time someone wants to fight you in a restaurant parking lot, you pull out your gun and shoot them four times . Let us know how that works out for you.
Self defense, an obviously foreign concept to some.
Hell, dude, I live in freaking Texas, WTF do you think I would even be charged with?
If you can pull and use a gun in a fistfight in Texas and get away with it I'm glad I am 1000 miles from there.
You better leave Illinois ASAP.
The Rittenhouse case is a pretty straightforward application of self defense. People are acting like it's some novel concept.
Brother, I live here in whackadoodle Washington, even here the sheriff tells you as long as the attacker is coming at you causing you to fear him and what he might do.. your good to go...
The moment he sees your weapon and flees, then you have to let him go... The right to own weapons for self defense is ensconced in the state constitution.... (much to the far left progressives chagrin....
Gee, that's strange, because both sides went well into the concept of self defense throughout the trial, including today.
In the prosecution rebuttal , he said that Rittenhouse had other options than shooting Rosenbaum. He could have fought him, he could have ran. He had a duty to use deadly force as a last resort. Rittenhouse used it as a first resort , most likely as planned. Why fight when you can shoot and kill people and get away with it?
Rittenhouse used it as a first resort , most likely as planned.
You are losing touch with reality. He ran away. Do you think he planned for Rosenbaum's friend to fire a gun behind him as Rosenbaum chased him and reached for his gun? You've turned Rittenhouse into some sort of wizard who can manipulate others like a puppetmaster.
If he wanted to kill rioting progressives, there were plenty of targets. Notice how he only shot those attacking him?
Don't chase and threaten people with guns or bad things can happen. It's common sense.
Rittenhouse testified that the other gunshot had no effect on his actions.
There is no evidence that Rosenbaum reached for the gun until after Rittenhouse shot him.
I wonder what would have happened if Rosenbaum didnt chase Rittenhouse but simply punched him in the face where he stood and acted like he was going to punch him again. Judging from this defense I guess Rittenhouse would have just shot Rosenbaum dead on the spot.
Where you are you are more likely to get shot sitting in your house, or in a car, or walking down a sidewalk.
That's not what he testified to.
There is no evidence that Rosenbaum reached for the gun until after Rittenhouse shot him
That's not true John. You and the DA keep ignoring evidence you don't like and then claim it doesn't exist. It's basically an admission that guilt can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
That makes at least two of us then.
Simplistic tweets don't change facts.
Do people start fights with you in restaurant parking lots?
Or what would have happened if he chased him down and clubbed him over the head with a skateboard, even......
HUGE CHUCKLE!
Except for that pesky video showing him pointing the gun at his head, the shot being fired and then him holding his shredded arm with the gun still in his hand....
Other than that there is still the witness testimony, (which matches the video perfectly) and guess who was the witness? I think his name was ROSENBAUM!!!
Ignoring the evidence that destroys the claim is classic hate type liberalism.... your right Sean, it's an admission they know the evidence and know the truth...
Hilarious!
No. His dad did. He lived with his mom in another state.
Then why was he there and with a long gun? Why did he say during testimony that Kyle he went to Kenosha to protect people's property? When the riots broke out in Baltimore not even a 1/4 mile from my kids' apartment, they didn't go out into the night to add to the mixture.
The police were there. They had chased the crowds from the park to the streets.
There we agree.
I watched the same footage, and none of this would have happened had he not been there. End of subject. The fact that the kid was there with a gun and was not the police, and put himself into a situation that could have ended up poorly at best still does not excuse his bad judgement and the death of two people. It's not murder, but he is not innocent either. As I said to Snuffy, my daughters stayed in their apartments as Baltimore burned. Had they gone out, any event would have been on them.
But that was not my point... it's this that you are still saying:
As long as the jury does what it is supposed to do, whether you or I agree with the outcome, it is NOT mob rule.
Obviously, it is shades of grey since we are having this discussion. We both followed the case and listened to testimony and feel differently. If it was black and white, we would walk away with the same opinion.
This has nothing to do with feelings or emotions. I don't side with the rioters. They were disgusting. So please don't try to get into where I am coming from. The kids himself says he wishes he didn't go there that night. Who asked him to go out into the night to protect people's property? He was ill-prepared for what happened, and now we have 2 dead people and a third injured.
And if you are going to be respectful of me, then please realize that I have thought about this, and I am not running on emotion.
And to me there are no shades of grey in this one, it doesn't matter why he was there and he doesn't have to justify his presence there... This is still the United States of America... he had the right to be safe in his person in any place he is at...
When he put out the fire that one of his attackers started, they decided that he didn't have a right to live... He tried mightily to get away, ran two whole blocks to avoid the confrontation, until they caught up to him and forced him to protect himself...
There is no grey there, it is plain from the evidence when they caught him they intended to do great harm to him, at least three assaults took place before he defended himself... The first threw a rock at his head, near miss but knocked off his hat, he stumbled and fell and the skateboard slinger took a swipe, and hit a glancing blow partially blocked by his rifle, his rifle fell to the ground, the next almost simultaneously tried a karate kick to his head and missed, just a glancing blow... Then the skateboard slinger came around and was going to wop him again, that is when he picked up his rifle and shot him... Skateboard slinger stumbles off center stage left about 30 feet and falls on his face... He is sitting there with his rifle in his lap pointing in the general direction of skateboard slinger looking a little dazed... Then three rioters approached the one that set the fire he put out was first, he lunged to get his rifle and got two hands on the barrel, then he tried to yank it out of his grip and it discharged... Essentially the way he tried to take the rifle, he shot himself... he staggers off stage left and disappears... Now the second person of the three put up both hands and stepped closer, he still looked a bit dazed sitting in the street when this second person gets within a step of him he draws a glock and points it at his head... He lifts his rifle and fires... this person stands there holding his shredded arm with the glock still in it and turns away and leaves the scene stage left... the third person stands there with his hands raised not making a move.... He got up and ran to the police...
What the film shows me.... He was directly attacked three times and first fired at the fourth attack, the second discharge was an accident brought on by the guy that was off his meds and setting fires that he was putting out that is why he attacked him, He caused his own death... And the third guy said afterwards that he should have just pulled the trigger.... cause that is why he drew his gun he regretted that he didn't... (he admitted on the stand his intent was to commit murder, why do you think the prosecutor did a face palm, justified self defense established right there)
Clear self defense, black and white, he tried to run away, he was attacked three times before he ever discharged his weapon, and one of the deaths was caused by the assailant himself trying to take his weapon... as far as the third discharge? if someone had the drop on me with a loaded/locked gun and I have a weapon he's a dead man...I will not give him the chance, My training tells me that a drawn weapon is intended to be used and you must assume the person is going to use it..
No doubt in my mind Black and White clear self defense... He was lucky to get out of it alive....
You reiterated this...
"The kids himself says he wishes he didn't go there that night"
Let me explain something, it is 37 years later and I still wish I didn't go to that ice cream parlor that afternoon, what he has done is something he is going to live the rest of his life with, just as I have... Don't twist it into saying he admits he was wrong for being there cause that is the only logical reason to say such a thing...
There is a huge difference between minding your own business and walking into an ice cream parlor and walking into a riot. If you can't see that, I can't explain it to you.
And I don't have to twist anything. I am only repeating his words.
You may only be repeating his words, but your doing it to justify your opinion... this is your entire statement in context....
"This has nothing to do with feelings or emotions. I don't side with the rioters. They were disgusting. So please don't try to get into where I am coming from. The kids himself says he wishes he didn't go there that night. Who asked him to go out into the night to protect people's property? He was ill-prepared for what happened, and now we have 2 dead people and a third injured."
Which clearly says you do not understand why he said what he said... your making it very clear that your opinion is that if he wasn't there, there wouldn't be two dead people, hence he is legally liable/responsible for those deaths, not murder cause he had no intent but because of his presence manslaughter....
Problem is under the law, manslaughter requires the killer to take the first criminal action... that he clearly didn't do.... Unless you think putting out an arson fire started by a rioter was the first criminal act...
Totally agree. True, he did have a right to be where he was. However, he did not have the legal right to possess the gun that he carried to that place. He was not of legal age to be in possession of that gun, or any gun, for that matter.
By carrying such a weapon, and putting himself in such a place under those circumstances, he took responsibility for his own safety.
He also lied when he told the police that the owner of one of the businesses asked him to protect his business, when the owner of the business said he did not ask him to protect his business as he was just a young teen and the dangerous circumstances would put the kids life in danger, even with the gun. And the business Kyle said he was asked to protect was not in the area where the shooting in question happened.
INHO, Kyle's Mother bears full responsibility for what happened to Kyle and the victims, as she is the one who bought the gun and gave it Kyle knowing full well he was of legal age to buy, or possess, that weapon. And sh should also be held accountable for her own actions.
I said what I said because he said so. I am not on that jury. It is up to that jury to decide. But I don't think he should have been there. I never mentioned the charges, you did. And reckless endangerment is also on the table, not just manslaughter.
But he didn't put out a fire, he threw kerosene into it. This is more akin to a fake firefighter showing up, not knowing what to do, and dropping the baby out the second-story window, because they had no training.
I agree. Good analogy.
You have a right to believe what you wish girl, I have no problem with that.. But alas we are on opposite sides on this one... And I'm ok with that as well....
We will have to agree to disagree... The people that attacked him had no right to do that, and forced him to defend himself, by making the decision to attack they bear the brunt of responsibility for what happened to themselves... that's my view...
We are not going to change each others minds here, Have a good night sweets...
Hey RW! nice to see you... I know we aren't going to agree on this either, but I still love ya...
You're the one twisting here.
Not sure what your comment means in regards to mine. I know he lives with his mother in IL, and his dad lives in Kenosha. What I said was that while IMO he didn't really need to be there, he had just as much right to be there as the rioters did. He did nothing illegal by being there.
Ok, using the dictionary definition he can be called a vigilante. I don't necessarily like that word as it has other connotations but it's not wrong. But when you throw in that he was armed is when the connotations start to take hold and really are not part of the issue IMO.
I don't believe the police were allowed to do enough. How many buildings were burned down, how much was lost from the nights of riots? Perhaps that could have been limited if the police were allowed to do more.
Rittenhouse now is saying he wishes he hadn't gone there at all and if he had to do it again he would not. That to me shows growth and remorse. He was 17, we all make poor decisions at that age. IMO what he did was not illegal and while I'm waiting like everybody else for the jury to decide I think he will be acquitted on all counts as this from the videos I have seen is an easy case of self-defense.
Actually that's not true which is why count 6 has been removed.
That should read "knowing full well he was not of legal age to buy, or possess, that weapon".
Hidy do, NWM! Good to see you back with us here on NT. We have disagreed on some matters, but, we still enjoy each others verbal company.
Is there any consideration of Rittenhouse's interactions with cops before and after the shootings? He was shown, via video and pictures, of hanging with the cops BEFORE hell broke loose. He was even given water and a thumbs up by the cops. This was clearly seen, nice daylight. Later in the evening he can be seen walking with the AR-15 past cops who did not give him the time of day. Multiple people were yelling to the cops, "Hey, that kid, A-hole, just shot and killed someone". Yes, this was documented as well. What of his classmates and their statements of him? His actions after the fact, which included flashing racist symbols at the bar?
In your opinion (and anyone else), should any of this be considered? Yes, it may not be presented, but should it be considered?
Do you believe he should be charged with manslaughter?
In any event, I think he was a good actor on the stand, fake crying and such. Defense team taught him well.
I think he is riding the hero / brave patriot wave so his mind is clear and he sleeps well at night.
To me he's down there with Zimmerman, other violence-provoking cowards who use the defense "I feared for my life" and hide behind their gun b/c they're afraid of taking an ass-kicking.
If you are in Chicago it is all of the above.
The governor had to deploy 500 NG troops there in case the verdict might result in a riot.
Kyle Rittenhouse had a hammer that night, his Ar-15. When you are a hammer everything looks like a nail.
He strapped a gun to his chest and went about his business, repeatedly using a gun to shoot people when it was not called for.
Is he "legally justified"? Maybe. The law allows for his level of fear to dictate his response, not the level of threat.
Is he "innocent"? That is absurd.
Let me correct that statement.
Like that would ever happen.
It is my opinion that Kyle's Mother is the one who should be on trial. While she bought the gun legally, she gave it to her underage Son with no training in how to use it.
Plus, it seems to be a bit obvious, at least to me, that her Son does not play with a full deck, and she doesn't seem to either. She let herself become a ploy for the right (aka Fox News), and she only made things worse for her Son, and even stooped so low as to saw Biden 'Demonized' her Son, trying to bring the President into the picture. I wonder whose suggestion that was. ??
His own Mother is the real cause of what happened, and she will be the cause of his going to prison, if that is the jury's decision. Even if that's what happens, his Mother, with Fox News' help will drag it out for as long as she can, blaming everyone else for her poor Son's fate, when she is the one who could have prevented what happened by not giving a young teenager such a gun in the first place.
JMOO
Kyle Rittenhouse's friend, Dominick Black, testified under oath that HE bought the gun. Facts can be pesky details, but they are also very important!
The left is grasping at straws in this case because that's all they have.
ADA Binger made a grand display of straw-grasping yesterday when he held up the rifle in a shooting position and made sweeping gestures while pointing directly at people in the courtroom as his finger was on the trigger. What an idiot!
I know, i saw that as well.
Typical anti gunner like Alec Baldwin.
These people should just stay away from weapons of any sort.
Yes, that came out very soon after, the gun was bought by a friend.
Here's the question, will he get charged with accessory before, during and/or after the fact like they are trying to do to the straw-buyer of the gun used in cop killing in Illinois?
If not and the person in the cop killing does, is this bias because it's a dead cop?
If the FACTS really mattered to anyone regarding this trial, then they would have kept up with it at least enough to know who bought the gun and gave it to Rittenhouse.
When people don't even know the basic facts of the case, their opinions should be noted as not informed ones.
The reason he is testifying for the prosecution is to receive lowered charges and an easy sentence... I suspect if they don't get a conviction, they will bury him as a consolation...
Okay, thanks Man.
Okay, like so many times in the past i'll show you how to ignore without using ignore.
Starting now ......
This is what they allow on Twitter:
Funny how one-sided Twitter is.
They won't riot like before. Not now.
It's too cold for most of those pussies to leave their mommies basements, dorm rooms or free heated shelters.
But, it's good practice for the National Guard for when the shitbirds do leave their hovels in the traditional season of riot.
Summer.
Having grown up in Wisconsin and spending way too many winters there, it's well known that a nice little bonfire will keep you nice and warm during those cold winter outdoor parties.
Now if they can just find something to burn... /s
As are Facebook, You Tube, WhatsApp, Instagram, and others ... even much smaller social media sites.
Death threats are a felony.
I don't want him hung. He should however be removed from his position as a judge.
Here's the payoff:
The lead prosecutor pointing the rifle at the jury:
So, according to the logic of the left, the jury should feel threatened and attack Binger en masse, bludgeon him with a skateboard and then point a gun at his head and shoot him
I'm sure many other vets here on NT have seen this and cannot believe what this depicts. I'm sure we all, if present, would have obliterated this guy for the way he's holding the weapon. This guy obviously has NEVER held a firearm before.
To be expected...all drama queen and no substance through the entire trial.
Not a vet; but I have taken enough gun safety classes to know that any decent arms trainer would destroy him the way he is holding the weapon.
Hey, I am sure the recoil would wreck his face nicely; probably leave him with a nice bruise on his upper shoulder as well. Wouldn't want to be anything above him- no way in hell is he going to hit what he is aiming at.
Too bad he doesn't have a nice scope on it so he could really destroy his eye; I am sure his dime store glasses would shatter on impact.
I'm not a veteran. I'm not an avid recreational shooter. I'm not a gun owner.
Even I know that's not how you do it.
he DOES have a nice chicken wing though ......
@ Jack_TX
@ Mark in Wyoming
As a vet, this man would have had a ballistic helmet slammed into his head for
And he want's to portray Rittenhouse as the threat?
Oooh, what a tough guy you are!
preaching to the choir.
as a graduate of 2 different police academies , a 10 yr active duty veteran that served as military police for 10 yrs , then 2 yrs as a deputy in the civilian world , a life long hunter and shooting sports participant , i can safely say if i was present in that room , on that jury , the mistrial would have maybe happened ..it is never a good idea to point a weapon at a vet in any circumstance , never know for sure what their reaction will be . or i would have bit my tounge and let that influence how i voted on the charges , if the idiot cant show common sense in handling a firearm , his charges are likely not based on common sense , this was a bit of theater for the jury not accustom to firearms or uneducated and the tv cameras and he failed in my opinion in the worst way possible , no matter what point he was trying to drive home .
I feel you. This whole thing is a dog and pony show. It's strictly SJW clown court. And naturally the single cell brained SJW's who haven't paid any attention to the testimony or evidence think Rittenhouse is guilty are set riot if a not guilty verdict is read.
Who cares?
Apparently you do.
No
Wrong
i was surfing my newsfeed this morning having my coffee( juice of life and blackwater medicine ) and ironically i came across a video clip that happens to be from fox news (oh the horror ) simply asking folks in kenosha what they think the reaction to a not guilty verdict will be .
the last lady in the clip pretty much nailed it , if there are riots , it wont be the rioters being blamed but the POC , the brown people that live there that will be blamed and have to live with that outcome locally .
even the locals know what is going down and how it might end in that case .
someone could always post a link to stalkers or trolling anaon .....
I saw that as well and don't really agree with it. I think most Americans that are not hopelessly partisan or anti social (and make no mistake that is most Americans) can make the distinction between rioters (of any color) and peaceful protestors of any color. We don't automatically blame POC, we blame whoever is rioting. Many of whom are white, anarchist pieces of shit. That doesn't mean there isn't POC rioters. There certainly is in most cases.
Spin doctors don't give Americans enough credit for being to separate the wheat from the chaff in this discussion.
Most can, and most do IMO.
He sure is.
He served his country.
How about you?
Lol
No.
He's a tough guy behind a keyboard.
I don't give a fuck what he did.
Always projecting. Not interested
Yep, sounds about right considering ......
This prosecutor has no business handling a firearm, pointing a rifle at the jury with the action closed and his finger on the trigger. You would think that anyone handling a firearm in a crowded courtroom would be required to have some training on firearm safety. Good thing I was not on the jury and he pointed it at me like that I would have chewed his ass.
During the defenses closing address his attorney asked for the weapon, the judge interrupted to make sure the rifle was secured and checked.... then the defense attorney demonstrated how the rifle is to be held and why you would not hold it the way the prosecutor was holding it, and that no person should ever do what the prosecutor did...
{chuckle} the prosecutor is insane, If I was a juror, pointing that rifle at me like that would of at the least guaranteed a mistrial... It was a pure intimidation tactic, grandstanding in an attempt to generate fear in the jury... He should be disbarred for it...
I used to manage a shooting range here. I have thrown out and banned more than one customer for pulling similar shit.
If I were one of the jurors and heard those dumbasses outside the courthouse yelling and screaming threats, I would just vote not guilty, no matter if he was guilty or not.
I am so fucking tired of leftists making, and many times, following through on threats just because the feelings of the little pussies was hurt.
[deleted]
Prosecutor Binger under Wisconsin Law 941.20, committed a Class A Misdemeanor in the presence of a law enforcement officer and should have been arrested.
Pretty obvious that he's lacking in weapon handling, but what I find interesting is that he is holding it left-handed and the weapon is made to eject casing to the left...Oh man, would I have loved to have that back in the day. There is nothing like being a lefty in the military when all weapons ejected to the right and of course, the red hot casing would generally hit your chin, throat and dropped down your jacket burning the hell out of you.
lol likely the photo got reversed ..... son is a lefty , all the family semis are made for righties , made him laugh one christmas when got him a left handed coffee mug....he in turn got me a moustache hot chocolate mug .
I found some other photos that show him as right-handed, so you're probably correct the photo was reversed.
I know that some manufacturers do produce left-handed weapons, not sure how widespread it is.
I have a left-handed wrench and screwdriver.
all i can say is that the attention to detail by those who edit these things is sorely lacking , even such a small detail as reversing a photo can be noticed and taken into account , when judging the validity of what is being presented .
Mark, the defense attorney, when he was handling the weapon, directly made the point that the way the prosecutor was doing it would result in his nose being burned from the hot cartridge casings being ejected directly into his face...
The picture wasn't reversed... he actually did it that way, and then he turned around and reversed his hold after talking to one of his assistants... the pic posted by the media shows him pointing an AR-15 that ejects to the left, if I remember correctly most AR-15's eject to the right.... Some creative editing there...
Just in:
The defense filed a new motion for dismissal alleging that the prosecution withheld key video evidence. The defense was given a 3.6MB video while the prosecution used a 11.2MB. The larger file was not provided to the defense "until after the trial concluded."
is that the video that shows rittenhouse shooting rosenbaum before he grabbed for the gun ?
I'm not sure John, so I can't say.
it is
The defense was determined to send this case to the jury. Now since the jury is still deliberating with the chants of a mob outside the courthouse, which the jury can hear, the defense team may be reconsidering their options.
My understanding is that this is the high definition FBI video that was, I believe, reported missing.
The court hasn't ruled on the mistrial motion yet. It could wait until the jury returns with a verdict. If the verdict is not guilty, the motion goes away. If it's anything other than not guilty, it could cause that verdict to be vacated. The chances of retrial could be nil.
Upon motion a judge can set aside a verdict that is incorrect as a matter of law he doesn't even have to wait for the jury to be excused...if the judge does that it is a mistrial and is set over for retrial at the prosecutions convenience... (as an aside, anything the jury exonerates him of is done, the prosecution cannot recharge him in any way shape or form.. they can only recharge him for the crimes that were set aside.. an innocent verdict is an innocent verdict the prosecution does not get a second chance)
If he doesn't it can be raised in a motion to appeal the verdict as uncorrectable error.... which would result in a re-trial... personally I think it is going to be a mistrial as the jury will not come to a unanimous verdict...
One thing we know for sure, it isn't over by a long shot... Any conviction is going to be appealed as there is a ton of grounds starting with prosecutor malfeasance to the clearly stated conditions of self defense which is an affirmative defense and all it's required elements are shown in the videos....
If he does get convicted for something, it isn't going to be for the deaths, it will probably be for something contrived in an attempt to placate the mob...
If a conviction does come down, I have a feeling that will be the driving factor behind it.
If a conviction does come down it will be because this fat little pig is a killer and a fine young republican in training and the jurors seeing through the obvious bias towards this fat little pig killer.
the origional motion to dismiss has not been ruled on yet either , could be the judge is waiting , so this new motion likely will be rolled into the origional one if it ever is ruled on .
That's always good to have, but I'm sure the defense would prefer an acquittal on all counts and thus never have to come back. The fact that deliberations have gone beyond day 1 raises questions. One now has to wonder about a split jury.
During the trial I would sometimes switch over to MSNBC or CNN. It was like watching two different trials. In one the lead prosecutor was derided for making the most egregious errors. In the other the lead prosecutor was being lionized.
Once again, no winners here…just more grist for the mill. With two dead, a young man’s life ruined, and no resolution to the deeper issues.
The only issue should be following the law in this case. Hopefully the crowd outside the courthouse hasn't influenced the verdict.
i read yesterday from some of the judicial watchers , that normally a jury would deliberate a day per week of trial , so if it goes beyond today , i might start wondering . until then , patience is a virtue and it will be done when its done .
I think there is a general belief that the prosecution put on a strong closing argument.
which itself could lead to a mistrial , or an appeal .
I think there is a general belief that the prosecution proved self defense quite well.
I agree , with what he had to work with , but was it strong enough to convince those 12 sitting in the room where the verdict will be decided ? it will come down to whom those people believe the most .
I hear ya, but I thought this was a slam dunk.
They knew they were way behind and yes, that by far was the best part of their case.
Right now the jury has a question
I think it will be some kind of split decision and he will get a couple years in prison when its all said and done.
when a jury is involved , nothing is ever a slam dunk.
both sides it appears have forgotten that in this case .
You are right. It only takes one juror to slow it all down and if the acquittal on any charge is not unanimous the door opens to lesser charges. That is exactly what JR is talking about.
i dont think a split verdict bodes well for a conviction, as you said all it takes is one , if anything it would open the door to the ruling on a mistrial , so a hung jury might not be a good thing .
now if a mistrial is declared , it will depend on if it is with prejudice or not , one way the case can be retried , the other it cant ..
I seriously doubt that there will be any conviction on murder in the 1st, which is the way the prosecution charged Rittenhouse. I think there is a distinct minority on the jury pushing back against full acquittal. I'm very interested in learning about that.
Was the strength of that argument when he "lied" about losing your right to self defense when you're the one who brought a gun, or was it when he lied about the 17 year-old possessing a gun he was not allowed to have or was it when he pointed an AR with his finger on the trigger. This prosecutor is a true POS.
The drop-kick man has also been identified and it turns out the prosecution knew of him and his name (as he said he would only take the stand if they gave him immunity) but the prosecution did not turn that info over to the defense. This is another potential issue of prosecution misconduct and possible grounds for dismissal also. Seems the prosecution has really screwed up in this case.
Cearly misconduct and one of the reasons they did it is because drop-kick man had a criminal record as long as the lead prosecutor's arm.
The jury is asking to review some visual evidence. I think that indicates that there is a disagreement within the jury.
Just listening to the prosecution, arguing this. Prosecutor admits that they submitted evidentiary material to the court, that was not made available to the defense...then, realizing he is admitting that they submitted evidence not made available...quickly claims he withdraws that line of argument.
Defense counsel were covering their faces, trying not to react to the idiot prosecutor's argument.
The defense filed a motion to dismiss for just that very thing. As far as I know the court hasn't ruled on it yet.
Incredible, isn't it?
Certainly striking. What gets me is how unpolished the prosecutors appear to be. Watched a bit of Travis McMichael getting cross examined, before I left the house this morning. Prosecutor had several "OJ/glove" moments, trying to get McMichael to confirm what Arbery was wearing, as depicted in a dark video. You can't identify anything, other than a t-shirt. She lost a little credibility, I think, with that line of questioning. She finally started getting to the real meat and potatoes of whether or not McMichael had any first hand knowledge that Arbery had committed any crime. I had to leave, so I didn't get to see how it went from there.
That case is just a formality. If race wasn't involved we wouldn't even know about it.
What I want to know is what is taking so long for the Rittenhouse jury to reach a verdict?
Unanimity is probably almost impossible. Too many people have broken brains on an issue as soon as it gets politicized.
MSNBC is now banned from the courthouse after a producer was caught following the jury bus. The environment is insane.
I'm now fairly certain that there is a leftwing ideologe on that jury
only takes 1.
I'd be shocked if there wasn't at least one.
No matter, as long as most of them are not.
We'll know eventually.
It will mean lesser charges being considered.
Or worse, a hung jury so the liberal D-bags after him could retry him and hope for a better result after screwing the pooch on this one.
Has to be the first shooting incident. The other 2 seem clear, at least to me.
We don't want to let them do it again. We've seen enough of the dirty tactics from the prosecution and MSNBC.
Or a mistrial with prejudice!
They wanted to see a portion of film. I have no way of knowing, but I suspect that was called for to convince a juror to change a vote. At this point in time it almost looks like there is a serious disagreement on that jury.
As hard as the media has hammered Rittenhouse, how could there not be?
This delay is not a surprise to me, i just hope it doesn't result in a hung jury and a retrial.
I hear ya.
Brother let me clarify something for ya...
A mistrial is a mistrial, it means an error was committed that makes any continuation of the case moot... it ends the proceedings.. but it leaves the prosecution the right to try again...
Don't confuse that with a dismissal with prejudice, A dismissal with prejudice is a ruling by the trial judge that there is insufficient evidence to reach a conviction as a matter of law... Now when a side makes a motion for dismissal on any basis the trial stops until the judge issues a ruling on the motion.. which can be anything to taking it under advisement or taking it in abeyance, to outright granting the motion and dismissing the jury..... since the trial has continued he either had to dismiss the motion or take it under abeyance... and that should be on the record somewhere...
The judge can kill this under several avenues based upon the law, the prosecution has only one out and that is some kind of conviction... The jury has had this for three days, they have asked to review the video of one of the shootings... They are struggling with a question of law concerning self defense and I'll bet you it's the one where the idiot tried to yank the gun out of his hands and got himself shot for it..... the other two where the perp was assaulting him with the skateboard and the one where he had a loaded gun pointed at his head there is no doubt that he was in danger of great bodily harm... the one who tried to take the gun away by yanking at it? that isn't so clear cut.... but then he is the one who set the fire that Kyle put out and made clear threats that he was going to kill him...
That's not so clear cut....
Rittenhouse jury going home for the evening after third day of deliberations
The jury in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse left the courthouse around 4:10 p.m. CT on Thursday after the third day of deliberations.
"You’ve certainly put in a full day and have asked to retire for the evening, which is fine,” Judge Bruce Schroeder told the jury.
The seven women and five men have spent roughly 23 1/2 hours deliberating over the past three days, including lunch breaks.
Judge Schroeder granted one juror’s request to take copies of the instructions home with them and noted that the 36 pages are complicated.
"I don’t know about you guys, I watch a little TV in the morning and in the evening, and some of the greatest legal minds in the country, I’m delighted to say, agree with us that the instructions are very confusing,” the judge told the prosecution and defense.
Defense attorney Mark Richards was hesitant about jurors taking the instructions home.
"I’m afraid it’s going to be the old dictionary game and they start defining words and things like that, outside research. That’s my concern,” Richards told the judge.
The jury requested copies of the 36-page jury instructions on Tuesday and entered the courtroom to briefly rewatch videos from the trial on Wednesday.
They'll report back to the courthouse at 9:00 a.m. CT on Friday.
Mark McCloskey poses with two men flashing white supremacist sign outside Rittenhouse trial
Republican Mark McCloskey, a candidate for the U.S. Senate in Missouri , was photographed Tuesday outside the Wisconsin courthouse where Kyle Rittenhouse was on trial for murder with two people flashing a sign associated with white supremacists.
McCloskey and his wife, Patricia, were both in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on Monday and Tuesday to show support for Rittenhouse. The McCloskeys gained national attention after they waved guns at racial injustice protesters who were marching in their gated St. Louis subdivision last summer .
GEE I WONDER IF THIS GOING ON OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM HAD ANY INFLUENCE ON THE TRIAL????????????????
Only if the jury was outside mingling with the public!
And now, we come to what what began as a joke to snooker the gullible ... and it worked!
ROFL!!
PS - The citations come from BBC, Anti-Defamation League, SPLC, USA Today.