☆~PoLOLtics~☆

[Mallard]

The things that have stuck out to me:

 

There was a video of KH a week or two before the incident where he saw people leaving a CVS and he said he wished he had his rifle so he could shoot them. (The judge blocked this from the trial)

 

He illegally obtained a firearm and ammunition and crossed state lines (driven by his mom, and she has some responsibility here IMO too)

 

The judge won't let the people shot by KH be referred to a victims in court. Like, WTF are they then?

 

In his testimony yesterday KH said the third guy he shot at (the EMT who was carrying concealed and pulled his firearm after KH started shooting) was because he perceived him as a threat. This was before he pointed his firearm at KH.

 

There were other people down there with firearms standing in front of businesses that didn't have any incidents. IMO, KH is immature and made several bad decisions that led to this.

 

In the days that followed KH was seen celebrating with Proud Boys, flashing white power signs, and wearing a shirt that said Free As Fuck, or something like that. The judge blocked this from the trial.

 

The judges phone even rang in court yesterday and his ring tone is the song Trump walks out to at all his rallies, Lee Greenwood's God Bless the USA (sometimes called the MAGA National Anthem). Coincidence? Sure, maybe. But the judges behavior so far has made him appear like a KH defense attorney, so add this to the pattern. Of course now the far right is putting out articles about his ring tone "triggering the libs."

 

I don't like how KH has been turned into some type of far right hero. He is not a role model. Was it murder? I don't know on every count. Manslaughter, probably (because I'm not buying that he can claim self defence here).

 

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[oh8sti]

The things that have stuck out to me:

 

There was a video of KH a week or two before the incident where he saw people leaving a CVS and he said he wished he had his rifle so he could shoot them. (The judge blocked this from the trial) - not confirmed it was him from what I’ve seen. It was his alleged “voice” correct?

 

He illegally obtained a firearm and ammunition and crossed state lines (driven by his mom, and she has some responsibility here IMO too) - wrong. All purchased legally by a legal purchaser.

 

The judge won't let the people shot by KH be referred to a victims in court. Like, WTF are they then? - as they should not be. They were destroying Kenosha. Call them what they are.

 

In his testimony yesterday KH said the third guy he shot at (the EMT who was carrying concealed and pulled his firearm after KH started shooting) was because he perceived him as a threat. This was before he pointed his firearm at KH. - he was a threat. He was part of the mob chasing him. KR shot him after GG drew down on KR. It’s on video…

 

There were other people down there with firearms standing in front of businesses that didn't have any incidents. IMO, KH is immature and made several bad decisions that led to this. - or the rioters saw him as the weak link attacked him since he was out “looking to provide medical”. People just didn’t like that he had a gun, so they attacked him.

 

In the days that followed KH was seen celebrating with Proud Boys, flashing white power signs, and wearing a shirt that said Free As Fuck, or something like that. The judge blocked this from the trial. - this wasn’t a good look, but hardly makes him a white supremacist that cooperate media is trying to make him.

 

The judges phone even rang in court yesterday and his ring tone is the song Trump walks out to at all his rallies, Lee Greenwood's God Bless the USA (sometimes called the MAGA National Anthem). Coincidence? Sure, maybe. But the judges behavior so far has made him appear like a KH defense attorney, so add this to the pattern. Of course now the far right is putting out articles about his ring tone "triggering the libs." - this is just stupid. Let’s stop reaching at things.

 

I don't like how KH has been turned into some type of far right hero. He is not a role model. Was it murder? I don't know on every count. Manslaughter, probably (because I'm not buying that he can claim self defence here). - he’s not a hero, but he is allowed to defend himself against being killed by a mob. Since this has be so polarizing it’s made the left and right take a side regardless of the facts. That’s the worst part of this.

 

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

 

I couldn’t disagree with you more.

 

Every point you’ve stated is what cooperate media is pushing out to parrot once KR is found not guilty on all felony charges (might get a slap on the wrist for the gun charge as technically speaking it’s the most grey area of this whole thing). Every other charge doesn’t hold water IMO. The videos are so damming to the prosecution it’s almost unfair. If you were in the position of KR you would have done the same thing all of us would. He did nothing to provoke the men that attacked him. At least nothing that’s been presented as evidence in this trial. Multiple attackers were met with necessary deadly force to stop them from advancing and killing KR. Every single attacker would have disarmed KR and beat him to death. They are not reasonable people. They were out to destroy property and life. They tried to prey on KR and some of them paid with their lives.

 

Let’s see what the jury does here - I’d be shocked if he is found guilty on any felony charges. But, jury trials are a toss up, so let’s see.

[Furloaf]

I've been watching the trial and seems a few misconceptions here:

 

The things that have stuck out to me:

 

There was a video of KH a week or two before the incident where he saw people leaving a CVS and he said he wished he had his rifle so he could shoot them. (The judge blocked this from the trial)

Yeah that's pretty bad. Judge had some explanations for why not including it you can look up. They talked about conditions for it to be opened and allowed in but Judge ruled that wasn't met yet.

 

He illegally obtained a firearm and ammunition and crossed state lines (driven by his mom, and she has some responsibility here IMO too)

Questionable straw purchase grounds but that's a Fed law and would be applied to the purchaser. Gifting a rifle to minor with parental approval is okay as far as I know, but Kyle gave the purchaser (Black I think) the money to buy it. However also claims the gun never left Wisconsin, and the agreement was it would be kept in Black's possession until he was 18. So the crossing state lines is not true and even if so not sure there's an applicable law to be charged with. He stayed the night before with someone else (another "militia" guy that was there the night of the 25th - I think it was Black again, not clear to me I think there are two Blacks: Dad\and son\Kyle's best friend) so the claim of his Mom driving him up there and dropping him off downtown with the AR-15 is a total fabrication. Kyle testified the ammunition was supplied by Black.

 

 

Having the rifle on the night of the 25th is ambiguous whether there was a law agaisnt him having it. The law explicitly barred 16 and under, but for 16+ there is a hunting exception and a short barreled rifle\shotgun exception.

There's possibly a hole in the law that allows a 17 year-old to open carry a long rifle. I'm paraphrasing so may not be correct on this.

The judge won't let the people shot by KH be referred to a victims in court. Like, WTF are they then?

Saying victim is prejudicial. The trial's point is to determine if they were victims i.e. unjustifiably shot or killed.

 

In his testimony yesterday KH said the third guy he shot at (the EMT who was carrying concealed and pulled his firearm after KH started shooting) was because he perceived him as a threat. This was before he pointed his firearm at KH.

This was Gaige Grosskreutz and he was the 4th person Kyle fired at, 3rd he hit. In one video he clearly didn't point the rifle at and fire until Gaige had lowered his pistol towards Kyle's head. This is pretty indisputable and even in his testimony Gaige agreed with the defense attorney that Kyle did not fire upon him until he had pointed his pistol at him.

 

There were other people down there with firearms standing in front of businesses that didn't have any incidents. IMO, KH is immature and made several bad decisions that led to this.

Yes but that's not really guilt of anything. I suspect the people that attacked Kyle did so because he was young and separated from the group. Their choice to attack him, or try to disarm him as the most preferential way to describe their actions, was also a bad decision by them given the results.

 

In the days that followed KH was seen celebrating with Proud Boys, flashing white power signs, and wearing a shirt that said Free As Fuck, or something like that. The judge blocked this from the trial.

It's after the event in question. Self defense statutes stress the immediateness of the use of deadly force so it's not really connected. Being an uncouth shithead isn't a crime either.

 

The judges phone even rang in court yesterday and his ring tone is the song Trump walks out to at all his rallies, Lee Greenwood's God Bless the USA (sometimes called the MAGA National Anthem). Coincidence? Sure, maybe. But the judges behavior so far has made him appear like a KH defense attorney, so add this to the pattern. Of course now the far right is putting out articles about his ring tone "triggering the libs."

Who cares? What's the insinuation here?

 

I don't like how KH has been turned into some type of far right hero. He is not a role model. Was it murder? I don't know on every count. Manslaughter, probably (because I'm not buying that he can claim self defence here).

 

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Furloaf]

I couldn’t disagree with you more.

 

Every point you’ve stated is what cooperate media is pushing out to parrot once KR is found not guilty on all felony charges (might get a slap on the wrist for the gun charge as technically speaking it’s the most grey area of this whole thing). Every other charge doesn’t hold water IMO. The videos are so damming to the prosecution it’s almost unfair. If you were in the position of KR you would have done the same thing all of us would. He did nothing to provoke the men that attacked him. At least nothing that’s been presented as evidence in this trial. Multiple attackers were met with necessary deadly force to stop them from advancing and killing KR. Every single attacker would have disarmed KR and beat him to death. They are not reasonable people. They were out to destroy property and life. They tried to prey on KR and some of them paid with their lives.

 

Let’s see what the jury does here - I’d be shocked if he is found guilty on any felony charges. But, jury trials are a toss up, so let’s see.

 

Not true I would have put 2-3 rounds into Grosskreutz chest after he pointing a pistol at my head to make sure he couldn't point it at me again.

 

Ironically not killing him is likely the best thing Kyle did for his self defense claim.

 

The attempted homicide charge with regard to Grosskreutz is such a mischarge because of that. Attempted means something prevented him from killing him. But there was nothing to prevent him from shooting again to drop him to the ground; Grosskreutz was still on his feet and hobbling away so Kyle got up off the ground and continued his run to the location that had police presence. The only thing that prevented the "attempted" homicide was Rittenhouse's mercy.

 

The Grosskreutz encounter tells me Rittenhouse wasn't out there with the intention to kill people.

[oh8sti]

Not true I would have put 2-3 rounds into Grosskreutz chest after he pointing a pistol at my head to make sure he couldn't point it at me again.

 

Ironically not killing him is likely the best thing Kyle did for his self defense claim.

 

The attempted homicide charge with regard to Grosskreutz is such a mischarge because of that. Attempted means something prevented him from killing him. But there was nothing to prevent him from shooting again to drop him to the ground; Grosskreutz was still on his feet and hobbling away so Kyle got up off the ground and continued his run to the location that had police presence. The only thing that prevented the "attempted" homicide was Rittenhouse's mercy.

 

The Grosskreutz encounter tells me Rittenhouse wasn't out there with the intention to kill people.

 

That’s actually an interesting take - I hadn’t thought of that, but you are right. They fact that he pumped 4 rounds into the pedophile and only blew off GG’s bicep, tells you all you need to know about the motive. The guy was trying to get away from the attackers. That must have been terrifying to have all those people chase you like that. They treated him like a lamb for slaughter.

[10phone2]

pretty bad when even cnn it writing negative reviews about the economy..

http://www.cnn.com/2021/11/12/economy/consumer-sentiment/index.html

[Geeto67]

 

The attempted homicide charge with regard to Grosskreutz is such a mischarge because of that. Attempted means something prevented him from killing him. But there was nothing to prevent him from shooting again to drop him to the ground; Grosskreutz was still on his feet and hobbling away so Kyle got up off the ground and continued his run to the location that had police presence. The only thing that prevented the "attempted" homicide was Rittenhouse's mercy.

 

no, you are just reading to much into "attempted". Attempted DOES NOT mean "something prevented" him from killing - it just means the person didn't die. The legislative history on "attempted" (and I am being really general here) is that homicide charges used to require a body as part of the evidence to convict. Attempted charges evolved out of closing the gap where the victim didn't die or their body could not have been recovered.

 

Attempt does have an intent component that must be proven, which is why you may be confused. One could make the argument that because he didn't take another shot (after the initial multiple shots he took at him - one of which struck him) he didn't have the intent initially, but it is not definitive. This is what both sides will be looking to prove: Defense that he didn't have the intent or that if he did it was derived from his own fear of his life and acting in self defense, and Prosecution that he did have intent to kill Grosskreutz and then changed his mind after wounding Grosskreutz.

[oh8sti]

Self defense is not always killing people. It’s neutralizing threats. Which KR did effectively to save his own life from grave harm or death.

[Furloaf]

no, you are just reading to much into "attempted". Attempted DOES NOT mean "something prevented" him from killing - it just means the person didn't die. The legislative history on "attempted" (and I am being really general here) is that homicide charges used to require a body as part of the evidence to convict. Attempted charges evolved out of closing the gap where the victim didn't die or their body could not have been recovered.

 

Attempt does have an intent component that must be proven, which is why you may be confused. One could make the argument that because he didn't take another shot (after the initial multiple shots he took at him - one of which struck him) he didn't have the intent initially, but it is not definitive. This is what both sides will be looking to prove: Defense that he didn't have the intent or that if he did it was derived from his own fear of his life and acting in self defense, and Prosecution that he did have intent to kill Grosskreutz and then changed his mind after wounding Grosskreutz.

 

I appreciate history on how attempted homicide is used legally and admit I'm thinking only colloquially, casually. I wonder what is defined as in the WI law and the jury instructions with how they're supposed to consider it as that is what really matters for for this trial.

 

However also want to point out you've wrote a couple things now that are either mistakes, misconceptions or show you haven't paid much attention to this case and trial. Rittenhouse (KR) fired a single shot at Grosskreutz (GG). GG testimony was that KR did not fire that shot until GR himself had pointed his pistol at KRs head. You also mentioned Rosenbaums testimony which I find odd considering he was the first deceased. Could have meant testimony in regards to the Rosenbaum encounter.

 

GG and KR could both have been acting in justified self defense in their encounter as it can be mutual, I.e. GGs self defense does not nullify KR's

[Geeto67]

However also want to point out you've wrote a couple things now that are either mistakes, misconceptions or show you haven't paid much attention to this case and trial. Rittenhouse (KR) fired a single shot at Grosskreutz (GG). GG testimony was that KR did not fire that shot until GR himself had pointed his pistol at KRs head. You also mentioned Rosenbaums testimony which I find odd considering he was the first deceased. Could have meant testimony in regards to the Rosenbaum encounter.

 

 

I haven't been watching all the testimony, but I have been paying attention. the three shots thing I got from a news article which I will admit when I went back and read was written in a way that could be read either as he fired three shots one of which was at GG or that he fired 3 at GG. It's bad writing, and I apologize when I get that wrong.

 

When I said "Rosenbaum testimony" I meant the testimony about the incident where Rosenbaum was shot, not the testimony of a dead man. I was trying to say a lot of armchair analysts were focused on that encounter as clearing KR and not the subsequent encounter with GG. That's on me for not being clear.

 

I will also point out that I am not trying to call how this case is going to end. I honestly don't know and even for me this is a tough read.

[Mace1647545504]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/hunter-biden-makes-painting-debut-132439920.html

[Mace1647545504]

and more biden from his ex-boss' ethics chief

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-ethics-chief-troubled-biden-163325611.html

[Furloaf]

I haven't been watching all the testimony, but I have been paying attention. the three shots thing I got from a news article which I will admit when I went back and read was written in a way that could be read either as he fired three shots one of which was at GG or that he fired 3 at GG. It's bad writing, and I apologize when I get that wrong.

 

When I said "Rosenbaum testimony" I meant the testimony about the incident where Rosenbaum was shot, not the testimony of a dead man. I was trying to say a lot of armchair analysts were focused on that encounter as clearing KR and not the subsequent encounter with GG. That's on me for not being clear.

 

I will also point out that I am not trying to call how this case is going to end. I honestly don't know and even for me this is a tough read.

 

No problem and that's fair. I guess for me it's a bit difficult talking with others as legally each encounter needs to be considered whether it SD was justified. Some people implying if Rosenbaum was not SD, then any of the subsequent shootings could not be either. However that is not true. And the reverse is true as you said, one justified SD doesn't justify use after.

 

Also on what KR's intent was on even being out there that night whether he "went there hoping he would get to shoot someone\people". My comment on him not killing GG leads me to believe he didn't have that general intention.

 

I do agree it was a bad idea for him to be there and he was putting himself into the position he might have to use the rifle. However legally he had just as much right to be there as anyway else - even possibly caring the rifle as the law is ambiguous if that was a crime for a 17-year old. That walking around with the rifle it is provocation by aggravating the rioters I don't quite buy either as his prescience doesn't take away their agency to not commit assaults against him. Everything said to the effect that KR could have stayed home or left the area also apply to the people that attacked him; if they didn't like people with rifles there they could have left. Could have decided to not chase him after the first shooting, which more than not did just that watching the overhead video.

 

If KR was threatening them, acting aggressive and/or pointing the rilfe at them that could be provocation. There's little evidence that occured. State is trying to make it seem that way with the yellow pants guy quote (that isn't on video) and with the extremely grainy "zoomed in" video that probably should not have been admitted as evidence. How it got allowed in with no testimony collaborating it I don't understand. For what it is worth my take watching that video is that he was re-adjusting the sling have he bent over to set the fire extinguisher down. Also KR testimony was that Ziminski (however his name is spelled) had brandished a pistol at him at that point so he wouldn't be initial aggressor had he pointed his rifle back. Plus he fled immediately after so by statute his initial aggressor stance, if he was, went away and Rosenbaum chasing him was the aggressor then.

[oh8sti]

KR = girl with a short skirt walking down the street.

 

Rioter, nursing home transport “paramedic” and an actual pedophile = the guy that rapes said girl in short skirt.

 

Cooperate Media and Prosecutor = Blame the girl in the short skirt for making those men rape her. They were filled with such lust, they couldn’t help but rape.

 

The rest of us = what the actual fuck…..didnt we all just watch the same videos plastered all over the internet that show this guy getting attacked repeatedly while actively trying to flee?

[Furloaf]

I want to point out that they brought up in the trial, on the record, that Kyle's tiktok account was "4doorsmorewhores"

[Otis Nice]

I want to point out that they brought up in the trial, on the record, that Kyle's tiktok account was "4doorsmorewhores"

 

 

[Geeto67]

 

Also on what KR's intent was on even being out there that night whether he "went there hoping he would get to shoot someone\people". My comment on him not killing GG leads me to believe he didn't have that general intention.

 

One of the pieces of excluded evidence is KR on camera saying he would like to shoot looters 15 days before the actual shooting took place. Although the jury won't be able to consider this evidence, in the court of public opinion it is pretty damning as to his intent to generally cause someone harm with his rifle and not just use it for self defense.

 

However legally he had just as much right to be there as anyway else - even possibly caring the rifle as the law is ambiguous if that was a crime for a 17-year old.

 

Most legal experts that are familar with the particular Wis statute have commented in the media seem to agree that the law on it's face is poorly drafted, but it's legislative history as well as all related holdings are pretty clear he did not possess or carry his firearm legally.

[Otis Nice]

One of the pieces of excluded evidence is KR on camera saying he would like to shoot looters 15 days before the actual shooting took place. Although the jury won't be able to consider this evidence, in the court of public opinion it is pretty damning as to his intent to generally cause someone harm with his rifle and not just use it for self defense.

 

As discussed earlier in this thread: wasn't that excluded because, as the judge said in the poorly reported link I shared where it showed a vid of literally the judge saying it, it "sounded like it could have been his voice" and not actually him saying it? I don't know if he said it or not but if it's just a voice off camera can that be used as evidence? The judge doesn't seem to think so...which is why, in his words IIRC, it was excluded.

 

Most legal experts that are familar with the particular Wis statute have commented in the media seem to agree that the law on it's face is poorly drafted, but it's legislative history as well as all related holdings are pretty clear he did not possess or carry his firearm legally.

 

So he was within the law, albeit a poorly drafted one, yet folks (including you) are saying he wasn't?

 

Not flinging shit. Trying to understand/learn.

[Furloaf]

 

Acura needs put on trial for that crime

[Gergwheel1647545492]

Not guilty on all counts!!

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/rittenhouse-verdict-jurors-reach-decision-rcna5090

[oh8sti]

not surprised

[wagner]

Lots of triggered people on social media

[Geeto67]

Lots of triggered people on social media

 

well what do you expect?

 

A lot of people felt that even if he was defending himself he was still reckless and they wanted to see him held accountable for that.

[wagner]

well what do you expect?

 

A lot of people felt that even if he was defending himself he was still reckless and they wanted to see him held accountable for that.

 

I find it entertaining, that's all. These social media lawyers are all big mad in so many hypocritical ways.

[TTQ B4U]

well what do you expect?

 

A lot of people felt that even if he was defending himself he was still reckless and they wanted to see him held accountable for that.

 

 

 

 

What say you and based on what details? Curious.