Kyle Rittenhouse Trial: Defense Rests. Resisting the urge to go full HT and just purge this crapshow of a thread. (1 Viewer)

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

It's because it wasn't the first protest that he was there. Like others, they watched the first nights of mayhem and destruction in their community and said "Cops won't do something, then I will." He went out to help people and brought his gun for protection. That concept right there is so foreign to some of you because you immediately associate gun to lunatic thanks to the media beating it in your heads everyday that guns automatically cause violence. 

I agree that the concept of carrying a menacing, military style weapon into a situation where you expect rioting and property destruction is not considered provocation but instead help is foreign to me.

I'll agree that offering first aid is of some helpful value.  I'll disagree that putting out dumpster and residential trashcan fires was more helpful than it was counterproductive so this is foreign to me.  I'll disagree that protecting property via highly armed deterrence was  helpful so that is foreign to me also.

So yes, a lot of the components here are foreign to me.  I think Rittenhouse's presence, the presence of those "good guys with guns" was counter productive to the peace of the neighborhood.  That they contributed to the events getting out of hand that night, rather than thwarting them.  So the thinking otherwise is foreign to me.   I admit it,

But its not because I think of Rittenhouse as a gun lunatic, but maybe that is because my liberal roots included a gun enthusiasts and I am an exception  .  

 

[Summer Wheat]

So maybe people are onto something with this police reform thing then?  

Who knows?  Either the police let the rioters take over unabated, burn and loot their towns or they stop them.

What do you think?

Does reform mean police should protect their towns? Or let the rioters do whatever?

 

[unckeyherb]

he didnt shoot people?  im not saying whether or not that was in self defense(the way the law is im in agreement it was).  The point is he said he wanted to, and he did use the weapon.  The context can be argued separately as it is happening in court. 

No but the implication you are making-at least in my mind-is that he went there with explicit intent on killing people.  Everything he did leading up to the self defense was in direct opposition to that intent.  Like, everything.  That he was attacked while running away from his would-be attackers is not on him and would indicate that the in fact was not there to shoot anyone.  This seems self-evident to me.

 

[ekbeats]

That is for the people who are paid to protect us and our communities to figure out.  They have not done a very good job so far.   

Policing of riots changed dramatically with the Freddy Gray riots.  That was when these stand down orders started.  The Mayor actually said she wanted to give the protesters “the space to destroy.”  That was the green light for open rioting and looting, and it’s been the norm ever since.  It’s inexcusable that we allow this to happen night after night.

I get that the Police walk a fine line balancing the hugely important first amendment right of people to protest with the even more important issue of public safety.  But what do we have the National Guard for?  Use them.  One of the most important things here - that NOBODY is talking about - is that Liberal Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers turned down President Trump’s offer to dispatch additional National Guard troops to the city of Kenosha after the first two nights of rioting.  The Rittenhouse shooting happened on night 3.  The Government failed to protect its citizens so vigilantes filled in the void. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

Who knows?  Either the police let the rioters take over unabated, burn and loot their towns or they stop them.

What do you think?

Does reform mean police should protect their towns? Or let the rioters do whatever?

Just circling back to my point that people seemed to be against police reform, but saying that the police kinda suck for these situations and we need the KR's of the world to protect our towns.   

I don't have the answers, but no - I am not suggesting letting towns burn.   Maybe we need to have police less involved in traffic stops and minor drug offenses and instead more training for extreme events like this?   Not 100%, because that might increase the militarization of some depts more that I or others are comfortable with as well.   Maybe we need to review protocols of how cities are reacting to these events?  I am open for ideas, at least ones that don't include having people like KR take the reins for protecting the towns.  

 

[The General]

But we know now the killing wasn't a crime.  You see that right?

The guy that got shot and lived explained clearly that he was the aggressor.  Why not single him out?

He didn’t kill someone. He’s not blameless though.

Perhaps out of this we could get a look at how we can restrict bringing guns into this type of situation.

 

[jon_mx]

I’m not sure it be any different if Kyle was black

I think it would be a lot different if Rosenbaum had been black 

Kyle's race is not the issue.  It is his politics which the media holds against him. 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I mean, he could have stayed home. Why did a teenager go out into the eye of the storm with a gun and ammo? Anyone here honestly naive enough to believe a kid went out to the riots with his rifle to "keep the peace"?

I do, yes.  Rittenhouse was 17 at the time.  Lots of 17 year-olds are idealistic, naive, and a little dopey.  I certainly was when I was that age.  My personal flavor of dopiness didn't involve showing up at a riot with a rifle, but it's very easy for me to believe that a kid like Rittenhouse -- who was obviously raised differently -- was earnest about "helping his community."

It's also worth noting that all of RIttenhouse's actions that day, starting with his community service all the way through his consistent efforts to flee aggressors, run away from conflict, and seek out the police, all point in that same direction.  If he wanted to just stand his ground and pick people off, he had ample opportunity to do so.  He didn't.  That's very solid evidence that that wasn't his motivation.

Again, the question is not "Did Rittenhouse make a wise decision to attend the riot?"  Obviously no.  The issue that the trial is trying to sort out is "Did Rittenhouse commit murder or some other violent crime?"  The answer seems pretty clearly no based on what we've seen.

Just to build on this, I am pretty sure that I read Rittenhouse was indecisive as to whether he wanted to "grow up" to be a paramedic (or maybe just firemen) or a policemen.  I think that also plays into his motivation in the earlier.  That he gravitated to this kind of stuff thus his being a life guard, amateur EMT, etc.   

While I think his actions (and those of others he was with) were all counter productive, I don't think that it is wrong to believe that Rittenhouse thought he was out there helping.  And I think that a good number of others thought it was helpful also such that throughout the evening and night that belief was reinforced by the interviewers, the "we appreciate you", the photos, etc..  

 

[IvanKaramazov]

he didnt shoot people?  im not saying whether or not that was in self defense(the way the law is im in agreement it was).  The point is he said he wanted to, and he did use the weapon.  The context can be argued separately as it is happening in court. 

There are multiple videos of the shootings. In all three cases, Rittenhouse was either running away or trying to run away.  In all three cases, he fired his weapon at literally the last possible second before he would have been assaulted or killed (in the case of the "medic" who was pointing a gun at a him, which is admittedly impossible to see in the video but agreed upon during the trial).  There's really no need to argue much about "context" since we can see what happened with our own eyes.

None of the video evidence is consistent with somebody who was just out for blood lust.  It is consistent, though, with somebody who (dumbly) thought he was helping out.

 

[Sparky Big Time]

He didn’t kill someone. He’s not blameless though.

Perhaps out of this we could get a look at how we can restrict bringing guns into this type of situation.

I think this has merit.

DO we think that citizens show up on the street with weapons if the police are out there working to keep order?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Who knows?  Either the police let the rioters take over unabated, burn and loot their towns or they stop them.

What do you think?

Does reform mean police should protect their towns? Or let the rioters do whatever?

Maybe we can reform police such that when there are police shootings more than enough people trust what will happen next that there are no rioters?

Sure won't happen overnight via some magical wand legislation, but should we not dare to dream?  Or at least dare to discuss whether that next dollar spent on protecting that town and its people should be spent on more "policing" or something else?  Do laws of diminishing return apply to "policing"?

 

[Insein]

Just circling back to my point that people seemed to be against police reform, but saying that the police kinda suck for these situations and we need the KR's of the world to protect our towns.   

I don't have the answers, but no - I am not suggesting letting towns burn.   Maybe we need to have police less involved in traffic stops and minor drug offenses and instead more training for extreme events like this?   Not 100%, because that might increase the militarization of some depts more that I or others are comfortable with as well.   Maybe we need to review protocols of how cities are reacting to these events?  I am open for ideas, at least ones that don't include having people like KR take the reins for protecting the towns.  

Yo be absolutely clear as to not get misinterpreted again, No one is saying they want people like Rittenhouse taking up arms and doing the polices job. That's the last thing we want. The question was why did he go there. To which the answer is, the police were not doing there jobs. Whether they were allowed to do their jobs or they were unable to is a different question. The fact remains that the riots happened because the police did not stop them. 

 

[unckeyherb]

Just circling back to my point that people seemed to be against police reform, but saying that the police kinda suck for these situations and we need the KR's of the world to protect our towns.   

I don't have the answers, but no - I am not suggesting letting towns burn.   Maybe we need to have police less involved in traffic stops and minor drug offenses and instead more training for extreme events like this?   Not 100%, because that might increase the militarization of some depts more that I or others are comfortable with as well.   Maybe we need to review protocols of how cities are reacting to these events?  I am open for ideas, at least ones that don't include having people like KR take the reins for protecting the towns.  

I don't think anyone is blaming the police for standing down.  They are blaming the politicians and leadership for instructing them to stand down.  Rightly so IMO.

 

[JIslander]

I think this has merit.

DO we think that citizens show up on the street with weapons if the police are out there working to keep order?

Those out there specifically to protect their properties is one thing, others that are there to emulate a video game and shoot bad guys, no.

 

[squistion]

Policing of riots changed dramatically with the Freddy Gray riots.  That was when these stand down orders started.  The Mayor actually said she wanted to give the protesters “the space to destroy.”  That was the green light for open rioting and looting, and it’s been the norm ever since.  It’s inexcusable that we allow this to happen night after night.

I get that the Police walk a fine line balancing the hugely important first amendment right of people to protest with the even more important issue of public safety.  But what do we have the National Guard for?  Use them.  One of the most important things here - that NOBODY is talking about - is that Liberal Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers turned down President Trump’s offer to dispatch additional National Guard troops to the city of Kenosha after the first two nights of rioting.  The Rittenhouse shooting happened on night 3.  The Government failed to protect its citizens so vigilantes filled in the void. 

Context is everything:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanie_Rawlings-Blake

In a press conference addressing the riots, Rawlings-Blake stated, "It’s a very delicate balancing act. Because while we try to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. And we worked very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate".[23] The phrase "we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well" was taken out of context by some conservative-leaning news sources to imply that the mayor was giving permission to protesters to destroy property.[24][25] Some conservative outlets disagreed with that interpretation, however, such as Breitbart News contributor John Sexton, who wrote, "when you look at the full context, it’s clear the Mayor meant something different (though it’s also true she didn’t say it very clearly)".

Rawlings-Blake clarified her remarks in a Facebook post, writing, "I did not instruct police to give space to protesters who were seeking to create violence or destruction of property. Taken in context, I explained that, in giving peaceful demonstrators room to share their message, unfortunately, those who were seeking to incite violence also had space to operate".[26] [...]

 

[unckeyherb]

Those out there specifically to protect their properties is one thing, others that are there to emulate a video game and shoot bad guys, no.

What the hell does this even mean?  Who was doing that?

 

[Insein]

He didn’t kill someone. He’s not blameless though.

Perhaps out of this we could get a look at how we can restrict bringing guns into this type of situation.

Completely disagree here because in this situation where the police again allowed the situation to escalate, if you're restricting guns from citizens, the criminals are still carrying them. The solution is for the police to enforce the law. Once rioting happened, they needed to crack down. Letting it go on multiple nights only encouraged it more.

A lot like the shop lifters in major cities we're seeing now where they know nothing happens to them for stealing, they just keep coming back for more and newer thieves realize they can too. 

 

[ekbeats]

No but the implication you are making-at least in my mind-is that he went there with explicit intent on killing people.  Everything he did leading up to the self defense was in direct opposition to that intent.  Like, everything.  That he was attacked while running away from his would-be attackers is not on him and would indicate that the in fact was not there to shoot anyone.  This seems self-evident to me.

It’s evident to anyone objectively looking at the videos, which unfortunately a lot of people still haven’t seen because the Liberal media hardly ever shows them (and there’s a reason for that).  I’ve said this before many times - I watched livestreams of the Kenosha riots all 3 nights.  I chronicled the events in another forum, as they happened.  I predicted that night that someone would get killed.  The livestream I was watching at the time of the shooting was CJ.  He was probably 10 feet away from Where Rittenhouse fell.  He wax the guy who applied the tourniquet to Grosskreutz.  Within hours after the shooting I had seen enough video evidence from several different camera angles, enough comments on Twitter from reporters who were there, to conclude that it was an open and shut case of self defense.  But the Liberal media, and even Joe Biden, had to run with a false, sinister narrative.

 

[Insein]

What the hell does this even mean?  Who was doing that?

It's something the prosecution said yesterday. So naturally, he thinks this is what happened. 

 

[[icon]]

Sorry GG.  Im a black male with a black son.  i wonder how this would play out if it was my son out there with a gun instead of Kyle

I would hope he would face trial and be acquitted as well. 
 

A cursory dig found a loosely related case in the same area where a Black man shot at police and was 100% acquitted under self defense (as he should have been). 
 

Not murder but I would 100000% HOPE it would turn out the same way. i would personally be arguing the same way in here if Rittenhouse was black.

I do acknowledge a significant racial imbalance within our justice system, however we can't hang Rittenhouse on that premise. 

 

[ekbeats]

Those out there specifically to protect their properties is one thing, others that are there to emulate a video game and shoot bad guys, no.

The Prosecutor tried to go down this route when he cross examined Rittenhouse.  He failed.  Badly.  Rittenhouse hardly ever played video games.

People painting Rittenhouse as anything other than a naive kid are completely missing the mark.  He didn’t even know what a hollow point bullet was.  He was a wannabe fire fighter and EMT.  You guys know the type.  We had a kid like that in our high school and we nicknamed him “Hero”.  I saw him many years later.  He was reffing a high school football game.  His other job?  State police.

 

[quick-hands]

Sorry GG.  Im a black male with a black son.  i wonder how this would play out if it was my son out there with a gun instead of Kyle

A black kid being chased by a mob and attacked by a white child molester?    And ended up defending himself against 3 white men.   No charges brought.

If it was your son I doubt those 3 attack a black kid.

 

[jon_mx]

This "Rosenbaum was a criminal mastermind looking to exploit self-defense laws himself" narrative is new and seems to fly in the face of the "Rosenbaum was a deranged lunatic" narrative.  Again, I haven't really followed things closely, but this seems to want to have it both ways.

The timelime is....Kyle walking down the street with his fire extinguisher headed towards the infamous Car Source and saying, "medic, medic"....

Rosenbaum is in the middle of the street with a group of people burning a trash can and hears Kyle coming and understands Kyle is headed towards the Car Source and hurries off to that location ahead of Kyle.

Rosenbaum sees his buddy Josh Liminski and shouts to him, "Let's get him!"  

Rosenbaum hides between the vehicles, Josh Liminski stands on the side of the vehicles and Josh's wife Kelly stands in the middle of the sidewalk so she can force Kyle to run into her husband Josh.  

Kyle is forced to turn the corner as Kelly blocks his path.  Kyle turns into the parking lot right where Josh is standing there with a hand gun in his hand, shouting at Kyle, "you won't do sh@t mother f-er!"   

Kyle stops, drops his fire extinguisher. He hears Rosenbaum running at him from behind shouting, "WAH!  Wah!  WAH!"   

Kyle pivots and quickly escapes the ambush just before Rosenbaum gets to him and the chase begins.

Kyle was a dead man if he did not run.  

Rosenbaum was not a mastermind, but Liminski was a smart psychopath with a lengthy rap sheet who has managed to negotiated his way out of numerous felonies and only had a few misdemeanors on his record.  Liminski was the 'smart' one who knew how to avoid felonies but liked to start trouble. 

 

[matuski]

He didn’t kill someone. He’s not blameless though.

Perhaps out of this we could get a look at how we can restrict bringing guns into this type of situation.

That isn't what we disagree about - you came pretty hard at and singled out the guy.  

All equally at fault for stupidity.  Only one appears to have acted in self defense.  Weird you are going after that one.

eta - I take that back about one of the dead, his weapon appeared to be a skateboard.  Not sure if bringing a skateboard to a gun fight makes him more or less stupid.

 

[The General]

I think this has merit.

DO we think that citizens show up on the street with weapons if the police are out there working to keep order?

Thankfully these situations are rare. Ideally people can stage a protest, they have their march, they speak, they leave. If it gets out of hand because jackasses or crazy people start to break windows police can pluck them out and it just ends. This is an impossible ask in my estimation. 

I don’t think it’s controversial to say we as a country want the right to be heard, congregate, protest, etc. It will on occasion get out of control and turn into chaos. Police do their best to accommodate people’s rights and also not turn the situation into a complete disaster. 

If non-cop inserts themselves into these scenarios with a gun it is unnecessary is my issue. It could be as simple as you bring a weapon into this and they find out who you are you go to jail. DC has strict gun laws, no guns at the Jan 6th riot. 

For Rittenhouse the jury which has listened to everything, has been asked to remove certain info from their judgement, gets to ask their questions in determining their decision, etc gets to determine what happens. If there is no type of charge that he can be held responsible for then that seems like a flaw IMO. 

 

[Cowboysfan8]

Perhaps out of this we could get a look at how we can restrict bringing guns into this type of situation.

Perhaps, but there’s no way I’m walking into that type of situation without a gun 

 

[Insein]

Perhaps, but there’s no way I’m walking into that type of situation without a gun 

I personally would not go into that situation but if it was my town, then I'm not going in there without a gun. 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

@jon_mx

I cannot find where I read it yesterday but I am pretty sure you had a post last night that the burden on the prosecutor was to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all elements that it wasn't self defense.  Am I remembering that correctly?  (If not - sorry!)

My reply to that post (assuming it exist) is that I think this is wrong.  That I think once the facts of what would normally be defined as a crime are not in dispute that the prosecutor is basically given a check list where he basically has prove one element beyond a reasonable doubt that takes self defense off the table.   And there are also elements (such as provocation) which create more items on that check list that are in play for the prosecutor.

I haven't seen anything of the trial this week but I thought the prosecutor was working a couple of items on this checklist to try to get that one.  Just one that took away the privilege of self defense.  

Again if I am misremembering what you posted, or misinterpreting what you said then forgive me for exploring this.  I am also not saying that you are wrong and I am right, but asking whether I have this mostly correct.  Do I?

 

[Cowboysfan8]

I personally would not go into that situation but if it was my town, then I'm not going in there without a gun. 

Yes, this 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Perhaps, but there’s no way I’m walking into that type of situation without a gun 

Why would you be walking into that situation to begin with?

 

[matuski]

Why would you be walking into that situation to begin with?

To protect your business/property.  Or friend/family member's.

 

[Cowboysfan8]

Why would you be walking into that situation to begin with?

To protect your business/property.

What he said 

 

[KarmaPolice]

I don't think anyone is blaming the police for standing down.  They are blaming the politicians and leadership for instructing them to stand down.  Rightly so IMO.

What part of that do you think is political vs safety/lack of resources? 

 

[Cowboysfan8]

What part of that do you think is political vs safety/lack of resources? 

Because the politicians don’t want footage of “peaceful protestors” getting dragged to jail on a never ending loop on CNN 

 

[Insein]

I don't think anyone is blaming the police for standing down.  They are blaming the politicians and leadership for instructing them to stand down.  Rightly so IMO.

I'm blaming the police for standing down. At what point do you look at the town you're supposed to be protecting burning to the ground and say "well I ain't in trouble for this since Bob the mayor told me to do it." Police have a job and politicians are temporary. 

 

[The General]

Perhaps, but there’s no way I’m walking into that type of situation without a gun 

Then I don’t think you should be going into it is all I’m saying.

Protecting your house is one thing, but going into this carrying a weapon? This Is insane to me that this is where we are with our gun laws. Who the hell thinks we as a society are capable of this responsibility? I don’t. A naive kid who was a lifeguard for a couple months and it’s totally normally for them to walk into a riot situation carrying an AR. 

No clue if this can be applied to this case in sentencing like a reckless charge or what have you.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

There are people in this world who stand up for what they believe in and then there are a bunch of people who sit at home in their pajamas on their keyboard telling you how the world should be.

No kidding you wouldn’t have gone there. I wouldn’t expect the majority of you defending a child molester to stand up for your own self much less your company or your business or your own property.

I won’t use the adjectives that describe you people because it will get me in trouble on this board and I like this place. I’m just happy there are people out there who stand up for what they believe in.

It’s makes us folks who don’t rape little boys feel safer. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

Perhaps, but there’s no way I’m walking into that type of situation without a gun 

Maybe that should be a clue to not go into that situation? 

 

[KarmaPolice]

Because the politicians don’t want footage of “peaceful protestors” getting dragged to jail on a never ending loop on CNN 

So mark you down for purely political? 

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

Maybe that should be a clue to not go into that situation? 

Case in point.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I don't think anyone is blaming the police for standing down.  They are blaming the politicians and leadership for instructing them to stand down.  Rightly so IMO.

What part of that do you think is political vs safety/lack of resources? 

How many mayors and other relevant local leaders are re-elected after peaceful protests turn into out of control riots?

This isn't a gotcha question to prove a point but a question which I think would have an informative answer but I don't know how to feasibly get to that answer short of taking on the research project.  Not asking anyone else to do the research either, but if this community had a link they know about it would be great.  I'd guess that more often than not that the political fortunes are greatly harmed but I could also talk myself into some rallying around a leader  type of end results instead.

 

[HellToupee]

clock is ticking

 

[GordonGekko]

Context is everything:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanie_Rawlings-Blake

In a press conference addressing the riots, Rawlings-Blake stated, "It’s a very delicate balancing act......

Direct Headline: Kyle Rittenhouse fatally shot man who was in 'horizontal position,' pathologist testifies

One of the men fatally shot by Kyle Rittenhouse was in a “horizontal” position, a forensic pathologist told Wisconsin jurors Tuesday, suggesting the victim wasn't a threat when he was gunned down.

By David K. Li and Samira Puskar Nov. 9, 2021, 11:11 AM PST

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kyle-rittenhouse-fatally-shot-man-was-horizontal-position-kenosha-prot-rcna4959

****

Yes, context is everything

One of the ways the activist complicit MSM is able to sell it's agenda is to slaughter all context and infuse "code words" to try to incite low information voters.

Rosenbaum is now a "victim" and the only way to describe the incident is that he was "gunned down" and there is no discussion that you may "fall" or end up in a "horizontal position" if you lunge at someone in an attempt to harm them.

The woke narrative continues to push the message that Rittenhouse is a carbon copy of a Columbine style "active shooter" and that he willfully executing people on the street.

And that's just not true. The kid might be a complete and total idiot and a nimrod, but that narrative is just not true.

Rittenhouse is a means to an end to put unpopular political ideology on trial.

 

[[icon]]

If non-cop inserts themselves into these scenarios with a gun it is unnecessary is my issue. It could be as simple as you bring a weapon into this and they find out who you are you go to jail. DC has strict gun laws, no guns at the Jan 6th riot. 

In an attempt to parse context for my own understanding:

If I had to go to work at a business in the middle of this that night, would you be against me carrying a firearm for self defense? 

 

[ekbeats]

Good lord.  This is the most DISGUSTING narrative.  I got seven days off for rightfully accusing many on the left for viewing conservatives as animals.  This is EXACTLY the kind of post I mean.  And this narrative is prevelant in the media and in this forum.  This idea that Kyle went there looking to shoot people is sickening.  There was not one shred of evidence to suggest that, except for the fact he is not one of those good leftist protestors burning down buildings.   Just MAYBE perhaps the real person who was there looking for trouble waa Rosenbaum, you know the guy found guilty on 11 counts of child molesting, for anally raping 5 young boys between the ages 9 and 11.  Just MAYBE it was that SOB who was looking for trouble and he would have found it regardless of if Kyle showed up.

These types of themes are total lies but are very prevelant in leftist media and are by far the most disgusting thing in politics today.   And I am going to point it out everytime I see this cancer which I sincerely believe is the root of the evil which is driving the political discourse into the toilet. 

Boy did you hit the nail on the head.  It is a disgusting narrative, and you’re right - it has become so prevalent in the media and in here that it is done reflexively without any regard to the evidence.  Great post jon.

 

[The General]

That isn't what we disagree about - you came pretty hard at and singled out the guy.  

All equally at fault for stupidity.  Only one appears to have acted in self defense.  Weird you are going after that one.

eta - I take that back about one of the dead, his weapon appeared to be a skateboard.  Not sure if bringing a skateboard to a gun fight makes him more or less stupid.

The one who actually killed is the one who would be on trial. I’m not a fan of anyone who brings guns into this and definitely anyone who was rioting, looting etc should go to jail IMO. 

That Rittenhouse was hanging with Proud Boys and flashing this OK sign was what I was reacting to yesterday which is what I think you are referring to as me singling Rittenhouse out. I had forgotten about this until it was brought up yesterday by another poster, it is a horrible look I think we’d agree there. It’s not part of this trial. 

 

[matuski]

I mean, he could have stayed home. Why did a teenager go out into the eye of the storm with a gun and ammo? Anyone here honestly naive enough to believe a kid went out to the riots with his rifle to "keep the peace"?

Things played out exactly as he'd hoped, but is now shedding tears in court claiming to be a misunderstood hero. 

You should take a look at the facts (seriously - they are presented and easy to find for yourself), and seriously reconsider posting nonsense like this.

 

[ekbeats]

Context is everything:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanie_Rawlings-Blake

In a press conference addressing the riots, Rawlings-Blake stated, "It’s a very delicate balancing act. Because while we try to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. And we worked very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate".[23] The phrase "we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well" was taken out of context by some conservative-leaning news sources to imply that the mayor was giving permission to protesters to destroy property.[24][25] Some conservative outlets disagreed with that interpretation, however, such as Breitbart News contributor John Sexton, who wrote, "when you look at the full context, it’s clear the Mayor meant something different (though it’s also true she didn’t say it very clearly)".

Rawlings-Blake clarified her remarks in a Facebook post, writing, "I did not instruct police to give space to protesters who were seeking to create violence or destruction of property. Taken in context, I explained that, in giving peaceful demonstrators room to share their message, unfortunately, those who were seeking to incite violence also had space to operate".[26] [...]

Nonsense from you, as usual.  Her words and her intent were crystal clear.  In your own little mind you see something different, but what she said wasn’t mischaracterized by Conservatives at all.  Stop being such a hack.  Seriously.

 

[Phil Elliott]

One source for live streaming of the trial this morning is Youtube.

 

[Phil Elliott]

I heard a report that the prosecution is considering reduced charges today. Guess we will see what happens.

NPR: prosecution considering reduced charges today