Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Kyle Rittenhouse Trial: Delayed to November 1, 2021


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, jon_mx said:

How is it not political?  There are two very different camps with completely different views on how government should handle the situation. 

One camp sees Rittenhouse as a kid trying to prevent his community from being burnt to ground who was unjustifiably attacked and had to use deadly force to defend himself.  This camp believes it is tragic that this kid is facing trial.  

The second camp believe Rittenhouse injected himself into a violent situation and his presence alone provoked the attack.  They see it as a mass shooting who should spend the rest of his life in prison.  

The basic fundamental right to defend oneself is under assault by these overzealous prosecutions.  Anti-gun politics also is a key component.  This case is bleeding politics with social media flooded with hatred towards Rittenhousr including death threats. 

But I think we can discuss the law and relevant facts without retreating to our respective political camps.  We had a mostly great discussion going in the other thread on these issues so I think we can really do it here (we mostly are at this point).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 529
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'm sure this advice will be heeded by all.

This case is a nightmare for everyone involved in it. It will bring out the worst possible media attention and everything that goes with it.

This really isn't political. I strongly encourage all to realize this. 

2 hours ago, jon_mx said:

You have to be 18 to possess a gun except for hunting.  And he was not hunting.  The issue I have with it is if they are going to consider him a minor for possession then you need to try him as a minor for the other charges. 

That’s an interesting take. Not sure I agree with it, but it’s a creative argument. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jon_mx said:

That is true, but some are trying to use that as provocation, which is a bad argument IMHO. 

As discussed previously, it possibly comes into play in the duty to retreat issue, but I agree that the video appears to show him clearly trying to retreat from the last two guys. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, John123 said:

I posted a link with video of each shooting.  I'd love your input on how any of them does not qualify as self defense. 

I think the acts themselves were self defense. However, I also believe Rittenhouse was acting as a vigilante, illegally bringing a gun someplace he had no legal right to be to do something no one asked him to do.  That can't be ok.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, moleculo said:

I think the acts themselves were self defense. However, I also believe Rittenhouse was acting as a vigilante, illegally bringing a gun someplace he had no legal right to be to do something no one asked him to do.  That can't be ok.

Self-defense becomes more difficult when there is a crime involved.   Let's say there was no issue of self-defense on the first shooting.   He just flat out murders the guy.   The witnesses who see this chase him down with the intent to disarm him and detain him for arrest.   Does he have the right to shoot as many of them as he wants because he fears imminent bodily harm?   I don't think that's how it's supposed to work.

In this case, after killing his first victim, he didn't administer aid and he didn't run away immediately.   He stood over the victim and took out his phone and called his buddy and said, "I just killed somebody."  Then he started running when people called out things like, "He just shot someone" and "Get that guy".  Whether he gets to claim self-defense as to shooting people that were chasing him and trying to disarm him, or potentially trying to detain him so he could be arrested, is not all that clear.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ekbeats said:

What if he were 18? Would you still think he should be charged with something?  Why can’t someone defend their property and carry a weapon in an open carry state?

For my position, I don't see how age would matter.  Simply put, my opinion is, if your decisions and actions cause you to get into a situation where you fear for your life and you take a life, you should be held accountable in some fashion.  I get kind of hung up on personal responsibility and have a hard time looking past the fact that choices people make of their own fruition get them in bad situations.  They need to be accountable for those choices especially in situations where different choices most likely lead to less dead people.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And this isn't an "either/or" situations that people want to turn it into.  Both Rittenhouse and the guy he shot need to be accountable for their actions as they stand on their own.  There is no "but what the other guy did was the REAL problem".  If you're going to say "Kyle should have stayed home" then you'd also agree that the other guy should have stayed home.  They both made decisions that contributed to a person dying.  Trying to spin it as one set of decisions was "better" than the other or "more just" than the other is a fool's argument.  They were both poor decisions and need to be punished.  One's been punished with his life being taken.  The other hasn't...yet.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Commish said:

And this isn't an "either/or" situations that people want to turn it into.  Both Rittenhouse and the guy he shot need to be accountable for their actions as they stand on their own.  There is no "but what the other guy did was the REAL problem".  If you're going to say "Kyle should have stayed home" then you'd also agree that the other guy should have stayed home.  They both made decisions that contributed to a person dying.  Trying to spin it as one set of decisions was "better" than the other or "more just" than the other is a fool's argument.  They were both poor decisions and need to be punished.  One's been punished with his life being taken.  The other hasn't...yet.

Agreed.  Condemning Rittenhouse is by no means endorsing the riots.  No one "loves" the guy who was in and put of mental institutions & a child molester (except maybe his mom & fiance).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jon_mx said:

It is a weird argument.  Sure if Rittenhouse could have stayed home, but the real instigator was Rosenbaum.  If he stayed home, nobody would have been shot either. 

Right. And Rosenbaum has felt the ramifications of his actions. Rittenhouse should too, obviously not via death but certainly some other level of accountability.  Our actions have consequences, sometimes dire ones.   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, -fish- said:

Self-defense becomes more difficult when there is a crime involved.   Let's say there was no issue of self-defense on the first shooting.   He just flat out murders the guy.   The witnesses who see this chase him down with the intent to disarm him and detain him for arrest.   Does he have the right to shoot as many of them as he wants because he fears imminent bodily harm?   I don't think that's how it's supposed to work.

In this case, after killing his first victim, he didn't administer aid and he didn't run away immediately.   He stood over the victim and took out his phone and called his buddy and said, "I just killed somebody."  Then he started running when people called out things like, "He just shot someone" and "Get that guy".  Whether he gets to claim self-defense as to shooting people that were chasing him and trying to disarm him, or potentially trying to detain him so he could be arrested, is not all that clear.

I think this post does a great job of summing up the issue that has been nagging at me about this event. First off, I am not as well-versed as a lot of folks in this thread on the specifics of the videos and the evidence obtained thus far, and this includes Jon and others who have a great deal of certainty that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. That said, my question is the same as what you raised. What if one or more of the three guys were simply trying to disarm Rittenhouse because they perceived him to be a threat? Sure, the first guy was pursuing him and acting crazy, but he was also unarmed. When Rittenhouse turned and aimed his gun at him, perhaps he tried to get the gun from him to disarm him and eliminate the threat that he perceived, as opposed to wanting to kill him. And when Rittenhouse killed the first guy, the other two guys may have been pursuing him because they thought he had just committed murder and they were trying to apprehend and disarm him before he shot anyone else.  I could definitely see that happening. Of course, two of the three guys are dead and can’t offer any insight into their motives, and I thought I heard that the third guy might have made a statement indicating that he was intending to kill Rittenhouse, so perhaps that’s a non-starter. Also, there’s the issue that even if none of the three guys intended to harm Rittenhouse in any way, that doesn’t necessarily rob him of a successful self-defense claim if a reasonable person in Rittenhouse’s shoes would have perceived that deadly force was necessary to protect himself from death or severe bodily injury. 

Edited by bigbottom
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bigbottom said:
3 hours ago, jon_mx said:

You have to be 18 to possess a gun except for hunting.  And he was not hunting.  The issue I have with it is if they are going to consider him a minor for possession then you need to try him as a minor for the other charges. 

That’s an interesting take. Not sure I agree with it, but it’s a creative argument. 

This argument makes sense to me.  What are the charges for a minor under these circumstances. Does manslaughter come into play instead of murder?

Edited by dkp993
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bigbottom said:

I think this post does a great job of summing up the issue that has been nagging at me about this event. First off, I am not as well-versed as a lot of folks in this thread on the specifics of the videos and the evidence obtained thus far, and this includes Jon and others who have a great deal of certainty that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. That said, my question is the same as what you raised. What if one or more of the three guys were simply trying to disarm Rittenhouse because they perceived him to be a threat? Sure, the first guy was pursuing him and acting crazy, but he was also unarmed. When Rittenhouse turned and aimed his gun at him, perhaps he tried to get the gun from him to disarm him and eliminate the threat that he perceived, as opposed to wanting to kill him. And when Rittenhouse killed the first guy, the other two guys may have been pursuing him because they thought he had just committed murder and they were trying to apprehend and disarm him before he shot anyone else.  I could definitely see that happening. Of course, two of the three guys are dead and can’t offer any insight into their motives, and I thought I heard that the third guy might have made a statement indicating that he was intending to kill Rittenhouse, so perhaps that’s a non-starter. Also, there’s the issue that even if none of the three guys intended to harm Rittenhouse in any way, that doesn’t necessarily rob him of a successful self-defense claim if a reasonable person in Rittenhouse’s shoes would have perceived that deadly force was necessary to protect himself from death or severe bodily injury. 

Yeah, that's another thing that makes it more complicated.   Grosskreutz legally had a gun and a permit for concealed carry (claims that he is a convicted felon are false). He never fired it and denies any intent to.  He says he was there as a paramedic providing aid to injured people, and he has witnesses supporting him.  

If Rittenhouse is going to argue that having a gun creates a reasonable threat of imminent harm, then doesn't that argument make everything everyone else did self-defense as well?  Once he displayed a gun anyone could have shot him?  That's also not how it works.   

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

This argument makes sense to me.  What are the charges for a minor under these circumstances. Does manslaughter come into play instead of murder?

As I read Wisconsin law, self-defense in the course of committing a crime has a different burden of proof than if you're not committing a crime.   The curfew violation and illegal possession charge may be a way for the prosecutors to shift the burden of proof to prove self-defense to Rittenhouse.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jon_mx said:

How is it not political?  There are two very different camps with completely different views on how government should handle the situation. 

One camp sees Rittenhouse as a kid trying to prevent his community from being burnt to ground who was unjustifiably attacked and had to use deadly force to defend himself.  This camp believes it is tragic that this kid is facing trial.  

The second camp believe Rittenhouse injected himself into a violent situation and his presence alone provoked the attack.  They see it as a mass shooting who should spend the rest of his life in prison.  

The basic fundamental right to defend oneself is under assault by these overzealous prosecutions.  Anti-gun politics also is a key component.  This case is bleeding politics with social media flooded with hatred towards Rittenhousr including death threats. 

Because those that actually work in the system, that deal with these types of cases and actually have to consider the applicable law, don't permit themselves to succumb to the white noise that is your last paragraph. 

Truly, whether a prosecutor, judge, or defense attorney has an R or a D next to his or her name really very likely doesn't come in to play. I can't say the same for media and observers, but I'm very confident that a charging decision wasn't politically driven and the judge isn't making decisions in the matter with politics in mind. That #### happens in movies and rarely happens in real life (I'd say maybe the Duke lacrosse case but I don't even think that was truly "political" but more so a prosecutor looking to make a name for himself). 

 

Edited by Zow
Original post wasn't entirely excellent
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bigbottom said:

That’s an interesting take. Not sure I agree with it, but it’s a creative argument. 

I also appreciate that its creative. I doubt it would fly though. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dkp993 said:

Can you expand on why?  TIA

While Wisconsin may be more nuanced, in my jurisdiction the standard for determining whether a juvenile may be tried as an adult doesn't have anything due with whether an element of one of the charges requires the state to prove he was a minor at the time of the offense. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jon_mx said:

It is a weird argument.  Sure if Rittenhouse could have stayed home, but the real instigator was Rosenbaum.  If he stayed home, nobody would have been shot either. 

What about the other two that got shot?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bigbottom said:

As discussed previously, it possibly comes into play in the duty to retreat issue, but I agree that the video appears to show him clearly trying to retreat from the last two guys. 

There is also video of the first guy chasing after Rittenhouse.  Again clearly trying to avoid conflict. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dickies said:

What about the other two that got shot?

They attacked because of Rosenbaum being shot.  Without Rosenbaum initiating the first event the second event never happens.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, CletiusMaximus said:

Its an extraordinary case due to the public spotlight with nation wide attention and the massive financial resources available to the defendant.  Those two factors take the case completely out of most anyone's normal experience.  That said, it is not unusual for trial dates to get pushed.  Criminal defendants have rights to a "speedy trial" date in our country, but at today's pre-trial hearing the Court made a point to ask Kyle Rittenhouse whether he agreed to the delay, and he confirmed his agreement.  The prosecutor in the case indicated he expects to need even more time to prepare, but its not up to him when the trial starts.

As for bail, keep in mind the sole purpose of bail is to ensure the defendant appears for trial.  He is presumed innocent.  Nonetheless, under the circumstances in this case, the judge set a very high cash bail of $2mil, but Rittenhouse was able to raise the funds and post bail, in large part through the efforts of his former lawyers Lin Wood and John Pierce - both of whom have since left his defense team.  It is a very odd situation.  On the one hand, the defendant has posted a massive bail to secure his appearance at trial.  On the other hand, none of it is his money, so does he really care?  Just one of the several odd but interesting issues in this case.

 

The bail was probably set that high due to the incompetence of Wood and Pierce.   Rittenhouse would of had no trouble raising bail regardless.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, dkp993 said:
51 minutes ago, Zow said:

I also appreciate that its creative. I doubt it would fly though. 

Can you expand on why?  TIA

A 17 year old who shoots three people is always going to be tried as an adult in Wisconsin.  It is automatic at that age. It becomes a close call when they are a year or two younger. A 14 year old can be prosecuted in adult court for certain violent crimes if the judge agrees.  It doesn’t matter that one on the charged crimes is underage possession of a gun. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Commish said:

For my position, I don't see how age would matter.  Simply put, my opinion is, if your decisions and actions cause you to get into a situation where you fear for your life and you take a life, you should be held accountable in some fashion.  I get kind of hung up on personal responsibility and have a hard time looking past the fact that choices people make of their own fruition get them in bad situations.  They need to be accountable for those choices especially in situations where different choices most likely lead to less dead people.

Probably have to back up to the start - why did he go to Kenosha in the first place?  I agree with much of what you are saying here.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, -fish- said:

Yeah, that's another thing that makes it more complicated.   Grosskreutz legally had a gun and a permit for concealed carry (claims that he is a convicted felon are false). He never fired it and denies any intent to.  He says he was there as a paramedic providing aid to injured people, and he has witnesses supporting him.  

If Rittenhouse is going to argue that having a gun creates a reasonable threat of imminent harm, then doesn't that argument make everything everyone else did self-defense as well?  Once he displayed a gun anyone could have shot him?  That's also not how it works.   

Rittenhouse had his gun strapped over his shoulder, he was not pointing it anyone when the chase was initiated.   Grosskreutz had the gun out in his hand and pursuing someone.  That is a very threatening posture which shows intent. He was also in the process of aiming his gun when he was shot. Compared to most police shootings, Rittenhouse was actually fairly restrained and accurate in his shooting.  Reckless shots could have easily killed innocent bystanders. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, FairWarning said:

Probably have to back up to the start - why did he go to Kenosha in the first place?  I agree with much of what you are saying here.  

He works in Kenosha as a lifeguard. He volunteered that day scrubbing graffiti off of local schools from the vandalism from the night before.  He did not want his community destroyed by another night of mayhem. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

The bail was probably set that high due to the incompetence of Wood and Pierce.   Rittenhouse would of had no trouble raising bail regardless.  

No, it probably wasn't. 

2 million is high but isn't crazy for a double-homicide and I'm pretty confident any decent defense attorney could have presented minimal enough facts related to his criminal history, ties to the community, etc. 

In my experience judges generally tend to have a pretty good idea what bail they'll set based on the defendant's intake/booking paperwork. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

The bail was probably set that high due to the incompetence of Wood and Pierce.   Rittenhouse would of had no trouble raising bail regardless.  

There was a decent discussion going on back when it happened in one of the threads here - and the consensus was you are correct that his first two lawyers did him a disservice as it relates to the bail.  The theory was that Wood and Pierce made a strategy error in choosing to fight extradition from Illinois to Wisconsin. The better strategy as I understand it would have been to get a bail hearing in Illinois, get him out on bail there in his home county, then have him come to Wisconsin and submit to the charges voluntarily.  That would have given him a good argument to show he is not a flight risk.  In any event, I agree the money was probably there for him regardless, but I have no problem crediting Wood for raising it.  Whatever one thinks about Lin Wood, I think Kyle Rittenhouse has to be extremely thankful for that.  99% of criminal defendants in the exact same position would already be serving their life sentence.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

He works in Kenosha as a lifeguard. He volunteered that day scrubbing graffiti off of local schools from the vandalism from the night before.  He did not want his community destroyed by another night of mayhem. 

I remember that now, thanks.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

A 17 year old who shoots three people is always going to be tried as an adult in Wisconsin.  It is automatic at that age. It becomes a close call when they are a year or two younger. A 14 year old can be prosecuted in adult court for certain violent crimes if the judge agrees.  It doesn’t matter that one on the charged crimes is underage possession of a gun. 

I agree that the circumstances warrant trying Rittenhouse as an adult, assuming one wants to file charges.  But for the record I really hate the idea of charging a 14 year old kid as an adult, almost regardless of the crime involved.  I know you're just stating the facts and not advocating anything -- just adding my two cents.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

He works in Kenosha as a lifeguard. He volunteered that day scrubbing graffiti off of local schools from the vandalism from the night before.  He did not want his community destroyed by another night of mayhem. 

It wasn't his community, he lived across state lines in Antioch Illinois, which is 21 miles away, and he returned to that community after the shootings. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Rittenhouse had his gun strapped over his shoulder, he was not pointing it anyone when the chase was initiated.   Grosskreutz had the gun out in his hand and pursuing someone.  That is a very threatening posture which shows intent. He was also in the process of aiming his gun when he was shot. Compared to most police shootings, Rittenhouse was actually fairly restrained and accurate in his shooting.  Reckless shots could have easily killed innocent bystanders. 

He shot and killed Rosenbaum.  At that point his gun was not strapped over his shoulder.  He now has a gun out and has killed a man.  Under his theory, everyone near him is now in imminent threat of bodily harm, and he is fair game to be shot to death.  He fired several shots that missed during the altercations with Huber and Grosskreutz which is part of the reckless endangerment charge (one of the spent shells hit a journalist, who thought he had been hit by a richochet).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, the rover said:

He shot and killed Rosenbaum.  At that point his gun was not strapped over his shoulder.  He now has a gun out and has killed a man.  Under his theory, everyone near him is now in imminent threat of bodily harm, and he is fair game to be shot to death.  He fired several shots that missed during the altercations with Huber and Grosskreutz which is part of the reckless endangerment charge (one of the spent shells hit a journalist, who thought he had been hit by a richochet).

He only pulled his gun out because he was getting chased by a lunatic.  You guys keep trying to spin Rittenhouse out as the aggressor, but he wasn't. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, squistion said:

It wasn't his community, he lived across state lines in Antioch Illinois, which is 21 miles away, and he returned to that community after the shootings. 

Antioch is a village of about 14,000 people.  Kenosha is where Rittenhouse would have to go for shopping and entertainment and work.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

He only pulled his gun out because he was getting chased by a lunatic.  You guys keep trying to spin Rittenhouse out as the aggressor, but he wasn't. 

No spin needed, he brought and brandished an AR to a riot in an attempt to play vigilante.  He was an aggressor.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

No spin needed, he brought and brandished an AR to a riot in an attempt to play vigilante.  He was an aggressor.  

For the purposes of this particular argument, who cares why he pulled his gun out?  It was suggested that another person he shot had a gun, so that justified Rittenhouse shooting him.  But Rittenhouse had a gun out, and had already killed two people at that point.  Seems like if his argument is valid, anyone who felt threatened by Rittenhouse could have justifiably killed him at that point.  Self defense, right?

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

No spin needed, he brought and brandished an AR to a riot in an attempt to play vigilante.  He was an aggressor.  

In an open carry state simply having a weapon is not brandishing and is not considered an act of aggression.  So yes you are spinning. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, the rover said:

For the purposes of this particular argument, who cares why he pulled his gun out?  It was suggested that another person he shot had a gun, so that justified Rittenhouse shooting him.  But Rittenhouse had a gun out, and had already killed two people at that point.  Seems like if his argument is valid, anyone who felt threatened by Rittenhouse could have justifiably killed him at that point.  Self defense, right?

Exactly.  That speaks to a post I made yesterday in the other thread discussing this. The Rittenhouse defenders somehow want to vilify the other guys who brought guns to a riot but defend this kid for doing the same.  Makes no sense what so ever, they were all idiots that were playing with fire.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jon_mx said:

In an open carry state simply having a weapon is not brandishing and is not considered an act of aggression.  So yes you are spinning. 

It is when it’s done illegally like he was doing.  

Also context is important.  This is a F-ing riot for Christ sake, it’s adding aggression to an already aggressive state and inviting trouble.  He is not law enforcement.  Zero spin needed, he was an aggressor.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

Exactly.  That speaks to a post I made yesterday in the other thread discussing this. The Rittenhouse defenders somehow want to vilify the other guys who brought guns to a riot but defend this kid for doing the same.  Makes no sense what so ever, they were all idiots that were playing with fire.  

Of course it makes sense.  I am not villifying them for bringing a gun.  It is an odd situation but during the second chase either side would have been justified with the killing.  Eventhough they wrongly assumed Rittenhouse committed murder, it was reasonable to fear him.  The people chasing Riddenhouse were the real vigilantes acting as the aggressor which made Rittenhouse actions perfectly legal.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

It is when it’s done illegally like he was doing.  

Also context is important.  This is a F-ing riot for Christ sake, it’s adding aggression to an already aggressive state and inviting trouble.  He is not law enforcement.  Zero spin needed, he was an aggressor.  

They have no way of knowing Rittenbousr was 17, so you logic is rubbish.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jon_mx said:

Antioch is a village of about 14,000 people.  Kenosha is where Rittenhouse would have to go for shopping and entertainment and work.  

There are multiple grocery stores in Antioch. As well as a movie theater, a few shopping plazas, and a bunch of restaurants. He didn't need to go 20+ miles away to Kenosha for any of those things.

Listen, there is clearly a debate as to whether this is self defense. You don't need to try so hard though

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

They have no way of knowing Rittenbousr was 17, so you logic is rubbish.  

You continue to ignore the context and act as if this was a normal Tuesday afternoon.  He brought aggression to an overly aggressive situation.   

Regardless, we’ve each made our points and it’s clear we aren’t going to convince the other.  At this point it’s just a merry-go-round of posts so I’m gonna jump off this ride.  Appreciate the discussion, have a good night.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dawgtrails said:

There are multiple grocery stores in Antioch. As well as a movie theater, a few shopping plazas, and a bunch of restaurants. He didn't need to go 20+ miles away to Kenosha for any of those things.

Listen, there is clearly a debate as to whether this is self defense. You don't need to try so hard though

He has friends there he hangs out with.  He works there.  He volunteers there. He feels part of the community.  Why is it so important to label him an outsider?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dkp993 said:

You continue to ignore the context and act as if this was a normal Tuesday afternoon.  He brought aggression to an overly aggressive situation.   

Regardless, we’ve each made our points and it’s clear we aren’t going to convince the other.  At this point it’s just a merry-go-round of posts so I’m gonna jump off this ride.  Appreciate the discussion, have a good night.  

In the numerous clips of video of the night, NOT ONE of them show Rittenhouse displaying one ounce of aggression.  Rosenbaum on the otherhand was a raging maniac displaying aggression and anger towards numerous people and attempted to violently burn down a gas station which could have exploded and killed a dozen people. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CletiusMaximus said:

There was a decent discussion going on back when it happened in one of the threads here - and the consensus was you are correct that his first two lawyers did him a disservice as it relates to the bail.  The theory was that Wood and Pierce made a strategy error in choosing to fight extradition from Illinois to Wisconsin. The better strategy as I understand it would have been to get a bail hearing in Illinois, get him out on bail there in his home county, then have him come to Wisconsin and submit to the charges voluntarily.  That would have given him a good argument to show he is not a flight risk.  In any event, I agree the money was probably there for him regardless, but I have no problem crediting Wood for raising it.  Whatever one thinks about Lin Wood, I think Kyle Rittenhouse has to be extremely thankful for that.  99% of criminal defendants in the exact same position would already be serving their life sentence.

 

Huh interesting. I wasn’t aware of this part of the procedural process in his case. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

In the numerous clips of video of the night, NOT ONE of them show Rittenhouse displaying one ounce of aggression.  Rosenbaum on the otherhand was a raging maniac displaying aggression and anger towards numerous people and attempted to violently burn down a gas station which could have exploded and killed a dozen people. 

Jon we’re simply speaking a different language at this point. The fact you don’t see walking around with an AR at a riot as an aggressive act means we are never going find any common ground here.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

Jon we’re simply speaking a different language at this point. The fact you don’t see walking around with an AR at a riot as an aggressive act means we are never going find any common ground here.  

If they were in a different state where there was no open carry, you would be right.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

In the numerous clips of video of the night, NOT ONE of them show Rittenhouse displaying one ounce of aggression.  Rosenbaum on the otherhand was a raging maniac displaying aggression and anger towards numerous people and attempted to violently burn down a gas station which could have exploded and killed a dozen people. 

When Rosenbaum was pursuing him, and Rittenhouse hears the gunshots and turns, does he aim or point his gun at Rosenbaum? (I haven’t watched the video.)

Edited by bigbottom
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bigbottom said:

When Rosenbaum was pursuing him, and Rittenhouse hears the gunshots and turns, does he aim or point his gun at Rosenbaum? (I haven’t watched the video.)

I do not believe the video is clear.  But the reporter/witness McGinnis said that the unarmed guy (Rosenbaum) was trying to get the defendant’s gun. Rosenbaum was unsuccessful, and Rittenhouse pulled it away, raised it and fired.  

So it sounds like Rosenbaum first grabbed for the gun and only then did Rittenbouse pull it away and fire. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

In the numerous clips of video of the night, NOT ONE of them show Rittenhouse displaying one ounce of aggression. 

Well, besides killing 2 people. 

  • Laughing 1
  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...