Prosecution of Rittenhouse destroyed - NOT GUILTY!!!!

[JCC]

I'm a bit confused. I watched the entire video of her testimony, and I was left with trying to figure out how her testimony was relevant to the case.

She picked up spent cases from the crime scene. Seems logical if a gun was fired, that there would be spent cases. The prosecutor kept questioning her about clearing the weapon if it had a jam.

What am I missing? She was listed as an expert witness for the defense.

eye candy?

 

[Big Dipper]

I'm a bit confused. I watched the entire video of her testimony, and I was left with trying to figure out how her testimony was relevant to the case.

She picked up spent cases from the crime scene. Seems logical if a gun was fired, that there would be spent cases. The prosecutor kept questioning her about clearing the weapon if it had a jam.

What am I missing? She was listed as an expert witness for the defense.

I believe that there had been prior prosecution testimony that KR had “recharged” his dreaded, scary, black rifle. She was testifying that there were no live rounds recovered. Also debunking bs that he had fired many, many times indiscriminately.

 

[easy rider]

Not familiar with the 60s riots, but am with the King Riots. Again, context is lost. Nothing wrong with a property owner protecting his own property.

First of all, the rooftop Koreans were part of the riots after the officers were acquitted of beating Rodney King. And let me get this straight. You believe that people should just stand by as others burn down and destroy their community, unless they are asked to stop them by business owners? Remember, many of the rioters came from further distances than Kyle Rittenhouse. Kyle probably lives closer to Kenosha Than I do to Odessa, yet my address is an Odessa address.

I'm sick and tired of the whole 'state lines' narrative. As if as an American I can't freely move between states.

 

[bbbass]

Pretty much correct. Has nothing to do with what was being discussed though.

Really? You made several statements that AFAIK were not factual. Which I quoted and responded to... if any of that is out of context, it is because you made statements that were hyperbole/rant.

So HOW is replying to hyperbolic statements you made and trying to correct the record not related to what was being discussed? Hmmmmmm???????

1. You said who gives their kid an AR... lot's of parents do, but in THIS case, parents did not.
2. You said, "then send to a riot". Nobody did that.

Please enlighten me as to how this is not what was "being discussed". It seems to me that you clearly intended to impune parenting, of other members here, of Kyles parents, of parents in general maybe, yet your statements were way out there. What am I getting wrong about what was being discussed?

1. Yes, you do buy your kid an AR.
2. No, you don't send them to riots.
(is that better?) <rolleyes>

Context was obviously the guy who did not ask them to be there.

You implied with your statement that biz owners all suck because nobody asked them to leave. You did not respond to my questions.

Again, why should anybody ask them to leave? What was the obligation of the guy that did not ask them to be there to approach a group of armed men and ask them to leave? (Or for anybody else to do so?)

Your statement implies that you think there was something wrong with that group of armed men being there, and that therefore biz people suck because they should not have asked them to be there. (one guy did, one didn't... so what?) It's like pulling teeth to get you to say/confirm/deny yes or no, and explain your reasoning.

Not familiar with the 60s riots, but am with the King Riots. Again, context is lost. Nothing wrong with a property owner protecting his own property.

(ETA: OK, it was 1992 not 60s. 'scuse my f'd up memory. But you knew what I was talking about, which was OBVIOUSLY whether you think it is OK for armed men to protect property in the middle of a series of riots.)

Context context context... broken record. (Just like the Fakebuk Fact Chuckers)

I disagree. Obviously the context was based on your statement that nobody asked them to leave... you're smart enough to understand corollaries, such as the Korean store owners, are based on your own comments. It seemed that you did think nobody armed should have been there to defend property. It took all this to finally get you to make a clear statement as to what you really think. Thanx, but I could have gone without all the highbrow context context context, when simple answering of the questions about what you meant with your hyperbolic statements/rants would have done better... If I missed the context, that is why I was asking for explanations... hard to have an honest discussion when one side is deflecting. (Regardless of whether you're smarter than me, which you may be, but you don't need to rub it in.)

 

[Renegade]

Please enlighten me as to how this is not what was "being discussed". I

What was being discussed was the other two posters claiming it is OK for 17 yo to be armed and to go defend someone else's property at a riot. The original post from cycleguy2300:

I strongly disagree.
Men like Kyle need to keep taking risks for what is right.

Had nothing to do with with KR other than setting up the equivalence of 17 yo and armed.

And to further prove my point, there were riots in several cities the last few days. Anybody let their 17 yo go armed to them? No didnt think so.

 

[Renegade]

You implied with your statement that biz owners all suck because nobody asked them to leave. You did not respond to my questions.

LOL. No I was actually rephrasing what his defense attorney did at the trial, showing he was not trespassing since he was not asked to leave.

You are so off-base on what I said I really do not have time to address it all.

 

[Axxe55]

Discussion of whether Rittenhouse at the age of 17 at the time the events happened is going to be a controversial subject as whether he should or shouldn't have been there in the first place.

From my understanding of the timeline of that day, he was already in that area, and had been there working at his job. If that is true, then he never went looking for a riot in the first place. Also from my understanding, earlier that same day, he was helping to clean up graffiti from the protesters.

Was he asked to help protect that business, or did he volunteer? I have no idea.

One thing I do suspect, I just don't think his parents would send him to a riot, or have allowed him to go had they known. Bad choices, or the wrong choices that Rittenhouse may have made that day to involve himself into, is purely subjective, and maybe even more given his age at the time.

 

[Renegade]

From my understanding of the timeline of that day, he was already in that area, and had been there working at his job. If that is true, then he never went looking for a riot in the first place. Also from my understanding, earlier that same day, he was helping to clean up graffiti from the protesters.

According to his own testimony, He drove himself to Kenosha the day before, 8/24, stayed overnight at Black's house.

 

[bbbass]

LOL. No I was actually rephrasing what his defense attorney did at the trial, showing he was not trespassing since he was not asked to leave.

You are so off-base on what I said I really do not have time to address it all.

That's nonsense! I made direct quotes and asked probing questions to allow you the opportunity to expand and explain your position/thinking/statement. Sorry that honest discussion is so much trouble for you.

That's always your answer. IIRC you're the member that posted TL/DR to one of my arguments with you in the past.

I'm sorry that I ask you to explain where you are coming from... since it's too much trouble for you, and apparently I'm not smart enough to be worthy to talk to you, I won't engage with you in the future. If you're doing that with others, soon you will be all alone, then you'll have all the time you want.

Thanks for the disrespect.

 

[bbbass]

Had nothing to do with with KR other than setting up the equivalence of 17 yo and armed.

Answered above. You probably did not read it all since it's too much trouble.

1. Yes, you do buy your kid an AR.
2. No, you don't send them to riots.
(is that better?) <rolleyes>

 

[easy rider]

Whether or not he was 17 or 27, I commend those that are willing to take a stand against a mob. The rioters were not there to peacefully protest on that night, looting, destruction and torching of buildings had been going on for the past two nights. The police were ineffective at doing anything to stop them. People were joining the riots from all over.

Kyle had joined a group of other armed individuals (many veterans) and they divided into groups to protect several businesses. Kyle was probably targeted by Rosenbaum as what looked to be an easier target, plus he didn't like that Kyle was putting out fires.

Maybe if many more took a stand in their communities against mobs, that use any excuse to cause mayhem, rioting in many cities throughout the U.S. wouldn't be happening.

17 year olds were old enough in the past to help fight, why is it so different now?

 

[Axxe55]

Whether or not he was 17 or 27, I commend those that are willing to take a stand against a mob. The rioters were not there to peacefully protest on that night, looting, destruction and torching of buildings had been going on for the past two nights. The police were ineffective at doing anything to stop them. People were joining the riots from all over.

Kyle had joined a group of other armed individuals (many veterans) and they divided into groups to protect several businesses. Kyle was probably targeted by Rosenbaum as what looked to be an easier target, plus he didn't like that Kyle was putting out fires.

Maybe if many more took a stand in their communities against mobs, that use any excuse to cause mayhem, rioting in many cities throughout the U.S. wouldn't be happening.

17 year olds were old enough in the past to help fight, why is it so different now?

I still lay the blame on the city for allowing the protesters to become a riot mob. IF they had taken action earlier, I believe there is good chance the riots could have been prevented, or at least not reaching the intensity it did.

If that had happened, Rittenhouse more than likely would never had been there to find out what we have now found out.

I think many are looking at right or wrong in his actions that night. I think it's safe to assume had he went home and not been there, he never would have been in the situation he found himself in. I'm not going to second-guess whether he was right or wrong in his choice to be there. I do honestly believe he did have very good intentions that evening. From everything I have found out about him to date, he seems like a very straight up young man, who tries to do the right thing. Whether his choices that night were right or wrong is irrelevant. I won't question his bravery in the least. I do think without question, he acted legally in defending himself that night.

 

[easy rider]

I still lay the blame on the city for allowing the protesters to become a riot mob. IF they had taken action earlier, I believe there is good chance the riots could have been prevented, or at least not reaching the intensity it did.

If that had happened, Rittenhouse more than likely would never had been there to find out what we have now found out.

I think many are looking at right or wrong in his actions that night. I think it's safe to assume had he went home and not been there, he never would have been in the situation he found himself in. I'm not going to second-guess whether he was right or wrong in his choice to be there. I do honestly believe he did have very good intentions that evening. From everything I have found out about him to date, he seems like a very straight up young man, who tries to do the right thing. Whether his choices that night were right or wrong is irrelevant. I won't question his bravery in the least. I do think without question, he acted legally in defending himself that night.

You can say that about Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz. Certainly the Mayor wasn't looking out for the best interests of his city. His ideology aligns with the rioters as far as I can tell. He would watch as the city burned, as long as it's not his house. But until the people rise up and take back what is theirs, things like this will continue.

 

[Sasquatch]

When the government refuses to do their duty to protect the peace and the people as a whole - the people have not only the choice and opportunity, but a duty to step up and fill the void against the enemies of the people, those who would abuse, destroy, and violate people and property.

Insurance be damned - most insurance isn't going to cover the costs to rebuild, replace destroyed or stolen inventory, and there's been plenty of stories about how the insurance doesn't even pay to clean up the mess, let alone rebuild.

These riots do benefit two certain classes of people - those who just seek to destroy and watch the world burn, and those who sweep in and capitalize on the destruction - not unlike Haliburton and other government contractors when we move in and engage in warfare in some shithole third world country.

When people cannot afford to rebuild - they leave. The community loses that business. The land lord - if its not the person whose business or home gets destroyed - then has to foot the bill to rebuild, maybe they do, maybe they say "fuckit" and sell to some corporate entity like Blackrock, Berkshire Hathaway, or whatever. Instead of the local pharmacy, you get a Walgreens. Instead of a local hardware store, you get a Tractor Supply. Instead of a mom & pop grocery store - you get a Dollar General or a Kroger. The homogenization of choices continues. The wealth gets transferred to the already wealthy. People with the means leave.

I don't care if Kyle is 17, 28, or 12. This is the United States of America still, you have a right to travel, you have a right to be in any public place. You have a right to bear arms. You have a right to bear arms in defense of your country, state, community, family, or self. There is no phrase in the 2A that says "only 18 year olds enjoy this right" - the courts and the bastards in government have constantly eroded it.

At this point I'm starting to agree with the whole "defund the police" movement - because when the police cannot, or will not do what's right and stop this shit as it starts then we don't need them. I'll take 500 Kyle Rittenhouse's over 5 million useless cops who stand by and watch shit burn "cUz MuH oRdErs"

Police administrators who don't sack up and refuse to follow stand-down orders need to find new work. Rank and file cops who follow stand-down orders need to find new work. Those who have called for the disbanding or defunding of police get what they get - and the alternative to active policing by the "professionals" is guys like Kyle Rittenhouse, the three percenters, and average Joes out there with an AR or a Glock.

 

[DubiousDan]

What was being discussed was the other two posters claiming it is OK for 17 yo to be armed and to go defend someone else's property at a riot. The original post from cycleguy2300:

I strongly disagree.
Men like Kyle need to keep taking risks for what is right.

Had nothing to do with with KR other than setting up the equivalence of 17 yo and armed.

And to further prove my point, there were riots in several cities the last few days. Anybody let their 17 yo go armed to them? No didnt think so.

There may have been armed seventeen year olds at other riots.We don't know because if there were any they weren't involved in any incidents that we know of.

 

[Army 1911]

I think we have all said all that needs be said on this and unless something serious happens because of this verdict, I'm out.

 

[rotor]

There may have been armed seventeen year olds at other riots.We don't know because if there were any they weren't involved in any incidents that we know of.

There may have been other armed 17 year olds at the riot KR was in. We don't know. There were certainly armed rioters. For @Sasquatch, police don't have an obligation to protect us so we are on our own. As you all know, 17 year olds can enlist in the service with parental consent. I was on my own at 17. KR seems like a very well balanced young man.

 

[TX oddball]

1. You said who gives their kid an AR... lot's of parents do, but in THIS case, parents did not.

I bought my son an LMT AR15 and transferred it to him legally when he was 14 yo, while I lived in CA. At the time, family transfers had no age requirements on long guns.

By all accounts, Kyle Rittenhouse was doing OK in Kenosha all day and night until he met Joe Rosenbaum, who just checked out of a mental institution that day, and was clearly off his rocker earlier in the night. And was also one of the ones who set fire to the dumpster Kyle was trying to extinguish. That ill-fated meeting sparked the events that would change many lives.

 

[innominate]

I know it's a different time and different situation. I knew a guy back home named Joe. He played stand up bass. Would hang out at the Irish bar and drink Dr pepper. He always wore one of those zip up one piece coveralls and sported a flat top haircut. When he was 16 he lied about his age an joined the service. He ended up driving a Higgins boat on d-day. I'm not comparing KR to Joe. I'm just bellied up to the bar thinking about old Joe and what he did at 16. Had some good conversation with him.

 

[easy rider]

I still lay the blame on the city for allowing the protesters to become a riot mob. IF they had taken action earlier, I believe there is good chance the riots could have been prevented, or at least not reaching the intensity it did.

If that had happened, Rittenhouse more than likely would never had been there to find out what we have now found out.

I think many are looking at right or wrong in his actions that night. I think it's safe to assume had he went home and not been there, he never would have been in the situation he found himself in. I'm not going to second-guess whether he was right or wrong in his choice to be there. I do honestly believe he did have very good intentions that evening. From everything I have found out about him to date, he seems like a very straight up young man, who tries to do the right thing. Whether his choices that night were right or wrong is irrelevant. I won't question his bravery in the least. I do think without question, he acted legally in defending himself that night.

Certainly it was all about the city not protecting the community and giving into the mob, but what do you do about it? Wait to vote others in that may or may not do something about it? Bow down to the mob's demands? Ignore it and hope it goes away? Join in? What would you do about it?

The more these mobs, call them what you will, get away with unlawfulness, the more this will continue. And as we've seen, you can't rely on your local government to have your back. Hell, at this time you certainly can't rely on the federal government.