Several shot during 3rd night of Kenosha riots

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:

They are throwing the case. Doesn’t happen very often unless an actual cop is being prosecuted due to public pressure. Then you get this type of show trial. I guess if you publicly back the blue and it’s high profile enough they’ll give you a show trial too.

You think this DA, who is a Democrat, is throwing the case?

[immortal13 4,059]

1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:

I looked up the Wisconsin self defense statute. You should try reading it closely.

“A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.”

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48

I could make a good argument that the whole reason Kyle was there in the first place pointing his gun at multiple people was to provoke an attack. Hell he doesn’t even have to use unlawful conduct to be guilty of it, just have an intent. He wanted someone to attack him. That’s why the judge keeping out the social media statement, if authenticated, was total horseshit as it goes directly to intent and this whole trial is a joke designed to acquit a “back the blue” murderer.
 

It happens. Usually it’s an actual cop though.

If only the prosecution had someone with your impeccable legal mind. 

Ok nevermind 

Edited November 4, 2021 by immortal13

[JimmyJames 12,271]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

You think this DA, who is a Democrat, is throwing the case?

Let’s just say he’s not putting on his best case so far. Or his witnesses aren’t putting on their best case. Or the judge isn’t gonna let him put on his best case. Hard to say which it is from this vantage point. 

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

16 minutes ago, Captainant said:

it shows his intent

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[immortal13 4,059]

42 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Rittenhouse juror dismissed after joke about Jacob Blake shooting

Sounds like things are going about as expected in the trial. Jury seems reflective of this thread unfortunately. 

No doubt they were dazzled by your wit and interpretation of the law

[Captainant 27,826]

2 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Or the judge isn’t gonna let him put on his best case

this is my opinion. The judge has ensured that only the split second of the shootings and the seconds preceding it are to be considered by the jury. When you aren't allowed to show evidence of the defendant's pattern of behavior to illegally obtained a rifle, wish for opportunities to use it, and coordinating with a militia group to be there, you're not gonna have much of a case to challenge a self defense claim.

As we can see in real-time.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

4 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Let’s just say he’s not putting on his best case so far. Or his witnesses aren’t putting on their best case. Or the judge isn’t gonna let him put on his best case. Hard to say which it is from this vantage point. 

Or he knows he has a loser case and cannot change the facts.  Unless you have Ken Anderson's ethics, his job as a prosecutor is not to win and get a conviction.  His duty is to see that justice is done.  The facts are the facts.  He can't change them.  The journalist who was an eyewitness just testified. He testified Rosenbaum was going after the rifle. He was chasing Kyle and even when Kyle turned and stopped, Rosenbaum was still going after him.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

this is my opinion. The judge has ensured that only the split second of the shootings and the seconds preceding it are to be considered by the jury. When you aren't allowed to show evidence of the defendant's pattern of behavior to illegally obtained a rifle, wish for opportunities to use it, and coordinating with a militia group to be there, you're not gonna have much of a case to challenge a self defense claim.

As we can see in real-time.

None of that shit comes in during criminal trials under Rule 404.  

Rodney Reed raped like half of Bastrop and committed violent sexual assaults damn near identical to what happened to Stacey Stites.  None of that shit came in during the guilt innocence phase.

@TwiceHorn tried to explain it to you.

[immortal13 4,059]

24 minutes ago, Captainant said:

it shows his intent in illegally buying and brandishing a rifle to provoke violence. It's a tactic used by the proud boys and other militia/terrorist groups. They won't start violence, but they'll provoke it and then finish it.

If you start the fight by pointing your toy rifle at people, you don't (or in a sane world, shouldn't) get to claim self defense when they move to disarm you. 

This kid was out after curfew carrying a rifle he could not legally own or purchase, 20 miles from his home. He was out hunting and got what he was looking for. A chance to use his gun.

He broke curfew??? Well fuck man why didn't you say that before. GUILTY!!!

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

5 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

He broke curfew??? Well fuck man why didn't you say that before. GUILTY!!!

And he illegally bought a gun.  That justified attacking him.  Because Rosenbaum was really an ATF agent and knew the kid wasn't 18.

Plus he crossed state lines.  Those state lines are not just imaginary lines on a map.  They are state lines.

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

This trial is just an advertisement for White Claw, isn't it?

[immortal13 4,059]

Juror who told a joke about Jacob Blake booted from trial

https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/live-trials-current/kyle-rittenhouse/judge-boots-juror-from-kyle-rittenhouse-murder-trial-for-making-jokes-to-bailiff-about-police-shooting-of-jacob-blake/

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

Damn. That's an epic level of stupid.

[Hate 20,146]

37 minutes ago, Captainant said:

it shows his intent in illegally buying and brandishing a rifle to provoke violence. It's a tactic used by the proud boys and other militia/terrorist groups. They won't start violence, but they'll provoke it and then finish it.

If you start the fight by pointing your toy rifle at people, you don't (or in a sane world, shouldn't) get to claim self defense when they move to disarm you. 

This kid was out after curfew carrying a rifle he could not legally own or purchase, 20 miles from his home. He was out hunting and got what he was looking for. A chance to use his gun.

If he was HUNTING as you keep saying, why did he only shoot the 3 people that attacked him?  You talk about how stupid this kid is and then you give him credit as a evil genius that these 3 morons fell for his trap?  We get it...you don't like the kid or the people he "associates" with.  Neither do I, but so fucking what.  You can say that you hope he is found guilty, but stop with this HUNTING nonsense.  

[52-80 19,263]

13 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

He broke curfew??? Well fuck man why didn't you say that before. GUILTY!!!

Rosenbaum couldnt have known that when he was attempting his valiant citizens arrest. If he did, he wouldve let him go because the kid was already in trouble!!!

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

7 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Rosenbaum couldnt have known that when he was attempting his valiant citizens arrest. If he did, he wouldve let him go because the kid was already in trouble!!!

Rosenbaum was breaking curfew thus no right to make a citizen's arrest.

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

22 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

He broke curfew??? Well fuck man why didn't you say that before. GUILTY!!!

Rumor was that he rolled through a stop sign on his way there too.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

13 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Rumor was that he rolled through a stop sign on his way there too.

He also ripped off his mattress tag.

[JBJ 3,666]

The last line of questioning before lunch is must see courtroom action.

Prosecutor trying to make statements on behalf of witness.  Prosecutor arguing with witness about what he is saying.  Defense attorney, whether brilliant or incompetent, is letting it all happen.  Judge has to step in to presumably tell prosecution not to argue with HIS OWN witness.

Edited November 4, 2021 by JBJ

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

He also ripped off his mattress tag.

Straight to jail.

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

1 minute ago, JBJ said:

Defense attorney, whether brilliant or incompetent, is letting it all happen

Yeah. So many opportunities to object, but when their witness is essentially making your case, you let it happen.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

2 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Yeah. So many opportunities to object, but when their witness is essentially making your case, you let it happen.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

If you don't want Kyle Rittenhouse to shoot you, simply don't try to kill him.

Easy-peasy, lemon-squeezy.

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

3 minutes ago, Bravo said:

I watched in amazement. I was like this DA sucks and is very arrogant. His arrogance leads him into these things. 

You've basically got your witness on the stand saying the guy "lunged" at the defendant. How dumb is this guy? What is his strategy?

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

2 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

You've basically got your witness on the stand saying the guy "lunged" at the defendant. How dumb is this guy? What is his strategy?

He has no case.  The facts are what they are.  Would you rather him just make shit up instead of presenting the facts?

The DA is a democrat and knows he would not get re-elected if he did not bring charges.  So he brought a case that he never should have brought because politics.

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Would you rather him just make shit up instead of presenting the facts?

"Yes"- Surly

[52-80 19,263]

9 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

If you don't want Kyle Rittenhouse to shoot you, simply don't try to kill him.

Easy-peasy, lemon-squeezy.

Bbbbut he has a police bumper sticker on his car and that hurts my feelings

[JBJ 3,666]

6 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

You've basically got your witness on the stand saying the guy "lunged" at the defendant. How dumb is this guy? What is his strategy?

He might just be trying to get it all out there early to be prepared to respond.  The rest of his case can now be a cross of the key witness.  Both either incompetent or brilliant.

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

2 minutes ago, JBJ said:

The rest of his case can now be a cross of the key witness

We are down 63-0 and halftime. In the second half, our plan is to intercept every pass and run it back.

[Bevo 13,601]

14 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

We are down 63-0 and halftime. In the second half, our plan is to intercept every pass and run it back.

It has worked pretty well against us this year except we are never up 63-0 at the half.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

McGinnis, journalist bystander witness for state on what Rosenbaum said and did right before getting shot:

"Well he said fuck you then reached for the weapon."

Not kidding this damn well may be a directed verdict.

[52-80 19,263]

the bald attorney on the defense always has a smug look on his face.  like he just slipped a fart and waiting to crack up at peoples reaction.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

 

 

Edited November 4, 2021 by Johnny Sack

[BabaYaga 15,328]

27 minutes ago, Bravo said:

super interesting. DA is trying to discredit his own witness. fascinating.

The DA

[JBJ 3,666]

"Fuck around and find out" makes an appearance 

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

The DA's witness said 'Rosenbaum said "If I catch any one of you alone tonight, I'm going to fucking kill you"'

 

This is an SLN skit, right?

[Incredulity 11,683]

I haven't spent any time on the videos over the last year, nor followed this specific situation extremely closely.

Really surprised how small of a person Rittenhouse is.

If this guy testifying is 5'9 Rittenhouse has to be 5'5 or something.

 

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

 

[Harrison Bergeron 1,798]

This is what happens when we turn over the justice system to twatter lynch mobs.

[Hanrahan 1,306]

I read part of this thread and watch some of the testimony.  I get the arguments both sides are making.  The question that I have is if you approach someone with a gun, say "fuck you," and grab at it, does that give the gun owner the right to shoot you?  Even if you add it the crazy atmosphere and the erratic behavior, are you reasonably in such fear of death or serious bodily injury (or whatever the particular standard is) that you can then shoot the guy?

[Hate 20,146]

Yeah, I think the chasing part of it changes the scenario you mentioned.

[Satoshi 129]

13 minutes ago, Hanrahan said:

I read part of this thread and watch some of the testimony.  I get the arguments both sides are making.  The question that I have is if you approach someone with a gun, say "fuck you," and grab at it, does that give the gun owner the right to shoot you?  Even if you add it the crazy atmosphere and the erratic behavior, are you reasonably in such fear of death or serious bodily injury (or whatever the particular standard is) that you can then shoot the guy?

Also the see post above yours. Or this longer copy of the testimony. 
 

 

[Hanrahan 1,306]

18 minutes ago, Bravo said:

the answer is yes especially when being chased by them. also, when the guy that get shots says earlier I'm going to kill you motherfuckers.

Yeah, that certainly would change the calculus.  But it still doesn't seem like a slam dunk.  People threaten to kill folks all the time, especially in the heat of the moment.  But they almost never do it.  The percentage of angry dudes who actually kill someone after making that threat in a confrontation is what?  A tenth of a percent?  I don't think the threat get you there alone.  Add in the chasing, maybe.  But I'm still uncomfortable activating a license to kill in the absence of an true, imminent threat - like a gun or knife coming at you or being on the receiving end of a serious beating.  It's a hard line to find.

[JBJ 3,666]

2 hours ago, Bravo said:

super interesting. DA is trying to discredit his own witness. fascinating.

And again.  Wtf?

[hornbri 1,417]

5 minutes ago, Hanrahan said:

Yeah, that certainly would change the calculus.  But it still doesn't seem like a slam dunk.  People threaten to kill folks all the time, especially in the heat of the moment.  But they almost never do it.  The percentage of angry dudes who actually kill someone after making that threat in a confrontation is what?  A tenth of a percent?  I don't think the threat get you there alone.  Add in the chasing, maybe.  But I'm still uncomfortable activating a license to kill in the absence of an true, imminent threat - like a gun or knife coming at you or being on the receiving end of a serious beating.  It's a hard line to find.

Remember the jury is deciding if their was reasonable cause for the defendant to use self defense. At least 1 in 12 people is going to agree if a crazy guy is chasing at you yelling ‘fuck you’ and lunging for your gun. AFTER he already said he was going to kill you if he found you alone AND you just heard a gunshot fired seconds before by a 3rd party…yeah they guy has responsible doubt. 

He is likely still a asshole but he has a pretty good defense. 

[immortal13 4,059]

57 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

 

Well it looks like we now know the intent of at least one of the parties involved. Sorry Captainantifa...

[immortal13 4,059]

42 minutes ago, Hanrahan said:

I read part of this thread and watch some of the testimony.  I get the arguments both sides are making.  The question that I have is if you approach someone with a gun, say "fuck you," and grab at it, does that give the gun owner the right to shoot you?  Even if you add it the crazy atmosphere and the erratic behavior, are you reasonably in such fear of death or serious bodily injury (or whatever the particular standard is) that you can then shoot the guy?

Watch the video clip 3 posts above yours. Listen to the words and you will find your answer 

[Hanrahan 1,306]

8 minutes ago, Bravo said:

If he is grabbing at your gun after saying he is going to kill you and after chasing you then I think you are way above the line you need to kill that person. Are you serious?

Yeah, I get that.  I guess I'm just not comfortable with the kid and the gun.  Had the kid had a stick and been in the same situation and beat the guy to death, he'd be screwed.  Cause he would have had to beat him a bunch of times and a good chunk of that beating would have happened after the threat was neutralized.  If he had a knife and stabbed him a dozen times, he'd probably be screwed.  A gun is different because it is such an overwhelming escalation of any force or threat other than another gun.  And that idiot kid is the one who injected an ar-15 into the scenario.  I guess I'm just not a Rambo type who thinks idiots should be running around riots carrying assault weapons.  I would have a very high threshold before a person can legally start shooting another person.  If you want to carry around the any-confrontation-Trump-card, I think you should have a legal duty to act with the utmost care.  I don't think standard self defense law really accounts for that.

[52-80 19,263]

42 minutes ago, Hanrahan said:

I read part of this thread and watch some of the testimony.  I get the arguments both sides are making.  The question that I have is if you approach someone with a gun, say "fuck you," and grab at it, does that give the gun owner the right to shoot you?  Even if you add it the crazy atmosphere and the erratic behavior, are you reasonably in such fear of death or serious bodily injury (or whatever the particular standard is) that you can then shoot the guy?

the right answer is to not have been in that situation altogether. 

but if someone hadnt provoked you directly, and you behave exactly in this manner, and you start pursuing said person and grabbed at his/her gun... goddamn right they have a reasonable belief to need to defend themself

 

[immortal13 4,059]

1 minute ago, Hanrahan said:

Yeah, I get that.  I guess I'm just not comfortable with the kid and the gun.  Had the kid had a stick and been in the same situation and beat the guy to death, he'd be screwed.  Cause he would have had to beat him a bunch of times and a good chunk of that beating would have happened after the threat was neutralized.  If he had a knife and stabbed him a dozen times, he'd probably be screwed.  A gun is different because it is such an overwhelming escalation of any force or threat other than another gun.  And that idiot kid is the one who injected an ar-15 into the scenario.  I guess I'm just not a Rambo type who thinks idiots should be running around riots carrying assault weapons.  I would have a very high threshold before a person can legally start shooting another person.  If you want to carry around the any-confrontation-Trump-card, I think you should have a legal duty to act with the utmost care.  I don't think standard self defense law really accounts for that.

Are you intentionally trying to Cloak Room this thread? Just admit it