Several shot during 3rd night of Kenosha riots

[RamjetFDO 10575]

8 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Granny is kicking ass. This is hilarious. 

The Rekieta Law podcast crew is calling her "GramBo"

Edited November 9, 2021 by RamjetFDO

[RamjetFDO 10575]

(dupe)

Edited November 9, 2021 by RamjetFDO

[Moby Ric 2058]

11 minutes ago, Hate said:

Please do not tag the CR turds here.  They do not want this prosecuted fairly as they claim.  They want whom they believe to be a "red hat Maga" team member to go to jail.  That is all they care about.  They are everything they claim they hate but are too goddamn ignorant to realize it.  Just glance at the Kyle Rittenhouse thread in the CR for a minute and you will see what I am talking about. 

Exactly.  like I said earlier, they are mentally ill.

[Carl Spackler 3482]

1 hour ago, Bravo said:

Defense: so would you say Rosenbaum was possibly touching the gun when shot?

Forensic Pathologist: Yes, he could have been touching the barrel of the gun.

Just drop the charges for the Rosenbaum shooting already.

I watched the footage of this event last year, but haven't given it much thought since then and I haven't been reading the media coverage of the trial.  I'm neither a MAGA hat-wearer nor an Antifa punk.  I have a general understanding of the facts, but am probably ignorant of many details.  And I certainly haven't been watching live coverage of the trial.

So . . . honest question here:  I'm wondering how the first two sentences would necessarily lead to the conclusion contained in your third sentence.  Not trying to stir shit up -- just wondering about what you wrote in your post.  I'm curious to know what's going on with the evidence relating to the Rosenbaum shooting, as it's my understanding that he was the first to be shot.  IMO, a lot hinges on whether that particular shooting was illegal or self-defense.        

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

4 minutes ago, Moby Ric said:

Exactly.  like I said earlier, they are mentally ill.

In their defense, the news they watch has convinced them that Rittenhouse randomly shot people peacefully protesting.

[Carl Spackler 3482]

2 minutes ago, Bravo said:

Sure, it is a preponderance of the evidence. That is just one small thing in an entire collection of things said where self defense was clearly justified.

So was the evidence that Rosenbaum attempted to grab Rittenhouse's firearm?  Something else/more than that?

I guess I'm struggling with the notion that it would be self-defense for Rittenhouse to shoot Rosenbaum simply because the latter attempted to grab Rittenhouse's gun.  But if Rosenbaum was doing something more than that which caused Rittenhouse to reasonably be in fear for his life, then perhaps it was self-defense.  I'm at a disadvantage because I haven't been watching the trial and I'm not sure of the testimony that has been elicited about that particular part of the incident.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

9 minutes ago, Carl Spackler said:

I'm curious to know what's going on with the evidence relating to the Rosenbaum shooting, as it's my understanding that he was the first to be shot.  IMO, a lot hinges on whether that particular shooting was illegal or self-defense.   

You mean the guy who yelled "Fuck you!" and reached for his gun? All of the evidence is pointing to that being self defense.

[jkates 316]

Just now, Carl Spackler said:

rSo was the evidence that Rosenbaum attempted to grab Rittenhouse's firearm?  Something else/more than that?

I guess I'm struggling with the notion that it would be self-defense for Rittenhouse to shoot Rosenbaum simply because the latter attempted to grab Rittenhouse's gun.  But if Rosenbaum was doing something more than that which caused Rittenhouse to reasonably be in fear for his life, then perhaps it was self-defense.  I'm at a disadvantage because I haven't been watching the trial and I'm not sure of the testimony that has been elicited about that particular part of the incident.

Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse, lunged for his gun while yelling, "Fuck you", etc. Several testified that Rittenhouse shot him in self-defense, not just cuz.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

Seems pretty clear that if someone chasing you and yelling angrily at you gets your gun, your life might be in danger. 

[Carl Spackler 3482]

2 minutes ago, Bravo said:

Moreover, this was in reference to Rosenbaum. I will lay out some things with his interactions with Rittenhouse. He told him he was going to kill him if he got him alone, detective admitted Rosenbaum lie in wait for him ambushing him. He chases him and corners Rittenhouse. Rosenbaum yells Fuck You and lunges for his gun when Rittenhouse shoots 4 shots in .76 secs stopping the threat. The pathologist confirming the shots likely were when Rosenbaum was reaching for the gun just seals it all up.

 Interesting.  Still not sure if an unarmed guy (Rosenbaum was unarmed, right? --  let me know if I'm wrong) saying "Fuck you" and stupidly reaching for the gun justifies Rittenhouse's act of shooting him four times.  But I would agree that some of these facts make for a better self-defense argument.  I suppose it all goes toward whether Rittenhouse reasonably believed (from an objective standpoint) that his life was in danger at the time.  Thanks for the explanation.   

[BabaYaga 15296]

13 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

You mean the guy who yelled "Fuck you!" and reached for his gun? All of the evidence is pointing to that being self defense.

Well, he did have good intentions...

[Johnny Sack 8397]

8 minutes ago, Carl Spackler said:

 Interesting.  Still not sure if an unarmed guy (Rosenbaum was unarmed, right? --  let me know if I'm wrong) saying "Fuck you" and stupidly reaching for the gun justifies Rittenhouse's act of shooting him four times.  But I would agree that some of these facts make for a better self-defense argument.  I suppose it all goes toward whether Rittenhouse reasonably believed (from an objective standpoint) that his life was in danger at the time.  Thanks for the explanation.   

1. He threatened to kill him if he caught him alone while acting crazy and saying shoot me n***a

2. Chased him

3. Threw a plastic bag with water bottles at him while chasing him

4. Cornered him

5. Someone fired a gun shot

6. At that point, cornered, Rittenhouse turns around

7. Rosenbaum lunges at him, yells fuck you, and reaches for the rifle

 

That's self defense.

Edited November 9, 2021 by Johnny Sack

[Carl Spackler 3482]

Just now, Bravo said:

He also told him earlier I'm going to kill you if I get you alone. This is all more than enough for self defense. It doesnt matter he wasnt armed. He was going for his weapon after all these events. 

Well, I wouldn't agree that Rosenbaum not being armed "doesn't matter" -- it's still a significant factor that would go into the jury's analysis of whether Rittenhouse was objectively in fear for his life at the time.  But I agree that the threat and the attempt to grab the gun after making that threat are also very significant factors in that same analysis.  I was aware that Rosenbaum had made some kind of effort to try to get the gun, but I wasn't aware until getting on this thread that he had apparently issued a threat against Rittenhouse's life.  Thanks for the 411.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 minutes ago, Carl Spackler said:

Well, I wouldn't agree that Rosenbaum not being armed "doesn't matter" -- it's still a significant factor that would go into the jury's analysis of whether Rittenhouse was objectively in fear for his life at the time.  But I agree that the threat and the attempt to grab the gun after making that threat are also very significant factors in that same analysis.  I was aware that Rosenbaum had made some kind of effort to try to get the gun, but I wasn't aware until getting on this thread that he had apparently issued a threat against Rittenhouse's life.  Thanks for the 411.

He can also use deadly force to stop Rosenbaum if he had a reasonable belief deadly force was needed to prevent serious bodily injury.  It is broader than just fear for your life, though I think given the facts he certainly had a reasonable belief his life was in danger.

[Carl Spackler 3482]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

1. He threatened to kill him if he caught him alone

2. Chased him

3. Threw a plastic bag with water bottles at him while chasing him

4. Cornered him

5. Someone fired a gun shot

6. At that point, cornered, Rittenhouse turns around

7. Rosenbaum lunges at him, yells fuck you, and reaches for the rifle

 

That's self defense.

Certainly a better case for it than what I was aware of previously.  Thanks for the summary of the evidence on that incident.

[Carl Spackler 3482]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

He can also use deadly force to stop Rosenbaum if he had a reasonable belief deadly force was needed to prevent serious bodily injury.  It is broader than just fear for your life, though I think given the facts he certainly had a reasonable belief his life was in danger.

Understood, and I was aware of that aspect of WI self-defense law, and should have mentioned it along with fear for life.  Good point.

[Carl Spackler 3482]

1 minute ago, Bravo said:

What I meant was after all that had transpired the fact of whether or not he had a gun did not matter. You cannot go for someone's weapon after threatening their life and chasing them cornering them. A reasonable person would have great fear for their life.

Got it.  Thanks for explaining what you posted on the previous page.  Now I've got a better understanding of the evidence that has been coming in on that part of the incident, and can better understand the assertion of self-defense as to Rosenbaum.

[immortal13 4059]

11 minutes ago, Carl Spackler said:

 Interesting.  Still not sure if an unarmed guy (Rosenbaum was unarmed, right? --  let me know if I'm wrong) saying "Fuck you" and stupidly reaching for the gun justifies Rittenhouse's act of shooting him four times.  But I would agree that some of these facts make for a better self-defense argument.  I suppose it all goes toward whether Rittenhouse reasonably believed (from an objective standpoint) that his life was in danger at the time.  Thanks for the explanation.   

Why are you having an issue with reaching for the gun not being sufficient by itself to justify this as self defense? What do you think Rosenbaum intended to do with the gun he was trying to take from Rittenhouse?

[52-80 19155]

9 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

1. He threatened to kill him if he caught him alone while acting crazy and saying shoot me n***a

2. Chased him

3. Threw a plastic bag with water bottles at him while chasing him

4. Cornered him

5. Someone fired a gun shot

6. At that point, cornered, Rittenhouse turns around

7. Rosenbaum lunges at him, yells fuck you, and reaches for the rifle

 

That's self defense.

also shouted to the the old lady who testified he said "im gonna kill [you] motherfuckers; motherfucking niggers; and hes gonna cut [our] hearts out... multiple times"

 

but whos counting

[Hate 20108]

 Interesting.  Still not sure if an unarmed guy (Rosenbaum was unarmed, right? --  let me know if I'm wrong) saying "Fuck you" and stupidly reaching for the gun justifies Rittenhouse's act of shooting him four times.  But I would agree that some of these facts make for a better self-defense argument.  I suppose it all goes toward whether Rittenhouse reasonably believed (from an objective standpoint) that his life was in danger at the time.  Thanks for the explanation.   

What do you think the guy who said “I am going to kill you if I get you alone” would have done had he gotten the gun from the kid?

[Carl Spackler 3482]

2 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

Why are you having an issue with reaching for the gun not being sufficient by itself to justify this as self defense? What do you think Rosenbaum intended to do with the gun he was trying to take from Rittenhouse?

As for your first question:  Simply because I think that if all Rosenbaum had done was simply reach for the gun, it would not justify Rittenhouse shooting him.  Simply put, you and I (I assume you're a gun owner as I am) do not have a privilege to shoot someone simply because, without more, they attempt to take a gun out of our hands.  But when the other facts (the threat, the chasing, the cornering, etc.) are added into the mix along with the reaching for the gun, it becomes much more objectively reasonable to be in fear for one's life. 

As for your second question:  I guess we'll never know for sure, and that's part of the problem.  Had he lived, Rosenbaum might say that he merely intended to disarm Rittenhouse for some reason, and that he did not intend to harm him.  But when the other facts (prior threat, chasing, etc.) are taken into consideration, it makes it far more likely that Rosenbaum did intend to harm Rittenhouse if Rosenbaum had been able to snatch the firearm.  And that, in turn, makes Rittenhouse's claim that he was in fear for life/body far more objectively reasonable.   I think you  need all of the facts, not merely the attempt to grab the gun, in order to establish a legitimate self-defense claim as to the Rosenbaum shooting.     Just my opinion.

 

 

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

1 minute ago, Carl Spackler said:

I guess we'll never know for sure, and that's part of the problem. 

That seems like reasonable doubt.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

[Carl Spackler 3482]

4 minutes ago, Hate said:

What do you think the guy who said “I am going to kill you if I get you alone” would have done had he gotten the gun from the kid?

See my other response.  I do think you need evidence of that threat (along with the other evidence that has been mentioned) to go along with the attempt to grab the gun in order to have a viable self-defense argument as to the Rosenbaum shooting.  The attempt to grab the gun, just by itself, would not be sufficient, IMO.  You need the prior threat, the chasing, the cornering, etc., along with the attempt to grab.

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 hour ago, Bravo said:

LOL granny on the stand just testified Rittenhouse did render medical aid to a woman and bandaged her ankle up. Another narrative by the CR destroyed. @JimmyJames

Well I guess case closed then. Granny just clinched it for team Kyle the hero and his DT sycophants. Lol. 
 

You guys and your self reinforcing circle jerk are pretty funny where you focus on whatever fact you thinks fits your narrative, no matter how irrelevant it may be, and spin it into JUST DROP THE CASE! 

[52-80 19155]

7 days of court trial and testimony = yEr NarRaTIvE

this thing i read on a blog that someone overheard at the protest that kyle was out there premeditating murder = the truth.

[Hate 20108]

Well I guess case closed then. Granny just clinched it for team Kyle the hero and his DT sycophants. Lol. 
 
You guys and your self reinforcing circle jerk are pretty funny where you focus on whatever fact you thinks fits your narrative, no matter how irrelevant it may be, and spin it into JUST DROP THE CASE! 

[BabaYaga 15296]

6 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

You guys and your self reinforcing circle jerk are pretty funny where you focus on whatever fact you thinks fits your narrative, no matter how irrelevant it may be

Weapons grade irony right here.....

[Moby Ric 2058]

7 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Well I guess case closed then. Granny just clinched it for team Kyle the hero and his DT sycophants. Lol. 
 

You guys and your self reinforcing circle jerk are pretty funny where you focus on whatever fact you thinks fits your narrative, no matter how irrelevant it may be, and spin it into JUST DROP THE CASE! 

Don't know if the internets can handle this much irony.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

10 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Well I guess case closed then. Granny just clinched it for team Kyle the hero and his DT sycophants. Lol. 
 

You guys and your self reinforcing circle jerk are pretty funny where you focus on whatever fact you thinks fits your narrative, no matter how irrelevant it may be, and spin it into JUST DROP THE CASE! 

[52-80 19155]

1 minute ago, Moby Ric said:

Don't know if the internets can handle this much irony.

shit, maybe its like double dutch ultra-ironic reverse psychology and hes playing upside down chess

[MillerEP 30455]

10 minutes ago, Carl Spackler said:

See my other response.  I do think you need evidence of that threat (along with the other evidence that has been mentioned) to go along with the attempt to grab the gun in order to have a viable self-defense argument as to the Rosenbaum shooting.  The attempt to grab the gun, just by itself, would not be sufficient, IMO.  You need the prior threat, the chasing, the cornering, etc., along with the attempt to grab.

I would disagree. What matters is what the person believed in the heat of the moment. Strip away all the other stuff (which yeah makes it more clear), and it may have still been justified. Put yourself in KR's shoes. Say you and a stranger are standing still alone in a room. You're carrying property on your person, which has the potential for bodily harm or death (why you have it on your person for this scenario is irrelevant). The stranger tries to take that property from you. What are the options at that point? A) He uses it against you, or B) he doesn't. The only way to find out is to let him take it from you and hope for the best? I mean good luck, hope it works out for you. You have the right to life and to defend yourself.

[JBJ 3654]

An autistic-ish witness is basically testifying that Binger tried to coax a statement and he hired an attorney as a result.

[Dontshootrude 374]

The reporting on this story reinforces the polling regarding the trust in media:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/355526/americans-trust-media-dips-second-lowest-record.aspx

[Johnny Sack 8397]

3 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

I would disagree. What matters is what the person believed in the heat of the moment. Strip away all the other stuff (which yeah makes it more clear), and it may have still been justified. Put yourself in KR's shoes. Say you and a stranger are standing still alone in a room. You're carrying property on your person, which has the potential for bodily harm or death (why you have it on your person for this scenario is irrelevant). The stranger tries to take that property from you. What are the options at that point? A) He uses it against you, or B) he doesn't. The only way to find out is to let him take it from you and hope for the best? I mean good luck, hope it works out for you. You have the right to life and to defend yourself.

Yeah.  If I am carrying a holstered pistol.  And someone I don't know tries to snatch it from me, I think I don't have to sit there and let them and hope they don't shoot me with it.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

4 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

What matters is what the person believed in the heat of the moment.

Correct. That's the cornerstone of every law regarding self defense.

[52-80 19155]

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

Just now, Bravo said:

Defense attnys were literally chuckling once the jury left.

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake"

-Napoleon 

[workswithseed 2103]

2 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Legend

[workswithseed 2103]

15 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

I bet Kyle is hiding behind a vehicle to put it out.

[JBJ 3654]

10 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

What matters is what the person believed in the heat of the moment.

Small distinction: I'd amend this to say "What a reasonable person would have believed in the heat of the moment." 

It doesn't really matter what the defendant believed if it isn't reasonable, but the jury still is asked to climb into his mind at that heated moment.

Edited November 9, 2021 by JBJ

[Moby Ric 2058]

Yeah, fat boy is committing career suicide right now.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

2 minutes ago, Bravo said:

Autistic witness brings down prosecutors on ethics violations. He just Rain Man'd them.

This is embarrassing and brutal to watch. Someone tell Chris Farley's retarded brother to stop.

Edited November 9, 2021 by Cheeseweasel

[Incredulity 11669]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

1. He threatened to kill him if he caught him alone while acting crazy and saying shoot me n***a

2. Chased him

3. Threw a plastic bag with water bottles at him while chasing him

4. Cornered him

5. Someone fired a gun shot

6. At that point, cornered, Rittenhouse turns around

7. Rosenbaum lunges at him, yells fuck you, and reaches for the rifle

 

That's self defense.

But, did hero render anyone aid, clean any graffiti….hmmmmmm?? /jimmyjoke

[Bevo 13577]

Who is the hand model?

[Moby Ric 2058]

This DA is a fucking idiot.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

Just now, Moby Ric said:

This DA is a fucking idiot.

He's hungry. Needs a snickers.

[Incredulity 11669]

1 minute ago, Moby Ric said:

This DA is a fucking idiot.

Bigly

[Hanrahan 1306]

This ADA is doing an excellent job of establishing self defense.  

[Cheeseweasel 26438]