Jump to content

Kyle Rittenhouse

tx 3 putt

By tx 3 putt
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Satoshi
Satoshi

Horrible situation that night. He will be acquitted. The dumbest guy in all this was the one who brought a skateboard to a gun fight. The definition of FAFO

Satoshi
Satoshi

Shots had already been fired at the point of the skateboard guy getting involved. So yeah it reached the level of gun fight at the point he got involved. Not sure what you don’t understand about that.

Brian Fantana
Brian Fantana

I just want to add that I'm not here to pillory Kyle Rittenhouse. He is a fucking child. A child. I had an extensive conversation about this with a good friend of mine who is a juvenile defender by pr

Posted Images

Carl Spackler

Carl Spackler 3488

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, goatsaag said:

A person witnessing the shooting would have seen Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse, eventually catching up to him, and then Rittenhouse shooting in self defense. So they probably would not have been trying to detain Rittenhouse as a murderer.

First, persons seeing the shooting would not necessarily have witnessed the chase.  In that regard, the hypothetical I posed involved persons simply witnessing the shooting itself, no conduct beforehand. 

Second, even if others had witnessed an unarmed Rosenbaum chasing an armed Rittenhouse immediately prior to the shooting, that would not have necessarily meant that the shooting was in self-defense or that the onlookers would have perceived the shooting as self-defense.  Rittenhouse's self-defense claim as to Rosenbaum relied in large part on evidence of a death threat issued well before the foot chase.  Let me put it another way:  If an unarmed individual is chasing an armed individual and (without more) the armed individual turns and shoots, it's still questionable that it's self-defense because self-defense laws typically permit only a "proportional response."  This is why the evidence of the threat, the prior throwing of an object by Rittenhouse, and evidence suggesting that Rosenbaum had Rittenhouse cornered was so significant.       

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
immortal13

immortal13 4059

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

You literally took a pic of someone flipping off a diploma. Don’t know whose diploma and probably wasn’t yours because you’re kind of too stupid to have graduated from UT.

Right now I’m literally in my office looking at my diploma but am not gonna take a picture of me flipping it off for you.
 

You wanna know why? Because I’m not an idiot. 

Do it 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
immortal13

immortal13 4059

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, Carl Spackler said:

I am confident that, from a legal standpoint, you are incorrect.  Under the law, the second and third victims would not have been required to demonstrate that they actually saw the first shooting in order to establish that their own actions in attempting to catch/subdue Rittenhouse were lawful.  It would have been sufficient, IMO, for them to establish that they heard the various shouts from people saying that Rittenhouse had just shot someone and was trying to get away, etc.  That would have been sufficient for the second and third victims to reasonably think that it was necessary to stop Rittenhouse in order to protect the lives of others.

And, frankly, even if Huber and/or Grosskruetz had actually witnessed the Rosenbaum shooting, it would not have nullified their potential defense.  Why?  Because at the time it occurred, the Rosenbaum shooting would have appeared to most people to be a case of an unlawful shooting (murder).  Rittenhouse's claim of self-defense in connection with the Rosenbaum shooting was premised on actions that took place BEFORE the shooting, i.e., Rosenbaum's threat, Rosenbaum's act of throwing an object at Rittenhouse, Rosenbaum's act of chasing Rittenhouse on foot, etc.  Neither Huber nor Grosskreutz would have had knowledge of that pre-shooting conduct that ultimately allowed Rittenhouse to claim self-defense.  At the time the Rosenbaum shooting occurred, it looked like an armed individual shooting an unarmed individual.  A person witnessing just the shooting itself could/would have reasonably thought that Rittenhouse had just murdered Rosenbaum, and would therefore have been justified in attempting to stop Rittenhouse from fleeing the scene.   

From a legal standpoint, I think you're simply wrong on this point.  But it's academic because neither Huber nor Grosskreutz captured or subdued Rittenhouse; rather, they got shot by Rittenhouse.  So the issue then became whether Rittenhouse could viably claim self-defense in connection with those shootings.

 

GG did witness the shooting of Rosenbaum as he claimed in testimony, and he chased KR after Kyle told him he was going to the police...also in testimony. Your argument doesn't hold water. GG knew he wasn't an "active shooter" anymore than he was there acting as a good Samaritan. He was illegally concealing a handgun and had a tear gas canister on him. He engaged KR knowing exactly what was going on and he got his arm blown off. Now he'll be jerking off lefite for the rest of his life. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Bravo said:

LOL, I found a pic somewhere of me flipping off penelope in front of a UT diploma? OK, Alex Jones. I understand you may be staring at your ACC diploma and that's good for you.

 

download (1).gif

No you posted a picture of someone flipping off a nameless UT diploma. Then you tried to prove it was you by talking about how big your hands are and giving us your height. Then you claimed you had a big dick. 
 

The whole episode was bizarre and hilarious. Then you limped away for awhile and now you’re back, supposedly in Hawaii at a pool posting like crazy on a UT message board. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14346

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

GG did witness the shooting of Rosenbaum as he claimed in testimony, and he chased KR after Kyle told him he was going to the police...also in testimony. Your argument doesn't hold water. GG knew he wasn't an "active shooter" anymore than he was there acting as a good Samaritan. He was illegally concealing a handgun and had a tear gas canister on him. He engaged KR knowing exactly what was going on and he got his arm blown off. Now he'll be jerking off lefite for the rest of his life. 

What's a lefite?  Is that one of 12 tribes of Israel?

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29360

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

No you posted a picture of someone flipping off a nameless UT diploma. Then you tried to prove it was you by talking about how big your hands are and giving us your height. Then you claimed you had a big dick. 
 

The whole episode was bizarre and hilarious. Then you limped away for awhile and now you’re back, supposedly in Hawaii at a pool posting like crazy on a UT message board. 

Maybe it's TTom in a rehab facility?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14346

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

No you posted a picture of someone flipping off a nameless UT diploma. Then you tried to prove it was you by talking about how big your hands are and giving us your height. Then you claimed you had a big dick. 
 

The whole episode was bizarre and hilarious. Then you limped away for awhile and now you’re back, supposedly in Hawaii at a pool posting like crazy on a UT message board. 

The WiFi is better at the pool.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
immortal13

immortal13 4059

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Imagine going to any kind of public protest moving forward, and some snot-nosed high school kid is open carrying an AR-15. Per the law, you basically have to cede control of your life to him. 

Don't say anything to him. It could be considered threatening. Don't even look at him. He could consider it a threat. Eyes down, move along. Random gun owners now rule our country, and don't you fucking dare forget about it.  

 

 

 

You realize there a curfew ordered, besides the fact that it wasn't a peaceful protest. But by all means go FAAFO

Link to comment
Share on other sites
goatsaag

goatsaag 279

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Carl Spackler said:

First, persons seeing the shooting would not necessarily have witnessed the chase.  In that regard, the hypothetical I posed involved persons simply witnessing the shooting itself, no conduct beforehand. 

Second, even if others had witnessed an unarmed Rosenbaum chasing an armed Rittenhouse immediately prior to the shooting, that would not have necessarily meant that the shooting was in self-defense or that the onlookers would have perceived the shooting as self-defense.  Rittenhouse's self-defense claim as to Rosenbaum relied in large part on evidence of a death threat issued well before the foot chase.  Let me put it another way:  If an unarmed individual is chasing an armed individual and (without more) the armed individual turns and shoots, it's still questionable that it's self-defense because self-defense laws typically permit only a "proportional response."  This is why the evidence of the threat, the prior throwing of an object by Rittenhouse, and evidence suggesting that Rosenbaum had Rittenhouse cornered was so significant.       

Sure, you can come up with any hypothetical situation you'd like where some or all of the relevant information is hidden. There's no point in doing so, but go for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hank Kingsley

Hank Kingsley 20991

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

But by all means go FAAFO

There it is. There's the threat.

immortal is "super happy" with the "justice" of random white people with guns having the opportunity to dictate if other citizens live or not. 

 

 

Edited by Hank Kingsley
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
immortal13

immortal13 4059

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Oh my god, I can't believe this has to be explained.

Why would anyone be legally obligated to believe him?

It was first testified to By Gage Grosskreutz. But as to your second sentence, I have no idea 🤣🤣

 

 

Edited by immortal13
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChickenSandwich

ChickenSandwich 9844

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Imagine going to any kind of public protest moving forward, and some snot-nosed high school kid is open carrying an AR-15. Per the law, you basically have to cede control of your life to him. 

Don't say anything to him. It could be considered threatening. Don't even look at him. He could consider it a threat. Eyes down, move along. Random gun owners now rule our country, and don't you fucking dare forget about it.  

 

 

 

crazy madness GIF

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29360

Posted
Posted

This feels like a good time to quote the only true definition of conservatism again:

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."

Immortal says there was a curfew in effect, and implies that since protesters were violating the curfew they deserved punishment. And it doesn't once enter his head that Rittenhouse was also violating the curfew and similarly deserving of punishment, because in his mind Rittenhouse, as a white conservative, is exempt from being bound by the law.

The law isn't universal to conservatives. It doesn't bind and benefit everyone equally. To them, the law is to protect them from us and to enable them to wage violence against us. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 3
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18940

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

There it is. There's the threat.

immortal is "super happy" with the "justice" of random white people with guns having the opportunity to dictate if other citizens live or not. 

White viglilantism has a long and sordid history in this country. This episode is now part of that history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
immortal13

immortal13 4059

Posted
Posted
Just now, wildcat09 said:

This feels like a good time to quote the only true definition of conservatism again:

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."

Immortal says there was a curfew in effect, and implies that since protesters were violating the curfew they deserved punishment. And it doesn't once enter his head that Rittenhouse was also violating the curfew and similarly deserving of punishment, because in his mind Rittenhouse, as a white conservative, is exempt from being bound by the law.

The law isn't universal to conservatives. It doesn't bind and benefit everyone equally. To them, the law is to protect them from us and to enable them to wage violence against us. 

I never said KR was exempt or should be. You're the dumbass who hasn't been keeping up as per the testimony that was given in the trial which completely eviscerated the point you were trying to make. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Carl Spackler

Carl Spackler 3488

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

GG did witness the shooting of Rosenbaum as he claimed in testimony, and he chased KR after Kyle told him he was going to the police...also in testimony. Your argument doesn't hold water. GG knew he wasn't an "active shooter" anymore than he was there acting as a good Samaritan. He was illegally concealing a handgun and had a tear gas canister on him. He engaged KR knowing exactly what was going on and he got his arm blown off. Now he'll be jerking off lefite for the rest of his life. 

Uh, no.  Get your facts straight.  Grosskreutz testified that he heard the sound of the gunshots in the Rosenbaum shooting.  He did not testify that he witnessed the actual shooting.  

Second (and this has been discussed in this forum and in DT), the fact that there was testimony to the effect that Rittenhouse made a statement to Grosskreutz to the effect that he was going to the police would not necessarily have nullified any self-defense claim by persons attempting to intercept and subdue Rittenhouse.  Why?  Well, if you thought a guy was an active shooter and he told you that he was "going to the police," would you believe him?  Or is it possible, maybe just possible, that he's saying that to avoid detention.  If we applied your reasoning generally, then persons engaging in shootings (both lawful and unlawful) could simply announce that they were "going to the police" and foreclose any efforts by citizens to detain them.  It's patently ridiculous to suggest that Rittenhouse's brief, ambiguous statement about "going to the police" somehow completely short-circuited the ability of any onlooker to attempt to legally detain him if they reasonably thought he was an active shooter who had just shot someone -- possibly unlawfully.  And it's also worth noting that your comments wouldn't apply to Huber -- he had no information suggesting that Rittenhouse was going to the police.  

Third, any evidence concerning the legality or illegality of Grosskreutz's possession of his firearm and/or a tear gas canister would have been legally irrelevant to any potential claim of self-defense on his part, just as any questions about the legality of Rittenhouse's possession of his firearm were irrelevant to the viability of his self-defense claim.

Finally, since you may have your panties in a wad thinking that my posting above somehow signals that I'm upset with the verdict, I'll simply repeat what I posted earlier -- I don't have a problem with the verdict.  I'm just taking issue with the notion that the persons who attempted to intercept and detain Rittenhouse would not have had viable legal defenses.  The key point is that because his shooting of Rosenbaum was deemed to be lawful self-defense, Rittenhouse also had similarly viable defenses in connection with the shootings of Huber and Grosskreutz.

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
immortal13

immortal13 4059

Posted
Posted
Just now, Carl Spackler said:

Uh, no.  Get your facts straight.  Grosskreutz testified that he heard the sound of the gunshots in the Rosenbaum shooting.  He did not testify that he witnessed the actual shooting.  

Second (and this has been discussed in this forum and in DT), the fact that there was testimony to the effect that Rittenhouse made a statement to Grosskreutz to the effect that he was going to the police would not necessarily have nullified any self-defense claim by persons attempting to intercept and subdue Rittenhouse.  Why?  Well, if you thought a guy was an active shooter and he told you that he was "going to the police," would you believe him?  Or is it possible, maybe just possible, that he's saying that to avoid detention.  If we applied your reasoning generally, then persons engaging in shootings (both lawful and unlawful) could simply announce that they were "going to the police" and foreclose any efforts by citizens to detain them.  It's patently ridiculous to suggest that Rittenhouse's brief, ambiguous statement about "going to the police" somehow completely short-circuited the ability of any onlooker to attempt to legally detain him if they reasonably thought he was an active shooter who had just shot someone -- possibly unlawfully.  And it's also worth noting that your comments wouldn't apply to Huber -- he had no information suggesting that Rittenhouse was going to the police.  

Third, any evidence concerning the legality or illegality of Grosskreutz's possession of his firearm and/or a tear gas canister would have been legally irrelevant to any potential claim of self-defense on his part, just as any questions about the legality of Rittenhouse's possession of his firearm were irrelevant to the viability of his self-defense claim.

Finally, since you may have your panties in a wad thinking that my posting above somehow signals that I'm upset with the verdict, I'll simply repeat what I posted earlier -- I don't have a problem with the verdict.  I'm just taking issue with the notion that the persons who attempted to intercept and detain Rittenhouse would not have had viable legal defenses.  The key point is that because his shooting of Rosenbaum was deemed to be lawful self-defense, Rittenhouse also had similarly viable defenses in connection with the shootings of Huber and Grosskreutz.

 

 

Sorry bro but you are the one who is confused. Besides the fact that GG admitted on the stand that he wasn't fired upon until he aimed his gun at Kyle. But don't let the facts get in the way of your little novella 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Carl Spackler

Carl Spackler 3488

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, goatsaag said:

Sure, you can come up with any hypothetical situation you'd like where some or all of the relevant information is hidden. There's no point in doing so, but go for it.

The hypothetical is/was intended to illustrate why the evidence of the conduct that preceded the Rosenbaum shooting was so critical to Rittenhouse's self-defense claim.  Does that help you understand? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Carl Spackler

Carl Spackler 3488

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

Sorry bro but you are the one who is confused. Besides the fact that GG admitted on the stand that he wasn't fired upon until he aimed his gun at Kyle. But don't let the facts get in the way of your little novella 

Sorry if you are unable to read or digest more than a sentence or two at a time.  I'll try to keep that in mind for future posts.  In the meantime, here's a link and quoted excerpt for your edification.  I hope this isn't too much for you to read and comprehend.

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/08/1053567574/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-gaige-grosskreutz-testimony-kenosha

 

Grosskreutz was roughly a block away from Rittenhouse when he first heard the gunshots — the sound of Rittenhouse shooting and killing Joseph Rosenbaum. As a medic, Grosskreutz ran toward the sound, rather than away, he said.

 

Edited by Carl Spackler
Link to comment
Share on other sites
immortal13

immortal13 4059

Posted
Posted
Just now, Carl Spackler said:

Sorry if you are unable to read or digest more than a sentence or two at a time.  I'll try to keep that in mind for future posts.  In the meantime, here's a link and quoted excerpt for your edification.  I hope this isn't too much for you to read and comprehend.

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/08/1053567574/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-gaige-grosskreutz-testimony-kenosha

 

Grosskreutz was roughly a block away from Rittenhouse when he first heard the gunshots — the sound of Rittenhouse shooting and killing Joseph Rosenbaum. As a medic, Grosskreutz ran toward the sound, rather than away, he said.

 

So I got the minor detail of him witnessing the first shooting. Still doesn't refute the fact that KR told him he was going to the police. He also witnessed skater-boy attacking KR. He knew he wasn't an active shooter. He lied just like he lied to the police about having a gun, then he claimed he dropped it, then he claimed he never pointed it at Kyle. All of these claims were disproven by his OWN testimony. He tried a false surrender and then a quick draw and he got his fucking arm blasted off. He is lucky he wasn't shot center mass like the other two idiots. He was actually guilty of illegal carrying of a firearm not KR. I wonder why he wasn't charged with anything?.....hmmm

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Disco Missile

Disco Missile 456

Posted
Posted

I got sucked into this trial by accident because of a YouTube rec on a lunch break. I saw the moment when Grosskreutz admitted on the stand that he ran after KR and wasn't shot until he pointed his loaded gun at KR's head. My jaw hit the floor and I was hooked.

Watching the prosection's case unravel and ultimately blow up in their faces was one of the most amazing things I've ever seen. I really can't understand how they looked at the evidence and talked to their witnesses and made the decision to charge him with murder. And then to double down once the trial went pear shaped and they should have dismissed the charges. Incredible stuff.

The media has made a total mess of everything surrounding this case, but the trial itself was about as clear cut a thing as you could ask for. Glad the man got the verdict he deserved instead of a mistrial or some other oddity that would drag this out unnecessarily.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...