Kyle Rittenhouse

[SassyLady]

Watching Kyle give testimony on the stand about the original attack on him. Seemed very well put together until he had to describe the moment Rosenblum attacks and Zalinsky points gun at him. Broke down and Court is now taking 10 minute recess so he can regain composure. It's obvious he was scared and that this was always a self defense situation. I hope those that painted him as a racist and mass murderer burn in hell.

[SassyLady]

Prosecution now asking questions. I like the judge.

[SassyLady]

Judge is pissed at prosecutor.

[SassyLady]

They're trying to prove Kyle got gun because he wanted to kill people.

[SassyLady]

Judge is so mad at prosecutor for giving his own testimony on difference between ammo used ... hollow pt v .223 full metal jacket that he called for lunch break. I think so he can put together his prosecutor spanking speech. This trial is so close to a mistrial with prejudice due to prosecutors actions

[Kathianne]

I was shocked it didn't get directed verdict yestrrday.

[jimnyc]

Yeps, Judge was just a tad angry with the prosecution.

IMO, I don't think it matters though. From what I have seen thus far, the prosecution has failed to prove its case, by far.

[hjmick]

Let's keep in mind...

Rittenhouse left his home, in another state, in possession of a firearm, illegally, to go to a neighboring state where there were protests and potential rioting, and he was out past the curfew (he and all the rest of them)...

So, while he may not have been looking to kill someone, it's kind of hard to argue that he wasn't looking for some kind of... trouble? Conflict? He had to know the potential for such was high...

If he had stayed home, obeyed the law, he wouldn't be testifying in his own defense today...


Just saying.

[darin]

Let's keep in mind...

Rittenhouse left his home, in another state, in possession of a firearm, illegally, to go to a neighboring state where there were protests and potential rioting, and he was out past the curfew (he and all the rest of them)...

So, while he may not have been looking to kill someone, it's kind of hard to argue that he wasn't looking for some kind of... trouble? Conflict? He had to know the potential for such was high...

If he had stayed home, obeyed the law, he wouldn't be testifying in his own defense today...


Just saying.

None of those facts speak to the charges however. But just as a jury fucked up and found Chauvin guilty, wouldn't surprise me if they do something stupid like that with Kyle.

I think it's easy to argue he was not looking for trouble. He was prepared for trouble. Huge difference.

"Crossed state lines" is a trope....it's something said as if it matters and it truly does not. It's not like he drove from Dallas to OKC just for this thing - but even if he had, that still implies no bad-intent. But if the jury is built from some of the 50M who voted for Biden, there is no amount of reason nor fact which will save Kyle.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Let's keep in mind...

Rittenhouse left his home, in another state, in possession of a firearm, illegally, to go to a neighboring state where there were protests and potential rioting, and he was out past the curfew (he and all the rest of them)...

So, while he may not have been looking to kill someone, it's kind of hard to argue that he wasn't looking for some kind of... trouble? Conflict? He had to know the potential for such was high...

If he had stayed home, obeyed the law, he wouldn't be testifying in his own defense today...


Just saying.

So, those that were armed and attacked him that he had to end up shooting are held blameless about beiing ARMED?
Thus representing a severe threat.
There is no logic to the points you made.
The whole case hedges on if he was attacked, felt his life was threatened and fired in self-defense.
The leftside anti-gun talking points you mentioned are totally irrelevant.
Is everybody that carries a gun - looking for trouble??

"" If he had stayed home, obeyed the law, he wouldn't be testifying in his own defense today...""

Your quote shown above -- is a completely assinine statement, imho..

By that ridiculous standard -- were the dead guys--""looking for trouble too"" ??

Quite a liberal/leftist standard that -- you conveniently set-- everybody must stay home or else they are out looking for trouble- looking to kill someone..-Tyr

[Kathianne]

Waukegan is closer to Kenosha than Chicago. It's way north.

[fj1200]

Let's keep in mind...

Just saying.

True. But stupid is not against the law.

...
I think it's easy to argue he was not looking for trouble. He was prepared for trouble. Huge difference.
...

He was not really in position for not finding trouble.

...

Quite a liberal/leftist standard that -- you conveniently set-- everybody must stay home or else they are out looking for trouble- looking to kill someone..-Tyr

Just a recognition that stupid people should not be praised for doing stupid things. He was at George Zimmerman level stupid.

[hjmick]

True. But stupid is not against the law.



He was not really in position for not finding trouble.



Just a recognition that stupid people should not be praised for doing stupid things. He was at George Zimmerman level stupid.

Thank you, at least you got what I was trying to say.

[hjmick]

So, those that were armed and attacked him that he had to end up shooting are held blameless about beiing ARMED?
Thus representing a severe threat.
There is no logic to the points you made.
The whole case hedges on if he was attacked, felt his life was threatened and fired in self-defense.
The leftside anti-gun talking points you mentioned are totally irrelevant.
Is everybody that carries a gun - looking for trouble??

"" If he had stayed home, obeyed the law, he wouldn't be testifying in his own defense today...""

Your quote shown above -- is a completely assinine statement, imho..

By that ridiculous standard -- were the dead guys--""looking for trouble too"" ??

Quite a liberal/leftist standard that -- you conveniently set-- everybody must stay home or else they are out looking for trouble- looking to kill someone..-Tyr

I understand fully what the case "hinges" on, my comments had nothing to do with that. Nothing, zero, nada, zip. That you fail to see the logic in what I was saying is your failing, not mine.

The people that attacked are far from blameless, and yes, they were out looking for trouble. I never claimed otherwise. In fact, all I was addressing was Rittenhouse and the bad decisions he made that put him where he is. That you read anything else into my post is your issue, not mine.

Leftside anti-gun talking points? Liberal/leftest standard? I've been called worse things by better people than you.

If you rush out to the scene of protests and riots, what the fuck are you looking for? A bucket of chicken?

As for my comment about him staying home, how is that "asinine?" It's the fucking truth. Are you saying that truth is asinine?

[jimnyc]

Let's keep in mind...

Rittenhouse left his home, in another state, in possession of a firearm, illegally, to go to a neighboring state where there were protests and potential rioting, and he was out past the curfew (he and all the rest of them)...

This is all true. The only thing I can say, "if" I were debating his side (I have no vested interest here), is that maybe he thought he was doing the right thing by helping against the riots & helping other things as he did. Excuses none of illegal actions of course.

So, while he may not have been looking to kill someone, it's kind of hard to argue that he wasn't looking for some kind of... trouble? Conflict? He had to know the potential for such was high...

If he had stayed home, obeyed the law, he wouldn't be testifying in his own defense today...

He should have known the potential was quite high, especially in carrying a weapon openly. It would be kind of hard to prove he was "looking for trouble" though when some of the evidence was him trying to protect places. But, that could easily be taken as looking for that same trouble as well.

Just saying.

True. But stupid is not against the law.

He was not really in position for not finding trouble.

He was a position of perhaps trying to help defend some places, but those very actions... &/but due to the people there, and the massive amount of protesters, it lead to trouble by him and his weapon being seen as the enemy by the protesters and they went after him and chased him down.

Just a recognition that stupid people should not be praised for doing stupid things. He was at George Zimmerman level stupid.

Like HJ rightfully said, if he doesn't carry illegal weapon with him, this likely never happens. If he doesn't cross state lines and go there, this likely never happens. (maybe HJ didn't use those exact words..)

But, at the same time, he was chased and then on the ground before he shot the one guys bicep. How much guilt does he hold prior to being chased by a mob? His actions prior will be taken into account and maybe charged accordingly, but I think the shooting with bicep boy... and the first one was a guy chasing him at the station.

I honestly haven't followed this one 300% though.