Rittenhouse trial goes to opening statements after jury set

Black bought the gun for Kyle and has been charged. Since he purchased it and kept title, until Kyle became legal to own it, I doubt he is convicted. Legally Black became the adult and could let Kyle shoot the weapon Kyle paid for.

 

There was a potential juror that got dismissed for having this exact same view.

 

And yet he does not want the cop guilty of killing Ashli Babbitt to be found guilty nor even put on trial.

 

I remember years back during the trayvon Martin thing. They wanted Zimmerman found guilty of homicide or murder because he got out of a car.

They want to prosecute people for things that aren't crimes.

It's not about Justice it's about further eroding the right to life if you can't defend yourself against the deadly threat then you don't have a right to life.

 

Yeah that guy shot at a person wearing a red maga hat those people are the devil didn't you know?

This is a war to them.

In another thread I've posted on it was talking about how violent Republicans are.

 

No. I own firearms, and I never said I want him guilty, and there is a reason why you deleted the rest of my post where I said there could be
acquittal. My prediction, however, is that he will be found guilty.

What he should have done after the shooting would have been to put the rifle down and call the police, and ask others to call the police too, but he chose to flee, and ended up shooting two more people who were trying to arrest him. I think that will hurt his defense.

I would not want armed teenagers near my business.

 

I think their actions and the extemporaneous statements of the mob (of which they were a part) will demonstrate quite clearly that they intended to harm Kyle, not "arrest" him. These weren't cops, and they weren't trying to enforce the law that night. They were vandals and arsonists, angry that their fellow arsonist pedophile had been shot.

Seconds before the one-armed bandit tried to murder Kyle, Kyle had told him he was going to the police to turn himself in. He was even running towards the police. There's no basis there for a citizen's arrest.

 

your statement about him being there with a firearm as though that's a crime or intent to commit a crime says just that.

I have a reason and it isn't that.

seems like that would be a miscarriage of Justice As It seems evident to anybody that it was very clear-cut self-defense.

he fled a murderous mob directly to police and turned himself in.

I think you're misinformed about the facts.

Also why would you lay down the gun so that someone can pick it up and kill you with it?

 

The only homicides committed during the midst of rioting, looting, vandalism, arson, and general lawlessness..

Can't wait till he gets on the stand and tells everybody how he cleaned up Kenosha in just one night.

I see a medium length future of mandatory laundry cleaning in his future..

 

They ran after him because he killed a guy and tried to flee the scene. That much is obvious.

Kyle was not a cop either. There is such thing as "citizens arrest". It COULD be argued that even the 2nd and 3rd shootings were self defense, but the fact remains that he was trying to flee the scene of the first shooting, but he is on thin ice, because now he is the only one who is allowed to play cop and shoot anyone who gets near him. IMO the 2nd and 3 shootings are his biggest problem.

 

Spin it any way you want, but I said what I said and that wasn't it.

No, he left town and went home.

It might end up being the verdict, but its pretty far from clear cut.

 

I read what you said.

I'm just trying to gather meaning out of it. Since you don't seem capable of clearing it up yourself.

If I got what you stated wrong and if I got your intent wrong I'd love to hear how.

What did you mean by the statement "he didn't walk there with an AR-15 by accident"?

Of course he didn't nobody ever suggested that he did what is the point of that statement.

You don't communicate what you meant by the statement I can only assume that simply by possessing a firearm an accidentally that he should be guilty of homicide.

Show me what I got wrong

 

Those guys were not trying to "arrest" him. In fact, if you frame by frame the 3 seconds before Gaige is shot, you see him raise his hands instantly as he is startled by the shot, then as Rittenhouse lowers his rifle to the ground in response to his apparent surrender, Gaige tries to swing his right hand around (with the gun in it) around Kyle's back in what is obviously an intent to execute Kyle as soon as he lowered his guard.

The guy shouldn't be portrayed as a victim; he should be charged for the attempted murder of a minor.

Well this owner didn't think like you, and the totality of video evidence shows it saved that car lot.

 

Rittenhouse is the ONLY ONE WHO SHOT AND KILLED ANYONE IN KENOSHA ON THAT FATEFUL DAY !!!!

 

I said this: "He didn't walk in there with an AR15 by an accident. He is at the mercy of the system and will get whatever is coming at him, although it could be acquittal if the self-defense argument stands."

And to you it translated to me wanting him guilty of homicide because he owns AR15.

Your reasoning it void of logic, which is often the case with people who argue for the sake of arguing.

Anyway, it will be interesting to follow the arguments. I wonder if it will be televises.

 

Who was the only one that shot and killed anyone at the Capitol on that fateful day?

Sole killer = guilty?

 

What in your opinion is he guilty of?

 

I Will Let The JURY Decide That.

I will abide by any decision that the Criminal Justice System arrives at.

 

So, what are you saying? Because he was armed, do you assume he had intent? Given the attacks on him personally on the street that night, what would you have done, just stand there and be shot?

 

I'm gonna answer that for you. The important part is in quotes, "if you fear for your life" while being rushed, the answer is YES.

 

Could you explain these two highlighted parts to me? Your position seems to be confused.

 

Yep, in self defense. Its as if you think people should not be able to defend themselves and the only thing that matters is that they killed someone.

 

if his self defense argument stands it won't be acquittal it will be not guilty verdict that's not the same thing.

if you want to be understood instead of crying about me misunderstanding you correct me.

I'm not the least a bit sorry for your mistake.

I was arguing about what your statement meant next time instead of throwing a fit about other people misunderstanding your gobbledygook clear it up.


Don't blame me because you fail to communicate I'm not the least bit sorry for that.

And if you can't take someone questioning your statement don't make it in the first place especially not on a boardwear people can respond to you. This isn't a safe space.

 

But you just suggested that he will be guilty of something, and failed to detail what. And now you run away from any answer by suggesting you'll abide by the jury findings. So, say he gets acquitted. Why would he be found guilty again? You have an agenda here. Spit it out.

 

Partially correct. I don't ever have to prove I actually was in fear. I can simply declare it. So, he's declared it. He should be let go, right?