Rittenhouse trial goes to opening statements after jury set

Only better for people with big fists. Is might makes right better? I thought we got away from that with a tool that equalizes might.

 

Gosh, that seems a remarkable set of assumptions then. First, you don't believe in the right of citizens to defend themselves, or otherwise ask others for help in defending themselves or their property? You call this "playing cop". Where do you find any actual evidence of this? Second, when confronted by child rapist who is armed, and they corner you, do you just get shot? You say, "well, I wouldn't have been there". Ok, and the city around you burned to the ground. Not very citizen like of you. So, two armed guys, a second who used his skateboard as a weapon, and you still can't get your facts straight. But sure, you would have huddled at home hiding from being a citizen or part of the solution to the attack on your town.

 

I saw the video, so I know what happened.

Let me ask you again: If what you say is correct (that they all chased him before he shot anyone), then thy did they choose to chase him and not others considering there were hundreds of people around to chase?

 

See #105

Nope. The mob's actions (hitting, kicking, trying to shoot, etc.) towards Kyle justify him killing them in self-defense. Their verbal threats just make it crystal-clear that their intentions were not peaceful nor lawful.

 

They chose to chase Kyle, because he was running down the street and the mob was baying for his blood.

 

The pedo is unavailable for comment on this point, but it appears to be due to Kyle putting out the fires they were starting.

 

It was obvious why the serial child rapist chose to chase Kyle.

 

Big fists are good, because they tend to ensure a fight does not happen in the first place. Now we have teenage boys with AR15s and bodies start piling up.

 

I do believe in that right

Absolutely.

How do you get shot by an unarmed guy.

Yes. I am not a chaos tourist, or someone who likes to play cop. Did you go there, or are you in habit of inserting yourself in riots?

It didn't get burned down

Did you go there, or are you in habit of inserting yourself in riots? If not, then what kind of citizen are you?

Did you go there, or are you in habit of inserting yourself in riots, huddled at home hiding from being a citizen?

How many riots did you police last year?

 

BTW, if this is true, it could be enough to get the whole case thrown out:

Jack Posobiec on Twitter: "EXCLUSIVE: FBI testified in private that there is 2nd version of the surveillance tape in HD that it did not provide the defense, per courtroom member The defense had requested a copy of the HD tape The FBI responded the HD tape no longer exists" / Twitter

 

If rioters came to do damage to your community, would you just cower in fear?

 

So, they ran after him because........he was running down the street. Does this mean they would not have done it if he had walked? This doesn't make any sense, but then again, - made up claims rarely do.

Lot of wild theories, made up claims and raw emotion in this thread.

Me thinks its best to let it play out and accept the outcome.

 

It wasn't just because he was running that they attacked him. As I explained, the mob was also baying for his blood.

Watch the video again, and pay attention.

 

Twitter, - the funnel of truth. Court cases can be thrown out. If prosecution fails to provide evidence to defense, it could cause mistrial, but not if the LE fails to do so.

I asked why, and you said it was because he was running and baying for his blood. It does not answer why it was happening.

 

It was not even his State, let alone his community. How many riots did you attend last year armed with AR15?

 

he lives within walking distance to WI.. and he works in Kenosha so yeah it was his community

 

That would be a very long walk. Well, he inserted himself, and two people got killed, and he faces murder charges. I hope he serves as a warning example to anyone who thinks its exciting to play cop.

 

How about the facts and witness statements? Fact, the prosecution claimed in opening statement that Rittenhouse chased Rosenbaum and the defense showed with FBI helicopter film that Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse and someone behind fired a gun just before Rosenbaum almost reached Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse turned and fired. This after Rosenbaum threatened to kill him earlier.

 

I just finished watching the first day of Kyle's trial. I would have to say that the defense did a lot better than the prosecutor.

With self defense cases the jury is supposed to, essentially, put themselves in Kyle's shoes. See things from his perspective. And the judge did mention that when he was instructing the jury.

The prosecutor however tried to portray the events on a wider scale. Pointing out that no one over the days of rioting were killed or shot. That Kyle was the only one to have done so. The reason he did this is obvious. Its to point out that no one else felt so threatened by what was happening that they had to kill anyone. But frankly that is not relevant. What is relevant is whether or not Kyle felt threatened enough to shoot someone. The defense pointed this out. Essentially reiterating what the judge had already instructed the jurors to do.

I also noticed that the prosecutor tried to portray the guy that got his arm shot was holding his gun in a non-threatening manor with the gun drawn in towards his side. However the defense used photo evidence that that was not the case. That the gun arm was actually swinging outwards and towards Kyle. It should be noted also that the prosecutor did not want the defense using photo's or video's during the opening statements. The judge however allowed it because such has been done before, mainly in civil trials but also some in criminal trials, and there is no law against it.

Additionally the prosecutor tried to portray the shots that were fired as if it happened over a large time frame. The defense however easily countered that by literally pointing out that the initial shots at Rosenbaum were all under 1 second. Also pointing out that the time between Kyle shooting the person with the skate board and shooting the person who's arm got shot also happened in a very small time frame by showing a picture of the guy with the skate board having been shot still falling when Kyle shot the guy in the arm.

All in all I'd say this was a win for the defense team. Not surprising to me of course. I've seen the video's of what happened. To me it was clearly self defense. All of this of course was a very brief summary of everything pointed out. Naturally I did not get all of it. Kinda hard to take a 6-7 hour trial and compress it all into a brief summary. So I just highlighted a few points. Others are free to point out other things that they feel are important or even went against the defense.

 

Couldn't you say the same about firearms? Who'd you rather fistfight over a political opinion? Tyson Fury, or Kyle Rittenhouse?

 

you are asking why the mob was chasing him? again they told you why in the video, they where trying to kill him, and Grosskreutz confirmed it after the fact saying he wished he was faster and shot him.

Real question is why are you trying to spin a different narrative of why the mob was chasing him? was this a "mostly peaceful" murder attempt or something lol

 

They also showed the people around Kyle when he shot his attackers that Kyle did not shoot in that very brief timeframe.

 

It was happening because rioters were rioting and destroying property.

 

22 miles isn't that a long walk. I've walked farther just to get to work. In a car its a 20-30 minute ride depending on traffic.

Also even the prosecutor admits that people have a right to defend their property and more importantly as it is more relevant to this case, other peoples property. He admits it outright in his opening statement.

 

Yes, putting out a dumpster fire is soooo provocative.