Thread: Kyle Rittenhouse. Murder or self defense ?

Originally Posted by Troy

the use of 4 shots.

Enough for self-defense.


For murder, it would likely have been a helluva lot more. If he was intending to murder him, he likely would have unloaded into him. :-)

4 wittle self-defence shots from an AR15 that could turn someone into Swisscheese if intending to kill them.


Just another piece of evidence that destroys the ludicrous charges.

Originally Posted by Edmond

Enough for self-defense.

4 wittle self-defence shots from an AR15 that could turn someone into Swisscheese if intending to kill them.
Just another piece of evidence that destroys the ludicrous charges.

You're a fucking idiot if you think anyone will bite that, or an even bigger fucking idiot if you believe it.

Originally Posted by Backspin

Its just self defense training 101. Cops usually shoot more than 4.

You do know the difference in power between an AR-15 and a pistol...a magnitude higher effective range of over 500yds vs 50yds.

The FBI video shows that Rittenhouse was not trapped, he could have circled round the car, as he did later, without having to shoot. He was not cornered as you suggested in your earlier posts.

However, the argument against self-defence has always been that Rittenhouse provoked aggression by his mere presence on the streets with an assault rifle.

One takeaway from today's testimony is-------- An Indian's testimony Im not sure, I dont recall, Repeat the question. Its as if he scared shitless of the "mob" attacking his car lots if he sais anything that is positive for the defendant.

Day one of the trial , full uncut video.

Day two full uncut video,

Day three full uncut video.

Day four full uncut video.

Originally Posted by panama hat

So, still no promised audio recording to support your usual baseless claims . . . or are you going to keep clinging onto the "The FBI/CIA/Mossad/MI5/BND" 'done eraised them there facts' defense?

Originally Posted by Backspin

And when I find it

Originally Posted by Backspin

Btw even if I find the audio

Almost chico-like in his responses

^^ Thanks for posting the trial videos havnfun...

Interesting that Joseph Rosenbaum was only 5'3", sounds like one of those all mouth and no trousers sort of guys that are usually just ignored.

Reasonable force may well have been to stop and shout boo to the guy...

Originally Posted by Troy

The FBI video shows that Rittenhouse was not trapped, He was not cornered as you suggested in your earlier posts.

However, the argument against self-defence has always been that Rittenhouse provoked aggression by his mere presence on the streets with an assault rifle.

The FBI video shows that Rittenhouse was not trapped, He was not cornered as you suggested in your earlier posts.

Monday morning quaterbacking at its finest. Looking at a birds eye view, which is not what Rittenhouse seen. Its literally the definition of being cornered. Rosenbaum was capable of running way faster than Rittenhouse. He closed the gap in less than seconds. And you think they were both going for a jog.

The unbiased Court TV podcast did an episode about the start of the trial

The hosts say that the prosecution of this case started things off with a bold faced lie. The prosecution said that Kyle Rittenhouse chased down Joseph Rosenbaum and shot him. Then the defense got up and played the video of Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse. The exact opposite of what the prosecution said.

Then the hosts say that this was a strange and bad strategy that will not sit well with the jury.

The clip of the bold faced lie starts at 6:17

The Tale of Two Trials – McMichaels et al and Rittenhouse Murder Trials, PT 1 - Court TV Podcast - Omny.fm

Originally Posted by Backspin

The prosecution said that Kyle Rittenhouse chased down Joseph Rosenbaum

If you look at the start of the video you can see that Rittenhouse was indeed running towards Rosenbaum and that Rosenbaum hid behind some parked cars before getting onto Rittenhouse's tail and chasing him.

Originally Posted by Troy

If you look at the start of the video you can see that Rittenhouse was indeed running towards Rosenbaum and that Rosenbaum hid behind some parked cars before getting onto Rittenhouse's tail and chasing him.

You're using facts to socal's anger.

Originally Posted by Troy

If you look at the start of the video you can see that Rittenhouse was indeed running towards Rosenbaum and that Rosenbaum hid behind some parked cars before getting onto Rittenhouse's tail and chasing him.

Pure sophistry You mean when Rittenhouse was jogging down the road, with the flow of walking traffic, to ask if anyone needed medical assistance ? Completely oblivious to the fact that Rosenbaum was there ?

soph·ist·ry



noun


noun: sophistry


the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.

The so called bag that Rosenbaum threw, was on fire. It can be seen on the video. It was an improvised Molotov cocktail

Originally Posted by beachbound

Just you wait! It’s comin’ and it’s gonna be RAW!

The prosecutions own witnesses said that Rosenbaum threatened Rittenhouses life earlier in the night

So . . . you got nuthin' but a fancy new word and still no RAW nuthin

Originally Posted by Backspin

The so called bag that Rosenbaum threw, was on fire. It can be seen on the video. It was an improvised Molotov cocktail

Oh lordy, lordy, you are grabbing for something there mate...and a Molotov cocktail might have swung the self-defence plea. However, it was a bag containing his underwear and toiletries. There is no evidence produced in the trial that states the plastic bag was on fire.

Don't let facts get in the way of your desperation for self-defence hey....

Have you read the 1967 study by Berkowitz and LePage yet? You know the study on "Effects of Weapons". Plenty of later studies with the same findings. Have a read and come back to us with your thoughts on civilians carrying weapons in a riot during a curfew and how they provoke aggression.

...and stop using words you clearly don't understand.

Originally Posted by Troy

come back to us with your thoughts

Tough ask. Will he also coma back with the 'RAW' footage erased by Mossad? Or the CIA? BND? MI5?

^^^^Tim Poole. He’s not good enough to be a real journalist so he finds not-so-discerning followers on YouTube. Can’t stand the little twerp.

How ‘Coward and Phony’ Tim Pool Became One of the Biggest Political YouTubers on the Planet

https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-co...-on-the-planet

^ Behind a paywall.

How ‘Coward and Phony’ Tim Pool Became One of the Biggest Political YouTubers on the Planet

Not behind a paywall.

Originally Posted by Backspit

The prosecutions own witnesses said that Rosenbaum threatened Rittenhouses life earlier in the night

This is why you’re never taken seriously, Backspit. The testimony was that his threats were not at Rittenhouse, directly. Rosenbaum was acting “belligerently” and his threat was not directed at anyone person, rather at a large group. The far right nut job on the podcast, flat out lied.

Originally Posted by Troy

Oh lordy, lordy, you are grabbing for something there mate...and a Molotov cocktail might have swung the self-defence plea. However, it was a bag containing his underwear and toiletries. There is no evidence produced in the trial that states the plastic bag was on fire.

Don't let facts get in the way of your desperation for self-defence hey....

Have you read the 1967 study by Berkowitz and LePage yet? You know the study on "Effects of Weapons". Plenty of later studies with the same findings. Have a read and come back to us with your thoughts on civilians carrying weapons in a riot during a curfew and how they provoke aggression.

...and stop using words you clearly don't understand.

Haha yeah. Keep.pretending that you are winning. You literally have no case and neither does the prosecution

It basically looks like the prosecution is throwing the case. The witnesses they called on bolstered the defences case. And non partisan legal analysts are saying this.