Thread: Kyle Rittenhouse. Murder or self defense ?

Originally Posted by koman

but we can be sure that we come after the verdict if it's doesn't turn out the way CNN wants.

WTF? The way CNN wants? Give me a break, you have stated you think he should get off on self defense. Of which I wholeheartedly disagree with.

Originally Posted by koman

I've watched this trial right from the opening statements and all I say is that Mr Rittenhouse is clearly guilty of being quite stupid and showing poor judgement by taking an assault weapon to a place that was volatile and getting himself into some serious trouble....but there is a mass of evidence to support his claim of self defense, regardless of his other actions that night.

Originally Posted by koman

the usual stalkers will be along soon to issues the standard petty insults.

Originally Posted by koman

Dear me, it looks like our TD legal team is becoming more desperate by the hour. We have references to everything from some video that shows someone punching a girl involved in a fight with another girl...to the unsuitable judge; the trailer trash mother; approval of the Miami "proud boys"...and the absolute jem from CNN...of "white privilege on steroids"...
Of course none of this nonsense has anything to do with the question at the heart of the matter....ie..did Rittenhouse shoot in self defense...or not???
That is what the trial is about.... everything else is just bullshit... posturing, virtue signalling and hot air. So far we have not had howls of "white supremacists" on the jury
but we can be sure that will come after the verdict if it's doesn't turn out the way CNN wants.

...wut?

This thread isn't and has never been just about the trial.

No, it has not just been about the trial.. That goes without saying, but it has been about the guilt or innocence of Rittenhouse with respect to the charges of murder.
The trial is now near the end and a verdict will be reached based on a minute examination of actual evidence. The opinions, pre judgements, and virtual signalling of folks like you have no bearing on the matter.

Originally Posted by koman

The opinions, pre judgements, and virtual signalling of folks like you have no bearing on the matter.

'People Are Discussing Things I Don't Want Them To!', says person who is probably the first to cry 'bUT mA FReEDuMs!'

Originally Posted by koman

The opinions, pre judgements, and virtual signalling of folks like you have no bearing on the matter.

Uh, absolutely.

but you kinda seem to be missing the idea behind a forum......

^^
WTF is that supposed to mean...
I'm staying an opinion same as everyone else....or do you think that opinions should only be in lockstep with your own.

Originally Posted by koman

WTF is that supposed to mean...
I'm staying an opinion same as everyone else....or do you think that opinions should only be in lockstep with your own.

So if it's ok for you to state an opinion why such a stick up your ass about others stating theirs.

There's only one person currently crying here about others discussing things they don't want them to.

Originally Posted by koman

WTF is that supposed to mean...
I'm staying an opinion same as everyone else....or do you think that opinions should only be in lockstep with your own.

no. But you were the one slamming people for expressing opinions.....

Actually, I was attempting to point out the errors of rushing to judgement before the evidence has been examined.

Originally Posted by koman

Actually, I was attempting to point out the errors of rushing to judgement before the evidence has been examined.

You failed miserably and instead came off as all insulting, condescending, and trying to silence others.

Originally Posted by Backspin

Sure. Lets say the gun was fake. And Rittenhouse took out a knife and stabbed Rosenbaum in the neck, it would still be self defense. No different than it is now. When someone lunges into your personal space , after threatening your life, you are allowed to defend yourself.

That would very much depend on whether the lunge was an act of last ditch defence against a rifle being pointed at you. However, the evidence was not conclusive for the prosecution.

If the aggression shown by Rosenbaum earlier could be proved to be due to the armed guards pointing rifles at civilians, or just being armed, then his aggression could be argued as being provoked. However, he was aggressive towards a guy with an extinguisher so this is also inconclusive .
It very much depends on whether bringing an assault rifle to a protest is justified and if 4 shots ifrom a high powered rifle s reasonable force.

I didn't see any evidence that Rosenbaum was specifically targeting people with rifles in order to steal it.

Originally Posted by koman

We have references to everything from some video that shows someone punching a girl involved in a fight with another girl...to the unsuitable judge; the trailer trash mother; approval of the Miami "proud boys"

They're just desperately grasping at thin air because they were/are wrong.

That or trolling.


Who could not support an innocent young man, that risked his young life and went out of his way to protect the property of strangers.

Originally Posted by Edmond

That or trolling.

Odd because that is exactly what I think you are doing.

Originally Posted by Edmond

That or trolling.

Originally Posted by Edmond

Who could not support an innocent young man, that risked his young life and went out of his way to protect the property of strangers.

Trolling personified.

Originally Posted by Edmond

Who could not support an innocent young man, that risked his young life and went out of his way to protect the property of strangers.

Young man. Check.
Risked his young life. Check.
To protect the property of others. Check.
Innocent. Check.


The only charge he may be found guilty of is the possession charge (a misdemeanor).

Which was done out of love for society, risking his freedom (and his life!), just so he could help to protect society and the property of strangers.

Originally Posted by nidhogg

Not intended as a reply to backspit, but more as a general observation - the first basis for self-defense is "innocence". Surely a strong case can be made that Rittenhouse was not, in any way "innocent". The American legal doctrine of "fruit of the poisonous tree" would seem to have some application here - establishing that he was in possession of an illegal weapon would surely invalidate the basis of "innocence".

Still, we shall see.

well there's no question he isn't innocent of illegally being on possession of the weapon. The question is, is he innocent of murder?

Originally Posted by Edmond

Who could not support an innocent young man, that risked his young life and went out of his way to protect the property of strangers.

Originally Posted by Edmond

Young man. Check.
Risked his young life. Check.
To protect the property of others. Check.
Innocent. Check.

Weird that grown men would fetishize and idolize that.

Check.

Originally Posted by Edmond

that risked his young life and went out of his way to protect the property of strangers.

He had no reason to do so. He had no permission to be on the property. He was ordered not to go back on the property by the police. He had no licence to provide medical support. He had no licence to carry the rifle.

He had no business whatsoever being there and should have stayed at home.

Still if you think it's okay for kids to go around with powerful weapons and shoot at people when they get scared then fair enough. Thank goodness it would never happen where I live.

Originally Posted by Troy

He had no permission to be on the property.

Is there a charge of trespassing?

Risking a trespassing charge in order to help the safety of the public and their property.

He'll probably get off with self defence. It's just a shame no-one managed to get one through his head to thin out the shallow end of the gene pool.

Originally Posted by Backspin

the shallow end of the gene pool

It's like when all those fat fuck moron white supremacists start going on about being 'the superior race...'

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

It's like when all those fat fuck moron white supremacists start going on about being 'the superior race...'

Photoshopped.

Rosenbaums father was a pedophile. https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...oting-victims/

Originally Posted by Backspin

shallow end of the gene pool

His mom isn't even 40.