UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
News and current affairs => A look at the news stories currently making the headlines. => Topic started by: Wonderfulspam on April 17, 2021, 09:58:36 AM
-
Kyle Rittenhouse. Murder or Self Defence?
On August 25, 2020, amid the Kenosha unrest, Kyle Rittenhouse, a then 17-year-old male from Antioch, Illinois, shot and killed two people and wounded another during multiple confrontations at two locations.
He was armed with an AR-15 style rifle and one of those shot had a handgun.
At the first location, Rittenhouse was pursued by a group, a gunshot was fired into the air by a third party, a person lunged at Rittenhouse and attempted to take his rifle, and Rittenhouse fired at him four times. At the second location, Rittenhouse tripped while fleeing, three people rushed toward Rittenhouse and physically confronted him, and Rittenhouse fired another four times.
Kenosha resident Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Silver Lake resident Anthony Huber, 26, were killed, while West Allis resident Gaige Grosskreutz, 26, lost his bicep.
Two other people present at the protest also chased and confronted Rittenhouse, and he either did not shoot at them, or missed.
Rittenhouse was arrested and charged with multiple counts of homicide and unlawful possession of a firearm, while Dominick Black was arrested and charged with unlawfully supplying Rittenhouse's rifle.
Rittenhouse's attorneys say he acted in self-defense upon hearing firearm discharge and in response to the numerous physical confrontations by protesters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest_shooting
A trial date is now set for November 2021
Watch the video evidence & you decide. Murder or Self Defence?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkTnQfjRvk0
-
My opinion,
1) The first shooting was justifiable self defence, the rioter was pursuing him & posed an imminent threat.
2) The second decedent had hit Rittenhouse with a skateboard & was attempting to take his firearm, posing an imminent threat.
3) The armed man appeared to surrender, lowered his fire arm, Rittenhouse lowered his, then the man went for Rittenhouse again, only Rittenhouse was faster to draw.
IMO, all 3 instances were legally justified self defence.
This will be another interesting trial & is bound to split opinion in the states IMO
-
My opinion,
1) The first shooting was justifiable self defence, the rioter was pursuing him & posed an imminent threat.
2) The skateboarder was about to skull smash Rittenhouse & posed an imminent threat.
3) The armed man appeared to surrender, lowered his fire arm, Rittenhouse lowered his, then the man went for Rittenhouse again, only Rittenhouse was faster to draw.
IMO, all 3 instances were legally justified self defence.
This will be another interesting trial & is bound to split opinion in the states IMO
I agree all 3 self defence.
-
Can we have some context for this incident please, like the circumstances leading up to the incidents. Why was he pursued, why was he armed in the first place, etc.
-
Can we have some context for this incident please, like the circumstances leading up to the incidents. Why was he pursued, why was he armed in the first place, etc.
It isn't entirely clear, but what is clear is that an angry mental patient who wanted to burn down a petrol station chased after a dude who was armed with an AR-15. Probably not the most sensible thing to do but then we have to make allowances because he was mental.
https://youtu.be/tkTnQfjRvk0?t=158
And I imagine he carried a gun like a lot of other people at the riot, to defend himself.
-
Rittenhouse was at one point among a number of armed civilians at the gas station trying to protect it.
The mental guy (Rosenbaum)was infuriated by this challenging them to "shoot me nigga"
https://youtu.be/tkTnQfjRvk0?t=158
First major confrontation
The beginning of the first confrontation between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum was witnessed by Daily Caller reporter Richie McGinniss. According to McGinniss, it seemed that Rosenbaum and other protesters were moving toward Rittenhouse, who was trying to evade them; Rosenbaum then tried to "engage" Rittenhouse, but Rittenhouse managed to avoid this by sidestepping and running away.
The remainder of Rosenbaum's confrontation, and the following incidents with Huber and Grosskreutz, were recorded in cellphone footage from multiple angles, including the moments of the shooting.Video footage showed Rittenhouse being pursued across a parking lot by Rosenbaum, who threw something in Rittenhouse's direction identified as a plastic bag. As Rittenhouse was running from Rosenbaum, two shots could be heard, one from an unknown third party, fired for an unknown reason, and one from Joshua Ziminski, who fired a self-described "warning shot" into the air,causing Rittenhouse to stop running and turn towards the sound of Ziminski's shot. McGinniss has since stated that the sound of the shot was the moment Rittenhouse "went from running away to aiming his weapon." Then, according to Kenosha County prosecutors, Rosenbaum engaged Rittenhouse and tried to take his rifle from him. Rittenhouse then fired four shots, hitting Rosenbaum in the groin, back, and left hand. The bullets fractured Rosenbaum's pelvis, perforated his right lung and liver, and caused additional minor wounds to his left thigh and forehead. Rittenhouse remained near the fatally wounded Rosenbaum as McGinniss began administering first aid. Rittenhouse then made a phone call and was heard saying "I just killed somebody," and then fled as more protesters arrived.
Second major confrontation
Video from another angle then showed Rittenhouse being chased down the street by several protesters, one of whom allegedly struck him from behind in the head, knocking off his cap, shortly after which Rittenhouse tripped and fell to the ground. According to the criminal complaint, at that point, protesters were heard on two different videos yelling "Beat him up!," "Get him! Get that dude!," and "Get his ass!" One of the men who had been chasing him allegedly jumped and kicked Rittenhouse while he was still on the ground – Rittenhouse fired twice but missed the man.
Next, according to court records and video footage, another protester, Anthony Huber, "made contact" with Rittenhouse's left shoulder with a skateboard as they struggled for control of the gun. As Huber was pulling on the rifle, Rittenhouse fired once, hitting Huber in the chest, perforating his heart and right lung, causing his rapid death.
Third major confrontation and Rittenhouse's departure
Gaige Grosskreutz approached Rittenhouse while he was still on the ground but stopped and put his hands up when Huber was shot. According to a complaint filed by the Kenosha County Clerk of Courts, Grosskreutz appeared to have a handgun.[48] Grosskreutz later confirmed he was holding a handgun.[49] When Grosskreutz moved again towards Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse shot Grosskreutz in the arm, severing most of his bicep.
At least 16 gunshots from other sources were heard on video during the time that Rittenhouse was on the ground.
Rittenhouse subsequently got back to his feet and walked towards police with his hands up and the Smith & Wesson M&P AR-15 rifle strapped across his chest. The police either allowed him to leave or appeared not to acknowledge him, though several witnesses and other protesters shouted for him to be arrested. When asked at a press conference why Rittenhouse was not stopped, Kenosha Sheriff David Beth said, "In situations that are high-stress, you have such incredible tunnel vision" and implied officers may not have realized he had been involved in the shooting. Likewise, Kenosha Police Chief Daniel Miskinis said that "there was nothing to suggest this individual was involved in any criminal behavior" due to the fact that someone walking towards the police with their hands up was "no longer abnormal" in the wake of the protests.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest_shooting#First_major_confrontation
-
It isn't entirely clear, but what is clear is that an angry mental patient who wanted to burn down a petrol station chased after a dude who was armed with an AR-15. Probably not the most sensible thing to do but then we have to make allowances because he was mental.
https://youtu.be/tkTnQfjRvk0?t=158
And I imagine he carried a gun like a lot of other people at the riot, to defend himself.
you keep linking to videos - do they show people actually being killed? I don’t want to watch that if so.
-
you keep linking to videos - do they show people actually being killed? I don’t want to watch that if so.
Yes, the subject matter is about a riot in which a guy shot 3 people, killing two, in apparent self defence.
My apologies, I forget some people are sensitive about seeing death, personally I've seen enough lynching & burning videos from Africa, plus Mexican cartels chopping living people into gradually smaller pieces that I'm quite immune to a simple gunshot death.
-
Yes, the subject matter is about a riot in which a guy shot 3 people, killing two, in apparent self defence.
My apologies, I forget some people are sensitive about seeing death, personally I've seen enough lynching & burning videos from Africa, plus Mexican cartels chopping living people into gradually smaller pieces that I'm quite immune to a simple gunshot death.
Ain’t the internet a wonderful thing.
-
Ain’t the internet a wonderful thing.
It's either that or cat videos.
I must confess I was a little distressed at times by the constant repetition of George Floyd pleading for his life while watching the trial but I sucked it up because like I said, I've seen infinitely worse.
There's something about when broadcasters edit & refuse to show life & death in full detail that I'm slightly against.
I think if more people were exposed to true incidents of horrific murders, as opposed to just seeing a fake version via Hollywood, people might be less inclined to commit such heinous acts.
-
It's either that or cat videos.
I must confess I was a little distressed at times by the constant repetition of George Floyd pleading for his life while watching the trial but I sucked it up because like I said, I've seen infinitely worse.
There's something about when broadcasters edit & refuse to show life & death in full detail that I'm slightly against.
I think if more people were exposed to true incidents of horrific murders, as opposed to just seeing a fake version via Hollywood, people might be less inclined to commit such heinous acts.
I don’t need to watch horrific murders on video to put me off committing them thanks.
-
I don’t need to watch horrific murders on video to put me off committing them thanks.
I'll hold you to that.
-
I'll hold you to that.
A quote from “Planet Of The Apes” immediately sprang to mind...
-
My opinion,
1) The first shooting was justifiable self defence, the rioter was pursuing him & posed an imminent threat.
2) The skateboarder was about to skull smash Rittenhouse & posed an imminent threat.
3) The armed man appeared to surrender, lowered his fire arm, Rittenhouse lowered his, then the man went for Rittenhouse again, only Rittenhouse was faster to draw.
IMO, all 3 instances were legally justified self defence.
This will be another interesting trial & is bound to split opinion in the states IMO
Under the state law he had the right to defend himself against those property damaging louts. I have no sympathy whatsoever for rioters and hooligans, they deserve all they get and more!
-
The most one sided Guardian article ever.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/08/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-gaige-grosskreutz-testimony
They laid out the prosecution without mentioning how this witness was obliterated by the defense.
Mr Grosskreutz admitted Rittenhouse did not shoot him until he (Grosskreutz) had pointed his fire arm at him.
He lied in his statements to the police, completely omitting that he even had a firearm when he approached Rittenhouse when he was shot & then remained silent when asked to give another statement to investigators.
He also filed a state & federal lawsuits for $10 million, which make no mention of his possession of a firearm either.
The prosecution case has fallen apart, they never had one in the first place & the media reporting on the facts is utterly shameful.
View below to see a state prosecution witness destroy his own case against Rittenhouse.
Geige Grozkreutz cross examination.
https://youtu.be/I72jgoC-emw?t=8825
-
Rittenhouse Trial Day 5: Alleged Victim Gaige Grosskreutz Implodes, Admits Had Glock Pointed At Kyle When Shot, Lied to Police About It
https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/11/rittenhouse-trial-day-5-alleged-victim-gaige-grosskreutz-implodes-admits-had-glock-pointed-at-kyle-when-shot-lied-to-police-about-it/
-
The evidence & details of the case are all shown in this short video.
Murder or Self Defence?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkTnQfjRvk0
Members, I ask your verdict?
-
It was testified by a prosecution witness that the first decedent, Joseph Rossenbaum, threatened to kill Rittenhouse & others if he got them alone that night.
He later proceeds to ambush Rittenhouse pursue him across the car lot, his final words as testified by another prosecution witness were 'f..k you' as he lunged at the defendant who shot him 4 times in under 1 second.
He had been perusing Rittenhouse toward a group of protesters armed with poles & bats, so he had little option but to use force to stop the impending assault.
-
Kyle Rittenhouse's trial is the most bizarre court proceeding ever caught on camera
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-kyle-rittenhouse-trial
-
OK, I shall bite as I know you're desperate for someone to join in.
I only have one question your honor and it is this:
Why did Kyle Rittenhouse go out on the streets with a lethal weapon that day?
That is all.
-
OK, I shall bite as I know you're desperate for someone to join in.
I only have one question your honor and it is this:
Why did Kyle Rittenhouse go out on the streets with a lethal weapon that day?
That is all.
He & a group of others went to protect a car lot, they had even been given keys to the building by the owner.
(P.S, I'm not trying to bite, I'm just interested in other peoples opinions, I like lethal force/self defence cases)
-
There were a lot of other people there with guns, both protestors & people protecting property.
A group of armed civilians were protecting a petrol station, which the first decedent attempted to push a burning dumpster toward.
A man in clothes similar to Kyle's put out the dumpster fire, Rosenbaum (the first decedent, convicted paedophile, girlfriend abuser & suicidal bipolar sufferer who was shouting the N word at a Black Lives protest) became enraged when this happened, because blowing up petrol stations = Racial equality or something.
-
So he had set himself up as a vigilante then? I suppose in America this is all perfectly acceptable, I'm just glad it isn't here.
-
So he had set himself up as a vigilante then? I suppose in America this is all perfectly acceptable, I'm just glad it isn't here.
No, there's no evidence of that.
There is evidence of him offering people first aid & putting out fires though.
-
No, there's no evidence of that.
There is evidence of him offering people first aid & putting out fires though.
The evidence is the big eff-off gun he was carrying.
-
The evidence is the big eff-off gun he was carrying.
Other people were carrying big guns too, they didn't get attacked so didn't need to shoot anyone.
It's an open carry state, you have to display your firearm (incidentally Grosskreutz, who had his arm blown off, was carrying concealed without a permit & wasn't charged).
It's if you point the gun at someone there becomes an issue.
-
The maximum sentence for underage possession of a firearm is 9 months.
He was remanded for 2 months already & he has no previous convictions.
This is going to sting many people but it's undeniable he had the right to stop people attacking him.
Being underage with a gun does not disqualify a person from using that gun in self defence.
-
They had to throw out the charge of violating a curfew because no lawful order of a curfew had been made.
He would have only got a $200 fine & if they fined him they'd have to fine all the witnesses in fairness.
-
The Gas station incident with Rosenbaum & the flaming dumpster.
https://youtu.be/tkTnQfjRvk0?t=158
-
Other people were carrying big guns too, they didn't get attacked so didn't need to shoot anyone.
It's an open carry state, you have to display your firearm (incidentally Grosskreutz, who had his arm blown off, was carrying concealed without a permit & wasn't charged).
It's if you point the gun at someone there becomes an issue.
Other people carrying guns were acting as vigilantes too. You don’t HAVE to shoot and kill people to be a vigilante IMO.
-
According to Richie McGinnis, who was closest to the first shooting, Rittenhouse had even shouted 'Friendly, Friendly, Friendly' at Rosenbaum as he was pursued across the car lot.
Rittenhouse did everything he could including pointing the gun at Rosenbaum briefly during the chase, but Rosenbaum pursued him undeterred, having previously threatened to kill him (and others) if he got any of them alone.
-
Other people carrying guns were acting as vigilantes too. You don’t HAVE to shoot and kill people to be a vigilante IMO.
It's not unreasonable or unusual for armed civilians to protect property during violent protests, did you see the clip of the other armed citizens protecting the gas station?
When not aiming the weapon at another they are not committing an offence.
-
It's not unreasonable or unusual for armed civilians to protect property during violent protests, did you see the clip of the other armed citizens protecting the gas station?
When not aiming the weapon at another they are not committing an offence.
No, I’m not interested enough to watch videos of violence and murder. My point about vigilantes stands. I am glad I don’t live in a society where (for example) the EDL turn out with sub automatic rifles to protect statues of Churchill from angry BLMers. I guess that makes me a woke bleeding heart liberal or summat.
-
No, I’m not interested enough to watch videos of violence and murder. My point about vigilantes stands. I am glad I don’t live in a society where (for example) the EDL turn out with sub automatic rifles to protect statues of Churchill from angry BLMers. I guess that makes me a woke bleeding heart liberal or summat.
Well there weren't any murders but there were 3 shootings in self defence, & the incident at the gas station that you refuse to watch doesn't involve violence, murder or shootings in self defence either.
I suppose the civilians living in that area, where the police had given up & withdrawn, should have just stay home while activists blew up the local petrol stations to further racial justice instead.
-
There were people travelling from around the country the likes of Antifa & other far left extremists trashing their city alongside BLM whilst the police pulled back & did nothing.
If I were living there at the time I'd probably be on my rooftop with a gun like Kyle had, just in case.
Sometimes the presence of a firearm alone can deter people.
-
There were people travelling from around the country the likes of Antifa & other far left extremists trashing their city alongside BLM whilst the police pulled back & did nothing.
If I were living there at the time I'd probably be on my rooftop with a gun like Kyle had, just in case.
Sometimes the presence of a firearm alone can deter people.
Wow. Big man.
-
Wow. Big man.
What would you do?
You can't call the fire brigade, they won't go into a riot zone, the police & national guard won't come in either because they'll be under attack.
So what's the other option?
Sit indoors & pray the rioters don't burn your house down, or leave town & hope for the best for your home or business?
City property valued at $2 million was destroyed by rioters, including garbage trucks, street lights and traffic signals. Kenosha's mayor requested $30 million in aid from the state to cover the extensive damage.
Damage to private property could be as high as $50 million, according to estimates from the Kenosha Area Business Alliance. This includes the 100-year-old Danish Brotherhood Lodge which was burned down when 40 buildings were destroyed and an additional 100 buildings damaged.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest#Damage_assessments
-
What would you do?
You can't call the fire brigade, they won't go into a riot zone, the police & national guard won't come in either because they'll be under attack.
So what's the other option?
Sit indoors & pray the rioters don't burn your house down, or leave town & hope for the best for your home or business?
City property valued at $2 million was destroyed by rioters, including garbage trucks, street lights and traffic signals. Kenosha's mayor requested $30 million in aid from the state to cover the extensive damage.
Damage to private property could be as high as $50 million, according to estimates from the Kenosha Area Business Alliance. This includes the 100-year-old Danish Brotherhood Lodge which was burned down when 40 buildings were destroyed and an additional 100 buildings damaged.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest#Damage_assessments
I wouldn't go out with a big gun looking for trouble that's what I wouldn't do. Law and order is (or should be) the preserve of the state, not armed civilians. If the rioters came to my house and burned it down I guess I'd either burn with it or claim on the insurance and move to a new home in a different country where there aren't more guns than people and the police still have some semblance of control.
-
I wouldn't go out with a big gun looking for trouble that's what I wouldn't do. Law and order is (or should be) the preserve of the state, not armed civilians. If the rioters came to my house and burned it down I guess I'd either burn with it or claim on the insurance and move to a new home in a different country where there aren't more guns than people and the police still have some semblance of control.
There were lots of people out there with big guns that night & the only people who got shot were those who unreasonably attacked a person possessing a gun.
-
It isn't illegal to carry a gun, or carry a gun into a protest either.
Using it in a threatening manner is a crime & Kyle didn't do that.
The only time he aimed at anyone was when he came under attack.
-
Trial Resumes.
Jacob Marshall, friend of Gaige Grosskreutz (defence witness), denies a claim he made on his Facebook page that Grosskreutz commented upon visiting him in hospital, his only regret that night was not killing the kid & emptying his pistol into him.
-
There were lots of people out there with big guns that night & the only people who got shot were those who unreasonably attacked a person possessing a gun.
I wonder why they all picked on little Kyle with his big gun?
-
I wonder why they all picked on little Kyle with his big gun?
Yes, because you haven't even watched the evidence.
The first guy that attacked Rittenhouse did so totally unprovoked, he (the decedent) started all the trouble.
-
Yes, because you haven't even watched the evidence.
The first guy that attacked Rittenhouse did so totally unprovoked, he (the decedent) started all the trouble.
Time for me to leave the discussion then, ttfn.
-
Just as a point of interest, the racist Rittenhouse & his friends were protecting a car business owned by an Asian family.
The family had built their business up from a stock of just 7 cars to several hundred, plus garages over the years. They lost around 130 cars & had their buildings damaged in the days during the riots.
-
Kyle Rittenhouse is now testifying.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=si9YXq0A1Vk
-
The state has shown grainy drone image which they claimed show Rittenhouse with his rifle raised prior to being chased.
The image is grainy & no one has testified to witnessing this including Joshua Ziminski & his partner who were nearby & weren't called by the prosecution.
-
Looks like a cut and dried self defence case according to their own law.
The YouTuber has managed to subtlety provide his own bias during his video though, if you look at the way he presents the victims.
-
Looks like a cut and dried self defence case according to their own law.
The YouTuber has managed to subtlety provide his own bias during his video though, if you look at the way he presents the victims.
It's hard to find a video without unbiased opinion of it all yes, but the video evidence it's self when viewed objectively is undeniable IMO
-
It's hard to find a video without unbiased opinion of it all yes, but the video evidence it's self when viewed objectively is undeniable IMO
It appears that all parties are looking to go for the mistrial, given the prosecutor being taken down to Chinatown yesterday, so no doubt he'll get bail and be tried some time next year - where he'll probably be acquitted.
But yes, the video looks unequivocal.
As an aside, there's images circulating of him apparently having selfies with like minded people making WP signs....unverified timeline.
-
It appears that all parties are looking to go for the mistrial, given the prosecutor being taken down to Chinatown yesterday, so no doubt he'll get bail and be tried some time next year - where he'll probably be acquitted.
But yes, the video looks unequivocal.
As an aside, there's images circulating of him apparently having selfies with like minded people making WP signs....unverified timeline.
Yes, after his release on $2million bond, 4 months after the shootings, he went to a bar with his mother & posed with the Proud boys, he also wore a T-shirt saying 'Free as f..k" & made an O.K sign, which is associated with white supremacy, it originated on 4chan I believe & many make the gesture as a troll because it's an innocuous gesture really just re-interpreted by the left, like the phrase "It's ok to be white".
There was a video of him on cell phone 2 weeks before the shooting where he see's people looting & told his friend he wished he had his gun (he did in fact call the police)
He expressed support for Blue Lives Matter but his social media activity showed no connection to organised militia or far right groups anytime prior to the shootings.
None of this I believe has been included as evidence, but then none of this disproves the clear video evidence either.
-
A use of force expert is expected to give evidence in defence today.
The first decedent was shot 4 times so there may be an argument over excessive use force in that instance.
-
A use of force expert is expected to give evidence in defence today.
The first decedent was shot 4 times so there may be an argument over excessive use force in that instance.
I suppose, given it's an assault rifle, it might depend to a degree on what mode he had it on.
It sounded like fully automatic to me.
Quite how a society permits an 18 year old to waltz around in the middle of a riot with an assault rifle, is a question for another day.
The bond - so they put up 10% which is non-refundable, probably using a bail-bondsman.
-
I suppose, given it's an assault rifle, it might depend to a degree on what mode he had it on.
It sounded like fully automatic to me.
Quite how a society permits an 18 year old to waltz around in the middle of a riot with an assault rifle, is a question for another day.
The bond - so they put up 10% which is non-refundable, probably using a bail-bondsman.
An AR-15 isn't actually an assault rifle, it stands for Armalite Rifle.
It looks really scary, but in reality it doesn't have automatic capabilities of the military grades, it is one trigger pull equals one shot & is no different to a hunting rifle in that respect although has more grips & support like a real AR.
-
An AR-15 isn't actually an assault rifle, it stands for Armalite Rifle.
It looks really scary, but in reality it doesn't have automatic capabilities of the military grades, it is one trigger pull equals one shot & is no different to a hunting rifle.
(https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=12045.0;attach=18958;image)
Cheers, I don't know much about guns, so thanks for that.
-
Trial Resumes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLl6Hn9730I
-
Trial Resumes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLl6Hn9730I
Is this the 'acceptable force' guy?
Seems like bunk science to me. Just a dude with an opinion and a bit of software?
-
Trial Resumes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLl6Hn9730I
This guys an idiot.
-
Cheers, I don't know much about guns, so thanks for that.
No worries, it's a very common misconception.
But in Wisconsin & many other states, you can legally walk the streets with a big scary looking gun & doing so isn't classed as a provocation, provided you're not pointing it or threatening anyone.
Our American cousins are totally nuts.
-
This guys an idiot.
I think the force expert is up later.
-
The defence presented further video & eye witness testimony today showing that in the minutes before the first shooting, the defendant had been slowly walking down the street, threatening no one & with no one threatening or aggressive toward him.
It appears Mr Rosenbaum was ahead of Rittenhouse, must have seen him & recognised him from his earlier encounter (where he threatened to kill him if he got him alone) & then waited behind some cars before ambushing him.
Around 20 mins prior to this was when Mr Rosenbaum was acting aggressively & challenging those protecting the gas station to shoot him.
He was a loose cannon that night having just been released after an overdose.
-
There is video evidence of a laser coming from the roof of the car source which is where the militia including Rittenhouse where positioned although it is unclear at what time this was, presumably this was before the incident at the gas station.
This is damning as it shows Mr Rosenbaum may have been intimidated some time prior.
-
This all makes sense now, at some point in the evening Mr Rittenhouse was pointing a laser sight at protesters.
He was spotted & recognised later which is why Mr Rosenbaum threatened to kill & attacked him.
I'm not sure how this will affect his defence as you can't threaten someone then react later in self defence.
So now the situation is that Rosenbaum wanted to disarm Kyle because he had been intimated by him earlier.
It explains everything.
-
A protester known as Yellow pants recognised Mr Rittenhouse some time preceding the shootings & said "You were the one who pointed a laser at me" to which Mr Rittenhouse claimed sarcastically "I did".
So there we have it, Rittenhouse on the roof pointing a gun at people.
-
The video doesn't show Rittenhouse at the gas station later but it makes sense Rosenbaum would be challenging Rittenhouse to shoot him.
-
I wonder why they all picked on little Kyle with his big gun?
So it would appear my question has now been answered.
-
So it would appear my question has now been answered.
Yep, there is enhanced (still grainy) footage showing he may have briefly pointed his rifle toward the Ziminski's when he bumped into them seconds prior to being ambushed. (It's still fuzzy though)
The strange thing is, the Ziminski's were never called by the prosecution to testify.
Rittenhouse antagonised people earlier in the evening & committed premeditated self defence later.
-
He'd spent time at a police cadets & probably understood the laws of self defence imo
-
Yep, there is enhanced (still grainy) footage showing he may have briefly pointed his rifle toward the Ziminski's when he bumped into them seconds prior to being ambushed. (It's still fuzzy though)
The strange thing is, the Ziminski's were never called by the prosecution to testify.
Rittenhouse antagonised people earlier in the evening & committed premeditated self defence later.
I’ve not heard of the term yet pre-meditated self-defence before but it exactly describes what I suspected happened when I first read about this case. The guy went out with a gun hoping to find himself in a situation which would give him a good excuse to kill a few people. IMO.
-
I’ve not heard of the term yet pre-meditated self-defence before but it exactly describes what I suspected happened when I first read about this case. The guy went out with a gun hoping to find himself in a situation which would give him a good excuse to kill a few people. IMO.
It seems he planned it, cunning.
His timeline of movements isn't entirely clear through the evening because he wasn't recorded at all times.
But yes, premediated self defence.
It seems a lot of witnesses may not have come forward because f..k the police, I know the Ziminski guy has huge rap sheet & is facing charges for firing his gun in the air during the incident.
-
Looks like he’ll get off anyway. Nice crying face he put on yesterday.
-
Looks like he’ll get off anyway. Nice crying face he put on yesterday.
Well, they can't get him on premeditated self defence so I don't see any other result.
Just the weapons charges, or maybe excessive use of force on Mr Rosenbaum.
-
Well, they can't get him on premeditated self defence so I don't see any other result.
Just the weapons charges, or maybe excessive use of force on Mr Rittenbaum.
Don’t you mean Rosenbaum? I thought the defence was pushing for a mistrial?
-
His charges are as follows,
First-degree reckless homicide against Joseph Rosenbaum, punishable by imprisonment of up to 65 years
First-degree recklessly endangering safety against Richard McGinnis (a reporter who interviewed Rittenhouse before the shooting), punishable by imprisonment for up to 17 years.
First-degree intentional homicide against Anthony Huber, punishable by a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole.
Attempted first-degree intentional homicide against Gaige Grosskreutz, punishable by imprisonment of up to 65 years
First-degree recklessly endangering safety against an unknown male victim, punishable by imprisonment of up to 17 years
Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 (the only misdemeanor charge, the others are felonies)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest_shooting
-
Don’t you mean Rosenbaum? I thought the defence was pushing for a mistrial?
Yes, sorry, misspell.
Yes they did appear to be pushing for a mistrial, perhaps to gather further evidence & rebuild the case, now they have things down in sworn testimony.
But they could still get him on reckless homicide, possibly, I'm not sure how that fits with the self defence though.
Trial has ajourned until Monday
-
First-degree reckless homicide against Joseph Rosenbaum, punishable by imprisonment of up to 65 years.
Firstly, The defendant caused the death of the victim; and
Secondly, the defendant caused the death by criminally reckless conduct; and
Thirdly, the circumstances of the defendant’s conduct showed utter disregard for human life.
The term cause means the defendant’s act was a substantial factor in producing the death.
That's interesting, I wonder how it fits with self defence.
-
When is the trial of the those accused of murdering the black jogger? I suppose that was self-defence as well.
-
When is the trial of the those accused of murdering the black jogger? I suppose that was self-defence as well.
No that was blatant murder.
I saw that one, he was racially profiled by Rednecks who never told him they were making a citizens arrest based on his skin colour & jogging.
-
The defence rested today, closing arguments begin Monday 3pm GMT.
-
This is telling.....
"I don't wanna be one of those cops that, like, I don't wanna be one of those people who lives with PTSD the rest of my life".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56ojlHncNvM
-
US jury can consider Rittenhouse provoked deadly violence: Judge
The judge in the United States murder trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, who is charged with killing two people during racial justice protests last year, has ruled he would allow the jury to consider that Rittenhouse had provoked one encounter.
The ruling on Friday is a boost for prosecutors because it opens the door for them to argue that Rittenhouse was the aggressor, which would raise the bar for Rittenhouse’s argument that he was ambushed and acted in self-defence.
“It’s the jury’s case and I think they should make the critical decisions,” Judge Bruce Schroeder said on Friday. “My decision will be to submit the case to the jury with the provocation instruction and you can argue the strength or lack of strength of the evidence.”
Under Wisconsin law, if someone provokes a confrontation, they are required to exhaust all other options before using deadly force in self-defence. So if the prosecution can argue Rittenhouse was the aggressor, it could raise the bar for the defence.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/11/12/us-jury-can-consider-whether-rittenhouse-provoked-deadly-violence-judge
-
I've been binge watching the trial from the start again, there are many aspects of the evening that Rittenhouse's associates are very unclear about & sometimes they contradict each other completely in their sworn testimony.
It's clear they are lying their butts off in places. It's impossible to make an accurate timeline or ever know where they all are.
I've also slowed down some of the video & audio clips whilst viewing but I still can't place Rittenhouse in the gas station at the same time that Rosenbaum is telling someone off screen not to point a gun at them.
I did hear him in a gas station clip, when I used headphones on full whack, distinctively asking people if they need medical, but he is never on screen during that clip.
I still can't prove it, but I'm pretty certain Rittenhouse was pointing his gun at some protesters from the roof of car source in the hours preceding the first shooting, there is supporting evidence someone was on the roof with a laser sight.
According to Dominic Black, Rittenhouse's friend who got him the gun, some unknown guy in their group who he'd never seen before & left early that night had a big laser pointer pen he was pointing at people!!!
(No one else mentions this unknown guy though)
If the jury cotton onto this then things could get interesting.
I'm beginning to think he won't be walking.
-
Interesting that you seem to have changed your opinion once you’ve heard all the evidence. It does make a difference doesn’t it? Knowing ALL the available facts I mean.
-
No that was blatant murder.
I saw that one, he was racially profiled by Rednecks who never told him they were making a citizens arrest based on his skin colour & jogging.
Has that started, I saw a nearly all white jury had been elected .
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59167085
-
Interesting that you seem to have changed your opinion once you’ve heard all the evidence. It does make a difference doesn’t it? Knowing ALL the available facts I mean.
I haven't heard all the evidence though, multiple potentially key witnesses were never called.
Anyway, looking again at the footage & circumstances of the shootings.
The first shooting could well be self defence,(if the jury don't consider provocation, but with excessive use of force, he fired 4 shots)
The second shooting, because the gun was strapped to Kyle's body the chances of the 2nd decedent actually removing said gun were lowered, so he may not be justified in that shooting.
The 3rd shooting appears reasonable defence still, as the assailant was stepping toward Rittenhouse with a gun pointing towards to his head, having fake surrendered, although this might depend on the reasonableness or otherwise of the prior shootings.
-
Has that started, I saw a nearly all white jury had been elected .
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59167085
Yes, it is underway, probably into 2nd or 3rd week now.
I haven't watched any because it seems an obvious case of murder.
-
Yes, it is underway, probably into 2nd or 3rd week now.
I haven't watched any because it seems an obvious case of murder.
It will be interesting if the jury doesn't agree...
-
I haven't heard all the evidence though, multiple potentially key witnesses were never called.
Anyway, looking again at the footage & circumstances of the shootings.
The first shooting could well be self defence,(if the jury don't consider provocation, but with excessive use of force, he fired 4 shots)
The second shooting, because the gun was strapped to Kyle's body the chances of the 2nd decedent actually removing said gun were lowered, so he may not be justified in that shooting.
The 3rd shooting appears reasonable defence still, as the assailant was stepping toward Rittenhouse with a gun pointing towards to his head, having fake surrendered, although this might depend on the reasonableness or otherwise of the prior shootings.
Wasn't the third shooting of a paramedic, or have I got hold of the wrong end of the stick?
-
Yes, it is underway, probably into 2nd or 3rd week now.
I haven't watched any because it seems an obvious case of murder.
It won't work like that.
-
Wasn't the third shooting of a paramedic, or have I got hold of the wrong end of the stick?
Yes he was an EMT but wasn't on official duty, don't think he was employed as one at the time, he would travel to protests to protest & help, he is also part of a Far Left group, he was carrying an unlicensed concealed pistol. He has been granted special witness privacy rights called Marcy's Law, which have never been used in a case before.
He believed he was taking down an active shooter & he kind of was.
-
It will be interesting if the jury doesn't agree...
They had no reasonable grounds to stop him, never informed him they were making a citizens arrest, from the victims perspective in that moment it was simply a lynching.
It will be interesting to see the verdict but if I was a jury member I wouldn't be able to get past them having no good reason to suspect or pursue him.
-
Joanne Fiedler, a woman in the Rittenhouse group even slipped under oath.
She talks of Mr Yellow Pants (The guy who claimed Rittenhouse pointed a gun when he was jumping on a car & has not given testimony in the trial)
"He pointed a gun at us first".....!!!!
This incident is not filmed & from the later videos of Mr Yellow pants that evening he is totally unarmed.
Fact: Rittenhouse pointed a gun (either with or without laser pointer) at Mr Yellow pants.
So, either the first decedent Rosenbaum saw this, or Rittenhouse also pointed at Rosenbaum in the hours prior to the shooting.
-
The claim that Rosenbaum threatened to kill Rittenhouse & others if he got them alone is also not supported by Mrs Fiedler, she claims Rosenbaum was there, aggressive throwing things but made no mention of specific threats to kill.
Dominic Black, who gave Rittenhouse the gun & was supposedly on the roof the whole time, doesn't mention seeing Rosenbaum anytime either!
In his testimony he does not recall Mr Yellow Pants being aimed at. (convenient) but his nonsense about the unknown guy with big laser pen supports the fact that someone was.
Conclusion: The first decedent may not have threatened to kill Rittenhouse earlier in the evening.
-
I've viewed the videos in evidence again & neither Rittenhouse nor any of his group are in the gas station when Rosenbaum is challenging people to shoot him.
It appears Rosenbaum is challenging them simply because one armed man put out a dumpster fire & because they were protecting the gas pumps.
-
I've viewed the videos in evidence again & neither Rittenhouse nor any of his group are in the gas station when Rosenbaum is challenging people to shoot him.
It appears Rosenbaum is challenging people because an armed man put out a dumpster fire & because they were protecting the gas pumps.
I've viewed gas station clips again, again...
During the clip Rittenhouse is heard at the gas station a few minutes (maybe 2-3) after the burning dumpster Rosenbaum incident, the Ziminskis & Greusskreutz are also shown at one point during this clip.
Rittenhouse is heard off screen saying 'Anybody need Medical?' He can be heard again asking the live streamer if he needs medical, (who replies no I'm good) then a minute or two later is finally shown on screen.
The state didn't point any of this out to the jury during prosecution, in other videos he pauses & say's let the jury be in no doubt this is Rossenbaum, or Ziminskis, Greusskreutz etc.
.......
The significance of all this is that Rittenhouse remained silent when he handed himself into police.
He has never given an account of his movements that evening, he has had the benefit of a year tailoring his story to fit the video evidence & his account of his time spent during the evening at the gas station is limited to that which he has sworn to at the trial.
By his testimony, in the minutes prior to the shooting he had just arrived & lost then started looking for his friend, Ryan Baulch, inside the gas station & could not find him (he runs right past him in the clip) He had recieved a call from Dominic Black directing him to the car source lot (which was unguarded) where the first shooting takes place.
Dominic Black is unsure how he gained the information that protesters were starting fires at the car lot requiring Rittenhouse (alone) to head that way. (convenient)
I can only guess that someone in Rittenhouse's group was watching live streams & saw the rioters there or heading that way, then directed Rittenhouse that way so he could confront the people with his weapon & provoke an attack on himself in the context he was alone innocently putting out a fire when unreasonably attacked.
So much of this case remains unclear due to the reluctance of those involved to talk & the sketchy stories of those associated with Rittenhouse.
One thing that is known is that the evenings prior to this incident, Rittenhouse & Black had been at Black's house watching live streams of the protests, they saw a man putting out a fire then having his jaw broken by protesters.
(This from Rittenhouse's testimony & it actually did happen to a store owner).
This appears to be Rittenhouse's inspiration, if he can get himself alone with protesters, put out a fire & have them attack him for it, he can then use lethal force to protect himself.
There is more to this story which I will detail further later.
-
Closing arguments today, around 3pm GMT.
Having reviewed the entire trial, almost everything hinges on the moments before Rosenbaum began pursuing Rittenhouse.
The defence claim is that Rittenhouse was confronted by the Zimiskis for attempting to put out a fire & was recognised from an earlier incident, prompting Rosenbaum to pursue.
The prosecution allege, using a grainy, pixilated, long distance image, that Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Joshua Ziminski, causing Rosenbaum to pursue him. Ziminski has not given testimony supporting this, neither has anyone else, I find this totally bizarre since the Ziminski incident is their entire case in the first shooting.
-
Closing Arguments:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2Z_0iXha3k
-
Judge dismisses count 6: unlawful possession of firearm.
Judge Bruce Schroeder has granted a defence motion to dismiss a misdemeanour gun charge against Mr Rittenhouse.
The motion pertained to the sixth count against Mr Rittenhouse, possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18, punishable by up to nine months in jail.
The judge said the Wisconsin law in question was poorly written, and that Mr Rittenhouse was not in violation because of his rifle’s shorter barrel length.
-
A lot hinges on reasonable belief.
Was it reasonable to believe when being chased by an angry guy, who is undeterred by having a gun pointed at him, that person was about to effect great bodily harm?
Seems it might be reasonable to me.
However, if Rittenhouse provoked the attack unlawfully (this is unproven either way), did he exhaust all reasonable possibilities to escape before using force?
He ran away, his path ahead was partially blocked by a car & behind that a mob of armed protesters, however he may still have been able to continue running, but turned after Ziminski shot in the air.
I'm unsure how this will go.
The first charge against him also hinges on him showing an utter disregard for human life.
He quite possibly done that, firing 4 total bullets at Rosenbaum when he fell on the first (all happened in 0.76 seconds) then phoning his friend & not an ambulance, then later showing absolutely no remorse for his actions or sympathy for the lives he took, instead posing for pictures with far right groups.
Anyway, I'm glad I'm not on the jury or Kyle Rittenhouse.
-
Watching the grainy video, it seems Rittenhouse may well have pointed his gun at Ziminski imo.
Given the supporting evidence earlier in the evening that he already pointed at Mr Yellow pants this seems most likely.
Again though, neither Joshua Ziminski nor his partner were ever called to the stand to confirm this very important detail, so the jury must rely on the pixilated video.
-
The prosecution are going to debunk the claim of Rosenbaum's alleged threats to kill Rittenhouse earlier in the evening, which I already had doubts about due to the inconsistency within the Rittenhouse groups account of the threats.
-
Rossenbaum's alleged threats to kill Rittenhouse.
Rittenhouse & Baulch claim to have heard this threat, Joanne Fiedler's account isn't entirely clear whilst Dominic Black, Nick Smith & Justin Luckowski who were all in the immediate area either never saw Rosenbaum (Smith, Black) at all, or saw him but never heard any threats (Luckowski).
Without the prior threat to kill Rittenhouse's defence is weakened, it shows the jury he may untruthful & that his account of the subsequent incident involving the Ziminskis' is in doubt.
-
The Ziminskis.
It was revealed during closing yesterday that Kelly Ziminski was available to be called as a witness but the state chose not to call her. This despite her witnessing the incident that led up to the first shooting in which the state allege Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Joshua Ziminski.
So the strength of the provocation element hinges on a pixilated image, in which incidentally, the defence claim if true, Rittenhouse would have to be holding his firearm left handed, for the first & only time in that evening.
-
After 3.5 days deliberation, not guilty on all counts.
I fully expect the state to rebuild their case & have another go.
-
After 3.5 days deliberation, not guilty on all counts.
I fully expect the state to rebuild their case & have another go.
Can they ?
-
Can they ?
Actually, I just read, No.
But the 'victims' (violent mob) will be launching a civil case.
-
The guys who killed the black jogger have been found guilty on all charges.
-
The guys who killed the black jogger have been found guilty on all charges.
Good.
-
The guys who killed the black jogger have been found guilty on all charges.
Which I was surprised about, maybe the justice system does work in the US
-
Which I was surprised about, maybe the justice system does work in the US
It could have gone the other way, but for a few things.
Arbery had wrestled for Travis McMichael's gun, & if someone attempts to take your firearm you can use lethal force, because it can be assumed they could use the gun on you or others.
But, because they had no reasonable or lawful grounds to pursue or detain him (they never witnessed him commit a crime in that instance, although he was suspected of burglaries in the area previously), & because they never called the police they were pretty screwed in terms of defence.
If it hadn't been caught on video they might have had a better chance with arguing self defence.
-
The guy who filmed the shooting released the footage voluntarily.
If he'd had the sense to have smashed the phone to bits & burnt it he probably wouldn't be starting a very long prison sentence right now.
-
So let me get this straight: In America, you can be chased throught the streets by a man with a gun and when you attempt to disarm him to prevent yourself from being shot and killed YOU are in the wrong and deserve to be shot? Wow. Great country.
-
So let me get this straight: In America, you can be chased throught the streets by a man with a gun and when you attempt to disarm him to prevent yourself from being shot and killed YOU are in the wrong and deserve to be shot? Wow. Great country.
If you just witnessed someone committing a serious crime, legally in some states you could pursue the subject & attempt a citizens arrest, detain them until police arrive. Provided you, call the police, inform the subject of your intentions.
If, for example, Arbery had just stabbed a guy, dropped the knife & ran, or raped a woman, someone witnessed this happen then chased & tried to detain him, then he attempts to wrestle for the gun, the shooting could well have been justifiable.
But all Arbery was seen doing at that moment was running.
In the Rittenhouse case, had he been an active shooter, spraying bullets & mowing down innocent protesters with
glee, then any member of the public could have taken him out with a bullet to the head & faced no charges, but he wasn't, all the people he shot were attacking him & or attempting to disarm him, having not witnessed him commit a crime.
-
If you just witnessed someone committing a serious crime, legally in some states you could pursue the subject & attempt a citizens arrest, detain them until police arrive. Provided you, call the police, inform the subject of your intentions.
If, for example, Arbery had just stabbed a guy, dropped the knife & ran, or raped a woman, someone witnessed this happen then chased & tried to detain him, then he attempts to wrestle for the gun, the shooting could well have been justifiable.
But all Arbery was seen doing at that moment was running.
In the Rittenhouse case, had he been an active shooter, spraying bullets & mowing down innocent protesters with
glee, then any member of the public could have taken him out with a bullet to the head & faced no charges, but he wasn't, all the people he shot were attacking him & or attempting to disarm him, having not witnessed him commit a crime.
So a an unarmed person who has allegedly committed a crime is not entitled to self-defence if they think their pursuer is about to kill them?
-
So a an unarmed person who has allegedly committed a crime is not entitled to self-defence if they think their pursuer is about to kill them?
You just strangled a woman in an alley, I see this happen & see you running away, I shout stop, tell you I'm making a citizens arrest (possibly whilst also making a fumbled 911 call), I draw my gun & keep it low ready, (it's out but not pointed at you) you run, I catch up, I don't actually threaten you with the gun but you try to grab it..... I probably wouldn't face charges for shooting you.
-
You just strangled a woman in an alley, I see this happen & see you running away, I shout stop, tell you I'm making a citizens arrest (possibly whilst also making a fumbled 911 call), I draw my gun & keep it low ready, (it's out but not pointed at you) you run, I catch up, I don't actually threaten you with the gun but you try to grab it..... I probably wouldn't face charges for shooting you.
You just mugged a little old lady in an alley,, I see this happen and see you running away after throwing your knife over a garden wall, I shout stop, tell you I’m making a citizens arrest and draw my gun waving it in your face, you try to grab it because you fear you abre about to be shot and I do indeed shoot you dead, I am feted as a hero and get a handshake off Trump?
-
You just mugged a little old lady in an alley,, I see this happen and see you running away after throwing your knife over a garden wall, I shout stop, tell you I’m making a citizens arrest and draw my gun waving it in your face, you try to grab it because you fear you abre about to be shot and I do indeed shoot you dead, I am feted as a hero and get a handshake off Trump?
Spot the difference.
-
Spot the difference.
no.
-
no.
March through the streets of Wisconsin openly carrying a gun.
Not a crime.
Point said gun at you or threaten to use it without any threat to myself present.
Crime.
-
March through the streets of Wisconsin openly carrying a gun.
Not a crime.
Point said gun at you or threaten to use it without any threat to myself present.
Crime.
Yeah, you changed the scenario to the one you initially described.
“If, for example, Arbery had just stabbed a guy, dropped the knife & ran, or raped a woman, someone witnessed this happen then chased & tried to detain him, then he attempts to wrestle for the gun, the shooting could well have been justifiable”. Hence my comment that alleged criminals are not allowed to defend themselves from possile death at the hands of another.
-
Yeah, you changed the scenario to the one you initially described.
“If, for example, Arbery had just stabbed a guy, dropped the knife & ran, or raped a woman, someone witnessed this happen then chased & tried to detain him, then he attempts to wrestle for the gun, the shooting could well have been justifiable”. Hence my comment that alleged criminals are not allowed to defend themselves from possile death at the hands of another.
Have you watched the video?
McMichael didn't aim or point at Arbery before Arbery began wrestling for the gun.
You seem to think the presence of a gun is a threat to kill, legally in most circumstance it isn't, until it's pointed at you. With the exception being a gun cannot be carried in some public & private buildings, schools for example.
-
Protesting outside the Rittenhouse trial, carrying the same style gun as Rittenhouse.
Someone should have capped these joggers as they were posing an imminent threat.
(https://metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/PRC_211578811.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=644%2C338)
-
Have you watched the video?
McMichael didn't aim or point at Arbery before Arbery began wrestling for the gun.
You seem to think the presence of a gun is a threat to kill, legally in most circumstance it isn't, until it's pointed at you. With the exception being a gun cannot be carried in some public & private buildings, schools for example.
For the second time I was referring to your theoretical example. Why would anyone have a gun in their hand if there wasn’t an implicit (explicit) threat that it will be used if you don’t comply with the gun holder’s wishes?
-
For the second time I was referring to your theoretical example. Why would anyone have a gun in their hand if there wasn’t an implicit (explicit) threat that it will be used if you don’t comply with the gun holder’s wishes?
Because you can open carry a firearm for self defence, it isn't illegal in many states & isn't considered a threat to kill, until you actually threaten to use the thing.
-
Because you can open carry a firearm for self defence, it isn't illegal in many states & isn't considered a threat to kill, until you actually threaten to use the thing.
If you chase someone unarmed and apprehend them whilst carrying a gun yourself then you are not acting in self defence.
-
If you chase someone unarmed and apprehend them whilst carrying a gun yourself then you are not acting in self defence.
If you don't threaten the person with the gun, you're not committing a firearm offence.
If you chase someone unarmed with your gun pointed at them saying 'stop or I'll blow your f*cking head off', then it gets a bit more complicated.
-
If you don't threaten the person with the gun, you're not committing a firearm offence.
If you chase someone unarmed with your gun pointed at them saying 'stop or I'll blow your f*cking head off', then it gets a bit more complicated.
Carrying a gun in your hand when chasing and apprehending a person may not be a firearm offence in America but I’m not really talking about the law, I’m talking about the reality of the situation . If I knock on your door tonight and tell you that I have come to perform a citizen’s arrest on you because I believe you are dealing drugs and I show you that I am carrying a gun, then you would rightly perceive that as an implicit or explicit threat, whether I have pointed it at you and verbally threatened to blow your head off or not.
-
[Carrying a gun in your hand when chasing and apprehending a person may not be a firearm offence in America but I’m not really talking about the law, I’m talking about the reality of the situation . If I knock on your door tonight and tell you that I have come to perform a citizen’s arrest on you because I believe you are dealing drugs and I show you that I am carrying a gun, then you would rightly perceive that as an implicit or explicit threat, whether I have pointed it at you and verbally threatened to blow your head off or not.
Well I am talking about the law.
If Arbery had commited a serious crime & they'd actually witnessed it happen & attempted to make a lawful citizens arrest, & then he wrestled for a gun that he was never legally threatened with, then the McMichaels may well have walked.
-
Well I am talking about the law.
If Arbery had commited a serious crime & they'd actually witnessed it happen & attempted to make a lawful citizens arrest, & then he wrestled for a gun that he was never legally threatened with, then the McMichaels may well have walked.
The law in America is a big fat hairy ass when it comes to guns imo.
-
The law in America is a big fat hairy ass when it comes to guns imo.
The law eventually got it right in the two cases we're discussing though.
But self defense was ok for the black guy, but not the white kid, if you subscribe to liberal media.
-
You also probably wouldn't know if you subscribe to liberal media,
A BLM supporter ploughed a car into a crowd of people following the Rittenhouse verdict.
It was a terrorist attack, but due to the subject being black, targeting white people & how that doesn't suit their narrative, this deliberate attack has been described as an accident.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBpq_54dI6A&t=19s
-
You also probably wouldn't know if you subscribe to liberal media,
A BLM supporter ploughed a car into a crowd of people following the Rittenhouse verdict.
It was a terrorist attack, but due to the subject being black, targeting white people & how that doesn't suit their narrative, this deliberate attack has been described as an accident.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBpq_54dI6A&t=19s
That's because America is a barmy country, that said I've googled this story and the word "accident" and come up with no hits and I couldn't be arsed to watch your (no doubt White Supremacist Propaganda) video - has it been referred to an accident by the Guardian in this country?
-
That's because America is a barmy country, that said I've googled this story and the word "accident" and come up with no hits and I couldn't be arsed to watch your (no doubt White Supremacist Propaganda) video - has it been referred to an accident by the Guardian in this country?
The Guardian briefly mentioned a tragic incident about 4 days ago, when race & possible motives were unknown, I haven't seen any more recent updates from them, now that it's known he made social media posts about hating white people.
-
The Guardian briefly mentioned a tragic incident about 4 days ago, when race & possible motives were unknown, I haven't seen any more recent updates from them, now that it's known he made social media posts about hating white people.
He looks like a despicable specimen of (in)humanity.
-
And anyway, when have I ever posted white supremacists propaganda?
Just because I'm racist doesn't make me a white supremacist.
I mean, western civilisation gave us the industrial revolution, modern medicine, democracy, freedom, the internal combustion engine, mass production, technology, science & practically everything that allows us the high living standards much of the world enjoy today, & the majority of all that was created by people with white skin doesn't mean white people are superior either.
We're just slightly better, that's all.
-
He looks like a despicable specimen of (in)humanity.
He was out on $1000 bail, I think it was for assault.
So 5 people are dead & multiple injured thanks to that.
-
He was out on $1000 bail, I think it was for assault.
So 5 people are dead & multiple injured thanks to that.
Of course technically he’s just as innocent as Bruckner so I’m sure you must be equally supportive of his human rights.
-
Of course technically he’s just as innocent as Bruckner so I’m sure you must be equally supportive of his human rights.
He could have been acting in self defence.
He saw the white xmas parade gatherers & since xmas is a tradition of white supremacy he sensed they were probably about to lynch him & he had to take action.
-
He could have been acting in self defence.
He saw the white xmas parade gatherers & since xmas is a tradition of white supremacy he sensed they were probably about to lynch him & he had to take action.
Good job everyone in America is armed to the teeth to prevent these sorts of atrocities occurring.
-
During the trial MSNBC were barred from the court after a reporter was caught following the jury bus.
The police bodycam has been released, & MSNBC admit to telling a freelance journalist to follow the jury bus for information about the case.
Um, we — we — we were just trying to respectfully, um, just trying to see if it’s, um, if it’s possible to, um, to try and get any leads about — um — about the, the case, and so we were, we, uh, we were just keeping our distance, um, just to see, like, where, um, peop — people involved in — in the — in the trial, um, are positioned. By no means were we trying to get in contact with any of — any of the jury members or whoever’s in the car. We just were, um, trying to see, like, where, um, where key players in the trial may be at.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kyle-rittenhouse-jury-bus-video-msnbc-b1967431.html
Luckily for them what they did was just within the law, because they didn't photograph or contact the jury.
But what possible information about the case could they have gleaned from following the jury?
-
Kyle Rittenhouse may have got away with reckless homicide on the grounds of self defence, but he's in big trouble for the coming civil suit filed by the father of one of his 'victim's. He's struggling to raise funds for his defence. Can't say I have much sympathy.
Lawsuit can proceed against Kenosha shooter Kyle Rittenhouse
A federal judge in Wisconsin ruled Wednesday that a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the father of a man shot and killed by Kyle Rittenhouse during a protest in 2020 can proceed against Rittenhouse, police officers and others.
The father of Anthony Huber, one of two men shot and killed by Rittenhouse, filed the lawsuit in 2021, accusing officers of allowing for a dangerous situation that violated his son’s constitutional rights and resulted in his death. Anthony Huber’s father, John Huber, also alleged that Rittenhouse, who was 17 at the time of the shootings, conspired with law enforcement to cause harm to protestors. John Huber is seeking unspecified damages from city officials, officers and Rittenhouse.
U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman on Wednesday dismissed motions filed by Rittenhouse and the government defendants seeking to dismiss the civil rights lawsuit.
In allowing the case against Rittenhouse and the others to proceed, the judge said that Anthony Huber’s death “could plausibly be regarded as having been proximately caused by the actions of the governmental defendants.”
Rittenhouse attorney Shane Martin said in a phone interview that it’s important to note the ruling doesn’t address the merits of the case, it only allows it to proceed to the next phase.
“While we respect the judge’s decision, we do not believe there is any evidence of a conspiracy and we are confident, just as a Kenosha jury found, Kyle’s actions that evening were not wrongful and were undertaken in self defense,” Martin said.
Attorneys and private investigators for John Huber spent over 100 hours trying to locate Rittenhouse, tracking down addresses in seven states before they found the home of his mother and sister in Florida. The lawsuit was served on Rittenhouse’s sister, who said that he wasn’t home. Adelman said that was sufficient to qualify as being served.
Rittenhouse had argued that the case against him should be dismissed because he wasn’t properly served with the lawsuit. Adelman dismissed that, saying that Rittenhouse “is almost certainly evading service.”
“Rittenhouse has been deliberately cagey about his whereabouts,” Adelman wrote. “Although he denies living in Florida, he does not identify the place that he deems to be his residence.”
Attorneys for the law enforcement and government officials being sued did not immediately return emailed messages seeking comment.
The ruling puts Anthony Huber’s family “one step closer to justice for their son’s needless death,” said Anand Swaminathan, one of the attorneys for parents John Huber and Karen Bloom.
“The Kenosha officials that created a powder keg situation by their actions tried to claim that they cannot be held accountable for their unconstitutional conduct; that argument was soundly rejected today,” Swaminathan said in a statement.
Rittenhouse was charged with homicide, attempted homicide and reckless endangering for killing Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum and wounding a third person with an AR-style semi-automatic rifle in the summer of 2020 during a tumultuous night of protests over the shooting of a Black man, Jacob Blake, by a white Kenosha police officer.
Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges in November 2021 after testifying he acted in self-defense. Rittenhouse’s actions became a flashpoint in the debate over guns, vigil[ censored word]m and racial injustice in the U.S.
Rittenhouse went to Kenosha from his home in nearby Antioch, Illinois, after businesses were ransacked and burned in the nights that followed Blake’s shooting. He joined other armed civilians on the streets, carrying a weapon authorities said was illegally purchased for him because he was underage.
Rittenhouse first killed Rosenbaum, 36, in the parking lot of an auto dealership and as Rittenhouse ran from the scene he stumbled and fell. Anthony Huber, 26, struck Rittenhouse with his skateboard and tried to disarm him. Rittenhouse fell to the ground and shot Anthony Huber to death and wounded demonstrator Gaige Grosskreutz, 27.
This case is one of several ongoing civil lawsuits filed in the wake of the shootings. Grosskreutz last year filed a similar lawsuit against Rittenhouse.
Rittenhouse has maintained a high public profile, particularly on social media, where he is an outspoken advocate for gun rights. He has nearly 1 million followers on Twitter and has spoken at conservative gatherings.
https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-legal-proceedings-kenosha-lawsuits-shootings-3bdc03586a45f1ebee16a3df8a5a4f63