Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, November 09, 2021

A protester and volunteer medic wounded on the streets of Kenosha by Kyle Rittenhouse says he was unintentionally pointing his own gun at the rifle-toting Rittenhouse when the young man shot him in the arm

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

The original article says victim in the headline. What's the word the court wants used here?

#1 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-11-09 07:45 AM | Reply

Yes, under a single still frame Grosskreutz's gun appears to be pointed in the general area of Rittenhouse. But anyone who actually watched the trial would know that Grosskreutz also testified that he didn't do this until Rittenhouse pulled the trigger on his AR that was pointed at him, failed to fire, then re-racked his weapon.

People don't live in stillframe anyways. Grosskreutz had plenty of opportunities to shoot Rittenhouse from angles more favorable to his own safety if that were his intent. It's not plausible that he intentionally moved himself to he front and center with the trigger happy LARPer and only then decided to start moving his weapon towards him.

#2 | Posted by JOE at 2021-11-09 08:02 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

What's the word the court wants used here?

Felon. And the shooter is to be referred to as "Kyle".

#3 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-11-09 08:14 AM | Reply

Both guys illegally carrying firearms. I'm going to call it a draw. (rimshot)

#4 | Posted by censored at 2021-11-09 08:27 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Yes, under a single still frame Grosskreutz's gun appears to be pointed in the general area of Rittenhouse.

#2 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2021-11-09 08:02 AM | FLAG:

At him, while approaching him, according to testimony. "It wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him ... that he fired, right?" "Correct," Grosskreutz replied.

The prosecutor face-palmed when it happened. Kyle is going to walk on all the murder charges at this rate, which will drop the reckless endangerment charges. There is no straw purchase charge, so that leaves misdemeanor possession of a dangerous weapon by someone under 18. That's a slap on the wrist at best.

#5 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-11-09 08:37 AM | Reply

#5 You appear to be salivating at the prospect of a jury countenancing violence and execution by a Junior Proud Boy. I don't really have time to argue with nazi supporters. Have a great day!

#6 | Posted by JOE at 2021-11-09 08:50 AM | Reply

It's interesting how Hakenkreuz's testimony unintentionally paints Rittenhouse as a sympathetic character by drawing parallels between the two, i.e. that they were both carrying paramedic kits along with a gun they weren't legally allowed to have that night to a protest riot. They're also both pro-second Amendment.

Unless the prosecution is trying to portray them both as scum bags with ill intent, it's a very weird, contradictory strategy.

#7 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-11-09 09:19 AM | Reply

You must have missed my hit single, Momma Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be Roof Koreans.

#8 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-11-09 09:21 AM | Reply

#6 is a perfect example of how when some people know they have no counter argument, they just randomly start calling people the N word.

#9 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-11-09 09:22 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

If the shoe fits...

#10 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2021-11-09 09:31 AM | Reply

Under Chicago rules this falls under self-defense/mutual combat.

#11 | Posted by visitor_ at 2021-11-09 10:53 AM | Reply

SO... kid's a back-shooter, too. Figures.

#12 | Posted by Corky at 2021-11-09 11:34 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Kid shoots the guy twice in the front, then puts two more in his back and head while he's on the ground just to be sure.

This according to the medical examiner just now.

#13 | Posted by Corky at 2021-11-09 11:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#6 is a perfect example of how when some people know they have no counter argument, they just randomly start calling people the N word.

#9 | POSTED BY SENTINEL AT 2021-11-09 09:22 AM | FLAG:

Speaking of randomly calling people the N word.

"Other video from earlier in the night showed Rosenbaum yelling, "shoot me (n-word).""

Feels like a Chapelle skit.

#14 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-11-09 01:31 PM | Reply

Never point a gun at someone unless you plan to use it.

Rittenhouse knew the rules.

That why he got his kills in for the night.

Two in the bag.

Third shot was sloppy. Only injured his victim.

Rittenhouse will not only get off with a light sentence, he will be treated as a hero by Trumpers. (You can see it already here on the DR)

If you want a free ticket to murder anyone in America, you gotta be a white Trumper. That cult protects its own.

#15 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-11-09 01:38 PM | Reply

Btw.

In this scenario.

Rittenhouse is the active shooter and Grosskreutz is the good guy with a gun.

But with the entire Trump team cheering on Rittenhouse, suddenly all his victims deserved to die.

They all ignore two major facts. Rittenhouse lives in a different state, Illinois, and he wasn't legally allowed to be carrying the AR.

Trumpers also ignore the fact that had Rittenhouse not showed up in Kenosha, no one would have died that night and the town would have only sustained property damage.

Rittenhouse is guilty of all events that transpired that night.

He's the catalyst. He's the instigator. He and his mom need to be held responsible for their actions.

#16 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-11-09 01:46 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

My read on Rittenhouse is that his goal was to shoot some protestors, but that he did his homework on how to create a facially plausible excuse for doing so.

Claimed to be a medic even though he didn't have the knowledge or training to administer medical aid, did not actually aid anyone, did not need an assault rifle to render aid, and failed to render aid to the person he shot in the head while other (actual) medics did so. His "medic" disguise has even fooled some people on this website.

Claimed to also be "protecting property" that wasn't his and that he wasn't invited to, incidentally something no legitimate medic does. Again, just appears to be a facial attempt to establish some backstory that will provide some reason for being there when making a legal argument after he shoots some people.

Went out of his way to a powder keg event and made sure to draw as much attention to himself and his fake pseudomilitary LARPer personality which is not well-received by BLM types. And when the obvious happens, he immediately starts the target practice. It all just seems way too convenient to me, though i acknowledge that is not a legal principle it's just how i see the situation.

His plan came so close to not working because he's fat and doesn't know how to run without falling down. In a just world he gets bludgeoned with that skateboard, so now our only hope is for a jury to send him to gen pop.

#17 | Posted by JOE at 2021-11-09 02:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

They won't be. They will feted as heroes. The big bad felons got just what they deserved.

"Kyle's a good boy. He knows right from wrong and he helped stop some people's property from getting damaged".

"Those bad rioters got the shooting they deserved".

Sentinel,Sitzkrieg,Boaz and Gracie.

#18 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2021-11-09 02:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I love chomos that call white people the N word." -Effeteposer

#19 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-11-09 02:28 PM | Reply

Bunch of morons in the street. I have zero sympathy for anybody but the guy shot in the arm, and only a little for him.

Don't be a white street korean defending ---- that's not yours and you weren't invited to. That ---- should go to jail but he probably won't. Don't straw purchase your firearms. Don't straw purchase firearms for people you met online. Don't riot. Definitely don't set a dumpster on fire and push them at gas stations. Don't illegally carry concealed in the middle of a riot. Don't chase white people that have guns. Don't be a white, unregistered chomo calling other white people the N word at an anti-racism riot. Don't walk at what you think is an active shooter and point a gun at them, retreat to cover or mag dump. Finding out you brought a gun you aren't willing to use when you believe there's an active shooter? Lucky it only cost him a bicep and lifelong nerve damage.

#20 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-11-09 02:48 PM | Reply

Don't let your state pass laws that allow armored and armed men and boys roam the streets as vigilantes.

#21 | Posted by Corky at 2021-11-09 03:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"My read on Rittenhouse is that his goal was to shoot some protestors, but that he did his homework on how to create a facially plausible excuse for doing so."
[...]
"It all just seems way too convenient to me, though i acknowledge that is not a legal principle it's just how i see the situation."

Yeah, you don't even have a preponderance of evidence, much less beyond a reasonable doubt to support the assertion you made in your first sentence. You make very weak straw man arguments, such as the claim he was passing himself off solely as a "medic", which he never did.

It definitely looks like you're extremely biased against him because of what you perceive to be his political views and that the facts of the case are irrelevant to you because of that.

"In a just world he gets bludgeoned with that skateboard, so now our only hope is for a jury to send him to gen pop."

So you really don't have a problem with vigilante justice at all. I would suggest you reflect upon your desire to see another human being bludgeoned and murdered and so on, but I honestly don't believe you're capable of it, based on what you've written.

#22 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-11-09 04:05 PM | Reply

"Rittenhouse will not only get off with a light sentence,"

Based on what we've seen so far, he's likely going to walk. Will your people riot again if that happens?

#23 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-11-09 04:06 PM | Reply

The only killing was done by a vigilante.

#24 | Posted by Corky at 2021-11-09 04:09 PM | Reply

Joe stated he desires to see a vigilante killing of Rittenhouse. Is that right or wrong?

#25 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-11-09 04:17 PM | Reply

you don't even have a preponderance of evidence

I said it's not a legal argument you stupid ----.

the claim he was passing himself off solely as a "medic", which he never did.

He's literally on video saying he was there to provide medical aid. And I didn't say "solely," in the very next paragraph i note he was also (purportedly) there to protect property that wasn't his and that he wasn't invited to.

It definitely looks like you're extremely biased against him

You're right, i am, because i have a bias against teenagers who go out of their way to create dangerous situations and then shoot their way out of them. I made it clear my post was a personal observation so there's no need to pretend this is closing arguments, Matlock.

#26 | Posted by JOE at 2021-11-09 04:19 PM | Reply

This is what happens when faux "patriots" take the law into their own hands when police asked them to stay away.

Donald Trump is more to blame for creating this environment than most.

#27 | Posted by Corky at 2021-11-09 04:23 PM | Reply

- Matlock.

lol... he does have a sort of serious Andy Griffith bent.

#28 | Posted by Corky at 2021-11-09 04:24 PM | Reply

If we're paying illegals for trafficing chidren Rittenhouse should get a check too. He's guilty of misdemeanor possesion of a firearm.

#29 | Posted by visitor_ at 2021-11-09 04:59 PM | Reply

"I said it's not a legal argument"

It's not even a logical argument.

"you stupid ----."

How old are you? You're acting even younger than Kyle Rittenhouse.

"He's literally on video saying he was there to provide medical aid.

So? Doesn't prove he was misrepresenting himself as a "medic". Even if he had been, it's still a long, long leap from your assumption about his "goal".

"And I didn't say "solely," in the very next paragraph i note he was also (purportedly) there to protect property that wasn't his and that he wasn't invited to."

And yet you can't see how this blows your "did not need an [ArmaLite] rifle to render aid" insinuation out of the water.

"You're right, i am"

You don't care about the facts of the case or the logical inconsistency of your arguments. Even if it's just your "personal view".

#30 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-11-09 05:30 PM | Reply

This new video shows Rittenhouse shooting Rosenbaum. It starts at the 20-minute mark:

www.youtube.com

Rittenhouse was being chased by Rosenbaum, who was unarmed. He spun around once -- possibly to fire at someone -- then kept running until he quickly spun around and shot Rosenbaum four times.

I question whether shooting Rosenbaum the way he did -- with no warning -- was a proportionate act of self-defense. Rosenbaum never touched Rittenhouse. He also never had a chance to back off after Rittenhouse pointed the gun at him. Rittenhouse fired right as he turned around.

The fatal shot hit Rosenbaum in the back.

#31 | Posted by rcade at 2021-11-09 05:51 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

When he was already down.

A bit of overkill.

#32 | Posted by Corky at 2021-11-09 06:02 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Yep. Rittenhouse was a foolish child with a foolish mother who put himself into a dumb situation in another state because he wanted to play pretend riot police.

Then it got too real for him and he ran away from people yelling at him and chasing him.

So he killed one of them and made himself look like an active shooter by fleeing. This meant more people made it too real by attempting to stop him. So he killed one of them and seriously wounded another.

The one he wounded could've shot and killed him before that happened but he didn't have the same willingness to kill people as Rittenhouse.

The people on the right making this dopey child a hero after this litany of bad decisions are being depraved.

#33 | Posted by rcade at 2021-11-09 06:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

When a crazed animal viciously attacks you, it's best to make sure it's completely neutralized. The video shows the animal was less than four feet away from him and reaching for his gun. This all happened in a matter of seconds, in the context of several earlier encounters that night where Rosenbum stalked him and made death threats, also in the context of another assailant firing a gun just a few yards away immediately beforehand.

#34 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-11-09 06:29 PM | Reply

When a crazed animal viciously attacks you,

Hyperbole. Lies. Demonstrably false.

SS, you do your Nazi brethren proud.

#35 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-11-09 06:31 PM | Reply

"Hyperbole. Lies. Demonstrably false."

LOL. It's demonstrably in the video and supported by eyewitness testimony, ------.

#36 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-11-09 06:34 PM | Reply

You got nothing, SS.

Not that it matters.

The judge is clearly biased in favor of his fellow cultist.

#37 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-11-09 07:01 PM | Reply

You're projecting, Reza. I have very little if anything common with Rittenhouse politically. I've never liked the "Blue Lives Matter" groups, and you already know I never supported Trump, so that's just another example of your hyperbole, lies and demonstrably false projections.

#38 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-11-09 07:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I watched the last be of the trial today. Saw a bit of video for the first time. Previously I imagined a few people on the street with kind of random encounters but it was very crowded out there.

My opinion remains the same, he had no business having his mommy drive him across state lines to even be there in the first place.

A weird analogy but it reminds me of the rape case that Tyson went to jail for.

My girlfriend at the time said 'you went up to his room, what did you think was gonna happen?'

Not quite Dylan Roof. But he was looking for action. Cold Blooded.

#39 | Posted by bruceaz at 2021-11-09 07:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So just to be clear, have we dropped all pretenses that the BLM protests last summer were "mostly peaceful" affairs, and the narrative now is that anyone going them knew they were going to a war zone?

#40 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-11-09 07:41 PM | Reply

Sentinel: Using the Funny flag to show contempt for a comment is a dick move.

#41 | Posted by rcade at 2021-11-09 07:42 PM | Reply

Sentinel is a bit of a --------.

#42 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-11-09 07:47 PM | Reply

When a crazed animal viciously attacks you, it's best to make sure it's completely neutralized.

Calling him a crazed animal is hysteria, not logic.

The video shows the animal was less than four feet away from him and reaching for his gun.

You're using Rosenbaum grabbing the gun as an excuse for Rittenhouse shooting him, but where is the time for Rittenhouse to see this happening and react to it? He fired right when he spun around. If Rosenbaum attempted to grab the gun, it was right as he was being shot to death.

At a minimum you should concede that if Rittenhouse began firing at Rosenbaum before Rosenbaum tried to grab the gun, Rosenbaum was defending himself, not Rittenhouse.

This all happened in a matter of seconds, in the context of several earlier encounters that night where Rosenbum stalked him and made death threats, also in the context of another assailant firing a gun just a few yards away immediately beforehand.

Think about what you're saying. Someone else firing a gun means Rittenhouse was justified in shooting the unarmed Rosenbaum who never touched him? Does that mean anyone near Rittenhouse when he shot three people would have been justified in shooting him or anyone else running on that street?

#43 | Posted by rcade at 2021-11-09 07:50 PM | Reply

So just to be clear, have we dropped all pretenses that the BLM protests last summer were "mostly peaceful" affairs, and the narrative now is that anyone going them knew they were going to a war zone?
#40 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

Wrong again, SS.

The protests last summer were peaceful.

The riots weren't.

Unfortunately. Per usual. The riots overshadowed the protests and the meaning and message of the protests got lost.

Riots are usually carried out by anarchists who seldom care about the protests and only use them to create chaos.

#44 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-11-09 07:51 PM | Reply

They were mostly peaceful affairs. Gulf of Tonkin type proud boy types certainly accelerated what was happening. Guys that like to shoot into abandoned (and burning) police stations get a slap on the wrist.

Well when a man put his career on the line to take a knee you people ---- all over him. Own it.

Let's go Brandon

---- your feelings

Yeah, you know who you are and what you stand for.

Own it.

#45 | Posted by bruceaz at 2021-11-09 07:51 PM | Reply

#41 half the funny flags are a show of contempt.

#46 | Posted by bruceaz at 2021-11-09 07:54 PM | Reply

Sentinel is a bit of a --------.

I think Snoofy called him out as Whitedevil the other day... who was also a --------.

#47 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-11-09 08:00 PM | Reply

#47 good call

#48 | Posted by bruceaz at 2021-11-09 08:02 PM | Reply

#41 half the funny flags are a show of contempt.

No one should be doing it, and at times it has resulted in suspensions.

Funny means funny.

#49 | Posted by rcade at 2021-11-09 08:06 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Sentinel: Using the Funny flag to show contempt for a comment is a dick move."

Can I quote you on that the next time someone does it to me? You already know there are a number of posters on this site who do that to others on almost a daily basis.

I generally tend to shy away from engaging forum owners and moderators in debate these days, largely because they tend to be hypersensitive and grab their "guns" when someone calls them out on their credulity or inconsistencies. You've certainly done so in the past, although to be fair some forums I've been on are much worse than yours when it comes to that, FWIW.

I haven't seen anyone here hold up Rittenhouse as a hero. I certainly haven't. As I said earlier, I probably have very little in common with him politically. Just because I disagree with someone politically, I'm not going to be biased and prejudiced against them because of that, especially when it comes to life or death situations. A lot of people in this thread are just flat out lying about the circumstances, and they know it.

#50 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-11-09 08:16 PM | Reply

Arguing with the owner of a free to post website over rules is not a winning game to play.

#51 | Posted by truthhurts at 2021-11-09 08:18 PM | Reply

#51, agreed.

#52 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-11-09 08:24 PM | Reply

My 51 can be interpreted as you are an idiot, just saying and nice to see you agree.

Thanks for playing.

#53 | Posted by truthhurts at 2021-11-09 08:29 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Forum owners and moderators? The guy shows up every three or for months. He gave me a newsworthy! I called my mom.

#54 | Posted by bruceaz at 2021-11-09 08:30 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

You already know there are a number of posters on this site who do that to others on almost a daily basis.

I don't ever do that, so there's no justification for doing it to me.

Yes other people do it. If I had a good solution I'd prevent it.

#55 | Posted by rcade at 2021-11-09 08:30 PM | Reply

A lot of people in this thread are just flat out lying about the circumstances, and they know it.

I've based everything I've said on watching all the videos that emerged.

I don't see how it should be legal self-defense to spin around and immediately shoot somebody who hasn't touched you.

It seems obvious to me that Rittenhouse made the decision to shoot before he spun around and before Rosenbaum touched his gun.

#56 | Posted by rcade at 2021-11-09 08:34 PM | Reply

"I don't ever do that, so there's no justification for doing it to me."

The only other alternative was to engage you on why I thought parts of your comment were absurd (which BTW is listed as a synonym or similar word to funny in most dictionaries).

#57 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-11-09 08:39 PM | Reply

I thought absurd meant stupid

#58 | Posted by bruceaz at 2021-11-09 08:42 PM | Reply

You haven't made any attempt to rebut anything I said, nor have you corrected any facts I offered.

#59 | Posted by rcade at 2021-11-09 08:45 PM | Reply

They all ignore two major facts. Rittenhouse lives in a different state, Illinois, and he wasn't legally allowed to be carrying the AR.

Defense tried to get this little tidbit thrown out of court (good try anyway I guess)......

Also some legal analyst will say all that is irrelevant anyway, it's simply the instance where he decides to use/not use his weapon meaning "self defense".

I read where going to another state with a weapon was just "poor judgement" by one legal analyst.

Which of course makes zero sense to me. I hope the jury sees past that.

#60 | Posted by brass30 at 2021-11-09 08:47 PM | Reply

"I thought absurd meant stupid"

Absurd originally comes a Latin word that means "out of tune" and has come to mean irrational or unreasonable.

#61 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-11-09 08:52 PM | Reply

I'm not going to argue with you, Rcade. Have a good night, sir.

#62 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-11-09 08:53 PM | Reply

going to another state with a weapon was just "poor judgement"

Especially to an area where there's a riot happening.

His mom has a lot to answer for as well.

She must have known he had the rifle and she drove him there.

#63 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-11-09 08:58 PM | Reply

You should have attempted to explain how the video shows Rittenhouse only deciding to shoot after Rosenbaum tries to grab his gun.

But that doesn't look possible in the video. Rittenhouse shoots too fast.

#64 | Posted by rcade at 2021-11-09 08:58 PM | Reply

Irrational or unreasonable =stupid.

#65 | Posted by bruceaz at 2021-11-09 09:14 PM | Reply

"His mom has a lot to answer for as well."

Send her to prison, so she can be bludgeoned and raped and, uh, whatever else they do there. Also do the same to Rosenbaum's mom. Might as well throw Jacob Blake's girlfriend in there too, since she instigated all of this.

Seriously, though, why does no one think Ziminski has any culpability at all for firing the first shot, which would lead anyone being chased by a mob to think their life was in imminent danger?

#66 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-11-09 09:14 PM | Reply

It seems the same folks who want to stop the conversation with "they entered America illegally" don't want to do the same with "he broke the law by being underage with that gun".

#67 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-11-09 09:20 PM | Reply

Seriously, though, why does no one think Ziminski has any culpability at all for firing the first shot, which would lead anyone being chased by a mob to think their life was in imminent danger?

He's been charged with disorderly conduct-use of dangerous weapon, which is a misdemeanor.

If Rittenhouse hearing a gunshot in the area made him shoot Rosenbaum 2.5 seconds later, that doesn't seem like Rittenhouse was in enough of a rational state of mind to make a justifiable decision to kill somebody.

thehill.com

#68 | Posted by rcade at 2021-11-09 09:40 PM | Reply

Pretty sure one of the first rules of being a peaceful protesters you don't bring a gun with you.

And don't try to be obtuse I would never say Rittenhouse was a peaceful protester.

#69 | Posted by Tor at 2021-11-09 09:44 PM | Reply

" It seems the same folks who want to stop the conversation with "they entered America illegally" don't want to do the same with "he broke the law by being underage with that gun"."

Both of these are irrelevant to whether a person was justified in using deadly force against others who were directly attacking him at the time.

#70 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-11-09 09:47 PM | Reply

If you actively are on a mission to use deadly force . Do you know the definition of Sentinel?

#71 | Posted by bruceaz at 2021-11-09 10:06 PM | Reply

Both of these are irrelevant to whether a person was justified in using deadly force against others who were directly attacking him at the time.

Why is Rittenhouse the only person that night whose self-defense rights you recognize?

Rosenbaum was being shot at the time he allegedly reached for Rittenhouse's gun. Anybody being shot would grab for the gun.

Anthony Huber and Gaige Grosskreutz were trying to stop an active shooter. Anybody in that situation might attempt to stop the shooter before he killed them or somebody else.

Rittenhouse chose to flee after killing Rosenbaum. He created the situation that led to people trying to stop him to save lives.

#72 | Posted by rcade at 2021-11-09 11:34 PM | Reply

#70 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

Everyone here knows who and what you are. Emulating JakeGoat is not a good look, pal.

#73 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2021-11-09 11:39 PM | Reply

I mentioned on an earlier thread that I hadn't followed this story from the start... I could have been a juror, God forbid.

But seeing the newly enhanced video today puts into perspective what Rogers is saying; the kid whirled on the nasty little bipolar guy *my description... and shot him without warning. He could have kept running; he was dancing around pretty good right after putting two bullets in the guy and then two more in his back when he was going down.

It's a nasty time all around when states let people in armor using weapons of war play vigilante... and have young kids imitate them.

#74 | Posted by Corky at 2021-11-09 11:52 PM | Reply

Everyone that didn't threaten and chase, strike or point a weapon at Rittenhouse didn't get killed or shot by him.

It's unbelievable they thought they were taking down an active shooter and not just trying to exact vigilante justice on Rittenhouse. But even with that level of cognitive dissonance, no one asked them to take down Rittenhouse and vigilantes get what they get.

#75 | Posted by visitor_ at 2021-11-10 07:08 AM | Reply

It's unbelievable they thought they were taking down an active shooter and not just trying to exact vigilante justice on Rittenhouse.

This is idiotic. He shot someone four times and fled the scene. Witnesses yelled "that's the shooter!" Of course people on the street thought he was an active shooter.

But even with that level of cognitive dissonance, no one asked them to take down Rittenhouse and vigilantes get what they get.

Rittenhouse was a vigilante illegally carrying a gun and trespassing on car dealerships and other businesses. No one asked him to do that.

#76 | Posted by rcade at 2021-11-10 07:37 AM | Reply

Let the jury decide but don't misinterpreted the trial so other vigilantes call for people to find where the jurors live and threaten them which is what is happening.

#77 | Posted by fishpaw at 2021-11-10 07:53 AM | Reply

Rittenhouse was a vigilante illegally carrying a gun and trespassing on car dealerships and other businesses. No one asked him to do that.

#76 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2021-11-10 07:37 AM | FLAG:

No one asked, but nobody had him trespassed either. If he was he'd be charged with it and the firearm makes it a felony.

#79 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-11-10 08:58 AM | Reply

Seems like common sense that when you see a bunch of armed white people you don't know on your property it's time to call the cops on them.

#80 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-11-10 09:02 AM | Reply

The owners of the businesses that Kyle and the other gun bunnies were "protecting" might not have been there at the time because it was a dumb place to be.

#81 | Posted by rcade at 2021-11-10 09:04 AM | Reply

They have cameras. It's also on the news, being live streamed, etc. One of those things I find hard to believe is that the business owners had idea what was going on. Feels more like "turned a blind eye to it on purpose".

#82 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-11-10 09:24 AM | Reply

...taking down an active shooter and not just...vigilante justice...
#75 | Posted by visitor_

It's amazing how one's view can change depending on what they want to see.

#83 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2021-11-10 09:35 AM | Reply

"Why is Rittenhouse the only person that night whose self-defense rights you recognize?"

Of the four people we're talking about, Rittenhouse is the only one who did not initiate a violent assault against the other person.

"Rosenbaum was being shot at the time he allegedly reached for Rittenhouse's gun. Anybody being shot would grab for the gun."

You are dishonestly spinning it to make it sound like Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum out of blue, without cause, even though the videos and witness testimonies all point to the exact opposite. Anybody being chased by a crazed psychopath who was threatening to kill them would shoot them if they had gun. Including you, I'd wager. If an attacker continued to advance on you after you shot them once, you'd be justified in making subsequent shots until you were sure the threat was neutralized.

"Anthony Huber and Gaige Grosskreutz were trying to stop an active shooter. Anybody in that situation might attempt to stop the shooter before he killed them or somebody else."

And they could try to use that as a defense if they were charged for assaulting Rittenhouse, but neither have been (or would have been in the case of Huber had he survived) by the D.A. Even if they genuinely believed they were trying to stop an "active shooter", that does not make it true nor invalidate Rittenhouse's self defense claim. You are misusing/abusing the term "active shooter" by applying it to Rittenhouse for defending himself at those moments.

"Rittenhouse chose to flee after killing Rosenbaum."

Natural fight-or-flight response, especially when you know there are other assailants in the vicinity, one of whom had just fired a gun. Also, a person is no longer an "active shooter" if they ever were one (which he wasn't).

"He created the situation that led to people trying to stop him to save lives."

You're defending a lynch mob.

#84 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-11-10 09:45 AM | Reply

Also, a person who is fleeing is no longer an "active shooter" if they ever were one (which he wasn't).

#85 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-11-10 09:51 AM | Reply

"The owners of the businesses that Kyle and the other gun bunnies were "protecting" might not have been there at the time because it was a dumb place to be."

In the case of the car dealership owned by Asian Americans, two of the family members requested to take a photo with them, and they testified that while they did not ask them to defend the place they also did not ask them to leave.

Of course, any business owners who admitted to even protecting their own property or having someone else protect it would have been targeted again by the savages running amok that night, and it would also open them up to frivolous lawsuits like the one Grosskreuz made against the city.

#86 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-11-10 10:15 AM | Reply

If Rittenhouse hearing a gunshot in the area made him shoot Rosenbaum 2.5 seconds later, that doesn't seem like Rittenhouse was in enough of a rational state of mind to make a justifiable decision to kill somebody.

#68 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2021-11-09 09:40 PM | FLAG:

In the context would be Rosenbaum's involvement before that 2.5 seconds. "If I catch any of you guys alone tonight I'm going to f"- kill you!" -Rosenbaum, per a witness called by the Prosecution. Feels like the Prosecution wants to lose. Add to my list of things to not do: threaten death on people with carbines, then chase one.

#87 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-11-10 10:29 AM | Reply

You are dishonestly spinning it to make it sound like Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum out of blue, without cause, even though the videos and witness testimonies all point to the exact opposite.

--------. I said Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse, but unlike you, I noted that he never touched him. That undercuts the self-defense claim.

You continue to ignore the video that shows Rittenhouse spun around and immediately fired. He didn't fire because Rosenbaum was going for the gun. He was already firing.

Also, a person who is fleeing is no longer an "active shooter" if they ever were one (which he wasn't).

An active shooter who has killed people is still an active shooter until they surrender. Rittenhouse didn't do that. He fled and then shot more people.

You're defending a lynch mob.

I'm defending people who saw an active shooter fleeing after killing somebody and tried to stop him from killing more people.

Your refusal to do that is typical gun bunny logic. The armed right-wing guy who killed people has self-defense rights. The people he killed don't.

Using words like "crazed animal" and "savages" doesn't make your position any stronger. It just makes you look like somebody who is reacting from emotion instead of reason.

#88 | Posted by rcade at 2021-11-10 10:36 AM | Reply

Best outcome would have been if Grosskreutz and Rittenhouse shot each other. They were all idiots and should have stayed home.

#89 | Posted by visitor_ at 2021-11-10 10:54 AM | Reply

If I threaten to kill you when I catch you alone, then I chase you before you've shot anybody because I'm bipolar and mad you put out my dumpster fire I was trying to destroy a gas station with, and I'm the first person you shot, it is very far fetched for a jury to believe any claim of self defense on my behalf.

#90 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-11-10 10:56 AM | Reply

The kid with the skateboard and Grosskreutz has at least some self-defense justification. The first guy clearly does not per witness statements and video.

#91 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-11-10 10:57 AM | Reply

Can't believe they are letting the kid testify.... right now.

He already said, "My bad' about a location mistake. Maybe he'll say it again.

#92 | Posted by Corky at 2021-11-10 11:05 AM | Reply

Rittenhouse's testimony makes or breaks the defense. I think it probably was a good decision by the defense, assuming the client has been well prepared and comes across as sincere. I think it would be tough to convict of murder if he maintains composure and gives a coherent version of what occurred from his perspective.

#93 | Posted by moder8 at 2021-11-10 11:12 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

comes across as sincere

#93 | POSTED BY MODER8 AT 2021-11-10 11:12 AM | FLAG:

How does this uncontrollable sobbing usually play out?

#94 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-11-10 11:21 AM | Reply

I think it probably was a good decision by the defense, assuming the client has been well prepared and comes across as sincere.

It seems like a big risk to me. George Zimmerman testifying would've been the prosecution's best chance to catch him in lies and get a conviction.

#95 | Posted by rcade at 2021-11-10 11:24 AM | Reply

#93

Glad to have your opinion, M8. I thought at first it wouldn't be happening unless the D thought it was really necessary.
Like with OJ, lol.

What about the outburst... think that was planned?

#96 | Posted by Corky at 2021-11-10 11:24 AM | Reply

Is anyone else's video from the Court breaking up? It was on NPR and Yahoo.

It's prolly BLM's fault, right?

#97 | Posted by Corky at 2021-11-10 11:27 AM | Reply

"--------. I said Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse, but unlike you, I noted that he never touched him. That undercuts the self-defense claim."

No it does not. You do not have to wait for someone who has been stalking and threatening and at that moment is chasing and almost upon you to lay a hand on you before you defend yourself. That is patently absurd.

#98 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-11-10 11:29 AM | Reply

Is anyone else's video from the Court breaking up? It was on NPR and Yahoo.

#97 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2021-11-10 11:27 AM | FLAG:

PBS on Youtube keeps getting a blue signal error and the occasional audio interruption. I'm pretty sure somebody muted it when the breakdown happened. People crying but no audio until the judge called recess.

#99 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-11-10 11:31 AM | Reply

WATCH LIVE: Kyle Rittenhouse testifies in trial over Kenosha shooting - Day 7

#100 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-11-10 11:32 AM | Reply

Active Shooter, Noun ak-tiv shu-ter

The agreed-upon definition of active shooter by US government agencies (including the White House, US Department of Justice, FBI, US Department of Education, US Department of Homeland Security, and Federal Emergency Management Agency) is "an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area." In most cases, active shooters use firearms and there is no pattern or method to their selection of victims.

By definition Kyle was not an active shooter.

#101 | Posted by ScottE at 2021-11-10 11:33 AM | Reply

I'm betting the 17 year old kid could outrun the fat little 36 year old any day of the week.

Even if he couldn't, he could get far enough away to level the gun as a warning... rather than wait for him to get close before whirling about and firing as he did.

And all the threats directed to specifically to him? Pretty much hearsay.

#102 | Posted by Corky at 2021-11-10 11:33 AM | Reply

"an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area."

He had already killed a person and was being pointed out as an active shooter by the people following him.

#103 | Posted by Corky at 2021-11-10 11:36 AM | Reply

Even if he couldn't, he could get far enough away to level the gun as a warning...

#102 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2021-11-10 11:33 AM | FLAG:

He did. In the drone video he clearly points it at him, turns to continue moving away, and the second time he turns the guy is an arms length away from him, he draws up and fires.

#105 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-11-10 11:40 AM | Reply

In the drone video he clearly points it at him ...

It's not clear in the video that he points it at Rosenbaum. He could've been pointing it in the direction of the person who fired a shot into the air.

#106 | Posted by rcade at 2021-11-10 11:40 AM | Reply

"I believe, four."

Like I said before, overkill.

#107 | Posted by Corky at 2021-11-10 11:42 AM | Reply

It's not clear in the video that he points it at Rosenbaum.

#106 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2021-11-10 11:40 AM | FLAG:

It looks clear to me and matches his testimony.

#108 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-11-10 11:46 AM | Reply

It's not clear to me he had no where else to run from among those cars.

#109 | Posted by Corky at 2021-11-10 11:50 AM | Reply

Not all that relevant. There's no duty to retreat there.

#110 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-11-10 11:53 AM | Reply

Since he was already retreating, the jury would have to decide he didn't retreat hard enough. Very, very unlikely.

#111 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-11-10 11:54 AM | Reply

Rittenhouse: "Officer, I just killed somebody."
Officer: "Get the ---- back or get pepper sprayed. Go home go home go home"

To protect and to serve right...

#112 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-11-10 11:55 AM | Reply

It looks clear to me and matches his testimony.

Only because you're seeing what you want to see.

The first time he turned around he could've been pointing to the left or to the right of Rosenbaum. We can't see the angle.

We only know he was definitely pointing at Rosenbaum the second time because he shot him four times.

#113 | Posted by rcade at 2021-11-10 12:00 PM | Reply

"While Wisconsin doesn't impose a duty to retreat, juries are still allowed to consider whether a defendant had an opportunity to retreat to determine whether or not it was necessary to use deadly force in self-defense."

www.wicriminaldefense.com

#114 | Posted by rcade at 2021-11-10 12:03 PM | Reply

- no duty to retreat there.

My point was that his story about how he had nowhere to run because the crowd is --------. He might have been safer doing so.

#115 | Posted by Corky at 2021-11-10 12:04 PM | Reply

You can see the angle just fine. He's pointing it at him the first time. The defense isn't disputing this in any way, shape, nor form.

#116 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-11-10 12:05 PM | Reply

"his story about how he had nowhere to run because the crowd..."

He was in A CROWD?

Didn't someone upthread point out that word is included in the definition of "active shooter"...?

#117 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-11-10 12:10 PM | Reply

He should have done this in Stand Your Ground Florida... he could be the next Gov.

#118 | Posted by Corky at 2021-11-10 12:14 PM | Reply

So far he has shown no remorse at all. I seem to remember that might be important.

#119 | Posted by Corky at 2021-11-10 12:16 PM | Reply

Imagine being on trial for a double murder, and the DA asks you if your screen name is "4doorsMoreWhores"

jfk

#120 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-11-10 12:17 PM | Reply

Sitzkrieg thinks this clearly shows Rittenhouse (left arrow) pointing the gun at Rosenbaum (right arrow):

workbench.cadenhead.org

#121 | Posted by rcade at 2021-11-10 12:18 PM | Reply

And you think he's not aiming at the person closest to him who has previously threatened him. He's aiming at somebody or something else.

Sounds far fetched.

#122 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-11-10 12:19 PM | Reply

There's no duty to retreat there.

The active shooter turned victim has no duty to retreat from the situation he created?

Brilliant.

The kid illegally carrying a rifle and murdering people in a city and state he didn't belong in and shouldn't have been in.

Is suddenly the victim.

White privileged in action right here.

#123 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-11-10 12:20 PM | Reply

So far he has shown no remorse at all.
#119 | POSTED BY CORKY

Why would he be remorseful?

He's a vigilante hero to the Trumper community.

You can read the DR Trumpers defending him tooth and nail.

#124 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-11-10 12:22 PM | Reply

And you think he's not aiming at the person closest to him who has previously threatened him. He's aiming at somebody or something else.

What I said is that the video doesn't show definitively where he's pointing the gun at that moment.

What you said is that the video does show this definitively.

It's obvious we don't know it from the video. Don't overstate what evidence shows because it suits your biases.

#125 | Posted by rcade at 2021-11-10 12:24 PM | Reply

Don't overstate what evidence shows because it suits your biases.

#125 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2021-11-10 12:24 PM | FLAG:

You are understating very reasonable evidence because it suits your biases.

The defense isn't even attempting to go down this route. This guy is babbling about property rights.

#126 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-11-10 12:26 PM | Reply

and now the Judge is yelling at him.

#127 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-11-10 12:27 PM | Reply

It's still entertaining to read posters assign no blame to Rittenhouse.

As if he was just walking home from local 7-11 store where he bought Skittles candy and an Arizona watermelon drink.

And he suddenly realized he was being followed.

So he defended himself.

Oh no. That was Trayvon Martin.

Interestingly enough, many of the people now defending Rittenhouse, were team Zimmerman when he killed Trayvon.

#128 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-11-10 12:27 PM | Reply

The defense isn't even attempting to go down this route.

We're not talking about trial strategies. We're talking about your inability to see a video and accurately explain what it shows and what it doesn't show.

#129 | Posted by rcade at 2021-11-10 12:29 PM | Reply

Breaking down and having an emotional outburst in front of the jury is always uncharted territory. I am only hearing about it now and have not seen the video yet. But the idea of some emotionally unstable teenage running around with a loaded firarm at a high testoterone public protest just does not seem acceptable. I don't know what that necessarily makes him guilty of, but if he is prone to emotional outbursts in stressful situations it is more difficult to just view this through the lens of reasonable, rational self defense.

#130 | Posted by moder8 at 2021-11-10 12:30 PM | Reply

#129 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2021-11-10 12:29 PM | FLAG:

Disagree. Trial strategy is viable. If he wasn't pointing it at him and just lied on the stand, the DA would take him to task for it. There's zero evidence he wasn't pointing it at him at that point and we've just been reminded how expert and professional this prosecutor is. You wouldn't even care about this talking point if you weren't pursuing a bias.

#131 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-11-10 12:32 PM | Reply

and by that, I mean your own.

#132 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-11-10 12:33 PM | Reply

Interestingly enough, many of the people now defending Rittenhouse, were team Zimmerman when he killed Trayvon.

I don't remember any of these folks defending Michael Reinoehl's right to self defense when he shot Aaron Danielson while Danielson was spraying him with bear spray.

#133 | Posted by rcade at 2021-11-10 12:33 PM | Reply

Prosecutor is wanting to bring in some previous statement by the kid of using force to protect property.

#134 | Posted by Corky at 2021-11-10 12:34 PM | Reply

if he is prone to emotional outbursts in stressful situations it is more difficult to just view this through the lens of reasonable, rational self defense.

#130 | POSTED BY MODER8 AT 2021-11-10 12:30 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

How do you measure that before and after an incident like this that causes PTSD? Do you even try?

#135 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-11-10 12:34 PM | Reply

Brazen! Brazen! lol

#136 | Posted by Corky at 2021-11-10 12:35 PM | Reply

Here's video of Rittenhouse sobbing:

twitter.com

Seeing that makes me so glad he thought himself capable of carrying a gun to a protest and using lethal force. What a brilliant move!

#137 | Posted by rcade at 2021-11-10 12:35 PM | Reply

You wouldn't even care about this talking point if you weren't pursuing a bias.

My bias is determining what happened based on evidence. Yours is defending Rittenhouse's actions no matter what we learn.

#138 | Posted by rcade at 2021-11-10 12:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It appears that he got his TicToc page wish of becoming famous...

#139 | Posted by Corky at 2021-11-10 12:39 PM | Reply

That's your biased perception. First post when this happened was condemnation of him and his mother for such stupidity.

Based on testimony, video, and no counter evidence at all, it is completely reasonable that he is pointing it at him. Seems biased to not acknowledge that.

Anyways, moving on, wow this DA and his uh.. tactics..

#140 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-11-10 12:40 PM | Reply

"Interestingly enough, many of the people now defending Rittenhouse, were team Zimmerman when he killed Trayvon."

I've always said Zimmerman was probably guilty of at least manslaughter, but the prosecution in that case was overzealous and trying to appease those who wanted it to be murder or nothing.

#141 | Posted by sentinel at 2021-11-10 12:46 PM | Reply

Based on testimony, video, and no counter evidence at all, it is completely reasonable that he is pointing it at him.

You continue to miss the point.

If you want to talk about what the video shows -- and not what other information tells us might be happening -- you should be capable of describing what the video shows.

The ability to assess a piece of evidence independently of everything else is important.

Instead of doing that, you're dragging other things in and using that other information to make false claims about the video.

#142 | Posted by rcade at 2021-11-10 12:48 PM | Reply

"If I could've legally carried a pistol instead of an AR-15, I would have so I could better do medical care." (paraphrased)

This is one of those weird points - Rittenhouse carries an AR-15 across state lines, a gun illegal for him to own, illegal for him to carry across state lines, because it's illegal for him to own a pistol?

#143 | Posted by YAV at 2021-11-10 12:52 PM | Reply

The ability to assess a piece of evidence independently of everything else is important.

#142 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2021-11-10 12:48 PM | FLAG:

I've sat through so many voir dires I feel confident in saying that the judge's instructions are to consider all of the evidence, and there is no requirement that I have to parse every single bit as independent. I can easily talk about what the video shows based on all of the evidence presented in this trial. Your requirement to ignore the context of other pieces of evidence when reviewing a single piece is nonsensical at best.

#144 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-11-10 12:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Judge Whoopy Cushion is making the most of his TV celebrity.

#145 | Posted by Corky at 2021-11-10 01:00 PM | Reply

I'd have caused a mistrial on accidental sarcasm.

"I couldn't legally carry a pistol."

"Sir, you were already illegally carrying a rifle."

#146 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-11-10 01:02 PM | Reply

Your requirement to ignore the context of other pieces of evidence when reviewing a single piece is nonsensical at best.

I didn't say to ignore outside information completely, just set it aside when you're looking at a video to assess what the video shows and what it doesn't.

For some reason you can't do this. Everything that happens in the video is crystal clear to you. You haven't expressed any uncertainty about any moment that it depicts.

#147 | Posted by rcade at 2021-11-10 01:03 PM | Reply

"Here's video of Rittenhouse sobbing:"

I didn't see any tears. I saw an act by a bad actor who was overacting.

#148 | Posted by Twinpac at 2021-11-10 01:07 PM | Reply

Obviously the kid was able to fire one bullet at a time as he did so twice.

Firing 2 bullets into the victim would have stopped him, and sounds like he would have lived.

2 more in the back and head after he was going down was murder plain and simple.

#149 | Posted by Corky at 2021-11-10 01:08 PM | Reply

Before I commented I'd already had all of the outside information. Assessment hasn't change since unless this DA goes down this road to attack his self defense claim. Don't see that happening, maybe it will.

#150 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-11-10 01:09 PM | Reply

You could have said "the video doesn't show clearly that Rittenhouse is pointing the gun at Rosenbaum at that moment, but this other information supports that conclusion."

See how easy that is? It makes the point you'd like to make without mischaracterizing a piece of evidence.

#151 | Posted by rcade at 2021-11-10 01:16 PM | Reply

I didn't see any tears. I saw an act by a bad actor who was overacting.

Yeah. It struck me that way, too. Like he was trying and trying his best to force out at least one tear. Just one. Please!

But I bet it will work.

#152 | Posted by YAV at 2021-11-10 01:25 PM | Reply

I hate missing a closing tag.

#153 | Posted by YAV at 2021-11-10 01:26 PM | Reply

This culture of swaggering armored and armed faux-patriot vigilantes in many states is enticing to some people, and those who aggrandize this behavior by turning it into lawful action in their states are in part responsible for these totally unsurprising sorts of outcomes.

#154 | Posted by Corky at 2021-11-10 01:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Is it going to be a mistrial? I thought it would be for sure, but this Judge loves being on television.

#155 | Posted by YAV at 2021-11-10 02:20 PM | Reply

The ratings are too good for a mistrial, lol.

#156 | Posted by Corky at 2021-11-10 02:22 PM | Reply

There's no way this isn't a mistrial.

The judge is a Rittenhouse fan boy.

#157 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-11-10 02:25 PM | Reply

So the kid was a Proud Boy fan boy....

#158 | Posted by Corky at 2021-11-10 02:26 PM | Reply

... I'm shocked I tells ya!

#159 | Posted by Corky at 2021-11-10 02:26 PM | Reply

We should not consider the Judge to be a "Rittenhouse fanboy" just because he will not allow the DA to engage in sleazy tactics.

#160 | Posted by moder8 at 2021-11-10 02:29 PM | Reply

#160

Question... how do you think the defense lawyers are doing?

#161 | Posted by Corky at 2021-11-10 02:32 PM | Reply

Corky: I have not been watching the trial. Only catching news blurbs on CNN and on-line. So it is hardly to fairly judge. But I will say that the prosecutors are sleazy douchebags. Being a defendant in any circumstances is hard enough without the prosecution trying to cheat.

#162 | Posted by moder8 at 2021-11-10 02:35 PM | Reply

#162

Thanks. I would say that that sounds like what a good Def Attny would say... but I don't want to be misunderstood, lol.

Let me ask you this; kid says he was threated by the victim, twice. That's not on tape, apparently, and no one else says they heard it.

Is that hearsay evidence or is it something else?

#163 | Posted by Corky at 2021-11-10 02:44 PM | Reply

There's no way this isn't a mistrial.
The judge is a Rittenhouse fan boy.

Unfortunately it's the defense asking for a mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct, which would bar a retrial. It'd be an extraordinary ruling but not something i'd put beyond Schroeder.

#164 | Posted by JOE at 2021-11-10 02:47 PM | Reply

MODER8

"Being a defendant in any circumstances is hard enough without the prosecution trying to cheat."

Please pass the Kleenex.

Moder8, it isn't hard to avoid being a defendant. You just stop doing dumb-ass things that make you one.

#165 | Posted by Twinpac at 2021-11-10 02:53 PM | Reply

You are so WRONG Twinpac. In our prison-police-industrial complex it is the easiest thing in the world to become a defendant. No one seems to believe this until it happens to them or someone close to them. Our society uses the criminal justice system as lubricant to keep people employed (such as moi) and politicians getting elected.

#166 | Posted by moder8 at 2021-11-10 03:02 PM | Reply

Moder8, it isn't hard to avoid being a defendant. You just stop doing dumb-ass things that make you one.

#165 | POSTED BY TWINPAC AT 2021-11-10 02:53 PM | FLAG:

Probably the whitest thing white culture has said about black culture, and mexicans in general.

#167 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-11-10 03:04 PM | Reply

Moder8, it isn't hard to avoid being a defendant.

That's like saying the police only go after people who did something wrong, which is obviously not true.

#168 | Posted by rcade at 2021-11-10 03:20 PM | Reply

I read the judge dressed down the prosecution multiple times.

#169 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-11-10 03:33 PM | Reply

Oh, stop with the cultural spin, SITZ.

I'd say the same thing about a dumb-ass lily-white defendant if they went to a riot carrying an AR-15.

Personally, I think his mother should have drove him to the local library and told him to stay there until he smartened up. But she didn't so maybe he comes by his dumb-ass decision making naturally.

#170 | Posted by Twinpac at 2021-11-10 03:37 PM | Reply

#170

I'd say the mother and father are a big part of the problem.

#171 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-11-10 03:42 PM | Reply

Oh, stop with the cultural spin, SITZ.

#170 | POSTED BY TWINPAC AT 2021-11-10 03:37 PM | FLAG:

Can't. Too ironic.

You know a huge factor in why the trial in Georgia only has 1 black juror? Most get eliminated in voir dire when the question of how much do you personally weight the veracity of police or other state official testimony. "Stop doing dumb-ass things" indeed.

#172 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-11-10 03:43 PM | Reply

#172 - That's not what happened in GA, though. For some reason the defense was given an incredible number of absolute dismissal chits and they used them on every black jurist until they ran out. 23 I believe.

#173 | Posted by YAV at 2021-11-10 03:46 PM | Reply

What? That's even more wild. How the hell is that legal? I didn't read that thread. My (unfortunately?) numerous voir dire experiences are always the lawyers filtering most black people out on the police question.

#174 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-11-10 03:49 PM | Reply

Anyone else not surprised that this Judge doesn't get zooming in?

#175 | Posted by Corky at 2021-11-10 04:02 PM | Reply

SITZ

"You know a huge factor in why the trial in Georgia only has 1 black juror?

As to "the question of how much do you personally weight the veracity of police or other state official testimony."

I seriously disagree that such a prejudicial question was asked. I remember the questions I was asked in a black on white manslaughter case and that wasn't one of them.

I agree with you that it's an unbalanced jury. However both sides have an options to accept or reject a juror.

So which attorney dropped the ball?

#176 | Posted by Twinpac at 2021-11-10 04:06 PM | Reply

It's not, every single time. Even with the black game warden and the white redneck that tried to escape him. All the young black men were disqualified on that question. Uh, welcome to Houston I guess?

#177 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-11-10 05:40 PM | Reply

Without this website, I wouldn't even know that this trial was going on.

Bringing a gun to a protest, without oneself having the protection of being law enforcement ... is dumb. Also dumb to go to violent protests.
Not a lot of IQ shared between the "victim" and the shooter.

- no position-

#178 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2021-11-10 05:59 PM | Reply

Riddenhouse was temporarily embraced by the Black Rifle coffee people, and the news I did read about recently is that the coffee company is going public via a SPAC.

#179 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2021-11-10 06:01 PM | Reply

"That's like saying the police only go after people who did something wrong, which is obviously not true."

"#168 | POSTED BY RCADE"

The myth that police officers routinely spend their time arresting people who do nothing wrong is just ridiculous. Not to say that's never happened, but it would be very rare, and pointless. Why would they do that when there are so many actual criminals they don't have time to catch 10% of them? In a typical shift, I encountered so many people blatantly committing crimes I barely had enough time to NOTICE people "doing nothing wrong" let alone "go after" them. Nor would I want to,

#180 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2021-11-11 07:25 AM | Reply

Equally ridiculous is the notion is that arrests and incarceration.are motivated by profit. Indeed, the private sector has their hands in the criminal justice cookie jar, but that doesn't impact Officer behavior, prosecutors or sentencing. Virtually all police departments are understaffed, jails are overcrowded, prosecutors have enormous stacks of case files and dockets are backlogged.

Do the math. Most crime is never reported, of those that are reported, most don't result in arrests, if those arrested most cases are dropped by prosecution, and of those that aren't dropped,most plea out for mush lesser offenses. The "machine" isn't filling jail cells with innocent people fir profits and political gain.

#181 | Posted by Miranda7 at 2021-11-11 07:40 AM | Reply

"It's not, every single time. Even with the black game warden and the white redneck that tried to escape him. All the young black men were disqualified on that question. Uh, welcome to Houston I guess."

SITZ

I thought we were talking about one black juror in Georgia. Who dropped the ball there?

#182 | Posted by Twinpac at 2021-11-11 08:59 AM | Reply

The "machine" isn't filling jail cells with innocent people fir profits and political gain.

#181 | POSTED BY MIRANDA7 AT 2021-11-11 07:40 AM | FLAG:
(CHOOSE)

You're not wrong, but you're not completely right either. Big business isn't ever going to be pushing for arrests at the shift meeting of police officers. That's not how private prisons work. They start by lobbying to get laws passed in their favor. Once they open private prisons it changes the game tremendously in a couple of ways. 1) it gives judges an option that they didn't have when they didn't have a choice because there was no room to put someone in prison 2) Federal prisoners are placed in local jails a lot of time (at a daily rate) and if they grease the right palms they can get that business. The fact that my sheriff made national news a few years ago got my attention and I began to look into this. He made some noise because he had federal prisoners in his jail and was being paid fairly to house them. All of a sudden, feds send people to pick up the prisoners and transport to a private prison. After he did a bit of investigating, he found out that the feds were paying the private prison a helluva lot more than they were paying him.

Im my opinion, we shouldn't have private prisons. Why? because with any business, the model is to expand and grow the net profits. That's not the business model I want for our country who has some of the highest incarceration rates in the world. That's the same model of our healthcare system here. We treat the symptom instead of the cause.

#183 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2021-11-11 09:49 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"How the hell is that legal? I didn't read that thread."

Systematic racism. It's built into the system. It shouldn't be allowed but it is.

Because. America!

In a 1987 training video that became notorious when it was leaked years later, Jack McMahon, an assistant district attorney in Philadelphia, told new prosecutors,

"When you do have a black jury, you question them at length. And on this little sheet that you have, mark something down that you can articulate later. . . . You may want to ask more questions of those people so it gives you more ammunition to make an articulable reason as to why you are striking them, not for race."

www.newyorker.com

So much for a "jury a your peers".

My advice? Be born white.

#184 | Posted by donnerboy at 2021-11-11 10:24 AM | Reply

"Im my opinion, we shouldn't have private prisons."

I can't imagine why any sensible person would think we should have private prisons.

Why not have private a private justice system while we're at it?

(GEO Group furiously taking notes)

#185 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-11-11 10:26 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The "machine" isn't filling jail cells with innocent people fir profits and political gain."

^
You speak with forked tongue.

It doesn't need to "fill" the jail.

It just needs a few high profile cases to advance the Law and Order narrative.

Exhibit A: Bakersfield ritual sex abuse scandal. Only a handful of people went to jail for that, for a handful of decades. But it cemented the Kern County DA's hold on power for decades to come.

Exhibit B: The prosecutorial career of Kamala Harris.

#186 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-11-11 10:30 AM | Reply

"Not to say that's never happened, but it would be very rare, and pointless."

^
Setting aside how common it is --

It's not pointless at all.
It has a very clear point.
It's part and parcel of systemic racism.

#187 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-11-11 10:32 AM | Reply

SITZ
I thought we were talking about one black juror in Georgia. Who dropped the ball there?

#182 | POSTED BY TWINPAC AT 2021-11-11 08:59 AM | FLAG:

I was hoping Yav would explain that one. I see the case is live from Georgia but haven't been following it. I really hope those guys get convicted.

#188 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-11-11 11:09 AM | Reply

Explain?

The defense used peremptory strikes to strike all the black potential jurists once they had narrowed down the pool. There were 12 black jurists, and they had 11 peremptory strikes left at that point to use, and they used them all. They were left with one black person on the jury as a result.

The judge said it stunk, but he was satisfied the peremptory strikes were not used because of their race.

There's a lot of news sites that covered it, some in better detail than others. You may want to google
Arbery Preemptory Strike

I believe I said they were given 23 strikes, it was actually 24, and the Prosecution was given 12.

Here's a decent write-up:
www.ajc.com

#189 | Posted by YAV at 2021-11-11 11:31 AM | Reply

Funny means funny.

#49 | POSTED BY RCADE

Not to be critical or distract but:

Does it? Funny has several meanings. I think ludicrous is one.

adjective
1.
causing laughter or amusement; humorous.
"a funny story"
Similar:
amusing
humorous
comic
comical
droll
laughable
chucklesome
hilarious
hysterical
riotous
uproarious
witty
quick-witted
waggish
facetious
jolly
jocular
lighthearted
entertaining
diverting
sparkling
scintillating
silly
absurd
ridiculous
ludicrous
risible
farcical
preposterous
slapstick
sidesplitting
rib-tickling
laugh-a-minute
wacky
zany
off the wall
killing
a scream
rich
priceless
daft
Opposite:
serious
tragic
2.
difficult to explain or understand; strange or odd.
"I had a funny feeling you'd be around"
noun
1.
NORTH AMERICAN
comic strips in newspapers.
"I read the sports page, funnies, and editorial"
2.
INFORMAL
a joke or witty remark.
"I was trying to make a funny, but failed miserably"

Sometimes it means witty sometimes ludicrous. Sometimes
factious.
Similar:
amusing
humorous
comic
comical
droll
laughable
chucklesome
hilarious
hysterical
riotous
uproarious
witty
quick-witted
waggish
facetious
jolly
jocular
lighthearted
entertaining
diverting
sparkling
scintillating
silly
absurd
ridiculous
ludicrous
risible
farcical
preposterous
slapstick
sidesplitting
rib-tickling
laugh-a-minute
wacky
zany
off the wall
killing
a scream
rich

So I can see why many take liberties with a "funny flag". Probably have done it myself.

#190 | Posted by donnerboy at 2021-11-11 11:31 AM | Reply

SITZ

As you can see, YAV did explain it. Thanks to both of you.

#191 | Posted by Twinpac at 2021-11-11 11:44 AM | Reply

Ya - glad to clarify. I didn't realize Sitz was waiting on me. Mea culpa.

#192 | Posted by YAV at 2021-11-11 11:57 AM | Reply

I'm looking for a good video of the jury selection. I've got to see this one.

#193 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-11-11 12:01 PM | Reply

So I can see why many take liberties with a "funny flag".

Usually it translates to "You are an idiot".

Boaz is right, and actually correct as well. We are missing a "Humtake Flag", which would stop FF abuse.

#194 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-11-11 12:03 PM | Reply

Add an "Ashton Stamp" flag and I'm in!

[ashton stamp]
Please explain. Your claim is ridiculous. Stop repeating what you hear and educate yourself. What exactly was that supposed to prove? When your point is based entirely on an assumption, you didn't have a point to begin with. In order to make your point, you had to make something up completely. See the problem? Anything else that you would like to make up? The rest of your post was just mindless. I think you have only shown that you assume too much.
Do you ever actually understand what you are commenting on or does stupidity just take hold? Does anyone really understand what this person is babbling about?
[/ashton stamp]

#195 | Posted by YAV at 2021-11-11 12:16 PM | Reply

LARRY was on that funny flag kick for a while, too. To him it meant "ridiculous" because was too lazy to disagree in print.

I wonder what ever happened to good ol' Laura?

#196 | Posted by Twinpac at 2021-11-11 03:39 PM | Reply

Who is Larry?

Come on Twin.

You should be better than that.

#197 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-11-11 03:43 PM | Reply

CLOWN

I guess my post was too nuanced. :)

I'm always called him/her/shim Larry. I haven't heard of a DNA transplant yet.

#198 | Posted by Twinpac at 2021-11-11 04:32 PM | Reply

Doesn't matter what you've always done.

Laura has asked to be addressed as Laura.

Doesn't take DNA evidence to be a decent human being and call someone by the name they've asked to be addressed by.

#199 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-11-11 05:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

CLOWN

He can be called called Mary Ann for all I care. He's still a he.

BTW way, I've never disrespected Larry. I don't believe we've even had a cross word. But he did get on my bad side when, for some unknown reason, started following me around to flag all my posts as funny. That's when he lost my respect.

I just figured he'd taken one injection too many and flipped out.

#200 | Posted by Twinpac at 2021-11-11 06:01 PM | Reply

I've never disrespected Larry.

How can you write this sentence and think you're being serious?

#201 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-11-11 10:16 PM | Reply

Doesn't take DNA evidence to be a decent human being and call someone by the name they've asked to be addressed by.

#199 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

You just called someone a pedo.

How can you write that and think you're being serious?

#202 | Posted by eberly at 2021-11-11 10:22 PM | Reply

You just called someone a pedo.
How can you write that and think you're being serious?
#202 | POSTED BY EBERLY

I'm not being serious.

Any other questions?

#203 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-11-11 10:26 PM | Reply

"How can you write this sentence and think you're being serious?"

#201 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

I'm not being serious.

Any other questions? :)

#204 | Posted by Twinpac at 2021-11-11 11:38 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

He can be called called Mary Ann for all I care. He's still a he.
#200 | POSTED BY TWINPAC

This literally sounds like something from one of those ------ black and white movies from the 50s. How old are you?

#205 | Posted by JOE at 2021-11-12 12:13 AM | Reply

JOE

Ever heard of syndication?

#206 | Posted by Twinpac at 2021-11-12 12:18 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

I liked Mary Ann too, but then I was in the Bailey Quarters camp as well.

#207 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-11-12 12:38 AM | Reply

I was in the Bailey Quarters camp as well.

#207 | POSTED BY REDIAL

She was very under-rated. Because she was nerdy they went out of their way to make her dress kind of frumpy.

#208 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-11-12 12:58 AM | Reply

I'm learning interesting things here.

#209 | Posted by jakester at 2021-11-12 01:03 AM | Reply

Because she was nerdy they went out of their way to make her dress kind of frumpy.

I assume you mean excluding Fever's t-shirt? :-)

#210 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-11-12 01:27 AM | Reply

REDIAL

Smooth segue. :-)

#211 | Posted by Twinpac at 2021-11-12 03:45 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2022 World Readable

Drudge Retort