"Kyle shouldn't have gone to a protest armed with a murder machine, and murdered people with it

#11 | POSTED BYHAMBURGLAR

*riot"

#12 | POSTED BYHAMBURGLAR

*INSURRECTION

'Rittenhouse drove 23 miles to murder someone."

'Rittenhouse drove 23 miles to murder someone."

You could potentially be held liable for a statement like this, as could this site since it technically promotes itself as "moderated".

"Lamp's last name is Heisenberg."

No wonder his posts often lack clarity or certainty.

"Since killing child molesters is A-OK"

It is if they're attacking you.

which priest should we off first?

Erwin Schrodinger.

Rittenhouse is more comparable to Zimmerman than the stupid OJ comparison. Regardless of how stupid he might have been to put himself in that situation, it does not nullify his right to self-defense against a violent attacker, which the video evidence clearly showed.

"I'm 100% certain you've likely touched a minor inappropriately."

This quote might come back to haunt you...

If you feel so strongly about it, why don't you go track him down and dispense justice?

Indisputable fact: a minor was being violently assaulted by a child molester. Posters here like J-W take the side of the molester and say the minor had it coming to him. Then they accuse anyone who calls them out on that BS of being a pedo.

"He was only physically assaulted after brandishing a weapon and over reaction to a plastic bag being thrown at him."

There was never any evidence that he "brandished" a weapon at anyone prior to being violently assaulted. You're lying, and you know it.

"projecting some psychological problems on the thread.... he's posting about abusing children.
That seems like a good reason to bar him from the site."

"I'm 100% certain you've likely touched a minor inappropriately."

"He ACTUALLY DID SHOOT AND KILL two people."

That's fair. He shot and killed two people in self-defense.

"HE ACTUALLY DID have no business there, taking a weapon across state lines, uninvited."

That's both absurd (the BLM protest/riot was by invitation only?) and irrelevant.

"Ummmm there's pictures galore of him marching around with his AR at the low ready"

That is not brandishing, nor evidence of your unsubstantiated statement that followed it.

"waving around threatening people."

Never happened. You're lying.

The prosecution clearly demonstrated to the jury that they didn't have the evidence to show Kyle did what they claimed when THEY literally brandished a weapon and pointed it at the jury.

"The judge was clearly extremely biased."

You sound just like Trump and his whiners.

"Let's keep in mind that Kyle rittenhouse was the ONLY person (during a riot the right would say) to kill someone that night. "

The entire prosecution's case was built on red herrings like this.

"For instance, barring prosecution from presenting statements from Kyle where he expressed a desire to do exactly what he did."

You believe he actually shot rounds at people who were looting a CVS?

"I always found it odd that Kyle, whose purported goal that night was to render medical aid to those who needed it, never saw fit to check up on any of the people he shot."

Given that you know what the circumstances were with a mob advancing on him, this statement is downright Kafkaesque.

"Did he bring his weapon to kill unarmed protesters?"

Still zero evidence that Rittenhouse ever did that or had an intention of doing so.

Still zero evidence that Rittenhouse brough his weapon with an intention of killing unarmed protesters.

The claim made earlier in this thread that we should "keep in mind" he was "ONLY person (during a riot the right would say) to kill someone that night" is in fact a red herring.

"He drove to a protest with a fully loaded AR15 but did not intend on using it?"

You'd make a really lousy prosecutor, Donnerboy. Even the simplest jury can see how you moved from the original claim of intending to use it to murder unarmed protesters to potentially using it in any manner under specific circumstances. His intention was clearly to deter looters. His interactions with the people he shot had nothing to do with them being looters, much less unarmed protesters.

"By his own admission Rittenhouse took the weapon to defend a business. He brandished it."

You don't know what that word means.

"Why are you defending this little scumbag?"

Facts matter. People should not be prosecuted based on lies, even if they are little scumbags.

"He was only attacked after he shot someone."

I just ... how? How did you type this out and press send without thinking I should maybe check my source for this, because it might've been a fever dream'?

"Until then he had a plastic bag thrown at him and was chased by an unarmed protestor/rioter/whatever."

It's absolutely fascinating how you are the one choosing to conflate unarmed protester/rioter/whatever.

It's also very damning to your case that you have to lie about the sequence of events, the nature of the solid object that was thrown at him, and leave out other facts about the interaction. By any rational standard, being chased by crazed person who's making threatening comments and throwing solid objects at you constitutes an attack.

"The force that initial shooting precipitated against him was warranted by any reasonable person and was not, therefore, self defense."

You heard it here first, folks, lynch mobs are justified!

FTA in your link:

In opening statements, the prosecution said evidence would show Rittenhouse chased down and fatally shot Rosenbaum

The prosecution's case was sham and every rational person knew it.

All you have are lies. You lie about him not being attacked before shooting someone. You lie about the context his earlier statements that were excluded from court. You lie about the "plastic bag", both when it was thrown at him and the insinuation that it was nothing more than a plastic bag. You lie by omission about a number of things. You don't care about the facts.

According to your own article, the prosecution's opening argument was thar Rittenhouse was the one who chased down Rosenbaum and then shot him. The witness testimony indicated that Rosenbaum was "hyperaggressive" all night including towards actual protesters. As we all know, he was the one chasing Kyle, and a gunshot by someone else went off around the time he threw a solid object at him.

"God damn righties are stupid."

People like you who dig in to untenable positions based on political reasons are beyond stupid.

"My reasons aren't political, moron."

Of course they are. You basically just called anyone who doesn't agree with the proposition that the assault victim brought it on himself "righties". It's not the first time you've politicized either, as I recall.

Here's a hint: especially when it comes women and minors, arguing that an assault victim is entirely to blame for his or her own assault requires very compelling evidence to sway a jury. No matter how much you want to believe otherwise, the evidence didn't come anywhere close to meeting that bar, even if you include the stuff you alluded to that was excluded.

"[I know you are but what am I?]
Mine are based entirely in my disgust for Rittenhouse and how wrong his actions were from a gun ownership and self defense standpoint."

You understand that disgust is an emotion like hatred, right? You just acknowledged that your views on this case are based "entirely" on emotion. I called both you and the prosecutors out on numerous lies, and you haven't even bothered to backtrack on them. Your views are clearly not based on logic and facts.

It's really sad, because you could make valid arguments about Rittenhouse being a punk, and even irresponsible gun owner, but that does not make him responsible for Rosenbaum's violent actions against him nor the circumstances such as the shot Josh Ziminski fired, which for all he knew at the time could have been coming from his attacker.

It does seem like you really sympathize with Rosenbaum and were all for the violence he perpetuated against Kyle Rittenhouse.

"Simply being chased and never struck or contacted is not an imminent threat to your life."

Wow, and you lecture others about knowing about self-defense? I'm not gonna say what I'm thinking about you right now, but it's not flattering at all.

And yeah, I know probably you probably want me to insult you, because that's how you roll, but you're really being G.D. Hypocrite here.

Got it. Your views are not only politically based but also racial. If Kyle had been a NBP member who dispatched some MAGA creeps who assaulted him, you'd be totally fine with it (as I would).

All the rest of your frothing is just more evidence of how unhinged and emotional your view on this is.

Good night. Try not to choke on your own froth, Ricky.

I'm 100% certain that JPW likely touched his own kids inappropriately.

"jpw is a racist! LOL"

If you say so.

Might as well swap the c out with a p too.

It's funny how the same people who criticize Rittenhouse (and Sandmann) for embracing and being embraced by the right are often the same ones who pushed them in that direction, not wanting to have any way of sustaining a livelihood after they turned 18.

It's also notable how there's little to no self-awareness how painting him as the right's "hero" mirrors how the right painted Floyd and others as the left's "hero".

We live in an age of martyrs.

Looks like someone is getting schooled on how self-defense actually works.

It's very telling that JPW fantasizes about sexual abuse, especially in the context of this story. I guess he really is a Rosenbaum after all.

"isn't fantasizing"

So you're actually acting this stuff out? Sad, but not surprising.

It's too bad we can't access the archives to this site like Rcade can. I recall there were lots of comments of people cheering on the thought of Kyle being raped in prison.

#221

It's just another version of the "she was dressed provocatively" argument.

#225

What is that even supposed to mean?

Never mind, I'll take it as a concession that you can't defend your argument or were illustrating how it was in fact analogous to what I pointed out.

"Just to men who cannot control their sexual urges."

Like Rosenbaum.

I have no idea what was going through Rosenbaum's mind. We can only judge him by his behavior that night, which included being hyperaggressive towards numerous people and making death threats. It's absurd how you guys assume Rosenbaum had 0% responsibility for his own death, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Wanting to see Kyle convicted of first degree murder implies you believed the people he shot were victims in the situation and nothing more.

The testimony was very clear that Rosenbaum stated earlier he would "------- kill [him]" if he caught up with him. It was reasonable for Rittenhouse to believe he would follow through on that threat.

It's just goes to show, when you grossly overcharge someone and it's blatantly obvious like it was in both of those cases, it shouldn't be surprising when the jury tells the prosecution to F off.

"Suffice it to say, you have not convinced me that Kyle Rittenhouse's first victim provoked a reasonable fear of great bodily harm. I've suffered more threatening acts on the subway and managed to come out unscathed."

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that someone who compares a person of Rosenbaum's size and stature to a 5-year-old could not be convinced of what a reasonable person could be convinced of. Rosenbaum was just as innocent as a 5-year-old, huh?

In the moment, Rittenhouse had two choices. He could either shoot his attacker, or he could allow the attacker to overpower him and take his gun, at which point it could have been used against him to follow through on the attacker's threat.

"That example was used in response to the claim that a verbal threat to kill justifies shooting someone in the head and back."

Nobody ever made the claim that a verbal threat alone justifies shooting someone.

"It's hard to paint Rittenhouse as an aggressor, since he didn't actively threaten anyone to the best of my knowledge."

There argument seems to be he was a threat simply by existing.

*Their

The argument made in this thread that an imminent threat cannot exist unless and until physical contact is made is absurd on its face. It's hard to believe that the person making it doesn't know that. Then again, excessive alcohol use can cause brain damage.

I'm 100% certain that JPW likely touched his kids inappropriately. He fits the profile of a sexual abuser and often praises other sexual abusers.

What ever happened to Brute Banner anyway? Did he end up back in prison? He never showed any remorse for his sexual abuse. Which suggests it was an intrinsic part of his character (or lack thereof).

"but it does not mean the person at issue is not a massive piece of ----."

Here is where you don't understand how the law works. Whether he was piece of ---- or a good choir boy are both irrelevant to whether or not he had a right to self-defense in that specific situation.

One of the trolls in this thread made request about a gaping hole. OK, here ya go...

Here are some things I did not previously know about Rosenbaum:

From the above Wikipedia article:

Rittenhouse testified that he heard Ziminski shout to Rosenbaum "Get him and kill him!"

Ziminski fired a shot into the air, and was later charged with disorderly conduct using a dangerous weapon.[81][34] After the shot was fired, Rittenhouse turned around, to see Rosenbaum now only a few feet away from him.[75] According to McGinniss, who was standing near Rittenhouse at the time, Rosenbaum then shouted "---- you!" and "lunged" at Rittenhouse and grabbed the barrel of his rifle.

Another protester, Anthony Huber, struck Rittenhouse's left shoulder, neck and head with a skateboard as the pair struggled for control of the gun.[95][77][11][96] As Huber was pulling on the rifle, Rittenhouse fired once

"I believe Rittenhouse to be a loser and I wish there was a remedy for him to be punished criminally."

Being a loser isn't a crime. If it was, everyone on this site would be in jail.

Rittenhouse testified that he received a call from Dominick Black telling him that the Car Source location at 63rd and Sheridan was being vandalized and that many vehicles had been set on fire and requesting him to go to that location and help put out fires. Rittenhouse then asked another person at the Ultimate Gas Station for a fire extinguisher and to accompany him to the Car Source location at 63rd and Sheridan. This person provided him a fire extinguisher but did not accompany him to the location.[75]

Rittenhouse testified that he then walked and ran towards the Car Source location at 63rd and Sheridan on his own, carrying his rifle, the fire extinguisher and some first aid supplies. As he approached the Car Source lot at 63rd and Sheridan he heard someone shout "Burn in hell!". He responded "Friendly! Friendly! Friendly!" to placate them but could not see who it was.[75]

Rittenhouse testified that when he reached the Car Source lot, he noticed a vehicle with flames in the back seat and approached the vehicle intending to put out the fire. He was then approached from near the vehicle by Joshua Ziminski, who was holding a pistol in his hand. Rittenhouse dropped the fire extinguisher, intending to run away. He then noticed Rosenbaum approaching him on his right, around the side of the vehicle, with a t-shirt wrapped around his face.

Rittenhouse testified that he then believed himself to be in danger and ran south-west across the lot, aiming for the safety of the Car Source lot buildings. Rosenbaum chased after him. Rittenhouse testified that he heard Ziminski shout to Rosenbaum "Get him and kill him!", and that he soon perceived his avenue of escape to be blocked by vehicles and a group of protesters, and that Rosenbaum was catching up to him.[75] Video footage showed Rittenhouse being pursued across a parking lot by a group of people.

Ziminski fired a shot into the air, and was later charged with disorderly conduct using a dangerous weapon.[81][34] After the shot was fired, Rittenhouse turned around, to see Rosenbaum now only a few feet away from him.[75] According to McGinniss, who was standing near Rittenhouse at the time, Rosenbaum then shouted "---- you!" and "lunged" at Rittenhouse and grabbed the barrel of his rifle.[6] Rittenhouse then fired four shots at Rosenbaum, killing him.

McGinniss, who had been standing fifteen feet away and felt one of the bullets whiz by his leg, checked himself before he began to administer first aid to Rosenbaum and told Rittenhouse to call 911.

Rittenhouse then ran down the street towards police vehicles[30] pursued by protesters.

Given the above description, why hasn't Ziminski been charged in Rosenbaum's death?

A case could also be made that Ziminski is culpable for Huber's death and Grosskreuz's maiming.

"Thanks Grandpa, we can all read wikipedia. "

Obviously you haven't.

No matter how much of POS Rittenhouse might be, the lying trolls in this thread proven themselves to be bigger ones.

"Okay. Tell us about the facts that were excluded by the judge."

Fine, let's talk about that. A few weeks earlier, Rittenhouse shot his mouth off about a video he saw of some looters at a CVS. If he had actually shot rounds off at random looters, then that likely would have been admissible as evidence, but since he never did anything like that it was irrelevant to the charges against him, just like Rosenbaum's and Huber's past bad behavior was irrelevant and was excluded by the judge when the defense wanted to bring it up.

Yeah, you are, because you don't have an honest take. If it wasn't for his political views, you wouldn't support Rosenbaum's attempted murder of him nor the subsequent mob violence, in which people became angry and violent in the same way others did based on hearsay and rumors during lynchings.

"I don't support anyone's attempt to murder anyone."

All your comments in this thread belie that claim.

Testimony by third parties clearly established that it could be reasonably inferred that Rosenbaum was attempting to kill Rittenhouse when he grabbed his gun. So there's only two possibilities here: either you think Rosenbaum was justified in his attack and Rittenhouse didn't have the right to defend himself against that, or you're ignoring the relevant facts in the case because you're a dishonest troll like Snoofy and Reinheit often are on this board.

And that's the last word.