We have video showing the chase. Rosenbaum starts picking up pace while Kyle seemingly doesn't realize he's behind him. The prosecution says they have thermal video showing something prior to that, but they have no audio or anything else about it apparently. This is looking very similar to Zimmerman. According to the legal statutes, Kyle should go free and the trial should never have happened. Unless they bring something out new, this is looking retarded AF.
,
That's rich irony for all 3 "victims". They each acted like vigilante cops, haha. One of them even was convicted of false imprisonment. Grosskreutz didn't even act afraid -- if you thought there was an active shooting, why would you think "hands up, don't shoot" would work to spare your life and why would he hold a phone to livestream it?
What was he rejected for by the military? The vast majority of rejections wouldn't signal much about being a murderer obviously.
Thanks for justifying illegal vigilantism being judge jury and executioner with an illegally carried weapon. If some underage far left radical went with a gun into a volatile situation seeking out trouble and putting gas on the fire and then ended up shooting 3 people, I'd want them to suffer the consequences.
As usual the righties on here show they lack morals and are rotten to the core.
Acting in self defense is not vigilantism.Thanks for justifying illegal vigilantism being judge jury and executioner with an illegally carried weapon. If some underage far left radical went with a gun into a volatile situation seeking out trouble and putting gas on the fire and then ended up shooting 3 people, I'd want them to suffer the consequences.
As usual the righties on here show they lack morals and are rotten to the core.
you can't show up to self defense.Acting in self defense is not vigilantism.
Acting in self defense is not vigilantism.
How do we know those people were victims? Couldn't they be assailants? I don't know if the kid is guilty of a crime or not. Either way he gets a trial.Too bad his victims didn't get a trial, instead of being shot by a kid who gets off larping army man.
Exactly! Defending against a socialist takeover of the country is self defense. The ones he missed should b e rounded up and put in the gas chamber. What is it about liberals that makes this not obvious and clear. Obviously they have no moral center, right?Acting in self defense is not vigilantism.
The question raised by this thread is not whether there will be a trial but whether the presiding judge will deliver one worthy of the name.How do we know those people were victims? Couldn't they be assailants? I don't know if the kid is guilty of a crime or not. Either way he gets a trial.
How do we know those people were victims? Couldn't they be assailants? I don't know if the kid is guilty of a crime or not. Either way he gets a trial.
For those ofWell..
The judge did not say the prosecution can call the people who died peaceful protestors..
He's a total cvntLooks like this judge is a real winner, haha. What a clown.
Absent Rittenhouse illegally carrying a gun across state lines how would he have been able to shoot anyone?How do we know those people were victims? Couldn't they be assailants? I don't know if the kid is guilty of a crime or not. Either way he gets a trial.
Absent Rittenhouse illegally carrying a gun across state lines how would he have been able to shoot anyone?
To help protect a car lot for being looted and burned after it was already damaged in the 1st night of BLM/Antifa rioting. You did see the video of the local police welcoming him didn't you?Why else was was Rittenhouse there in the first place if not vigilantism?
I love you Moonie, but that wouldn't qualify as self defense. This particular case centers around actual physical violence against Mr. Rittenhouse with intent to cause great physical damage.Exactly! Defending against a socialist takeover of the country is self defense. The ones he missed should b e rounded up and put in the gas chamber. What is it about liberals that makes this not obvious and clear. Obviously they have no moral center, right?
He did not carry it across State lines................ as was pointed out earlier in the thread.Absent Rittenhouse illegally carrying a gun across state lines how would he have been able to shoot anyone?
No, the Judge said:That's not the point. If the judge wants to keep out emotionally loaded descriptors then that prohibition needs to apply to the defense as well. That's obviously not what's happening.
It only depends if he does what you want ? A judge preventing a lynching is a bad thing now?The question raised by this thread is not whether there will be a trial but whether the presiding judge will deliver one worthy of the name.
That earlier quote KR didn't cross state lines with a gun was just a FB post by some idiot spreading false information.He did not carry it across State lines................ as was pointed out earlier in the thread.
That earlier quote KR didn't cross state lines with a gun was just a FB post by some idiot spreading false information.
Turns out even if he didn't it was illegal to posses the gun at all in the state without parental supervision.
PolitiFact | Did Kyle Rittenhouse break the law by carrying an assault-style rifle in Kenosha?
D: "If you read the law literally, Kyle is not in violation."
J: "So if the law doesn't apply to 17 year olds, why are they even mentioned ? Why would legislature include this section only to cancel it out?"
D: "I don't know your honor. You would need to ask legislature."
J: "I'm going to deny your motion, but we may revisit the topic. Given that we're having so much trouble parsing this law, I'm not sure it's right to expect a regular citizen to comprehend and follow it."
Yes, of course but the reason they intended to cause him great bodily harm was because he came to defend against their socialist threat and they didn't want him to stop them. That's when he had to defend himself. It's like when you go to shoot someone and they pull a gun back and you then have to shoot them to stay alive.I love you Moonie, but that wouldn't qualify as self defense. This particular case centers around actual physical violence against Mr. Rittenhouse with intent to cause great physical damage.
Ah, but law is based on the notion there is such a thing as justice and if, as you say, justice is only what people want then there is no such thing as justice and that would mean I am a liar if I say that what I really want is real justice or that I could have any objective idea as to what it might be. But I know that scientific studies of monkeys have demonstrated that even they know when games that are designed to reward them are rigged in such a say as to be unfair. They won't play such a rigged game. And look at you, you obviously know that lynchings are evil. What it boils down to then is that you have already decided that the judge is interested in stopping a lynching meaning you are the one who has determined what justice is based on what you want, a case in which a judge is trying to stop a lynching. But what if a lynching is just what justice in this case demands? I have no idea but you have already determined what the truth is and rather than see that in you, you see it in me. All I see are marching programmed machines driven by wound up by ideologically springs.It only depends if he does what you want ? A judge preventing a lynching is a bad thing now?
This is going to be a very interesting trial.
Judge sets final ground rules for Rittenhouse trial evidence
A Wisconsin judge is setting the final ground rules for what evidence will be allowed at Kyle Rittenhouse's trial next weekabcnews.go.com
"A Wisconsin judge laid out the final ground rules Monday on what evidence will be allowed when Kyle Rittenhouse goes on trial next week for shooting three people during a protest against police brutality, ruling he'll permit testimony from the defense's use-of-force expert and on how police welcomed Rittenhouse and others carrying guns during the demonstration."
"A Wisconsin judge on Monday ruled that prosecutors in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial cannot refer to the men he is accused of shooting as "victims."
Rittenhouse, 18, has been charged with shooting three people — two fatally — during a protest against police brutality last year, and his trial is set to start on Monday. Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroder said in his Monday decision that he has a standard rule banning use of the word "victim" until a person is convicted of a crime, USA Today reports.
He is more lenient when it comes to other words — Schroeder did not approve a request from Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger, who asked that defense lawyers not be allowed to call the men "looters, rioters, arsonists, or any other pejorative term." Binger argued that there is no proof that the people who were shot had participated in looting, rioting, or arson, and those are even more "loaded" terms than the word "victim." Schroeder responded, "Let the evidence show what it shows."
Judge Sets Final Ground Rules For Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Evidence
Kyle Rittenhouse, 18, of Antioch, Illinois, was among a number of people who responded to calls on social media to take up arms and come to Kenosha to respond to the protests.minnesota.cbslocal.com
"A Wisconsin judge laid out the final ground rules Monday on what evidence will be allowed when Kyle Rittenhouse goes on trial next week for shooting three people during a protest against police brutality, ruling he’ll permit testimony from the defense’s use-of-force expert and on how police welcomed Rittenhouse and others carrying guns during the demonstration."
......................
"Defense attorney Corey Chirafisi argued the video shows that police felt Rittenhouse wasn’t acting recklessly. Binger countered that the shootings happened after Rittenhouse interacted with the police, but Schroeder decided to allow the video.
“If the jury is being told, if the defendant is walking down the sidewalk and doing what he claims he was hired to do and police say good thing you’re here, is that something influencing the defendant and emboldening him in his behavior? That would be an argument for relevance,” the judge said.
Schroeder also denied Binger’s request to bar the defense from referring to Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz as rioters, looters or arsonists. The judge said those terms would be allowed if the defense can produce evidence showing that’s what they were.
Many conservatives have flocked to support Rittenhouse, calling him a patriot and making him a symbol for gun rights and raising $2 million for his bail. Others, including some liberals and activists, portray him as a domestic terrorist and say he made a volatile situation worse."