Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Kyle Rittenhouse Trial


Paranoid Android
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/rittenhouse-fired-shots-when-rioters-attacked-his-lawyer-says/ar-AAQJvfN?ocid=msedgdhp

(Bloomberg) -- Kyle Rittenhouse wasn’t trying to protect property or save lives when he traveled to Kenosha, Wisconsin, with an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle during a chaotic Black Lives Matter protest in August 2020, a state prosecutor told jurors at the end of a murder trial.

Most Read from Bloomberg

Rittenhouse, 18, killed two men who were responding reasonably to the presence of a teenager who was brandishing a deadly weapon among unarmed protesters, prosecutor Thomas Binger told the 12-person panel during the state’s closing argument on Monday.

 
http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.taboola.com%2Flibtrc%2Fstatic%2Fthumbnails%2Fc8820f3e8c1ad72ed19b7aab5da475ad.png
 
“This is a case in which a 17-year-old teenager killed two unarmed men and severely wounded a third person,” Binger said. “This isn’t a situation where he was protecting his home or his family.” The prosecutor added, “You cannot claim the right to self-defense for a danger you create.”
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, and then said:

I think we'll see worse before this is over.  The media have regularly described this event as due to white supremacy, racism, you name it.  The actual news of this trial hasn't been explained and IMO there is going to be an expectation on the Left for a murder conviction.  That expectation will almost certainly lead to the same kind of violence that caused this event.  Several cities are already gearing up to try to control potential mob violence.  IF it comes, the media will be responsible for every loss suffered.

Oh please stop blaming the media for everything. I have been watching this trial from day one on CNN and they have been nothing more than respectful towards both the defense and the prosecution, the judge and Rittenhouse himself. They are just reporting the news and give a platform to individuals, whether left or right, to give their opinion on the case. No fake news here. Just good ole fashioned reporting and highlighting the case from all kinds of points of view which is great for the neutral watcher. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who would chase after someone with a gun?

I know I wouldn`t. I know if that person then held the gun up at me I wouldn`t continue to chase them. And I definitely wouldn`t go in and try to grab the weapon.

And I would know when chasing them (even though I wouldn`t) if I throw a large object at the guy with the gun then he is going to feel threatened. And then trying to grab his gun would likely set him off.

Edited by Cookie Monster
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, toast said:

Which he has not done.

You didn't watch any of the trial or evidence?  Yes, he acted to defend himself.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

Who would chase after someone with a gun?

I know I wouldn`t. I know if that person then held the gun up at me I wouldn`t continue to chase them. And I definitely wouldn`t go in and try to grab the weapon.

And I would know when chasing them (even though I wouldn`t) if I throw a large object at the guy with the gun then he is going to feel threatened. And then trying to grab his gun would likely set him off.

https://giffords.org/blog/2020/10/the-good-guy-with-a-gun-myth/

ARMED CIVILIANS RARELY SUCCESSFULLY INTERVENE IN MASS SHOOTINGS.

  • An FBI analysis of 160 active shooter incidents from 2000–2013 found that active shooter incidents were rarely stopped by armed individuals who were not law enforcement returning fire. In fact, four times as many shootings were stopped by unarmed civilians restraining the shooter.
  • The gun lobby claims that shooters target “gun free zones” because they fear a “good guy with a gun,” and that arming more people in more places will deter crime. However, most mass shooters target a specific person, group, or institution with whom they have a grievance, making it unlikely that a gun-free policy affects the choice of target.
  • No credible statistical evidence exists to show that permissive concealed carry laws reduce crime. Instead, the evidence suggests that laws that make it easier for more people to carry guns in public may actually increase the frequency of some types of violent crime, including gun homicides.

We know what will lead to less gun violence, and it’s proven gun safety laws and programs—not more guns in untrained hands. Winning gun fights is not a sensible national public safety strategy; it’s simply a fear-based marketing strategy to sell more guns. It’s long past time we do away with the myth of the crime-stopping “good guy with a gun.

Well I guess not everyone thinks like you

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

https://giffords.org/blog/2020/10/the-good-guy-with-a-gun-myth/

ARMED CIVILIANS RARELY SUCCESSFULLY INTERVENE IN MASS SHOOTINGS.

  • An FBI analysis of 160 active shooter incidents from 2000–2013 found that active shooter incidents were rarely stopped by armed individuals who were not law enforcement returning fire. In fact, four times as many shootings were stopped by unarmed civilians restraining the shooter.
  • The gun lobby claims that shooters target “gun free zones” because they fear a “good guy with a gun,” and that arming more people in more places will deter crime. However, most mass shooters target a specific person, group, or institution with whom they have a grievance, making it unlikely that a gun-free policy affects the choice of target.
  • No credible statistical evidence exists to show that permissive concealed carry laws reduce crime. Instead, the evidence suggests that laws that make it easier for more people to carry guns in public may actually increase the frequency of some types of violent crime, including gun homicides.

We know what will lead to less gun violence, and it’s proven gun safety laws and programs—not more guns in untrained hands. Winning gun fights is not a sensible national public safety strategy; it’s simply a fear-based marketing strategy to sell more guns. It’s long past time we do away with the myth of the crime-stopping “good guy with a gun.

Well I guess not everyone thinks like you

So? What relevance does this have to this specific case?

We dont determine guilt by the general findings of a study on 160 shooters, we determine guilt based on the specifics in a specific case. Lets sod off the evidence and determine guilt or innocence based on statistics. How insane.

Edited by Cookie Monster
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cookie Monster said:

So? What relevance does this have to this specific case?

 

28 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

Who would chase after someone with a gun?

I know I wouldn`t. I know if that person then held the gun up at me I wouldn`t continue to chase them. And I definitely wouldn`t go in and try to grab the weapon.

And I would know when chasing them (even though I wouldn`t) if I throw a large object at the guy with the gun then he is going to feel threatened. And then trying to grab his gun would likely set him off.

Read your own post as that is what I was responding to

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

ARMED CIVILIANS RARELY SUCCESSFULLY INTERVENE IN MASS SHOOTINGS

So?  That's not why people have guns.  They mostly have them to defend themselves or for recreational purposes (competitive shooting, hunting, enjoyment)

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Read your own post as that is what I was responding to

You need to read the contents of your own post.

Its an argument of guilt found by analysing 160 cases. It is not based on the facts of this specific case and therefore irrelevant. By that faulty logic if 150 people out of 200 who wear red ties are communists, then when you encounter someone in a red tie they must be too.

Edited by Cookie Monster
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, OverSword said:

So?  That's not why people have guns.  They mostly have them to defend themselves or for recreational purposes (competitive shooting, hunting, enjoyment)

 

6 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

An FBI analysis of 160 active shooter incidents from 2000–2013 found that active shooter incidents were rarely stopped by armed individuals who were not law enforcement returning fire. In fact, four times as many shootings were stopped by unarmed civilians restraining the shooter.

Not sure what you thought I was saying but maybe read links

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Rittenhouse lived 10 minutes away and worked in the district.

So it was not travelling miles and miles across a state border to get there. Another lie by the media.

Edited by Cookie Monster
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

You need to read the contents of your own post.

Its an argument of guilt found by analysing 160 cases. It is not based on the facts of this specific case and therefore irrelevant. By that faulty logic if 150 people out of 200 who wear red ties are communists, then when you encounter someone in a red tie they must be too.

What it shows is that not all people are nutless wonders that run away from a problem, you said you would run so it is relevant to your claim that people all run away from armed individuals which is not the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This prosecutor is a piece of crap. Comparing police going into dangerous situations to rioters chasing Rittenhouse is one slimy argument. His argument is tantamount to mob rule, Just because someone on the street is yelling something doesn’t give someone else the right to violently assault a third person. Rittenhouse was in full retreat there was no imminent threat from him. 

Quote

WATCH: Prosecutor in Rittenhouse Case Praises Rioters; ‘That Crowd Was Full of Heroes’

https://www.breitbart.com/law-and-order/2021/11/15/watch-prosecutor-in-rittenhouse-case-praises-rioters-that-crowd-was-full-of-heroes/

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

This prosecutor is a piece of crap. Comparing police going into dangerous situations to rioters chasing Rittenhouse is one slimy argument. His argument is tantamount to mob rule, Just because someone on the street is yelling something doesn’t give someone else the right to violently assault a third person. Rittenhouse was in full retreat there was no imminent threat from him. 

https://www.breitbart.com/law-and-order/2021/11/15/watch-prosecutor-in-rittenhouse-case-praises-rioters-that-crowd-was-full-of-heroes/

The people at the Capitol riots were retreating too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Timothy said:

The people at the Capitol riots were retreating too.

Cryptic but fascinating. 
By all means please elaborate how the Capital Riot is comparable to the Rittenhouse case. 

Edited by el midgetron
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

Cryptic but fascinating. 
By all means please elaborate how the Capital Riot is comparable to the Rittenhouse case. 

Trump on the street yelling something resulting in the assault of third persons. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Timothy said:

Trump on the street yelling something resulting in the assault of third persons. 

Ummkay, I’ll assume you are referring to when Trump told protesters to “'peacefully and patriotically” make their voices heard.

Are you sure it wasn’t Putin yelling those things?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, el midgetron said:

Ummkay, I’ll assume you are referring to when Trump told protesters to “'peacefully and patriotically” make their voices heard.

Are you sure it wasn’t Putin yelling those things?

Peacefully and patriotically resulting in one of the most concerning events in the US in recent history.

Putin is too busy riding horses shirtless to worry about inciting violence amongst American idiots. Probably time better spent to be honest.

Edited by Timothy
Typo.
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most concerning to you. I was a little more concerned during the months of violence that left like 30 people dead and billions in damage. The media  didn’t tell you the sky was falling during that though.
 

By the media’s standard, the 6th was a mostly peaceful protest. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, OverSword said:

You didn't watch any of the trial or evidence? 

I did, lots of it and many hours.

Quote

Yes, he acted to defend himself.

1.) He was not in danger of death but he acted like he was. 2.) he joined the scene, looking for trouble and thought his actions will be covered by existing laws somehow.

Its really scary to see (again) that a lot of you people over there approve the actions of this little, disturbed brownshirt, some even see him as a kind of role model and/or hero. And again it has been shown that a general and a permanent readiness to use violence seems to be a part of the US culture. Whats the aim and where should that end? A better and fairer society? Isn't the devastating status quo discernible?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, el midgetron said:

Most concerning to you. I was a little more concerned during the months of violence that left like 30 people dead and billions in damage. The media  didn’t tell you the sky was falling during that though.
 

By the media’s standard, the 6th was a mostly peaceful protest. 

But still you’re arguing for and against the same actions. 

Just because someone on the street is yelling something doesn’t give someone else the right to violently assault a third person.

Your words. Seems acceptable when it suits your position.

So which way do you want it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.