Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

[+Hammerclaw]

1 minute ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Hammer

You are free to believe whatever you want. As far as I can see he went there with the intent to actively involve himself with no authority.

It is an opinion nothing more

I quite understand. Soldiers are trained to kill people and it takes people able to do that to be soldiers. I don't see anything wrong with wanting to be a soldier. Patriotic young men signed up by the millions in WW2 to kill the enemy. From my perspective, Rittenhouse was the victim, a victim that fought back. I salute him.

[Duke Wellington]

12 minutes ago, thedutchiedutch said:

I don't think he has done a very good job of remaining neutral and impartial at all. At least not from what I have seen.  
He is making this trial all about him. In my opinion a judge should have patience, open-mindedness, courtesy, tact, courage, punctuality, firmness, understanding, compassion, humility and common sense.

Here is what I observed : 

From the defense point of view, highlighted in bold, what he has shown so far  :

Patience, open-mindedness, courtesy, tact, courage, punctuality, firmness, understanding, compassion, humility and common sense.

Now from the prosecutors point of view, highlighted in bold, what he has shown so far :

Patience, open-mindedness, courtesy, tact, courage, punctuality, firmness, understanding, compassion, humility and common sense.

 

 

No idea what you are going on about.

The rule of law dictates what the judge allows or disallows in a court room.

[jmccr8]

2 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

I quite understand. Soldiers are trained to kill people and it takes people able to do that to be soldiers. I don't see anything wrong with wanting to be a soldier. Patriotic young men signed up by the millions in WW2 to kill the enemy. From my perspective, Rittenhouse was the victim, a victim that fought back. I salute him.

Hi Hammer

Some join the forces because they want to protect and others because it is an opportunity and have seen my share of both. He made a choice to be there and walk around with an assault rifle he may be a victim in your eyes and that is fine.

Maybe I am cynical but he put himself in the position he did by his own choice and will leave it at that

[+Hammerclaw]

2 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Hammer

Some join the forces because they want to protect and others because it is an opportunity and have seen my share of both. He made a choice to be there and walk around with an assault rifle he may be a victim in your eyes and that is fine.

Maybe I am cynical but he put himself in the position he did by his own choice and will leave it at that

I don't see it any different than me going out late, armed, for a pack of smokes and killing the armed thugs that tried to rob me. You could say if I'd only not exercised my right of safe passage and just stayed at home, those men would still be alive. Those thugs that accosted Rittenhouse got what they deserved.

[jmccr8]

Just now, Hammerclaw said:

I don't see it any different than me going out late, armed, for a pack of smokes and killing the armed thugs that tried to rob me. You could say if I'd only not exercised my right of safe passage and just stayed at home, those men would still be alive. Those thugs that accosted Rittenhouse got what they deserved.

Hi Hammer

I am not saying you don’t have a right to protect yourself but if you drove to another State to buy that pack of smokes in a riot zone I would question your motivation when there is a corner store a couple of blocks away from your house.

I give a crap about the little peckerwood one way or the other he made a choice to go to a riot carrying an assault rifle openly so no I do not think he is being honest about his intentions and if he got shot instead would think he brought it on himself. I am not asking anyone to agree and all of us here have the same right to voice an opinion. 
I am not looking for blood nor am I going to kiss anyone’s butt over over what some dumba$$ did

[Michelle]

20 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

I am not saying you don’t have a right to protect yourself but if you drove to another State to buy that pack of smokes in a riot zone I would question your motivation when there is a corner store a couple of blocks away from your house.

His house was about ten minutes away which just happened to cross a state line. His friend was holding the weapon at his house until Rittenhouse turned 18. His friend was the one that brought it. And don't forget...the news was saying all was well at these "peaceful protests" Are you saying anyone in their right mind should have known they were lying? Or just the people who lived close enough to witness a lot more than what the news let on?

Edited November 14, 2021 by Michelle

[jmccr8]

49 minutes ago, Michelle said:

His house was about ten minutes away which just happened to cross a state line. His friend was holding the weapon at his house until Rittenhouse turned 18.

Hi Michelle

He was 17 at the time of the shooting and the fact that him and his friend bought the gun shows that he is willing to break the rules or at least bend them.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/does-customer-have-be-certain-age-buy-firearms-or-ammunition-licensee

Does a customer have to be a certain age to buy firearms or ammunition from a licensee?

 

Yes. Under the Gun Control Act (GCA), shotguns and rifles, and ammunition for shotguns or rifles may be sold only to individuals 18 years of age or older. All firearms other than shotguns and rifles, and all ammunition other than ammunition for shotguns or rifles may be sold only to individuals 21 years of age or older. Licensees are bound by the minimum age requirements established by the GCA regardless of State or local law. However, if State law or local ordinances establish a higher minimum age for the purchase or disposition of firearms, the licensee must observe the higher age requirement.

 

49 minutes ago, Michelle said:

And don't forget...the news was saying all was well at these "peaceful protests" Are you saying anyone in their right mind should have known they were lying? Or just the people who lived close enough to witness a lot more than what the news let on?

 So do you think it is valid for him to take an assault rifle to a peaceful protest? It doesn't matter how far across the border it is across the border

He was underage and not trained to be there and acted on his own. He volunteered to clean graffiti during the daytime so he was not there at night and we do not know if he verbally incited the whole thing himself so he could defend himself. I am not claiming he did and has said a few times now that no one here can personally vouch for the motivations he had as that has not been disclosed and likely won't. I don't think he is being honest and am not a judge or the jury I have expressed an opinion nothing more one can take it or leave it and I am not here to change anyone's mind.

Edited November 14, 2021 by jmccr8
the usual

[+Hammerclaw]

Well, with all this "Defund Police" crap going on, there's going to be a lot more "Stand Your Ground" homicides and vigilante justice incidents. With politicians abrogating their responsibility to safeguard the the public, more and more people are going take their defense into their own hands. Have a good time second guessing their motives.

[jmccr8]

19 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Well, with all this "Defund Police" crap going on, there's going to be a lot more "Stand Your Ground" homicides and vigilante justice incidents. With politicians abrogating their responsibility to safeguard the the public, more and more people are going take their defense into their own hands. Have a good time second guessing their motives.

Hi Hammer

Out of personal respect for you I will in future keep my comments to myself . Not my country or my problem so good luck with you in your new apocalyptic dystopian future.

Edited November 14, 2021 by jmccr8

[Michelle]

42 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

we do not know if he verbally incited the whole thing himself so he could defend himself.

Several witnesses that didn't even know him say different. One of the guys threatened to kill him if he caught him alone because he put out the fire the guy started. He tried to de-escilate the situation from most accounts.

That's the last I'm going to say. If you haven't been following it that closely, as is evident, it's difficult to have an intelligent conversation.

[+Link of Hyrule]

14 hours ago, toast said:

The arguments here are becoming more and more ridiculous, really.

Are you following the same discussion I am following? If so, this is the evolution of discussion: 

Toast said: "This would not have happened if he had not been there".
Myles said: "Not a good argument, it also wouldn't have happened if the other people weren't there either"
Toast said: "He joined when the party was in full swing". 

The English language is a fickle tool, so perhaps I have misunderstood what you meant by the "party being in full swing". On the surface, it seems like you were calling the protest/riot a "party" and accused Rittenhouse of "turning up late" - as in, he really had no good excuse to be there he was there right at the end to seemingly only shoot people. My counter to that is that he was there throughout the day cleaning graffiti. If he had been there for about 2 minutes and then shot three people, that would be my definition of "arriving to the party late". 

Cleaning graffiti throughout the day makes any comparison to a late party-goer a flawed one.. 

If this is still "ridiculous", please explain to me where the ridiculousness in the argument exists, and exactly how he arrived to the party late! 

~ Regards, PA

[lightly]

He was a child.. Playing with his gun.      He went to a dangerous situation (illegally, due to his age) armed with an assault weapon.     Surprise surprise.    Welcome to Reality junior.   

[jmccr8]

15 minutes ago, Michelle said:

Several witnesses that didn't even know him say different. One of the guys threatened to kill him if he caught him alone because he put out the fire the guy started. He tried to de-escilate the situation from most accounts.

That's the last I'm going to say. If you haven't been following it that closely, as is evident, it's difficult to have an intelligent conversation.

Hi Michelle

Don't tarnish your intelligence speaking with a guy like me then. I expressed an opinion that we will not and do not know his intentions and there is nothing that has been brought forward to answer any of my questions. His life does not hang on my opinion so unless you can prove that you know him personally and stake your reputation on his motivations by all means do so other than that you have a opinion.

I am done as some of you think I am arguing to change your mind which I am not. if you don't like my opinion all you have to do is say so and so be it as it doesn't matter what any of us think. I'm done talking  with you due to my lack of intelligence which is offensive to you. Have a nice day and don't bother quoting me.

[Myles]

58 minutes ago, Michelle said:

Several witnesses that didn't even know him say different. One of the guys threatened to kill him if he caught him alone because he put out the fire the guy started. He tried to de-escilate the situation from most accounts.

 

Cleaning up graffiti during the day.   That is commendable.   Putting out a fire is also commendable.   Having a weapon to protect himself from violent rioters is understandable.

[Michelle]

40 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

I'm done talking  with you due to my lack of intelligence which is offensive to you. Have a nice day and don't bother quoting me.

That wasn't an insult it was a fact. I doubt you would want to discuss a book you'd read with someone who had just read the synopsis. It's frustrating.

[jmccr8]

3 minutes ago, Michelle said:

That wasn't an insult it was a fact.

 

3 minutes ago, Michelle said:

Have a nice day and don't bother quoting me.

 

[Duke Wellington]

2 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Michelle

He was 17 at the time of the shooting and the fact that him and his friend bought the gun shows that he is willing to break the rules or at least bend them.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/does-customer-have-be-certain-age-buy-firearms-or-ammunition-licensee

Does a customer have to be a certain age to buy firearms or ammunition from a licensee?

 

Yes. Under the Gun Control Act (GCA), shotguns and rifles, and ammunition for shotguns or rifles may be sold only to individuals 18 years of age or older. All firearms other than shotguns and rifles, and all ammunition other than ammunition for shotguns or rifles may be sold only to individuals 21 years of age or older. Licensees are bound by the minimum age requirements established by the GCA regardless of State or local law. However, if State law or local ordinances establish a higher minimum age for the purchase or disposition of firearms, the licensee must observe the higher age requirement.

 

 So do you think it is valid for him to take an assault rifle to a peaceful protest? It doesn't matter how far across the border it is across the border

He was underage and not trained to be there and acted on his own. He volunteered to clean graffiti during the daytime so he was not there at night and we do not know if he verbally incited the whole thing himself so he could defend himself. I am not claiming he did and has said a few times now that no one here can personally vouch for the motivations he had as that has not been disclosed and likely won't. I don't think he is being honest and am not a judge or the jury I have expressed an opinion nothing more one can take it or leave it and I am not here to change anyone's mind.

The law says 18+ to buy the weapon, but he didn`t buy it, he took it from a friends home.

The law also only applies to shotguns and rifles. His weapon looks like a automatic rifle. But crucially (and this is so incredible its hilarious) the prosecution team forget to have it measured during the trial. Hence it has not been determined if the weapon meets the classification of being a rifle or not.

And its too late to go back lol.

Edited November 14, 2021 by Cookie Monster

[jmccr8]

18 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

The law says 18+ to buy the weapon, but he didn`t buy it, he took it from a friends home.

Hi Cookie

At the risk of being accused of not having any intelligence I was able to read this but some would think that I am faking it.

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/kyle-rittenhouse-reveals-how-gun-was-paid-for-in-first-interview-since-arrest/2366751/

In a phone interview with the Washington Post, Rittenhouse revealed the gun he used in the shooting was purchased using money he received from an unemployment check during the coronavirus pandemic. Rittenhouse, 17, could not legally purchase the weapon himself, so he gave the money to a friend to buy it for him, according to both Rittenhouse and police reports.

"I got my $1,200 from the coronavirus Illinois unemployment, because I was on furlough from YMCA, and I got my first unemployment check so I was like, 'Oh I'll use this to buy it,'" he told the Post.

Prosecutors have charged a Wisconsin man with supplying the gun.

 

He bought and owned the weapon through fraud which says something about his character

[+and-then]

11 hours ago, toast said:

After Rittenhouse killed the first victim by headshot.

This is totally incorrect.  He was hit 4 times.  The LEAST damaging wound was the grazing wound to his head.  It didn't penetrate the skull at all and would not have been fatal by itself.  Have you actually read the evidence or is this just a reflexive "guns are bad" thing with you?  Rosenbaum made some poor choices that night and lost his life by threatening to kill an armed man.  THAT is in evidence from eye witnesses.   You should really read some of the evidence before making statements about Rittenhouse's guilt.  Unless you don't care about being outed as a shill.

 

[Duke Wellington]

3 hours ago, and then said:

This is totally incorrect.  He was hit 4 times.  The LEAST damaging wound was the grazing wound to his head.  It didn't penetrate the skull at all and would not have been fatal by itself.  Have you actually read the evidence or is this just a reflexive "guns are bad" thing with you?  Rosenbaum made some poor choices that night and lost his life by threatening to kill an armed man.  THAT is in evidence from eye witnesses.   You should really read some of the evidence before making statements about Rittenhouse's guilt.  Unless you don't care about being outed as a shill.

 

Mr Biden said he was a white supremist (with no evidence to suggest that) and hence Mr Rittenhouse is a bad, bad, guilty, man.

[toast]

3 hours ago, and then said:

This is totally incorrect.  He was hit 4 times.  The LEAST damaging wound was the grazing wound to his head.  It didn't penetrate the skull at all and would not have been fatal by itself.  Have you actually read the evidence or is this just a reflexive "guns are bad" thing with you?  Rosenbaum made some poor choices that night and lost his life by threatening to kill an armed man.  THAT is in evidence from eye witnesses.   You should really read some of the evidence before making statements about Rittenhouse's guilt.  Unless you don't care about being outed as a shill.

 

Quote

First shooting

Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.

Second shooting

As Mr. Rittenhouse is running, he trips and falls to the ground. He fires four shots as three people rush toward him. One person appears to be hit in the chest and falls to the ground. Another, who is carrying a handgun, is hit in the arm and runs away. Mr. Rittenhouse’s gunfire is mixed in with the sound of at least 16 other gunshots that ring out during this time.

NYT

Your nitpicking with the purpose of exonerating the perpetrator, Rittenhouse, are really pathetic. Above all, Rittenhouse`s first kill was Joseph Rosenbaum, an unarmed person.

 

[The_Phantom_Stranger]

When John the Baptist addressed the soldiers in luke 3:14 he made 3 commands for them. 

Quote

14And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.

War is the place for violence, but the city streets of his own country is not where a soldier should be fighting.

According to Exodus 22:2 he might be innocent for this having to occur at night and the protestors having threatened to loot. It's kind of a broad situation though.

It's still not a good situation to put yourself in as Solomon points out in the Proverbs. It's like fighting the right to peacefully protest with the right to bear arms. There's a thin line now and I can see both going away. As Jesus would say, "You don't have to worry about such things, because they are bound to happen," and the, "Patience of saints."

[aztek]

On 11/13/2021 at 1:28 AM, The_Phantom_Stranger said:

 

Seeing as how you are now calling upon the Red Army to be your savior.

no one but you suggested it, in fact you twisted entire post around to come up with this screwed up conclusion,  never mind Red ARmy, see a psychiatrists asap. the doc may actually be YOUR SAVIOR

Edited November 15, 2021 by aztek

[lightly]

https://apnews.com/article/ahmaud-arbery-shootings-george-floyd-race-and-ethnicity-police-e063accd716fa3d0ee5f175163c0c5cb

         ^  racist ?    . . probably.   

[Michelle]

They try to bring race into everything as most racists do. If they think antifa is pro BLM they better think again. The only thing antifa likes is doing drugs, fighting, burning and stealing.