Wisconsin federal judge rules wrongful death lawsuit against Kyle Rittenhouse can proceed

[jmccr8]

I had to wonder if Kyle had issues in school being either bullied or being a bully and am going to add these links as it may have been an influence on his attitudes.

https://www.bing.com/fd/ls/GLinkPing.aspx?IG=2491D0CEF9C044DFADB75FE2EAE03AC8&&ID=SERP,5320.1&SUIH=sLJR5Kih6YnbV3qRLQZwWw&redir=aHR0cHM6Ly9ueXBvc3QuY29tLzIwMjAvMDgvMjcvd2hhdC13ZS1rbm93LWFib3V0LWFjY3VzZWQta2Vub3NoYS1ndW5tYW4ta3lsZS1yaXR0ZW5ob3VzZS8jOn46dGV4dD1LeWxlJTIwUml0dGVuaG91c2UlMkMlMjB0aGUlMjBiYWJ5LWZhY2UlMjB0ZWVuYWdlJTIwdmlnaWxhbnRlJTIwY2hhcmdlZCUyMG92ZXIsd2l0aCUyMHR3byUyMGFsbC1jb25zdW1pbmclMjBmaXhhdGlvbnMlMjAlRTIlODAlOTQlMjBjb3BzJTIwYW5kJTIwZ3Vucy4

Kyle Rittenhouse, the baby-face teenage vigilante charged over the deadly Kenosha shootings, was a bullied high school dropout with two all-consuming fixations — cops and guns.

The 17-year-old accused killer dedicated his social media to his two obsessions, right from the cover of his now-deleted Facebook profile that had him posing with a high-powered rifle.

“Duty. Honor. Courage. Blue Lives Matter,” read a banner on his profile picture, a counter to the Black Lives Matter movement to instead show solidarity with under-fire cops.

https://nypost.com/2020/09/01/video-shows-kenosha-shooter-kyle-rittenhouse-punching-a-girl-report/

A new video appears to show alleged Kenosha killer Kyle Rittenhouse slugging a girl in the Wisconsin city, according to a report.

The shocking footage, shot July 1 and posted to Twitter, shows a young man alleged to be Rittenhouse landing haymakers on an unidentified girl who was scrapping with another female teen, according to the Journal Times.

Two Kenosha men who filmed the melee — Reese Granville and CJ Wakefield — said the teen throwing the punches was Rittenhouse, the outlet reported. The slugger is also wearing the same American flag Crocs that Rittenhouse wears in a widely circulated photo of the accused shooter from Facebook.

It also seems that students were not happy with his not guilty verdict and did not want him at school.

https://www.bing.com/fd/ls/GLinkPing.aspx?IG=F614B639042C4DB39646041922BCF11A&&ID=SERP,5157.1&SUIH=sLJR5Kih6YnbV3qRLQZwWw&redir=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cucnQuY29tL3VzYS81NDE2NzAtcml0dGVuaG91c2UtY29sbGVnZS1wZXRpdGlvbi1yYWxseS1hY3F1aXR0YWwv
 

Members of four campus groups, Students for Socialism ASU, the Multicultural Solidarity Coalition, Students for Justice in Palestine, and Mecha de ASU have called on the administration to withdraw Rittenhouse from classes and ban him from campus.

“The goal of these demands is to let the ASU administration know that we as the ASU community do not feel safe knowing that a mass shooter, who has expressed violent intentions about ‘protecting property’ over people, is so carelessly allowed to be admitted to the school at all,” a Students for Socialism ASU spokesperson told Fox News.

[DarkHunter]

On 2/2/2023 at 4:10 PM, Grim Reaper 6 said:

I wasn’t wrong then and I am certainly not wrong now, there were leaked DHS Memos that came into the procession of NBC News. That instructed DHS to make favorable comments concerning Kyle Rittenhouses actions. Then, the President of the United States personally weighs in and states that in his opinion the guy acted in self defense. These facts certainly had an effect on the individuals guilt or innocence and to my knowledge at no other time during my life time has a President or a Federal Government Agency directly involved themselves in a legal proceeding in this manner. Now, if you can prove me wrong please do, I will wait for reply.

Thanks for your comments!

Internal document shows Trump officials were told to make comments sympathetic to Kyle Rittenhouse: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/internal-document-shows-trump-officials-were-told-make-comments-sympathetic-n1241581

Trump suggests Kyle Rittenhouse acted in self defense in deadly Kenosha shootings : https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/31/trump-suggests-accused-kenosha-killer-kyle-rittenhouse-acted-in-self-defense.html

You said multiple times that Rittenhouse would be found guilty on the criminal charges and he was found not guilty, you were just objectively wrong but you wont admit that.

If you want to draw this put and have me rub your nose into just how wrong you are again I'll do it.

For presidents commenting on ongoing criminal trials the most famous incident is Nixon saying that Charles Manson is guilty as the trial was going on.

https://www.charlesmanson.com/prosecution/manson-guilty-nixon-declares/

Biden also commented on the Chauvin trial saying Chauvin was guilty as it was going on while Obama liked to comment on just about every police shooting before/during the investigations.

While slightly different as it's about Supreme court cases and not criminal cases here is a list of presidents commenting on on going Supreme Court hearings.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/constitutioncenter.org/amp/blog/president-obama-and-arguments-about-pending-supreme-court-cases

While slughtly different it's still the executive branch speaking on matters of the judicial branch.

Second your links are pointless and do not actually show that Trump aided Ritfenhouse in being found not guilty.  From your first link is the quote

"It is unclear whether any of the talking points originated at the White House or within Homeland Security's own press office"

So your first link isnt even sure if it came from the White House or HS press office.  Even then having officials of the executive branch being given guide lines on how to answer questions is rather common and doesnt proved he was helped.

As for the second link it just has Trump saying what he thought from the videos of the event and he didnt say if Rittenhouse was guilty or not.

Ultimately you just cant accept that you were wrong and are still upset about it and view this as a chance for you to claim some type of being right.

[Grim Reaper 6]

1 hour ago, DarkHunter said:

You said multiple times that Rittenhouse would be found guilty on the criminal charges and he was found not guilty, you were just objectively wrong but you wont admit that.

If you want to draw this put and have me rub your nose into just how wrong you are again I'll do it.

For presidents commenting on ongoing criminal trials the most famous incident is Nixon saying that Charles Manson is guilty as the trial was going on.

https://www.charlesmanson.com/prosecution/manson-guilty-nixon-declares/

Biden also commented on the Chauvin trial saying Chauvin was guilty as it was going on while Obama liked to comment on just about every police shooting before/during the investigations.

While slightly different as it's about Supreme court cases and not criminal cases here is a list of presidents commenting on on going Supreme Court hearings.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/constitutioncenter.org/amp/blog/president-obama-and-arguments-about-pending-supreme-court-cases

While slughtly different it's still the executive branch speaking on matters of the judicial branch.

Second your links are pointless and do not actually show that Trump aided Ritfenhouse in being found not guilty.  From your first link is the quote

"It is unclear whether any of the talking points originated at the White House or within Homeland Security's own press office"

So your first link isnt even sure if it came from the White House or HS press office.  Even then having officials of the executive branch being given guide lines on how to answer questions is rather common and doesnt proved he was helped.

As for the second link it just has Trump saying what he thought from the videos of the event and he didnt say if Rittenhouse was guilty or not.

Ultimately you just cant accept that you were wrong and are still upset about it and view this as a chance for you to claim some type of being right.

Are you done?Thanks for the information, you have proven me wrong I will just have to live with this embarrassment somehow.

Edited February 4, 2023 by Grim Reaper 6

[Grim Reaper 6]

7 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

Both having emotional breakdown. Kyle have killed two men from close range, and seriously injured one, and forced to re-live that experience in court; soldier crying for his own experience.

BTW, if I remember correctly, you claimed having PTSD. If 'yes', how many people you shot from close range (several feet) during your service?

There is no comparison one individual cry’s for himself and the soldier you posted a photo of is crying for the loss of another soldier. The fact that you would even compare the two is an insult.

How many people have you killed?

Edited February 4, 2023 by Grim Reaper 6

[Grim Reaper 6]

3 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

I had to wonder if Kyle had issues in school being either bullied or being a bully and am going to add these links as it may have been an influence on his attitudes.

https://www.bing.com/fd/ls/GLinkPing.aspx?IG=2491D0CEF9C044DFADB75FE2EAE03AC8&&ID=SERP,5320.1&SUIH=sLJR5Kih6YnbV3qRLQZwWw&redir=aHR0cHM6Ly9ueXBvc3QuY29tLzIwMjAvMDgvMjcvd2hhdC13ZS1rbm93LWFib3V0LWFjY3VzZWQta2Vub3NoYS1ndW5tYW4ta3lsZS1yaXR0ZW5ob3VzZS8jOn46dGV4dD1LeWxlJTIwUml0dGVuaG91c2UlMkMlMjB0aGUlMjBiYWJ5LWZhY2UlMjB0ZWVuYWdlJTIwdmlnaWxhbnRlJTIwY2hhcmdlZCUyMG92ZXIsd2l0aCUyMHR3byUyMGFsbC1jb25zdW1pbmclMjBmaXhhdGlvbnMlMjAlRTIlODAlOTQlMjBjb3BzJTIwYW5kJTIwZ3Vucy4

Kyle Rittenhouse, the baby-face teenage vigilante charged over the deadly Kenosha shootings, was a bullied high school dropout with two all-consuming fixations — cops and guns.

The 17-year-old accused killer dedicated his social media to his two obsessions, right from the cover of his now-deleted Facebook profile that had him posing with a high-powered rifle.

“Duty. Honor. Courage. Blue Lives Matter,” read a banner on his profile picture, a counter to the Black Lives Matter movement to instead show solidarity with under-fire cops.

https://nypost.com/2020/09/01/video-shows-kenosha-shooter-kyle-rittenhouse-punching-a-girl-report/

A new video appears to show alleged Kenosha killer Kyle Rittenhouse slugging a girl in the Wisconsin city, according to a report.

The shocking footage, shot July 1 and posted to Twitter, shows a young man alleged to be Rittenhouse landing haymakers on an unidentified girl who was scrapping with another female teen, according to the Journal Times.

Two Kenosha men who filmed the melee — Reese Granville and CJ Wakefield — said the teen throwing the punches was Rittenhouse, the outlet reported. The slugger is also wearing the same American flag Crocs that Rittenhouse wears in a widely circulated photo of the accused shooter from Facebook.

It also seems that students were not happy with his not guilty verdict and did not want him at school.

https://www.bing.com/fd/ls/GLinkPing.aspx?IG=F614B639042C4DB39646041922BCF11A&&ID=SERP,5157.1&SUIH=sLJR5Kih6YnbV3qRLQZwWw&redir=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cucnQuY29tL3VzYS81NDE2NzAtcml0dGVuaG91c2UtY29sbGVnZS1wZXRpdGlvbi1yYWxseS1hY3F1aXR0YWwv
 

Members of four campus groups, Students for Socialism ASU, the Multicultural Solidarity Coalition, Students for Justice in Palestine, and Mecha de ASU have called on the administration to withdraw Rittenhouse from classes and ban him from campus.

“The goal of these demands is to let the ASU administration know that we as the ASU community do not feel safe knowing that a mass shooter, who has expressed violent intentions about ‘protecting property’ over people, is so carelessly allowed to be admitted to the school at all,” a Students for Socialism ASU spokesperson told Fox News.

Good morning Jay, you make some interesting points that seem very likely when considered. Jay, over the last 6 years small groups of individuals both Left and Right Wing have emerged across the United States that claim to be supporting their communities. These individuals say they are supporting law enforcement by patrolling area and carrying Assault style weapons. In some cases police departments allow them to operate in their jurisdictions and in other cases they send them home. In any event any Police Departments that allows these individuals to operate in their jurisdictions are placing themselves in jeopardy.

These groups of armed individuals have no Rules of Engagement, they have no official police or federal law  enforcement training. They basically consist of wantbe police officers or soldiers who for one reason or another were not excepted when they applied for positions, so they are basically rejects. I think it’s interesting that the current Civil Law Suit is not only suing the Kyle Rittenhouse who was responsible for the deaths of two citizens, they are also suing the local government and law enforcement for allowing these armed groups to operate in their jurisdiction. I think the outcome of this case is going to set a precedent, that will affect how law enforcement agencies respond to these armed groups in the future. .

[jmccr8]

1 minute ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Good morning Jay, you make some interesting points that seem very likely when considered. Jay, over the last 6 years small groups of individuals both Left and Right Wing have emerged across the United States that claim to be supporting their communities. These individuals say they are supporting law enforcement by patrolling area and carrying Assault style weapons. In some cases police departments allow them to operate in their jurisdictions and in other cases they send them home. In any event any Police Departments that allows these individuals to operate in their jurisdictions are placing themselves in jeopardy.

These groups of armed individuals have no Rules of Engagement, they have no official police or federal law  enforcement training. They basically consist of wantbe police officers or soldiers who for one reason or another were not excepted when they applied for positions, so they are basically rejects. I think it’s interesting that the current Civil Law Suit is not only suing the Kyle Rittenhouse who was responsible for the deaths of two citizens, they are also suing the local government and law enforcement for allowing these armed groups to operate in their jurisdiction. I think the outcome of this case is going to set a precedent, that will affect how law enforcement agencies respond to these armed groups in the future. .

Hi Grim

I am surprised that the owner of the car lot wasn’t included as he should have known better than to put a teen to use knowing that he was not old enough to own a firearm to start with never mind that he had no experience with crowd control.

I think Kyle got things going likely because he thought he was all that and a bag of chips just because he thought people would be scared of him. He wasn’t in any real danger until he shot the first guy in the back so naturally others in the crowd wanted to disarm him and he crapped his pants and lost it.

Many years ago I was in a club with some people and some guy pulled a nine mil out and threaten one of the guys in the group who took his gun away and shot him in the leg. He told him don’t pull one out of you don’t shoot first and he had no firearm on him to start with. 
Kyle is not alone in the responsibility of what happened and never should have been allowed to be part of the security and should have just been on cleanup detail after the crowd dispersed.

Hopefully the lesson here is that people make sure that anyone involved in security are properly trained and vetted to do the work in these types of situations.

I think because he had been bullied he thought if he was armed and strutted around that he was adequate and could intimidate people to submit.

[Grim Reaper 6]

35 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Grim

I am surprised that the owner of the car lot wasn’t included as he should have known better than to put a teen to use knowing that he was not old enough to own a firearm to start with never mind that he had no experience with crowd control.

I think the owner of the Car Lot was lucky and that he dodged a bullet so to speak. If the killing would have happened on his property this would be an entirely different story.

35 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

I think Kyle got things going likely because he thought he was all that and a bag of chips just because he thought people would be scared of him. He wasn’t in any real danger until he shot the first guy in the back so naturally others in the crowd wanted to disarm him and he crapped his pants and lost it

You may certainly be right, but there is something else that seems interesting. Kyle was all lone when everything happened, remember when we were kids, and a kid no one liked tagged along, well we would ditch that kid. I wonder if he was a lone because the others that were with him didn’t want him around?

35 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Many years ago I was in a club with some people and some guy pulled a nine mil out and threaten one of the guys in the group who took his gun away and shot him in the leg. He told him don’t pull one out of you don’t shoot first and he had no firearm on him to start with.

Thats has always been my philosophy, when I concealed carried no one ever knew I was carrying a gun. My philosophy was if I had to pull my pistol I was going to shoot someone. In 30 years of concealed carry I only pull my pistol once, and I shot the guy, unfortunately he died but because of the situation I was never charged and my pistol was returned to me a little over 30 days later by the Lakewood, Police Department, 

35 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Kyle is not alone in the responsibility of what happened and never should have been allowed to be part of the security and should have just been on cleanup detail after the crowd dispersed.

Hopefully the lesson here is that people make sure that anyone involved in security are properly trained and vetted to do the work in these types of situations.

I agree there were many people responsible for what occurred, and hopefully this civil law suit will cause positive change to the place. One thing us for certain the political situation is totally different, and young Kyle is no longer portrayed as somekind of freedom fighting hero. Now, he is just a young dumb smuck who will have to face the music for his actions, just like any other American would have too, so let the chips fall were they may, I have plenty of popcorn to sit and watch this oneK

35 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

I think because he had been bullied he thought if he was armed and strutted around that he was adequate and could intimidate people to submit.

I think you’re right and I think that also applies to many of these so called heroes. But, since the change of office in 2020 it seems that most of the scum bags have gone back into hiding, which is a win win situation in my opinion, I think the results of this civil cases are going to surprise many people. One, thing is for certain if Kyle loses he is going to have some serious financial difficulties, but hey maybe Trump will stand up and pay Kyles debt I mean who knows?

Peace Jay, thanks for adding some common sense to this thread!

[+Link of Hyrule]

1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

He wasn’t in any real danger until he shot the first guy in the back

I hope you are just repeating a claim made by others (such as the prosecution's Opening Statement), rather than intentionally highlighting this, as this is such a misleading way to frame the shooting. To be 100% clear, Joseph Rosenbaum was charging TOWARDS Kyle Rittenhouse, lunging for his gun, and threatening his life, as confirmed by video footage and police forensics. Rittenhouse fired off multiple shots, and the first struck Rosenbaum front on. There was no attempt to run, it happened in a matter of seconds. Rosenbaum fell forwards after being struck front on by the opening three shots, and as he fell forward the final bullet struck his back. If he didn't fall forward he would have been shot front on just like the other shots (and no, 4 shots in quick succession is not overkill when someone is charging at you with the intent to cause you harm and potentially murder you)! 

Maybe this is just me, but framing this as "he shot the first guy in the back" makes it sound like Rosenbaum was trying to run away, or that Rittenhouse was not really being attacked. Or worse, Rittenhouse shot him front on, Rosenbaum fell forward onto the ground and then Rittenhouse walked over his body and fired one in the back just to make sure he was dead.  I'd go as far as to call it misleading to the point of outright dishonesty to frame it in such a way, but this is how the left wing media portrayed it. I'm not sure whether you were intentionally framing this as such, I've always thought you were fairer than that, though (at the least, you've always come across as much more moderate and reasonable to me). I'd like to think the media just hoodwinked you, I hope that's what happened.  

~ Regards, PA

Edited February 5, 2023 by Paranoid Android

[+OverSword]

2 hours ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

There is no comparison one individual cry’s for himself and the soldier you posted a photo of is crying for the loss of another soldier. The fact that you would even compare the two is an insult.

How many people have you killed?

I would say that killing those people was a traumatic event and breaking down talking about it is a perfectly healthy and normal thing to happen.

[+Link of Hyrule]

18 hours ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Nothing is Irrelevent and based upon the information you have added, you should really update the information you have. Last, evening I watched the entire trial to bring myself back up to date, and i was amazed how much I had forgotten.

I certainly intend to go back and review all the details. I watched it in a lot of detail as it happened. Rekieta Law live streamed the entire trial. I watched multiple days worth of testimony, and in the breaks between sessions Nick Rekieta and his guest lawyers (Legal Bytes, Legal Mindset, Uncivil Law, Nate the Lawyer, Hoeg Law, Viva Frei, Law & Lumber, Emily D Baker, Runkle of the Bailey, and maybe a few others I can't recall off the top of my head) break down the arguments throughout the day, and discuss the relative merits, who they think is winning, where they think arguments will go from here, and more. Below is a Playlist of every day of the trial, live streamed with commentary: The video you see is Day 1, if you click the link a playlist will be there to skip to whichever day of the trial you like  

 

 

 

18 hours ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Thats a very big word

I disagree. But I doubt we'll get anywhere by arguing, so I'm happy to agree to disagree on this  

 

18 hours ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

It is an unprofessional method used to respond, and it should be avoided. what·a·bout·ism the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter accusation or raising a different issue. Also called whataboutery:

I agree that a victim should never be punished, yet in this case the definition of a victim has a very very broad application. I think to get a real grasp on this subject, especially with the time that has gone by, is to watch the entire trial over again, that's what I did and it certainly cleared up many of my questions and it prepaded me to continue discussing this subject!

I rewatched the entire trial, because there were many things I had forgotten, however, now I feel comfortable continuing on with this conversation, I would recommend the following video to anyone who is interested in accurate information! 

Full Video: Prosecutors Cross-Examine Kyle Rittenhouse

 

I saw that video already. I'm 90% certain that this day of the trial just happened to fall on my school's Cross Country carnival, and I was stationed along the route for four hours just watching students run by me all day, so I popped in my ear buds and put the stream onto YouTube. I could be wrong about the exact time, but I definitely watched the whole testimony and cross. I watched the entire Opening and Closing arguments, and I watched a few hours of trial throughout most days, and when I didn't watch the footage itself I watched the daily summary of what happened from the lawyers.   

I'm not sure what specifically you are asking me to go back to check, my big takeaway from Rittenhouse's testimony was that his case was largely unaffected by what he said (though I also recall that his case was slightly weaker after testimony than before, but the raw video footage was enough proof that he was clearly using self defence. 

 

18 hours ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Thats the problem in a nutshell, I was born in 1959 and I am 64 years old and this is the first time in my life where the POTUS personally endorsed a murder case, or had a FEDERAL AGENCY endorse a Defendents innocence.  You, see that is not part of a Presidents job description to make a personal determination one way or the other concerning a defendant's guilt of innocence's, by doing that he made the entire judicial process BIAS, and morally broken. This has been a major problem for me personally since he was found innocent of all charges, because again in my life I have never witnessed a bigger miscarriage of justice in my life.

Now, sadly we will never know what would have occurred if the President had not involved himself in the first trial because of the outside influence of the President of the United States and Homeland Security. We can be ceratin this This time, however, he will have to stand on his own merits alone, and the past indiscretion will be used as a tool against him and I don't think that is fair either.

I'm not sure that's necessarily true. President's seem to comment on cases on a semi-regular basis:

Quote

This also cropped up repeatedly during Barack Obama’s presidency.

During his first year in office, he drew a backlash for declaring that a police officer had “acted stupidly” while arresting a Black scholar from Harvard, Henry Louis Gates Jr. Obama eventually held a “beer summit” with the two men to try to defuse tensions. The same year, Obama seemed to prejudge the case against accused 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, referring to “when he’s convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him” — though he qualified those comments by saying: “I’m not going to be in that courtroom. That’s the job of the prosecutors, the judge and the jury.”

In 2011, Obama was again criticized for stating that Bradley Manning, now Chelsea Manning, “broke the law” before Manning was convicted of leaking classified documents.

Source for further reading - there's also some other examples of Trump speaking publicly about cases in this article

It's probably bad form for a president to do that, but I don't think any of these examples demonstrated that the President's words unduly affected the outcome of the trial.

I don't want to be accused of Whataboutisms so I won't quote specific examples (I can, if you like) but politicians in general comment on court cases all the time. 

 

18 hours ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Well you are certainly welcome to your opinion, because maybe in your country it's acceptable for your President to influence the outcome of case currently being tired within your courts. However, in the United States, Presidents do not publicly make comments on the innocence or guilt of those prosecuted. This was the second time during my life that a President personally became involved in a current court case. The other President was Richard Nixon and the result ended up being the same!

Pa, during the Trump Administration it became common practice for these so called HERO's to run around open carrying their firearms during civil unrest, just like the situation we are currently discussing. President trump allowed and encouraged this practice during his Presidency and this practice is about as foolish as it gets.

I mean here we have a bunch of freaken knuckle heads running around playing soldier just like they do at home on their video games and just like they did when they were 6 or 7 years old. None of those idiots are qualified to act in the capacity of a police officer or the capacity of a US Soldier. In reality the only thing that occurs far too often are accidents where people lose their lives needlessly.

This situation is perfect proof of that, the only armed people wandering the streets should be the police, not joe blow trying to impress others, joe blow needs to go home and allow adults to handle the situation. if the police can't do their jobs, then they need to be replaced, but at no time are civilians needed to do the job of law enforcement!

Peace Bro!

 

If the only armed people wandering the streets should be the police then tighten the laws so that it's illegal to openly carry a weapon in the streets. I think your open carry laws are dumb, but don't punish the people who work within the law as it is written! If it was illegal for Kyle Rittenhouse to carry a rifle, he wouldn't have been able to carry one, or he would have been arrested on sight for carrying it. 

Have a great weekend, mate. I'm about to jump in the pool for a swim (it's 31 Celsius here [88 Fahrenheit]) and it's feeling quite warm right now    

~ Regards, PA

Edited February 5, 2023 by Paranoid Android

[Grim Reaper 6]

2 hours ago, OverSword said:

I would say that killing those people was a traumatic event and breaking down talking about it is a perfectly healthy and normal thing to happen.

However, you must also keep in mind, that not everyone who witnesses, kills, or see the effects of death on streets or battlefields will ever be diagnosed with PTSD. PTSD occurs one of two ways almost immediately or delayed and when delayed it can occur many years later. I was diagnosed with PTSD in late 1999, and my last combat tour was 1993-1994 Somalia so obviously my PTSD was the delayed type. I never said it wasn’t a traumatic event, killing another human being is certainly a traumatic event that has lasting effects forever. But, to take it a step further, seeing your friends or loved ones killed is just as effective at causing PTSD.

Because of my diagnosis, I attended and eventually ran a PTSD Support Group at the American Lake Veterans Administration Hospital. I will say based upon my training in PTSD counseling that opening up and releasing stress is an effective method in dealing with PTSD. But, the most important method is facing one’s demons head on and to do that one must first fully realize that they were wrong and then to full except all responsibility for their actions.

For, many people this is an effective way to deal with the symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Now, I realize that isn’t always possible, such as a situation where a soldier kills an enemy combatant. Because, in that situation the soldier did nothing legally wrong, however based upon one’s religious practices the PTSD can still occur from feeling that one’s actions are morally wrong. So, when considering how and why PTSD is effecting someone both legal and moral issues must be considered. 

I just did a little Search based upon your comments, and according to Kyle Rittenhouses Lawyers, in November 2021, he was receiving counseling for PTDS, Is he still receiving counseling I have no idea. During the 8 years I worked as a PTSD counselor I never encountered a situation where one of my group members completely came a part like Kyle did in court. Now, I am not saying that his actions very not PTSD related, but based upon his actions that I saw his actions were more stress induced because of cross examination that they were a direct effective of PTSD alone.

[+OverSword]

37 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

However, you must also keep in mind, that not everyone who witnesses, kills, or see the effects of death on streets or battlefields will ever be diagnosed with PTSD. PTSD occurs one of two ways almost immediately or delayed and when delayed it can occur many years later. I was diagnosed with PTSD in late 1999, and my last combat tour was 1993-1994 Somalia so obviously my PTSD was the delayed type. I never said it wasn’t a traumatic event, killing another human being is certainly a traumatic event that has lasting effects forever. But, to take it a step further, seeing your friends or loved ones killed is just as effective at causing PTSD.

Because of my diagnosis, I attended and eventually ran a PTSD Support Group at the American Lake Veterans Administration Hospital. I will say based upon my training in PTSD counseling that opening up and releasing stress is an effective method in dealing with PTSD. But, the most important method is facing one’s demons head on and to do that one must first fully realize that they were wrong and then to full except all responsibility for their actions.

For, many people this is an effective way to deal with the symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Now, I realize that isn’t always possible, such as a situation where a soldier kills an enemy combatant. Because, in that situation the soldier did nothing legally wrong, however based upon one’s religious practices the PTSD can still occur from feeling that one’s actions are morally wrong. So, when considering how and why PTSD is effecting someone both legal and moral issues must be considered. 

I just did a little Search based upon your comments, and according to Kyle Rittenhouses Lawyers, in November 2021, he was receiving counseling for PTDS, Is he still receiving counseling I have no idea. During the 8 years I worked as a PTSD counselor I never encountered a situation where one of my group members completely came a part like Kyle did in court. Now, I am not saying that his actions very not PTSD related, but based upon his actions that I saw his actions were more stress induced because of cross examination that they were a direct effective of PTSD alone.

Whatever dude. Most people in a high pressure situation like Rittenhouse was when he was attacked or when he was testifying would have acted the same way. Actually I say he showed great restraint and control as far as when and who he pulled the trigger on. Much better than most would in the same situation.  
Certainly more mature and less idealistic people would have avoided being in that situation altogether but that can be said of everyone involved.

[Golden Duck]

16 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

Right...

Quote

SSgt. Lonnie Roberts cries at a memorial service Wednesday, April 16, 2003, in Baghdad for PV2 Gregory R. Huxley Jr., 19, of Forestport, N.Y. who was killed in action April 6th when the armored personnel carrier he was riding in was hit by a rocket propelled grenade.

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/photo-diary-day-28/

I assume you think you made some pount?

[Grim Reaper 6]

28 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Whatever dude. Most people in a high pressure situation like Rittenhouse was when he was attacked or when he was testifying would have acted the same way. Actually I say he showed great restraint and control as far as when and who he pulled the trigger on. Much better than most would in the same situation.  
Certainly more mature and less idealistic people would have avoided being in that situation altogether but that can be said of everyone involved.

If he had never gone to that city that night that would have been the right thing to do and the right place to be, because the two people would still be alive. Now, I am glad you're able to make the distinctions you made a above, that his actions showed constraint, control, and that he acted much better than most would have in the same situation, however those comments are ridiculous.

Because, I can say from personal experience first hand that until something like that occurs there is no guarantee how anyone will react. There is simple no time to consider what to do, his actions were a startle / fear response and nothing else and he got very lucky to have survived that night himself. The only positive thing that occurred was that one of the three individuals survived and that no innocent bystanders were accidently woundered or killed with a stray round.

So whatever dude!

[bmk1245]

8 hours ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

There is no comparison one individual cry’s for himself and the soldier you posted a photo of is crying for the loss of another soldier. The fact that you would even compare the two is an insult.

[...]

OK, fair enough. But what about policemen who have mental breakdown after first deadly shooting? Crocodile tears as well?

8 hours ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

[...]

How many people have you killed?

So far, none, and I hope I won't have to.

[bmk1245]

1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/photo-diary-day-28/

I assume you think you made some pount?

Yes, I made the point: men can have emotional breakdowns. How else drone pilots suffer PTSD? Crocodile tears?

[jmccr8]

6 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I hope you are just repeating a claim made by others (such as the prosecution's Opening Statement), rather than intentionally highlighting this, as this is such a misleading way to frame the shooting. To be 100% clear, Joseph Rosenbaum was charging TOWARDS Kyle Rittenhouse, lunging for his gun, and threatening his life, as confirmed by video footage and police forensics. Rittenhouse fired off multiple shots, and the first struck Rosenbaum front on. There was no attempt to run, it happened in a matter of seconds. Rosenbaum fell forwards after being struck front on by the opening three shots, and as he fell forward the final bullet struck his back. If he didn't fall forward he would have been shot front on just like the other shots (and no, 4 shots in quick succession is not overkill when someone is charging at you with the intent to cause you harm and potentially murder you)! 

Maybe this is just me, but framing this as "he shot the first guy in the back" makes it sound like Rosenbaum was trying to run away, or that Rittenhouse was not really being attacked. Or worse, Rittenhouse shot him front on, Rosenbaum fell forward onto the ground and then Rittenhouse walked over his body and fired one in the back just to make sure he was dead.  I'd go as far as to call it misleading to the point of outright dishonesty to frame it in such a way, but this is how the left wing media portrayed it. I'm not sure whether you were intentionally framing this as such, I've always thought you were fairer than that, though (at the least, you've always come across as much more moderate and reasonable to me). I'd like to think the media just hoodwinked you, I hope that's what happened.  

~ Regards, PA

Hi PA

Yes he shot him multiple times and the last shot was in the back. Likely the first shot was enough to disable him, Kyle’s attitude is what fired the the incident as he wrongly though he was going to intimidate people into submission and things went south from there when he realize that people were going to disarm him.

The links I gave  show that he was a troubled youth that should never have been there. It is against the law for him to own a firearm at his age period so yes he was in violation of the law.

I gave my position and you have given yours which I have no intention of arguing with you as you are entitled to your opinion just as I am with mine. I am not going to tell you that you are wrong and am just exploring the mental state of this troubled youth. In the video of the cat fight he attacked a girl from behind giving her roundhouses which speaks volumes to a guy like me that grew up fighting with boys in my youth and men and always faced them head on and not from behind their backs when they were fighting with someone else.

[+Link of Hyrule]

32 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi PA

Yes he shot him multiple times and the last shot was in the back. Likely the first shot was enough to disable him, Kyle’s attitude is what fired the the incident as he wrongly though he was going to intimidate people into submission and things went south from there when he realize that people were going to disarm him.

The links I gave  show that he was a troubled youth that should never have been there. It is against the law for him to own a firearm at his age period so yes he was in violation of the law.

I gave my position and you have given yours which I have no intention of arguing with you as you are entitled to your opinion just as I am with mine. I am not going to tell you that you are wrong and am just exploring the mental state of this troubled youth. In the video of the cat fight he attacked a girl from behind giving her roundhouses which speaks volumes to a guy like me that grew up fighting with boys in my youth and men and always faced them head on and not from behind their backs when they were fighting with someone else.

Hi Jmccr,

I haven't seen the video you refer to yet,  I think I saw a thread or article about it, I'll have s look at it soon,  but until then I can't comment. 

For the rest,  thanks for the chat, we'll see how it goes in court

[bmk1245]

14 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Hi Jmccr,

I haven't seen the video you refer to yet,  I think I saw a thread or article about it, I'll have s look at it soon,  but until then I can't comment. 

For the rest,  thanks for the chat, we'll see how it goes in court

Just a bit 

Quote

The Rosenbaum hand shot was the second of four; Kelley testified that the first gunshot struck Rosenbaum in the hip. He also testified, though, that Rosenbaum’s momentum was moving forward already, and that he wasn’t propelled forward by the hip shot. He was then shot in the hand. Kelley couldn’t tell the order of the third and fourth shots – to the head and back – but he testified that Rosenbaum was in a horizontal position when they were fired, describing it as sort of a Superman move with hands extended forward. He made it clear that Rosenbaum did NOT have his back turned to Rittenhouse when the back wound occurred and that it wasn’t the first wound.

(link, bolding mine)

[Grim Reaper 6]

4 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I certainly intend to go back and review all the details. I watched it in a lot of detail as it happened. Rekieta Law live streamed the entire trial. I watched multiple days worth of testimony, and in the breaks between sessions Nick Rekieta and his guest lawyers (Legal Bytes, Legal Mindset, Uncivil Law, Nate the Lawyer, Hoeg Law, Viva Frei, Law & Lumber, Emily D Baker, Runkle of the Bailey, and maybe a few others I can't recall off the top of my head) break down the arguments throughout the day, and discuss the relative merits, who they think is winning, where they think arguments will go from here, and more. Below is a Playlist of every day of the trial, live streamed with commentary: The video you see is Day 1, if you click the link a playlist will be there to skip to whichever day of the trial you like

Thats exactly why I went back and watched the entire trial myself. There is far too much conjecture being thrown out here that doesn't fit with the events that actually occurred, and I may be responsible for some of it.

So, yea I applaud your choice because you also obviously care about providing accurate information!!!!

4 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

 

I disagree. But I doubt we'll get anywhere by arguing, so I'm happy to agree to disagree on this  

 

I saw that video already. I'm 90% certain that this day of the trial just happened to fall on my school's Cross Country carnival, and I was stationed along the route for four hours just watching students run by me all day, so I popped in my ear buds and put the stream onto YouTube. I could be wrong about the exact time, but I definitely watched the whole testimony and cross. I watched the entire Opening and Closing arguments, and I watched a few hours of trial throughout most days, and when I didn't watch the footage itself I watched the daily summary of what happened from the lawyers.

Thanks cool, as I am typing this I am watching the shooting scenes Again!

4 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I'm not sure what specifically you are asking me to go back to check, my big takeaway from Rittenhouse's testimony was that his case was largely unaffected by what he said (though I also recall that his case was slightly weaker after testimony than before, but the raw video footage was enough proof that he was clearly using self defence.

I don't disagree with you on the points above!

4 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

 

I'm not sure that's necessarily true. President's seem to comment on cases on a semi-regular basis:

It's probably bad form for a president to do that, but I don't think any of these examples demonstrated that the President's words unduly affected the outcome of the trial.

I don't want to be accused of Whataboutisms so I won't quote specific examples (I can, if you like) but politicians in general comment on court cases all the time.

There is no way, that we will ever know absolutely whether or not the jury was swayed by comments made by the President, Homeland Security or anyone else. I am aware that Politicians comments on situations that are like this do occur. However, that is not what I am talking about, my comments are directed at statements to the Press that the day of and for days after the shootings that were made stating that his actions were or looked justified. Because, no one during that time frame could have offered anything except their opinion, because a full investigation had not been done as yet. 

So, clearly its one thing for politicians to talk about the case and it's totally a different situation to say the defendant Looks like, appears to be, or is innocent based upon the facts known at that time, and especially to members of the press!

4 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

 

If the only armed people wandering the streets should be the police then tighten the laws so that it's illegal to openly carry a weapon in the streets. I think your open carry laws are dumb, but don't punish the people who work within the law as it is written! If it was illegal for Kyle Rittenhouse to carry a rifle, he wouldn't have been able to carry one, or he would have been arrested on sight for carrying it.

 

First, let me say I am not a gun control advocate at all, but I certainly recognize and believe that states must temper a resident's needs to carry a firearm and that each state should have well defined laws for both Concealed and Open Carry of firearms within those states that allow both open and concealed carry. I personally own well over 100 firearms, (I collect Firearms) and I have had a concealed weapons permit and I also carried concealed for more than 30 year's.

My take on open carry or concealed carry of firearms is very simple and it is based upon our Nations 2nd Amendment to our constitution. I have no problem with open carry or concealed carry so long as they are used for what they were originally designed to used for. However, since 2017 the open carry laws have become the subject of many debates because open carry went from the back woods to city streets.

Originally, those who choose to open carry their firearms did so for the purpose of protection in rustic settings across the United States where state law permitted open carry of firearms. Which basically translated to open carry in environments where outdoorsman, hikers, and in some cases the general public would be communing with nature in our Nations back country.

In these situations, firearms become necessary because without the ability to open carry a firearm may put a person on the menu for Bears, Wolves, or Mountain Lions. This changed between 2017-2020 when Leftwing and Rightwing groups started open carrying weapons within city limits for the purpose of intimation of the civilian population and to intimidate political rivals. 

4 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Have a great weekend, mate. I'm about to jump in the pool for a swim (it's 31 Celsius here [88 Fahrenheit]) and it's feeling quite warm right now    

~ Regards, PA

You also have a great weekend, stay healthy.

[jmccr8]

54 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

Just a bit 

(link, bolding mine)

Hi Bkm

PA was referring to the video of Kyle beating up a girl that I posted and yes he shot the first victim several times which I acknowledged. I also said that the fist shot was enough to disable him so why bother arguing about it.

[+OverSword]

8 hours ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

If he had never gone to that city that night that would have been the right thing to do and the right place to be,

That’s what I said about that case since day one. The same could be said of every person showing up to riot and loot for days and nights on end for no real reason.

[Grim Reaper 6]

26 minutes ago, OverSword said:

That’s what I said about that case since day one. The same could be said of every person showing up to riot and loot for days and nights on end for no real reason.

Well, you were right all along, and like I said from the beginning if he wasn’t there that evening no one would have died.

[+OverSword]

7 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Well, you were right all along, and like I said from the beginning if he wasn’t there that evening no one would have died.

Yep. If you go back to the very first thread about Rittenhouse somewhere near the beginning you can see me post that this stupid kid should not have brought a gun and his decision did cause deaths that could have been avoided. That is a question of right or wrong or a good or bad decision but skips the part about the legality of his actions which has since been answered. I agree his initial decision was unwise and began a road where he killed two people and he will live with that forever.  

I wonder how often the same could be said about police? Should we disarm them and just give them non lethal tools to enforce the law? Probably not.

[Gromdor]

I don't think the running around and making money off of what he did with the "vigilante justice" crowd is going to help his case either.

It shows that he has no remorse, which is a sign of a deliberate killing instead of an accidental one.