Kyle Rittenhouse trial...already disproving SO MANY LIES from the left

[Flash]

The only instruction the Judge should be giving the jury is:

"Was it reasonable for this Kyle Hero to shoot the commie bastards that attacked him?"

 

[TemplarKormac]

If there are any mods present, please consider collating the abundance of Rittenhouse threads into a singular thread and lock all others. The verdict is going trigger a flood of them.

Dont Taz Me Bro , Coyote , and others.

 

[BackAgain]

It's irrelevant to this discussion about which killed individuals were armed since we're talking about Rosenbaum and he wasn't armed.

I’ll take that as a partial answer. Not sure why it pains you so to just answer a simple fair question. But anyway —

I elect to proceed by way of clarification. I think in part of the discussion with you, I had been guilty of confusing and conflating different parts of the entire incident including who had a gun. So for the sake of clarity, I am not claiming that Rosenbaum had a gun. And I never said that YOU claimed he had one. I did pose some hypothetical premises which led to your assumption about what I was saying. So that failure of clear communication is on me.

Now, given that Rosenbaum was NOT armed, the question becomes whether Rittenhouse reasonably feared for his life (or feared likely great bodily harm) under all of the circumstances, nonetheless.

It is the phrase “under all the circumstances” that should be focused on by the jury. I realize that you and I unquestionably disagree. But since the defendant had been in the midst of a riot, had been approached by a man pointing a gun at him, had been chased, had heard threats against him, and had been struck already once or twice on the head with a skateboard, among other factors, I say he is entitled to justification and he is not a person who provoked any of this against himself.

I believe he is likely to be a squirted on the top counts. I am unsure how he will be found as to the final count (possession of the rifle).

 

[TemplarKormac]

I am unsure how he will be found as to the final count (possession of the rifle).

That count was dismissed by the judge.

 

[BackAgain]

Wow. I just saw the light bulb go off in the judges head. Mid sentence regarding the lessees on the 3 higher counts.

 

[BackAgain]

That count was dismissed by the judge.

I was not aware of that.

 

[BackAgain]

Wow. I just saw the light bulb go off in the judges head. Mid sentence regarding the lesser on the 3 higher counts.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Rittenhouse's attorney may be filing for a mistrial based on new evidence, such as the FBI video we discussed.

The evidence can be held by an attorney but cannot be submitted to the court after the judge has closed the evidence submission phase of the trial.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Wow. I just saw the light bulb go off in the judges head. Mid sentence regarding the lessees on the 3 higher counts.

Explain. I saw that moment too, but I didn't catch all of what he said. Had a phone call.

 

[Faun]

I've been watching the court live feed throughout the entire trial. It's how I'm able to see thru the bullchit you keep spewing...

Then you're either lying or blind.

 

[BackAgain]

Except I never said Rittenhouse was "behind" Rosenbaum when he shot him in the back.

Sadly, you're once again arguing with yourself.

I can try to reason with you but I can’t help you if you aren’t willing to be forthright.

Look, there is zero relevance to the gunshot wound of entry BEING in his back if it wasn’t fired while the defendant was behind the guy OR IF it wasn’t fired while the guy was already down.

So, maybe you can clarify something for me now. What difference in the law (or as a matter of the jury’s fact finding role) does it make that the gun shot wound happens to be in the back?

 

[BackAgain]

Explain. I saw that moment too, but I didn't catch all of what he said. Had a phone call.

It is going on now. I think he belatedly realized that if a jury finds justification for say count 1, they shouldn’t even consider a lesser charge on count 1.

 

[Faun]

I’ll take that as a partial answer. Not sure why it pains you so to just answer a simple fair question. But anyway —

I elect to proceed by way of clarification. I think in part of the discussion with you, I had been guilty of confusing and conflating different parts of the entire incident including who had a gun. So for the sake of clarity, I am not claiming that Rosenbaum had a gun. And I never said that YOU claimed he had one. I did pose some hypothetical premises which led to your assumption about what I was saying. So that failure of clear communication is on me.

Now, given that Rosenbaum was NOT armed, the question becomes whether Rittenhouse reasonably feared for his life (or feared likely great bodily harm) under all of the circumstances, nonetheless.

It is the phrase “under all the circumstances” that should be focused on by the jury. I realize that you and I unquestionably disagree. But since the defendant had been in the midst of a riot, had been approached by a man pointing a gun at him, had been chased, had heard threats against him, and had been struck already once or twice on the head with a skateboard, among other factors, I say he is entitled to justification and he is not a person who provoked any of this against himself.

I believe he is likely to be a squirted on the top counts. I am unsure how he will be found as to the final count (possession of the rifle).

Matters not. When he pointed his gun at Rosenbaum, that's provocation to be attacked without the legal right to use self-defense.

 

[Faun]

That count was dismissed by the judge.

That charge was the least of Rittenhouse's problems anyway.

 

[Flash]

Totally unrelated, but when I look at Binger, I am strongly convinced that Gunnery Sergeant Hartman is experiencing enormous curiosity about whether Binger performs oral sex on men.

 

[Dirk the Daring]

Matters not. When he pointed his gun at Rosenbaum, that's provocation to be attacked without the legal right to use self-defense.

WHEN. DID. HE. POINT. HIS. GUN. AT. ROSENBAUM??

 

[BackAgain]

Matters not. When he pointed his gun at Rosenbaum, that's provocation to be attacked without the legal right to use self-defense.

No. That’s just your desired conclusion. When he pointed the gun at Rosenbaum, the defendant didn’t provoke anything. He had ALREADY been chased and threatened. Nothing he had done “provoked” Rosenbaum to chase him and threaten him.

 

[Faun]

WHEN. DID. HE. POINT. HIS. GUN. AT. ROSENBAUM??

What part of, "fuck off," is beyond your G-d given reading comprehension limitations?

 

[Faun]

No. That’s just your desired conclusion. When he pointed the gun at Rosenbaum, the defendant didn’t provoke anything. He had ALREADY been chased and threatened. Nothing he had done “provoked” Rosenbaum to chase him and threaten him.

Chasing Rittenhouse was not a threat to Rittenhouse's life or great bodily harm. Turning and pointing his gun is a provocation.

 

[BackAgain]

WHEN. DID. HE. POINT. HIS. GUN. AT. ROSENBAUM??

One might venture a guess. It was pointed at Rosenbaum at the instant the bullet got fired because otherwise the round likely wouldn’t have struck him. I suspect your question goes a bit deeper. I assume you’re suggesting that the round (if it came from Rittenhouse’s gun) wasn’t necessarily fired intentionally or that it wasn’t intentionally AIMED AT Rosenbaum.