Prosecution Knows It Has Lost, Now Trying To Add Lesser Charges To Avoid Total Loss

[JohnDB]

That remains to be seen.

You seem to think that shooting an unarmed man is no big deal.

The only reason Rosenbaum caught up to Rittenhouse is because Rittenhouse intentionally slowed down...

He wasn't unarmed...
Not legally or realistically...

When Rosenbaum grabbed Kyle's gun he was armed.
In every legal and literal sense of the word...

Got anything else?

 

[Canon Shooter]

He wasn't unarmed...
Not legally or realistically...

When Rosenbaum grabbed Kyle's gun he was armed.
In every legal and literal sense of the word...

Got anything else?

No, he wasn't. He was never in control of that weapon. And, if he ever really did have his hand on that weapon, it was barely for a fleeting microsecond before Rittenhouse pulled the trigger...

 

[JohnDB]

No, he wasn't. He was never in control of that weapon. And, if he ever really did have his hand on that weapon, it was barely for a fleeting microsecond before Rittenhouse pulled the trigger...

Kyle Rittenhouse: Witness says Joseph Rosenbaum lunged for teen's gun

Richie McGinniss' testimony was crucial to both sides in Kyle Rittenhouse's homicide trial as the most detailed account to date of the Rosenbaum shooting.

www.insider.com

 

[JohnDB]

No, he wasn't. He was never in control of that weapon. And, if he ever really did have his hand on that weapon, it was barely for a fleeting microsecond before Rittenhouse pulled the trigger...

Not relevant...
The mere fact that he chased Kyle and lunged and touched and tried to control the gun is sufficient for a self defense claim.

We have video, drone video footage, and several eyewitnesses (including the Coroner) that all give the exact same testimony.

More than sufficient to erase your claim.

So stop trolling on this issue...it doesn't hold water. Not even the dumb prosecutor is going for this claim which is worthless.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Every o

Is that what you think? Kyle, as you so lovingly and grovingly call him, was the only criminal on the street that night. A trespasser from another state, illegally in possession of a firearm, illegally brandishing it, at the citizens of that neighborhood he was trespassing in.

Every one of those citizens that went after him, were legally, and heroically trying to stop an armed criminal from continuing a rampage of armed violence in their neighborhood. Even one of the citizens that was armed didn't want to kill him, and testified under oath to that fact.

It isn't self defense when a murderer is murdering those trying to stop him from committing murder.
If by some chance he is acquitted, the ATF should arrest him for crossing a state line, and obtaining a firearm by straw purchase, in the furtherance of a felony.

Lets see if a jury in a federal court in Illinois is as sympathetic as a rigged jury, with a rigged judge in a state court in Wisconsin.

All of those “citizens” were not only breaking curfew, but violating a slew of other laws as well. They were rioters, arsonists and thieves.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Not relevant...
The mere fact that he chased Kyle and lunged and touched and tried to control the gun is sufficient for a self defense claim.

Dude, you're bouncing all over the place.

You insisted that the simple fact that Rosenbaum touched Rittenhouse's gun was sufficient to consider Rosenbaum armed. It's not. On no jurisdiction on this planet does it meet the criteria for being armed.

But, please, sine you insist that it does, please show us where in Wisconsin law it states that simply touching a gun means you are in possession of it.

I predict this is yet another challenge you cower away from. You will prove to be a failure, yet again...

 

[Canon Shooter]

Kyle Rittenhouse: Witness says Joseph Rosenbaum lunged for teen's gun

Richie McGinniss' testimony was crucial to both sides in Kyle Rittenhouse's homicide trial as the most detailed account to date of the Rosenbaum shooting.

www.insider.com

So now the mere act of lunging for the gun qualifies as possession?

Man, just how short was that bus you used to ride?

 

[JohnDB]

Dude, you're bouncing all over the place.

You insisted that the simple fact that Rosenbaum touched Rittenhouse's gun was sufficient to consider Rosenbaum armed. It's not. On no jurisdiction on this planet does it meet the criteria for being armed.

But, please, sine you insist that it does, please show us where in Wisconsin law it states that simply touching a gun means you are in possession of it.

I predict this is yet another challenge you cower away from. You will prove to be a failure, yet again...

If you watched and understood the proceedings this was explained by the witness that provided the complete explanation about what constitutes self defense or an armed vs unarmed individual.

And Rosenbaum was armed. It might have resulted in something akin to suicide by cop...but Kyle could not surrender his firearm to Rosenbaum...nor did he need to.

Flight from conflict isn't a necessary element in Wisconsin law for self defense...but Kyle was chased anyway. Kyle didn't have to run but he did...and Rosenbaum chased him. Providing ample proof of self defense.

So again you have to move on or else you are just a babbling troll.

 

[iceberg]

What the fuck are you babbling about?

I was replying to this comment by beautress:

"Each person he shot was photographed pointing a loaded gun at him."

That statement is 100% false. There's not a thread of truth in it...

well you've not shown to know what truth means.

 

[JohnDB]

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48
A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Grow up.

14 Undeniable Signs That Donald Trump Is A Fascist

14 Undeniable Signs That Donald Trump Is A Fascist

Donald Trump has completely disregarded the very foundations of America in his opressive policies.

www.theodysseyonline.com

Many of these executive orders are borderline violations of civil rights. Donald Trump is the most dangerous man to ever been named President. Donald Trump is a fascist plain and simple and, using the 14 points of fascism, here's why.

So, an Islamonazi found a propaganda site claiming Trump is a fascist, therefore Trump must be a fascist.

Got it.

 

[Flopper]

He wasn't unarmed...
Not legally or realistically...

When Rosenbaum grabbed Kyle's gun he was armed.
In every legal and literal sense of the word...

Got anything else?

Rittenhouse will probably be found innocence of the attack on Rosenbaum but I doubt he will be so lucky with the two he killed. Both appeared to be unarmed and one was shot in back.

 

[woodwork201]

Kyle Rittenhouse defense, prosecution spar over potential addition of lesser charges: LIVE UPDATES

Kyle Rittenhouse's defense rested its case Thursday, setting the stage for closing arguments Monday

www.foxnews.com

Prosecution in desperate last minute attempt to add charges....defense sparring. Libs frantically trying to nail him for something.....

In all honesty this whole thing could have and should have been avoided as both sides made some extremely poor decisions.

2 people are dead. Rittenhouse should not walk away from this without some type of punishment and a lesson learned, however, that lesson should not be that when his life was in danger he did anything wrong when he defended his life.

Hopefully snowflakes and liberals will learn:

1. That old adage, 'Don't want none? Then don't start none.'

2. Choosing to chase, attack, stomp, and try to kill someone armed with an AR-15 & you only have a skateboard as a weapon is dumb as hell & will most likely win you the Darwin Award.


What charges,if any,do you think he will be found guilty on?

Why should Rittenhouse get some type of punishment? Because two people are dead? By that logic, would all cases of self-defense require that the defender get some sort of punishment?

Or is it because Rittenhouse could have (not necessarily should have) stayed home that night, and because his own stupid actions occurred in the timeline of the attacks he defended against? And if this one, then by that logic every hooker walking around 42nd Street New York (assuming that's still the place) in her thong and net hosiery contributed to her rape so the rapist should get off, right?

Wisconsin 948.60(C)(3): (c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.

941.28: Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.

29.304: Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.

29.593: Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.

948.60 clearly states that the person under age 18 must be in violation of one of 941.28, 29.304, or 29.593. Rittenhouse was clearly NOT in violation of any of those three. He did NOT violate Wisconsin law and if his attorney lets that charge stand, he needs to be disbarred.

I was completely amazed, watching the trial, how many times Rittenhouse's attorney sat quietly and only the Judge stood in defense of Rittenhouse's constitutional rights; his attorney not raising objections at all most of the time the prosecution violated the Constitution.

No; Rittenhouse should be acquitted on all counts. You don't get to convict someone because you don't like what he did. Remember this is the United States and we have a Constitution and we convict people for what they do, not - at least supposedly not - for what they think, for what they might do, or for what we think of them.

It's very disappointing to see someone who claims to support the Constitution demonstrate such disregard for it as you have in the quoted post.

 

[woodwork201]

Kyle Rittenhouse for Secretary of Defense !!!

At least Secretary of Self-Defense.

Honestly, for someone his age and experience, that he lived through it is quite amazing. One would have to be extremely aggressive with an AR, multiple magazines reloads, and more, to have a strong chance of survival against an armed mob willing to chase you down and physically fight you for your gun or to shoot you.

Watching the videos, it is clear that he was very lucky to get the right shots in the right places to survive. An AR isn't the ideal weapon in a close quarter battle. But, skill or luck, I'm glad he survived it and I hope he finds a way to understand and accept that there really was no other option for him once he had turned the revolutionaries on him by just putting out a fire in a dumpster.

 

[woodwork201]

I would support some miner charges being leveled against young Mr. Rittenhouse Ii and ONLY if all those those who were there to indulge terrorism are strung up on terrorism charges.

This also includes those financing them and setting them free on the few occasions that local police were not ordered to facilitate them.

What charges? What crimes did he commit?

 

[woodwork201]

I hear your objections but we can't forget that the 'death' count by gun is the most important factor.
That's skyrocketed up in the last year or so and will again climb to new records if Kyle walks, IMO.

Your point is very accurate. Had guns been outlawed and then Rittenhouse had put out the fire started by a communist revolutionary, the death count would have been one - with potential multiple causes: Beaten to death by skateboard, head kicked in on the pavement, and shot by a felon in possession of an illegal handgun.

Yes, the body count would be less but the wrong person would be dead.

 

[woodwork201]

1) If someone is acting threatening yelling, cursing, taunting and chasing me, then grabs the barrel of my weapon I'm shooting him, Dumbass #1.
2) If someone runs up to me to me after I shot the first guy and swings and hits with his pussy ass skateboard, He is also a dead man, really a dumbass #2.
3) So the next dumbass attempts to pull his weapon in plain sight of me and draw down on me and whines when he got shot. Super dumbass #3 and then wants to sue the city and police for not protecting him.

American comedy at its finest.

I was trying to add "love" to your post and it wouldn't let me, saying I already had. Then I realized what I was trying to love the second time was your signature. Since signatures change and could be lost in context of this post, I'll quote it. I love that you shared this from perhaps the greatest Jurist in the history of the United States:

Clarence Thomas wrote that, "For the first time ever, the court invalidates an agency action solely because it questions the sincerity of the agency's otherwise adequate rationale."

"This conclusion is extraordinary," he wrote. "The court engages in an unauthorized inquiry into evidence not properly before us to reach an unsupported conclusion."

"Isn't it weird that in AMERICA, our flag & our culture offend so many people - but our benefits do not"

 

[woodwork201]

Rittenhouse will probably be found innocence of the attack on Rosenbaum but I doubt he will be so lucky with the two he killed. Both appeared to be unarmed and one was shot in back.

The one shot in the back was clearly turning after the first shot. He had already crossed the line and Rittenhouse's nerve signals were already headed to the trigger finger.

The other one that paid the price for their violent attack struck Rittenhouse multiple times with a skateboard. I wish Rittenhouse had the mental response (understandably, though, considering what he's going through) to tell the prosecutor and the jury that at least dozens, if not hudreds or even thousands, of people have been killed by assault with a skateboard. My guess is the prosecutor knew this and had googled it even before he claimed for the jury that a skateboard is not a weapon. It is absolutely a weapon - a deadly weapon.

 

[woodwork201]

Where I'm from the police are excellent..

Something is wrong with Kenosha.

If the police are excellent where you are then why do you want to defund them?

 

[woodwork201]

This is an interesting case. I generally agree that he deserves some kind of punishment but I also agree that he was defending himself. Here are a few of my thoughts:

- I think he wanted confrontation. I think he wanted to put himself out there to get into it with the rioters. This motive can't be proven but it's my opinion based on his actions. The video of Rittenhouse witnessing "shoplifting" weeks before this incident further clarifies his mindset, in my opinion.

- I think Rittenhouse defended himself when Rosenbaum came after him. This is self-defense in my opinion. Rosenbaum is an idiot.

- The next two victims also attacked Rittenhouse and Rittenhouse defended himself. However, I think we also need to consider what happened from their perspective. I think they believed that this was an active shooter and they were trying to apprehend him. Skateboard guy lost his life over this and the other guy could have shot Rittenhouse but instead tried to take the gun away. These two victims are a combination of brave and stupid in what was a very chaotic and confusing few moments.

- Seeing Rittenhouse cry on the stand, I think you can really see how young he is mentally. That wasn't an adult cry. That was a little kid cry. I think the guy is dealing with PTSD.

Overall just a terrible incident. I think Rittenhouse was using self-defense but I also think he intentionally put himself into a very bad situation. Incidents like this reminds me why we don't need vigilantes taking the law into their own hands. I think the police are more than capable of dealing with these issues with minimal death, and no, I'm not in favor of de-funding the police.

My $0.02.

Wrong on virtually every count. By your logic, every time a person fires his gun in self-defense, others should make the assumption that he's an active shooter and shoot him. Then, of course, the next layer of the onion would assume that those shooters are active shooters and shoot them.

It is one of the catch-22s of the entire idea that a person might shoot another in defense of their own life or in the defense of another. But if it happens at all that a second "defender" kills the first defender, mistaking him for an active shooter, if that happens at all, it is extremely rare. I have read about a case or two where the arriving police have shot the defender (because the defender was too stupid, or at least not properly trained, to drop his gun before the cops come) but I don't think I've ever heard of CCW holder #2 killing CCW holder #1. It's a risk that defender #1 must always consider before getting involved and a risk that defender #2 to #n must also consider - that the person they see shooting might be in the right.

As flewism stated, if someone tries to get my gun, especially someone who had already told me that if he gets me alone he's going to kill me, I'm going to shoot them, to stop them, not with the intent of killing them but knowing that killing them is a potential outcome. If someone wants to take my gun from me by force I can only assume that their intent is to use it to kill me or others. I would defend against any attempt to take my gun as though it is, and it is very likely the case in reality, that the person wants to get my gun to kill me.

Google deaths by skateboard. The results are interesting. There are many documented, charged, and convicted, cases of murder by assault with a skateboard.